From: shivkhokra
Message: 65016
Date: 2009-09-13
> ---"shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:"If we assume Hinduism was a universalist system at that time, then the
>
>> Francesco you are not following (deliberately?) some fundamental
>> points in this debate:
>>
>> a) Yavans of Sanskrit Literature *were not* Greeks...
>>
>> b) Hinduism had no formula to convert anyone to Hinduism...
> Torsten replied:
>From [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64952%5d
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
>>> 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.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "koenraad_elst" <koenraad.elst@...> wrote:
> The very term "conversion" is an inapt projection of a Christian-Islamic category onto the Indian situation.
<..>
>
> That is how the Shakas were integrated, abandoning their foreign identity.
>
Any hypothesis we have vis a vis: foreigners being accepted into Hinduism, Widespread marital relations between Hindus and foreigners, sanskritization/integration of foreigners etc. has to be *testable*.
For testablility evidence is a must says science.
So far we have had claims from Brighenti and Elst about yavanas and Shakas being part of Hindu social fabric respectively. On the altar of testablility Brighenti's hypothesis stands rejected because
a) Genetics has not found any evidence.
b) There is'nt any inscriptional evidence either (Couple of marriages mentioned by Brighenti are 700 years apart and the one with Hunas is'nt actually true).
c) Yavanas of Mahabharata were'nt Greeks. Instead these yavanas were dwellers of eastern India as is absolutely clear from the name of their city: Prag (east) + jyotish + pur(city) i.e pragjyotishpur a city in the east. Numerous other references in Mahabharata also support this simple fact though Dr. FB would want us to believe prag means west in sanskrit!
We can also study the interaction of Hinduism with universalist religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Jews (BCE): arrived in India in the last few centuries before the birth of Christ. Hindu kings under whose aegis they lived allowed Jews to prosper, they were not persecuted and there were no pressure on jews to convert. First persecutions of Jews in India is attested to in the 16th century at the hands of invading Islamic armies. Hindus and Jews did not intermarry. Jews still live in India.
Christians (Early CE): In the southern state of Kerala a branch of chrstianity, known as syrian christians, have been living for close to 2000 years. This group was formed from the conversion of namboodri brahaman families and were not persecuted by Hindu kings either for conversions to Hinduism or intermarriages. First persecution of syrian christians took place at the hands of portugese when they reached kerala. Syrian Chrisitans still live in India.
Islam (First millenium CE): With Islam Hindus had a history of constant warfare and no social integration.
The formula for converting non-hindus to hinduism was developed as a reaction to large scale conversions of Hindus to Islam.
Note Judaism and Christianity though universalist religions did not exhibhit missionary zeal in India for the longest time. For christianity conflicts with hinduism started with the arrival of portugese and british and their efforts in converting Hindus to christianity.
(For example recent Kandhamal clashes in Orissa were caused when a Hindu monk was trying to "reconvert" tribals to Hinduism who had earlier been converted to Christianity. There were couple of social angles present too which were related to reservation in government jobs).
So to sum up the debate one can test the hypothesis whether Hindus and Jews/Christians/Muslims ever intermarried freely. One could start by asking these groups if no other recourse is open and if genetic studies are not trusted and not finding any inscriptional evidence is'nt a bother.
Since Jews/Syrian Christians/Muslims still live in India as separate entities what would be the need for sanskritization (i.e becoming hindus) of foreigners? If some hypothesis has no evidence why is it not being discarded?
Regards,
-Shivraj
PS: I deliberately avoided making references to tribals because this thread is focussed only on foreigners or the "invaders"! But just to drive home a point the tribals intermarry amongst themselves only.