Indian Political Discussion

[vsdoc]

@vstol Jockey

Let me read your posts properly and respond.

Yes, I am no Hindu expert. Just what I can Google.

But clearly, you and @ManavantraTruti are no Parsi experts either .... so its all good.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

@vsdoc, I have read your posts regarding inbreeding among Brahmins and Hindus. I request you to please specifically mention those Hindu and Brahmin groups which have this. FYI, Brahmins are completely forbidden to marty among their own Gotra. The Tamilian Brahmins meet this condition in the following manner.

• The sister marries a person who happens to be her Mama.
• Mama being from the mothers side, has a different Gotra as the Gotra system is based on male's Gotra-Patriarcal system.
• In our division of genes, this system reduces the different genes coming from grand parents from 1/16 to 1/8.
• Brahmins follow world's only scientifically proven flow of genes in the marriages and we have been following it ever since the world came into existence.
• When a person dies among Hindus, we have a system of Pind daan. We make 16 pinds of floor and these are placed along the various parts of the body of the departed.
• each of these pinds is equal to the part played in transferring genes to the departed by his parents, Paternal Grandparents, maternal Grandparents and Great grandparents from both sides.
• Only people with no knowledge of how we Brahmins work, will make the claims which you made. You have no knowledge of ManuSmriti which we brahmins follow even today.
• FYI, as per ManuSmriti, A brahmin is supposed to have a middle/last name which means happiness so we have names like vijay Anand Sharma or simply Vijay Sharma. Sharma is a sanskrit word which means happiness.
• However Lord Parshuram ordered his followers not to accept Daan and istead live the life of BrahmKshatriya. It was then that we started writing our Gotra and our Shashan as our last name. Bhardwaj, kashyap, Gautam, Vasishist, Dikshit, Vishvamitra, Atree and Agastya rishis are the rishis of present Manavanter of eight Manu, we have similar Rishis from previous Manaventaers also from seventh Manu or before.
• I am a Angira-The Rishi of seventh Manu, Brahaspatay-son of Angira Rishi, Bhardwaj-Rishi of present Manavanter and son of Brahaspatay after whom the Bhardwaj Gotra started, His karma as a Rishi was to educate people and his did this duty so his Shashan was Pathak which was followed by his son Dronacharya and his son Ashwatthama also. In fact the kalki Avatar is supposed to learn his warfare from Ashwatthama and knowledge of vedas from Lord Parshuram. The third mandal of Rig Veda and also tenth mandal was written by Rishis of Angira Lineage so If I have to write my full name as per brahmin system, it will be- Angira Brahaspatay Bhardwaj Gotra--------- Pathak Shashan, Rig veda thritiya aivam dasham mandal. Heavy, isn't it.
• Brahmins were not allowed to own any property and instead live by begging only and yet live a very happy life and that was supposed to reflect in their names also.

I do not understand how your post has anything to do with the discussion.

The few bits at the top that do (barely) are no different to what I was saying as well.

With the added bit not mentioned that cousin unions (first and distant) are ALSO practiced.

The gotra calculation is based as I understand by the Sapinda tradition which basically means not marrying into X or Y number of generation if linked backwards on the father or mother's side.

This X and Y generation numbers differ between northern (more Vedic) and southern (more Dravidian) population of Hindus.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vstol Jockey]

@vstol Jockey

Let me read your posts properly and respond.

Yes, I am no Hindu expert. Just what I can Google.

But clearly, you and @ManavantraTruti are no Parsi experts either .... so its all good.

Cheers, Doc

I did not question you about what you wrote about Parsis. I am happy to read your posts about your community as it enriches my knowledge but your posts about inbreeding among Hindus are grossly wrong. Even today in most parts of North India, people kill boys and girls who marry within their Gotra or clan.

The gotra calculation is based as I understand by the Sapinda tradition which basically means not marrying into X or Y number of generation if linked backwards on the father or mother's side.

This X and Y generation numbers differ between northern (more Vedic) and southern (more Dravidian) population of Hindus.

Brahmins all over India are one single group of people. You may be surprised to know that many south Indian Brahmins come from Bhardwaj Gotra which is a North Indian Gotra. Bhardwaj Gotra is a Saraswat Gotra, meaning the people of this Gotra originated and resided on the banks of River Saraswati.

