Thoughts on genetics, Aryan debate and dharma

[Preface: We have in this blog already discussed the Aryan influx hypothesis issue. From my previous posts in this matter, readers will note that my stand has been very cynical w.r.t. any proposed influx. I have presented comments and inferences by various geneticists and their research papers, which go against any influx. However, I am always open to discussion and new ideas. I welcome any fresh evidence and any perspective provided it has the weight of scholarly analysis. One such scholarly analysis recently came to my attention, which I have excerpted in this post.]

The publication of a new paper on Indian population genetics studies has once again elicitated some excitement over the Aryan question. Some of the authors of the paper made some very strong statements against the colonial theory of Aryan invasion turned euphemistic migration turning trickle-in theory.

Widely believed theory of Indo-Aryan invasion, often used to explain early settlements in the Indian subcontinent is a myth, a new study by Indian geneticists says.

“Our study clearly shows that there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago,” said Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, who led the research team, which included scientists from the University of Tartu, Estonia, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai and Banaras Hindu University.

“It is high time we re-write India’s prehistory based on scientific evidence,” said Dr Lalji Singh, former director of CCMB. “There is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India or even something such as Aryans existed”. Singh, vice-chancellor of BHU, is a coauthor.

The comparison of this data with genetic data of other populations showed that South Asia harbours two major ancestry components. One is spread in populations of South and West Asia, Middle East, Near East and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50 per cent of the ancestry in Indian populations.

“Both the ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia demonstrate much greater diversity than those that predominate West Eurasia. This is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia,” researchers said.

“The genetic component which spread beyond India is significantly higher in India than in any other part of world. This implies that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus,” said Gyaneshwar Chaube of University of Tartu, Estonia.

A very knowledgeable Hindu blogger whom I admire and agree with on most matters, and who is a highly educated (evolutionary) biologist by training (if I have deduced his identity correctly), had this to say on this latest Metspalu, et. al., 2011 paper.

A recent paper by Metspalu et al in AHJG adds additional data to the growing material on the genetics of the Indians. The paper has several issues that are rather unsatisfactory – chief among them is the attempt to meaninglessly hand wave on OIT and AIT. The AIT is sitting right there in their data, yet they attempt to obfuscate the issue in somewhat amateurish ways. But that is not something we wish to discuss today because there is new work that might be published relatively soon that will smash the OIT theory for good.

Interestingly, while the authors of an earlier paper (Reich et. al. 2009) have spoken against AIT/AMT (albeit indirectly) in a press conference, their paper itself has been interpreted by many as supporting AMT (Breaking India, Appendix A). A discussion of their paper in Nature by Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti makes interesting reading. On one hand Dr. Chakravarti seemingly supports AMT. On the other hand, he also supports Reich, et. al. that current Indian population is admixture of ANI (Ancestral North Indian), ASI (Ancestral South Indian), both of which groups have remote ancestry in India (can be traced back to around 40,000 to 65,000 years). Of course, the paper itself mentions that ANI has affinity with Europeans. If we go by geneticists, this affinity would imply that there was/were major migration(s) out of the Indian subcontinent which contributed to the non-African genetic population of the world. Geneticist Oppenheimer says,

For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus.

In his book, “The Real Eve”, Dr. Oppenheimer traces the genetic origin of Europeans and Central Asians to a single mother who lived in the Indian subcontinent, whom he calls the “Eurasian Eve”. This inference points to the autochthonous origin of the genetic population of the Indian subcontinent, which agrees with the results of many genetic studies, including but not limited to, Sharma, et. al. 2009,  Sengupta, et. al. 2006, Sahoo, et. al., 2006, Metspalu, et. al., 2004. Not surprisingly, while Bamshad, et. al. 2001, which seemed to support a invasionist/migrationist model had the professional Aryanists jumping up and down, vast majority of subsequent genetic research, which go against any so-called Aryan invasion or migration into India, don’t elicit the same excitement from them.

