Dwarka- Solid proof of Lord Krishna's existence & AIT's death

Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
I did not call Kabul Sahis Punjabis but rather Hindu Sahis who were founded in 870 CE.
So, where is the reference to your claim that Hindus Shahis were originally from Bhatinda? That was my original question. How are you saying they were Punjabi?


That you do not seem to know this and think that Jaipal was from same dynasty as Khingila is your problem not mine.

Albiruni says that Turk Sahis were replaced in a coup by their Brahmin minister, however, Kalhana calls them as Kshatriyas pure and simple. I prefer Kalhana over your hero Albiruni.
HA HA HA. You need to be consistent. What you are doing is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. You are actually preferring Al beruni over kalhana

Since you claim to prefer Kalhana over my Alberuni, show me where kalhana says there were two Shahi dynasties-one Kabul shahi (Kapisi) and another Hindu Shahi (Punjabi). Nowhere does kalhana say there existed two shahi kingdoms. Kalhana puts both earlier so called 'kabul shahi' ruler Toramana(<-Iranian name) and later so called 'Hindu shahi' ruler Anandapala in the same dynasty. Kalhana does not maintain any difference or distinction between the earlier Shahis and the later Shahis or does not refer to any supplanting of the dynasty at any stage as Alberuni does in his Tarikh-al-Hind


It is actually Al Beruni who says there were two dynasties, the Turk dynasty supplanted by a Brahman dynasty of kallar in 870 CE

However, Al Beruni was clueless.There was no Brahman ruler by the name kallar in kabul. His story is mythical and contains supernatural events. It is you who is holding onto these outdated ideas and myths. There were never two shahi kingdoms it was a single shahi dynasty which was first centered in kabul/kapisa and later migrated to Punjab when pressed by Muslim invaders

I have taken your advice and looked up Andre wink. However, he supports my stance rather than yours

Andre wink says

The Hindu shahis were expelled from kabul in 870 AD and reestablished their capital at Udabhandapura(und) in an area which was called North west frontier province by the British. The shahis were now driven towards Punjab, where they ruled sometimes as far as rama-Ganga river. In Kabul/Gandhara area only lamghan remained in their Hands
The Hindu shahis,having been pushed eastwards from kabul to punjab by turks, could still reassert themselves as the greatest of kings of Hind.They were removed as a ruling power from punjab,ultimately to take shelter at the court of kashmir
Andre wink says, very clearly, that Hindu shahis belonged to kabul and entered Punjab only after they were pushed back by muslim invaders

Andre wink contradicts your claim that Shahis were originally Punjabi. When pressed by Muslim invaders in 870 CE, they simply migrated to Punjab. According to him, there was no separate Punjabi shahi dynasty distinct from kabul shahi as you have been arguing. You are writing nonsense

The system of naming the kings of the so-called Turki Shahi dynasty and the Hindu Shahi dynasty is also similar for which reason it is very likely that the caste of the two might also have been same, i.e., Ksatriya, Hindu Sahis of Afghanistan and the Punjab Thus, if we follow Kalhana, then the ancestors of Shahi kings Lallya, Toramana, Kamalu, Bhimadeva, Jaipala, Anandapala, Trilochanapala etc may be traced back to the Ksatriya ruler of Kapisa/Kabul (AD 644&#8211;45) mentioned by Hiuen Tsang and also probably to prince Guna Varman (AD 424), a princely scion of the Ksatriya rulers ruling at the start of 5th century in Kapisa (Ki-pin) as mentioned in the Chinese Buddhist records.
Kalhana makes the dynasty of the ancestors of the Hindu Shahi rulers Lallya , Kamala Toramana, Bhimadeva, Jaipala, Anandapala, Trilochanpala, Bhimapala. Some scholars arbitrarily assume, without presenting any evidence, that the line of Shahi princes with names ending in -pala represents a change-over in royal dynasty. But this view is refuted by well-known examples of similar changes in royal names in the same family (See ref: The History and Culture of the Indian People, 1977, p 114, Dr Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Dr Achut Dattatrya Pusalker, Dr A. K. Majumdar &#8212; India). For instance, in the Pratihara dynasty of Kanauj, king Nagabhata I was followed by kings Kakkuka, Devaraja, Vatsaraja, Nagabhata II, Ramabhadra, Mihirabhoja, Mahendrapala, Bhoja II, Mahipala, Devapala, Vijayapala, Rajyapala etc. There was no change-over of dynasty here and all kings belonged to the same Pratihara royal family though there have been frequent changes in name endings.
Source-Shahis of Afghanistan DC sircar

