Who are we Indians?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Who after all, are we Indians? What are our origins? What should be a straightforward matter of factual evidence has grown into a contentious debate in recent years.

So far, theories about how Indians were formed were based on linguistic analysis and archaeology. Based on the similarity of European and Indian languages, colonial Indologists (and Nazis) propagated the Aryan invasion theory in which blue-eyed fair people swept into the Indian subcontinent on horses, conquering everyone along the way. The Hindu Right has retorted, claiming that Indo-European languages originated in India and spread westwards. There are also theories about the Indus Valley people: were they connected to the Dravidians who were pushed south by the Aryans or were they Aryans who moved southwards?

Startling answers have come in the last decade, the latest from last year’s study co-authored by 92 scientists from around the world, coordinated by David Reich, who runs a lab at Harvard that analyses ancient DNA. It has changed the way historians think about our early history. There is tremendous excitement, not unlike the exhilaration in the 1920s and 1930s when archaeologists discovered Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Valley Civilisation. Tony Joseph, a journalist, has just written a remarkable book, Early Indians, narrating this story. Its conclusion is that we are all migrants and we are all mixed.

Many of us believe that we have always lived on the subcontinent from the beginning of time. This is not true. The new science of population genetics, which uses ancient DNA from skeletons thousands of years old, has made dramatic breakthroughs and we Indians can now trace our ancestry back to around 65,000 years ago when a band of modern humans, or homo sapiens, first made their way from Africa into the subcontinent.

They crossed from Africa to Asia and walked along the coast of southern Asia and all the way to Australia, while another group went towards central Asia and Europe. The genetic ancestry of these First Indians constitutes 50-65% of our DNA today. Thus, ‘pure Indians’ never really existed. All human beings are descended from Africa.

Who are we Indians? Genetics is bringing bad news for the politics of identity: We are all migrants

Many pundits predict that the approaching 2019 election is likely to focus on identity politics primarily because of economic discontent, making BJP turn to identity and other non-economic issues. Before we are engulfed in election...

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[prasad1]

After this first migration, apparently there were three more waves of major migrations into India and the new migrants mixed with the local population. Interestingly, as early as 20,000 years ago, the subcontinent had the world’s largest human population. The second major migration occurred 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, when agriculturists from Iran’s Zagros region moved into India’s northwest and mixed with the First Indians to create probably the Harappan people and later the urban Indus Valley civilisation.

The Harappan people moved south and mixed with the local people to produce what geneticists call Ancestral South Indians with a culture based on Dravidian languages. A third farming related migration occurred around 2000 BC when migrants from the Chinese heartland swamped south-east Asia and reached India, bringing the Austroasiatic family of languages (such as Mundari and Khasi spoken in eastern and central India.) The fourth migration took place between 2000 and 1000 BC soon after the Indus Valley civilisation collapsed. It brought central Asian pastoralists from the Kazakh Steppe, who spoke an Indo-European language.

The study of ancient DNA is a new, evolving science and more findings are expected. But so far, the genetic evidence confirms the old colonial hypothesis that Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, did migrate to India when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them an early version of Sanskrit and they mixed with the Harappans to create the ancestral north Indian population. It was not the other way around as the Hindu Right has argued. What is surprising is that the Harappans may also have a foreign connection, although much before their urban civilisation came about.

For some reason the vigorous mixing of people came to an end around 100 AD in India (but not in the rest of the world.) Thus, differences between people have increased in the last 2000 years in India. The only explanation seems to be that after 100 AD the caste system became rigid. Because marriage was confined within a jati group, genetic differences increased even though people lived side by side in the same village. In contrast, the Chinese continued mixing freely and they are a homogeneous Han people today while Indians are diverse and ‘composed of a large number of small populations’, writes Reich.

Enterprising readers of this article can order a DNA kit from various online sites such as Mapmygenome or 23andMe and confirm their identity. They will find half their DNA comes from First Indians who came out of Africa with various proportions of Harappan, Aryan, and other DNA. We are all mixed and we are all descended from a single woman in Africa, having left behind ancestors in Ethiopia, Middle East, central Asia and other places.

It is futile to obsess over purity and pollution because we are a product of what Rushdie called ‘chutnification’ through waves of migrations and minglings in prehistory. It is splendid how science has confirmed the statement of the Maha Upanishad: Vasudhaiva kutumbakam, ‘the whole world is a family’, which is also engraved at the entrance hall of our Parliament. But the unity of the human race is bad news for the politics of identity and difference.