Interestingly, some professional Aryanists theorize that even if the Indian subcontinent is the genetic origin for Central Asian and European populations, that still doesn’t rule out a migration of Sanskrit speaking (or PIE speaking) “Aryans” into the subcontinent around 1500 BCE (or around that time). Now some questions arise with this theory. How major was this theoretical migration to have contributed language and beliefs in such a scale? Did Sanskrit develop in the subcontinent prior of this said migration? Or, did the ancient migration out of the subcontinent carry PIE into Central Asia, Europe? If we go by genetic studies, among others, Metspalu, et. al., 2004 clearly state that since the initial settlement of South Asia by modern humans, when this region may well have provided initial settlers who colonized much of Eurasia, gene flow in and out of India has been very limited. Metspalu, et. al., 2011 also provide the same thesis. Co-author Gyaneshwar Chaube of University of Tartu, Estonia explicitly states this in an aforementioned quote from India Today. However, given the possibility of new research disputing this out-of-India model, as mentioned by the editor of mAnasataraMgiNI, we eagerly await that publication.

In any case, even though the invasionist model has been largely discarded by the professional Aryanists for a migrationist (and even trickle-in) model, there are still significant mainstream books, sites, etc. that talk of conquering light skinned Aryans and defeated dark skinned natives. It may still take significant amount of time before this Aryan debate is settled once and for all. While genetics holds the key, as long as there exists political reasons for patronizing the professional Aryanists, namely, the Marxist history engineers of India and their occidental Eurocentric associates, the results and inferences of genetic research won’t reach textbooks that easily. That said, it will probably take another decade of more genetic evidence, on top of what we already know, to put an end to this Aryan debate once and for all.

Notwithstanding the direction genetics studies take, it is important to dissociate dharma/Hinduism from the Aryan theories. The soul of India has always been dhArmika be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. Wherever dharma has ceased to exist, secessionist activities have taken root. The nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh stand as testimonies to what happens once the population is converted from dharma. If the break India agenda is to be foiled, among other things, there needs to be a resurgence of dharma in India. Whether dharma “came to” India from outside or not shouldn’t really be the focus. Focus should be that dharma is that soul of India and cleansing of dharma enables the break India agenda. Of course, if genetic studies of the last few years is any indication, the evidence for autochthonous origins of the Indian population groups and hence dharma is gradually mounting. While any new paper may as well change this, after some deliberation I have come to believe that it is definitely befitting to decouple the whole Aryan influx matter from dharma/Hinduism. Otherwise, we will merely be playing into the hands of our civilizational opponents.


Genetics delivers another blow to Aryan myth

Genetics exposes yet again, what has been known for some time now. That the Aryan invasion/migration theory[1] is at best a questionable hypothesis and at worst a consummate mendacity. In the past, an article was published in this blog which emphatically proved[2] that modern genetics goes against the colonial concoction of the Aryan invasion theory and its later euphemistic version the Aryan migration theory[3]. Recently, Open Magazine carried a series of articles exploring the genetic origins of Indians[4][5][6][7][8][9][10], where results and inferences presented refute the Aryan invasion/migration theory.

To get a clearer picture of our origins, Open sent DNA samples of a couple of celebrities, John Abraham and Baichung Bhutia, alongwith those of four magazine staffers to the National Geographic Deep Ancestry Project. Based on the genetic markers thus identified and other research conducted by scientists, we present a plausible map of our origins.

To interprete and present their results they collaborated with Ramasamy Pitchappan, principal investigator, India, of the National Geographic Project (NGP), and a leading Indian geneticist, RNK Bamezai, director of the National Centre of Applied Human Genetics (NCAHG) at Jawaharlal Nehru University and vice-chancellor of Jammu University.

Excerpts from the results are provided here. Emphasis added.

In fact, much of the genetic evidence seems to suggest a South Asian origin for the F haplogroup. This haplogroup and its lines of descent account for perhaps 90 per cent of the male population in the world. Contrary to received wisdom, this would imply that much of the globe outside Africa was settled by outward migrations from South Asia dating back to over 50,000 years ago. Certainly, the distant origins of the modern European population seem to lie in South Asia, emphasising the crucial importance of this region in understanding the peopling of the globe.

