The economic and political changes in Latin America from the late 1970s until today have engendered widespread social response. Neo-liberal economic policies arising from the 1980s debt crisis caused increasing poverty and socioeconomic inequality. The experimentation of trickle down growth on the continent has led to the slicing of society into two extreme halves. On one hand a person can afford an imported car from Europe and on the other hand a family living in the slums has hardly anything to consume. The majority of the population lives in misery and terrible condition. The oppressive policies and actions of the ruling class (ranging from politicians to military rulers) have violated and debased the rights of the masses. Protests against World Bank and IMF policies are widespread. International conferences and meetings are the occasions when these movements often protest showing their discontent with the policies. Movements as a response to faulty government strategies and implementation of imperialistic policies have spread through out the continent. This climate of inoperability will persist until the swollen ranks of the poor and excluded have been successfully incorporated into the more advanced sectors of economic and social life in these countries.

Placing some light on some famous movements in this continent will make us understand the unique nature of each individual movement. The environment and time in which they evolved and how they have progressed. The presence of anti-globalization and anti-neo-liberal movements are very common in this continent. Mass movements against privatization in Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela-Chavez riots are some recent occurrences. But let us start with looking at a unique movement which although was a consequence of the neo-liberal policies of the west indirectly, but originally it is the movement of mothers formed for a particular reason.

The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo are a remarkable organization of Argentine women human rights activists. They have been active for more than twenty years. Their exceptional work has been sustained for this length of time by two interwoven beliefs. One is that they were born again of their children. The other is that they have become mothers to all victims of repression in the present day Argentina. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo embraced these beliefs as a direct result of the lives lived by their children and the horrific deaths many of them met. The children of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were kidnapped and nearly all were murdered by Argentina’s military during its dirty war against the Left from 1976 to 1983. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and other human rights activists believe the number of dead who remain unaccounted for is more like 30,000. No one really knows for sure because these victims of the dirty war disappeared without a trace.

These disappearances of thousands took place for a definite reason. This occurrence was an integral part of a US backed effort to crush the Argentine Left and facilitate the implementation of the same kind of neo-liberal policies that were imposed in Chile by the Pinochet regime and numerous other repressive US backed regimes across Latin America. These disappearances went hand in hand with Argentine government policies that slashed real wages, outlawed existing union contracts, led to the firing of thousands of union activists from their jobs and prompted the privatization of the economy. Their political consciousness grew as they became persistent enemies of both the neo-liberal agenda that lay behind the dirty war and of those who bear responsibility for its continued implementation.

Furthermore, in the process of opposing this agenda, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo began to see themselves as inheritors of the ideals of their children and as responsible for carrying forward the work of their children. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo have no illusions. They know that the large majority of their kidnapped children were tortured and murdered by the military during the dirty war. Nonetheless, they remain steadfast in refusing government offers of reparations for their children’s deaths. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo insist that they will not formally accept that any of their children are dead until the government comes forward with documentation to show what happened to them. This stance offers the only hope for seeing that justice is done with respect to what happened during the dirty war.

Even this unique movement gives us the indication that its occurrence is the direct response of policies and course taken by the rulers and that whatever movement you may select and look at, the reasons for the occurrence are fundamentally related to each other. Now let us look at a movement known as the ‘cocaleros’ (coca farmers led by native lawmaker Evo Morales) in Bolivia.
This movement is against the eradication of Coca fields. The growing of Coca is the livelihood of a percentage of Bolivian population and they have been growing it for centuries. It is used to treat altitude sickness and other ailments and they also use coca to kill hunger and as a sacred offering in religious ceremonies The plan to eliminate production of the plant, which many Bolivians chew as a stimulant and is also used in the production of cocaine, is at the heart of the US and Bolivian war on drugs that has lasted for 15 years From 1995 to 2001, US funded Bolivian anti-narcotics forces wiped out 70 percent of the country’s illegal Coca fields, nearly all of them in Chapare. Bolivia went from supplying the Coca leaves to one-half of the world’s cocaine to being a relatively minor producer of coca, most of which never leaves South America. But the US led war on drugs in Bolivia provoked an unintended backlash and this resulted in tens of thousands of defiant, sandal-wearing coca growers, called cocaleros, refusing to cooperate. Authorities have had limited success dispersing the cocaleros, who defend the highway and their coca fields with sticks, slingshots, dynamite booby traps and pre-World War II-vintage Mauser rifles. There is no other force in the country that has the coherence, the discipline and the ability to mobilize like the cocaleros. Caught between cocaleros demands for coca legalization and U.S. insistence on continued eradication, the government appears to be looking for a way out. Under the umbrella of a political party called Movement toward Socialism, Mr. Morales has joined forces with other grass-roots organizations and proposed a progressive broad-based agenda, including a call to re-nationalize partially privatized companies and a rejection of the U.S.-promoted Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. All this social and political revolt is thanks to the coca leaf. The coca leaf is what is giving people consciousness. The mobilizing of these farmers towards their right is an example for other countries to follow. They can take lesson from the persistence of these farmers. Demanding the right of fair trade is not very far from this issue and unreasonable policies of the first world.

