Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Is there any reason to believe they are not???vayu tuvan wrote:How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?
Well, we can never know for sure but Brahmagupta was a mathematician in ancient India (and thus highly unlikely to be anyone but a brahman). Since I have not read his works, I do not know if he provides an autobiography in the introduction.vayu tuvan wrote:How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?
So I don't see any disagreement here. Except the point that I think medieval Rajputs still have to be partial kshatriyas because of:I don't claim there was some pure unbroken line coming from Ikshvaku/Rama or someone like that right till the medieval Rajputs. There has got to be twists in a tale this long.
Just above you said that there is evidence from the 6th century that states Chahamanas to be of suryavansha, but practically everything you mentioned above is from the 12th century onwards.
What I wrote in my previous post is :On my part I do not understand your insistence in claiming that Rajputs are of suryavanshi etc descent
There are gaps in history from known ancient Kshatriyas to known medieval Rajputs. That much we have to concede.Agnimitra wrote:Interesting discussion, KLPD ji and Virendra ji.
I've come across a theory that the 'Vedic' age broke down and gave way to a 'Pauranic' age, when the kshatriya clans were sidelined and political power was usurped by certain Vaishya clans. They relate this to a supposed shift in the popular power of certain devatas also (Vishnu, versus Indra, etc). So according to this theory, these 'Rajputs' could be those earlier kshatriya lineages who had faded into obscurity and were then 'revived', while the Mauryas, Guptas, etc. were Vaishya clans that had grown powerful.KLP Dubey wrote:The fact of the matter is that when even the imperial Mauryas and Guptas were clearly not directly connected to any "suryavansha/chandravansha" lineages, it is totally absurd to think that such groups were quietly existing in Rajasthan for centuries without being recognized and suddenly rose up again.
What has come as a bonus is the discovery of a fire altar, with a yasti (a shaft) in the middle. “The yasti is an indication that rituals were performed at the altar,” said Manjul. The yasti here is an octagonal, burnt brick. Although bones were found in the upper level of the deposits in this trench, it could not be ascertained whether they were sacrificial bones. The ASI team traced mud and ash layers at the lower level in the trench and also found a bead inside the fire altar. Pandey said fire altars had been found in Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi, and the yastis were octagonal or cylindrical bricks. There were “signatures” indicating that worship of some kind had taken place at the fire altar here.
According to Manjul, an important reason why so many Harappan settlements came up in the then Saraswati valley was its fertile alluvial plains. Besides, raw materials such as chert, clay and copper were available in the nearby areas.
It was puzzling, Manjul said, that while a lot of pottery belonging to the Mature Harappan period was found at Kalibangan, Baror, Binjor and 4MSR, no pottery belonging to the Late Harappan phase had been found in these and other nearby sites. “The Harappans deserted 4MSR, Binjor and Baror after the Mature Harappan phase. Why?” he asked. Another puzzle was that only the Late Harappan culture existed in the Suratgarh region in Rajasthan. “There is no continuity of the Harappan phases in the Ghaggar river valley. Did a migration take place towards Suratgarh after the Mature Harappan period? We have to find out the reasons why it happened,” Manjul said. (Baror, Binjor and 4MSR are contiguous sites. While Baror is about 20 km from Binjor and 4MSR, Kalibangan is 120 km from 4MSR. Kalibangan is 25 km from Suratgarh).
Again, there was no continuity between the Late Harappan phase and the PGW culture. To find out whether there was any continuity between the Late Harappan phase and the PGW culture, the ASI and the Institute of Archaeology excavated a trial trench in March 2015 in a mound called 86 GB, less than 2 km from 4MSR. There are several sites with PGW deposits within 20 km of 4MSR. “It is important to understand both the cultures, the Late Harappan and the PGW cultures, which are in independent horizons along the Ghaggar river,” Manjul said.
In February, when Frontline visited the area, all around the mound were vast stretches of wheat fields in bloom. Indeed, for 100 km from Kalibangan to 4MSR, wheat fields, watered by the aquifers of the Ghaggar river, stretch endlessly on either side of the road. Every trench has revealed structures such as walls and small rooms made of mud bricks. Most of the rooms have post holes, where posts stood more than 4,000 years ago to support the roof, or perhaps they held door jambs. The size of the mud bricks is in the ratio of 1:2:4, a typical Mature Harappan feature.
