From: shivkhokra
Message: 64945
Date: 2009-08-24
> Dear List,Francesco you are not following (deliberately?) some fundamental points in this debate:
>
> --- 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. <....snipped the repetition of your arguments for the nth time....>
>