We have prominent historians such as DC sarkar and Majumdar saying that the kabul shahis and Hindus shahi were from the same dynasty. Some outdated 19'th century Historians had mistakenly differentiated the earlier rulers of the dynasty as Kabul shahi and late rulers as Hindu shahi following Al beruni.Al beruni's source might have confused shift of capital with supplanting of dynasty

Now where these Kabul Sahis Hepthalites? Perhaps not. As Japanese Indologist Kuwayama asserts

His articles like 'On the rise of Khingal in Kapisi "L' Inscription de Ganesha a" and "Not Hephthalite but Kapisian Khingal." are worth reading and I would request you to see that you hold outdated ideas in this regard.

Further, Xuanzang called the ruler of Kapisi as Kshatriya caste.
Of course. Where have I denied that Kabul shahis were kshatriya? They were Hindu kings. But kshatriya does not mean Indian, as many east Iranian Saka satraps of Gujarat also called themselves 'kshatriya' and adopted Hinduism. And kshatriya definitely does not mean Punjabi. You claimed that Punjabi Hindu shahis of Bhatinda were ruling over Lamghan. Where is the proof for this claim that Hindu Shahis were Punjabi? kuwayama simply says they were a local dynasty. Even she says they were first centred in Afghan and North west.She does not mention Punjab at all. You have no source

Kabul Sahis were same as Hindu Sahis of Bhatinda? Anandapal was an 'Indianised Iranian'? That you do not even know that such a great Hindu dynasty like Hindu Sahiswas different from that of Khingila is quite funny.
The funniest thing is that you are digging yourself deeper into the pit much to your total embarrassment. You need to read up history for you are writing total rubbish

You don't have a single source. If you refer Alberuni, he talks about Brahman dynasty and miraculous birth of a boy in cave. Obviously, it does not fare well with your claim of kshatriya sahis. Nowhere does Alberuni say anyone was Punjabi

If you refer kalhana, your stand is annihilated. Neither kalhana nor xuanzang knew of two different dynasties. Nowhere does kalhana say they were Punjabi


Modern historians rubbish these claims of two distinct dynasties-Kabul and Hindu

The sporadic finds made in the region affirm the spread of Hindu influence at the cost of Buddhism during the period spanning AD 600&#8211;900. The replacement of Buddhist kingship with Hindu kingship around AD 870 seems to symbolize the Brahmanization of the so-called Turk kings as well as the population south of the Hindukush
Source- The Afghans by vogelsang 2002

Of course, the kabul sahis themselves were Hindu influenced from the very beginning. It was the khingila who sanctioned Kabul Ganesha. Xuanzang calls them kshatriya precisely because they were Hinduised. That the dynasties of khingla and Jaipal were same can be confirmed from the coins.The coins issued by all rulers from Khingla to Anandpal are identical. With time, they were further Hinduised/brahmanised/indianised and became indistinguishable from other Hindu kings

It is no surprise that later shahis were using Indianised names. Even the earliest shahis sometimes had such Indian names as Guna varma and Mihirakula .


