Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[Vayutuvan]

KLPD: Shouldn't it be kAmbhOja rather than the unaspirated b which was in your transliteration of the quote from Manu Smriti? According to Wiki, Yaska's nirukta says the following:

Sanskrit literature[edit]
Yaska (seventh century BCE) etymologizied the name as both Kambal.bhojah and Kamaniya.bhojah. According to Nirukta,[14] the Kambojas enjoy kambalah (blankets) i.e. they are Kambal.bhojah, and also they enjoy beautiful (kamaniya) things, hence they are 'kamaniya.bhojah'. Therefore they are called "Kambojas".[15]
Pāṇini, the 4th century BC Sanskrit grammarian a native to Gandhara in his Aṣṭādhyāyī mentions many terms pertaining to the geography and ethnology of pre-Mauryan India. In his sutras (4.1.168-177) [16] Pāṇini references the a number of Kshatriya janapadas and notes it as one of the fifteen prominent Kshatriya monarchies of the times.

The page has Witzel's "pearls of wisdom" in the etymology discussion part.

[Suraj]

Ramanaji, this guy has been destroying every train of thought before it leaves the station by bringing in AIT nonsense, and getting all snotty about it too, so just giving him a taste of his own medicine.

But don't let the blowback fall on you by getting so angry about it. Report post, explain the issue and let the moderators deal with it. Feediing trolls rarely works out well.

[Tuvaluan]

Surajji, Agree. My fault for feeding troll, though this troll has nothing objectionable to say, his derailing conversations with discussions of AIT (has been happening for months) was irritating...my bad. I have sanitized posts.

[Prem]

[Pulikeshi]

Sanskrit literature[edit]
Yaska (seventh century BCE) etymologizied the name as both Kambal.bhojah and Kamaniya.bhojah. According to Nirukta,[14] the Kambojas enjoy kambalah (blankets) i.e. they are Kambal.bhojah, and also they enjoy beautiful (kamaniya) things, hence they are 'kamaniya.bhojah'. Therefore they are called "Kambojas".[15]
Pāṇini, the 4th century BC Sanskrit grammarian a native to Gandhara in his Aṣṭādhyāyī mentions many terms pertaining to the geography and ethnology of pre-Mauryan India. In his sutras (4.1.168-177) [16] Pāṇini references the a number of Kshatriya janapadas and notes it as one of the fifteen prominent Kshatriya monarchies of the times.

The key is to look at the continuity in definition - seems current understanding (mine) is that Kamboja is Iran or Iraq. I am basing my opinion on what I'd read in the Atri Smriti, Majjhima Nikaya & Jaina literature. Key points being existence of "Master & Slaves" only two classes, excellent horses, known for their weaving - carpets, blankets, etc. and finally Asoka's edict talks of Yonakambojesu - tying the Greek and Persian together...

Anyway, this is my opinion - I still find it fascinating that there is so much puranic and smriti literature that talks of all this and none of these texts have been used to cross reference ancient West Asian history that I am aware of...

From New Delhi as the crow flies - Zahedan in Iran is less than Chennai - Yet India and her history is seen confined to the sub-continent North-South and that somehow anything to the West and East does not belong.

Here is a thought experiment - if you put a center point in India just below New Delhi and drew a circle of radius extending to Kanya Kumari in the South - see how much of the West, North and East you cover with the circle.

Unless Anglo-Saxon, Slavs or Turks peeps come singing the Vedas to India... Here is the nonsense of AIT -
Who is an Aryan invading foreigner म्लेच्छ ? It seems like area under the circle - Ghar Vapsi if at all

[RajeshA]

If I may say so, peter ji has always been an active contributor on the OIT threads, and his inputs have always given an impetus for fruitful discussions.