The third movement of focus is the The Movimiento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), or the Landless Workers Movement, began in southern Brazil in 1984 in response to grossly unequal land distribution and is now the largest grassroots social movement in Latin America. According to the MST, less than three percent of the population owns two-thirds of Brazil’s arable land, and while sixty percent of Brazil’s farmland lies idle, 25 million peasants struggle to survive by working temporary agricultural jobs. The basic objectives are to obtain land and to offer the means to cultivate it in order support their families. The crisis of landownership and resulting landlessness in Brazil will not solve itself, nor will it be solved through current free market practices, and the local efforts must be joined by concerted national and international efforts in order to remedy the situation. In a globalized economy, social movements like the MST are limited in power, but have proven effective in accomplishing specific goals and placing pressure on their government. With grassroots mobilizations, the voices of the traditionally voiceless and marginalized people have a means of expressing their needs and demanding reform. This goes for any other movement. The mobilization of masses for any purpose or specific goal may require sacrifice and investment but at the end of the day the benefits of such efforts would accrue to the masses.

Social movement in Latin America has given people new hope of voicing their opinion, striving to achieve their common goal and secure their rights. The movements of landless, farmers, human right activist, guerilla groups and anti-globalization groups now have a weapon which they can use against rulers and governments, whether it is democratic or authoritative. Political groups have their own goals and ambitions and they might be driven by their own benefits. So a common man who wants to secure a certain right or benefit, a political party might not be the right answer. Social movement has given him the right kind of platform. These movements are considered to be more democratic and effective alternative to established formal political processes. They are a mode of direct participation into politics. These Social Movements have been supported by many NGOs in Latin America. Both these civil societies have worked hand in hand to achieve something that the people of Latin America have only dreamt of. The most recent of these movements are the anti-privatization movements. They are present in most parts of the continent. One of the cornerstones of the neo-liberal policies adopted by most Latin American governments in the 1990s was the privatization of state-owned enterprises. This process of passing national wealth on to the private sector has been so injurious that it could soon render entire countries unviable. On occasion, citizen organization has succeeded in halting privatizations through public demonstrations that at times have turned into outright insurrections. Not only did the privatizations take place against a backdrop of rampant corruption and plundering of national resources; they were also a commercial failure, and the population of the countries involved ended up footing the bill. Meanwhile, poorer-quality services, higher rates, and a deterioration in infrastructure due to a lack of investment resulted in fabulous profits for multinational corporations.

The indigenous people have realized that they have been robbed of their assets for way too long. The multi-national and other foreign groups have bought local goods for extremely cheap rates and sold them for high rates in the foreign markets. The local growers, farmers and workers who have produced these goods are not themselves able to consume it since they are available at a rate which they can not afford themselves.

Such a situation of un-fair trade exists. The movements are considered to be a important part of a society and the world has realized that its existence might just be an answer to the growing inequality.

The US with its vast land, abundant natural resources, a growing population that was literate comparatively and presence of sea on majority of its border was truly blessed. To make things better, her neighbors were never a major threat to its stability. Self sufficiency due to these factors was never a problem. Self sufficiency indicates presence of extra man power and finance to look for more and better investments to maximize return. US did not have to look very far unlike European powers in this regard. Europe which was already over populated had to look for foreign land and resources, result being colonization all over the world. US on the other hand just had to expand westward. Even to this day over-population has never been a major concern for the US. It keeps receiving the maximum number of skilled immigrants and presents vast opportunities for the migrant. With such grand characteristics to boast, there was little doubt that the settings were perfect to be a world power.

