What's new

I suppose this makes it definitive....

For what it's worth, @Kaptaan, the author mentions that the genetic analysis of the population is not complete. It is impressive evidence on one point of great interest to us: the possibility that the Indo-Aryan language was brought into south Asia by individuals, families, groups, perhaps even entire tribes of migrants from the region of the settlement of the Indo-Iranians. It has nothing to do with any sharp genetic divergence between the residents of present-day Pakistan and north India or west India; if you argue that present-day Pakistanis are genetically quite distant from south Indians and east Indians, you might be closer to the truth. A good point at which to start is to recall that there is no sharp gap that suddenly occurs in the genetic make-up of people living from 10 miles to the west of the Radcliffe Line to 10 miles to the east.

The point of the article is very simple; primitive OOI groupies like my friend @Srinivas (and many, many more) are left disarmed by precise, concrete scientific evidence that blows a hole through their fond theories of the greater part of human civilisation having originated within India, and was carried out to the rest of the world by prototypical Brahmins and Kshatriyas: a 'theory' so feckless and without foundation that it silenced the academic community by its brazen refusal to be bound by the normally prevailing rules of producing evidence.

Having said that, it is equally important to understand what the article does not say. The existing masses at the time of these widely spread 'migrations' were not wiped not; genetically speaking, they remained the majority. There is other evidence to believe that they were dominated, their divinities were co-opted, their culture was attacked and supplanted (a process that continues to this day), and they were placed socially at a disadvantage that was cast in concrete by a period roughly two thousand to two thousand five hundred years from the time that the migrants seem to have come into the sub-continent (going by the genetic evidence).

The article does not denigrate the contributions made by those earlier migrants; indeed, it holds up for mention those who trickled in around 35,000 years ago, out of Africa, and we know that there were those who migrated slightly later and contributed enormously to the genetic inventory, especially in west India, including what is today Pakistan. The point that those in the west were closer, genetically (and presumably better, laughable though that construct may seem), to the very diverse peoples of the Near East and the Middle East is astonishing, to say the least; how close are the Anatolians, the Turks, the Arabs and the Iranians to each other? Forget about 'western' Indians, they are not even a homogeneous group by themselves.

An argument that Pakistanis are closer to other non-Indians than they are to Indians necessarily depends on clubbing together the east and the south with the north and the west, with which the population of present-day Pakistan has a great difference. It starts creaking at the joints the moment one examines the population of Pakistan in juxtaposition to their immediate neighbours to the east. Leaving aside the Baluch and the Pashtun, there is in fact little or no difference between the Punjabi and the Sindhi and their immediate neighbours to the east. When we remember that besides the migration of the Aryan speakers that this article addresses, there were other, possibly larger migrations, in the Scythian-Pahlavi ones, closely followed by the Kushan migration, and that these are closely linked to the people of Gujarat and Sindh on the one hand and to the Pashtun on the other. Are we to believe that migrations, of any time or of any kind, had an absolutely unique impact on the dwellers of the present-day Pakistan, and absolutely no impact on the Gujaratis and the Rajputs?

Not even 0.1 % of indians resemble Europeans in India and Pakistan is a different case.

DNA evidence is inconclusive. Aryavartha is in India just like Iran(Land of Aryans) is in Iran. There is no european connection as suggested by the study.

There are cultural exchanges between India and Iran in the past.

Pakistan is a different case particularly the west of Indus region which is always under invasions or at the centre of trade routes. So there is lot of diversity in their genes which they got from Afghans, C.Asians, Greeks, Iranians, Indians, etc..etc...

Sampling a region which is at the cross roads of the famous trade routes and prone to invasions thereby propagating a theory(they called it a theory because there are no concrete facts to prove this) is not apt.

Indologists believe that there is a time when Aryans dominated the globe by spreading their culture to Caucasus, C.Asia, Russia and Germanic areas. This might be because of the migrants from India who went out side to spread their culture. Not the opposite because all the literature is pointing to India. RigVeda do not mention Europe or Iran.

