Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

Francesco,

Your post has many speculations which I have pointed out below. We would like to see some evidence from you which backs up these claims.

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@> wrote:
>>> Yet, if we take the conclusions of these genetic studies
>>> literally, then they would indicate not only that there was no
>>> Indo-Aryan immigration in the second millennium BCE, but that
>>> there were no Saka, Kushana, Huna, and later on Afghan-cum-Turk
>>> Muslim invaders (nor any other invaders) into India in historical
>>> times either. And given all the historical evidence to the
>>> contrary, that would be patently absurd!

>> No. You have made a bad assumption. Please understand Panini's
>> Sutra: Sudranam aniravasitanam (2 4.10). With Mllecha, i.e
>> foreigners, Hindus did not intermarry. This continued from the
>> first contact with foreigners thru the times of the Islamic
>> invasions, British invasions and is true even today. It is a rule
>> (and if you dig hard you will find few exceptions here and there).
>

Speculation 1:

> This alleged "rule" for the preservation of a genetically pure and
> uncontaminated "Hindu race" in India does not match with what most
> historians have written about this subject.

Please provide *evidence* that historians used to refute the "rule".
(Don't want a list of historians, rather the list of evidence).

Speculation 2:

> The ruling classes of both the Sakas and the Kushans, when they
> became Hinduized, were admitted to ranks as kshatriyas in the Hindu
> caste system and could, therefore, intermarry with native Indian
> women.

Please share evidence that shows:
a) Sakas and Kushans were not Hindus
b) Were converted to Hinduism
c) Who converted them, when did this happen and how did it happen.
d) they were admitted to Kshatriya fold.
e) the identity of the native indian women they married.

Speculation 3:

> This assimilation process posed a problem for Brahman theorists who
> either ignored or downgraded such people, whom they labelled as
> "fallen kshatriyas".

Again we need evidence that Sakas and Kushans were downgraded (seems like company stock!) and were called fallen kshatriyas.

Speculation 4:

> Conversion of these foreign ruling elites to
> Vaishnavism or Shaivism was theoretically difficult, yet these sects
> found their ways around this problem.

Please be specific with your evidence: who was converted by whom, when did this happen and how did it happen?


Speculation 5: (Contradictory to speculation 2 above):

> It was, however, easier for the incoming Greeks, Kushans, etc. to
> become Buddhists. If Brahmanical orthodoxy maintained a distance
> from the foreign ruling elites, the presence in India of such
> people, prominent in political and economic spheres, gave some Hindu
> people belonging to lower castes an opportunity to move up the scale
> by intermarrying with the newcomers. The resulting mixed castes
> were known as sankirna-jatis.
>

We need evidence for :
a) After the conversion of the said kings which Indian wife they took? What about their children? Did they become rulers? Did they intermarry other Hindus?
b) Are you aware of the presence of these sankirna jatis, the descendants of kushans, Greeks etc in India? Please point out where they live, what religion they follow and if other Hindus marry with them?

> To deny this historical reality would require the ad hoc assumption
> that *all* of the genetic descendants of the Persians, Greeks,
> Sakas, Kushans, Hunas etc. who immigrated into the Indian
> sub-continent are by now extinct, or that the Indians somehow
> managed to exile *all* of them from the sub-continent.

No. You need to provide evidence that outsiders were *socially* accepted into the Indian society and were freely marrying with local population and thus propagated.


Speculation 6:

> Even the Muslim Afghans and Turks who settled in the Indian sub-continent starting from c. 1000 CE most likely left their genetic imprint on modern Hindu caste populations by means of *rape* of Hindu women (these guys were mostly rulers and soldiers!). Or, should one assume that *all* of the Hindu women having been raped by those Muslims in the course of centuries aborted the children they may have conceived further to their being raped, or that they committed ritual suicide (sati) to avoid the dishonour associated with such illegitimate births? It seems more reasonable to assume that many children born to Hindu women having been raped by Muslim rulers or soldiers were regularly given birth, and that they were admitted into the caste of their mothers.
>

Onus is on you to show us the children of such crimes remained Hindus. Do you have any proof?

Since it will be difficult for you to find any evidence it would be good to acquaint yourself with the recent history of the subcontinent. Focus on partition and research what happened to the women and children who fell into the hands of muslims during partition in kashmir. And then see if your thesis still stands.

> Thus, the question again arises: Why are the genetic studies we are discussing unable to detect the genetic imprint of the above listed foreign invaders in the overall genetic pool oh Hindu caste populations? And, if they are unable to do so, cannot we conclude they are *also* unable to detect the genetic imprint of the Indo-Aryans who, according to mainstream scholarship, immigrated into the north-western part of the Indian sub-continent in the second millennium BCE?
>

Umm. Is'nt the answer obvious? Socially foreigners were never accepted in India for inter-marriages. It seems you are operating with a confirmation bias. You are trying to look for your point of view in the genetic data, and not finding it there you are questioning the data instead of your held belief. Seems bad science to me.

An analogy might help illustrate the point better. If you recall Galileo had the data and tried to formulate a theory based on the data that he had instead the church opposed him based on their held belief.
And we know who was proved right.

Regards,
Shivraj