…the antiquity of both the L and H haplogroups in India suggests that a majority of the Indian male population can trace its presence in the Subcontinent back at least 20,000 years if not earlier.

Geneticist Bamezai says,

…I feel R1a1 originated here and contributed to Central Asia rather than the other way around.

A research paper published by Bamezai, et. al in the Journal of Human Genetics in 2009, further says,

Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1 has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent… To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions)… for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1 in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1 in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a in ancestors, and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1 haplogroup supported the autochthonous [indigenous] origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins.

Interestingly, Bamazai, et. al. 2009 agrees with the authors of Reich, et. al. 2009[11][12] who have said that as per genetic studies, castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society. Reich at. al 2009 further say that current Indian society is an admixture of groups of human settlement in the Indian sub-continent which can be traced back from 65,000 to 40,000 years.

The Open Magazine genetics tests results further state,

…the evidence suggests is that the origins of Hartosh’s R1a1 haplogroup lie in India. Thus, a large part of Central Asia, Southern Russia, Ukraine onwards to the Czech Republic may well be populated by a 15,000-year-old migration from India.

…the proportion of R1a1 in some Brahmin groups such as those of West Bengal is as high as 72 per cent. This indicates that the origins of Brahmins as a caste may well lie in the R1a1 haplogroup. But since the antiquity of the Ra1a haplogroup in tribals such as Central India’s Sahariyas is older than it is among Brahmins, it is reasonable to believe that Brahmins may not be entrants from outside but may have originated as a caste from the tribal population of this country.

The results of the Haplogroup R1A1 tests[13] and the analysis of geneticists further reinforce the completely autochthonous origin and antiquity of the Indian population.

The diversity and antiquity of Haplogroup R1a1 in India suggests its origins lie in South Asia. The haplogroup has been found in substantial numbers among some tribes such as the Sahariyas of Central India and the Chenchus of Andhra where its age seems to be well over 15,000 years. This allows for just one possibility, a migration out of India to Southern Russia onward to the Czech Republic and even Scandinavia.

In summary, the crux of the resuts and analysis point to

  1. the origins of Indian subcontinental population being autochthonous, i.e., in the Indian subcontinent itself.
  2. the antiquity of Indian subcontinental population going back to around 50,000 years, and perhaps even more.
  3. Indian subcontinent being the origin of most of the current non-African population of the world.
  4. migration of population from Indian subcontinent to Central Asia, Southern Russia, etc.

These results are in agreement with the prevalent genetics research and inferences of geneticists previously presented in this blog[14]. In the face of incontrovertible archeological evidence contrary to any Aryan invasion, many “scholars” have moved to a euphemistic Aryan migration theory. In fact some even propound a ridiculous Aryan trickle-in theory. However, as genetics research of the last few years have shown, the migration that could have occurred is a migration out of the Indian subcontinent.

With genetics research only getting better and more cutting age, it is a matter of time before the Aryan invasion-turned-migration-turning-trickle-in theory is consigned to the funereal pyre of mendacious tripe. So far this theory has been kept alive only through the efforts of the Marxist history engineers of India and their Eurocentric associates in the west. The Indian Marxist history engineers have colored textbooks with their ideological biases to propound the Aryan invasion/migration theory for decades. Even though there exists no historical or archeological evidence for any invasion or migration of so-called Aryans into the Indian subcontinent. With genetics research vindicating this truth, one hopes, sooner rather than later, textbooks will be cleansed of Marxist-Eurocentric ideological tripe and Indian history is freed from the clutches of the professional Aryanists.