Who are we Indians? Genetics is bringing bad news for the politics of identity: We are all migrants

Many pundits predict that the approaching 2019 election is likely to focus on identity politics primarily because of economic discontent, making BJP turn to identity and other non-economic issues. Before we are engulfed in election...

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[prasad1]

An important set of migrations took place between 500 CE and 1000 CE in different parts of India. These were the Brahmin migrations. The Brahmins came with special skills. Unlike the Vedic Brahmins, who only performed yagyas for the material well-being of their patrons, the new Brahmins were known for establishing villages. Villages increased the expanse of cultivated lands, hence the income of kings. Thus, kings or ambitious warlords in different parts of India would invite Brahmins to come to their kingdoms to establish temples, transforming village gods into local forms of mainstream Puranic gods. The deity of the temple was designated the real owner of the villages. The king was merely a viceroy, and the priest served both king and deity. The temple would then become the centre for tax collection. It also became the place of culture, where art, music and literature would develop. The Brahmins thus enabled the king to become royal and expand his reach over the land. This is captured in the story of Vamana Avatar, who receives a piece of land from the Asura king Bali. The lands received by the Brahmins are known as Brahmadeya land and the lands where Brahmins stayed were called Agraharas. Across India, we find many large copper plates discussing how kings would give these lands.

One of the most popular migrations of the Brahmins happened when the Sena kings invited the Brahmins of the Gangetic plains to come to Bengal. The other was when the kings of Konkan and Goa invited the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins of Kashmir. These Brahmins had travelled from Kashmir and the banks of the Saraswat river, via Bengal, to the Konkan coast. Another migration happened when Brahmins were called to Madurai and Tanjore, from Maharashtra. This is how the Sanskrit cosmopolis spread across India during this period.

The second migration was the weaver migration. These took place between 1500 and 1800 AD. The Deccan plateau was controlled by agricultural economy. The coastal areas of India were popular for their weaving communities. Fabrics would be exported across the world and this made India a centre for textiles.

The story goes that Markendeya wanted to give the gods clothes. Thus, from a firepit, he created a sage called Bhavana Rishi, who had with him a ball of threads that he had collected from the navel of Vishnu. He spun this thread and wove it into a fine cloth which he distributed among the gods. From Bhavana Rishis descended the Padmashali and other communities of weavers. The weavers migrated from Saurashtra to Madhya Pradesh to the various kingdoms in the Vijaynagar empire. They were popular among temples because the cloth would be used for various temple rituals. The cloth was also used by the communities that lived around the temple. They were invited to port cities, from where the merchants could sell their goods to the rest of the world. They would move to wherever they would get tax rebates and good incentives. Various push and pull factors took place during this period time. India became famous not just for its cotton weaves but also its silk weaves and the use of brocades.

How the migratory patterns of the Brahmins, the weavers shaped Indian culture

An important set of migrations took place between 500 CE and 1000 CE in different parts of India. These were the Brahmin migrations. The Brahmins came with special skills. Unlike the Vedic Brahmins, who only performed yagyas for the material well-being of their patrons, the new Brahmins were...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[prasad1]

The third migration was that of ascetic mercenaries. We often think of naga babas as wild spiritual people of the Kumbha Mela, but from the 16th to the 19th century, when they were demilitarised by the British, they were fierce warriors for hire. The Akhadas gave training ground for single men with no families, with no clan attachment. They were a mobile group of people. They worshipped the warrior forms of Shiva such as Bhairava and also Hanuman. For many the Vanar-sena were the first warrior-ascetics who served Ram. In popular lore, they were defending Hinduism from Islamic invaders but in reality they were available for a fee and were used by local kings - Hindu and Muslim - to collect taxes and to keep away predators to their land. The wealth collected by the Akhadas was often used in banking as well as trade. Even today, the Akhadas of India are known to be the proto-banking establishments in the neighbourhood.

Thus, we see the migratory patterns of the Brahmins, the weavers and the mercenary ascetics in the various periods of Indian history. While these migrations shaped Indian culture, we don’t talk much about them though now scholars like Chinmay Tumbe, Vijaya Ramaswamy and William Pinch are writing about them.

How the migratory patterns of the Brahmins, the weavers shaped Indian culture

An important set of migrations took place between 500 CE and 1000 CE in different parts of India. These were the Brahmin migrations. The Brahmins came with special skills. Unlike the Vedic Brahmins, who only performed yagyas for the material well-being of their patrons, the new Brahmins were...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri prasad1 Ji,

Very interesting series of posts.

I think that unless we understand the validity of the AIT theory, all else is only conjecture flowing from it.