 

[vsdoc]

There are no Aryans or Dravidians. The original vedic people are native of this land and they were spread all over India. How do you explain that Balochi language is a dialect of Tamil. If Aryans came from central asia than why do these people speak dialect or a language derived from Tamil? I had written here manytimes that the word Dravid itself was invented in mid 1800s by Europeans to divide India. Do you even know the meaning of Dravid?
Caldwell coined the term "Dravidian" for this family of languages, based on the usage of the Sanskrit word द्रविदा (Dravidā) in the work Tantravārttika by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa.[18] In his own words, Caldwell says,

The word I have chosen is 'Dravidian', from Drāviḍa, the adjectival form of Draviḍa. This term, it is true, has sometimes been used, and is still sometimes used, in almost as restricted a sense as that of Tamil itself, so that though on the whole it is the best term I can find, I admit it is not perfectly free from ambiguity. It is a term which has already been used more or less distinctively by Sanskrit philologists, as a generic appellation for the South Indian people and their languages, and it is the only single term they ever seem to have used in this manner. I have, therefore, no doubt of the propriety of adopting it.[19]​

Dravidian languages - Wikipedia
I told you Doc, you have no knowledge of the subject you are writing about. I did not doubt you regarding what you wrote about Parsis, but your rant about Hindus is way off the target. You too seem to have learnt your history from that foolish document of Nehru called - Discovery of India.

So we are quibbling about the term Dravidian to denote a people who are essentially racially different from the early Vedic Hindu settlers?

The Baloch have more recent Maratha blood as well. So?

The Baloch are Iranic people genetically. As the Pashtun are.

The cleave plane between the two civilizations was always less the Hindu Kush range (we are mountain people) and more the Indus.

With epochal waxing and waning of cultural, political and genetic influence across, not dissimilar to the evolution of Hindu civilization across all river basins on the sub-continent. With hybrid buffer zones as one morphs into another.

Cheers, Doc

 

[ManavantraTruti]

(1) The CCMB study (I knew late Prof Lalji Singh professionally ...) as well as the Avesthagen project (and yes, Villoo as well ...) were both 100% Khandya samples. Our "Indian" sect. This is not reflected for reasons that have nothing to do with science ...

There is no doubt that there was a brief period of admixture that has been dated to 1200 years ago. Persian males - Gujarati females. The Khandya sect was born as a result. And remains similarly endogamous to this day. Interestingly, because there is no mention of admixture even within the Khandyas beyond that time period moving forward, both from Gujarat as well as later Maharashtra nd the Konkan. In effect there was one injection of Indic genes. It was quarantined by sect/caste. And grew organically from there. It is a small sect, and its numbers and growth rate over the millennium remain small and constant ratio in relation to the Parsi/Irani population at large.

(2) The Qissa was written in the 1600s - from historical accounts based on the oral tradition from generation to generation. This is approximately 800 odd years after the event. The Qissa as well as most accounts from travelers, date to the same period. What remains consistent is that the initial wave (there were others - both earlier and later) was 5 to 7 ships, around 500 families, approximately 18,000 Persians - men, women and children, and the accompanying priests.

1. Qissa-e Sanjan Selections & Early Parsi History

PARSI COMMUNITIES i. EARLY HISTORY – Encyclopaedia Iranica

(3) One of the 5 conditions laid down by the Indian chieftain, Jadi Rana, when we landed and asked for sanctuary, was that our women adopt the traditional garb of Indian women.

A bit stupid to lay such a condition to shiploads of men ....

(4) You speak of conservative Hinduism, past and present, but do not appreciate that the older civilization from which the earliest Vedic settlers came is way more conservative - even radical - when it comes to blood. You will note my earlier posts questioning you on the importance and status of bloodlines in Hinduism. Of fire. It is obvious that Hinduism as a result of millennia of inter-breeding and assimilation with the native Dravidian people and their deities, has moved a considerable distance away from its original Vedic roots.

Zoroastrianism that descended from ancient Mithraism has not.

It is inconceivable for us to mix blood with outsiders. Be they Indian, American, or Chinese.

The Khandya therefore occupy that one twilight zone as a tribute to our being allowed to settle here. Period. And guidd by the patrilineal lineage of Zoroastrianism versus the matrilineal one of faiths like Judaism that came later.

But they are our "untouchables" - that is the politically incorrect brutal fact. A product of union between a Mazdayasni and a d'hera. As you will admit, your older still uncorrupted, unrelaxed, un-liberalized faith had your own equivalent Mlecchas.

But they are "untouchable" only in matrimony and inter-breeding. I had a khandya family in my hometown whose son was with my elder cousin in school (same school as me). Both later went to the same top 3 B school, and last I heard he is a big shot in a big consulting firm in Singapore. And our dads worked in the same company. So there is little social segregation as you have in Hindus.