OOI has concrete evidence in the form of Vedas and Epics that were written thousands of Years ago. There is not a single recorded history or event in Europe or anywhere else which tells about Aryan migration to India, Nor The puranas which is a recorded history of rulers and dynasties (which goes to 100's of generations, they may have some exaggerations) do not mention Aryan migration or invasion.

DNA sampling can point to traders, small scale invasion of Indus regions and small migrations. There is no literature of sanskrit or its mother language in caucuses which debunks this theory. Civilization traces can be found based on
1)Historical records
2) Literature
3) Artifacts
4) culture

There is not even a trace of the above 4 in entire world except India and to some extent Iran because of interactions between the two civilizations. Aryan invasion/migration is a myth.

small scale migration of european tribes, C.Asians and Persians through invasions , trade or migrations is the truth.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, @Kaptaan, the author mentions that the genetic analysis of the population is not complete. It is impressive evidence on one point of great interest to us: the possibility that the Indo-Aryan language was brought into south Asia by individuals, families, groups, perhaps even entire tribes of migrants from the region of the settlement of the Indo-Iranians. It has nothing to do with any sharp genetic divergence between the residents of present-day Pakistan and north India or west India; if you argue that present-day Pakistanis are genetically quite distant from south Indians and east Indians, you might be closer to the truth. A good point at which to start is to recall that there is no sharp gap that suddenly occurs in the genetic make-up of people living from 10 miles to the west of the Radcliffe Line to 10 miles to the east.

The point of the article is very simple; primitive OOI groupies like my friend @Srinivas (and many, many more) are left disarmed by precise, concrete scientific evidence that blows a hole through their fond theories of the greater part of human civilisation having originated within India, and was carried out to the rest of the world by prototypical Brahmins and Kshatriyas: a 'theory' so feckless and without foundation that it silenced the academic community by its brazen refusal to be bound by the normally prevailing rules of producing evidence.

Having said that, it is equally important to understand what the article does not say. The existing masses at the time of these widely spread 'migrations' were not wiped not; genetically speaking, they remained the majority. There is other evidence to believe that they were dominated, their divinities were co-opted, their culture was attacked and supplanted (a process that continues to this day), and they were placed socially at a disadvantage that was cast in concrete by a period roughly two thousand to two thousand five hundred years from the time that the migrants seem to have come into the sub-continent (going by the genetic evidence).

The article does not denigrate the contributions made by those earlier migrants; indeed, it holds up for mention those who trickled in around 35,000 years ago, out of Africa, and we know that there were those who migrated slightly later and contributed enormously to the genetic inventory, especially in west India, including what is today Pakistan. The point that those in the west were closer, genetically (and presumably better, laughable though that construct may seem), to the very diverse peoples of the Near East and the Middle East is astonishing, to say the least; how close are the Anatolians, the Turks, the Arabs and the Iranians to each other? Forget about 'western' Indians, they are not even a homogeneous group by themselves.

An argument that Pakistanis are closer to other non-Indians than they are to Indians necessarily depends on clubbing together the east and the south with the north and the west, with which the population of present-day Pakistan has a great difference. It starts creaking at the joints the moment one examines the population of Pakistan in juxtaposition to their immediate neighbours to the east. Leaving aside the Baluch and the Pashtun, there is in fact little or no difference between the Punjabi and the Sindhi and their immediate neighbours to the east. When we remember that besides the migration of the Aryan speakers that this article addresses, there were other, possibly larger migrations, in the Scythian-Pahlavi ones, closely followed by the Kushan migration, and that these are closely linked to the people of Gujarat and Sindh on the one hand and to the Pashtun on the other. Are we to believe that migrations, of any time or of any kind, had an absolutely unique impact on the dwellers of the present-day Pakistan, and absolutely no impact on the Gujaratis and the Rajputs?