Hahaha. Kabul Sahis were Turks?
Ha Ha ha ha. Yes! You seriously need to read up on kabul shahis. Kabul shahi king Khingila as well as the famed Huna kings Toramana and Mihirakula belonged to the same dynasty according to their own coins

khingila, though mentioned as a successor of Toramana and Mihirakula, was probably earliest of them all
Source- Study of Indian coins D C SIRCAR


Both Torama and Mihirakula called themselves shahi in their coins/inscriptions.The kabul shahis had Turkic names and titles such as 'Tigin'

Tigin is further identified with Tunjina II who is referred to by kalhana as the father of Toramana and founder of the new dynasty. Thus tigin the father of toramana had conquered Gandhara as a Huna subordinate commander two generations before 520 AD.
Source- Dynastic history of Magadha


In any case, the Khingila's seal and coin published by M. Alram demonstrate successive connection of the dress that accepted to be bound up with Hephthalites
Source-silk road and archeology
The names of the kings Khingila,purvaditya.Triloka,Narana,Narendra I and Narendra II are atested by legends on their coins.All the coins are written in Brahmi alphabet and all kings with the exception of khingla bear Indian names.This is clear evidence of slow Indianization of the Hephthalite dynasty during the sixth century
Source-History of civilizations of central asia
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
66
India
First let us leave debate about Khingila and Toramana and Mihirkula( this Mihirkula was defeated by Yashodharman of Malwa but as usual ruled Kashmiris under his harsh reign) about which I have shared my source which points to a local dynasty called as Kshatriyas by Xuanzang who very well knew Indian conditions. Outdated scholars give too much importance to coins and dress, if Kashmiri brahmins can have surnames like Bamzai, why can not Kshatriyas adopt some practises of conquerors given that I already agree that kshatriyas were fluid?

Now this poster Drona Bharadwaja says that I have no source. Well, I told him that I gave this reference from Andre Wink on Hindu Sahis. He asserts that Andre Wink agrees with him. Let us see what he says
'For one thing , the sources no longer speak of a Zunbil or Ratbil king. At some time shortly before the Saffarid conquest of 870 the Buddhist 'Turk Sahi' dynasty of Kabul which boasted descent from Kanishka was supplanted by a dynasty of Hindu Kings. To these Al Biruni refers as Hindu Shahiya and they are called Shahi in Kalhana's Rajatarangini, and sahi in inscriptions. Albiruni says that Kabul was the earliest capital of the Hindu Sahiya after they expelled the Turk Shahiya dynasty.In beginning their authority extended from Kabul to the Chenab river. Kallar according to AlBiruni was followed by the brahman kings Samand, Kamala, Bhim, Jaypal and their descendants. But all other sources, including Kalhana say that Hindu Sahis were Kshatriyas'
Source Al Hind The Slave Kings and the islamic Conquests 2 page number 125

Do note that he writes 'Turk sahis' in commas which agrees with doubt that they were Turk and as Kuwayama asserts they were local power. Still this is not my major claim.

The point is that Andre Wink supports me here much to dismay of Drona.

Andre Wink agrees with Drona's stance? Hahaha. Drona is free to fight with Wink, that is not my concern. Wink also sources his stance by Mishra's book on Hindu Sahis.
 
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
First let us leave debate about Khingila and Toramana and Mihirkula( this Mihirkula was defeated by Yashodharman of Malwa but as usual ruled Kashmiris under his harsh reign) about which I have shared my source which points to a local dynasty called as Kshatriyas by Xuanzang who very well knew Indian conditions. Outdated scholars give too much importance to coins and dress, if Kashmiri brahmins can have surnames like Bamzai, why can not Kshatriyas adopt some practises of conquerors given that I already agree that kshatriyas were fluid?

Now this poster Drona Bharadwaja says that I have no source. Well, I told him that I gave this reference from Andre Wink on Hindu Sahis. He asserts that Andre Wink agrees with him. Let us see what he says


Source Al Hind The Slave Kings and the islamic Conquests 2 page number 125

Do note that he writes 'Turk sahis' in commas which agrees with doubt that they were Turk and as Kuwayama asserts they were local power. Still this is not my major claim.

The point is that Andre Wink supports me here much to dismay of Drona.