(4) Parsis do not go into elective surgery with infusion of non-Parsi blood. Did you know this interesting fact. Its not a matter of surviving as a community or dying out. There will continue to be Zoroastrian communities even if and when the Parsis die out.

The discussion started with a snidey about inbred Parsis and Muslims.

And was rebutted by pointing out the larger percentage population of inbred Hindus.

And further morphed with your participation.

I do not mind continuing if @nair will let us.

Cheers, Doc

I reject your personal assertions and anecdotes.

1. The scientific paper specifically says that the samples were taken from India and Pakistan and from the remains of normal parsis from their tower of silence. That clearly establishes that it was a mixed sample.

2. It was impossible for 5 or 7 ships to carry 500 families back then. Genetic mapping has show that the parsis arrived 1,200 years back.

Back then one large ship could only hold 200 men at best. 50% of them would be required to RUN the ship. That would mean, at BEST it could 30 to 40 families.

The smaller ships could hold only 20-30 families.

So at best the entire fleet would have carried 200 families. Needless to say, Men would have formed the bulk of this migration.


3. Even today the entire parsi population is only 57,000 so to claim that over 1,2000 years your population only grew from 18,000 to 57000 is laughable and not at all scientific.


4. The evolution of Hinduism is consistent from Vedic practices to Agma practices in the Kali Yuga. There is no drift, but only a change in practices to reflect and address the changing times. Even the Agma practices has its roots in Vedas, so to claim we have drifted away from the vedas is again laughable and can only come from someone who has no idea of hinduism.

 

[vsdoc]

I did not question you about what you wrote about Parsis. I am happy to read your posts about your community as it enriches my knowledge but your posts about inbreeding among Hindus are grossly wrong. Even today in most parts of North India, people kill boys and girls who marry within their Gotra or clan.

I have already provided a map that bears out the same.

The north are also more Vedic than the south. More Aryan. And less distanced from the older fundamentals still adhered to by the Zoroastrians.

Sagotra unions that go against the kula-gotra rules are a reality in Hinduism.

When such rule aberrations happen in Zoroastrians, the progeny are never Zoroastrian. And the Zoroastrian spouse involved eventually dies (not killed) and the lineage ends there.

Brahmins all over India are one single group of people. You may be surprised to know that many south Indian Brahmins come from Bhardwaj Gotra which is a North Indian Gotra. Bhardwaj Gotra is a Saraswat Gotra, meaning the people of this Gotra originated and resided on the banks of River Saraswati.

I have one such guy who is my Tamilian coffee bean supplier in Pune. Original lineage from UP. Shukla Coffee.

But southern Brahmins have a lot more consanguinity than norther ones. Again, I saw a paper of the population of Mangalore. Or Madurai. I cannot remember. There are many. You could Google.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

I reject your personal assertions and anecdotes.

1. The scientific paper specifically says that the samples were taken from India and Pakistan and from the remains of normal parsis from their tower of silence. That clearly establishes that it was a mixed sample.

2. It was impossible for 5 or 7 ships to carry 500 families back then. Genetic mapping has show that the parsis arrived 1,200 years back.

Back then one large ship could only hold 200 men at best. 50% of them would be required to RUN the ship. That would mean, at BEST it could 30 to 40 families.

The smaller ships could hold only 20-30 families.

So at best the entire fleet would have carried 200 families. Needless to say, Men would have formed the bulk of this migration.


3. Even today the entire parsi population is only 57,000 so to claim that over 1,2000 years your population only grew from 18,000 to 57000 is laughable and not at all scientific.


4. The evolution of Hinduism is consistent from Vedic practices to Agma practices in the Kali Yuga. There is no drift, but only a change in practices to reflect and address the changing times. Even the Agma practices has its roots in Vedas, so to claim we have drifted away from the vedas is again laughable and can only come from someone who has no idea of hinduism.

You are an intelligent guy.

You would look at this post dispassionately and see how your argument has gotten hugely watered down and the goalposts shifted to remain in the game.

Quibbling ....

Ship/junk capacities. The Persians were a master seafaring warrior tribe for millennia. With military campaigns for 2000 years against the Greeks and the Romans. European campaigns. By land and sea. Milion strong armies. From antiquity. And here you are quibbling about the probability of 18,000 Persians landing on the coast of Gujarat which is literally right next door????