[KLP Dubey]

KLPD: Shouldn't it be kAmbhOja rather than the unaspirated b which was in your transliteration of the quote from Manu Smriti? According to Wiki, Yaska's nirukta says the following:

Sanskrit literature[edit]
Yaska (seventh century BCE) etymologizied the name as both Kambal.bhojah and Kamaniya.bhojah. According to Nirukta,[14] the Kambojas enjoy kambalah (blankets) i.e. they are Kambal.bhojah, and also they enjoy beautiful (kamaniya) things, hence they are 'kamaniya.bhojah'. Therefore they are called "Kambojas".[15]
Pāṇini, the 4th century BC Sanskrit grammarian a native to Gandhara in his Aṣṭādhyāyī mentions many terms pertaining to the geography and ethnology of pre-Mauryan India. In his sutras (4.1.168-177) [16] Pāṇini references the a number of Kshatriya janapadas and notes it as one of the fifteen prominent Kshatriya monarchies of the times.

The page has Witzel's "pearls of wisdom" in the etymology discussion part.

No, it is certainly kAmbOja in the Sanskrit literature. Yaska was trying to force-fit etymology for a word of uncertain origin. It clearly takes extraordinary license to arrive at kAMbOja from either of the suggestions in the Nirukta. Again, such uncertainties also point to the kAmbOjas being originally a non-Vedic/non-Arya group.

[Nilesh Oak]

If I may say so, peter ji has always been an active contributor on the OIT threads, and his inputs have always given an impetus for fruitful discussions.

I agree. His active and tenacious contributions (and holding on to a point of view) has lead to additional fruitful threads...

[KLP Dubey]

By the way, I don't 'believe' much on Sanskritization of new groups that actually just out there pretending to be serious about it. It may not be possible against huge odds and very very limited resources available. Similar to how, after Mahabharat war and Krishna leaving his mortal body, Pandavas and Draupadi perform coronation Parikshit as king and then leave for heaven instead of themselves fighting another bunch of barbarians invading Dwarika. It is for the new generation to learn from example and not presume that every time an avatar will come calling.

I am not sure what you meant here, but I was pointing out the historical fact of Sanskritization being a primary force to protect Dharma on the ground. Several examples were given. There is not much room for 'belief' there.

If your meaning was that you don't believe in Sanskritization as a tool for the future of dharma, then I offer the following comment: If we do not learn from history then we should not expect to be relevant in the future either.

[vishvak]

Let me learn a bit from History:
In case of Kashmiri Pandits, there were some comments on why the Pandits did not 'allow', in history, some people to convert to Hinduism. Something similar is told about Parsis, already ethnically cleansed from Iran and in India, about why the sect does not welcome those who marry non-Parsis as ethnic Parsis.

Fact is, it is Kashmiri Pandits who are ethnically cleansed, and so are Parsis who are already ethnically cleansed centuries ago. The Pandits and Parsis are sects, not 'religion'. Those who want to 'convert' could have understood Hinduism/dharma and made a sect for themselves if these people were serious. But these communities, and comments about it, have been reduced to sectarian level only - though Parsis and Pandits are carrying on own traditions on and on which is what matters and are therefore very much civilized.

Coming to 'Sanskritisation', when Germans wrote grammar of European languages from Sanskrit, they did not have to get Europeans here. Parsis did not have to be Sanskritized to live well and carry on with the traditions. Sanskritization or anything else should not be a tool to reduce communities to sectarian levels or something else. This is what I meant. I agree however with Sanskritization but there should be rules to quickly separate grains from chaff, pretenders and civilized, at all times and everywhere.

[Prem]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05tlvb2
Story of Panini ( Not the Sandwich)

[Agnimitra]

In any case the victorious invaders would stamp their own beliefs rather than be stamped by the beliefs of the conquered.

This is silly. World history is full of less civilized tribes overtaking decadent centers of civilization, only to adopt its culture and become its torchbearers. E.g., the tribes that cannibalized Rome, the Mongols in Islamic world, Turks overrunning Persia, etc.

If they were invaders then presumably they could have forced the Brahmanas but we see no such examples in the case of Greeks, Kushans, Sakas or Turks/Mughals and British.