Andre Wink agrees with Drona's stance? Hahaha. Drona is free to fight with Wink, that is not my concern. Wink also sources his stance by Mishra's book on Hindu Sahis.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Andre wink supports you? Wake up! Where does Andre wink say kabul shahis were punjabi?

On the thread 'The Mauryans did not conquer Afghanistan' you boasted in your typical nationalist tone that Afghans were ruled by Indics from Bathinda.

this was what you said

Hindu Sahis of famous Pal surname were certainly Kshatriyas and Indic and they were from Bathinda in Punjab.t is too much for many people to know that Indics ruled Pashtuns but then that was the history before Turks came
Where is the proof to this claim? Where does Andre wink say kabul shahi were punjabi. Quite the opposite. Andre wink says hindu shahis did not belong to punjab.They entered Punjab only after being pushed by muslim invaders

shared my source which points to a local dynasty called as Kshatriyas by Xuanzang who very well knew Indian conditions
XuanZang records that the literature, customary rules, and currency of this region were same as those of Tukhara.

Do note that he writes 'Turk sahis' in commas which agrees with doubt that they were Turk
ha ha no. Read your own source. He was simply narrating Al Beruni tale. He put turk in quotes because he implies there were no distinct dynasties, much less an invasion from Punjab as you are falsely claiming

First let us leave debate about Khingila and Toramana and Mihirkula..if Kashmiri brahmins can have surnames like Bamzai, why can not Kshatriyas adopt some practises of conquerors given that I already agree that kshatriyas were fluid?
ha ha ha ha ha. Are you trying to say that Mihirakula and Toramana were not Hunas?

Let me tell you something. How do you know Mihirakula ruled harshly? The answer is Indian literature. Indian literature confirms that Mihirakula and toramana were Hunas. The Hunas left a permanent impression on Indian psyche

You are the ONLY person in the whole world to claim that shahi king Toramana and his son Mihirakula were not Huns but Indic people


Toramana did not simply adopt an Iranian name.He is known world over as Huna

I) we know from the coins/inscriptions of Toramana that he called himself shahi

2) The kabul shahi king khingila II tells us in his coins that he belongs to the same dynasty as Toramana(grandfather) and Mihirakula(father) . He mentions their names explicitly in his coins found in Afghanistan

3) Rajatarangini lists Toramana among early kabul shahi rulers. kalhana lists subsequent kabul shahis who are also known from their coins


4)We know from India literature that Toramana and Mihirakula are Hunas. Every single scholar in the world accepts this fact

5)Chinese sources confirm that Khingila I(cha-li) established hephthalite dynasty in Afghanistan region.This khingla I called himself shahi and issued coins in Brahmi. He also sanctioned kabul ganesha

6) Sung yun visited Gandhara Circa 520 AD (khingala-Toramana age) and recorded that the country was ruled by Hephthalites

What else do you need?

Outdated scholars give too much importance to coins
LOL This takes the cake! Most of the information about kabul shahis comes from coins and some stray references in Indian, Muslim and chinese literature. The domains of rulers like jayapala and Anadapala are known only from coins


Anyone can see that early Shahis were none other than Hunas. Your argument has been utterly demolished beyond repair. Anyone who reads through can see that. Atleast accept the facts. If I were you, I would stand to be corrected. I have made mistakes several times on this forum and also admitted it. You pointed out that my kamma - kamboja is a very weak hypothesis and I admitted it right there. You stood corrected as well as corrected me many times on this forum. But you are now presenting yourself a completely different person altogether
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
@Jaitrasimha Do note that I have not once insulted Rajputs other than reiterating the well accepted fact that some of them have huna origins. Not once have I insulted Hinduism or Bihar