[1] ^ (tattvaanveShaNam. “Exploring the Aryan Myth”. June 15, 2010)
[2] ^ using results of genetics research and inferences, observations of geneticists.
[3] ^ (tattvaanveShaNam. “Genetics and the Aryan myth”. June 15, 2010)
[4] ^ (Bal. The Story of Our Origins. May 28, 2011)
[5] ^ (“The Science of DNA Testing”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[6] ^ (“Haplogroup M”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[7] ^ (“Haplogroup H”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[8] ^ (“Haplogroup L”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[9] ^ (“Haplogroup R1A1”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[10] ^ (“Haplogroup D”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[11] ^ (Reich et al. Print. 2009)
[12] ^ (Times News Network. Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study. Sep 25, 2009)
[13] ^ (“Haplogroup R1A1”. Open Magazine. May 28, 2011)
[14] ^ (tattvaanveShaNam. “Genetics and the Aryan debate”. June 15, 2010)


Bal, Hartosh Singh. May 28, 2011. “The Story of Our Origins.” Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

“Haplogroup D.” May 28, 2011. Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

“Haplogroup H.” May 28, 2011. Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

“Haplogroup L.” May 28, 2011. Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

“Haplogroup M.” May 28, 2011. Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

“Haplogroup R1A1.” May 28, 2011. Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

Reich, David et al. print. “Reconstructing Indian population history.” Nature 461(7263): 489-494.

tattvaanveShaNam. June 15, 2010. “Genetics and the Aryan debate.” (Accessed June 20, 2010).

tattvaanveShaNam. June 15, 2010. “Exploring the Aryan myth.” (Accessed June 20, 2010).

“The Science of DNA Testing.” 2011. Open Magazine. (Accessed May 29, 2011).

Times News Network. Sep 25, 2009. “Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study.” The Times of India. (Accessed September 26, 2009).

C-14 dating, mistranslations and Aryans

In a seminar on Indian civilization graced by scholars and archeologists from India and abroad, hard evidence was propounded that goes against the Marxist, Eurocentric theory of any Aryan invasion or migration into what is now South Asia [1]. The seminar was graced by luminaries from Archaeological Survey of India, Indian Archaeological Society, Indian Space Research Organization, California State University, University of Bologne (Italy), Shah Abdul Latif University (Pakistan). The keynote address was delivered by Prof. B. B. Lal, who is a world renowned scholar and giant in Archeology [2]. Prof. Lal mentioned how parochial postulates born out of colonial lenses have distorted Indian history.

Former ASI Director-General Prof. B. B. Lal spoke about “postulates [that] have been distorting our vision of India’s past”. Among these is the belief that the Vedas are no older than 1200 B.C. and that Vedic people were nomads. Recent excavations at sites in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat and a fresh study of Vedic texts, he said, have proved that most of these postulates are “ill- founded.”

According to Prof. Lal, these excavations proved that the Rigveda is older than 2,000 BC and people of this civilisation were not nomads. Quashing the “Aryan invasion theory” he said that the Harappan civilisation did not become extinct, and C-14 dating procedures proved that Harappan and Vedic people were indigenous, not invaders or migrants.

Prof. Lal, has in the past been the target of Marxist and Eurocentric historengineers who have resorted to crass ad-hominems and outright bawdy calumny to try and malign him simply because his scholarship and incontrovertible archeological findings hinder their rubric of engineering history to fit into their ideological moorings and agendas. Among other often used innuendoes, “Hindutva(vaadi)” is one that has been liberally thrown at him.

In this context it would be pertinent to mention the alleged mistranslation of a part of the Baudhayana Srautasutra by Prof. Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University (Witzel 1995: 320-21). In 2003 Prof. Lal published a paper in the East and West (Vol. 53, Nos. 1-4), exposing Prof. Witzel’s manipulation [3]. The original Sanskrit text is as follows:

pran ayuh pravavraja; tasyaite kuru-pancalah kasi-videha ity; etad ayavam.
pratyan amavasus; tasyaite gandharayas parsavo íratta ity; etad amavasavam.

Prof. Witzel’s translated this as:

“Aya went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parasu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group).

It is hard to miss how conveniently Prof. Witzel’s mistranslation fits into his vehement propounding of the Aryan migration theory.

Whereas the correct translation as pointed out by Prof. Lal (and other Sanskrit scholars) is:

Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).