When we are talking about an influx of Persians into India where the exact dates are not clear, ranging between 720 to 780 AD, and the advent by all our records came in waves over the next 200-300 years, with the genetic admixture PULSE or SPIKE dated scientifically to around 1050-1060 AD.

But you want to quibble on 5 ships or 7. 200 families or 500. 18,000 or more or less ...

Now you are saying "mostly men" where first it was "only men" - but your original claim of the Qissa claiming that has been discarded uietly after it was refuted by my earlier post.

Now you are talking about "families" - unless the definition of "families" is different for you and me, or has changed in the past 1000 to 1200 years, a family is man, woman, children, and the aged.

But you want to once again deflect from your exposure by quibbling about NUMBER of families, when ALL accounts, Qissa, as well as later Translations (Modi, Hodivala) as well as European traveler accounts point to about 500 families, 18,000 people.

Not to mention that Jadi Rana was probably an androgynous cross-dresser if he actually laid down a condition that the settlers show adopt the traditional garb of Indian WOMEN - to shiploads of 18,000 MEN.

The continued reference, now goalpost-shifted to "normal" Parsis from their Dokhma. I have told you the reality. Yet if you scour the links of the two studies I have mentioned (one of which happens to be the plinth of your argument) there is NO allusion to such. Hence it is your assertion and your assumption. But the facts are different. And for reasons as mentioned before which have nothing to do with science ....

Do you even know that the bodies of Khandyas are kept differently to other Parsis? Your ignorance is monumental but I am game to try and rectify it to the levels achievable in a normal internet discourse.

Parsis number around 150,000 worldwide today. The majority now residing in the north American continent. India is at second place and will probably soon be overtaken by the UK and the EU.

Our numbers today are also not our peak, but a waning nadir. Like most developed western populations that are declining. Only we got there much earlier because we were there first, we started with a much smaller base, and our strict rules of bloodlines and conversion.

I could go on?

Do you really want to continue? I am bored now.

I am arguing with two Hindus who I consider my cousins. And jumped in only because a pure bred Parsi was called a Muslim.

And the in-breeding snidey - which I never once denied for us Parsis right from the first post. Only pointed to the Hindu one in response to the Muslim.

Cheers, Doc

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

From Indian political Discussion this has become Indian GENETIC Discussion

 

[vstol Jockey]

So we are quibbling about the term Dravidian to denote a people who are essentially racially different from the early Vedic Hindu settlers?

The Baloch have more recent Maratha blood as well. So?

The Baloch are Iranic people genetically. As the Pashtun are.

The cleave plane between the two civilizations was always less the Hindu Kush range (we are mountain people) and more the Indus.

With epochal waxing and waning of cultural, political and genetic influence across, not dissimilar to the evolution of Hindu civilization across all river basins on the sub-continent. With hybrid buffer zones as one morphs into another.

Cheers, Doc

Anyone who knows about evolution of languages will know how to make out as to which land is that language native to.
The earlies of sanskrit had its vocabulary derived from Tamil Language exclusively. Dronam is POT in tamil. Rishi Bhardwaj while bathing in River Saraswati, saw a very beautiful women and ejaculated. He collected his sperms and put them in a Dronam from which was born Dronacharya. Drona in Tamil means a person of Dronam or a person born from a Pot. Can you show me one language which was thrust upon the natives by invaders and acquired majority of its words from the language of native people so much so that it even acquired the gramer from that native language? Let us take a case of Persian and Arabic languages which arrived in India in 11th century. Those languages acquired a few words from local languages but retained their originality. English came around 17th century, they too acquired a few words from Indian native languages but retained their original form. how is it that only in case of Sanskrit, the language has defied all these linguistic rules?
Another point, the distortion of a language occurs as it moves further away from its origin to newer territories. How is it that Tamil and other so called Dravidian Languages are so close to sanskrit while we find a distortion sanskrit developing into languages of central asia, Russia and nation like Latvia, estonia etc. Infact the last two states even follow rituals like that of vedic Indians.
The relations between Europe and India were always thru Arabs. Our numerals travelled to Europe thru Arabs and came to be known as Arabic numerals. After the fall of Constantinople to Muslims, Vasco-da-gama was forced to find a sea route to India which resulted in direct contact between Europeans and Indians. The Europeans were shocked to see the depth of our knowledge and in order to maintain their self professed superiority, they decided to call Indians of Central asian descent. If you want to call light skinned Indians as Aryans and dark skinned as Dravidian, then how do you explain the very fair Palghat Brahmins or majority of south Indian Brahmins or Menons of Kerala who too are fair skinned. Infact the ratio of dark skinned and fair skinned people across India is nearly a constant.
Marathas in Balochistan are a very recent migration after third battle of panipat. But majority of them are like rest of Indian population, a mix of Indian, Afghan and Iranian mix.

