Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alam_dar

How ancient DNA is denying claims by Right Wing Hindus

Recommended Posts

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46616574

 

How the right wing Hindus going to answer these new facts, while these new findings is totally against their claims. 

 

The biggest problem is, their Aryan race has itself been proved to be invaders just like the Muslim Mughals. I don't think right wing Hindus could digest these scientific facts. 

 

977519655758256

 

Edited by Alam_dar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the race theory relevant ? What will change if Indians get to know that they have some Scandinavian blood in them? Nothing, it's just an obsession of bygone colonial era.

 

Gujarat actively traded with Romans during ancient times, don't be surprised if many of them moved to middle east and Balkans, and permanently settled there. So do the modern day Italians take fascination whether their ancestry had partly Indian influence? No one is bothered about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46616574

 

How the right wing Hindus going to answer these new facts, while these new findings is totally against their claims. 

 

The biggest problem is, their Aryan race has itself been proved to be invaders just like the Muslim Mughals. I don't think right wing Hindus could digest these scientific facts. 

 

 

 

From the except of your article:

 

When scholars use the term Aryan, it refers to a group of people who spoke Indo-European languages and called themselves Aryans. And that is how I have used it in this article. It does not refer to a race, as Hitler used it or as some in the Hindu right wing use it."

 

 

Would be nice if you read your own damn article before you say Aryan race is invaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

From the except of your article:

When scholars use the term Aryan, it refers to a group of people who spoke Indo-European languages and called themselves Aryans. And that is how I have used it in this article. It does not refer to a race, as Hitler used it or as some in the Hindu right wing use it."

Would be nice if you read your own damn article before you say Aryan race is invaders. 

 

Not only it is a logical conclusion, but also written clearly in the article itself: 

 

The idea of the mixing of different population groups is also unappealing to Hindu nationalists as they put a premium on racial purity. There is also the additional issue of the migration theory putting Aryans on the same footing as latter-day Muslim conquerors of India - such as the Mughals.

 

 

For me, the difference between Aryan invaders and Mughal invaders is this that Mughals brought an extra problem of their "Non Compromising" religion with themselves. This religion is the main problem of Mughals/Muslims not integrating in the native India even centuries of stay in India. 

 

Had the Right Wing made only the Religion of Islam an issue, then they would have been much successful as it is a reality. But they also started discriminating people in name of race, which was a stupid move. Racism and Caste system should end and should not play any practical role in our life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Not only it is a logical conclusion, but also written clearly in the article itself: 

 

The idea of the mixing of different population groups is also unappealing to Hindu nationalists as they put a premium on racial purity. There is also the additional issue of the migration theory putting Aryans on the same footing as latter-day Muslim conquerors of India - such as the Mughals.

 

 

For me, the difference between Aryan invaders and Mughal invaders is this that Mughals brought an extra problem of their "Non Compromising" religion with themselves. This religion is the main problem of Mughals/Muslims not integrating in the native India even centuries of stay in India. 

 

Had the Right Wing made only the Religion of Islam an issue, then they would have been much successful as it is a reality. But they also started discriminating people in name of race, which was a stupid move. Racism and Caste system should end and should not play any practical role in our life. 

The point of the article is that Sanskrit originated as a language outside India and the Vedic culture was carried into India. Not that the Aryans were a race of people coming from outside. Infact the article clearly states that there is no Aryan race, i quoted you the part that says so, yet you persist with this race nonsense. Why ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The point of the article is that Sanskrit originated as a language outside India and the Vedic culture was carried into India. Not that the Aryans were a race of people coming from outside. Infact the article clearly states that there is no Aryan race, i quoted you the part that says so, yet you persist with this race nonsense. Why ?

Please differentiate, I absolutely didn't talk if Arya was a race or not. 


But I was talking about "Right Wing" and "what they believe". And these RW Hindu Nationalists see Arya as a race. But by doing so (i.e. considering Arya as race) they are in deep trouble while it is making Arya race an invader from outside (according to ancient DNA), which is same as Muslim Mughals. 