There is gradual variation in the genetic stock as we move from one region to another. I am sure Pakistani Punjabis are quite different from Indian Tamils. They are same as Indian Punjabis. Their differences with Indian Marathis are marginal.
 
The important point for me -

So the IVC guys did not flee or get mass butchered?

But if they stayed on, even as slaves or vassals, what happened to the advanced for that time civilization?

Buildings. Granaries. Baths. Council halls. Roads. Drainage sewers.

Suddenly disappeared?

Why?

Indo Iranians did not favor good drainage and town planning? Stop cultivating grain and moved primarily to meat? Moved into mud and grass huts?

Cheers, Doc

Good point. And one that was brought up by a brigadier who discovered the Joys of Ex; umm, that would be excavation, before we wonder how Alex Comfort came into this.

There is likely to have been little or no communication between the IVC as such and the migrants. Let's take a look at what we do know, and then at what we do not know.

Archaeological evidence, potsherds, for instance, seems to indicate that as the water problem intensified in the great cities (and the little towns), civic administration slowed, wobbled and finally broke down through a period down to, at the latest, 1300 BC - it may have been earlier, but this is the last possible date. The citizens began encroaching on the streets, and on the public facilities. Incidentally, these were not monolithic masses; they were layered, like so many unlikely cakes, six or seven distinctive layers, one on top of the other. People drifted away from the main city; settlements have been found at increasing distances from the known civic focal points. Nobody fled, judging by the material remains; individuals, and families, and good neighbours just got fed up of coping with increasingly inefficient civic services and went off to the nearest town or village.

It seems that one route of departure was towards the east; there is a trail of evidence showing movement towards the east, towards the Ganges. But that is not the point. The point is that the inhabitants packed up and left.
 
But IT IS different. You are simply parroting the indian narrative that is provably false. indians also claim that Pakistanis have the same heritage as modern day indians but the scientific and anthropological evidence has completely dismissed these claims. Yes we do have a non-Muslim heritage but that goes back to the ancestors of the region that is modern day Pakistan. It is completely different to that of modern day indians. Where is the evidence that Pakistanis and modern day indians have the same heritage because the genuine proof doesn't suggest that.
Which scientific evidence completely dismiss the claims of Indian and Pakistanis sharing the same ancestry?
There will be decedents of those who invaded looted and raped the locals but they doesn't constitutes the whole population of Pakistan.
Your had Muslims from inner part of modern day India moving to east and west during partition so your non-Muslim heritage cannot just be of the ancestors of that region.
 
Which scientific evidence completely dismiss the claims of Indian and Pakistanis sharing the same ancestry?
There will be decedents of those who invaded looted and raped the locals but they doesn't constitutes the whole population of Pakistan.
Your had Muslims from inner part of modern day India moving to east and west during partition so your non-Muslim heritage cannot just be of the ancestors of that region.


But how significant were thise migrations from inner india? Judging by the physical appearance of most Pakistanis I would think not much. If there is evidence to suggest otherwise please share it because I can't find any. This goes back to the OP wherby there is clear evidence of the huge migrations from the West of Pakistan into what is now modern day Pakistan. This tallies up with the physical appearance of modern day Pakistanis.
 
There is gradual variation in the genetic stock as we move from one region to another. I am sure Pakistani Punjabis are quite different from Indian Tamils. They are same as Indian Punjabis. Their differences with Indian Marathis are marginal.

Indians have a very skewed perception of Pakistani Punjab.
 
Which scientific evidence completely dismiss the claims of Indian and Pakistanis sharing the same ancestry?
There will be decedents of those who invaded looted and raped the locals but they doesn't constitutes the whole population of Pakistan.
Your had Muslims from inner part of modern day India moving to east and west during partition so your non-Muslim heritage cannot just be of the ancestors of that region.

