05-02-2006, 02:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2006, 02:02 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ok so no indian carries saka blood.
sakas never formed any empire in india. buddha was called saka muni just for kicks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cut the wholier than thou attitude, firstly you made it sound as if all Rajputs carried saka blood when facts are to the contrary as Yashwant's detailed post shows, Buddha was not called saka muni, he was called "Sakhya Muni" meaning an ascetic of the Sakhya clan.
Nextly even if Sakas are not completely of a different race, they had their unique features, if Jats and Rajputs have always married among themselves as they claim then they should retain those features, contrary to that they look like just any other North Indians.
People can keep on believing colonial nonsense but facts are to the contrary, we now know that many Rajput clans are indigenous.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been held by the colonial historians that at this time of Islamic invasion the inhabitants of Punjab were descended from earlier groups of foreign invadersâthe leftist historians faithfully reproduced these wild theories. The compulsions of both sets of historians have been described earlier. In the case of Punjab they claim that the region was under the rule of Indo-Greeks, the Sakas and Kushans, and finally the Huns in the 6th Century CE. From this they conclude that the poorer sections of these invaders "became" the agricultural classes while the upper section "became" Rajputs.
Now the evolution of the word Rajput and its connection with the resistance against the Islamist onslaught has already been shown previously. The theory of foreigners conveniently "becoming" an Indian community has no basis in fact, since neither the colonial nor the leftist historians bothered to back their claims with actual evidence.
To compare the invaders-becoming-Indian theory with later times we find that the centuries of Islamic invasion left behind a 20% Muslim population in India with a mere 3% claiming definite foreign origin. Moreover according to this theory the earlier invaders adopted the Indian religions and customs and did not forcibly convert Indians to their own customs or ideology; hence their numbers when compared to the Muslim population would be lower still.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/3065<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If these so called eminent historians don't produce evidence for their theories then I have no reason to believe their nonsense.
sakas never formed any empire in india. buddha was called saka muni just for kicks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cut the wholier than thou attitude, firstly you made it sound as if all Rajputs carried saka blood when facts are to the contrary as Yashwant's detailed post shows, Buddha was not called saka muni, he was called "Sakhya Muni" meaning an ascetic of the Sakhya clan.
Nextly even if Sakas are not completely of a different race, they had their unique features, if Jats and Rajputs have always married among themselves as they claim then they should retain those features, contrary to that they look like just any other North Indians.
People can keep on believing colonial nonsense but facts are to the contrary, we now know that many Rajput clans are indigenous.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been held by the colonial historians that at this time of Islamic invasion the inhabitants of Punjab were descended from earlier groups of foreign invadersâthe leftist historians faithfully reproduced these wild theories. The compulsions of both sets of historians have been described earlier. In the case of Punjab they claim that the region was under the rule of Indo-Greeks, the Sakas and Kushans, and finally the Huns in the 6th Century CE. From this they conclude that the poorer sections of these invaders "became" the agricultural classes while the upper section "became" Rajputs.
Now the evolution of the word Rajput and its connection with the resistance against the Islamist onslaught has already been shown previously. The theory of foreigners conveniently "becoming" an Indian community has no basis in fact, since neither the colonial nor the leftist historians bothered to back their claims with actual evidence.
To compare the invaders-becoming-Indian theory with later times we find that the centuries of Islamic invasion left behind a 20% Muslim population in India with a mere 3% claiming definite foreign origin. Moreover according to this theory the earlier invaders adopted the Indian religions and customs and did not forcibly convert Indians to their own customs or ideology; hence their numbers when compared to the Muslim population would be lower still.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/3065<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If these so called eminent historians don't produce evidence for their theories then I have no reason to believe their nonsense.