 

This same thing has been discussed in that part of article which I posted above. Let us look once again:

//

The idea of the mixing of different population groups is also unappealing to Hindu nationalists as they put a premium on racial purity. There is also the additional issue of the migration theory putting Aryans on the same footing as latter-day Muslim conquerors of India - such as the Mughals.

//

 

I hope you see that this part of article is not talking what is right or wrong about Aryan, but it giving the perspective of RW Hindu nationalists and what they think about Arya, and their difficulties in doing so in light of the ancient DNA. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Please differentiate, I absolutely didn't talk if Arya was a race or not. 


But I was talking about "Right Wing" and "what they believe". And these RW Hindu Nationalists see Arya as a race. But by doing so (i.e. considering Arya as race) they are in deep trouble while it is making Arya race an invader from outside (according to ancient DNA), which is same as Muslim Mughals. 

No, hindu right wing mostly does NOT see Aryans as a race, they see it as a cultural benchmark of being the 'idealized hindu'. Its the LEFT that sees Aryans as a race. 

46 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

This same thing has been discussed in that part of article which I posted above. Let us look once again:

//

The idea of the mixing of different population groups is also unappealing to Hindu nationalists as they put a premium on racial purity. There is also the additional issue of the migration theory putting Aryans on the same footing as latter-day Muslim conquerors of India - such as the Mughals.

//

Hindus dont put any stock on racial purity. They put it on caste purity. Big difference. A hardcore casteist brahmin Punjabi is more comfortable with a Malayali Brahmin for marriage than fellow Punjabi vaysyas. 

46 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I hope you see that this part of article is not talking what is right or wrong about Aryan, but it giving the perspective of RW Hindu nationalists and what they think about Arya, and their difficulties in doing so in light of the ancient DNA. 

 

And this article is completely wrong because it makes major assumptions that are not true. RW Hindus dont think of Aryans as race. Caste is not race-based either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Please differentiate, I absolutely didn't talk if Arya was a race or not. 


But I was talking about "Right Wing" and "what they believe". And these RW Hindu Nationalists see Arya as a race. But by doing so (i.e. considering Arya as race) they are in deep trouble while it is making Arya race an invader from outside (according to ancient DNA), which is same as Muslim Mughals. 

 

This same thing has been discussed in that part of article which I posted above. Let us look once again:

//

The idea of the mixing of different population groups is also unappealing to Hindu nationalists as they put a premium on racial purity. There is also the additional issue of the migration theory putting Aryans on the same footing as latter-day Muslim conquerors of India - such as the Mughals.

//

 

I hope you see that this part of article is not talking what is right or wrong about Aryan, but it giving the perspective of RW Hindu nationalists and what they think about Arya, and their difficulties in doing so in light of the ancient DNA. 

 

Where do you come up with this stuff really ? No one puts racial purity in India. People have come from different places to settle in India. Parsis, Jews, Mughals, christians etc. have come home to India in the past. Indian is not a race to be honest there is no concept of race for Indians. South India have different genetics compared to North or east or west. You should see the documentary about Kerala and how they were the first people from Africa to arrive in Indian coast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gattaca said:

Where do you come up with this stuff really ? No one puts racial purity in India. People have come from different places to settle in India. Parsis, Jews, Mughals, christians etc. have come home to India in the past. Indian is not a race to be honest there is no concept of race for Indians. South India have different genetics compared to North or east or west. You should see the documentary about Kerala and how they were the first people from Africa to arrive in Indian coast. 

Even that is wrong. The purpose of race theories were to come up with a well defined narrative for Europeans to know their origins, this craze began in the enlightenment era, before that there was no concept of race in Europe except for christians and heathens.

This out of Africa migration theory is nothing but continuation of that craze which began in the medeival era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MechEng said:

Even that is wrong. The purpose of race theories were to come up with a well defined narrative for Europeans to know their origins, this craze began in the enlightenment era, before that there was no concept of race in Europe except for christians and heathens.