You have continuously heaped insults on kashmiris,ritualists and brahmins. I could refute all your posts and return back the insults but I forgive you and move on since you were once my friend. If you feel I ever insulted you personally, I apologise
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
66
India
@Jaitrasimha Do note that I have not once insulted Rajputs other than reiterating the well accepted fact that some of them have huna origins. Not once have I insulted Hinduism or Bihar
First of all, you are still mistaken that I care for insults of Rajputs or Biharis, you once again forgot what I wrote about Rajputs. However your Huna = Rajput( actually Vajra's idea not your) is not that correct. Rajputs are not homogeneous just like brahmins are not same. Huna connection is strong only for Gurjars and scholars like Masica find indigeneous origin of Gurjars possible.
Gurjara= Pratiharas is again not shared by many historians like Dasarath Sharma who have written extensively on Rajputs. Actually Rajputs had different clans and dynasties which emerged at different places. Paramars emerged in Malwa, Chandelas in Jejakabhukti, Tomars in Delhi region, Gahadvalas near Varanasi and Solankis in Gujrat. Guhilots emerged in Rajasthan.

Now, let us use common sense. We know that India was open to continuous invasion by Muslims in which Afghans were used as mercenary soldiers. In entire UP and Bihar, numerous Afghans came like 'ants and locusts'( Islamic historians use this term) and this started from times of Balban to 18th century under Rohilla Afghans. Yet Afghans number only around 7-8 percent( with native admixture an essential trait) in districts of Ruhelkhand like Bareily.

On the other hand, there was just one invasion led by Hunas which was beaten back from Malwa by Yashodharman and before Yashodharman, by his father Prakshadharma. Mihirkula retreated to northern areas . MBH lists them among Kshatriyas.

In light of my Afghan analogy, do you really think that Hunas= Rajputs is to be held true? Just because some Brahmans mixed with magas does not mean that I start saying that all Brahmans are Iranians!

In Malwa which was ruled by Muslims for centuries, Rajputs became dominant in early part of 16th century . Was Rajasthan ruled by two centuries by Hunas? Certainly not. Not even Mughals could exterminate Rajputs, they used Rajput soldiers and even cavalrymen despite having continuous supply of fresh Turkic warlike people, how come Hunas destroyed every Kshatriya when Kshatriyas like Yashodharman and Maukharis defeated them and Harshavardhana's father was lion to 'Huna deer' as per Banabhatt?

It is sensible to think that after Hunas were Hinduised they were listed among Kshatriyas, kshatriyas are more fluid than brahmins and so they assimilated Hunas under their umbrella. This was story in lands outside Gangetic plains only.This supposed mixture took place only in sixth or early parts of seventh century and by time Arabs captured Sindh, Gurjaras of Bhinmal appear as much Indian as any other even in their memory.

Colin Masica sums it up so far as Gurjar origin debate is concerned.

Among the latter are sometimes numbered the Gurjaras , who gave their name to Gujarat and to two districts in the Punjab (Gujrat, Gujranwala) and furnished an important early medieval North Indian imperial dynasty, the Gurjara-Pratiharas of Kannauj . Some have seen a Central Asian origin for the Gurjaras. S. K.Chatterji thought they might be "possibly Dardic. " A key element in these speculations is the presence of the tribe or caste of herdsmen called Gujars. They are an important element in the population of Rajasthan and are also found in parts of western U P , Punjab , Himachal Pradesh , Kashmir, and beyond the Indus
in Chitral (Pakistan) and on into northeastern Afghanistan . They are not found south of Gujarat. In the northwestern areas of their distribution, the Gujars have maintained their own language , as noted in the survey in Chapter 2 (section 1 .20) . The trail, in other words, seems to point northwestward. The only trouble is, Gujari is not a Central Asian language , or even a "Dardic" language: its closest relations are with Northeastern Rajasthani (Mewati). It is possible that they acquired this language after coming to India, subsequently migrating back in the direction from which they had come, but it is also possible that they are merely a group native to Rajasthan , some elements of which happened to come to power in the confused centuries after the Huna disruptions (and other elements of which later began to move northwestward) . Their sudden historical prominence does not prove foreign origin: the appearance of the Marathas is equally mysterious.
Unlike Afghans, Hunas did not spread even 10 words from their native language . Even if you exclude genetics, Rajputs of Rajasthan are not different from most Rajasthanis at all just as per 'looks'. That some clans have names Hoon has already been accepted by me , I even posted image of PL Hoon the hero of Siachen operation.