According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the any Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west as held by proponents of the Aryan invasion/migration/trickle-in theories. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that it was from an intermediary point from where some of the indigenous people went eastwards and some went westwards. Figure-1 below well elucidates this.


Figure-1: Migration of people as mentioned in the Baudhayana Srautasutra (image courtesy: [3])

Following is quoted from Prof. Lal’s inaugural address at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology, held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007 [3].

Professor Witzel and I happened to participate in a seminar organized by UMASS, Dartmouth in June 2006. When I referred, during the course of my presentation, to this wrong translation by the learned Professor, he, instead of providing evidence in support of his own stand, shot at me by saying that I did not know the difference between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. Should that be the level of an academic debate? (Anyway, he had to be told that I had the privilege of obtaining in 1943 my Master’s Degree in Sanskrit (with the Vedas included), with a First Class First, from a first class university of India, namely Allahabad.)

As aptly noted by Prof. Lal, academic decency is fast discarded by the Marxists and Eurocentrics when they find their pet history engineering projects threatened. Given the lack of any evidence for the Aryan Invasion/Migration/Trickle-in theory from archaeology, palaeo-anthropology or genetics, given the constant stream of genetic research papers refuting this theory being published [4] and given only the tenuous, speculative linguistic arguments for it, it is only a matter of time before this colonial concoction [5]meets its end. Of course those married to it for ideological, careerist or other agendas will no doubt use various types of mendacity to convince themselves and their bedfellows otherwise. That said, I do hope that the professional invasionists and migrationists won’t call C-14 dating “Hindutva” technology.


Please refer to Vishal Agarwal’s piece [6] for an erudite exposition of Prof. Witzel’s “piltdown translation”.








Politics of Aryan-Dravidian Divide

Adithya Reddy at “Centre Right India Community Forum” made a post on the politics of Aryan-Dravidian divide [1]. He rightly points to how petty, opportunist politicians have hijacked academicians to make political capital.

Mr. Karunanidhi is scoring huge amongst the electorate with his forthcoming World Classical Tamil Conference in Coimbatore. He has positioned himself as the undisputed protector of the Tamil language and culture. Every time Mr. Karunanidhi talks of or does anything for Tamil, he makes it a point to establish a psychological divide in the Tamil mind. A classic example is his choice of Dr. Asko Parpolo, a Finnish Historian, for an award at the conference. Dr. Parpolo has been a leading proponent of the theory that the Indus valley civilization was Dravidian in culture. While it is perfectly possible that the Indus culture was similar to what was followed in South India, such theories are always used as tool to establish ‘Dravidian supremacy’ over ‘Aryan culture’.

Mr. Reddy astutely points to how such divisive (and false, as genetic evidence has time and again proven) Aryan-Dravidian political machinations only serve to act against country and civilization.

Why should there be any comparison? Can anybody from North-India deny that Tamil is of greater antiquity than most languages they speak? Equally, every Tamilian should claim proud inheritance to civilisational advancements that occured in the northern part of the country. The lack of a pan-Indian consciousness in the average Tamilian is not entirely his fault. He has been misled by leaders for political gain and it is unfortunate that the BJP is not doing enough to change this.

The whole Aryan-Dravidian divide is utter nonsense [2]. The Aryan invasion theory was a concoction of European colonial supremacists to propound their imagined racial superiority and to facilitate religious conversions. In the face of incontrovertible archaeological findings contrary to any invasion, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been morphed into the euphemistic Aryan Migration Theory. Opportunists, like some mentioned by Adithya Reddy, jumped on this bandwagon for political capital. Recent genetic research [3] has overwhelmingly debunked the Aryan hoax. Sadly, due to a near complete lack of any organized scholarship to coherently present this, the cabal of communist pulp fiction historians and their cohorts have been able to keep this hoax alive. Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst made a very astute observation in this regard [4].