 

[vsdoc]

Anyone who knows about evolution of languages will know how to make out as to which land is that language native to.
The earlies of sanskrit had its vocabulary derived from Tamil Language exclusively. Dronam is POT in tamil. Rishi Bhardwaj while bathing in River Saraswati, saw a very beautiful women and ejaculated. He collected his sperms and put them in a Dronam from which was born Dronacharya. Drona in Tamil means a person of Dronam or a person born from a Pot. Can you show me one language which was thrust upon the natives by invaders and acquired majority of its words from the language of native people so much so that it even acquired the gramer from that native language? Let us take a case of Persian and Arabic languages which arrived in India in 11th century. Those languages acquired a few words from local languages but retained their originality. English came around 17th century, they too acquired a few words from Indian native languages but retained their original form. how is it that only in case of Sanskrit, the language has defied all these linguistic rules?
Another point, the distortion of a language occurs as it moves further away from its origin to newer territories. How is it that Tamil and other so called Dravidian Languages are so close to sanskrit while we find a distortion sanskrit developing into languages of central asia, Russia and nation like Latvia, estonia etc. Infact the last two states even follow rituals like that of vedic Indians.
The relations between Europe and India were always thru Arabs. Our numerals travelled to Europe thru Arabs and came to be known as Arabic numerals. After the fall of Constantinople to Muslims, Vasco-da-gama was forced to find a sea route to India which resulted in direct contact between Europeans and Indians. The Europeans were shocked to see the depth of our knowledge and in order to maintain their self professed superiority, they decided to call Indians of Central asian descent. If you want to call light skinned Indians as Aryans and dark skinned as Dravidian, then how do you explain the very fair Palghat Brahmins or majority of south Indian Brahmins or Menons of Kerala who too are fair skinned. Infact the ratio of dark skinned and fair skinned people across India is nearly a constant.
Marathas in Balochistan are a very recent migration after third battle of panipat. But majority of them are like rest of Indian population, a mix of Indian, Afghan and Iranian mix.

Bhai thoda paragraphing to kar de.

Bund lag gayi padhte padhte text wall .....

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

Anyone who knows about evolution of languages will know how to make out as to which land is that language native to.
The earlies of sanskrit had its vocabulary derived from Tamil Language exclusively. Dronam is POT in tamil. Rishi Bhardwaj while bathing in River Saraswati, saw a very beautiful women and ejaculated. He collected his sperms and put them in a Dronam from which was born Dronacharya. Drona in Tamil means a person of Dronam or a person born from a Pot. Can you show me one language which was thrust upon the natives by invaders and acquired majority of its words from the language of native people so much so that it even acquired the gramer from that native language? Let us take a case of Persian and Arabic languages which arrived in India in 11th century. Those languages acquired a few words from local languages but retained their originality. English came around 17th century, they too acquired a few words from Indian native languages but retained their original form. how is it that only in case of Sanskrit, the language has defied all these linguistic rules?
Another point, the distortion of a language occurs as it moves further away from its origin to newer territories. How is it that Tamil and other so called Dravidian Languages are so close to sanskrit while we find a distortion sanskrit developing into languages of central asia, Russia and nation like Latvia, estonia etc. Infact the last two states even follow rituals like that of vedic Indians.
The relations between Europe and India were always thru Arabs. Our numerals travelled to Europe thru Arabs and came to be known as Arabic numerals. After the fall of Constantinople to Muslims, Vasco-da-gama was forced to find a sea route to India which resulted in direct contact between Europeans and Indians. The Europeans were shocked to see the depth of our knowledge and in order to maintain their self professed superiority, they decided to call Indians of Central asian descent. If you want to call light skinned Indians as Aryans and dark skinned as Dravidian, then how do you explain the very fair Palghat Brahmins or majority of south Indian Brahmins or Menons of Kerala who too are fair skinned. Infact the ratio of dark skinned and fair skinned people across India is nearly a constant.
Marathas in Balochistan are a very recent migration after third battle of panipat. But majority of them are like rest of Indian population, a mix of Indian, Afghan and Iranian mix.