Short answer: none. There is nothing in the cited evidence from the article to suggest even remotely a differentiated ancestry of Indians and Pakistanis; there cannot have been any such suggestion, as the evidence gathered merely points to an influx of males around 2000-2500 BC, around the time that Indo-Aryan came to India. That is all there is to it.

There are people with the genetic marker in question, R1a1, in the deep south of India as well, but in lesser percentages of the population than is found in northern India and in Pakistan.

Coming to the differences between people living in the geographical band between Baluchistan and Assam, extending down to the Vindhyas, more or less Pakistan and northern India, it is reasonable to suppose, as @Kaptaan did, that the penetration of male migrants, in other words, their occurrence as a percentage of the existing population today, shaded off from west to east. However, there is nothing in the study to say so, and what we suppose is exactly that - our own supposition of facts not present in the study. You have also correctly pointed out that there is a large proportion, the Muhajir population in its entirety, in fact, that are formed of the shaded off migrants from upper India; Kaptaan's deep concentration of migrants must inevitably have been diluted. Furthermore, the genetic difference between the Baluch and the Pashtun and the rest of the sub-continent is clear and unmistakable; therefore, the concentration of this genetic marker would have been in the remaining population, the population of Punjab and Sind. This population as the repository of the marker would have been considerably affected by the migration during Partition.

I may be wrong and Kaptaan may be right if it turns out that the marker is present in greater proportion in those parts of the population, the Baluch and Pashtun parts.

Most important, the marker is present in a number that is a small minority in the population, wherever measurements were taken; the majority were from a pre-existing genetic stock. The vast bulk of the sub-continental population was formed of descendants of the migrants from Africa, from 35,000 BC; there may have been sub-sets who migrated subsequently, but their markers are not clear; there is nothing on the lines of the R1a1 marker, a clear evidence of a definite migration and one that overlays the original stock in a small proportion of the population.
 

I will (for the time being) agree with the conclusion given at the end, it makes it more convenient to accept that all this may have happened peacefully ......

"What is abundantly clear is that we are a multi-source civilization, not a single-source one, drawing its cultural impulses, its tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. The Out of Africa immigrants, the pioneering, fearless explorers who discovered this land originally and settled in it and whose lineages still form the bedrock of our population; those who arrived later with a package of farming techniques and built the Indus Valley civilization whose cultural ideas and practices perhaps enrich much of our traditions today; those who arrived from East Asia, probably bringing with them the practice of rice cultivation and all that goes with it; those who came later with a language called Sanskrit and its associated beliefs and practices and reshaped our society in fundamental ways; and those who came even later for trade or for conquest and chose to stay, all have mingled and contributed to this civilization we call Indian. We are all migrants."

Starting from this point onward you will have to bear with my ignorance sir ..........

The migration(s) / adventure being male extensive (mentioned at start of article) leaves me with some confusing questions (may be its mainly because of my ignorance of this region's history as so much mythical confusion for me never allowed me to develop an interest to acquaint myself properly)

  • If it were male extensive, then it cannot be assumed as an attempt at migration only, these male scouts / parties may have been sent to discover new habitable areas or to bring slaves back home? But somehow they stayed .......???? Nothing much given on reasons for their migrating from their lands and arrival in this land? Adventure? Or genuine problems back at homeland?
  • The natives were either too weak without any defenses or were too much hospitable and affectionate liberal people that they didn't mind spread of this Y chromosome ......... or were they simply obliterated and own women were brought in? But MtDNA study and diversity rejects my latter assumption.
  • Does this have any relevance to recent statements coming out like "how to make super babies with fair skin"? ....... I have observed the current indian governing party does have an addiction to alter history, demolish the structures, change the names, change the text books etc etc. ......
 
I will (for the time being) agree with the conclusion given at the end, it makes it more convenient to accept that all this may have happened peacefully ......