…I noticed how excellent Hindu historians and archaeologists were very successful at finding evidence, but rather poor in presenting a coherent picture of where exactly their findings fit into the argumentation…

The cabal of communist pulp fiction historians and their cohorts (both in India and the west) have made an art of distorting the truth without batting an eye. When confronted, they resort to ad-hominems using some standard adjectives such as “Hindu fundamentalist”, “communal”, “fascist”, “Hindutva’wadi”, etc. A common factor of these vested interests is their organized demonization of the BJP. Under these circumstances, I have to disagree with Mr. Adithya Reddy when he says that the BJP should felicitate or at least issue a statement appreciating the work of Reich et. al 2009 [5] [6].

All the tools of study used by people like Dr. Parpolo, as well as those who advocate an ‘Aryan’ origin to the Indus civilization are interpretative. Materials, artifacts, manuscripts and objects are collected and interpreted in one way or the other. However, every scientific study that has emerged on the topic in recent times has pointed to only one conclusion – for thousands of years India has had a common population. A joint study conducted by Harvard and Indian researchers found that there was no North-South divide in the Indian population. It was featured prominently in some national newspapers. Why can’t the BJP felicitate or at least issue a statement appreciating the work of these researchers?

Because if they do so, then the proponents of the Aryan hoax will immediately jump on their high horses and try to discredit the work of the genetic researchers using their time tested strategies of ad-hominems and “guilt by association”.

I also have to disagree with Adithya Reddy when he says that the BJP could use the genetic research for election campaigning in Tamil Nadu.

Why can’t the BJP use such research in election campaigning in Tamil Nadu?

In 2002, Indologist N. Kazanas published a sixty page article titled “Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda” in The Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES), vol. 30,Numbers 3&4 (2002), pages 275-334. The article argued that the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages did not enter the Indian subcontinent around 1500 BC, as the original Aryan Invasion Theory and its newer cousin the Aryan Migration Theory hold. Michael Witzel (who is married to the Aryan Migration Theory) engaged in a “debate” with Kazanas in succeeding issues of the journal. Independent commentators and lay historians made inputs in other forums as well, which I won’t dwell upon here. The point to be noted is that W allegedly made the accusation that Kazanas’s paper could be used by political parties (read BJP) in India. While that has absolutely no bearing on the scholarship of Kazanas and the academic veracity of his paper, that’s the sort of thing used by the proponents of the Aryan hoax to counter threats to their pet theories.
Mr. Reddy further says, and truly so,

The electoral implications of demolishing the Aryan-Dravidian divide are huge, especially in Tamil Nadu. The BJP needs to realise this. Also, the BJP’s failure to use such intellectual developments has limited the appeal of its ideology to the urban, educated Indian.

However, the Aryan migration theory (euphemistic version of the now discredited Aryan Invasion Theory) is still widely debated and in spite of overwhelming genetic evidence to its contrary is still considered mainstream. As such until this great Aryan hoax is trashed once and for all; which will eventually happen given the number of genetic research papers being published debunking the possibility of any Aryan migration [3]; its best that political parties let genetic researchers do their work. After all, the Aryan hoax being well and truly trashed is not about the BJP, Congress, CPI-M, or Thapar, Witzel and their ilk. It is about truth. It is about Bharatvarsh. Having said that, as of now, apolitical Dharmic organizations can definitely use the published genetic research papers to publicize the mendacity of the Aryan-Dravidian divide and help rid the great Tamil community from the clutches of opportunist, sectarian politicians.

One commenter named Balaji made some interesting remarks [7], which are partly reproduced here.

Aryan-Dravidian is a linguistic divide. not of race or people. just as some ‘Hindus’ perceive muslims as outsiders for persisting with the Arabic language and Arab way of life, many non-Aryans are uncomfortable with Sansrkit and the brahmanical religion. That Brahmanical religion is sanskritized is obvious – principal literature – vedas, ramayan etc. When the Brahmanical religion is presented in say Tamil (like in Nalayira divya prabhandam) it has found more takers.
Incidentally south-indians in early first millennium were much more receptive to eastern religions like Buddhism and Jainism despite their original works being written by Aryan speakers or equally distant (to tamils) Pali canon. All it took was for the buddhist/jain monks to present the literature in Tamil (thirukural, silappadikaram, manimegalai) to gain acceptance.
Even in the recent past, Tamilnadu and Kerala have had substantial conversions to Christianity. Mostly becos of over two centuries of Tamil/Malayalam literary contribution by Christian missionaries. Heard of Viramamunivar, G U Pope, Henry Kritinappillai?
as conservatives, the people @ shud be familiar with preserving local cultures and languages against majoritarian onslaught. indian nationalism is a bogus concept. indians have had a much larger vision of ‘vasudeva kudumbagam’. India can accommodate aryan, dravidian, munda, tribal, perso-arabic and anglo literary and religious traditions with equal ease. stop painting us all with the same brush.