1776, when the US got its own independence, was certainly the freedom from the shackles when this huge monster got up and departed on a journey to devour the world. Its birth in itself was the single most important factor and reason to its rising as the imperialist power. By the time of her birth, her trade, manufacturing and economic coercive power and military strength was comparable to any in the world. Number of international factors contributed towards this journey and expedited the process. The precarious European balance of power meant that US emerged as the single powerful force. The dependence of Europe mainly Britain on the American goods meant that severing ties with this giant would lead to economic strangulation. The US had already begun to flex it muscles in its childhood. Such was its strength that France wanted to become its allies as soon as it was independent. This she thought would restore the balance of power in Europe. US were able to dictate terms and conditions on equal footings. The necessity for the European power to have US on its side meant that US was even more in a dominating position.

The famous notion for an imperialist power to have huge armies and navies, a few percentage placed abroad at various location to exert physical strength was contradicted with the US experience. The US concentrated more on consolidating it position at home. Strengthening it economically and controlling the fate of those dependent on her. Its immediate need to expand was satisfied by capturing or buying its immediate neighbor. It bought many Spanish colonies and expanded westward. For many years after its independence it had not captured any significant foreign land indicating that it was able to dominate situation from home and felt no need for any physical coercion. This new form of imperialism as established by the US was subtle in a certain way and presented no direct threat or fear of any damage.

Under the absence of fear, the other major powers in the world felt of taking no drastic measure to curb the increasing strength of this baby giant. The result was the smooth growth of this baby and transition into a mega-economy that dominated the world. With its resources, gains and fate linked to many countries around the world, it was however, imperative that it would also exert some direct control. Every country is influenced by its private enterprises. The endeavor of expansion is taken with a goal of extracting profits. With the fortune of each enterprise attached to various policy goals, there were circumstances where it became necessary to exert direct physical coercion. Whether it is for security, economic or strategic and political reason. The first such major conquest took place in the late nineteenth century with the colonization of Philippines and Hawaii. These are the first major colonization attempt with each having its strategic reasoning. Philippines was important as a geographically strategic location for further expansion or at least presence in Far East. However, many believe that such a conquest was more of a liability to the US rather then any gain. Also many have the notion that with such conquests did US begin to start its journey as a major world power. It might have incited some fear amongst its rivals but its journey had well started and was soon going to rise and dominate world conditions.

The unprecedented growth in technologically, meant growth in all other sectors. The agricultural sector produced output in huge amounts. The consumer good industries flourished with new invent of machineries. And if the presence of huge Atlantic Ocean was not good enough defensive barriers between the US and the Europe, inventions on the military front made sure that US became out of reach for any country to even have any though of curbing its growth through any military intervention. The growth in arms industry also led to decreasing need of huge armies and became a more formidable threat in the form of weaponry. US was also soon going to become the weapon and ammunition capital of the world, hence facilitating it march towards being one of the greatest imperialistic power of the world.

US used these circumstances to its great advantage. It propagated its economic, social, cultural and political ideology to a huge population of this world. Once trapped and following, it hardly had any problem in manipulating and channeling situations to its own favor. In the European case, the colonizers had their personal presence to modify ideologies and to form a class that would help it establish and dominate the country. In the US case, it presents a pressing question to analyze the ways in which the world adopted the popular American culture.

The famous American culture which propagates consumerism to a level never seen before, however limited to a certain privileged minority, whereas the masses of this world suffers. The possible expansion of American culture could have taken through the vast operations of multi-national corporations, which were able to operate through the coercion of its government on other foreign governments or solely through it being more efficient then any home corporation. The modification of taste and attitude could also be explained by presence of American influence in the media. It can also be possible that the ideology was not forced and it was simply successful and seemed attractive enough for people to follow with varying modification according to countries need. Whatever the means have been for influence of American ideology on majority of this world, the results assisted this imperialistic power to grow further. The familiarity with American ways helped the American enterprise exploit countries in a better way. Sometimes exploiting did not even require the personal presence of any American. It only required the establishment of a corporation in the foreign company and operations totally controlled by a local elite set up by the enterprise itself to safeguard its investment.