"What is abundantly clear is that we are a multi-source civilization, not a single-source one, drawing its cultural impulses, its tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. The Out of Africa immigrants, the pioneering, fearless explorers who discovered this land originally and settled in it and whose lineages still form the bedrock of our population; those who arrived later with a package of farming techniques and built the Indus Valley civilization whose cultural ideas and practices perhaps enrich much of our traditions today; those who arrived from East Asia, probably bringing with them the practice of rice cultivation and all that goes with it; those who came later with a language called Sanskrit and its associated beliefs and practices and reshaped our society in fundamental ways; and those who came even later for trade or for conquest and chose to stay, all have mingled and contributed to this civilization we call Indian. We are all migrants."

Starting from this point onward you will have to bear with my ignorance sir ..........

The migration(s) / adventure being male extensive (mentioned at start of article) leaves me with some confusing questions (may be its mainly because of my ignorance of this region's history as so much mythical confusion for me never allowed me to develop an interest to acquaint myself properly)

  • If it were male extensive, then it cannot be assumed as an attempt at migration only, these male scouts / parties may have been sent to discover new habitable areas or to bring slaves back home? But somehow they stayed .......???? Nothing much given on reasons for their migrating from their lands and arrival in this land? Adventure? Or genuine problems back at homeland?
  • The natives were either too weak without any defenses or were too much hospitable and affectionate liberal people that they didn't mind spread of this Y chromosome ......... or were they simply obliterated and own women were brought in? But MtDNA study and diversity rejects my latter assumption.
  • Does this have any relevance to recent statements coming out like "how to make super babies with fair skin"? ....... I have observed the current indian governing party does have an addiction to alter history, demolish the structures, change the names, change the text books etc etc. ......

Thank you for your good-humoured banter; it is such a change from the heavy doses of pedantry that one is inured to, by now.
  • Taking things in reverse, I suspect that the current Indian governing party will be furious to read these findings; if you take a quick, dutiful look at the anguish pouring out of our dear Srinivas, you will get a precis of the feelings that might be inflamed in saffron breasts. This study reverts to the speculation of the original European scholars, though with a radical modification of the gross racism displayed by some of those, and presents once again the thought that the Indo-Aryan language (later known as Sanskrit) was brought in by migrants, and was part of a world-wide family of languages known as the Indo-European. It has nothing to say about skin colour, or hair colour, and the blue-eyed, blonde-haired stereotypes may safely be consigned to the dustbin of history. We are already aware, and more than half-convinced, that the inhabitants of the steppes around the Caspian, the Scythians, as they were known a millennium and a half later, were multi-ethnic though possibly mono-lingual, speaking a variety of eastern Iranian. The only remaining fragment of this Caucasian fantasy is, literally, in the remains of the Tarim basin, in the mummified corpses of a people who may be the Tocharians, speaking an Indo-European language akin to those of Armenia (Armenian), Greece (Greek, replacing Pelasgian), Italy (Latin, competing with Etruscan), Scandinavia (the Germanic languages) and much of Europe (Celtic, in all its prolific variations). There we have the blonde, fair stereotypical Caucasians, but as @Narcissist will tell us, none of this is founded on solid fact. So, in sum, no blue-eyed, blonde-haired, fair babies.
  • For your second point, these migrants projected themselves as all-prevailing conquerors. That is a piece of historical self-glorification with which we are all familiar. Taking the Anglo-Saxon case, their invasion and control of the Britannic Islands other than Ireland, as an example, the outsiders constituted less than 10% of the population, but they were dominant over the Celts, even though the Celts had shown the Romans that they were no mean fighters. These Anglo-Saxons came as largely male hordes, and they married within the native population; later, they themselves were defeated and conquered by their latter-day Nordic kin, the Normans, who also came across largely as a male force of occupation, and married locally. In the sub-continental case, we may assume that the language and the culture, and the pioneering vigour of the new-comers brought them to dominating positions in society and may have led to local society accepting them as husband and son-in-law material as a practical reality. It is not necessary that there was much gladness about this intermarriage; from other examples - the Romans and the Sabine women - we are aware that there was a great deal of acceptance of an originally brutal fact of dominance by the new-comers. The study hints strongly that it was a largely male incursion, as you have rightly interpreted it.
  • For your first point, may I bring to your notice the religious schism among the Indo-Iranians? United until they came into the Iranian borders, they split (around this time) into worshippers of Ahura Mazda and revilers of the Daiva, and their staunchly opposed worshippers of the Devas and revilers of the Asura (you already know that the linguistic distinction between Iranian and Indo-Aryan was for one point based on the Iranians pronouncing a sound 'h' which their cousins pronounced 's', so, Hindu to Sindhu, and so on). There is some reason to believe that the losers in this quarrel migrated. As migrants do, the young males migrated; the women and older males may have stayed behind. But this is all idle speculation. All that we do know is that a split occurred, of fundamental proportions among the Indo-Iranians, and that the faction that came into the sub-continent had theological views diametrically the opposite of their kin. This, in a grouping where the sacred works of the one could be read with facility in modern times only by those with a working knowledge of the language of the other, and vice versa. They were so close, these two factions, that the Avesta can be understood by a scholar of Indo-Aryan (the original Vedic language, before Panini's regimentation of the language into 'Sanskrit', the polished tongue), and the Rig Veda, in particular, is totally comprehensible only to those with a knowledge of the liturgical variant of Iranian in which the Avesta is rendered.
I realise that you had your tongue in your cheek, but I have replied taking them at face value, while at the same time appreciating the sly wit of your queries. More, please.
 