Balaji sought to imply that the Aryan-Dravidian divide is simply linguistic. Most proponents of the Aryan theory however associate it not just with a linguistic group but also with a racial group. One only needs to read the work of people like Thapar and Witzel who are married to the Aryan Migration Theory.

As Balaji says, it is true that India is a multicultural, multi-religious society. Historically as well as culturally India has always been very accommodating. However, that is so only because India has a Dharmic majority population. Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism/Hindu Dharma) is the only belief system that espouses tenets such as “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (The whole world is one family), or “Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahuda Vadanti” (Truth is one, the wise call it by many names). This philosophy of inclusiveness is at the very core of Hindu Dharma. It is this very inclusiveness that has allowed a whole tapestry of views, practices, traditions, etc. (some even contrary to others) to peacefully co-exist. It is this very inclusiveness that provided a safe heaven for Jews who found refuge in India 2,000 years ago, and Zoroastrians more recently, who flourished as ethnic minorities. To quote Dr. Nathan Katz, Professor of Religious Studies at Florida International University,

“The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora. The study of Indian Jewish communities demonstrates that in Indian culture an immigrant group gains status precisely by maintaining its own identity. Such is the experience not only of India’s Jews, but also of local Christians, Zoroastrians, and recently, Tibetan Buddhists.”

Readers will note that this inclusiveness in Dharmic philosophy and tradition is completely contrary to the dogma of assimilation in supremacist religious ideologies. In fact the less said about totalitarian, supremacist ideologies and their holier-than-thou, my-way-or-the-highway ethos, the better. Unfortunately, “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”, et. al. notwithstanding, the danger of totalitarian supremacist ideologies that espouse exclusivity overwhelming inclusive Dharmic philosophies once they reach majority, is very real. One only needs to look at the change in the religious demographics of Pakistan and Bangladesh to see this already happen. One only needs to look at the change in religious demographics of South Korea to see this happening.

As Balaji mentioned, one reason for the success of Christian missionaries is that they translate their religious material and also (to their credit) add their own contribution to local languages wherever they go. While language is not the only divide, it is perhaps the biggest one. Perhaps, if some apolitical organization took the time to print some tracts in Tamil on genetic research debunking the Aryan-Dravidian divide, along with providing Dharmic scriptures translated into Tamil, that would be a start.






[5] Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study TNN, Sep 25, 2009, The Times of India

[6] Ancestral Populations Of India And Relationships To Modern Groups Revealed ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2009)Reich, David; Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, and Lalji Singh (24 September 2009). “Reconstructing Indian population history“. Nature 461: 489–494.


Aryan Myth Fueled Neo-Nazis Jailed in England

A couple of racist bigots in England were sentenced for posting their hate filled drivel on the internet. Excerpts from [1] below. Emphasis in bold has been added by me.

Two white supremacists have been jailed after being convicted of posting violent and vicious racist messages on the internet.
Michael Heaton, 42, and Trevor Hannington, 58, described Jews as “scum” and called for them to be “destroyed”.