This out of Africa migration theory is nothing but continuation of that craze which began in the medeival era.

TBH out of Africa is on extremely solid scientific grounds.Age of enlightenment & Christian origin quests may've lead to the question but none of the European christians were happy (and they still are not happy) to find out that we all come from Africa. The oldest human fossil records are *all* from Africa. Africans have the oldest & greatest diversity of mitochondrial DNA. Africa is the continent with the greatest diversity of languages. 
Non-African origin theories are standing on a lot more empty belief and hot air - every single one of them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

TBH out of Africa is on extremely solid scientific grounds.Age of enlightenment & Christian origin quests may've lead to the question but none of the European christians were happy (and they still are not happy) to find out that we all come from Africa. The oldest human fossil records are *all* from Africa. Africans have the oldest & greatest diversity of mitochondrial DNA. Africa is the continent with the greatest diversity of languages. 
Non-African origin theories are standing on a lot more empty belief and hot air - every single one of them. 

 

New research proves we came from all over, the opposition to Out of Africa, is not just based on prejudice or bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 3:50 PM, Alam_dar said:

Please differentiate, I absolutely didn't talk if Arya was a race or not. 


But I was talking about "Right Wing" and "what they believe". And these RW Hindu Nationalists see Arya as a race. But by doing so (i.e. considering Arya as race) they are in deep trouble while it is making Arya race an invader from outside (according to ancient DNA), which is same as Muslim Mughals. 

 

This same thing has been discussed in that part of article which I posted above. Let us look once again:

//

The idea of the mixing of different population groups is also unappealing to Hindu nationalists as they put a premium on racial purity. There is also the additional issue of the migration theory putting Aryans on the same footing as latter-day Muslim conquerors of India - such as the Mughals.

//

 

I hope you see that this part of article is not talking what is right or wrong about Aryan, but it giving the perspective of RW Hindu nationalists and what they think about Arya, and their difficulties in doing so in light of the ancient DNA. 

 

You are so wrong to assume Hindutva means an Aryan race. It is about fighting for a civilizational narration that is lost in time, translation, misappropriation, wrong interpretation and falsehood. We understood the concepts of environmental presarvation long before it became a buzzword for young liberals to throw about. We have talked about universal manhood, world citizenship (vishwa manava) , inclusiveness, 5000 years ago in texts. We are fighting western imposed words like secularism, liberalism, that are christian influenced constructs as we have our own swadeshi constructs that we can follow instead of aping the west.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

New research proves we came from all over, the opposition to Out of Africa, is not just based on prejudice or bias.

Source please. 

New research that i've seen have merely altered the timeline of when modern humans left Africa. The oldest material evidence of humanity is still from Africa. Furthrmore, genetic data is decisive as well and genetic data CLEARLY points to Out of Africa model. So far, we have material evidence ( fossils) converging with the genetic data of Africa being our homeland first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

You are so wrong to assume Hindutva means an Aryan race. It is about fighting for a civilizational narration that is lost in time, translation, misappropriation, wrong interpretation and falsehood. We understood the concepts of environmental presarvation long before it became a buzzword for young liberals to throw about. We have talked about universal manhood, world citizenship (vishwa manava) , inclusiveness, 5000 years ago in texts. We are fighting western imposed words like secularism, liberalism, that are christian influenced constructs as we have our own swadeshi constructs that we can follow instead of aping the west.

There are things India can learn from the west, there are things the west can learn from India. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

TBH out of Africa is on extremely solid scientific grounds.Age of enlightenment & Christian origin quests may've lead to the question but none of the European christians were happy (and they still are not happy) to find out that we all come from Africa. The oldest human fossil records are *all* from Africa. Africans have the oldest & greatest diversity of mitochondrial DNA. Africa is the continent with the greatest diversity of languages. 
Non-African origin theories are standing on a lot more empty belief and hot air - every single one of them. 

  

Standing on hot air, more like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Standing on hot air, more like.

