Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

> --- On Thu, 8/6/09, shivkhokra <shivkhokra@...> wrote:
> 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.
>

Children of British, Portugese or Mughals are not considered Hindus in India. Anglo-Indians follow christianity and so do goan portugese. Descendants of Turks, Afghans and Mughals follow Islam. Hindus do not intermarry with any of these groups.

Thus there is no genetic influence possible from this foreigner population on Hindu genes. This fact also emerges in most recent genetic studies.

Women who were "available" were mostly abducted or were bought as slaves by these groups. In the case of Mughal kings matrimonial alliances were one way only i.e hindu women who married mughal kings could produce a mughal heir to the throne but vice versa was not possible. The Hindu kings never married muslim girls, though had lots of muslim concubines, but the progeny of such unions were considered muslims.

For example the son of Baji Rao 1 and his concubine Mastani were muslims.


Shivraj