Not an expert on languages. Have read with interest debates on linguistic lines earlier but I think to get a for and against perspective with a degree of credibility we can wait for @bonobashi to return and slug it out with @ManavantraTruti

All I do know is that ancient Avestan and Sanskrit are very similar. And that many of the original Vedic rituals (even the incantations) are very similar to Zoroastrianism.

So there is definitely a link.

On the genotype bit, the AIT has officially debunked the OIT recently based on new genetic revelations. So its obvious who came from whom.

On the phenotype bit, the fact that you have fair skinned south Indians means little. You just explained it in an earlier post. We were having a debate about some Parsis clustering closer to the Indian population, even looking more like them, in about a 1000 years. In spite of strict rules of NO INTER-BREEDING.

What do you think would happen to an indigenous population when it comes into contact with another influx of foreign genes 5000 years ago. With assimilation of spirituality and theology and language. And inter breeding over 5000 years?

In spite of that, it is patently obvious that the Indian population, or Hindu civilization, is a coming together of two different racial arms. Only a blind person would not recognize that. And there is NOTHING RACIST in that. ONLY POLITICAL!!!!!

The ONLY thing that prevents even the closer-to-Vedic Hindus from accepting that (regardless of their private prejudices and sense of cultural superiority evidenced in north Indian attitudes towards the south, clearly seen increasingly by the BJP dispensation) is the revisionism rampant in Hindutva, bogged down as it is by a sense of insecurity of a thousand years of foreign rule, and finally having their "break-out" moment.

And the birth of this revisionist ideation is a little more than a hundred years old. And we both know where its fountainhead is.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vstol Jockey]

The ONLY thing that prevents even the closer-to-Vedic Hindus from accepting that (regardless of their private prejudices and sense of cultural superiority evidenced in north Indian attitudes towards the south, clearly seen increasingly by the BJP dispensation) is the revisionism rampant in Hindutva, bogged down as it is by a sense of insecurity of a thousand years of foreign rule, and finally having their "break-out" moment.

To the contrary, North is about agriculture while south is about Indian culture. The changes to North Indian population have happened in very recent past, starting from 11th century with Turkic Invaders. before that we were one single people. To say that the separation between North Indians and South Indians is from the days of Harappa will be most stupid, foolish and grossly wrong.
Indian population is home to both streams of Out of Africa movements of modern man. The first was when we had part of India breaking away from Africa and floating in Indian Ocean to finally strike the Asian Plate to become part of Asia. The other was from Horn of Africa and second via Arabian peninsula. Part of south Indian population is a mix of those earliest Africans which were in India known as Jambu dvip in our ancient texts and those who came in second wave via land route out of Africa. I hope you know about the tribal of Andamans, they are more original than many African tribes.
If you do not wish to believe in Out of Africa theory than you have to provide an alternate theory to suggest that Africa had black men and another lot of men existed in Central asia at the same time who were white complexioned, but once again this theory fails as medical science has proven that white men are actually black men.

 

[vsdoc]

To the contrary, North is about agriculture while south is about Indian culture. The changes to North Indian population have happened in very recent past, starting from 11th century with Turkic Invaders. before that we were one single people. To say that the separation between North Indians and South Indians is from the days of Harappa will be most stupid, foolish and grossly wrong.

Sorry but that's nonsense.

There are distinct north Indian empires, and south Indian empires, and regional kingdoms one degree removed, with SOME epochal outliers from the NORTH that happen to extend to a significant degree to the south.

This is not only political but cultural and linguistic as well. The larger outliers like the Guptas and Ashoka being mainly political aggregation via conuest. NOT ETHNIC/GENETIC.

Remember that the Hindu civilization was born and grew along its rivers and fertile river basins. The folk in the jungle just systematically got pushed deeper in.

I am sure (at least I HOPE) that you are not implying that the north Indian population became different in genetics and looks BECAUSE of the Perso-Turk invasions and/or TEMPORALLY linked to the same?

Sounds almost Muslim/Pakistani.

That would REALLY boggle my mind and I'd consider doing an instant hands-up ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[vstol Jockey]

I am sure (at least I HOPE) that you are not implying that the north Indian population became different in genetics and looks BECAUSE of the Perso-Turk invasions and/or TEMPORALLY linked to the same?

Not at all. I have always maintained that population south of Hindu Kush was one single group of people and very clearly stated that whatever little change one may talk about between North and south Indian population is a very recent phenomenon.

 

[vsdoc]

Not at all. I have always maintained that population south of Hindu Kush was one single group of people and very clearly stated that whatever little change one may talk about between North and south Indian population is a very recent phenomenon.