There are successive floor levels made of mud bricks, especially in the industrial area of the site. “It shows that whenever the original floor in which the Harappans were working got damaged, they built another floor over it. Between two floors, we have found a lot of ash, charcoal, bones, pottery and artefacts. There are katcha drains in some trenches,” Pandey said.
The trenches have thrown up remnants of ovens, hearths and furnaces, with white ash and soot embedded in the soil, testifying to the industrial activity of making beads at the site. Hearths were found both inside and outside the Harappan houses. Pandey offered an explanation: During winter, Harappans cooked inside their homes but in summer, they cooked outside. One trench revealed a deep silo, lined with mud, to store grains.
The number of idli-shaped terracotta cakes found in the ovens and hearths is incredible. “The presence of idli-shaped terracotta cakes in great numbers in ovens and hearths shows that they had a great role to play in baking many things,” Pandey said.
Let us drop the preamble and get to the point now. If the Lanka mentioned in the Ramayana was not the Sri Lanka of today, where was it located? Where did Ram belong, for that matter? Wherever he may have lived, he was certainly not an inhabitant of what is the Ganges valley today, or of “Ramjanmabhoomi” Ayodhya. For, civilised man did not live in the forest-infested Ganges valley before the Iron Age, since there were no axes with which to clear the vegetation before iron was discovered. There were no swords either, which proves that the Ramayana, unlike the Mahabaharata, is not an epic of the Ganges valley. It makes no mention of swords – the bow and arrow are the primary weapons in it.
The primary objective of this essay is to point to the geographical location of the Ramayana. It is not the writer who has arrived at the answer, nor an Indologist like Max Mueller or even a historian or archaeologist. The person in question is Rajesh Kochhar, a physicist with an inclination for history, who has broken through the traditional techniques of history in his work The Vedic People – Their History and Geography.
....
How the Ramayana is different from the Mahabharata
The primary difficulty of discussing the ancient history of India lies in the necessity of first demolishing several well-established inaccuracies, such as the Aryan Invasion Theory, for instance. Spun by white men and broadcast by colonial historians, this old wives’ tale is still taught in schools and colleges, with half of any written work – measured in terms of paper, ink and effort - being expended on it. We shall not entertain it. We will only examine whatever can be determined through the social and geographical pointers available in the Ramayana.
There are two other fundamental differences between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata – in the rivers and in the divine pantheon. In the Mahabharata the Ganga and the Yamuna are almost ubiquitous, but they’re completely missing from the Ramayana. In the Mahabharata we see the powerful presence of the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwar – but they’re absent from the Ramayana. We do not find these two rivers and these three gods together in the Rig Veda.
However, the rivers and gods that are to be found in the Rig Veda are also to be found in the Ramayana – the rivers Saraswati and Sarayu, and the original trinity of Agni, Varun and Pavan. From this it is easy to surmise that the Ramayana is a Rig Vedic epic. Which period was this? It would not be correct to estimate this using our current calendar: it would probably not be possible either. An approximation can be made from the sequence of events.
...
What we learn from summer solstice
There are 49 cosmic hymns in the Rig and the Yajur Vedas whose meanings have not been explained. But one particular hymn from Vedanga Jyotish informs us that the longest day of the year, or summer solstice, comprised 18 periods of daylight and 12 of night. Day and night are of equal length on the Equator; in the higher latitudes, summer days are longer than nights.
The latitude at which the proportion of daylight and darkness is 3:2 is 34 degrees North. It is worth noting that the cities to be found around this latitude today are Herat and Kabul in Afghanistan. In other words, the place and time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotish is the same as that of Vedic Afghanistan and Iran. This second piece of evidence offered by Rajesh Kochhar further strengthens the perception of the location and time of the Rig Veda.
In search of the rivers
Kochhar has deconstructed the Rig Veda in search of the Saraswati and the Sarayu, the two rivers also mentioned in the Ramayana. Here too our current history has come in the way.
There is a tiny river named the Sarayu in Uttar Pradesh, which flows into the Ghaghara, which in turn merges with the Ganga. Many people consider the rainwater-fed Saraswati in the Aravallis, flowing along the Ghaggar (not to be confused with the Ghaghara) basin the mythical Saraswati. On viewing the scans of North-Western India made by the Russian Landsat satellite between 1972 and ’79, it is natural to assume that the Ghaggar was a wide river. It flows into the Rann of Kutch.