Neither U.S objective nor its means is territorial acquisition. It exercises control or influence through local regimes, and through less formalized and economic, diplomatic, cultural and other means of control. The same reason I believe that present attack on Iraq and Afghanistan were soon followed with announcements about withdrawal and forming coalition and provisional power transfer governments. Just proving the idea that even if military coercion takes place, it is only to keep the power check and any possible imminent threat in control. The primary purpose is to form conditions feasible to be controlled from home rather then direct control. Only Britain at its height was able to operate as smoothly as the Americans with this different form of imperialism was doing. However even Britain could not equate U.S’s global reach militarily, culturally and economically.The U.S is so lacking in formidable rivals, that such disparity of power has never been seen in the past.

The differences between the imperialism can also be seen on the capital and human resource front. Britain in its era of imperial expansion was a major exporter both of capital and of people, however; the US today is a significant net importer of both. Also the dissimilarity in terms of population movements may be the most striking difference of all between modern American empire and almost all earlier imperial systems. The expansion of earlier imperial system was dependent on movement of locals to from home to colonies whereas American growth is based on influx of skilled migrant from rest of the world to the imperialist power.

However, both Britain and U.S believed in free trade form of economy. Coercion or diplomacy was exerted for the purpose of imposing free trading conditions on a weaker society against its will. Foreign loans were offered, diplomatic and military support was extended to weak states in return for economic concessions or political alliance. Middle East was a prime example in the case of U.S. Middle East being economically very important for the US as a major source of oil. The processes through which both the imperialism took place can be different, however, the aim and objective remain identical. European imperialist like the American sought to gain at the expense of others. Differing conditions meant that more bloodshed was necessary in one condition then in other, however, it does not suggest that one form of imperialists were less brutal then the others. American contemporary actions prove that it can go to any extent in order to capture its benefit and to remain on the top. Power makes a country greedy and it always likes more of it. It can fall to any possible level to secure its gain and the experiences of both imperialist suggest that they were no different in this regard and the essence is essentially the same.

At the site of Meidum, about 90 km south of modern Cairo, is a pyramid which was built (perhaps by Sneferu) as a stepped structure with six steps, later enlarged to eight, and finally converted into a true pyramid with straight sides. The first pyramid to be built from the outset in the true form is the northern or ‘red’ pyramid of King Sneferu at Dahshur.

The pyramid remained the standard form of royal tomb from its beginnings in 2680 BC to about 1550 BC, but the pyramids at the end of this long sequence were very much smaller than the earlier ones. From the reign of King Senwosret II of the Twelfth Dynasty (1880-1874 BC), pyramids were built of sun-dried mud bricks instead of stone, although the exterior was still covered by a limestone casing.

Remains of over a hundred royal pyramids have been found in Egypt, although the most famous examples are those at the site of Giza near modern Cairo, where the largest pyramid of all stands: that of King Khufu (about 2570 BC). This monument (The Great Pyramid), and the nearby pyramids of Kings Khafre and Menkaure, have attracted most attention owing to their large size, good state of preservation, and ease of access from Cairo.

The pyramid is a solar symbol, perhaps associated with the shape of the benben stone which was at the centre of the solar cult at Heliopolis. The main aspect of the afterlife of the king was that he passed into the realm of the sun-god, and the shape of the pyramid perhaps stressed this.

Pyramids are not confined to Egypt, as there are more than 200 of them in the Sudan, at the various burial sites of the Kushite and Meroitic rulers. These pyramids are smaller than most of their Egyptian counterparts, and have much steeper sides. They show how Egyptian traditions were perpetuated for more than 1000 years after the last royal pyramid was built in Egypt.

And here are the lyrics. Perhaps they elicit something large and loving in the world that all people have in common.
But please do just one thing… Please do sing along and please do sing it loud:

“The Preacher and the Slave”

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ’bout something to eat
They will answer in voices so sweet

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die

And the Starvation Army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they tell you when you’re on the bum

Holy Rollers and Jumpers come out
And they holler, they jump and they shout
Give your money to Jesus, they say,
He will cure all diseases today

If you fight hard for children and wife-
Try to get something good in this life-
You’re a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite
Side by side we for freedom will fight
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we’ll sing this refrain

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you’ve learned how to cook and how to fry;
Chop some wood, ’twill do you good
Then you’ll eat in the sweet bye and bye

The chorus is sung in a call and response pattern.

You will eat [You will eat] bye and bye [bye and bye]
In that glorious land above the sky [Way up high]
Work and pray [Work and pray] live on hay [live on hay]
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die [That's a lie!]