So you are essentially saying there are dark aboriginal Indians from the time India broke off as a land mass and drifted and hit the Asian continental shelf.

Then there are other less dark Indians with different phenotypical features that walked to India from the African - Arabian land bridge.

Via Persia and Central Asia. Not stopping there. Leaving that place a vacuum till millennia later.

When the dark Indians started magically becoming fair and developing different facial features as they moved towards the north.

Then they reached the Indus (Saraswati if you must ....) and developed the IVC.

Then they all died. Along with the civilization. With zero vestiges left in their parent land and population further south.

Then they (the parent population further south) burst out with a population boom, and a mutation which made them even fairer and now completely different facially and then they crossed the Hindu Kush - from the fertile land they had originally moved to from AFRICA, having left/bypassed the harsher regions of Arabia, Persia and Central Asia behind - to go BACK to those regions and colonise them. ZERO darkness there.

Leapfrogging over the now dead IVC as if it never existed.

Magically dumbed down civilizationally when they equally magically became whiter prior to the frogleap.

And from there (Persia - with zero Dravidian/Tamil words or influence, loan or otherwise) moved further, now developing blue eyes and blond hair, to colonise eventually parts of Eastern and Central Europe and Scandinavia. Again, ZERO-er darkness.

Where they practiced Hindu animistic and pagan rituals with fire. Not Zoroastrian ones.

While forgetting the same on the mother land over time (Kali Yuga).

So no fire in Europe. Less fire in India.

Full fire right in the middle in first bypassed (now colonised) Persia.

Cool.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vstol Jockey]

@vsdoc, It is pointless arguing with you now. You are posting things which you yourself do not believe. Did I say that Iran and arabia had vaccum? These out of Africa people settled along the rivers and some moved on as the population grew. It was this coupled with the hunter gatherer nature of ancient man that they crossed over to Australia via India and Southeast asia and via china and baring strait to USA. People in India created cities and a culture based on agriculture superior to others.

 

[vsdoc]

@vsdoc, It is pointless arguing with you now. You are posting things which you yourself do not believe. Did I say that Iran and arabia had vaccum? These out of Africa people settled along the rivers and some moved on as the population grew. It was this coupled with the hunter gatherer nature of ancient man that they crossed over to Australia via India and Southeast asia and via china and baring strait to USA. People in India created cities and a culture based on agriculture superior to others.

See this is where Vedic logic trumps accepted fact.

Hunter-gatherer stage comes BEFORE agricultural settlement.

You do not settle down on a fertile alluvial plain and revert to becoming hunter-gather again.

Not unless someone pushes you out. And you are running for your life.

You do not move from fertile cultivation to mountain and desert regions. You do the opposite.

That has been the history of mankind.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Notsuperstitious]

This is like playing chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

 

[ManavantraTruti]

You are an intelligent guy.

You would look at this post dispassionately and see how your argument has gotten hugely watered down and the goalposts shifted to remain in the game.

Quibbling ....

Ship/junk capacities. The Persians were a master seafaring warrior tribe for millennia. With military campaigns for 2000 years against the Greeks and the Romans. European campaigns. By land and sea. Milion strong armies. From antiquity. And here you are quibbling about the probability of 18,000 Persians landing on the coast of Gujarat which is literally right next door????

When we are talking about an influx of Persians into India where the exact dates are not clear, ranging between 720 to 780 AD, and the advent by all our records came in waves over the next 200-300 years, with the genetic admixture PULSE or SPIKE dated scientifically to around 1050-1060 AD.

But you want to quibble on 5 ships or 7. 200 families or 500. 18,000 or more or less ...

Now you are saying "mostly men" where first it was "only men" - but your original claim of the Qissa claiming that has been discarded uietly after it was refuted by my earlier post.

Now you are talking about "families" - unless the definition of "families" is different for you and me, or has changed in the past 1000 to 1200 years, a family is man, woman, children, and the aged.

But you want to once again deflect from your exposure by quibbling about NUMBER of families, when ALL accounts, Qissa, as well as later Translations (Modi, Hodivala) as well as European traveler accounts point to about 500 families, 18,000 people.

Not to mention that Jadi Rana was probably an androgynous cross-dresser if he actually laid down a condition that the settlers show adopt the traditional garb of Indian WOMEN - to shiploads of 18,000 MEN.

The continued reference, now goalpost-shifted to "normal" Parsis from their Dokhma. I have told you the reality. Yet if you scour the links of the two studies I have mentioned (one of which happens to be the plinth of your argument) there is NO allusion to such. Hence it is your assertion and your assumption. But the facts are different. And for reasons as mentioned before which have nothing to do with science ....