The scan reveals the basin of a dried up older river, which is up to 8 km broad in some places. It was this that led to the hasty conclusion of this basin’s belonging to the original Saraswati.
From Neil Roberts’s The Holocene it is clear that the basin of this river widened to the north of the Rann of Kutch because of the accelerated movement of a glacier during the previous Ice Age. But deconstructing the Rig Veda doesn’t suggest any of this. The Saraswati has been referred to as non-perennial towards the end of the Veda. The original stream of the Ghaggar enters India from present-day Pakistan, drying up in the Thar desert. Kochhar believes this is the non-perennial Saraswati.
However, the Saraswati of the Rig Veda is extremely powerful, grinding rocks with sheer force. Its roar subsumes all other sounds. And the Sarayu of the Rig Veda is immensely wide and deep, the mother river. None of these descriptions matches the actual rivers in present-day India with those names.
Hymn No. 5 | 53 | 9 of the Rig Veda says, “May the Rasa, Krumu, Anitabh, Kuva or Sindhu not be able to stop you; let the deep Sarayu not be an obstacle.” The order of the rivers clearly moves from east to west. So the Sarayu undoubtedly flows to the west of the Indus.
Kochhar believes it is the 650-km river known as the Hari-Rud in Afghanistan, whose source is in the Hindu Kush mountains. It flows past the city of Herat and then for 100 km along the Iran-Afghanistan border before disappearing in the Karakom desert of Central Asia.
In the Avesta we find the Saraswati as the Harahaiti – the similarity in sound is noticeable – which enters Iran along the combined basin of the river Arghandar on the Afghan-Iran border and the river Helmand. According to Kochhar, it is this Helmand that is the Vedic Saraswati river.
The source of the Helmand is in the Koh-i-Baba mountain range. Flowing for 1,300 miles through the heart of Afghanistan, the Vedic Saraswati joins the Vedic Drijadbati or Arghandar. The Avesta identifies this wide river as the Hetumanta (or, in varations, as Setumanta). In Iran the Saraswati is named the Harahaiti, which flows into the inland lake Hamun-e-Sabari in the Saistan area of northern Iran.
I remember reading a similar proposal back in 1990-91 when I was in college during RJB agitation.
RamaY wrote:amitkv wrote:Was the Ramayana actually set in and around today’s Afghanistan?I remember reading a similar proposal back in 1990-91 when I was in college during RJB agitation.
Any/every proposal is welcome for research and analysis. But the proposal must fit whole of Ramayana. It cant drop down to the levels where there is one guy named Roma lived in America so Ramayana must happened in Americas...
No. That is the point. On another note, anybody who has gnyana (variously knowledge, learning, enlightenment) can be called a brahmana. May be both were born in vyshya households but transcended due to their accumulation of gnyana which is inline with the theory that caste was never a watertight as it is projected to be by the religions of the recent past mark 1, mark 2, and mark 3 abrahamics.Yagnasri wrote:Is there any reason to believe they are not???vayu tuvan wrote:How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?
We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.Virendra wrote:Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.
Regards,
Virendra
Few of the many martial republics that find mention in Kautilya's ArthaShastra are of Madrakas, Vrijikas, Lichchhivikas, Kurus, Panchalas and others.svenkat wrote:Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?
When I said partial, I meant from bloodline perspective, not from "Kshatriya is he who wields power" perspective.KLP Dubey wrote:I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas.Virendra wrote:Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.
Regards,
Virendra
KLP Dubey wrote:I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas.Virendra wrote:Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.
Regards,
Virendra
Why do you think the old names did not carry forward? Or why are the surnames different between then and now?Virendra wrote: When I said partial, I meant from bloodline perspective, not from "Kshatriya is he who wields power" perspective.
This point of lineage came because you mentioned that vedic kshatriyas were gone and rajputs have been formed on a new base?
But were rajputs the only kshatriyas? We also have a group designator of khatris. What about Jutts and other communities?KLP Dubey wrote:
We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.
I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:
1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.
...
Are you being deliberately disingenuous? There are Kshatriyas in every part of India.peter wrote:But were rajputs the only kshatriyas?KLP Dubey wrote:
We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.
I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:
1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.
...
What is your question exactly ?We also have a group designator of khatris. What about Jutts and other communities?
