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@... s.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@... > wrote:
>> --- In
cybalist@... s.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@ > wrote:
>>> --- In
cybalist@... s.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).
***R In about a century of effective rule over all of India, the British soldiers managed to produce between 500,000 to a million Anglo-Indians. The Portuguese produced maybe a million or so Luso-Portuguese in a small territory. The French surely did their best to keep up. Local women were definitely available and Portuguese chronicles mention that from the start.