Do you even know that the bodies of Khandyas are kept differently to other Parsis? Your ignorance is monumental but I am game to try and rectify it to the levels achievable in a normal internet discourse.

Parsis number around 150,000 worldwide today. The majority now residing in the north American continent. India is at second place and will probably soon be overtaken by the UK and the EU.

Our numbers today are also not our peak, but a waning nadir. Like most developed western populations that are declining. Only we got there much earlier because we were there first, we started with a much smaller base, and our strict rules of bloodlines and conversion.

I could go on?

Do you really want to continue? I am bored now.

I am arguing with two Hindus who I consider my cousins. And jumped in only because a pure bred Parsi was called a Muslim.

And the in-breeding snidey - which I never once denied for us Parsis right from the first post. Only pointed to the Hindu one in response to the Muslim.

Cheers, Doc

1. Which goal post have I moved ? My exact quote was "majority of parsis who came in 5 ships were MEN"

It is you who is building up a stawman defense, by first building up a strawman that I claimed "all who came were men", and then knocking down that stawman and claiming a victory.

My later post show that as per the genetic sampling, this theory is confirmed.

It is you who is claiming that the sample size was taken only from khandala's when there is no evidence of any such thing. If this was the case, the study would have been discredited by the community itself and someone would have protested. There is no record of any such objection.


2. The earliest European who commented on the parsis was John Jourdain (1572-1619) who was with the east India company. So to quote europeans quotes as evidence of the number of parsis who came in early is disingenuous. Much like you counter claim to the gentic evidence.


3. I also looked up the distribution of parsis globally and THIS is what I got,

India has the largest population with 69000 (old census)

Iran has the Second largest population with 25,000

US has Third largest population with 11,000

UK has 4,100

Australia has 2,700.

So you can see that the numbers still do not add up. Nor does your claim that UK and US will overtake India in parsi population.


4. You keep claiming "bloodline" but every evidence show that there is no such pure bloodline and your diversity from the Iranian stock is quite substantial.

 

[ManavantraTruti]

Not an expert on languages. Have read with interest debates on linguistic lines earlier but I think to get a for and against perspective with a degree of credibility we can wait for @bonobashi to return and slug it out with @ManavantraTruti

All I do know is that ancient Avestan and Sanskrit are very similar. And that many of the original Vedic rituals (even the incantations) are very similar to Zoroastrianism.

So there is definitely a link.

On the genotype bit, the AIT has officially debunked the OIT recently based on new genetic revelations. So its obvious who came from whom.

On the phenotype bit, the fact that you have fair skinned south Indians means little. You just explained it in an earlier post. We were having a debate about some Parsis clustering closer to the Indian population, even looking more like them, in about a 1000 years. In spite of strict rules of NO INTER-BREEDING.

What do you think would happen to an indigenous population when it comes into contact with another influx of foreign genes 5000 years ago. With assimilation of spirituality and theology and language. And inter breeding over 5000 years?

In spite of that, it is patently obvious that the Indian population, or Hindu civilization, is a coming together of two different racial arms. Only a blind person would not recognize that. And there is NOTHING RACIST in that. ONLY POLITICAL!!!!!

The ONLY thing that prevents even the closer-to-Vedic Hindus from accepting that (regardless of their private prejudices and sense of cultural superiority evidenced in north Indian attitudes towards the south, clearly seen increasingly by the BJP dispensation) is the revisionism rampant in Hindutva, bogged down as it is by a sense of insecurity of a thousand years of foreign rule, and finally having their "break-out" moment.

And the birth of this revisionist ideation is a little more than a hundred years old. And we both know where its fountainhead is.

Cheers, Doc

You are confusing Hinduism with GEnetic diversity.

Hindus have Varna to dilute the effect and affect of Jathi. To put Merit and Action OVER accident of birth and class.

Varna was introduced to establish a egalitarian society. To break the strangle hold of Jaathi and establish that every man/women can aspire to be someone they CHOOSE to be.

The corruption of Varna to "caste" was an aberration that was introduced into the society due to the damage done to the existing social and cultural fabric by the repeated invasion of this land.

When institutions that uphold these values are destroyed, its only the inertia of the society and culture that sustains them and then corruption is inevitable.

Do not mistake this corrupted form of "Caste" to be "Hindu" in origin. Its the reminisce of the Hindu way of life.