Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

From: shivkhokra
Message: 64632
Date: 2009-08-07

Francesco,
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Shivraj,
>
> Re: your post at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64610
>
> I cannot do again all the research made by historians for you.
Please take your time and go through the many published books and articles dealing with the topic of Greek, Saka, Parthian, Huna etc. invasions of NW South Asia in the early historical period. You will then see that many of those *foreign* ('mlechchha') invaders, coming from across the Hindu Kush, became settled in India and were soon absorbed into the Hindu caste system as kshatriyas.
>

I am afraid these are just myths *without any* evidence. I asked you for data but you are merely repeating your speculation. Why dont you cite evidence that we can analyse?


>
If they were not, that's because they were already Buddhist before invading South Asia, or had become Buddhist soon after they had settled there. When Buddhism vanished from India, however, the descendants of these originally foreign kshatriyas were absorbed into the Hindu caste system as the most part of formerly Buddhist social groups. In either case, the genetic imprint of those foreign invaders is still present -- though admittedly in a small amount -- in modern South Asian populations, including Hindu populations of India (i.e., not only among the Muslims of India or Pakistan!). See, just as a starter, the following books:
>

You are repeating your speculation ad-nauseum now. Would be awesome if you can cite some primary sources to substantiate your theory.

> http://tinyurl.com/nqscd7
This author mentions "huns married indian women". But I could not find what is he sourcing this data on? He does not cite any reference that we can check. Do you know the source for this statement?


> http://tinyurl.com/ncm72b
This page has a reference to "fallen kshatriya" but there is no primary source given which was utilized by this author. So maybe you know and can help us?


I read the following book carefully:

> http://tinyurl.com/lgwbl8
> (read carefully the pages from 126 to130)
>

This book presupposes the "truth" of "Aryan Invasion". Do you believe in Aryan Invasion?

Furthermore it talks about Bharata having a reference that foreigners had no caste. This in itself disqualifies them to get married "legally" according to Hindu tradition.


> http://tinyurl.com/nokzwo
> (read carefully the pages from 133 to 140)

Ok Page 133 says Rg Vedic Indians built a tradition of hospitality towards foreigners. Author gives no citation or primary source to back up this claim. It seems it is his mere speculaiton. Besides it mentions nothing about matrimony the question that we are discussing.
There is no specific example mentioned.


>
> http://tinyurl.com/ntxm2y
>
Yet again a mention of fallen kshatriya. But author provides no primary source that one can check.

> etc.
>
> Moreover, my argument about Hindu females having been raped by male foreigners such as Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Hunas, and finally Afghan and Turk Muslims in course of many centuries, and having subsequently born children who were placed in the caste of their respective mothers, does not require intermarriage between caste Hindus and 'mlechchhas' -- just an imposed coitus and the following procreative act. This has ever happened throughout the world since prehistory every time foreign warriors or soldiers subjugated a native population among whom they had settled as rulers; why should Hindu India represent an exception to this constant of human history? Note that this is another way, alternative to intermarriage, to expand foreign genes into a native population,
>
No one is contesting these crimes against women. Question is was the progeny accepted into hinduism? Answer is no. I requested you to check the most recent history of this phenomenon i.e during the partition of India. This data, you will find out, also does not support your thesis.

So question now is:
a) you have not been able to find any primary source which substantiates your speculations about genetic influence of foreigners on Hindu genes.
b) Genetecists have also not been able to find any such influence on Hindu genes either.

So why are you still clinging on to a false thesis?

Regards,
Shivraj