Plenty of examples among all the above, of being Sanskritized. Starting from Heliodorus' pillar and export of Hindu-Buddhist ideas and art to Seleucid Greeks, to Kshatriyazation of some Kushanas, Hunas and Shakas, and even to some conversions of Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians during the Islamic colonization of India, when India was a passive, weak actor.

[peter]

You had asked how this debate on Kshatriyas is relevant to AIT thread. I described to you what "mainstream"

historians believe/write and hence made an effort to show the connection but obviously it is too dense for you to grasp it.

Flat Earth Theory was also main stream, what to do onlee!
The Europeans took longer to undertand the nature of the universe!

AIT debate is not as black and white as the flat earth theory unfortunately.

Your cricket ganesha example is silly.

Yes and so is yours - exactly my point! My friends' point is that there are no laws in Social Sciences....
You seem to be confused on a simple point - if the original inhabitants of India were invaded, it is they who conferred the Kshatriya title on the invaders per your vacuous theory..

Agree on no laws in social sciences. But conferring of Kshatriya title is *NOT* my vacuous theory! It is Shri Dubey's. Please read the relevant posts again. In fact I am opposing his stance.

[peter]

Why would "new groups" be "allowed" to become Kshatriyas? If they were invaders then presumably they could have forced the Brahmanas but we see no such examples in the case of Greeks, Kushans, Sakas or Turks/Mughals and British. In any case the victorious invaders would stamp their own beliefs rather than be stamped by the beliefs of the conquered.

So who exactly were these new groups of people that you keep alluding too?

So you agree that Indians invaded South-East Asia and that is why there are Balinese, Viet, Combodian and Javanese Kshatriyas?

Cholas did invade lot many of these lands and even before them Indian kings had presence in the lands you mention.
Interestingly the Cambodians believe that a Kamboj prince from India cleared the swamps in their country and then ruled it by marrying their princess. That is how they get the name Cambodia.

What is your question now? If you are saying this formation of Kshatriya groups in Cambodia etc is an example of sanskritization in India then you are missing a very big point. Let me see if you can guess it.

hint: India too has mutliple kshatriya groups. What disinguishes them?

[peter]

It would serve you and your friend well if you acquainted yourself with some books on AIT to grasp that the rajput making example at Arbud is invoked constantly by the AIT side in support of AIT.

If you don't even understand what is being debated why show your ignorance?

Here is my friends response:

Even the Purusha Sukta uses "Rajanya" not Kshatriya - in the recited Vedas no mention is made of any Kshatriya lineages or Vamsams, it is only in the later Puranic and Ithihasa that all this is mentioned.

And? So what?
Itihas and Puranas are not representative of or created by same people who created Vedas?
BTW this sought of argument is routinely put forward by AITers.

So there is no relevance to AIT, at that time that Wastern Indologists presume AIT to have occurred, there is no mention of any Kshatriya lineages

Well you are making a cardinal mistake , I feel, of making an assumption that *all* aspects of Indian society ought to have been mentioned in Vedas. Why should Vedic rishi oblige such line of thinking? Rg Veda is 10000 verses.

[peter]

If I may say so, peter ji has always been an active contributor on the OIT threads, and his inputs have always given an impetus for fruitful discussions.

I agree. His active and tenacious contributions (and holding on to a point of view) has lead to additional fruitful threads...

I thank you for supporting me ! I have also enjoyed my interactions with you thoroughly! Why are you guys not active nowadays?

[peter]

In any case the victorious invaders would stamp their own beliefs rather than be stamped by the beliefs of the conquered.

This is silly. World history is full of less civilized tribes overtaking decadent centers of civilization, only to adopt its culture and become its torchbearers. E.g., the tribes that cannibalized Rome, the Mongols in Islamic world, Turks overrunning Persia, etc.