However, to say that Chandelas or Gahadvals or Solankis had Huna connection is utter rubbish.

You have continuously heaped insults on kashmiris,ritualists and brahmins.
I have not insulted Kashmiris or ritualists even quarter of what I have insulted Rajputs whom I said as 'worst part of our Hindu society'. saying that Mihirkula ruled Kashmir is not insult at all in comparison with this.

I am sorry for my comments on ritualists.

I have not insulted Brahmins, posters in various forums call me 'brahmanical fanboy' and it is indeed funny that I become anti brahmin now. That said, i stand by my assertion that Brahmins of South and Bengal indeed mixed with locals or even elevated locals under Brahmanic fold. Come on man, this much is accepted by even Mimansakas like owner of ManasTaramgini blog who is himself a brahmin well versed in Vedic lore.

I could refute all your posts and return back the insults
So could I but I realise that it will be like spitting with face upwards meaning it will come back at me. I will refute all your posts without attacking Vedic age, religion, Kashmiris etc.

but I forgive you and move on since you were once my friend. If you feel I ever insulted you personally, I apologise
I understand what 'krodha' can do to people so I am not that concerned with anything you wrote, I am already sorry for my harsh comments against Mimanskas and I accept that my comments were uncalled for.

But I promise that I will refute or rather explain my position on everything.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
66
India
Andre Wink is not recounting AlBiruni's tale at all. His words are

'For one thing , the sources no longer speak of a Zunbil or Ratbil king. At some time shortly before the Saffarid conquest of 870 the Buddhist 'Turk Sahi' dynasty of Kabul which boasted descent from Kanishka was supplanted by a dynasty of Hindu Kings. To these Al Biruni refers as Hindu Shahiya and they are called Shahi in Kalhana's Rajatarangini, and sahi in inscriptions. Albiruni says that Kabul was the earliest capital of the Hindu Sahiya after they expelled the Turk Shahiya dynasty.In beginning their authority extended from Kabul to the Chenab river. Kallar according to AlBiruni was followed by the brahman kings Samand, Kamala, Bhim, Jaypal and their descendants. But all other sources, including Kalhana say that Hindu Sahis were Kshatriyas'
'To these' means the ones who supplanted the dynasty of Kabul Sahis. Anyway, what he actually means is known here

In the Punjab, numerous conflicts were to follow between the Ghazanavids and Hindu Sahi dynasty - successors of the Kabulshahs and Zunbils- who had shifted their capital to Waihind. In Alptigin's time these Rais still held on to Lamghan, in what is now Eastern Afghanistan . Subuktegin, however after his succession, extended his power into the area by forging an alliance with the Afghan and Khalaj tribal garrisons which had been stationed there by the Hindu Sahi King.
source- Al Hind The Making of The Indo Islamic World page number 129

Yes Hindu Sahi kings were successors of Kabulshahs and here Andre Wink is clear as crystal. This quote also proves that Afghans were distinct people and were stationed there by Hindu Sahis. My Bathinda assertion might be wrong but it is almost sure that Hindu Sahis were Indics who replaced Kabul Shahs and Indics in that area are broadly Punjabis. Sikhs conquered Peshawar , in our time Indo Aryans certainly lived there as prominent part of population and Waihind was almost fully IA.