Sentencing, Mr Justice Irwin told Heaton, of Leigh in Wigan, Greater Manchester, his internet posts were “vicious and repulsive”.
He added: “You saw yourself as the leader of a potentially significant and active National Socialist group. Your sustained racist rants were intended to bolster that group.
“You wanted to start a race war. You are clearly filled with racial hatred and also with violent and angry beliefs.”
The judge told Heaton his words were of the most “insulting and extreme nature” marked by “violent racism”, and said only a significant jail term was acceptable.
Hannington, from Hirwaun, Cardiff, was described as a loner by the judge, who told him: “You are a long standing racist who has never hidden your views, which are violent and vicious in the extreme.
“You are a lonely man with little in your life. You habitually told lies about a non-existent army career and your knowledge of survival techniques in an attempt to gain status. You are, to some degree, pitiable in this, however repugnant what you said.”

Incidentally, the neo-Nazi racist loonies are members of a group called the “Aryan Strike Force”, as per a picture in the original article [1]. As the name of the group suggests, like the original Nazis of yore, they were clearly led to believe in their hallucinations of racial supremacy due to the great Aryan hoax [2]. This racist Aryan hoax was a concoction of European colonial supremacists to prove their imagined racial superiority and to facilitate religious conversions. Sadly this racist hoax led to the Nazi’s fascist frenzy of violence which resulted in the Jewish holocaust. What is unfortunate is that even today there are people in academia (both in India and abroad) who still very aggressively defend this racist Aryan hoax in spite of loaded scientific evidence (particularly genetic) to the contrary. For details, I recommend readers to go through my posts in “Exploring the Aryan myth” series [2].
The good news is that both the Hindu and Jewish communities have made efforts [3] to correct this travesty of history in the historic Hindu-Jewish summits. It will be worthwhile to mention here that this progressive effort is excluded by and in spite of those who might have Sanskrit or Hindu names and who might (deceptively) call themselves Hindus but are correctly characterized as the fifth column of Marxo-Stalinist communists and the peddlers of communal vote bank politics using base policies of sorry appeasement and pseudo-secularism.
Excerpts from [3] on the 2008 Hindu-Jewish summit held in Israel are provided below. The full declaration is available at [4]. Emphasis in bold has been added by me.

The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) was represented in a delegation of Hindu spiritual and lay leaders that visited Israel last week to attend the Second International Hindu-Jewish Summit organized by the World Council of Religious Leaders (WCORL) in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The goal of the Summit, according to Bawa Jain, Secretary General of WCORL, was to further develop and promote understanding and mutual respect between the leaders of The Chief Rabbinate of Israel and The Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, an apex unifying body of many of the most prominent Hindu religious leaders. This 2008 Summit was a continuation of the first Summit held in Delhi, India in February 2007.

At the Summit, Rabbi Rosen formally read the Declaration upon which the leaders of the Rabbinate and the Hindu delegation had agreed. The nine-point Declaration broadly (a) reaffirms the common Hindu and Jewish belief in One Supreme Being both in its formless and manifest aspects; (b) expresses their common world view of the sanctity of human life; (c) recognizes that all religions are sacred for their people and therefore, no one should denigrate or interfere in the religious practice of others; (d) recognizes that the Svastika is an ancient Hindu symbol and was misappropriated by the Third Reich; and (e) calls for serious reconsideration of the Aryan Migration Theory–a largely discredited, racist theory that posits that an invasion by nomadic, non-Indian tribes conceived the Vedic civilization.
“In particular, the agreement of the belief in One Supreme Being having various manifestations and the recognition of Svastika’s auspiciousness in the Hindu tradition were monumental steps in building an understanding between the two religions,” said Shah, adding that HAF will work hard to highlight the Declaration in various fora over the next year.

In particular, the recognition of the Svastika’s auspiciousness in the Hindu tradition and denouncement of the mythical racist theory of Aryan migration (morphed from the original invasion theory) are monumental steps in building an understanding between the two belief systems. While this is a good step forward, it is the likes of the viciously repulsive “Aryan Strike Force” and collusion based (mostly communist; Marxo-Stalinist) academic cartels in India and abroad that need to show this sort of progressiveness. Particularly the latter since it is their creation and propagation of the racist Aryan theory (hoax) which fuels repugnant fascist groups like the “Aryan Strike Force”. Might be wishful thinking but here’s hoping!