From: frabrig
Message: 64944
Date: 2009-08-24
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@...> wrote:
> Lack of evidence of such intermixing in the Hindu genes just re-
> affirms what is already known that there were no marriage ties
> between the Hindus and the foreigners. Now you have digged for many
> days for large scale mixing of Hindu and foreign populations and
> you have not been able to unearth much. Don't you think there is a
> reason for it?
>
> You have not provided any evidence. You have to show what was the
> religion of these groups before their conversion to Hinduism, who
> was converted by whom and how. There is a very specific reason why
> I am asking you this question. Reason is in Hinduism prior to the
> medieval times there was no "recipe" to make you a Hindu. You were
> either born a Hindu or not. You could not "convert" to Hinduism.
Before I drop this discussion with Shivraj, leaving him feel content with the thought to have "won" it, I want to share with you all some further pieces of evidence and circumstantial arguments for the hinduisation of the Indo-Greeks (Yavanas), Indo-Scythians (Sakas) and White Hephthalites (Hunas) and their consequent intermarrying with Hindu caste people in the early centuries of the current era.
In the course of this discussion Shivraj has, of course, carefully avoided to address the most cogent issue I have raised, that is, the fact that ancient Brahmanical texts (e.g., some doctrinal sections of the Mahabharata, the Laws of Manu, etc.) classify the foreign Yavanas, Sakas, Pahlavas etc. as a peculiar sub-class of sudras who, in acknowledgment to their political and military supremacy, were nevertheless labeled by the brahmanas as "degraded" (vratya) kshatriyas. This socio-religious classification left open the possibility of their intermarrying with people from Hindu castes (perhaps only with sudra people like themselves in the beginning, though in subsequent times, further to these foreign rulers' aspiration to kshatriyahood once they had got hinduised, some of them -- e.g. some members of Saka princely families, see below -- are known from inscriptions to have intermarried with kshatriya people too).
I produce here some quotes, interspersed with my comments, from books written by three famous historians (D. K. Bhandarkar, S. Chattopadhyaya, and W. Tarn). These quotes, which fit the current discussion like a glove, exemplify what I have claimed throughout this discussion, namely, that the foreign groups who invaded India from the NW between the last centuries BCE and the early centuries CE, once they had lost their political and military supremacy, were gradually absorbed into the Hindu caste population. As I have noticed earlier on, even if all of these foreigners had been Buddhists (which is, however, not true because some of them were Hindus too -- see below), their descendants would have been absorbed into the Hindu caste population sooner or later, provided that that part of the Buddhist population of India was gradually reabsorbed into the Hindu caste system starting from the mid-first millennium CE (whereas another part of it was converted to Islam in the early-second millennium CE).
Bhandarkar's remarks in particular look as if written to counter Hindu fundamentalist arguments of the type of those raised by Shivraj...
---------------------------------------------------
From D. K. Bhandarkar, _Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture: Sir William Meyer Lecturesâ_, Madras, University of Madras, 1940
http://tinyurl.com/lqyef6
Pp. 57-58:
<< Let us proceed one step further and determine whether the texture of the Brahman-dominated Hindu society was in ancient timers elastic, or inflexible as it is to-day. The belief at present is that a Brahman, Kshatriya or Vaisya has been a Brahman, Kshatriya or Vaisya ever since the days of the Rig-Veda, maintaining his purity of descent intact. It is also believed that Hinduism is a non-proselytising religion, that a Hindu means an individual born of Hindu parents and not converted to Hinduism, and that consequently Hinduism was always a barrier to foreign races being incorporated into the Hindu community. Let us see how far this popular belief is tenable. >>
P. 59:
<< Let us now see how the Brahman-dominated Hindu society treated the foreigners, that is, whether they were converted to Brahmanism or were allowed to remain outside the pale of Hinduism. In Chap. 65 of the Santi-Parvan [of the Mbh] there is a most interesting dialogue on this subject between Mandhata and Indra. Mandhata enquires: "What duties should be performed by the Yavanas, Kiratas, Gandharas, Chinas, Sabaras, Barbaras, Sakas, Tusharas, Kankas, Pahlavas, Andhras, Madrakas, Paundras, Pulindas, Ramathas and Kambojas and those born of the Brahmans and Kshatriyas, and men like Vaisyas and Sudras -- all those who reside everywhere in the dominions? How should kings like myself settle down all those (tribes) who live like Dasyus?" Indra replies: "All Dasyus should serve their mothers and fathers, their preceptors and seniors, likewise those living in hermitages. All Dasyus should also serve the kings. All religious rites prescribed by the Vedas are laid down as their Dharma. They should perform sacrifices in honour of the Pitrs (Manes)......... and make reasonable presents unto Brahmans......... They should make presents to Brahmans at sacrifices of every kind if they desire prosperity. Such a person shall also perform all kinds of Paka-yajna [Brahmanical sacrifices with cooked offerings -- FB] with costly presents of food and wealth. All these acts which have been laid down for the whole world should be done in this case also, O King!" The passage clearly indicates that the Yavanas, Sakas, Tusharas and other foreigners could be incorporated into the Hindu society, following the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Vedas. How shocking it is to the orthodox community I need not say. But this is entirely congruent with what Patanjali has told us by implication, namely, that Sakas and Yavanas could perform Brahmanical sacrifices and eat food from the plate of an Aryan householder without defiling it [reference: Patanjali's Mahabhasya on Panini 2.4.10 -- FB]. >>
On the hinduisation of the Western Kshatrapas (a series of Saka dynasties) see p. 61:
<< The Sakas were represented by two Kshatrapa families in the north and two in the south. While the former two had espoused Buddhism, the latter two were followers of the Brahmanic religion. One of the southern families was ruling over the Dekkan, the most prominent member of which was Nahapana. Inscriptions of his son-in-law Ushavadata (= Rishabhadatta) are found in the Buddhist caves at Nasik and Karli. His wife's name, we find, was Samghamitra. Both Rishabhadatta and Samghamitra are indisputably Hindu names. But in one Nasik Inscription we are distinctly told that he was a Saka. His foreign origin is also indicated by the names of his father and father-in-law, namely, Dinika and Nahapana, neither of which is an Indian or Hindu name. Nahapana, again, has been styled a Kshatrapa and is said to belong to the Kshaharata family. Kshaharata is a non-Hindu name. Kshatrapa also is not a Sanskrit word, [being derived from Old Persian kshathra-pavan, Eng. 'satrap']... All these things unmistakably point to the alien origin of Rishabhadatta, and, in particular, to his having been a Saka, though his and his wife's names are distinctly Hindu. >>
(My comment: As regards the Western Kshatrapa family founded by Chasthana, it is noticeable that, barring Chashtana himself and his father Ghsamotika, whose names are purely Scytho-Iranian, all the names of the other rulers from this family supplied to us by their coins are distinctly Hindu or half-hinduised -- see the name list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Satraps. Many of the half-hinduised names of this line of Saka rulers -- e.g. Jayadaman, Rudradaman, Damasena etc. â" are compounds of Sanskrit words with the term <daman>, which, according to S. Konow and other scholars, is a Scythian cognate of Late Avestan <dama(n)>, meaning 'creation'. Such a peculiar onomastics is an indication of the hinduisation of this line of rulers, who nevertheless continued to adopt partly Scytho-Iranian names as a legacy of their Saka heritage and identity.)
As regards conversion to Hinduism of the Hunas or White Hephthalites, see p. 63:
<< We do not know whether Toramana [the first Huna ruler of India] had become a Hindu, but Mihirakula [the second one] was certainly so. On some of his coins we have, on the reverse, a bull -- the emblem of Siva, with the legend jayatu vrishah "Victorious be the Bull!" A Mandasor inscription, again, says that he bent his neck to none but Siva. This shows that he was a Hindu and a worshipper of Siva. The Hunas are, of course, the Huns or White Hephthalites, and consequently foreigners. >>
(However, Toramana too may have been a Hindu. At http://tinyurl.com/mr7wut R. Thapar writes: "The Hunas appear to have been quite acceptable to both the major sects of Hinduism. Toramana was a Vaisnavite and was a patron of those who worshipped the Varaha (boar) incarnation of Visnu. As a royal patron he was a direct successor to one of the Gupta emperors who had earlier donated a cave to this worship at a place not too far from the site of Toramana's inscription.)