Thus the final verse becomes

You will eat [You will eat] bye and bye [bye and bye]
When you’ve learned how to cook and how to fry [How to fry]
Chop some wood [Chop some wood], ’twill do you good [do you good]
Then you’ll eat in the sweet bye and bye [That's no lie]

…

In olden days Bengal was called “Bongo” or “Bongodesh”. Bengal is Geographically important place in South Asia. Presently Bengal is divided into two parts but the culture is same as it was. Bangladesh(East-Bengal) is now an independent nation and West-Bengal is a part of India. Indian part of Bengal is surrounded by Tripura, Orrisa, Assam. Majority of United Bengal speaks Bengali irrespective of their religion, cast or creed. Bengali of East-Bengal is somewhat different from West-Bengal. The two main rivers of Bengal are Ganga & Padma.

The exact origin of the word Bangla or Bengal is unknown, though it is believed to be derived from the Dravidian-speaking tribe Bang that settled in the area around the year 1000 BCE. The first Independent known ruler of Bengal was Shasank who ruled the state around 7th century. After that Senas, Palas ruled the state.

Subsequent Muslim Conquest helped spread Islam throughout the region. Bhaktiar Khilji, a Turkic general of the Slave Dynasty of Delhi Sultanate, defeated Lakshman Sen of the Sena dynasty and conquered large parts of Bengal. Consequently, the region was ruled by dynasties of Sultans and feudal lords under the Delhi Sultanate for the next few hundred years. Arround 1200 Ad it came under the Rule of Delhi sultanate and capita of Bengal was shifted to Dhaka from Kolkata. Around 1567 AD Murshid Kuli Khan Shifted his capital from Dhaka to Murshidabad and then started the Golden rule of Nawabs of Murshidabad.

The European Came in Bengal in Fifteenth Century. Dutch established their colony in Chinsurah. Portuguese in Sodpore, Islampur, Chattagram(Chittagong). French got chandannagore and British settled in Dhaka-Bikrampore, Narayanganj, Barishal, Noakhali, Patuakhali, Kolkata, Paraganas, Birbhum and started the most worst case in history called “Neel Chash”.

The first revolt against the British started in Bengal by Mangal Pandey. From here Bengalis started fighting against the Brirish including…..Bagha Jatin, Bidrohi Kabi Nazrul Islam, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Pulin Behari Das, Binoy Badal Dinesh, Khudiram, Sher-E-Bangla Fazlur Haque, Nawab Latif of Faridpur and many many others. Then in Muslim majority province of united India; Muslims started united and getting roots in Bengal thus Muslim League was established in Dhaka in 1906.

In spite of a last ditch effort to form a United Bengal, when India gained independence in 1947, Bengal was partitioned along religious lines. The western part went to India (and was named West Bengal) while the eastern part joined Pakistan as a province called East Bengal (later renamed East Pakistan, giving rise to Bangladesh in 1971). The circumstances of partition was bloody, with widespread religious riots in Bengal.

West Bengal, the western part of Bengal, became a state in India. In the 1960s and 1970s, severe power shortages, strikes and a violent Marxist-Naxalite movement damaged much of the state’s infrastructure, leading to a period of economic stagnation. The Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 resulted in the influx of millions of refugees to West Bengal, causing significant strains on its infrastructure. West Bengal politics underwent a major change when the Left Front won the 1977 assembly election, defeating the incumbent Indian National Congress. The Left Front, led by CPI(M) has governed for the last three decades.The state’s economic recovery gathered momentum after economic reforms in India were introduced in the mid-1990s by the central government, aided by election of a new reformist Chief Minister in 2000.

Economy of Bengal is very good. Rice, Fish, potatoe, Jute, Tea(From Darjeeling) are very important crops. Fish forms a very important part of Bengal.

Culture Of Bengal:

The common Bengali language and culture binds the shared tradition of two parts of politically divided Bengal. Bengal has a long tradition in folk literature, evidenced by the Charyapada, Mangalkavya, Shreekrishna Kirtana, Maimansingha Gitika or Thakurmar Jhuli. Bengali literature in the medieval age was often either religious (e.g. Chandidas), or adaptations from other languages (e.g. Alaol). During the Bengal Renaissance of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Bengali literature was modernized through the works of authors such as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam.

The Baul tradition is a unique heritage of Bangla folk music.Other folk music forms include Gombhira, Bhatiali and Bhawaiya. Folk music in Bengal is often accompanied by the ektara, a one-stringed instrument. Other instruments include the dotara, dhol, flute, and tabla. The region also has an active heritage in North Indian classical music.