Thank you sir .......... by God I am seriously trying to learn something new here :D

Taking things in reverse, I suspect that the current Indian governing party will be furious to read these findings; if you take a quick, dutiful look at the anguish pouring out of our dear Srinivas, you will get a precis of the feelings that might be inflamed in saffron breasts. This study reverts to the speculation of the original European scholars, though with a radical modification of the gross racism displayed by some of those, and presents once again the thought that the Indo-Aryan language (later known as Sanskrit) was brought in by migrants, and was part of a world-wide family of languages known as the Indo-European. It has nothing to say about skin colour, or hair colour, and the blue-eyed, blonde-haired stereotypes may safely be consigned to the dustbin of history. We are already aware, and more than half-convinced, that the inhabitants of the steppes around the Caspian, the Scythians, as they were known a millennium and a half later, were multi-ethnic though possibly mono-lingual, speaking a variety of eastern Iranian. The only remaining fragment of this Caucasian fantasy is, literally, in the remains of the Tarim basin, in the mummified corpses of a people who may be the Tocharians, speaking an Indo-European language akin to those of Armenia (Armenian), Greece (Greek, replacing Pelasgian), Italy (Latin, competing with Etruscan), Scandinavia (the Germanic languages) and much of Europe (Celtic, in all its prolific variations). There we have the blonde, fair stereotypical Caucasians, but as @Narcissist will tell us, none of this is founded on solid fact. So, in sum, no blue-eyed, blonde-haired, fair babies.

I had asked a couple of times my dear friend @padamchen if ever people of sub continent had ventured out of this region ............ looking to expand their territorial boundaries or projecting their influence beyond their own lands. Seems like this region has been receiving people only and never got the opportunity be invading permanent guests sometimes for a change.

But there is one confusion though, the difference in architecture, and design ......... may be I am mistaken, but if people migrated from outside then why there is no resemblance in architecture? Was it that native people had impressed them with their own designs and skills?

I will drop the question about fair skin ...... its a recent obsession I guess post cinema and media ..... may be.


Taking the Anglo-Saxon case, their invasion and control of the Britannic Islands other than Ireland, as an example, the outsiders constituted less than 10% of the population, but they were dominant over the Celts, even though the Celts had shown the Romans that they were no mean fighters. These Anglo-Saxons came as largely male hordes, and they married within the native population;

Sir is there a resemblance between this and East India Company? The only difference being this time the invaders were only after the resources (may be) and the local people weren't that much interested in exchanging Chromosomes? As usual like centuries ago no large full scale resistance offered ................ our mentality may have remained ancient? never to resist the invaders? Will I be right in assuming this as a ever existing weakness / inferiority complex that helped all the invaders, migrants and explorers?