Pp. 68-69:
<< To recapitulate what we have discussed above, there was a time when any foreigner could become a Hindu. Whatever foreign tribes entered India, they became hinduised and gradually lost into the Hindu masses. Even the self-complacent Greeks, who were proud of their Hellenism and branded all foreigners as barbarians, were glad to become either Buddhists or Vaishnavas [the allusion in the latter case is to Heliodoros' pillar at Besnagar, dedicated to Vasudeva (Visnu-Krsna), which I have discussed in an earlier post -- FB]. This state of things continued till in the seventh century AD the tide of Islamic invasion broke upon India, and the Hindus themselves were being converted to the Muslim faith.
-------------------------------------------------
From S. Chattopadhyaya, _Some Early Dynasties of South India, Motilal Banarsidass, 1974
http://tinyurl.com/nonwlo
Pp. 83-84
<< The Sakas... were gradually coming under the influence of the Indian culture.... The Epic and the Puranas inform us that among the Sakas the Magas were the brahmanas. Evidently the Magas were the Magai of ancient Iran who entered into India at an early date, then got mixed up with the Scythians and performed the religious duties of the tribe. (Notes 1 and 2: The Puranas and the Great Epic inform us that the brahmanas of the Saka-dvipa or Saka country were called Magas [Kurma Purana, 48.36; Mbh., 6.2]... [T]hey seem to have migrated to India in the train of the Sakas and performed the priestly functions of the tribeâ¦. The account of the Great Epic... that there is full operation of the Varnasramadharma in the Saka-dvipa... could have been composed only after the Sakas of India had been admitted into the fold of the brahmanical society.) >>
(My comment: The Maga sun-priests of the Sakas were eventually integrated as Maga Brahmanas into the Hindu caste system of the Panjab and Sindh -- cf. B. Prakash, _Political and Social Movements in Ancient Panjab_, Delhi, 1964, pp. 248-49 and V. C. Srivastava, _Sun-worship in Ancient India_, Allahabad, 1972, pp. 244-52. It is, thus, seen that even some Brahmin groups of NW India had a foreigner, Iranian ancestry!)
On mixed Saka-Indian marriages:
P. 94:
<< [The Kanheri epigraph of the Satavahana king Sivasri-Satakarni mentions his queen,] daughter of the mahaksatrapa Ru(dra), who has been identified with mahaksatrapa Rudradaman. >>
(I had already referred to this mixed marriage when I wrote that Rudradaman, who was of Saka and of foreign extraction, gave his daughter in marriage to the son of the Satavahana king Gautamiputra Satakarni -- FB)
P. 84:
<< From the evidences of the Nagarjunikonda inscription we get another instance of Saka-Indian marriage. The Iksvaku king Virapurisadata had as his queen the Mahadevi Rudrabhattarika who is described as Ujanika-mahara-balika, the daughter of the Saka ksatrapa of Ujjayini [usually taken to be Rudrasena II -- FB], while his son Ehuvula Chantamula married another daughter of a mahaksatrapa. >>
------------------------------------------------------
Finally, an interesting speculation on the possible influence of Hinduism on Greek onomastics in India is found at p. 392 of W. Tarn, _The Greeks in Bactria and India_:
http://tinyurl.com/leb2t6
<< If we had enough Greek names from India, something might perhaps be learnt in this connection from the nomenclature; but only thirteen are known beside the twenty-seven names of monarchs, omitting those kings who came from Bactria. However, even these scanty names do show one phenomenon which attracts attention and may be noticed for what is worth. Among the royal names there are four compounded with the names of Greek gods, few enough, perhaps; but among the names of commoners there is only one, Heliodorus, and that is uncertain, for the Helios may well be Surya. Four of the commoners are, naturally enough, named after kings, but three of the others bear the same name, Theodorus; and if the late kings Theophilus and Theodamas be added, no less than five names in our scanty list, all later than 100 B.C., are compounded with the indeterminate Theos [the Greek equivalent of Sanskrit deva -- FB]. That may mean that the Greek father, while willing to be pious, was not going to specify what god was the object of his piety; he was not clinging to the gods of Greece, but was ready to come under other influences. It would seem that the Greek gods in India, though they remained as official coin-types or material for artists, had little enough to do with the religion of the people, at any rate in the first century B.C. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Francesco