India Unvarnished

Rift Valley, Kenya (circa. millions of years BC): First human climbs down from tree, starts walking around on two legs, thereby freeing up hands for manufacturing spears and other mischief.

Harappa, Pakistan and Mesopotamia, Iraq (circa. thousands of years BC): Humans stop chasing wild animals every time they get hungry, and take up the noble occupation of agriculture.

Kenya, Pakistan and Iraq (today): No longer at the forefront of human progress. In fact, kind of in trouble. Thus proving that there is no such thing as first-mover advantage. Also proving importance of working for the future and not living in the past, no matter how glorious.

PS: Having just returned to US after visiting my own sweet Pakistan, I must say that there are signs that things are picking up. Met a lot of very fine people working to fix the mess Pakistan is in. The sons of the Indus Valley will rise again!!

PS: Nice picture though, Murad Sahib.

Urstruly!

Jinda is a bad word in persian and many Bengalis in Iran are looked upon as queer when they call Zindagi ``Jingadi``.

On a different note it is good that Dole did not get elected.

Sadhana

The AIT as understood today is that the `Aryans` came from the northwest at about 1200 BC, and destroyed (in the original AIT, they are trying to change it to `supplanted` now) another civilization, a more advanced one, which was already in India. This hypothesis was proposed by colonial Indologists because they didnot have anything concrete to go by, this seemed to be the easiest to explain the similarities between Sanskrit on one hand and Greek and Latin on the other, and their first hypothesis that Greeks taught Indians language was very easy to disprove. This hypothesis was give by Max Mueller as just that, a hypothesis, and towards the end of his life, he himself all but disowned it. But then it became a dogma, because it served the colonial purpose. After all, most of Indian culture was just a colonial (Aryan colonial) implant, wasn`t it? So why should Indians object to the latest version of the culture brought in by a new wave of `Aryans`?

So, when the Indus valley cities were discovered, when any self respecting scientific endeavour should have seen that it was a proof that civilization existed before `Aryans` brought it here, it was found more important to find new explanations for this `earlier` civilization, and voila, the idea of `barbaric` aryan tribes coming in and destroying a `peaceful` Harappa people. In any case, Indology was never a science, or otherwise it should have been called Indian Ancient History, Culture, Archaeology etc. Indology was, and is, just a vehicle for colonial and neocolonial ideas.

That is what this fight is all about. Of course, people came to India from everywhere throughtout the human history, maybe sometime in waves, though it is tough to imagine that because of the geography of the subcontinent. The parched mountains of Afghanistan or Balochinstan are not exactly hospitable places for a mass migration. But I am sure that the culture that was developed by all those people is uniquely Indian, not something brought in by `barbarians` and imposed on the `peaceful` natives.

Satyavadi

I am basically against the racist view of history. I rather find the `melting pot` view much more scientifically and aesthetically acceptable. The whole racial construct of human history is a 19th century invention, particularly to defend and explain away colonialism and why one set of human beings should not have any say in their own destiny. It has not always been there. For example, in Roman and Egyptian empires, the skin color was not important. There were both black and white pharaohs and both black and white slaves. Even this concept of skin color as a racial identification is a fraud. Exactly what shade of skin do you think as the border? In any case, if we take other visual signs as the identification mark for races, like heights or dental structures, we will get different set of races!

I believe that the humans are one race. As someone said, if the whole world was destroyed and only a part of Albanian, or Hottentot population was saved, we will still have all the genetic diversity of humanity intact! The skin color and other physical properties of the human population of a particular region depends on the climatic factors of that particular region and the level of human diffusion to and from that region. As I wrote in my last post, genetic traits take time to change, so you are going to have some traits of the other climatic areas in proportion with the diffusivity of those areas in terms of human population with the area under question.

That does not mean that mass migration (or even invasions!) do not take place. It has, very recently, as you see, in Americas and Australlia. All I want to say is that racial characteristics are no substitute for history. Europeans have colonised Americas in 17th-18th centuries, but it is very very difficult to imagine that they could have completely utterly forgotten their previous homeland, their journey, so that there was not a single reference to their coming from Europe in the whole of their literature. If someone gave this theory they would lock him up, right? But this is just what colonial indologists and their successors, the history establishmentwallahs want us to believe. Remember, the `Aryans` came from west in 1200 BC, Rgveda was completed by 1000 BC.

So, there are no two `races` called `Aryan` and `Dravidian` in India. There are a billion people with millions of different genetic traits, from their respective genetic histories, carrying the genes that were subjected to natural selection for different periods of time in different climatic regions. There has been a healthy diffusion from other lands throughout the time and it has given rise to a uniquely India population.

In my opinion the difference in colour can be explained by both living in a particular enviornment and survival advantage of certain skin colour. For example people migrating North from Africa will have survival advantage with light skin compared to dark skin, leading to selection of fairer races, but this process is very lengthy over many many milleniums.

The thing which Mr. Murad is discussing is related to a short period of History, probably 5000 to 10000 years. And it is highly likely that caste system was created to keep in power, moreover this caste system must have been institutionalized fully over centuries with greater accumulation of wealth in the hands of ruling elite. The sacredness of cow suggest that they might be agriculturist using cow as a means of ploughing and not sacrifice, which might later have been dogmatized to include later meat and probably egg.

In this short history of 5000-10000 years it is difficult to achieve the color change as is being twisted by the conspicuous presense of some people. Why would in the same latitude, the people of Arab are white, Yemenis and Sudanese black, Iranians white, Sindhi`s and Baluch white and south Indian dark colored.

It may be a common origin 50000-100000 years back but written history is full of subjugation of one group by another, and we don`t have to sit on a high chair to absolve our ancesstors of their crime to subjugate humans by force in the name of religion.

Kafir K Khan #47

It is not anti Sikh or Anti-Muslim.

Ranjit Singh was ruthless as far as my history goes and in this and every matter he used to see all with one eye.

RE: Kafir # 47

Dear Kafir,
It is true that Sikhs in the beginning were against neither Hindus nor Muslims. But if you have studied the life of Guru Nanak (1469-1539), I think it is safe to assume that he was initially a reformer of the Hindu religion and not a Muslim reformer. When he sensed the skepticism of Mughals he presented himself belonging to neither religion. It is also true that he tried to bring three religious entities closer to each other, that were, Hindus, Muslims, and newly converted Muslims.

Although Mughals were skeptical about the Sikhs from the beginning but the alleged persecution of Sikhs was limited to the leadership until the fifth Guru, Guru Arjan Dev (1563-1606) who was considered the real threat towards the Empire when he imposed on Sikhs his religious injunction that they must give 1/10 of their income to the Gordawara. That was considered a threat, and rightly so, because of the importance of Punjab in two matters; first it was the most important source of revenue, and second it was the gateway to the invaders from the North, so any hostile political entity there was un-acceptable. So it can be argued that the persecution of Sikhs was basically motivated by economics, political and defense purposes rather than religious ones. As long as Sikhs remained a religious entity they remained acceptable to some extent but as soon as they tried to turn themselves into a parallel political and economic entity they had to face the consequences from the rivalry. This version of history is also supported by the fact of the persecution of the second last Guru, Guru Gobind Singh who established Sikh Nationalism based on Sikh theocracy and militancy. The Aurangzeb’s act of persecution of Guru Gobind Singh may also be looked at with in the political perspective. However, I have absolutely no problem with your version of the history.

I do disagree with you that Sikh rule was a tolerant one as you have mentioned in your post. The turning of Badshahi Mosque of Lahore into a stable and the word “Sikha Shahi” have achieved proverbial status. On the other hand one version of history tells us that the reason for Ahmad Shah Abdali’s invasions on Punjab were to save Muslim populace from the Sikhs. Whereas Sikh history tells us that the Abdalian soldiers used to fry and eat Sikh children’s livers and hearts.

At present I think the migrant Muslim generation has forgiven (but not forgotten) the atrocities committed by Sikhs during 1947. The current demographic distribution (among East and West Punjab) suggests that the realization of a Greater Punjab is an impossible dream. I don’t think that other than language and slight cultural similarities there is any common ground between East and West for reunification. Besides West Punjabis are fiercely Pakistani Nationalists and pro-federation.

The West Punjabis however see Khalistan (established on East) as an ideal option. The status of Khalistan as a buffer state between India and Pakistan is in favor of all three parties. It will definitely prevent any (mis)adventure from either side. During all Indo-Pak wars Punjab (both East and West) bore the main brunt. So it is the best solution for Punjabis for their security and safety. Sikhs must understand that Khalistan is not possible without Pakistan’s help. I think West Punjabis must support their brothers on the East.

Regards,

PS. BTW the correct spelling of the word “zazia” is “Jaziya”. I hope you understand its meaning in the proper context too.

