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.

Meera Nanda’s hollow rhetoric on ‘Voice of India’

Instead of clumsily attempting to discredit the pioneering Voice of India publication house, through the proxy of Breivik, I would like to see Meera Nanda try to discredit the data presented by VOI publications through hard evidence and reasoning. But since characters more capable than Nanda have abysmally failed to do so, I can see why she chooses instead to throw muck at VOI without actually even attempting to debunk the veracity of data presented in VIO publications.

Nanda insinuates, the claim that Muslims enslaved Hindus and drove them to their death in the Hindu Kush mountain ranges is questionable. I would like to point to no other than Al Beruni, the Muslim chronicler who has himself written in support of the irrefutable veracity of that claim. This is history straight from the horse’s mouth. I would also like to direct the curious to Elliot’s “The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period” for further evidence of the unimaginable atrocities committed by Islamic invaders on India’s native population. Elliot’s work is merely an English translation of accounts by Muslim scribes in Persian. Again, history straight from the horse’s mouth.

What Breivik’s madness presents is an opportunity for an open dialog and honest debate to analyze the reasons behind religious conflict and terrorism in the Indian subcontinent starting from medieval to modern periods. Such a dialog needs to accept history without whitewashing and needs to be open to free speech from different spectrums. Unfortunately, an open dialog is unpalatable for the torch bearers of Indian secularism, since that will expose their duplicity and empty scholarship. No wonder they feel the need to resort to hollow rhetoric.

Hindu-Muslim tensions during the war of independence in 1857

UPDATE (August 12, 2012): For some reason, some other folks seem to have the impression that this post is a review of Parag Tope’s book “Operation Red Lotus”. It is not. It is a small examination of the mendacity of unequivocal Hindu-Muslim unity propounded by Marxist-secularist history engineers as well as some well-meaning but misguided people. 1857 was not some Utopian Hindu-Muslim bonhomie as it is sought to be portrayed. In fact, it was a period when in many cases, Hindus were at the receiving end of Islamic barbarity, in part owing to the self-defeating idealistic idiocy of certain Hindus themselves.


Parag Tope, the author of “Operation Red Lotus”[1] made some interesting remarks on Hindu-Muslim relations[2] during the war of independence in 1857.[3]

It was much more than a “civilian” Hindu-Muslim solidarity, which clearly was on display at every level – but as a matter of fact – not as a “romance” that it is viewed as today.

While there were indeed successful attempts at forging Hindu-Muslim unity in 1857, as Parag rightly says it definitely was no “romance” as it is viewed today largely due to Marxist-secularist subversion of history. A careful examination further reveals data which underneath the veneer of the purported unity shows outright religious tensions and bigotry at work. This makes it hard to justify defining Hindu-Muslim relations during the war of independence in 1857 as,

solidarity, which clearly was on display at every level

It is undeniable that there were instances where both Hindus and Muslims responded to calls and successfully forged alliances both at military and civilian levels, but there is also significant evidence of religious tensions and bigotry leading to an inevitable conflict. We will in this post examine some of this evidence which makes it difficult to give colors of unequivocal Hindu-Muslim amity to 1857.

The proclamations that went out of the Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah’s court no doubt stressed Hindu-Muslim unity and desisted from using any particular religious colors.[4] The Delhi proclamation of May 11 1857, and the Azamgarh proclamation are also fine examples of attempts at forging Hindu-Muslim unity.[5] Both proclamations called upon Hindus and Muslims to be of one mind and overthrow the British. Interestingly, Sarfaraz Ali, the Islamic religious leader of Gorakhpur made fervent calls to Muslims invoking the prophet, the “impure” kaffirs, and then also solemnly called upon Hindus to rise against the firangis.[6] Similar wording is also seen in the proclamations issued by the grandson of Bahadur Shah, Mohammad Feroze Khan and the imam of Allahabad, Liyaqat Ali.[7]

However, to many Muslims, 1857 was really nothing more than a bright prospect for the return to power of Islamic authority, as it had been during the heydays of Bahadur Shah’s ancestors. The imam of Delhi Muhammad Sayid openly declared jihad[8] and gave the uprising colors of an Islamic holy war. Green flags[9] were displayed in the city and Hindus were bullied.[10] Bahadur Shah to his credit resisted Sayid’s bigotry and for the purposes of the uprising forbade jihad against Hindus.[11] However, the gradual arrival of assorted bands of jihadis accompanied by fanatical Wahabis muddied the waters and created tensions. Fatwas were issued calling the uprising religious duty of all Muslims to fight the British[12] and restore Muslim rule. The jihadi-mujahiddin force that gathered at Delhi displayed open hostility toward Hindus and resorted to aggressive religious posturing. Gazis who had come from Tonk, a Muslim dominated area in Rajasthan, declared they will slaughter cows and kill Hindus before destroying the firangis. Thankfully, again to Bahadur Shah’s credit, he promptly put a stop to this outright religious fanaticism.[13] Away from Delhi, in Varanasi, on the night of the uprising (June 4) some Muslims attempted to raise a green flag in the temple of Bishessur.[14] In Hyderabad, the Muslim response to the possibility of Maratha success during the uprising was outright negative, to say the least. While the prospect of Mughal rule bring restored to bring back the days of Islamic hegemony found a lot of favorable opinion.[15]