For your first point, may I bring to your notice the religious schism among the Indo-Iranians? United until they came into the Iranian borders, they split (around this time) into worshippers of Ahura Mazda and revilers of the Daiva, and their staunchly opposed worshippers of the Devas and revilers of the Asura (you already know that the linguistic distinction between Iranian and Indo-Aryan was for one point based on the Iranians pronouncing a sound 'h' which their cousins pronounced 's', so, Hindu to Sindhu, and so on). There is some reason to believe that the losers in this quarrel migrated. As migrants do, the young males migrated; the women and older males may have stayed behind. But this is all idle speculation. All that we do know is that a split occurred, of fundamental proportions among the Indo-Iranians, and that the faction that came into the sub-continent had theological views diametrically the opposite of their kin. This, in a grouping where the sacred works of the one could be read with facility in modern times only by those with a working knowledge of the language of the other, and vice versa. They were so close, these two factions, that the Avesta can be understood by a scholar of Indo-Aryan (the original Vedic language, before Panini's regimentation of the language into 'Sanskrit', the polished tongue), and the Rig Veda, in particular, is totally comprehensible only to those with a knowledge of the liturgical variant of Iranian in which the Avesta is rendered.

Sir is there any mention this split in Persian history? Considering how Persians have been welcomed in subcontinent and how they feel like it being their second home .......... there is a connection. However, people who worshiped Ahura Mazda have a rich history, architecture and were an empire. The losers didn't try initiating the quarrel again, once they had found their new home and support ........ ? Sir I have no intent of offending anyone but one thing is common ....... natives have proven weak ............ they accepted losers beliefs.
 
Sir is there a resemblance between this and East India Company? The only difference being this time the invaders were only after the resources (may be) and the local people weren't that much interested in exchanging Chromosomes? As usual like centuries ago no large full scale resistance offered ................ our mentality may have remained ancient? never to resist the invaders? Will I be right in assuming this as a ever existing weakness / inferiority complex that helped all the invaders, migrants and explorers?

Go to the Buddhist thread I started and read the neela lal highlighted paper I posted about the role the Brahmin upper caste played (with their Rajput sword arms) especially with regard to the Islamic invasions.

There were few bloody wars of resistance. The Muslim invaders literally walked in and stayed behind.

Ruling at the center and political dominion, enforced by the sword.

While the Brahmin clergy controlled the grassroot society as they had for centuries.

Cozy symbiosis. Some would even call it collaboration.

Cheers, Doc
 
Go to the Buddhist thread I started and read the neela lal highlighted paper I posted about the role the Brahmin upper caste played (with their Rajput sword arms) especially with regard to the Islamic invasions.

There were few bloody wars of resistance. The Muslim invaders literally walked in and stayed behind.

Ruling at the center and political dominion, enforced by the sword.

While the Brahmin clergy controlled the grassroot society as they had for centuries.

Cozy symbiosis. Some would even call it collaboration.

Cheers, Doc

Help ........... link?
 
I had asked a couple of times my dear friend @padamchen if ever people of sub continent had ventured out of this region ............ looking to expand their territorial boundaries or projecting their influence beyond their own lands. Seems like this region has been receiving people only and never got the opportunity be invading permanent guests sometimes for a change.

The Mughals launched a Khorasan/Badakhstan campaign under Shah Jehan which ultimately was unsuccessful. However this was more due to the Mughal dynasty wanting to reclaim its ancestral lands than an invasion which actually served any real geopolitical or economic purpose. The subcontinent like China is too rich to be bothered about other regions. "Whatever exists there already exists here in greater abundance".
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom