India Unvarnished

Murad, what an ambitious undertaking. I am still making my way through your article. Just wanted to tell you it is really interesting though. *goes back to reading *

In reply to Satyavadi : the changes that grandchildren of Holocaust survivors underwent is not genetic. It is a purely environmental effect, and presumably will fade away with the passing of generations. The point was to illustrate that while genetics is all about inheritance, inheritance is not all about genetics.

Steve Jones is a currently active scientist, and his book cautions that the field is advancing so fast that current findings may be soon out of date.

Regarding skin color, if I remember correctly, the genetics shows that one gene turns on melanin production, a second gene inhibits it, a third gene inhibits the effects of the second gene, and so on. If you ask how such a mechanism evolved, the answer seems to be that skin pigmentation turned off and on several times during human evolution.

-arun gupta

I am sorry I was out of town after I put my previous post so couldnot take part in the discussion earlier. But most of the things I wanted to say have been said already by others. In any case, here is what I think.

It is not tough to explain the difference in skin colors. It is true that statistically speaking, north Indians are fairer than south Indians. But once again, the difference is not much. It looks so only because we Indians have made a fetish of fairness. If we see the complete spectrum of skin colors, from very fair nordics and russians to very dark central africans, then the `fair` northerners and `dark` southerners, both come somewhere in the middle. It all depends on how much melanin your skin creates, in order to beat the sunlight. As melanin creation is a genetic trait, it takes time to change, but it is reasonable to believe that in a few hundred generations, natural selection takes over and the skin color changes. Add to it the natural wandering tendencies of humand and you may be sure that the most you can think of is a broad statistical distribution of skin colors around the world; nothing like the cut and dried `racial groups` so popular with colonialists and racists.

For example, Italians and Spanish have a much darker color than Nordics or Scots, and they rarely have blue eyes, but no one thinks of them as another race. If you plot the distance between the poles and equator and make a corresponding change in the statistical average skin color for every mile, you will find that the north and south Indians have more or less the expected colors. You dont have to import them from anywhere to explain that.

The statistics are much poorer in the case of casts. My experience has been that almost all the castes in extreme north of India and in Pakistan are fair, and again my experience has been that most of south Indian upper castes are dark too. I come from a Brahmin family of UP/Bihar and my relatives have skin colors ranging from very dark to very fair. The other people of my ancestral village also have more or less the same color. The only difference is the people who work in fields in sun, they are invariable very dark.

Basically I feel that people see what they want to see, or what they have been taught to see.

One more point, the author seems to believe that civilization in India started only at the advent of Dravidians, from somewhere, around 3000 BC. I wish he`d read about the Mehergarh site, where a continuous township has been dug dating back all the way from 6500 BC.

I have no problem with the fact that we all may have originated somewhere in Africa. My proble is why all the invasions/migrations had to occur within last 4000 years? When there are ample proofs that human civilization existed in some form or other in many parts of the world all the way back to 50000BC or even earlier. I think we are fighting a battle with the last remnants of biblical time-scales (You know, world originated 4004BC, one fine morning in late October, Noah`s flood in 2200BC, etc.)and how do you explain the continuous presence of Australlian aborigins on the continent of Australlia for 40000 years at least? But again, for colonialists, they are not human, are they? And only what the colonialists taught us can ever be true!

Urstruly#: 33

That site attempts to explain different aspects of Hindusim. `Om` is one of the key symbols associated with Hinduism. That is why that site started with an explanation of that symbol.

Sudheer #32

Welcome to Chowk. Why don`t you contribute an article on this site. I believe that editors will welcome publishing that.

Regards

Differences in build are more related to childhood nutrition and health than to genetics. For example, the average Japanese height has increased by ten centimeters from 1900 to 1980, without any new genes. The average young Japanese is now as tall on the average as the young European.

-arun gupta

Differences in build are more related to childhood nutrition, health and living conditions than to genetics. For example, the average Japanese height has increased by ten centimeters from 1900 to 1980, without any new genes. The average young Japanese is now as tall on the average as the young European.

-arun gupta

Check this site on Ancient India, Indian history, mythology, culture, religion etc.

Kamat`s Potpourri

http://www.kamat.com

Discover India, Discover yourself

RE: Friend# 38

That still does not answer my question. May be I was not specific enough. I think Sudheer is trying to imply that the words OM, Omnipresent, the English phrase ``alpha and omega``, the Christian term Amen and the Muslim term Aamin are all equivalent in meaning. It is also my understanding that all of the above terms mean ``Omnipresent``; or does it? I am really doubtfull about Amen and Aamin. One can also draw a conclusion that English, Arabic, Greek and Roman languages borrowed the word from Sanskrit or vice versa. Is he also trying to imply that the ideologies behind those words were also ``exchanged``. So my question again is that what is he trying to say?

Sudheer:
I give you a head start. My next question will be about THAT Meteor.

The two questions next to that might be the definition of the terms ``Humanism`` and ``Rationalism``.

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

Satyavadi

Macgupta and Satish::

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

Regards,

Satyavadi

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

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

-arun

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

``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 !!!

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.