Bengal had also been the harbinger of modernism in Indian fine arts. Abanindranath Tagore, one of the important 18th century artist from Bengal is often referred to as the father of Indian modern art. He had established the first non-British art academy in India known as the Kalabhavan within the premises of Santiniketan. Santiniketan in course of time had produced many important Indian artists like Gaganendranath Tagore, Nandalal Bose, Jamini Roy, Benode Bihari Mukherjee and Ramkinkar Baij. In the post-independence era, Bengal had produced important artists like Somenath Hore, Meera Mukherjee and Ganesh Paine.

Rice and fish are traditional favorite foods, leading to a saying that in Bengali, mach ar bhaath bangali baanaay, that translates as “fish and rice make a Bengali”. Bengal’s vast repertoire of fish-based dishes includes Hilsa preparations, a favorite among Bengalis. Bengalis make distinctive sweetmeats from milk products, including Rôshogolla, Chômchôm, and several kinds of Pithe(sweet).

Bengali women commonly wear the shari and the salwar kameez, often distinctly designed according to local cultural customs. In urban areas, many women and men wear Western-style attire. Among men, European dressing has greater acceptance. Men also wear traditional costumes such as the panjabi with dhuti or pyjama, often on religious occasions. The lungi, a kind of long skirt, is widely worn by Bangladesh men.

The greatest religious festivals are the two Eids (Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha) for the Muslims, and the autumnal Durga Puja for Hindus.Christmas (called Borodin (Great day) in Bangla), Buddha Purnima are other major religious festivals. Other festivities include Pohela Baishakh (the Bengali New Year), Basanta-Utsab, Nobanno, and Poush parbon (festival of Poush).

Bengali cinema are made both in Kolkata and Dhaka. The Kolkata film industry is older and particularly well known for its art films. Its long tradition of film making has produced acclaimed directors like Satyajit Ray, while contemporary directors include Buddhadev Dasgupta and Aparna Sen. Dhaka also has a vibrant commercial industry and more recently has been home to critically acclaimed directors like Tareque Masud. Mainstream Hindi films of Bollywood are also quite popular in West Bengal and Bangladesh. Around 200 dailies are published in Bangladesh, along with more than 1800 periodicals. West Bengal had 559 published newspapers in 2005, of which 430 were in Bangla.Cricket and football are popular sports in the Bengal region. Local games include sports such as Kho Kho and Kabaddi, the later being the national sport of Bangladesh. An Indo-Bangladesh Bangla Games has been organized among the athletes of the Bengali speaking areas of the two countries.

Temples & Mosques in Bengal:

1.Nakhoda Mosque: A great old Mosque of Kolkata. Beutiful Architecture
2. Tipu Sultan(Kolkata)
3.Ahsan Manzil(Dhaka)
4.Kali Mandir(Kolkata)
5.Dhakhineswar(Kolkata)
6.Dhakeshwari Kali (Kolkata)
7.PanchGhara Masjid(Kaliganj,Bangladesh)
8.Chatteshwari(Chittagong)
9. Tara Pith(Tarapith,Hooghly,WB and Jessore EB)

and lots of there……including thousand of Monanstry, Churches, Gurudwaras, Parsi Temples……. In one Word ……..Bengal is “Unity in Diversity”

And in the words of Tagore:

Amar shonar Bangla,
Ami tomae bhalobashi.
Chirodin tomar akash,
Tomar batash,
Amar prane bajae bashi
O ma,
Phagune tor amer bone
Ghrane pagol kore,
Mori hae, hae re,
O ma,
oghrane tor bhora khete
Ami ki dekhechhi modhur hashi.
Ki shobha, ki chhaea go,
Ki sneho, ki maea go,
Ki achol bichhaeechho
Bo?er mule,
Nodir kule kule!
Ma, tor mukher bani
Amar kane lage,
Shudhar moto,
Mori hae, hae re,
Ma, tor bodonkhani molin hole,
Ami nôeon jole bhashi.