The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics by Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis
English | 2015 | ISBN: 1107054532 | 338 pages
Over the past decade, a group of prolific and innovative evolutionary biologists has sought to reinvent historical linguistics through the use of phylogenetic and phylogeographical analysis, treating cognates like genes and conceptualizing the spread of languages in terms of the diffusion of viruses. Using these techniques, researchers claim to have located the origin of the Indo-European language family in Neolithic Anatolia, challenging the near-consensus view that it emerged in the grasslands north of the Black Sea thousands of years later. But despite its widespread celebration in the global media, this new approach fails to withstand scrutiny. As languages do not evolve like biological species and do not spread like viruses, the model produces incoherent results, contradicted by the empirical record at every turn. This book asserts that the origin and spread of languages must be examined primarily through the time-tested techniques of linguistic analysis, rather than those of evolutionary biology.
BTW the Kambojas as mentioned by Panini, Manusmriti, Mahabharata, Raghuvansha (Kalidasa) etc are characterized as people who did not perform Vedic rituals ("fallen kshatriyas"). The Raghuvansha is based upon the mythical exploits of one Raghu of the suryavansha, who conquered the Huns and also obtained submission from the Kambojas in the northwest. It may be based loosely on the conquests of one of the Gupta emperors (probably Vikramaditya). These are all good signs that the Kambojas are Sanskritized people from the borders of ancient Bharat.Virendra wrote:Few of the many martial republics that find mention in Kautilya's ArthaShastra are of Madrakas, Vrijikas, Lichchhivikas, Kurus, Panchalas and others.svenkat wrote:Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?
It also says many of these clans were dominated by powerful Kambojas who are mentioned by Panini as well.
There's more work to be done. The genetic and linguistic data support the idea that Indo-European entered Europe via the steppes around 4,500 years ago, but "it's still not clear to me where the oldest branches" of the language come from, says Carles Lalueza-Fox, a geneticist at the University of Barcelona. Indo-European might have originated elsewhere, with the steppe route being just one of several ways that a root tongue made it to southern Europe, Iran, and India, Lalueza-Fox says.
The study's authors concede the point—but not the argument. "We don't know if the steppe is the ultimate source" of Indo-European language, Lazaridis says. "If we can get data from those regions, it will answer a lot of questions."
peter wrote:But were rajputs the only kshatriyas?KLP Dubey wrote:
We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.
I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:
1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.
...
KLP Dubey wrote: Are you being deliberately disingenuous? There are Kshatriyas in every part of India.
We also have a group designator of khatris. What about Jutts and other communities?
Since Kshatriyas were in many parts of India what caused some to be rajputs, others Khatris (Panjaabis ) or Zats?KLP Dubey wrote: What is your question exactly ?
Virendra wrote:Few of the many martial republics that find mention in Kautilya's ArthaShastra are of Madrakas, Vrijikas, Lichchhivikas, Kurus, Panchalas and others.svenkat wrote:Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?
It also says many of these clans were dominated by powerful Kambojas who are mentioned by Panini as well.
Can you please give the exact quote from Panini and Mahabharata?KLP Dubey wrote: BTW the Kambojas as mentioned by Panini, Manusmriti, Mahabharata, Raghuvansha (Kalidasa) etc are characterized as people who did not perform Vedic rituals ("fallen kshatriyas"). ....
Many Kshatriyas are designated as foreigners by respectable historians world over including Indians.Pulikeshi wrote:What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!
Who are foreigners? If someone from todays Iran, Afghanistan, Paksistan, Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, etc historically came into the Northern part of Indian sub-continent would you consider them foreigners?peter wrote:Many Kshatriyas are designated as foreigners by respectable historians world over including Indians.
Today, during Ganapathi pooja - people have "cricket Ganesha" so that means in ancient India, Ganesha worship also incorporated foreign ideas.peter wrote: If such a system was in vogue in the first millenium AD then no reason to doubt that this system was in vogue way back
How many Aryan invasionists invaded?peter wrote: ... when the first Aryan invasionists were supposed to have invaded?
I have seen and talked to many invasionists, but never found evidence for any invasion 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.Pulikeshi wrote:This is a response from a friends who does not post on BRF:
Who are foreigners? If someone from todays Iran, Afghanistan, Paksistan, Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, etc historically came into the Northern part of Indian sub-continent would you consider them foreigners?peter wrote:Many Kshatriyas are designated as foreigners by respectable historians world over including Indians.