Do you know if rules existed to make people Hindu who were originally Mallech?
Note this is different from a movement of people across the four varnas in olden days.
To pick on one example of yours: Persia was overrun by Arabs. And the Arabs converted the Fire Worshippers to their Mohamadden creed. Turks did not become fire worshippers as you seem to be alluding.

If they were invaders then presumably they could have forced the Brahmanas but we see no such examples in the case of Greeks, Kushans, Sakas or Turks/Mughals and British.

Plenty of examples among all the above, of being Sanskritized.

No.

Starting from Heliodorus' pillar and export of Hindu-Buddhist ideas and art to Seleucid Greeks,

masons, stone workers were Indians and were taken to far off lands to replicate Indian architecture. Mahmud did the same.

to Kshatriyazation of some Kushanas, Hunas and Shakas,

Example please. Yours is an opinion.

and even to some conversions of Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians during the Islamic colonization of India, when India was a passive, weak actor.

Really? Passive and Weak? Who told you this? Which Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians got converted to Hinduism?

[A_Gupta]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 48101.aspx
Delving into history: What did Harappans eat, how did they look? Haryana has the answers

[Arjun]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 48101.aspx
Delving into history: What did Harappans eat, how did they look? Haryana has the answers

India depends on a S. Korean lab for performing this procedure - when the result could be so politically sensitive?

[RoyG]

Sounds like the DNA result will end a lot of speculation on our origins. Exciting times.

[Virendra]

Sorry about the OT
@Peter I've found translated 'Seva Di Var' in a book.
To avoid OT here, please post at http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1822003 if anything needs to be discussed on it.

[Nilesh Oak]

History of India for last 1,00,000 years based on genetics (Humans, cows, mice and such) by Dr. Priyadarshi

(My apologies if this was posted by someone else before on this thread)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l7VsR-dW-c&sns=fb

[peter]

History of India for last 1,00,000 years based on genetics (Humans, cows, mice and such) by Dr. Priyadarshi

(My apologies if this was posted by someone else before on this thread)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l7VsR-dW-c&sns=fb

Can an expert unpack this paper:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/ ... 1450a.html

Does it go against Underhill's earlier paper? Or for?

[Agnimitra]

To pick on one example of yours: Persia was overrun by Arabs. And the Arabs converted the Fire Worshippers to their Mohamadden creed. Turks did not become fire worshippers as you seem to be alluding.

I was alluding to Turks who became Islamized via the Persians, whom they conquered.
But FYI, Turanians became Zoroastrians also - some by being subjugated, and others by invading, conquering and imitating. The Turanians were always considered more martial by the Persians, since Zoroastrian times.

The case of Mongols turning Muslim is another patent example that crushes your denial of this phenomenon. Same with the case of those barbaric tribes that ultimately took over the Roman empire and culture after first sacking it.

and even to some conversions of Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians during the Islamic colonization of India, when India was a passive, weak actor.

Really? Passive and Weak? Who told you this? Which Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians got converted to Hinduism?

Please refer the chronicles of some of the Vaishnava Bhakti movements, for instance.

The idea that there is a uniform historical "rule" that a conqueror erases and pretty much imposes his own culture on the conquered (with some secondary assimilation) is not only reductionist and dull, but outright false.

[peter]

To pick on one example of yours: Persia was overrun by Arabs. And the Arabs converted the Fire Worshippers to their Mohamadden creed. Turks did not become fire worshippers as you seem to be alluding.

I was alluding to Turks who became Islamized via the Persians, whom they conquered.

You are still not giving examples with names, and time frame. How does one test what you are writing?

But FYI, Turanians became Zoroastrians also - some by being subjugated, and others by invading, conquering and imitating.

Which timeframe? Subjugated by whom?

The case of Mongols turning Muslim is another patent example that crushes your denial of this phenomenon. Same with the case of those barbaric tribes that ultimately took over the Roman empire and culture after first sacking it.