While in avadh the uprising took the form of what could perhaps be called a people’s movement[16], Hindu-Muslim tensions nonetheless played their part. Raja Man Singh appealed to thakurs and talukdars not to join the mussalmaan-s since the uprising, if successful, would only end up putting power into their hands. He invoked Muslim destruction of Hindu temples, the murderous massacres of entire populations, rape of women and putting them in harems as sexual slaves, religious taxation on Hindus, forcible conversions, etc. to support his appeal.[17][18]. He also raised the matter of Islamic religious leaders Ghulam Husain and Amir Ali attempting to destroy the hanumAn-garhi temple in avadh not too long ago.[19]. Ahmadullah Shah, an Islamic religious leader openly displayed religious bigotry against Hindus in avadh. Having returned from visits to Iran and Arabia not too long before the uprising[20], he called for jihad wherever he went[21]. Jailed at Faziabad sometime during Jan-Feb 1857 for inciting violence by his calls for jihad[22], he broke prison in June 1857 during the chaos accompanying the uprising. Soon after on being chosen as a leader[23] by an assortment of sepoys[24] and religious fanaticism driven bigots, following the path of Ghulam Husain and Amir Ali, he promptly called for destruction of the hanumAn-garhi Hindu temple.[25]

Khan Bahadur Khan, descendant of a regional Muslim ruler, declared himself Nawab of Rohilkhand and tried to reconcilie with Hindus by promising ban on cow-slaughter. However, his efforts were futile and his followers created communal feuds.[26] Hindu property was confiscated, villages were burnt, cows were slaughtered in temples and the macabre sight of heads of murdered Hindus on poles greeted people entering Muslim majority areas.[27] The Maratha Peshwa Nana Sahib attempted to put a stop to the prevailing situation and create Hindu-Muslim amity, but was unsuccessful.[28] We can however understand why he failed since the Hindus in Barailley and the surrounding areas being badly mauled by Muslim brutality were in no mood to join hands with their oppressors. Meanwhile the Rohillas were not pleased with Nana’s presence.[29] There were also tensions in Bijnor between Hindus and Muslims, mainly fueled by the machinations of one Ahmad Allah Khan.[30]

The commendable efforts of the likes of Bahadur Shah, Khan Bahadur Khan, Nana Sahib to forge a Hindu-Muslim alliance through religious amity must be appreciated. Bahadur Shah in particular made a conscious effort to be sensitive to Hindu religious sentiments and was quite assertive in curbing the anti-Hindu jihadi elements. However, without passing any judgement on the motives behind those efforts, it must be noted that the aged Mughal ruler was aware of the fact that significant sections of the sepoys were Hindus. He knew only too well that any religious extremism upon their community would beget nothing but disaster for the uprising that he had reluctantly approved at the prospect of a revival of Mughal rule to its long lost position.[31] Notwithstanding the steps taken by Bahadur Shah and to a lesser extent by Khan Bahadur Khan and Nana Sahib, Hindu-Muslim conflict could not be avoided. In the aftermath of 1857, a religious revival of orthodox Islam took hold. Spearheaded mainly by the Deoband, shared practices with Hindus were derided and avidly sought to be discarded. Fatwas[32] prohibiting social and business relations with Hindus were passed.[33] Unfortunately, but not very surprisingly, the chasm between Hindus and Muslims widened further.


UPDATE (June 21, 2011): Parag Tope has kindly clarified that in his remark, as quoted in this post, “Level was in the context of hierarchy“. I find myself agreeing with his remark after this clarification. Readers are directed to his comment for a clear elucidation, and my subsequent response here.