Heh. My brother's first degree was in Biochemistry, genetics specialization. Recommended the book 'selfish gene' as a layman's guide to wtf really are genes and how it works. Upon reading and discussing it with him, it becomes clear that our genetic data is 100% pointing towards African origin. If a species has a single point origin and spreads from there, there are genetic patterns in the data for the immigrants vs the ones who never leave. Species homo sapiens matches up 100% with this genetic drift aspect with OOA theory. 

Its a pretty big case closed biologically. Even if we find fossils outside of Africa for humans that are older than from Africa, the biological data will still override chance material evidence. Most of the regionalist origin people have zero answer for the genetic data angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

There are things India can learn from the west, there are things the west can learn from India. 

Yes, most certainly, that's how it was 5000 years ago, when humanity learnt from each other. Romans have recorded history about some textile or silk being so popular and it was from Indian region. Later the narrative is that the west civilized the whole world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf is that  BBC article.everybody knows these nomads called themselves aryans because they believed they were the civilized ones,nothing to do with any race .the word aryan was corrupted by german  intellectuals who wanted to differentiate themselves from the rest of the europeans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite bringing the argument of Arya being word in Vedas for noble, there does also exist the concept of race to it too. We can clearly see it in Aryan VS Dravidian divide. 

 

Link:

 

Aryans and Dravidians - A controversial issue

The most basic division of the Indian society is of Aryans and Dravidians. According to this division, nearly 72% of Indians are Aryans and 28% are Dravidians. The north Indians are the descendants of Aryans and the south Indians are Dravidians. The languages spoken in five states of south India are considered Dravidian languages and most of the languages spoken in the north are considered Aryan languages. The general script of the Aryan languages is different from the general script of Dravidian languages. The Indians also distinguish themselves by the general north Indian accent and general south Indian accent.

According to general Indian legend, the Aryans arrived in north India somewhere from Iran and southern Russia at around 1500 BC. Before the Aryans, the Dravidian people resided in India. The Aryans disregarded the local cultures. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India. According to this historical fact the general division of Indian society is made. North Indians are Aryans and south Indians are Dravidians. But this division isn’t proper because of many reasons.

Many Indians immigrated from one part of India to other parts of India and not all local people of north India were pushed southwards by the Aryans. Some stayed and served the Aryans and others moved to live in the forests and the jungles of north India. Before the arrival of the Aryans there were also other communities in India like Sino-Mongoloids and Austroloids. There were also other foreign immigrations and invaders who arrived in India, from time to time.

There are many that completely doubt that there was ever any Aryan invasion in India. This skepticism is based on the dating of the Aryan invasion of India and the fact that Hinduism and the caste system are believed to have been established as the result of the meetings between the intruding Aryans and original residents of India, the Dravidians.

The caste system is believed to have been established by the Aryans. The fair skinned Aryans who occupied parts of India established the caste system, which allowed only them to be the priests (Brahman), aristocracy (Kshatria) and the businessmen (Vaisia) of the society. Below them in hierarchy were the Sudras who consisted of two communities. One community was of the locals who were subdued by the Aryans and the other were the descendants of Aryans with locals. In Hindu religious stories there are many wars between the good Aryans and the dark skinned demons and devils. The different Gods also have dark skinned slaves. There are stories of demon women trying to seduce good Aryan men in deceptive ways. There were also marriages between Aryan heroes and demon women. Many believe that these incidences really occurred in which, the gods and the positive heroes were people of Aryan origin. And the demons, the devils and the dark skinned slaves were in fact the original residence of India whom the Aryans coined as monsters, devil, demons and slaves. Normally the date given to Aryan invasion is around 1500 BC. But according to Hinduism experts some of the events in Hinduism occurred much earlier. Some of the events like the great war in the Mahabharta epic is believed to have occurred (based on astronomical research) 7000 years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the caste system begin in India? 

 

Caste system is directly related to the race system. This "white racism" of the Aryans was the  base on which caste system began (as has been made clear in details in the article). Caste system itself means keeping the race pure. 