KHALISTAN JINDABAD
GREATER PUNJAB (ON EAST SIDE) JINDABAD

#51
PS: re general comment on ``two waves of migration`` into the subcontinent. The timing of these is likely to be many thousand years earlier so unsuitable for purposes of proving or disproving AIT.

my post #27
Sorry for the long post.

An article appeared in the NYTimes(now in archives, available for $2.50)
The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves
by Nicholas Wade
May 2 2000

The original article had a great graphic showing various waves of migration, but which was not archived, but here are excerpts from the article:

``...The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and prehistorians, one whose range extends from recent times to the dawn of human existence...``

``...A new history of Britain and Ireland by Norman Davies, ``The Isles,`` (Oxford University Press) begins with an account of Cheddar man, an 8,980 year-old skeleton from which mitochondrial DNA was recently extracted. The DNA turned out to match that of Adrian Targett, a teacher in a Cheddar Village school, proving a genetic continuity that, despite numerous invasions, had endured through nine millenniums.

Unlike the DNA test used in forensic cases, which is designed to identify individuals, DNA analysis that seeks to reach back in time usually focuses on lineages, not individuals. From patterns in the DNA data, biologists can often estimate the sizes of ancient populations and even the approximate dates when one group of people split from another.

Though DNA can bear on historical questions, often by acting as a long-range paternity test, its most spectacular use has been in prehistory, where it has added a new dimension to the bare framework provided by archaeology.

The most detailed human family tree so far available is one constructed over many years by Dr. Douglas C. Wallace and his colleagues at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. Dr. Wallace`s tree is based on mitochondrial DNA, tiny rings of genetic material that are bequeathed only by the egg cell and thus through the maternal line. A counterpart tree for men, based on analysis of the Y chromosome, has been prepared by Dr. Peter A. Underhill and Dr. Peter J. Oefner of Stanford University...``

``...Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals, according to a calculation published last December. But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population. The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.

The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters, so the number of different Y chromosomes may steadily diminish, even if the population stays the same size.

This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.

Mitochondria, which live inside human cells but outside the nucleus, escape the shuffling of genes that occurs between generations and are passed unchanged from mother to children. In principle, all people should have the same string of DNA letters in their mitochondria. In practice, mitochondrial DNA has steadily accumulated changes over the centuries because of copying errors and radiation damage....``

``...Because women were steadily spreading across the globe when many of these changes occurred, some changes are found only in particular regions and continents. Dr. Wallace discovered that almost all American Indians have mitochondria that belong to lineages he named A, B, C and D. Europeans belong to a different set of lineages, which he designated H through K and T through X. The split between the two main branches in the European tree suggests that modern humans reached Europe 39,000 to 51,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace calculates, a time that corresponds with the archaeological date of at least 35,000 years ago.

In Asia there is an ancestral lineage known as M, with descendant branches E, F and G as well as the A through D lineages also found in the Americas.

In Africa there is a single main lineage, known as L, which is divided into three branches. L3, the youngest branch, is common in East Africa and is believed to be the source of both the Asian and European lineages.

Dr. Wallace`s mitochondrial DNA lineages are known technically as ``haplogroups`` but more colloquially as ``daughters of Eve,`` because all are branches of the trunk that stems from the mitochondrial Eve.

The Y chromosome tree has not yet been published by the Stanford researchers, but in a book that came out in March, ``Genes, People and Languages,`` a colleague at the university, Dr. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, sketched a preview of the findings.

The tree is rooted in a single Y chromosomal Adam, and has 10 principal branches, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza reports. Of these sons of Adam, the first three (designated I, II and III) are found almost exclusively in Africa. Son III`s lineage migrated to Asia and begat sons IV-X, who spread through the rest of the world -- to the Sea of Japan (son IV), northern India (son V) and the South Caspian (sons VI and IX)...``

``...Dr. Wallace has recently been exploring the root of the mitochondrial tree. In an article published in March in The American Journal of Human Genetics, he and colleagues identify the Vasikela Kung of the northwestern Kalahari desert in southern Africa as the population that lies nearest to the root of the human mitochondrial DNA tree. Another population that seems almost equally old is that of the Biaka pygmies of Central Africa. Both peoples live in isolated regions, which may be why their mitochondrial DNA seems little changed from that of the ancestral population. ``We are looking at the beginning of what we would call Homo sapiens,`` Dr. Wallace said....``