So you are arguing that if x and y were true in Rome they ought to be true in India?
I disagree! Caste system had rules. You could'nt join Hinduism even if you wanted to . Kashmir trouble is a living example of this fact.

and even to some conversions of Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians during the Islamic colonization of India, when India was a passive, weak actor.

Really? Passive and Weak? Who told you this? Which Pathans/Turks/Mughals/Iranians got converted to Hinduism?

Please refer the chronicles of some of the Vaishnava Bhakti movements, for instance.

Read for what? That India was weak and passive and bent over backwards whenever an invader came?
Or on the conversion?
When did Vaishnava Bhakti movement start?

[Agnimitra]

peter ji,
What exactly are you arguing about? Your questions are high school level history. I'm sure you can look them up. What I'm trying to understand is what your point is. Are you arguing that no "outsider" could ever "convert" to "Hinduism", or be Sanskritized, as KLPD ji was suggesting?

If that is your point, it is also mistaken. We have examples of various peoples (and even their priesthoods) from outside the subcontinent being "integrated" (rather than "converted") into the Hindu system. Examples abound in SE Asia, and also the Mitra-worshipping priesthoods from Iranic/Turanic C. Asia who were integrated into the Indic system.

In addition, there is documentary evidence in South India and also Persia that Persians would migrate to India and be accepted into different Varnas - principally Kshatriya and Brahmana. Similar case with certain Brahmana or shaman clans in Odisha or Bali, etc. There was often an amalgamation of clans based on primary Varna.

IMHO, the problem is using vague words like "convert" or even "integrate". The amalgamation or synthesis in Indic theory is not the same at all the same levels as the Abrahamic or even "secular Western Universalism". Consider Aurobindo's suggestion:

"In India we do not recognise the nation as the highest synthesis to which we can rise. There is a higher synthesis, humanity; beyond that there is a higher synthesis, this living, suffering, aspiring world of creatures, the synthesis of Buddhism; there is a highest of all, the synthesis of God, and that is the Hindu synthesis, the synthesis of Vedanta." - from The Karmayogin, July 3, 1909

[Pulikeshi]

AIT debate is not as black and white as the flat earth theory unfortunately.

Peter - please continue your contributions on this thread whatever their merit.

Religious belief and AIT cannot be defeated by argument, the method is different...
For me if AIT were true - 100% of supermodels would have the da hotz for you!
Even though I am a realist, I do hope for you it comes true

[A_Gupta]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 48101.aspx
Delving into history: What did Harappans eat, how did they look? Haryana has the answers

India depends on a S. Korean lab for performing this procedure - when the result could be so politically sensitive?

I think the S. Koreans are major contributors to the archaeological expedition (I am not sure, though).

[A_Gupta]

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday ... sliderNews

Noted epigraphist and scholar Iravatham Mahadevan insists that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

The Aryan-Dravidian divide, often misinterpreted as the gulf between people of North Indian and South Indian origins, now has a new dimension which indicates that both have their roots in the Indus civilisation.

Noted epigraphist and Dravidologist Iravatham Mahadevan proposes the alternative interpretation to harmonise the core features of the ‘Agastya legend’, namely the northern origin of Agastya and his southern apotheosis as the eponymous founder of Tamil language and culture. An expert on Indus and Tamil-Brahmi scripts, Dr. Mahadevan has always maintained that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

In an exclusive interview to The Hindu after receiving the honorary doctorate D.Litt. from Dravidian University, Kuppam, located at the confluence of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and hence considered the Dravidian heartland, Mahadevan observed that the Indus civilisation was both pre-Aryan and Dravidian.

“The southern migration of sage Agastya, attested in both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian sources, is the most important evidence to link the Indus Civilisation with the Dravidian South,” he says. In fact, his convocation address ‘Interpreting the Indus Script: The Dravidian Solution’ also touched upon the same subject.