 

This Aryan/Dravidian divide is giving the answer to this question in a satisfactory way. It is also explaining the difference in the script in a satisfactory way. 

Edited by Alam_dar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are uou bringing the Aryan dravidian theory for? It has been debunked by most modern archeologists with DNA evidence. Dravidians were created to break cummunities politically. There have been south kingdoms that have spread till north and viceversa, no such expansion was because of a aryan dravidian race war. This is 18th century theory that western Indologists believed and that caused 2 Wws as well.

 

Caste is a western term is different from the jaathi or varna system that started with professions. Since there was knowledge in professions, people started to safeguard their professions within family or community. There is no race theory here.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 4:54 PM, coffee_rules said:

Yes, most certainly, that's how it was 5000 years ago, when humanity learnt from each other. Romans have recorded history about some textile or silk being so popular and it was from Indian region. Later the narrative is that the west civilized the whole world.

??

You are making strawman claims. Western narratives of how the west civilized the whole world is a western right wing nonsense, just like the indian right wing nonsense of how civilization started in India and we were the first civilized people on the planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

How did the caste system begin in India? 

 

Caste system is directly related to the race system. This "white racism" of the Aryans was the  base on which caste system began (as has been made clear in details in the article). Caste system itself means keeping the race pure. 

 

This Aryan/Dravidian divide is giving the answer to this question in a satisfactory way. It is also explaining the difference in the script in a satisfactory way. 

This is nonsense.

There is also no Aryan vs Dravidian divide in genetics. 

There is no basis to the idea that caste is white superiority based ideology. Indian genetics (including pakistani) decisively counters this. 

There are plenty of scholarly articles posted on this in the past you keep running away from, to keep your racist nonsense spewing up from time to time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Caste is a western term is different from the jaathi or varna system that started with professions. Since there was knowledge in professions, people started to safeguard their professions within family or community. There is no race theory here.

Modern Muslims also come up with new excuses to defend/hide the wrongs in their religion. I have learnt never to trust in the modern religious excuses, but to keep my own eyes and brain open. 

 

Caste system began when the Hindu Religious Texts (Vedas in this case) declared that Brahmins were born from the head, Khashtaryas from arms, Vashiyas from thighs  and Shudras from feet. This was the BASE, and after this automatically professions became family based.

 

Off course modern Hindus try to bring different excuses in order to defend/hide it, but other Hindu Religious Texts (Smritis) and earlier Hindu Scholars like Shankar Achariya, all were unanimous about the birth based caste system, with the exception that good deeds may help one to change his caste in which he was born. 

 

Another tactics of the modern religious people (all like Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus...) is this that they put the whole blame upon their earlier Scholars and the whole community that they misunderstood the religious texts, and they made the mistakes for last thousands of years (till this century where humanity got enough conciousness to see these wrongs), while there was nothing wrong in the original religious texts. 

 

And I always tell them this excuse could never the accepted that the DIVINE creatures revealed their laws in such vague way that no normal person could understand them. Forget about normal person understanding them, even the most talented scholars of those religions didn't understand them and went astray along with billions of true followers of that religion for thousands of years.

 

 

Edited by Alam_dar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This is nonsense.

There is also no Aryan vs Dravidian divide in genetics. 

There is no basis to the idea that caste is white superiority based ideology. Indian genetics (including pakistani) decisively counters this. 

There are plenty of scholarly articles posted on this in the past you keep running away from, to keep your racist nonsense spewing up from time to time. 

You are a rude person, with no etiquettes of discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

You are a rude person, with no etiquettes of discussion. 

i am rude to those who peddle nonsense, despite being corrected multiple times with scientific peer reviewed articles, on the basis of some random websites off of the internet like you posted. 


Those who hold belief systems do not deserve respect once they are corrected and still stick to the nonsense in their religiosity. Trouble with you is,you only see that amongst mainstream religious people, not followers of random new-age make-believe nonsense like you and your 'meat diet' nonsense or you and your racial theories nonsense. 