(National Anthem of Bangladesh)

(References taken from Wikipedia; Ambarish Panday has edited the Bengal section of Wikipedia)

As the Afghan war enters into what may be its final days, and the international community begins discussing its next steps, Americans will be learning more about the warrior people known to the British as Pathans, and more correctly nowadays as Pashtuns. Most of the Taliban were Pashtun — as is the new interim leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, to whom Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader, has ceded power. The Pashtuns number upwards of 20 million, and their squat stony villages straddle the Durand Line that nominally demarcates Pakistan from Afghanistan, where Pashtuns form the largest ethnic group. These are the fighters who inspired reams of fearful and admiring verse from Rudyard Kipling, the sharpshooters blessed with perfect sight who picked off the soldiers of the British Raj. But the Pashtuns also produced one of the most remarkable pacifist movements of the 20th century.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

British officers were so impressed by Pashtun valor that in 1847 they created a Pashtun force, the Corps of Guides — its emblem was crossed sabers over the slogan ”Rough and Ready” — that was soon celebrated in the Indian Army. They led the way in adopting uniforms in a new color, khaki, and became the prototype for today’s special forces.

The fascination with Pashtuns endured until the Raj’s demise. Sir Olaf Caroe, the last British governor of the North-West Frontier, left a systematic account, ”The Pathans” (1958), complete with pullout maps and translations of love poems by the great Pashtun bard, Khushal Khan, who died in the 17th century. Caroe favored the partition of India and believed that a Muslim state and its frontier warriors would form a firewall blocking a Soviet advance toward the Persian Gulf. The success of this policy depended on Pashtun military prowess — and Caroe’s greatest problem was a Pashtun pacifist, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who confounded every cliché about Caroe’s favored martial race.

Ghaffar was renowned as ”the frontier Gandhi.” His followers, the Servants of God, were nicknamed Red Shirts because of their brick-colored garb. All had to swear: ”I shall never use violence. I shall not retaliate or take revenge, and shall forgive anyone who indulges in oppression and excesses against me.”

For two decades, Ghaffar and his Red Shirts dominated the North-West Frontier without resort to violence, enduring prison and torture. Ghaffar’s friend and mentor, Mohandas Gandhi, called his feat ”a miracle.” Nevertheless, the most remarkable Pashtun of his era is forgotten, not only because his cause was lost — he sought self-rule for his people within a united, secular India — but because it was an embarrassment to Britain, India and Pakistan alike.

A new biography, ”The Pathan Unarmed” by Mukulika Banerjee, adds fresh light. The author began her study as a graduate student in the 1990’s, and after learning Pashto managed to interview 70 surviving Red Shirts. She found that Ghaffar’s pacifism grew out of his concept of jihad, or holy war, because nonviolent resistance ”offered the chance of martyrdom in its purest form, since putting one’s life conspicuously in one’s enemy’s hands was itself the key act.”

Using this strategy, the Red Shirts in 1930 shut down Peshawar for five days protesting colonial rule, becoming valued Muslim allies of Gandhi’s predominantly Hindu Congress Party. The movement flourished, and each wave of arrests confirmed Ghaffar Khan’s status as the liberating champion of his people, who now called him Badshah Khan, or the Khan of Khans.

In 1947, in final negotiations for independence, Gandhi acceded to partition and the establishment of Pakistan. A distraught Ghaffar Khan, feeling abandoned by his Hindu allies and angrily aware that Caroe favored a Muslim state, asked his followers to boycott the referendum on joining Pakistan, whose founding he opposed because he wanted a united, secular India. Now derided as a lackey of ”the Hindu Raj,” Ghaffar Khan was imprisoned and charged with sedition by Islamabad’s new masters. When the great rebel insisted that he wanted only autonomy within Pakistan, it was rejected as a ruse, since Afghanistan seized on this moment to revive territorial claims to Peshawar and other areas once held by Kabul.

The sequel was a martial crackdown by Pakistani authorities, echoing the British line about the incorrigible violence and suspect loyalties of Pashtuns. Ghaffar was eventually released from jail but banished from the frontier. In his last years he was allowed to revisit Peshawar, where in 1988 he died at the age of 98. According to an earlier biography by M. S. Korejo, a Pakistani diplomat, a funeral procession stretching for miles carried Badshah Kahn’s body across the border to Jalalabad, the summer home of Afghan kings. It was, the author writes, ”a caravan of peace, carrying a message of love” from Pashtuns east of the Khyber to those on the west.

This forgotten chapter suggests that Islam is more mutable than either its radical adherents or its Western detractors allow — and that Pashtun history offers an extraordinary precedent for peace as well as a legacy of war.

Karl E. Meyer is editor of the World Policy Journal and co-author, with Shareen Brysac, of ”Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia.”