Sage Agastya is always depicted as a short-statured personality with his inseparable water-pitcher in hand. His latest finding is the reference to the expressions ‘vatapal munivan’ (northern sage) and tatavu (jar) on the sage occurring in Purananuru (poem 201), an early Old Tamil anthology containing much older oral tradition. “The Agastya legend may now be reinterpreted as referring to the exodus of elements of Dravidian-speaking people to South India after the decline and collapse of the Indus civilisation”, he concludes.

The bureaucrat-turned-epigraphist also discovered evidence from the Indus texts corroborating the historicity of the Agastya legend. The critical discoveries are the word aka-tt-(i) (meaning Lord of the House) and its constant association with the jar sign. Besides, he refers to the various grammatical signs in the Indus script, especially the ‘arrow’ sign, the four stroke modifier and the ‘jar’ sign; the last one having been conclusively proved by the discovery of the sign, incised realistically on pottery excavated at Kalibangan.

Going by the Indus sign and its pictorial identification, he arrived at their Dravidian phonetic value by referring to Old Tamil parallels. He also saw Indus Script as sending the message ‘Unity in Diversity’, rather than dividing the people with an unfounded claim of two distinct races.

The southern migration of sage Agastya, attested in both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian sources, is the most important evidence to link the Indus Civilisation with the Dravidian South.

[peter]

peter ji,
What exactly are you arguing about? Your questions are high school level history.

I admit I know not the high school history. Since you have also not presented which Turks became Fire Worshippers and in what time frame and by whom I presume you in the same boat? Ditto on other questions in the previous message.

I'm sure you can look them up. What I'm trying to understand is what your point is. Are you arguing that no "outsider" could ever "convert" to "Hinduism", or be Sanskritized, as KLPD ji was suggesting?

Won't this debate be better if you presented some data points?

[peter]

AIT debate is not as black and white as the flat earth theory unfortunately.

Religious belief and AIT cannot be defeated by argument, the method is different...
For me if AIT were true - 100% of supermodels would have the da hotz for you!
Even though I am a realist, I do hope for you it comes true

It is funny that you don't realise AIT mongers and you have identical arguments.
1) AIT mongers says Itihas and Puranas being later than Vedas are not reliable representations of Indian society. 2) Vedas especially Rg Veda ought to contain everything about Indians and if it does'nt then whatever extra is present in Purans and Itihas has little value.

And you say you are a realist? Hmmmm.

[Nilesh Oak]

Requests for reveiws on Amazon

Too long to explain the details, but I am seeing decent traction with academia, indepenent researchers and Indian/non-Indian readers for my both books (When did the Mahabharata War Happen and 'The Historic Rama' and I was told that having numerous reviews on Amazon would speed up that process (I am not exactly sure how, but the information comes from a VERY reliable sources).

Writing here to request those who have read it to please go to amazon and write a review.

Please be brutal (brutally honest, rational and as detailed as you may like).

Appreciate your help,

Nilesh Oak

[Agnimitra]

Since you have also not presented which Turks became Fire Worshippers and in what time frame and by whom I presume you in the same boat?

Sigh. Several Tartars, for example. I suggest you also check out the genealogies of Parsis. Also read the Shahnameh. It even has recommendations for intermarriage tactics in case of being defeated by barbarians.

But since you can't even acknowledge the Romanization of Goths, Visigoths, etc., or of Mongol conquerors adopting Islam, I see no point in this childish dialog. AIT "winner takes it all" philosophy ki jai!

[peter]

Since you have also not presented which Turks became Fire Worshippers and in what time frame and by whom I presume you in the same boat?

Sigh. Several Tartars, for example. I suggest you also check out the genealogies of Parsis. Also read the Shahnameh.

Shahnamah ends at the mohammedan conquest of Persia. So it does not support your argument.

But since you can't even acknowledge the Romanization of Goths, Visigoths, etc., or of Mongol conquerors adopting Islam, ...