Should you wish me to dig up the peer reviewed articles on genetics, that show everyone east of the Indus all the way to Arakan Yoma mountains are 95% of the same genetics - with two main human migration waves ANI and ASI - both well over 30,000 years old forming the mix, with the more south you go, the more ASI is present, with more ANI in the north- yet neither one of them dips below 40% of the average Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi's gene-pool. 


So take your racial superiority nonsense theories of brahmins elsewhere to uneducated fools about caste. I come from a Brahmin family and i pillor brahmin culture more than you do. Yet i am not foolish enough to say brahminism has any racial superiority genetics in it, since a super-dark Brahmin from Kerala is still more favorable to an average Punjabi brahmin over their super-fair Punjabi lower caste member. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Modern Muslims also come up with new excuses to defend/hide the wrongs in their religion. I have learnt never to trust in the modern religious excuses, but to keep my own eyes and brain open. 

 

Caste system began when the Hindu Religious Texts (Vedas in this case) declared that Brahmins were born from the head, Khashtaryas from arms, Vashiyas from thighs  and Shudras from feet. This was the BASE, and after this automatically professions became family based.

Sure. This has zero actual racist component to it. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Off course modern Hindus try to bring different excuses in order to defend/hide it, but other Hindu Religious Texts (Smritis) and earlier Hindu Scholars like Shankar Achariya, all were unanimous about the birth based caste system, with the exception that good deeds may help one to change his caste in which he was born. 

Birth based caste system does not make it a different race or a racial based system. Up until 100 years ago, Europe had the royalty, nobility and commoner class - yet the royalty of England, Nobility of England and the small-folk are still the same genetic population, with minor outside influence. Obviously the higher classes will have slightly higher influence from outside, since prior to the availability of modern transport and border protocols, its the rich or the powerful, not the poor, who travelled long distances and lived elsewhere. However, these influences are minor to any gene pool. 


Caste is pretty much a more formalized version of the same system. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Another tactics of the modern religious people (all like Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus...) is this that they put the whole blame upon their earlier Scholars and the whole community that they misunderstood the religious texts, and they made the mistakes for last thousands of years (till this century where humanity got enough conciousness to see these wrongs), while there was nothing wrong in the original religious texts. 

 

And I always tell them this excuse could never the accepted that the DIVINE creatures revealed their laws in such vague way that no normal person could understand them. Forget about normal person understanding them, even the most talented scholars of those religions didn't understand them and went astray along with billions of true followers of that religion for thousands of years.

 

 

Your main problem is you put hindus/hinduism in the same class as Jews, Christians and Muslims. They are not. Until you can differentiate between Abrahamic faith and Dharmic+ Eastern faiths, you simply have zero case to make any case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

What are uou bringing the Aryan dravidian theory for? It has been debunked by most modern archeologists with DNA evidence. Dravidians were created to break cummunities politically. There have been south kingdoms that have spread till north and viceversa, no such expansion was because of a aryan dravidian race war. This is 18th century theory that western Indologists believed and that caused 2 Wws as well.

I don't know which modern research you are pointing too.

 

While the most modern research is indeed pointing out to the Aryan immigration into India around 2,000 BC. 

The Aryan/Dravidian debate is more about politics today, but irrespective of this the reality is still this that North India has more of Aryan DNA as compared to the South. 

 

My interest is to find out how the varna (also means colour) system began in India. And for me proofs are conclusive that it started with the arrival of white Aryans, and that same time Vedas appeared as has been suggested in this study

 

Here is the most modern study, published in 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’.. You can read about it in this article:

//

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece

 

How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate

... 

Until recently, only data on mtDNA (or matrilineal DNA, transmitted only from mother to daughter) were available and that seemed to suggest there was little external infusion into the Indian gene pool over the last 12,500 years or so. New Y-DNA data has turned that conclusion upside down, with strong evidence of external infusion of genes into the Indian male lineage during the period in question.

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way. ...

 

//

 

Also read it too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×