[1] ^ (Tope 2010)
[2] ^ (Tope 2011)
[3] ^ While some call it mutiny, some call it rebellion, we will for the purposes of this article call it war of independence of 1857 or simply as 1857. We may at times also refer to it as uprising.
[4] ^ (Majumdar 1963)
[5] ^ (Hussain n.d.)
[6] ^ (Chaudhuri 1957)
[7] ^ (Hussain n.d.)
[8] ^ Sayid declared to Bahadur Shah that his call for Jihad extended against the Hindus as well (Darymple 2006).
[9] ^ green is the color of Islam
[10] ^ (Majumdar 1963)
[11] ^ (Darymple 2006)
[12] ^ (Jain 2010)
[13] ^ (Darymple 2006)
[14] ^ (Majumdar 1963)
[15] ^ Ibid.
[16] ^ (Jain 2010)
[17] ^ (Innes 1895)
[18] ^ It is beyond the scope of this article to dwell upon the matters invoked by Raja Man Singh. We will hopefully discuss those in different articles which will in time be published on this blog.
[19] ^ (Jain 2010)
[20] ^ (Asfraf 2007)
[21] ^ (Jafri 2007)
[22] ^ (Chick 1974)
[23] ^ (Jain 2010)
[24] ^ The sepoys included Hindus as well (probably in small numbers), who were dismayed by their new leader calling for jihad against their community and destruction of Hindu temple(s). We can safely assume many of these Hindus who chose Ahmadullah to be the leader were brain-dead fools who had neither any sense of history nor any vision. Sadly, such useful idiots abound in copious numbers even today. Indeed, this reminds us of the British general James Outram’s disparaging characterization (post 1857) of Hindus as the most credulous and childish race (Lee-Warner 1972).
[25] ^ (Jafri 2007)
[26] ^ (Sen 1977)
[27] ^ (Brodkin 1969)
[28] ^ (Jain 2010)
[29] ^ Ibid.
[30] ^ (Malik and Dembo 1971)
[31] ^ (Darymple 2006)
[32] ^ Islamic religious injunction
[33] ^ (Metcalf 1982)


Ashraf, K.M. 2007. “Muslim Revivalists and the Revolt of 1857.” In Rebellion 1857, National Book Trust.

Brodkin, E.I. 1969. “Proprietary Mutations in Rohilkhand.” Journal of Asian Studies 24(4).

Chaudhuri, S.B. 1957. Civil Rebellion in the Indian Mutinies 1857-1859. The World Press Private Ltd.

Chick, N.A. 1974. Annals of the Indian Rebellion, 1857-58. Charles Knight & C.

Dalrymple, William. 2006. The Last Mughal. Penguin.

Hussain, Iqbal. “Proclamations of the Rebels of 1857.” In Indian Council of Historical Research.

Innes, Lieut-Gen Mc. Leod. 1895. Lucknow & Oude in the Mutiny. A.D. Innes & Co.

Jafri, Saiyid Zaheer Husain. 2007. “Indegenous Discourse And Modern Historiography of 1857: The Case Study of Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah.” In Rethinking 1857, Orient Longman.

Jain, Meenakshi. 2010. PARALLEL PATHWAYS Essays on Hindu-Muslim Relations 1707-1857. New Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt Ltd.

Lee-Warner, William. 1972. The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie. Irish University Press.

Malik, Hafeez, and Morris Dembo. 1971. Sir Sayyidʼd History of the Bijnor Rebellion. East Lansing, Michigan: State University Asian Studies Center.

Mazumdar, Ramesh Chandra. 1963. The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857. Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay.

Metcalf, Barbara Daly. 1982. Islamic revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900. Princeton University Press.

Sen, Surendranath. 1977. Eighteen Fifty-Seven. Publications Division.

Tope, Parag. 2011. “comment-228476154 on Book Review- Operation Red Lotus.” Centre Right India. (Accessed June 17, 2011).

Tope, Parag. 2010. Tatya Topeʼs Operation Red Lotus. Rupa & Co.

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).

Comment on Aakar Patel’s “Our bestial stamp on British cities”

Following comment was made in LiveMint on the article “Our bestial stamp on British cities” by Aakar Patel[1]. Since the comment wasn’t published, it is provided here with some minor edits.

There is no dearth of of those deracinated Indians whose understanding of Indian history and culture seemingly derives from colonial, Eurocentric and Marxist constructs.  They and their and his fellow travelers take pride in knowing more about Shakespeare than kAlidAsa. It is the nature of their cabal to blame natives for all ills without taking into account the utter destruction and mayhem over centuries brought upon by totalitarian marauders and colonizers, the former particularly being driven by supremacist religiosity. They won’t lose any opportunity to throw dung on natives and native denominations, but will conveniently bury their heads in the sand when the destruction of native societal ethos and infrastructure by the very medieval marauders and colonial prophets they worship is pointed out. Such is the staple offering from these Veer Bhadra Tiwari incarnates.