I have not claimed that Mihirkula was not a Huna only that scholars like Kuwayama strongly believe Khingila as not Hepthalite and as local. Xuanzang certainly knew about Turks and if ruler of Ki Pin was a Turk, he would have mentioned it.
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,441
USA
Andre Wink is not recounting AlBiruni's tale at all. His words are



'To these' means the ones who supplanted the dynasty of Kabul Sahis. Anyway, what he actually means is known here



source- Al Hind The Making of The Indo Islamic World page number 129

Yes Hindu Sahi kings were successors of Kabulshahs and here Andre Wink is clear as crystal. This quote also proves that Afghans were distinct people and were stationed there by Hindu Sahis. My Bathinda assertion might be wrong but it is almost sure that Hindu Sahis were Indics who replaced Kabul Shahs and Indics in that area are broadly Punjabis. Sikhs conquered Peshawar , in our time Indo Aryans certainly lived there as prominent part of population and Waihind was almost fully IA.


I have not claimed that Mihirkula was not a Huna only that scholars like Kuwayama strongly believe Khingila as not Hepthalite and as local. Xuanzang certainly knew about Turks and if ruler of Ki Pin was a Turk, he would have mentioned it.
Dear @Jaitrasimha

You wrote:

That said, i stand by my assertion that Brahmins of South and Bengal indeed mixed with locals or even elevated locals under Brahmanic fold.

Can you please explain what is so special about South and Bengal that Brahmins mixed, and not elsewhere in India.
 
Jul 2015
66
India
Dear @Jaitrasimha

You wrote:

That said, i stand by my assertion that Brahmins of South and Bengal indeed mixed with locals or even elevated locals under Brahmanic fold.

Can you please explain what is so special about South and Bengal that Brahmins mixed, and not elsewhere in India.
It was said in context. Mahabharata lists Hunas among Kshatriyas so many people emphasise it to show that Kshatriyas mixed( or 'originated') with Hunas who were perhaps Turkic tribes. Yes Kshatriyas of Rajasthan and Punjab might have mixed with Hunas but so were Brahmins. Bengal and South India came under fold of Vedic culture very late and Brahmins there were imported by local kings by giving huge gifts. What is today called Uttar Pradesh was core of Brahmanic settlements ( even today UP has 11 percent Brahmins if 1931 composition did not change meaning 22 million brahmins) and from here Brahmins migrated to Bengal. Now people in UP do not have mongoloid features but many brahmins of Bengal and Assam do have, this means that newly arrived brahmins in Bengal did mix with mongoloid locals.

Same goes for South India. An average Brahmin of South is still closer to non brahmins of North India than to his locality in looks but he indeed shows local influences. I have seen Brahmins from South who look almost like tribal Dravidians, this only means that either local priests were absorbed or local females were taken by them.

In other words, Brahmins of South and Bengal are not 'pure' descendants of Vedic or late vedic age brahmins from UP and Haryana and have admixed heavily.
 
Nov 2014
1,979
Bhuloka
e funny thing is that Vedic seers were no better in this regard and if we include things like Gosava and Ashwamedha, they were perhaps worse. So what your complaint is actually? That these guys are imitating Rigvedic people atleast in animal sacrifices?
Actually, most of the vedic rites such as Ashvamedha were kept alive by petty chieftains who wanted to assert independence and be recognized as 'Raja'. There was no stopping such aspirants as they were numerous in number. There is no single mention of Gosava in Apastambha sutra.There is only one stray reference in Aitreya Brahmana.The reference is short and concise and no description is made about actual ritual.The composer only mentions he heard of a ritual where man acts like an ox and ...

The composer neither prescribes nor performs the ritual.I can give you 100 instances where ashvamedha by kings such as Guptas etc..,. was historically performed. Now, you will not find one single reference to Gosava anywhere

Yet, I should say fringe rituals exist everywhere. Kalika purana mentions Human sacrifce and describes it as the great sacrifice of all. We know that kalika is the kuldevi of Rajputs and worshiped by shakta brahmins. Just as I don't judge the Hindus of medieval India by the rituals of kalika purana, I don't judge vedic people by their fringe rituals

The daily rites performed by Vedic Brahmins such as pravargya(milk and honey to ashvins) and sandhyavandna are not bloody at all
 

Similar History Discussions