I have read extensively on AIT and the opposing Out of India theories and in my mind, the latter makes more sense.

Migrations did not occur by happenstance. So to conclude that folks from one place to another, far distances without reason, in a hunter/gatherer society does not make sense. That too crossing narrow passes in to India.

However, if you consider the proposition that in the advanced pastoral culture that existed in India, we call Saraswathi river culture, that spread out all over at the death of the river, one can logically support the ‘Out of India’ theory proposed by the likes of Konrad Elst etc.

Just saying......

 

[Mani_Chennai]

Dear Sri prasad1 Ji,

Very interesting series of posts.

I think that unless we understand the validity of the AIT theory, all else is only conjecture flowing from it.

I have read extensively on AIT and the opposing Out of India theories and in my mind, the latter makes more sense.

Migrations did not occur by happenstance. So to conclude that folks from one place to another, far distances without reason, in a hunter/gatherer society does not make sense. That too crossing narrow passes in to India.

However, if you consider the proposition that in the advanced pastoral culture that existed in India, we call Saraswathi river culture, that spread out all over at the death of the river, one can logically support the ‘Out of India’ theory proposed by the likes of Konrad Elst etc.

Just saying......

Pleaase just think that before the continental split due to undersea earth-quacks did India exist? All observations follow this question,. Until a portion of African continent split and merges with Himalayas, India was not there. This geological factg is not disputed, hence "domain general intelligence" is needed to undertgand broad questions. Otherwise, arguments are waste of time.

 

[KRS]

Pleaase just think that before the continental split due to undersea earth-quacks did India exist? All observations follow this question,. Until a portion of African continent split and merges with Himalayas, India was not there. This geological factg is not disputed, hence "domain general intelligence" is needed to undertgand broad questions. Otherwise, arguments are waste of time.

Sri Mani_Chennai Sir,

The sub-continent was formed millions of years ago, from the ongoing tectonic movements, as inferred by science.

Modern homo-sapiens came to be about 100 thousand years ago, give or take, again inferred by science.

The oldest human bones dug in India, if I am not mistaken are dated as 30,000 years old.

So, I am confused about your statement about ‘general domain knowledge’.

Can you please explain, how the geological formation of the sub continent relate to the population formation?

Thanks.

 

[Mani_Chennai]

Thanks. The continents were in Ice age and the only place hot enough was in the horn of Africa. Both geneological, DNA and other evidence show that humans orginated from there. Thus, people slowly migrated when there was a draught. Migrants have cave carvings of the animals they had killed and eaten and so on. So, migration came to India late and thus, from only three groups of people had spread and we are part of them. But in the North West of India when they setlled and prospered slowly invented the social sturcture. Sanskrit, Germnan, greek and Latin belong to Northen Iranian langauge group and the Dravidian etc., from the Southern dialects. Any way one way specializaion like "Only Antrhopological studies", Only Language based Studies" and so on are "Domain Specific Intelligence" like different walking sticks or "Physicist", Mathematician etc., where are as "Genbetic-Linguistics_Antrhopological- Architectural--Agricultural... " studies are like an Umbrella or Domain General Intelligence". It is very difficult for one person to acquire all knowledge, thus agreeging and disagreing on any thing needs a very open and waste intelligence that integrate and find the hidden relationship. The religious studies are conflicting because of domain specific intelligence, whereas without domain general intelligence all arguments are partial and subjective.

 

[prasad1]

The continental drift happened millions of years ago. No humanoids were present at that time.
So to confound the human migration with continental drift is misleading, to say the least.

And to bring continental drift theory here in this thread is meaningless.

 

[Mani_Chennai]

So, any statement we make is based incomplete data. Using logical arguments one can not say who we are.

Do we know what is COVID? It is an on going discovery. Without real historical evidence and verifiable data and correlated with biology, archaeology, sociology, linguistic, environmental sciences, natural calamities, volcanoes, asteroids hitting the earth and all other related areas, there is no meaning in stating we are unique! If so how do we have only four major blood groups A,B,AB, O and some minor groups and we are able to donate organs? We can not be different species. All we can say, probably we too lived in India when possible. No benefit in being too proud and feeling that we are unique. 7000 generation of mitochondria in women have never changed means, all women in the world had a common ancestor and there is no unique Indian women genome!

 

[sravna]

There might have been a common ancestor but somewhere a strong bifurcation happened. The west and the india of the past are two different species. But india today is different because of the undesirable influence of the west.

The west and the india of the past can never meet. The Indians thought about everything including moksha and ways to it. The west should seriously start thinking too.