``... Many of the biologists who are reconstructing the human past certainly believe their work has a value that transcends genetics. Although their lineage trees are based on genetic differences, most of these differences lie in the regions of DNA that do not code for genes and have no effect on the body. ``We are all Africans at the Y chromosome level and we are really all brothers,`` Dr. Underhill said...``

``... Whether or not genetic prehistory is suitable material for a modern origin myth, it is about to be made available to a wider public. Last month a company called Oxford Ancestors set up business with the offer to tell customers which of the seven daughters of Eve they are descended from. (Almost all Europeans belong to only seven of the nine mitochondrial lineages found in Europe). The test (see www.oxfordancestors.com) requires sending in a sample of cells brushed from the inside of the cheek. For a mere $180, anyone of European ancestry can establish the start of a genealogy far senior to Charlemagne`s.

The company`s founder is Dr. Bryan Sykes, a human geneticist at the University of Oxford in England. On the reasonable basis that the founders of Dr. Wallace`s mitochondrial DNA lineages were real women, Dr. Sykes gave them names and sketched in details of their likely dates and origin. Thus people found to belong to haplogroup U will be told they are descended from Ursula, who lived about 45,000 years ago in Northern Greece. Ancestor of the X`s is Xenia, who lived 25,000 years ago in the Caucasus mountains....``

``...He is now working on tests to identify other lineages around the world, including 14 in Africa, and 16 in Eurasia and the Americas. ``I don`t think this stuff should be confined to academics,`` he said....``

(End excerpts)

PS: The accompanying graphic clearly showed at least 2 distinct waves of migration into the Indian subcontinent(refer para on 10 Adams above)

Arun#: 46

Posting on separate thread is a big waste of time. Why don`t you post all the replies here itself? Navigation is so painful.

Regards

PS: Logic presented by author is so childish. I doubt if it was his photograph at the end.

``Who were the Aryans? Were they a race, a tribe, a language or just an adjective?

by Murad Baig



There is considerable evidence that several tribes speaking Indo European languages originated in the Caucasian area around the Caspian Sea, south of Russia. They streamed south between 1800 and 1300 BC and there is clear historical records that many of their tribes like the Hittites and Kassites entered Turkey and destroyed Syria in 1732 BC.``

What are those clear historical records? Author implies that within 800 years (before Budhha was born) these tribes created a large civilisation in India that could influence Laos, China and Vietnam where till date variations of Ramayana are part of folklore. Must have been very active people !!!

Satish McGupta, satyavadi and all chowksters

I think our debate is drifting towards the famous and still raging debate of nature Vs nurture. Having taken a few courses in psychology, I am aware that the modern psychologists have finally reached a general consensus about this issue at least on the matter of intelligence. It is believed that while genetics of a person determines his ``quota``(limits to which one can go) of intelligence, it is his environment(includes all the social, personal interactions and upbringing) that determines the actual utilisation of this quota.

Now comming to the questions, I think most of the questions can be answered if this hypothesis is assumed to be true with respect to the other traits of human beings too. Take height of Japanese Vs Europeans for example. Assume both are separate and well defined races with different genetic strains. Say that the ordained quota by genetics in case of Europeans is 8 ft while it is 7 feet for the Japanese. A century earlier, Europeans by virtue of superior health care and nutrition were able to utilise 6/8 of their quota so that their avg height was 6 ft. While Japanese could utilise only 5/7 of their quota owing to malnutrition so that the avg height was 5 ft. Since quality nutrition took a jump in Japan their quota utilisation improved consummating in increased avg height of Japanese. Similarly the avg height of Europeans will also increase but by less amount because change in nutrition quality was less.

Note nutrition here refers to all the external factors affecting height and the terms Europeans and Japanese to refer to different races. Similar kinds of explanation can be forwarded with respect to skin color and the other human traits too.

However I should warn that the generalisation of this theory has not been completely substantiated and the thing that it explains certain phenomena does not guarantee that this is the sole reason ie Cause and effect relationship.

Cheers

I`m posting under the individual sub-threads now, and no further here.

-arun

Satish::

Your post was very informative.

Are you implying that there is no racial difference between the North Indians and South Indians, that the whole Aryan-Dravidian is entirely without basis ? If yes, do you attribute the AIT, atleast in part, to the colonial historian`s hidden (unrelated to his profession) agenda?

Thanks.

Satyavadi

Macgupta and Satish::

Thanks for your posts. I am learning a lot from them.

Regards,

Satyavadi

Pakistani chowksters and our very own Jay and Rsaxena are conspicuous by their absence :)

Satyavadi