Apples and Oranges. What was true in x,y,z land need not be true in India.
Ask yourself some questions from our "high school" history:
(A) Why did Maharana Pratap not eat food with Akbar's envoy, Raja Man Singh? Man Singh was a rajput.
(A.1) What happened to the utensils that had been touched by Man Singh? The bhoomi that he sat on?
( B ) Why were daughters who were sent to Mughals never admitted back to rajput household?
(C) How did "Agnikula" Khichi Chauhans dispose off the letters received from Mohammeddans?

If after researching answers to A, B,C you still believe what you are saying is true then we will try to "brainwash" you. (Hint: Mind you your list had Afghans and Mughals who converted to Hinduism but of course no examples.)

[Agnimitra]

Shahnamah ends at the mohammedan conquest of Persia. So it does not support your argument.

I see you have trouble following simple posts. Let me summarize for you -
1. Post-Islamic Turks conquering Muslim Persians and adopting Persianized Islam is well known.
2. I added that this happened during pre-Islamic Persian history as well.
3. Romanization of Visigoths etc is well known
4. Mongol conquerors adopting Islam is well known.

Etc. But I'll let you hang on to your "conqueror replaces culture of conquered" theory. Ciao.

[peter]

Shahnamah ends at the mohammedan conquest of Persia. So it does not support your argument.

I see you have trouble following simple posts. Let me summarize for you -
1. Post-Islamic Turks conquering Muslim Persians and adopting Persianized Islam is well known.
.......
..

Can you please stop parading your ignorance? TURKS DID NOT CONQUER PERSIA!
And here is a link with dates and place and actors involved. All Arabs no turks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia

[Agnimitra]

Can you please stop parading your ignorance? TURKS DID NOT CONQUER PERSIA!
And here is a link with dates and place and actors involved. All Arabs no turks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia

peter ji, is it so difficult for you to concede a point? Even assuming we all adopt your ignorance that in the last few centuries Iran was not ruled by Turkic dynasties, I cited a few other examples of conquerors adopting the culture of the conquered. I don't understand your fanatical antics on this forum.

[Yagnasri]

I admit I am mango here. So Mango alter on.

But the rulers use religion as a tool to rule. This is normal rule. But the exception comes with Islam ( and to some extent Christianity). Non Islamic rulers of Islamic lands could adopt Islam as their own faith is not so fanatical and the conquest is not done to for religious purpose and under a religious mandate. So the conversion into Islam by the rulers taken place.

In case of Persia and India the invasions were religious in nature and done as part of Jihad on non believers etc. Looting etc were other motives. Hence the rulers remained Islamic and used to religion to suppress people. When some of the rulers like later day Bahmani Sultan of Hyderabad etc tried to accommodate local peoples religion they were destroyed by Islamic forces and much harsher form of Islam returned.

We also have to understand that entire ruling class and control of the armed forces was in the hands of Islam's followers in Persia and India most of the period. The ruler will be foolish to convert local faith and get killed. In case of Persia the native religion was almost fully destroyed very quickly and there is no reason to convert. In case of India Jihad has also provided incentive of loot and women to Jihadists and it is profitable to have such a license to kill, loot and rape without any fear and punishment.

Mango alert off.

[Virendra]

I hope bhadra jana of BR won't make it into just another internet forum where people come to bicker and vent their frustrations.
I really like this forum for its content quality and maturity of conversation.

[Virendra]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 48101.aspx
Delving into history: What did Harappans eat, how did they look? Haryana has the answers

If they extracted DNA, then they can ascertain its place in the genetic spectrum too right?
If some geneticists are planning to use this DNA in genetic research (ancestry perspective), for me that would be somethinng to closely follow.
Exciting indeed.

Can an expert unpack this paper:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/ ... 1450a.html
Does it go against Underhill's earlier paper? Or for?

Excerpt :

...We caution against ascribing findings from a contemporary phylogenetic cluster of a single genetic locus to a particular pre-historic demographic event, population migration, or cultural transformation...

It seems many of the geneticists don't like being dragged into AMT/OIT debates.