If so, why apply modern notions of nation-states, religion and history to a time when the whole world belonged to us
Today, during Ganapathi pooja - people have "cricket Ganesha" so that means in ancient India, Ganesha worship also incorporated foreign ideas.peter wrote: If such a system was in vogue in the first millenium AD then no reason to doubt that this system was in vogue way back
What kind of a nonsensical statement is the one above? Your statement is intellectually similarly flawed!
If foreigners (whatever this means to you) were incorporated in medival times in India and you have proof that these foreigners were Iranian or Turks or Aliens or whatever, then how do you linearly drawn this back in history to a time when the very same historians say these Aryans were pastoral nomads roaming the steppes of Ulanbatoris friends.... You are launching balloons and expecting a intellectual reply?
How many Aryan invasionists invaded?peter wrote: ... when the first Aryan invasionists were supposed to have invaded?
What if I suggested to you that a great region of Eurasia rests on one cultural substrate, that it is ours and interconnected.
There will be a time when genetics will prove this to be the case.
Who is a foreigner then?
Manusmriti 10.43-44: (I do not have time for using the transliteration scheme)peter wrote: Can you please give the exact quote from Panini and Mahabharata?
In deriving support for OIT from the Puranas and Ithasas, some people are taking too seriously the "lineages" of Kshatriyas mentioned in those works, and even claiming continuous bloodlines down to the modern Kshatriya groups in India. This is fake history. The real history is that of continuous Sanskritization of new groups and peoples within (and outside) Bharat. This must continue in order to promote the spread of Dharma in India and outside.Pulikeshi wrote:What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!
Does Panini say the same about Kambojas? What does Mahabharat say about fallen Kshatriyas?KLP Dubey wrote:Manusmriti 10.43-44: (I do not have time for using the transliteration scheme)peter wrote: Can you please give the exact quote from Panini and Mahabharata?
shanakaistu kriyaalopaadimaa kshatriyajaatayah
vrishalatvam gataa loke brahmanaadarshanena ca
paundrakaashchoudradravidaah kaambojaa yavanaah saakaah
paaradaapahlavaashciina kiraataa daradaah khashaah
Running translation: "Due to the failure to perform the sacred rituals, and not seeking guidance from brahmanas, the following Kshatriya groups have fallen to the status of shudras (vrishalas): the Paundrakas, Choudra, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakas, Paradas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas, and Khashas."
<snip> going on about AIT still, after it has been proven to be utter trash, yelling at others for being ignorant. How precious. <snip> is not going to stop his trolling on this topic and throwing up random BS and pretending AIT is still bestest theory, so don't feed the troll. <snip> is most definitely not interested in listening, if that was not obvious already.peter wrote: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.
Your statement has a fundamental contradiction. 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.KLP Dubey wrote:In deriving support for OIT from the Puranas and Ithasas, some people are taking too seriously the "lineages" of Kshatriyas mentioned in those works, and even claiming continuous bloodlines down to the modern Kshatriya groups in India. This is fake history. The real history is that of continuous Sanskritization of new groups and peoples within (and outside) Bharat. This must continue in order to promote the spread of Dharma in India and outside.Pulikeshi wrote:What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!
The real history could be that Bharat is melting pot of Dharmic people (thereby genetic variations and similarities outside) that are ethnically cleansed from areas where invaders schemed with pseudo seculars and pretenders of all types to usurp culture under various excuses. A few weeks back I did see an episode from a TV serial (Maharana Pratap) wherein some Mughal general interrogates a Hindu Rajput in brutal fashion, and then suddenly there is a small scene of fixing nails on his hands, out of nowhere! Such twisted representation of stealing credit from very honorable conduct as Rajput (in not divulging info) and twisting it into something else seems to be the order of the day. 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.The real history is that of continuous Sanskritization of new groups and peoples within (and outside) Bharat.
Flat Earth Theory was also main stream, what to do onlee!peter wrote: 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.
Yes and so is yours - exactly my point! My friends' point is that there are no laws in Social Sciences....peter wrote: Your cricket ganesha example is silly.
My ignorance is better than your grasp at straws!peter wrote: 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?
So you agree that Indians invaded South-East Asia and that is why there are Balinese, Viet, Combodian and Javanese Kshatriyas?peter wrote: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?
Here is my friends response:peter wrote: 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?