When Did India Become Modern

[Guest]

And about blood, Indians are very mixed in their DNA and ancestry. And especially a group like Rajput will have various strands. I don't know if any DNA study has been done on the same, maybe that would be an interesting input.

Nope. This is another western myth to keep the aryan invasion myth alive. Indian castes are genetically homogeneous and have largely a south asian origin i.e no influx from west/central asians, sychtians/huns etc.

You can read more about it here:http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Origins_a...phical_Presence

Kartik: What has this got to do with Scythians and Huns. I was talking rather of Rajputs having Brahmin or other indigenous origins. Rathods and Parmaras are of Rashtrakuta origin and Rashtakutas had origins probably as agriculturists. What I am saying is in India lots of different far flung communities are surprisingly close to each other in DNA, lots of close communities are different in DNA. Brahmins themselves are found to be very diverse. What I'm disputing is this blood theory. You take a Rajput and raise him in Gujrati trading family or a south Indian Brahmin family and he will grow up with different characteristics. Heredity has some influence, but not so much to make an entire clan brave or coward. You are falling victim to British imperialist and racist propoganda. If Gujrati Jains or Bengalis or Tamils were put in similar socio economic and political conditions as Rajputs at the advent of Islam in India, they would have also fought in the same fierce manner to protect their independance.

No. First of all *ALL* modern historians say that rajputs are descendants of Scythians/Huns and kshatriyas are of West/Central Asian Aryan Invaders. Science has proven it otherwise. Brahmin origin is also completely incorrect.

[right][snapback]61829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please read closely. It is believed that Rathores originated from the Rashtrakutas. I think in the discussion on Shivaji, Hauma also pointed that out. Please see the following from the wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathore#Conne...he_Rashtrakutas

"Connection to the Rashtrakutas
At Hathundi, in what was formerly the princely state of Jodhpur , 10th century inscriptions have been found mentioning kings Harivarma, Vidagdha, Mammata, Dhavala and Balaprasada, all of the Rashtrakuta dynasty. This is not in fact surprising, since the Rashtrakutas held sway over Marwar in that era. However, as we have seen above, the Rathores first emerge in Rajasthan shortly after that same era; therefore, there have been some recent efforts to impute to the Rathores a connection with the Rashtrakutas. The connection is tenuous to say the least, being based mainly upon the similarily of the two names; it is dismissed by historians as being fanciful. One can only await further research into this question."

Now Rashtrakutas were feudatories of Chalukyas initially and are believed to be from Latur district. The Rashtrakuta origin itself is shrouded in mystery.

"There are several controversies about the origin of the founders of the Rashtrakuta feudatory during their rule from central India as subordinates of the Badami Chalukya during the 6th. and 7th. century. Dr. P.B. Desai[2], Dr. A.S. Altekar[3], Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar, Dr. S.U. Kamath claim the Kannada origin[4]. Dr. J. F. Fleet[5] claimed a Rajput origin while historians. Historians C. V. Vadiaya, R. G. Bhandarkar postulate a Maratha origin theory while Dr. A. C. Burnell and H. Krishna Shastri believe they were descendants of Dravidian Reddis of Andhra Desha[6]. However, the general understanding is that they originated from an area in the deccan called by various names such as Kuntala, Maharashtra and Karnata."


Also Solankis, one of the fire born clans of Rajputs are of Chalukya lineage. Chalukya origin itself has quite a few theories, I think six in number. Anyways they were a ruling class originating from Karnataka. Considering this I think it is wrong to argue that Rajputs are warriors by blood, for the ancestry of Chauhans is different from Solankis. I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans. They modeled into a warrior clan because of their location towards the frontier of India which was open to invasions. I have seen the link that you have given. Please give me clear answers as to why you believe India remained Hindu if it is not due to inherent strength of Hindu philosophy and our huge population. I take the following from your link.

"But it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha and Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas or Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population. Every month, in the 1000 year presence of Muslims in India there were bloody wars between Hindus and Muslims. This is quite unlike other countries like Iran, where non-muslims, after loosing a couple of wars gave the muslims a free hand in converting there population to Islam."

If this is what you opine ("If there were no Rajputs, Marathas,...), then let me remind you that the first successful indigenous resistence against Muslim rule was the Vijayanagara empire. They suffered some 20 years of Muslim subjugation from 1316 to 1336, but they could not even tolerate that much. And the inspiration for Vijayanagara was when sage Vidyaranya asked Harihara and Bukka to save their religion and way of life. The Hindu culture has survived because of its adherents deep attachment to the religion, which they clearly saw as different way of life than what Islam tried to propogate. And it was commonfolk of the Deccan, not any particular race which overthrew Muslims down south. Given a particular set of conditions, socio-economic or political any community can respond.