Rakhigarhi and After
Shrikant G Talageri
20/9/2019
The 5th of September
2019 was a momentous day for researchers in ancient Indian history: two very
long-awaited international genetic reports on ancient India, with huge
potential for generating heated controversial debate, were released on one and
the same day. These reports were:
1. "An Ancient
Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers",
Shinde et al.
2. "The formation of human populations in South and Central
Asia", Narasimhan et al.
The extremely intriguing phenomenon of these two reports -
both delayed for a long time under very suspicious circumstances (although the
first report was kept a closely guarded secret while the second was
unofficially published more than a year ago) - being released on the
same day, as well as the fact that both the papers have four of the co-authors in common, and
that statements and reactions to these two reports have led to conclusions
diametrically opposed to each other, all indicate deep politics behind the
whole process. The four common co-authors of both the papers, incidentally, are
Vagheesh M. Narasimhan, David Reich, Vasant S. Shinde, and Niraj Rai.
The two papers,
dealing with two different genetic issues, contain the following clear statements
in support of the theory that Indo-European languages originated in the Steppes
and were brought to India after 2000 BCE:
Narasimhan et al repeatedly refers to this "evidence
[…] for a Steppe origin for South Asia's Indo-European languages ~ 2000 BCE",
and "evidence for the theory that these languages spread from the
Steppe". This point is also reiterated in Shinde et al, which also
tells us that "a natural route for Indo-European languages to have
spread into South Asia is from Eastern Europe via Central Asia in the first
half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a chain of transmission that did occur as has
been documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that the Steppe
pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe
(but not Western Europe) […] provides additional evidence for this
theory, as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of
Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages".
Things have been
complicated by the fact that two of the co-authors of the two papers have been
holding press conferences and giving interviews where they are reiterating in
very strong and categorical terms that the theory of the Indo-European
languages spreading into South Asia from the Steppes through Central Asia
stands disproved by the genetic data in the paper Shinde et al.
This has led to a veritable storm of articles in AIT-supporting papers and
internet journals, questioning the motives and honesty of these two scientists
with regard to their undeniably contradictory positions in the papers
and in the media.
Some hostile articles
which have recently appeared in the print or internet media (the second one
below, from 2018, is included because it has been cited in the third one below
by the same writer):
1. "Why a
4500-year-old skull is key to the politics of India's Hindu-Muslim divide",
by Vir Sanghvi in This Week in Asia on 4/9/2019.
2. "Why
Hindutva is Out of Steppe with new discoveries about the Indus Valley people",
by Girish Shahane in scroll.in on 6/9/2018.
3. "Why
Hindutva supporters love to hate the discredited Aryan invasion Theory",
by Girish Shahane in scroll.in on 14/9/2019.
4. "New
reports clearly confirm 'Arya' migration into India", by Tony Joseph
in The Hindu, on 13-14/9/2019.
5. "We are all
migrants", Tony Joseph interviewed by Siddhartha Mishra in Outlook,
12/9/2019.
6. "Two new
genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the
opposite?" by Shoaib Daniyal in scroll.in on 2/9/2019.
7. "Scientists
Part of Studies Supporting Aryan Migration Endorse Party Line Instead",
by C.P. Rajendran, in The Wire, 13/9/2019.
I am sorry to say I
cannot contest the criticism on this particular matter.
Further, none of the
people, not favoring the AIT, interviewing the two scientists sympathetically,
have thought it necessary to ask the really relevant questions to them: since
you are also co-authors of the two papers, are you in agreement with the
clearly worded statements (quoted above) in the two papers claiming genetic and
linguistic evidence for the spread of Indo-European languages into South Asia
from the Steppes? If not, do you disassociate yourselves from those
quoted statements? And, if you do, what are your reasons for
disassociating yourselves from them?
The sum result of all
this is an extremely piquant situation where everyone seems determined to make
a mess of everything, and everyone seems to be colluding with each other in
diverse ways in order to keep things ambiguous: the two scientists want to
please the powers-that-be in India at the moment by announcing that the theory
of external origin of the Indo-European languages stands disproved even
as they keep their geneticist colleagues happy by lending their names to the
reports which claim that the theory stands proved. Those who support the
external-origin theory are happy that they can expose this doublespeak in order
to claim that this shows that the external-origin theory is right. Those
who oppose the theory are careful to avoid embarrassing questions even as they
quote these scientists and make them repeatedly reiterate that the
external-origin theory is wrong. No-one dares to call a spade a spade,
when it comes to the question of Genetics. It is up to the geneticists who
claim that the external origin of the Indo-European languages is not
proved by the genetic evidence, to state, if possible in a joint statement, and
definitely in writing, that Genetics can tell us about the different
ancestral strands in any individual or population, but it cannot tell us about
the languages spoken by the original carriers of those ancestral strands, and
that that can only be shown by the linguistic, archaeological and
textual data and evidence. Further, it is up to these geneticists to
ask the other geneticists and non-geneticists, who are claiming that the
"genetic evidence" proves this Indo-European expansion from the
Steppes after 2000 BCE, to first disprove my chronological case for the Rigveda
showing the date of the Old Rigveda to be far before 2500 BCE in a purely
Indo-European environment within India in Haryana to the east of the Sarasvatī
- without this, the "genetic evidence" is a big zero, and all
discussion on this "genetic evidence" is pointless. This sane
logic, and sane advice, has already been given by me umpteen times, but the
vested interests can simply stonewall it, which they will not be able to do
when these geneticists speak up. It is time people stopped playing safe and
indulging in double-games and doublespeak, while all the time continuing to
draw linguistic conclusions out of genetic data in defiance of and in direct
contradiction to the linguistic, archaeological and textual data and evidence,
and thereby muddying the waters and turning the whole discussion into a joke.
The only casualty is the Truth.
Let us leave the two
scientists to speak for themselves. Here I will only concentrate on and examine
a few anti-Hindu comments of those who are using the two reports to reiterate
the Aryan Invasion Theory or AIT, without mincing words or pussyfooting around
the relevant aspects of the whole debate in order to save face for anyone.
But before going into
that detailed exercise, let us in fact examine in short what the data in the two
papers (Shinde et al and Narasimhan et al) really says, and which
of the conclusions of these papers are warranted, and which are unwarranted,
and why.
I. What
the Two Reports Say.
First, Narasimhan et al. According
to the earlier Reich genetic report by 92 scientists, unofficially put on the
internet in 2018, which was the subject of Tony Joseph's book "Early
Indians" and of my dissection of his claims in my book "Genetics
and the Aryan Debate", there are three ancestral strands in the
ancestry of all Indians: the First Indians or Onge (who spread
into India in 65000 BCE), the Iranian agriculturists (who spread
into India in 7000 BCE and started mixing with the First Indians after 4700
BCE), and the Steppe people (after 2000 BCE). That report
suggested that there were two different civilizations or cultures in
ancient India, the Harappan and the Vedic, and that both
of them were initiated or inspired or had their roots in external stimuli: the Harappan
in external stimuli brought by Iranian Agriculturists (nothing to do
with present-day Iranian language speaking Iranians), and the Vedic by
external linguistic and religio-cultural stimuli brought by Steppe
immigrants.
The present report
differs from the earlier one only in the following respects:
1. As Tony Joseph
tells us above (in The Hindu, 13-14/9/2019), the earlier version was "not peer-reviewed
and was merely released in a pre-print server", but the present version "has now been
peer-reviewed and published in the most reputed of journals, Science".
Also, the list of eminent scientists who are co-authors has increased;
"It
has 117 scientists as co-authors, significantly up from the 92 last year. The
paper is now titled ‘The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central
Asia’".
2. The new version is now modified on
the basis of the other (Shinde et al) report that was released on the
same day, which has the four above-named co-authors in common, and now accepts
that the Harappan civilization at least is not rooted
in external stimuli brought by Iranian Agriculturists - and in fact that
the entire civilization from its very roots is thoroughly indigenous. Even agriculture was developed independently
and not brought in by the Iranian Agriculturists (who are more or less
identical to or related to Anatolian agriculturists) from whom these
"Iranian" ancestors of the Harappans had separated
12000 years ago, long before the development of agriculture in the Fertile
Crescent of West Asia. [Let me clarify here that I have not carried out a
word-for-word comparison of the two versions, and am relying only on the
statements of not only these two Indian geneticists but on what David
Reich himself has said in an interview].
It must be noted that this possibility
(of the independent development of agriculture) was hinted at by Joseph in his
book, and his hint was noted in my book.
However, the paper
continues to reiterate the second part of the earlier story: that Vedic
civilization or culture was rooted in external linguistic and religio-cultural
stimuli brought by Steppe immigrants. In this respect, the paper is exactly
as was described in detail by Tony Joseph in his book "Early Indians",
and my complete dissection and total annihilation of their case in my book
"Genetics and the Aryan Debate" therefore continues to be just
as fully valid for the revised version of the paper as for the earlier
version. There is nothing new in that respect in this paper, and
therefore, short of copy-pasting my entire book here, there is nothing
new left for me to say here. Everything has already been said in the two above
books about this paper.
Second, Shinde et al. This paper
pertains only to the DNA analysis of the Rakhigarhi specimen, the sole
available specimen of examinable DNA from ancient India from the Harappan
area and period. It nowhere contains any data and analysis of the
post-2000 BCE genetic analyses from the other paper, but, as quoted
above, towards the end of the paper, it makes a totally extraneous and
gratuitous reference to that alleged paper and its conclusions in order to
reiterate that the Indo-European languages spread into India after 2000
BCE through Steppe migrants entering from Central Asia!
As that is an
extraneous and gratuitous conclusion, there is no need to waste time discussing
this paper here. We can simply accept the conclusions of this paper that the Harappan
people were a mixture of the First Indian and the (people who still
continue to be referred to as) Iranian Agriculturist people (who were
different from the Iranian/Zagros/Anatolian Agriculturists,
having, as the geneticists now accept, separated from them 12000 years ago.
Where and how this separation took place is not clear, but it is not strictly
relevant to the issue here).
The gratuitous
conclusion that the Harappan people were not speaking
Indo-European languages, because these languages only entered India with Steppe
immigrants after 2000 BCE, cannot be proved by any amount of
genetic data and quibbling, and can only be proved by conclusively disproving
my case for the composition of the Old Rigveda before 2500 BCE in
a core "Aryan" area centered around Haryana and westernmost Uttar
Pradesh. As the
phrase goes, bākī sab bakwās hai.
What were the
expectations from this paper, and how valid were those expectations? The
expectations of almost everyone were exactly what they turned out to be: that
the Rakhigarhi DNA would show the two earlier ancestries (First Indian
and "Iranian"), but no Steppe ancestry. The only
differences, both before this report came out as well as after it
came out, were in the interpretations of this:
1. The AIT side
expected this result because the Rakhigarhi specimen was dated before
2200 BCE, and so it was before the Steppe immigrations
into India after 2000 BCE, which this side claimed had brought in
the Indo-European languages.
2. The anti-AIT side
expected this result because their claims all along were that the Harappan
civilization was a purely Indian civilization with indigenous origins, and
because they identified the Harappan civilization as Vedic, and
did not associate either the Harappan or the Vedic with origins
from Steppe people.
3. As genetic ancestry
has no connection with language, the results could have shown anything. But I
also expected this result, because the analysis of the DNA of the three Indus
Periphery individuals in the Reich report (2018) showed no Steppe
ancestry, but only First Indian and "Iranian" ancestry.
I accepted the evidence of the three Indus Periphery individuals as logical
and valid, and wrote in my recent book: "Tony
Joseph tells us: 'Scientists
have managed to recover DNA from the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi in India, but
the study has not yet been published. Credible news reports about the
unpublished study, however, suggest they support the conclusion of a mixture
between Zagros agriculturists and the Harappans'" (p.93,fn)",
and "he is probably right. On the evidence of the Indus Periphery
individuals, it seems unlikely that it could show First Indians + Zagros people
+ Steppe people ancestry. And in the unlikely case that it throws up a purely
First Indians ancestry, it will revolutionize India's genetic history."
While both the reports
claim in writing that the Indo-European languages were brought in by
immigrants from the Steppes entering India through Central Asia after 2000
BCE, there is nothing in the genetic data
itself to suggest such a circumstance. The purely gratuitous claim is based on
two extremely subjective and extraneous arguments:
1. The Steppe
immigrants entered India only after 2000 BCE (more on this later), and
this fits in with the dates previously claimed by Indologists.
2. The report gives an
additional linguistic argument: "it elegantly explains the shared
distinctive features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages". It
further clarifies: "it provides a plausible genetic explanation for the
linguistic similarities between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian sub-families
of Indo-European languages, which despite their vast geographical separation share
the satem innovation and ruki sound laws"!
This single inter-related
shared feature (the satem innovation and ruki sound laws) explains shared
genetic features which show that Indo-Iranians came from Eastern Europe!
Nothing shows the linguistic ignorance of these geneticists more than this
argument:
a) The
satem-innovations-and-ruki-sound-laws phenomenon is a development which in fact
indicates an-east-to-west movement from Central Asia to Eastern
Europe. As the well-known detailed linguistic study by Johanna Nichols (1997)
tells us: "the long-standing
westward trajectories of languages point to an eastward locus, and the spread
of IE along all three trajectories points to a locus well to the east of the
Caspian Sea. The satem shift also
spread from a locus to the south-east of the Caspian, with satem languages showing up as later entrants along all three
trajectory terminals. (The satem
shift is a post-PIE but very early IE development). The locus of the IE spread
was therefore somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana.” (NICHOLS
1997:137).
b) The
particular branches with which Indo-Aryan and Iranian share
fundamental linguistic features are not Baltic and Slavic,
although, as the last stragglers of the "north-western" group of
branches, the Baltic and Slavic branches (but only in an Indian
Homeland Theory, not in a Steppe Homeland Theory) do share
some minor features (see my books) with the last two branches to remain in the
Homeland: Iranian and Indo-Aryan. Baltic and Slavic
fall in one ("north-western") group of dialects with shared linguistic
features which includes Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic
and Slavic. On the other hand, Indo-Aryan and Iranian fall
in a different ("southern") group with shared linguistic features from
the last stage of unity which includes Albanian, Greek, Armenian,
Iranian and Indo-Aryan: these features include a "complete
restructuring of the entire inherited verbal system" (GAMKRELIDZE
1995:340-341, 345) only in these five branches, with the formation of athematic
and thematic aorists, augmented forms and reduplicated presents. Also, the
prohibitive negation *me, the preservation of voiceless aspirated
stops, and many distinct developments in vocabulary, phonology (s>h only in
these branches, though restricted in Indo-Aryan only to some westernmost
dialects), and grammar. But there are no special shared genetic features
between the speakers of these five branches, again showing the fallacy of
trying to identify linguistic and genetic identities.
The
publication of these two reports has therefore not brought any new
factor or change whatsoever in the debate so far as the alleged genetic case
for the Indo-European languages spreading into India from Central Asia
after 2000 BCE is concerned (although it has brought a positive
rejection of the earlier idea that Iranian migrants in 6500 BCE brought
agriculture from West Asia and provided the stimulus for the formation of the Harappan
civilization). So my recent book, "Genetics and the Aryan Debate",
still provides all the answers to the genetic claims, and my
chronological and geographical analysis of the Rigveda still remains the
only factor which decides the case.
Now let us turn to the
anti-Hindu politics that is surfacing, or rather bursting forth, after the
publication of these two reports.
II.
"Invasion" or "Migration"?
The whole question of
whether the Indo-European languages were brought into India by the
Steppe immigrants is often converted into an endless quibble on the word
"invasion". The whole discussion in the last three decades has been
described as an AIT-vs.-OIT debate: "Aryan Invasion Theory" vs.
"Out of India Theory". The basic point being discussed is of course
whether immigrants from the Steppe brought the Indo-Aryan (=Indo-European)
languages into India, entering through Central Asia between 2000-1000 BCE
and replacing the local languages, religion and culture with their own. It has
been variously described as an invasion (much more often than any of the other
descriptions), an immigration, and a process of "trickling-in".
Witzel goes so far as to describe the process in the following incredible
words: "small-scale semi-annual transhumance movements between the Indus
plains and the Afghan and Baluchi highlands continue to this day (Witzel
1995:322, 2000) […] Just
one ‘Afghan’ IA tribe that did not return to the highlands but stayed in their
Panjab winter quarters in spring was needed to set off a wave of acculturation
in the plains by transmitting its ‘status kit’ (Ehret) to its neighbors" (WITZEL
2005:342).
But now, with the
discussion on the relevant points getting too hot for them, and with the need
to present a picture of superior intelligent academicians (themselves) versus
antiquated yokels (us), the AIT proponents find it very convenient to divert
the discussion on to side-issues such as the exact word to be used, and our
failure to use it.
Witzel, for example,
tells us (without also telling us that it is the rejection of the idea of an
Aryan invasion, or even immigration, by archaeologists, including western ones,
that has compelled them to stop using this word) that only "revisionists and autochthonists….still depend on the old, nineteenth century idea of a massive invasion of outsiders" (WITZEL 2005:347), and that
more sophisticated scholars talk of an immigration or, as we saw above, of
"small-scale
semi-annual transhumance movements between the Indus plains and the Afghan and
Baluchi highlands"
(WITZEL 2005:342).
After the recent
announcement of my new book, Tony Joseph twice saw fit to tweet on the subject,
confining his comments only to the use of the word "invasion": on
12/3/2019, he tweeted "My book is
not about 'Aryan invasion'. It is about 4 'prehistoric migrations' that formed
the Indian population",
and on 12/7/2019, he tweeted that my book "starts off with a wrong
statement. The phrase 'Aryan invasion' doesn't appear in my book. Not even
once!": as if to suggest that I have attributed false quotations to
him which contain the word "invasion"! Indeed, being a
well-trained propagandist, he does manage to avoid using this particular word
in his writings, but then I have never directly accused him (or anyone
else, even when they do actually use it) of using this word but only of describing
an invasion and its aftermath and after-effects.
In the above mentioned
recent article by Girish Shahane, he calls the idea of "invasion"
a "strawman" created by the Hindutva supporters, and writes:
"Hindutva activists, however, have kept the Aryan Invasion Theory
alive, because it offers them the perfect strawman, 'an intentionally
misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than
an opponent’s real argument'."
All this has led to
some caution on the part of some of the people opposed to the AIT. Some, quite
rationally, call it the AIT/AMT (the second term meaning "Aryan Migration
Theory"). But some others feel bashful to call it an "Aryan Invasion
Theory" at all because they feel it may draw flak from their "sophisticated"
opponents, and then they get caught in the word-play trap laid by their
opponents to divert the discussion into fruitless channels. It really does not
matter whether you call it "invasion" or "migration":
everyone knows we are talking about the alleged arrival and
spread of immigrants from the Steppes who brought the Indo-European
languages, as represented by the Vedic language along with a whole
accompanying religion and culture.
But we cannot allow
the AIT proponents to tell us which word is politically correct and which word we
should use, and to set their own terminology and rules. It is inevitable and
necessary to continue to use the word "invasion", though
alternating, when it is more proper to the particular context, with the word
"immigration"; and to refer to the AIT supporters as "AIT
supporters" and to the AIT as "AIT". The AIT
supporters are more dishonest: they act fastidious and adopt a fake
holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to the word "invasion", and
deride their opponents for using this word. But basically what they describe is
nothing but an out-and-out invasion theory:
As we saw, Witzel
tells us that only "revisionists and autochthonists [….] still depend on the old, nineteenth century idea
of a massive invasion of outsiders" (WITZEL 2005:347), and that
more sophisticated scholars talk of an immigration. In an earlier paper, he
tells us that the "idea of a
cataclysmic invasion has, in fact, been given up long ago by Vedic scholars" (WITZEL
1995b:323).
And then, in
that very paper, he goes
on to present us with a full-fledged invasionist account of the Indo-Aryan intrusion in the Harappan areas. As per this account, the Indo-Aryans fought their way
through the mountains of Afghanistan, storming innumerable mountain
fortresses, once after a long and bitter 40-year-long campaign, and finally reached the Harappan
areas. "On the plains of the Panjab, the
Indo-Aryans had further battles to fight", and the Rigveda, according to him, is replete with numerous "explicit descriptions of campaigns", in which
the Indo-Aryans "destroyed" hundreds
of forts and, on different occasions, "put to sleep", "put down" or "dispersed" 30,000, 50,000 and 100,000
natives (WITZEL 1995b:322-324)!
In another paper, he tells us that the Indo-Aryans
had "new military techniques and tactics, especially the horse-drawn
chariots", and that the "first appearance of thundering
chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror similar to that
experienced by the Aztecs and Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad horse
riding Spaniards" (WITZEL 1995a:114).
Witzel is very frequently quoted by Tony Joseph
in his book, and is one of the "Advance Praisers" of the book, whose
endorsement is quoted at the beginning of the book.
Shoaib Daniyal, in the above mentioned paper, tells us: "David Reich
explains that the preponderance of male Steppe DNA means that this encounter
between the Steppe pastoralists and the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation
'cannot have been entirely friendly'. This male bias is standard for
Indo-European migration. In fact, when these Steppe pastoralists reached
Europe, Reich’s research found an even larger proportion of male Steppe genes.
In large parts of Western Europe, Steppe migrants almost completely displaced
local males in a short time span, leading to one Danish archeologist
postulating that the coming of these Indo-European speakers 'must have been
a kind of genocide'. This pattern, wrote David Reich in his 2018 book Who We Are
and How We Got Here, 'is exactly what one would expect from an
Indo-European-speaking people taking the reins of political and social power
4,000 years ago'".
Does all this sound like a "trickling-in" immigration,
or an invasion?
Even when the supporters of the AIT, including the
"geneticist" scientists, completely avoid using the word
"invasion" or describing it graphically as above, the very situation
they are describing is a purely invasionist situation. Let us
examine what exactly they are telling us:
To begin with, their
date of 2000-1000 BCE was based on a middle point between, on the one
hand, the point of time, around 3000 BCE, when the different and
later widely separated branches are linguistically known to have been
"together" in an area of mutual interaction and contact where they
still developed words and contexts in common, and on the other, the
point of time, around 600 BCE, the period of the Buddha, when it
is known from detailed records that Indo-Aryan languages were being
spoken by settled inhabitants all over North India as far east as Bengal and
Bihar.
The present
genetic data, on
the basis of which these geneticists and their followers have claimed
"genetic evidence" for these (Indo-European speaking) Steppe
people spreading through Central Asia to India, is based only on the ancestries
of three groups of ancient DNA from the northernmost part of Pakistan,
the Swat Valley, as late as after 1200 BCE. There is no
earlier date-wise evidence, and there is no ancient evidence south
of the Swat Valley.
The geneticists and
their various spokespersons clearly declare that the Steppe people did not exist
south of Central Asia before 2000 BCE: Tony Joseph, in his book, very
categorically claims that "the Indo-European-language speakers"
were still migrating "from the Kazakh Steppe"
towards "present-day Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan" after
2100 BCE: till then there were no Indo-European-language
speakers anywhere in South Asia. They started "towards south Asia"
only after 2000 BCE, and they "trickled-in" slowly into a till-then
non-Indo-European-language speaking South Asia only during the course of
"the second millennium BCE (2000 BCE to 1000 BCE)".
In fact, Tony Joseph in one place has
the proto-Indo-Aryans still to the west of the Ural mountains in 2000
BCE: "around 2000 BCE, they finally broke through - or went around
- the Ural mountains and spread eastwards across the Steppe" (p.179).
This is fully in line with the regular
citing of the Sintashta site (far to the north and west of Kazakhstan,
from 2100-1800 BCE) as a pre-Vedic site by these AIT
"scholars" (see Tony Joseph's book). Also Shoaib Daniyal above: "In his remarkable 2007 book The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, David Anthony, a
professor of anthropology and one of the world’s leading authorities on
Indo-European migration, pointed out that funeral sacrifices at Sintashta, an
archaeological site all the way out on the Russian Steppe 'showed startling
parallels with the sacrificial funeral rituals of the Rig Veda'".
All this very clearly emphasizes the
extreme geographical distance of these "Steppe Aryans" from India,
and their total non-acquaintance with India, before 2000 BCE.
The genetic
evidence now
cited basically has only two valid points:
a) The Harappan
DNA (as proved by the three Indus Periphery specimens from the north
and west of the Harappan area in the Harappan period, now
confirmed by the Rakhigarhi specimen from an area east of the Harappan
core areas also in the Harappan period) did not contain Steppe
ancestry.
b) The present-day
population all over India does have Steppe DNA as part of
their ancestry.
The obvious conclusion
should be that this happened at some time between the Harappan era and the
present-day.
But this purely post-Harappan
evidence (only from after 1200 BCE) and only from the northern
Swat Valley is gratuitously treated as clinching "genetic
evidence" that the Steppe people had spread all over the entire Vedic
area in the period following the Harappan age, precisely between 2000-1000
BCE!
Let us, for arguments'
sake, accept all these points:
a) The Steppe
people were still connected to areas beyond Kazakhstan all the way to
the Urals, and totally unconnected with areas south of Central
Asia, till 2000 BCE.
b) They had spread all
over the area from Afghanistan to Haryana and western U.P.
by 1000 BCE.
c) They had composed
the text of the Rigveda, as Tony Joseph reiterates in his recent book on the authority of Michael Witzel, "between 1400 BCE and 1000 BCE" (p.177).
Then we end up with the absolutely
incredible and impossible situation that these people who crossed over
from Central Asia only after 2000 BCE (even if we assume they
were waiting en masse at the borders and started pouring in like a flood
as soon as the flood-gates were opened at the stroke of midnight on the New Year's
Day of 2000 BCE), had so completely replaced or
transformed the entire population (the teeming millions of the
massive Harappan civilization) over the whole area from Afghanistan through the Punjab to the whole of Haryana and the
westernmost parts of U.P. within 600 years (2000-1400 BCE),
that the orthodox and traditionalist text, the Rigveda, composed
by them over 400 years from this point of time, has the following
characteristics:
1. It contains no memories at all of
any place beyond Afghanistan, much less
memories of having come from places far beyond these areas, and in fact shows
deep and traditional reverence for the geography of the local area.
2. It contains not even the faintest
sign or reference showing the contemporaneous or past presence in the area of
any person or entity, friend or foe, with non-Indo-European (much
less specifically Dravidian, Austric, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan,
Andamanese, Uralo-Altaic, Semitic, Sumerian, or any
other) names.
3. It has undoubtedly or arguably Indo-European
(=Indo-Aryan) names for all the local geographical words in the Rigveda:
a) places (Gandhāri, Saptasaindhava,
Iḷāspada, Kīkaṭa),
b) mountains (Mūjavat, Suṣoma, Ārjīk),
c) lakes (Mānuṣa, Śaryanāvatī),
d) trees, plants and grasses (kimśuka, khadira, śalmali, aśvattha,
śimśapā, śimbala, parṇa, araṭu, vibhīdaka, pippala, urvāruka, vetasa,
darbha, muñja, śarya, sairya, kuśara, vairiṇa,
and in the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda: ikṣu, bilva, nyagrodha,
śamī, plakṣa, pippalī),
e) animals (ibha, hastin,
vāraṇa, mahiṣa, anūpa,
gaura, mayūra, pṛṣatī, uṣṭra, varāha, mathra,
chāga, vṛṣṇi, urā, meṣha, siṁha, śiṁśumāra,
sālāvṛka, kusumbhaka, cakravāka, cāṣa, and in
the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda: kaśyapa, kapi, vyāghra, pṛdāku,
śārdūla, khaḍga, ajagara, nākra, kṛkalāsa, nakula,
jahakā, śalyaka, kūrma, jatū, anyavāpa, kṛkavāku,
kapiñjala, tittiri, kalaviṅka, kaṅka, krauñca,
gṛdhra, śuka) and
f) rivers (Gaṅgā, Jahnāvī,
Yamunā, Dṛṣadvatī, Hariyūpīyā, Yavyāvatī, Āpayā,
Sarasvatī, Śutudrī, Vipāś, Paruṣṇī, Asiknī,
Marudvṛdhā, Vitastā, Ārjīkīyā, Suṣomā, Sindhu,
Triṣṭāmā, Susartu, Anitabhā, Rasā, Śveti, Shvetyāvarī,
Kubhā, Krumu, Gomatī, Sarayu, Mehatnu, Prayiyu,
Vayiyu, Suvāstu, Gaurī, Kuṣavā).
[Although desperate attempts have been
made to find "non-Indo-European" words among the flora and
fauna names in particular, it has been a failed linguistic exercise. For people
who argue, without logic, that Śutudrī is a "non-Aryan" word
and Kīkaṭa is an Austric word because Sanskrit words cannot begin
with ki- and such words are actually Austric words (!): the first word contains the Indo-European -udr-,
"water", and the Indo-Aryan Mitanni writer of the
horse-training manual in ancient Iraq was named Kikkuli].
Witzel
in particular had the following to say on the river-names: "In Europe, river names were found to reflect the languages spoken
before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older
than c. 4500-2500 B.C. (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European
languages in various parts of Europe)" (WITZEL 1995a:104-105). But, in sharp
contrast, "in northern India rivers
in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived
from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on." (WITZEL 1995a:105).
This is "in spite of the well-known
conservatism of river names. This is especially surprising in the area once
occupied by the Indus Civilization where one would have expected the survival
of older names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East. At the least,
one would expect a palimpsest, as found in New England with the name of the
state of Massachussetts next to the Charles river, formerly called the
Massachussetts river, and such new adaptations as Stony Brook, Muddy Creek, Red
River, etc., next to the adaptations of Indian names such as the Mississippi
and the Missouri". According to Witzel, this alleged "failure to preserve old hydronomes even in
the Indus Valley" is indicative of "the extent of the social and political collapse experienced by the
local population" (WITZEL 1995a:106-107).
Even if anyone were (and very many are)
stupid enough or dishonest enough to accept the above impossible situation
as a possibility, could anyone in their senses deny that the whole alleged scenario
indicates not a "trickling-in" immigration, but a
bloody and genocidal invasion followed by a process of total mass-hypnosis and
mass-amnesia?
So, let us not allow dishonest
politically-motivated "scholars" to dictate to us what words to use
in debate. At least in this case, "invasion" is the exact word
which describes what the AIT supporters are postulating. Whatever they call it,
and whatever we call it, they are supporters of an "Aryan Invasion
Theory".
Why are the
supporters of the geneticists objecting to the use of the word
"invasion" even when what they are describing is a bloody and genocidal
invasion which is supposed to have completely and magically transformed the
entire Harappan area to this impossible extent in a short period between
some point after 2000 BCE (when they claim that the Steppe people
first stepped into India from Central Asia) and 1400 BCE (when they
claim that the composition of the Rigveda commenced) - both these
claims being based purely on the strength of the alleged presence of Steppe
DNA in the northernmost Swat Valley as late as 1200 BCE?
What is more, the complete transformation
suggested
by the AIT is not restricted to language alone: “What is
relatively rare is the adoption of complete
systems of belief, mythology and language from neighbouring peoples […] Yet, in South Asia we are dealing precisely
with the absorption of not only new languages but also of an entire complex of
material and spiritual culture, ranging from chariotry and horsemanship to
Indo-Iranian poetry whose complicated conventions are still actively used in
the Ṛgveda. The old Indo-Iranian religion, centred on the opposition of Devas
and Asuras, was also adopted, along with Indo-European systems of ancestor worship.”
(WITZEL 1995a:112) - not to mention Indo-European names to replace all their
local geographical words, and a sudden mass amnesia about whatever allegedly
existed earlier.
The reason why
they object to what they are describing being referred to as an "invasion"
is because archaeology completely rejects the idea of any major change in the
material culture and population in the Harappan area, which would have
inevitably resulted from such an invasion:
So much so that (to take just one such example)
in an academic volume of papers devoted to the subject by western academicians,
George Erdosy, in his preface to the volume, stresses that this is a subject of
dispute between linguists and archaeologists, and that the idea of an Aryan
invasion of India in the second millennium BCE “has recently been challenged by archaeologists, who ― along with
linguists ― are best qualified to evaluate its validity. Lack of convincing
material (or osteological) traces left behind by the incoming Indo-Aryan
speakers, the possibility of explaining cultural change without reference to
external factors and ― above all ― an altered world-view (Shaffer 1984) have
all contributed to a questioning of assumptions long taken for granted and
buttressed by the accumulated weight of two centuries of scholarship”
(ERDOSY 1995:x).
Of the papers presented by archaeologists in the
volume (being papers presented at a conference on Archaeological and Linguistic
approaches to Ethnicity in Ancient South Asia, held in Toronto from
4-6/10/1991), the paper by K.A.R. Kennedy concludes that “while discontinuities in physical types have certainly been found in
South Asia, they are dated to the 5th/4th, and to the 1st
millennium B.C. respectively, too early and too late to have any connection
with ‘Aryans’” (ERDOSY 1995:xii); the paper by J. Shaffer and D.
Lichtenstein stresses on “the indigenous
development of South Asian civilization from the Neolithic onward” (ERDOSY
1995:xiii); and the paper by J.M. Kenoyer stresses that “the cultural history of South Asia in the 2nd millennium
B.C. may be explained without reference to external agents” (ERDOSY
1995:xiv).
The present
report, Narasimhan et al, tries hard to downplay the very vital
objection of the archaeologists, by casually referring to it and dismissing it
as follows: "Our observation of the spread of Central_ Steppe_MLBA
ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the second millennium BCE…"
At this point, let us pause to note that they should have said "Our
observation of the spread of Central_ Steppe_MLBA ancestry into the Swat
Valley in northernmost Pakistan in the late second half of the second
millennium BCE…", and as I have pointed out in my recent book, the
chart in their earlier version of the report uploaded on the internet last year
(I don't know if they have cleverly changed it now) gives the lie to even
this, since the Swat DNA in their chart is not
shown to have the "red" and "teal" ancestral sources
contained in the Steppe_MLBA DNA.
[Strangely enough, let me quote the article by Girish Shahane written in 2018, listed earlier, to explain why claiming that the Steppe_MLBA DNA, with the red, teal and orange ancestries, when it enters the DNA of the Swat samples, leaves only one of the three colors (orange) in the Swat DNA "is like claiming you could mix three colours thoroughly and daub them onto a plain piece of paper in such a way that only one of the three colours was deposited on the paper’s surface". Any rebuttals to your own argument, Mr. Shahane?]
[Strangely enough, let me quote the article by Girish Shahane written in 2018, listed earlier, to explain why claiming that the Steppe_MLBA DNA, with the red, teal and orange ancestries, when it enters the DNA of the Swat samples, leaves only one of the three colors (orange) in the Swat DNA "is like claiming you could mix three colours thoroughly and daub them onto a plain piece of paper in such a way that only one of the three colours was deposited on the paper’s surface". Any rebuttals to your own argument, Mr. Shahane?]
But to continue the shysterish
presentation in the Narasimhan et al report:
"…If the spread of people from the Steppe in this period was a conduit
for the spread of South Asian Indo-European languages, then it is striking that
there are so few material culture similarities between the Central Steppes and
South Asia in the Middle to Late Bronze Age (i.e. after the middle of the
second millennium BCE). Indeed the material culture differences are so
substantial that some archaeologists report no evidence of a connection.
However, lack of material culture connections does not provide evidence against
spread of genes, as has been demonstrated in the case of the Beaker Complex,
which originated largely in western Europe but in Central Europe was associated
with skeletons that harbored ~50% ancestry related to Yamnaya Steppe
pastoralists (18). Thus in Europe we have an unambiguous example of people with
ancestry from the Steppe making profound demographic impacts on the regions into
which they spread while adopting important aspects of local material culture.
Our findings document a similar phenomenon in South Asia…".
Really?!! Do we really find a "similar"
replacement in Central Europe of the teeming millions of a materially
rich Harappan-like non-Indo-European civilization
mysteriously transformed overnight so completely, with this
magical transformation immediately recorded in a new, richly detailed Rigveda-like
Indo-European text recording not only the magically transformed
new culture of the proportions we have seen above but also a total mass amnesia
about that transformation?
So, we must understand why the AIT
supporters are so desperate to stop the use of the word "invasion"
and why we have to go on throwing that word in their faces.
III. The Real
Evidence versus the Manipulated Propaganda in the name of
"Science".
So let us put the case in perspective
before going on to the articles and comments by the spokespersons of the "scientists".
The case presented by the
"geneticists" is a purely fraudulent case so far as it
concerns the alleged spread of Indo-European languages from the Steppes
into India after 2000 BCE. To understand this, let us understand the issue
through a series of basic questions:
1. Are the reports at least genuine
in respect of the following genetic claims made in them?
a. That the Harappan people were a
combination of what is called the First Indian ancestry and the ancient
"Iranian" ancestry.
b. That the modern-day Indians by and
large are a combination, in different proportions, of three major
ancestries: the First Indian ancestry, the ancient "Iranian" ancestry
and a Steppe ancestry.
Yes, they are, but not in their interpretation of these
facts. The genetic evidence simply tells us that the Steppe ancestry
must have entered India at some time between the end of the Harappan
era and the beginning of the modern era.
2. Do these reports tell us that
this Steppe DNA entered and spread (a) all over India, (b) or at least first
all over North India, (c) or at least first all over northwestern India (the
Harappan as well as Vedic geographical space), between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCE?
No, they do not:
The Rakhigarhi report (Shinde
et al) of the specimen from the eastern heartland of the Harappan
area in the Harappan period, dated, as per newspaper reports,
between 2800-2300 BCE, simply confirms what the earlier
version of the Narasimhan et al report had told us last year in 2018 (on
the basis of DNA analysis of Indus Periphery specimens from the north
and east of the Harappan area in the Harappan period): that
the Harappans were of First Indians + "Iranians"
ancestry.
The two reports together did give very
important new evidence that the "Iranian" component of
this joint ancestry was in the area since more than 10000 years, and
that the development of agriculture in the area was fully indigenous.
The Swat specimens merely tell
us that by 1200 BCE, the Steppe DNA had spread into northernmost
Pakistan.
To confirm the extent of spread of
this Steppe DNA into India between 2000-1000 BCE we require
ancient specimens of that period from (a) the Harappan
area, (b) the rest of North India, (c) the rest of India.
3. If we get ancient DNA specimens
from 2000-1000 BCE and later periods from different parts of India, and these
contain the Steppe DNA, will this prove the Steppe origin of Indo-European
languages?
No, it will not: the analyses of those (at the moment purely hypothetical)
future specimens of ancient DNA containing Steppe ancestry will
only show the periods by which the Steppe-DNA-bearing immigrants spread
into the different parts of India.
The most relevant of these hypothetical
DNA specimens would be DNA specimens from the Harappan/Vedic
areas between 2000-1000 BCE having Steppe DNA. But this would
merely confirm the speculation in the two present reports about Steppe
DNA having spread all over the Harappan/Vedic areas between 2000-1000
BCE. It will tell us nothing about the Indo-European languages.
4. Then what genetic evidence will
tell us about the Indo-European languages?
None:
DNA and genetic data can tell us nothing about the Indo-European
languages. Only linguistic, archaeological and textual/inscriptional
evidence can tell us about them. And very conclusive and irrefutable evidence is
available.
5. What is that evidence?
There is plenty of linguistic, archaeological and textual/inscriptional
evidence which shows that India is the Original Homeland of the Indo-European
languages, and that the Indo-European languages found outside India were
originally taken there by emigrants from India.
Here we will cite only the evidence
showing that the Rigveda, which these geneticists claim was composed long
after 2000 BCE by descendants of Steppe immigrants who
entered India from the northwest only after 2000 BCE, actually
dates to far beyond 2500 BCE and was composed deep inside the eastern
Harappan areas.
"Genetic evidence"
cannot disprove recorded textual/inscriptional evidence. For
example, given the recorded textual/inscriptional evidence of the
Ashoka pillars, and the Greek, Chinese and Persian accounts of ancient India, geneticists
cannot allege that there is "genetic evidence" showing that
the Indo-European languages spread into India only after 200 BCE.
Likewise, given the carbon-dated textual/inscriptional
evidence of the Mitanni kingdom in ancient Syria-Iraq in West Asia from 1500
BCE onwards, and the recorded presence of the Mitanni in West Asia
by at least 1700 BCE, geneticists cannot allege that there is "genetic
evidence" showing that the Indo-European languages spread into India
only after 2000 BCE.
6. How does the
textual/inscriptional evidence of the Mitanni kingdom in West Asia tell us
about the date of the Rigveda in India?
a. The Rigveda (consisting of
10 Books or Maṇḍalas) is classified by Indologists into two chronological
divisions: an older section consisting of Books 2-4,6-7 which we will
call the Old Rigveda, and a newer section consisting of Books 1,5,8-10
which we will call the New Rigveda.
b. The Mitanni kings were of Indo-Aryan
origin, and their ancestral culture and language were identical to the Rigvedic
language. Indologists try to explain this by claiming that the Indo-Aryans
(even before they migrated into India) split into groups in Central Asia, one
group migrating south-westwards into West Asia, and one group migrating
south-eastwards into India.
c. If this were true, then the common Indo-Aryan
elements surviving among the Mitanni would have to be found in the Old
Rigveda rather than in the New Rigveda.
Likewise, the Mitanni Indo-Aryans
and Rigvedic Indo-Aryans together share common elements with the Iranians.
So these common "Indo-Iranian" elements would likewise have to
be found in the Old Rigveda rather than in the New Rigveda.
d. But these common elements (common
to the Rigveda, the Mitanni records, and the Iranian Avesta)
are found only in the New Rigveda and are completely missing
in the Old Rigveda. This proves that the ancestors of the Mitanni
and the Iranians separated from the Rigvedic people not in some pre-Rigvedic
period but during the period of composition of the New Rigveda,
and after the period of composition of the Old Rigveda.
7. What is this evidence of
"common elements", and how does it show the date of the Rigveda?
a. This evidence consists of names,
name-types and words, and in the case of the Rigveda and the Avesta,
also certain types of meters.
b. The common Rigvedic-Mitanni elements
are found in the New Rigveda in the names of the composers of 108
hymns, and within the hymns they are found in 77 hymns, 126
verses, 129 references.
The common Rigvedic-Avestan elements
(since the Avesta has much more extensive data than the Mitanni
records) are found in the New Rigveda in the names of the composers of 309
hymns, 3389 verses, and within the hymns they are found in 225
hymns, 434 verses, 500 references. The common meters are
found in the New Rigveda in 51 hymns, 255 verses.
All these names, name-types, words and
meters (for details, see my books and blogs) are completely absent
in the Old Rigveda, although they continue to be found in post-Rigvedic
Vedic texts and Classical Sanskrit texts. This shows that the common era of
development of all these elements was during the period of composition of the New
Rigveda, and the ancestors of the Mitanni and the Avestan
Iranians separated from the composers of the New Rigveda during this
common era.
c. But the whole of the Rigveda
(Old Rigveda + New Rigveda) was composed wholly within India.
Therefore this means that the ancestors of the Mitanni and the Avestan
Iranians migrated from India.
d. Since the ancestors of the Mitanni
kings were already in West Asia by 1700 BCE at the least, they must have
left India hundreds of years prior to that: these Indo-Aryan
elements in the Mitanni records were already old, ancestral elements. Witzel classifies
these Indo-Aryan elements in the Mitanni data as the “remnants”
of IA in the Hurrite language of the Mitanni (WITZEL 2005:361), and Mallory
tells us: "it should not be forgotten that the Indic elements seem to
be little more than the residue of a dead language in Hurrian, and that the
symbiosis that produced the Mitanni may have taken place centuries earlier”
(MALLORY 1989:42).
So
they must have left India long before 2000 BCE.
And
that was during the period of composition of the New Rigveda.
And
the period of composition of the Old Rigveda, also composed within
India, and which represents a much older ethos, goes back long
before the New Rigveda, long before 2500 BCE.
8.
Can't this somehow be fitted into the Central Asian theory?
That
is impossible. Far from having the same geography as the New Rigveda,
or a more northern or northwestern one, the Old Rigveda has a more
eastern one. As I have shown in detail in my books (including the recent
one):
1. The names of the eastern
places, lake and animals are found abundantly in every single one of the ten
books of the Rigveda (Old and New).
But the names of the western
places, lake, mountains and animals (and the central place) are found
only in the New Rigveda in the non-family books (1,8,9,10), and are completely
missing in all the six older books: i.e. in the Old
Rigveda (books 6,3,7,4,2) as well as in the New family book
5.
2. The rivers of the Rigveda appear in
the text from east-to-west: the following is a graphic
presentation of the order of appearance of the river names in the ten books of
the Rigveda:
So the Old Rigveda, which goes
back long before 2500 BCE at the least, was composed deep inside the Harappan
area, in Haryana and westernmost Uttar Pradesh.
9. Can't this somehow be fitted into the "genetic
evidence" about the Steppe people entering India after 2000 BCE?
That
is even more impossible. The geneticists date the Rigveda to 1400-1000
BCE. As we saw, it is impossible to reconcile this dating with what the
geneticists say happened before the composition of the Rigveda:
if the composers had "trickled-in" into India into the heart of the
teeming Harappan civilization well after 2000 BCE, it is
clearly impossible that the Rigveda as it is could have been composed so
soon after that.
It
is even more impossible to reconcile this dating with what actually
happened after the composition of the Rigveda: the ancestors of
the Mitanni migrated to West Asia. If the Rigveda was composed 1400-1000
BCE, they can only have left sometime after 1200 BCE, and
they could have reached West Asia before 1700 BCE only if
they travelled there in a time-machine or through a time-warp!
The
genetic evidence may show that people from the Steppes entered
India after 2000 BCE. But any
Steppe people who entered South Asia from present-day Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan after 2000 BCE, and then spread out all over
India in the course of the next four thousand years, intermixing to different
degrees with all the existing inhabitants of the land and contributing their
genomes and DNA to the Indian gene pool - whatever else they may have
brought with them into India - did not bring the Indo-European
languages and Vedic culture: these were already there from long
before 2000 BCE. The fact that
all their migrations and intermixing within India did not create even a ripple
in the archaeological record, or leave any kind of memories among any section
of the different groups concerned, shows that they in fact got integrated into
the local populace everywhere, accepting the local languages and the general
culture and traditions, like most other later ancient people in the historical
record (the Greeks, Persians, Scythians, Huns, etc.).
The two genetic reports are fraudulent
in more ways than one:
1. Firstly, of course, the way in
which they analyze genes, DNA and haplogroups, and draw
totally unwarranted and extraneous linguistic
conclusions from them, as already discussed.
2. Secondly, the blatant way in which
they derive unwarranted racist and casteist conclusions from the
data. The Narasimhan et al report is full of casteist formulations, e.g.
"Steppe ancestry in modern South Asians is primarily from males and
disproportionately high in Brahmin and Bhumihar groups […] Groups that
view themselves as being of traditionally priestly status, including Brahmins
who are custodians of liturgical texts in the early Indo-European language
Sanskrit, tend (with exceptions) to have more Steppe ancestry than expected":
this and similar points are repeated ad nauseam throughout the paper.
But this is a known feature of
"genetic studies" conducted by the main mover behind the two studies
(though Indian geneticists have been used as fronts in the naming of the
papers), David Reich. There have been many indictments of his genetic studies
by western academicians on this score, e.g. here is what a group of 67
genuine scientists, in an article "How not to Talk about Race
and Genetics", have to say about the type of racial "genetic
studies" indulged in by David Reich and other scientists associated with
him, and about the racially potent conclusions drawn by them in reports
"peer-reviewed" by others of the same genre:
3. Thirdly, the very way in which the
caste-wise data has been collected and presented shows a really shoddy and
extremely premeditated agenda. As Vishal Agarwal has pointed out in a private
article:
"For all the
bombastic claims of the paper, the fact remains that it lists 6 castes as
having the highest central Steppe genetic content as follows: 1. UP Bhumihar, 2.
Bihar Bhumihar, 3. Jat Sikh, 4. Tiwari Brahmin, 5. Nepal Brahmin, 6. Brahmin UP.
Can anyone tell my why 1 and 2 are
counted separately; and whether the label 'Bhumihar' even has any relevance in
precolonial times? (It does not). Can anyone tell me why Tiwari Brahmin (~
Trivedis/Tripathis) is classified separately from UP Brahmin? Most Tiwaris are
from UP, and in fact many with this surname are even found in Nepal. And in
Nepal itself, we have the Bahun (Khas) as well as Terai Brahmans who overlap
with Bhumihars and Tiwaris. So essentially, one continuum of a population is
arbitrarily split into 5. […] What if I make separate categories of
Haryana Jats, Rajasthan Jats, UP Jats and then argue that many Shudra clans
have the highest MLBA ancestry? […] If you scroll further, you will
likewise find many 'populations' split unnecessarily (e.g., there are separate
categories for 'Agarwal', 'Bania', 'Banias'). Why is it that the Jat Sikhs,
considered Shudras along with other Jats (Hindus in Haryana, W Uttar Pradesh,
Rajasthan; Muslim Jutts in W Punjab) have the third or fourth highest central Steppe
MLBA related ancestry? And it is not just this study which says so. Another
study by Pathak et al actually notes that the Haryana (Hindu) Jats have even a
greater European/MLBA genetic portion than Brahmins. So how does that fit the
Aryan Migration as illustrated in the paper which says that higher the MLBA
content, the higher in caste heirarchy (look also at the high MLBA of
Chamars, Pasis)? In short, other explanations must be searched for than the
simple 'higher Central Steppe MLBA means higher in Varna ladder' type of
explanations, and then force fit them into the AMT paradigms. The data is
shoddily coded and the resultant analysis apparently not uninodal or linear due
to which the blanket judgments of the paper do not have much real explanatory
value".
The
only way to counter the storm of AIT propaganda following the Rakhigarhi
report is to take a united, firm and uncompromising stand:
1.
Demand, before anything else, a discussion and debate on the
chronological and geographical evidence of the Rigveda.
2.
Refuse to indulge in endless quibbling on the question of "genetics",
because none of it has anything at all whatsoever to do with the question of
language.
3.
Refuse to let the fraudulent scholars on the opposite side set the terms and
terminology of the debate.
IV. The AIT Brigade after Rakhigarhi.
Strictly
speaking, nothing new is being said by the AIT Brigade after the Rakhigarhi
report other than making an issue of the doublespeak of certain geneticists who
were co-authors of both the genetic reports. Apart from that, the same things
are generally being said which were said by Tony Joseph in his book "Early
Indians", which I have torn to shreds in my book "Genetics and
the Aryan Debate". Whatever the AIT Brigade says now on the subject of
the so-called "genetic evidence" or the AIT-OIT issue in
general, will most likely already have
been fully answered in my book.
So
I will just pick up a few snippets from two of the writers whose post-Rakhigarhi
articles I have enumerated at the beginning of this article, which raise different
points, to show the utterly unscholarly nature of their ranting:
A.
Vir Sanghvi:
Vir
Sanghvi converts this issue into a Hindu vs. Muslim debate.
1.
Sanghvi sums up the AIT vs. OIT debate as follows: "It is a measure of
the mood in today’s India that archaeology, genetics and racial purity have now
been co-opted in a debate about current politics. Not since the middle of the
20th Century has racial purity been as important in the politics of a major
nation. And yes, the term ‘Aryan’ is being bandied about with a worryingly
familiar ease.".
Who
has made the "Aryan" issue into a question of "racial
purity"? Certainly not the Hindutva side, which totally rejects the
idea of an Aryan race as much as the idea of an Aryan invasion. It is their opponents
(like Vir Sanghvi himself in this article) who "bandy" the
term with "a worryingly familiar ease".
2.
He pontificates: "Once you base your ideology on racial and religious
purity, then you commit yourself to a different kind of politics where the
battles of thousands of years ago resurface in a modern contest and where
research is not a scientific tool but a weapon in political skirmishes. Something
like that is happening in India today."
Again,
the same idea: there are certainly orthodox Brahmin groups who speak and think
in terms of racial purity, but it is these groups which in fact, support
the AIT. The Hindutva side, which opposes the AIT, is not using research
as "a weapon in political skirmishes": it is in fact groups
hostile to the Hindutva idea, like missionaries, leftist ideologues, casteist
"dalit" groups, Dravidianists, and others who are using this idea of
"racial purity" as a "weapon in political skirmishes",
and the Hindutva side rejects and opposes this idea of "racial purity",
and tries to use research to counter such activity..
3.
He further alleges: "According to the right, the Hindus were the
original inhabitants of India. Muslims were invaders. Nobody questioned the
right of Muslims to live in India but they needed to accept that they had come
to a Hindu county from elsewhere."
No-one
- at least no serious OIT scholar - says either that "the
Hindus were the original inhabitants of India" or that the Muslims,
i.e. Muslim people, had "come to a Hindu county from elsewhere."
Even
in my first book in 1993, where I dealt with the political corollaries of the
AIT (which includes much of what Sanghvi says above) and was sharp in my
criticism of Islam and Christianity in India, I specifically wrote as follows:
"Muslims and Christians are not 'foreigners' in India. Muslim and
Christian fundamentalists may identify wholly with their foreign brethren, and
some Muslims may even gloat at the idea that they are the descendants of Islamic
heroes who 'conquered and ruled' a land teeming with kāfirs, but the
fact remains that they are all Indians as much as the Hindus (including
the 'Aryans'). At a certain point of time, their ancestors were the more
helpless among the Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam. […] in
historic times there were invasions of India by Persians, Greeks, Scythians,
Kushans and Huns. Many of the invaders stayed in India and got integrated into
the population. Today some anthropologist may manage to dig out material and
claim that some community or other constitutes the descendants of one or the
other of those invaders. But who would treat such a claim, even if it were
proved beyond doubt, as the basis for branding that community as a 'foreign'
community? […] every single foreign community entering India, right from
ancient times, has been completely absorbed into the Indian identity […] and
according to the Aryan invasion theory itself, this happened in the case of the
'Aryans' as well […] Hindu nationalism has nothing to do with the childish,
petty and ridiculous idea of dividing Indians into 'outsiders' and 'insiders'
on the basis of whether or not their ancestors, actually or supposedly, came
from outside." (TALAGERI 1993:46-47).
Incidentally
here is where the cornier elements among the left, right and secular categories
unite: "the Hindu Right has struggled to prove that the people of the
Indus Valley were Hindus and that today’s Indians are directly descended from
them."
Why
should Hindus all over India be "directly descended" from
"the people of the Indus Valley"? At the most, the people
living in the areas where the Harappan culture flourished could, rightly
or wrongly, make such a claim - and these include the Muslims in
Pakistan. But it requires a very "invasionist" or
"colonialist" outlook to brand people, whether Indo-Aryan
language speaking or (as Tony Joseph insists) Dravidian language
speaking, from other parts of India as the "direct descendants"
of the Harappans or, indeed, of the Vedic people (who, also, as I
have pointed out in my books, were just the Pūru tribes of Haryana and
Uttar Pradesh). Were huge parts of India an uninhabited desert a few thousand
years ago, that the present-day people residing in those parts should be
sweepingly regarded as "directly descended" from the then
inhabitants of any one other particular part of India?
4.
Finally, he seeks to equate the Aryan invaders with later Muslim
invaders (remember, it is Sanghvi, not our side, which seems to sub-consciously
identify present-day Indian Muslims as "direct descendants" of
the Muslim invaders): "the Aryans were also invaders or, at the very
least, migrants. And as there was little evidence to suggest that the Indus
Valley Civilization was Hindu, then even Hinduism was a religion that had come
to India from elsewhere." Later, he refers to "those who
believe that the so-called Aryan-Dravidian divide does not exist and that
Hinduism is an entirely indigenous religion. If the Aryans came from the
Steppes and brought an early version of Hinduism with them, then how were they
so different from the Muslims who came much later?"
Let
me clarify things to this kindergarten child: the Aryans, who allegedly
came from the Steppes, and Muslims, who did come much later, are
ghosts from the past. Whether or not they were different is immaterial:
present-day Hindu people and Muslim people are both
of Indian descent.
But
yes, "Hinduism is an entirely indigenous religion",
and, except by a diseased brain, it can in no way be treated as "a
religion that had come to India from elsewhere." Islam and Christianity
did "come to India from elsewhere". It does not
require an ideology to understand these facts: a schoolboy's Atlas of
the World is enough. And denying basic facts is neither piety nor wisdom.
I
had elaborated these points in detail in my first book (1993). Let me quote
that section here, even at the risk of being branded as "communal":
"I. Hinduism had no founder,
but every single holy man, seer and sage, and every single hero (or for that
matter, villain) mentioned in every single ancient Hindu text and scripture is
an Indian.
Islam was founded by Muhammad, an
Arab. He was followed by four 'pious' Khalifas (the first three of whom are not
accepted by Shias), all of whom were Arabs. Then followed a long line of lesser
Khalifas (not all of whom are accepted by all sections of Muslims, who indeed
broke into different sects on the basis of the struggles for succession to the
throne of Khalifa), not one of whom was an Indian.
Christianity is based on the life of
Jesus Christ, a Jew from Palestine. His twelve apostles were Palestinians and
Romans. Christianity was founded by Paul, a Palestinian Jew and Roman citizen.
2. The sacred language of Hinduism is
Sanskrit, which even the Aryan invasion theory cannot assign to any country
other than India.
The sacred language of Islam is
Arabic, the language of Arabia.
Christianity, perhaps, has no such
thing as a sacred language, but, if one were to be named, Hebrew (the original
language of the Old Testament), or Aramaic (the language reportedly spoken by
Jesus Christ), or Greek (the language which hosted the first Christian Bible,
Old plus New Testament, and indeed, which gave the word Bible'), or Latin (the
liturgical language of the 'Holy See', the Vatican City) would be better
candidates for the post than any Indian language.
3. India is the holy land for Hindus.
All Hindu pilgrim centres and holy places are situated in and around India.
Arabia is the holy land for Muslims.
Their principal places of pilgrimage are Mecca and Medina in Arabia, followed
by Jerusalem in Palestine (Israel), followed by a few others, notably Karbala
in Iraq, all in West Asia.
Palestine is the holy land for
Christians. Their principal places of pilgrimage are Nazareth, Bethlehem and
Jerusalem, all in Palestine.
(If there are any places of pilgrimage
for Islam or Christianity in India, it may be noted that: a) These are very
minor ones as compared to the major ones in the West, more in the nature of
local shrines; b) The persons commemorated by these shrines are almost
invariably foreigners or converted Indians who turned against their ancestral
Indian society and culture).
4. The sacred books of all the three
religions claim to have the whole world as their stage. But, in reality, they
are all geographically localized. The Hindu texts are centered in and around
India. The Quran and Hadis are centered in and around Arabia and Palestine. The
Bible is centered in and around Palestine and the Mediterranean region.
5. The heads of all Hindu religious
sects are Indians. All Hindu religious centres are in India. All Hindu
organisations (even those, like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, whose names suggest
an international character) are based in India, and headed and controlled by
Indians.
The ultimate heads of all Muslim sects
are foreigners. The major Muslim religious centres are situated in foreign
lands. There are many international Islamic organisations of different kinds,
but all these are based in foreign countries, and headed and controlled by
foreigners.
The ultimate heads of all Christian
sects are foreigners — the Pope being a prime example. The major Christian
religious centres, in the form of the headquarters of each sect, are in foreign
countries — that of the Catholics in the Vatican city, and those of the various
Orthodox and Protestant churches, and modern fundamentalist sects, in Europe
and America. The innumerable international Christian organisations are based in
foreign countries and headed and controlled by foreigners.
All these points are so obvious that
anyone who says that Hinduism is as foreign to India as Islam or Christianity,
deserves to have his head examined. The followers of both Islam and
Christianity have full knowledge of and pride in the time and place of origin
of their religions outside India, the early history of their religions outside
India, the arrival of their religions into India (brought in by invaders and
imperialists), and the manner in which their religions were established in
India. On the other hand, until the Aryan invasion theory was mooted by the
European imperialists, no Hindu had ever suspected that any foreign connection
could be attributed to his religion. Even today, with the Aryan invasion theory
being instilled into every Hindu brain right from childhood, no Hindu worth his
salt would accept the contention that Hinduism is of foreign origin.
Even the strongest advocate of the
Aryan invasion theory cannot, in all honesty, point out any specific spot
outside India to which the origin of any, simply any, aspect of Hinduism could
be attributed. Even if, for the purpose of this chapter, it is presumed that
the 'Aryans' came from outside India, and that they imposed the Hindu religion
on local inhabitants (two questions which will be dealt with subsequently in
this book), it will have to be admitted that there is no trace of any foreign
connections in Hinduism, much less the consciousness, of any such connections,
among Hindus—and least of all, any foreign loyalties, associable with such
foreign connections".
5. Funniest of all, Sanghvi's title
for his article is: "Why
a 4500-year-old skull is key to the politics of India's Hindu-Muslim divide".
Sorry to say, but,
except for some particular articulate, evangelical and western-educated
Muslims, few Muslims are bothered about the AIT. No Muslim is bothered by the
fact that Hinduism is of Indian origin and Islam is of foreign origin. He is
not a Muslim because he wants to believe Islam is an Indian religion, or
because he believes his ancestors were Arabs, but simply because it is the
religion in which he was born, or at the most because he believes it is "the
One and Only True Religion". The AIT is in no way connected to the
"Hindu-Muslim divide", not even in the minds of Hindutva activists who
react (if at all) to the AIT only when provoked by so-called
"dalit" activists, Dravidianists, anti-Hindu leftists, and
missionaries. They feel Hinduism is an Indian or indigenous religion because it
is one, see above, and not in relation to Islam, much less to
Muslims.
Sanghvi is very fond
of the word "divide". He refers to Hindutva people as "those who believe
that the so-called Aryan-Dravidian divide does not exist", a
contradiction: does this divide "exist" (and the Hindutvites
err in not believing that it does) or is it just "so-called"
(and therefore non-existent, and therefore the Hindutvites are right)?
Indo-European and Dravidian
are indeed two different language-families, which neither
automatically means that one of them came from "outside" or that a
"difference" is necessarily a "divide". Unfortunately,
Dravidianist ideologues treat it as a "divide", and many Hindutvites,
perhaps as a reaction, treat "difference"="divide" and
reject the idea that both are different language-families.
Vir
Sanghvi could do with a little education on all these issues.
B. Girish Shahane:
Girish
Shahane's articles are full of pieces of arrogant half-baked comments based on embarrassingly
half-baked knowledge, spiced with a liberal amount of venom.
1.
"If the roots of
Sanskrit lie outside South Asia, as it is clearer than ever they do, it weakens
the Hindu nationalist demonisation of Christianity and Islam as faiths alien to
India".
This
is just a repeat of what Vir Sanghvi said above. I have shown how Hinduism is
definitely Indian, while Islam and Christianity are definitely not Indian.
These are geographical facts: the "demonization" is in Shahane's
mind.
But
note the venom behind the declaration that the hypothetical ancestral
origin of the Sanskrit language in a hypothetical proto-Indo-European
language in a hypothetical Homeland in the Steppes makes the
Hindu religion "alien
to India".
2.
"Hindutva activists, however, have kept
the Aryan Invasion Theory alive, because it offers them the perfect strawman,
'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument'".
It
is refreshing to see Hindutva activists being accused of keeping the AIT
"alive" rather than trying to kill it! A perfect example of "an intentionally misrepresented proposition
that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument".
3. "The earliest proof of
horses being ridden and yoked to spoke-wheeled chariots appears in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, not India." Shahane had made this claim in
the 2018 article as well: "The innovation of the
steppe people was to domesticate them, ride them, and hitch them to
spoke-wheeled chariots."
Shahane's claim seems to be that
"spoke-wheeled chariots" were brought by Indo-Aryans
into India all the way from the Steppes through Central Asia!
Even the most elementary student of
Indo-European knows that spoked wheels developed after all the different
branches had dispersed from the Homeland (wherever it be located), and there is
no common word for "spoke" in the different branches. Not even
in Indo-Aryan and Iranian.
In the Rigveda, spoked wheels or
spokes are found only in the New Rigveda. They are completely
absent in the Old Rigveda. This fits in with the fact that the Old
Rigveda goes back beyond 2500 BCE, since spoked wheels were only
invented in the second half of the third millennium BCE.
4. "The words for flora and
fauna common across Indo-European languages are of animals and plants that
flourish in temperate rather than tropical or subtropical climates. For
example, words for the birch tree (Sanskrit: भूर्ज, bhūrjá) are similar in dozens of Indo-European
tongues, while India’s national tree provides no Indo-European root. In fact,
most European languages use a variety of 'banyan', a modern term derived from
observing Indian traders (or banias) conducting business in the generous shade
of these trees."
Indian writers supporting the AIT are
particularly notorious for the embarrassing habit of citing old and outdated
arguments which were common two centuries ago and have now generally been given
a quiet burial in the west. It is now recognized that common words for flora
and fauna in different branches of Indo-European languages are simply based on
the flora and fauna actually found in the historical areas of those branches.
It is known now that most Indo-European branches have common words for "temperate"
flora and fauna simply because these are found over the entire area from Europe
to India, while "tropical or subtropical" are found in India
but not found in Europe and so any common names simply died out in Europe in
the course of time. Flora and fauna found only in Europe do not have a common
name in India either, and Witzel explains this by telling us that they "have simply not been used any longer and have died out" (WITZEL 2005:374). And
the Gypsy or Romany languages, which are known to have
spread out from India just over 1000 years ago have also not preserved any
Indian word for "tropical or subtropical" flora and fauna,
including the "banyan" tree cited by Shahane.
But now, it is being recognized that
there are, in fact, a few common names for "tropical or
subtropical" flora and fauna which have survived and which now
directly point towards an IHT (Indian Homeland Theory). The most glaring
example is the common word for "elephant/ivory",
which has become a big headache for western supporters of the AIT: with the
proto-form *leHbho-nth- or *ḷHbho-nth- is found in at least four
branches: Indo-Aryan íbha-, Greek eléphas (Mycenean Greek erepa),
Italic (Latin) ebur, and Hittite laḫpa-. With a transfer of
meaning to "camel", it is found in two more branches: Germanic (e.g.
Gothic) ulbandus, and Slavic (e.g. Old Church Slavic) velibodŭ.
5.
There are persistent ludicrous references, in his 2018 article, to what "Hindutvavadis"
would have wanted, or what they believe, in the matter of genetic data (specifically
R1a) in the Aryan debate:
Speaking
about the Rakhigarhi DNA, he tells us: "one such haplogroup, known as R1a,
has become integral to the fierce debate about India’s ancient history. An
individual who died some 4,500 years ago in Rakhigarhi in present day Haryana
is entangled in the R1a controversy. Political pressure delayed an eagerly
awaited study of that man’s genetic make-up, but it finally seems ready for print,
and its findings were summarised in India Today by the magazine’s
Managing Editor Kai Friese. Friese’s article was less about what the
researchers found than what they didn’t find. What they didn’t find was the
marker R1a. Had that marker been detected, Hindutvavadis would have been
ecstatic. They would have felt vindicated in their belief that the Indus Valley
people were no different from the Vedic people".
"The presence of R1a would have undercut the idea that a
migration originating in the steppes brought Sanskrit to India at a time when
the Indus Valley civilisation was in decline."
"In the Hindutva view, Indian horse riders migrated to the
steppes, taking with them R1a and the mother of Indo-European languages, not
the other way round."
Well,
we must be grateful to Shahane for telling us what would have made us go
ecstatic, and what our view is. Who will know the Hindutva viewpoint better
than this clairvoyant? None of us knew that Savarkar, who coined the word
Hindutva, was a votary, and in fact the originator, of the Out-of-India Theory.
Probably Savarkar himself did not know it. But this revelation is made by
Shahane in an article on 10/8/2016 in (where else?) scroll.in, entitled "Despite
Hindutva twists, it's clear that the Indus Valley flowered before the Vedas
were composed": thanks to him, we now know that "The Out of
India thesis originated with Hindu nationalists such as Savarkar and Golwalkar"!!!
If
we allow them to do so, the AIT Brigade will keep us engaged in discussing such
trivia. Let us now see that the only item that will be discussed before any
other in the Aryan Debate is the Chronology and Geography of the Rigveda.
V. POST-SCRIPT: Indus Script at Keezhadi.
At
the last minute I have to add this postscript to the article because today,
20/9/2019, Scroll.in has just published an article claiming that the
archaeological findings in Keezhadi in Tamilnadu have revealed a continuation
with the Indus Script. The article entitled "Tamil Nadu: Artefacts
dated to 580 BCE hint at script continuity from Indus Valley Civilization"
with the sub-title "The findings at Keezhadi, near Madurai, push back
the date of Tamil Brahmi script, which is the precursor to modern Tamil, by
another century", tells us: "Artefacts found at the archaeological
site in Keezhadi, about 12 km from Madurai in Tamil Nadu, have been dated to
580 BCE, with “graffiti marks” on them pointing to a possible continuity in
script from the Indus Valley Civilisation. The findings were made in a report
by a team that conducted excavations at the site. The report is significant
because Dravidian movement politicians in Tamil Nadu have long claimed that the
people of the Indus Valley Civilisation could be ancestors of the modern
Tamils. However, archaeological and genetic evidence to establish the link was
not strong so far. None of the three earlier major excavations in the region
had provided strong evidence of an ancient urban settlement – a significant
feature of the Indus Valley Civilisation."
On
the warpath, the AIT-mongerers in scroll.in seem to be in a tearing hurry to do
what they would probably choose to describe as "driving the last nail
into the coffin of the OIT" - one more in an unending series of
last nails! However, their present attempt raises many curious points.
The
Keezhadi excavations had certainly uncovered an important part of our great
heritage in Tamil Nadu, and this predictably resulted in a tussle between two
extremist ideologues in India: the Dravidianists in the South for whom the AIT
forms the base of their separatist tendencies, and the extreme Vedicists in the
North who view any part of our native Indian heritage not derived from
the Vedas as something to be looked at askance. I have already dealt with this
issue in an earlier article in Swarajya published on 4/4/2017:
Now
the two recent genetic reports have suddenly heightened the adrenaline in the
hearts of these ardent AIT-warriors, and this article on Keezhadi is one of the
results of this. But what are the facts in the case behind the venomous
innuendo in the article? The main point made seems to be that the report by the
archaeologists conducting the excavation shows that "56 potsherds were
recovered from the excavation conducted by the Tamil Nadu State Archaeology,
with inscriptions in Tamil-Brahmi, the precursor to modern Tamil. 'The recent
scientific dates obtained for Keezhadi findings push back the date of
Tamil-Brahmi to another century i.e. 6th century BCE,' the report said."
Great news, but does it show what the scroll.in article is claiming?
The
article goes on to quote the report: "'One kind of script that survived
between the disappearance of Indus script and the emergence of Brahmi script is
called as graffiti marks by the scholars,' the report said. 'These graffiti
marks are the one evolved or transformed from Indus script and served as
precursor for the emergence of Brahmi script. Therefore, these graffiti marks
cannot be set aside as mere scratches. Like Indus script, this also could not
be deciphered till date.'".
The
writer of this article in scroll.in, Sruthisagar Yamunan, draws a connection
between the "graffiti marks" on the Keezhadi pottery and the
Indus script, presumably on the above note in the report. This must be the
only, or most explicit, such claim in the report, or else we would have had
more explicit quotes. We also have a quote about the Tamil-Brahmi alphabet:
"The report said: 'Tamil-Brahmi letters as part of inscriptions are
found engraved on the shoulder portions of the earthen vessels. In general,
these letters were inscribed when the pot is in leather condition or were
inscribed/engraved after the pot became dry. The letters engraved in leather
condition could be made only by the potters at the time making pots. In the
case of Keezhadi examples, they were all post-firing in nature and were
engraved by the owners after purchasing the pots. The representation of various
styles of writing also suggests this view. It clearly suggests that the
literacy level of the contemporary society that survived in 6th century BCE.'"
Note
that while it is perfectly true that the Brahmi script must ultimately be
derived from the Indus script, that is not what the western academicians are
saying: they claim that the Brahmi script had a totally different origin (and
try to search for that origin in scripts of West Asia). This report at least shows or concedes that "These graffiti
marks are the one evolved or transformed from Indus script and served as
precursor for the emergence of Brahmi script".
But
this article (and possibly this report also, if the writer of this article is
interpreting it as intended by the archaeologists concerned) raises a very
basic question: Are the writings found on the potsherds in the Tamil-Brahmi
script which can be read, or are they in the form of "graffiti
marks" which, "Like Indus script, […] also could
not be deciphered till date.'"? They cannot be both.
If
they are "graffiti marks", then they cannot be read. There are
potsherds with graffiti marks all over India. They are all precursor to the
different forms of the Brahmi script used in different parts of India to
record the local language: the Ashokan-Brahmi script records an Indo-Aryan
language. And the Tamil-Brahmi script records a Dravidian
language.
The
undeciphered graffiti marks on potsherds in different
parts of the country, representing the precursor forms of the different fully
developed Brahmi scripts, will, unless the evidence after they
are deciphered shows otherwise, likewise record both Indo-Aryan
and Dravidian languages.
So,
even though they cannot be read, it will be logical to assume that the
graffiti marks on potsherds in Tamilnadu record a Dravidian language.
But how does all this show that the Harappan people spoke a Dravidian
language, until the graffiti marks are deciphered and read (obviously showing a
Dravidian language in Tamilnadu), and then on the basis of this
decipherment, the Harappan script is also deciphered and proves
to be a Dravidian language?
Just rhetoric and media frenzy cannot
prove or disprove historical points. It will be better if chauvinistic
tendencies and venom are kept out of the debate. To repeat what I have said
umpteen times: unless and until the Harappan script is deciphered and proves
the Harappan language to be non-Indo-European, the only valid evidence to
decide the language of the Harappan civilization is the data for the chronology
and geography of the Rigveda, which presents an irrefutable case showing that
the entire Harappan area, as well as areas to the far east of it were purely
Indo-European language speaking areas from well before 3000 BCE.
It is up to us to decide whether we
are going to fall into the different verbal traps being set up by the
AIT-jihadists (nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, Mr. Sanghvi) or whether we are going
to force them to discuss only, and only, this chronological and geographical
evidence.
[Incidentally, note the scientific
precision of the scholars at scroll.in: the article ends with a note in
italics: "An earlier version of this article wrongly
mentioned the date of the artefacts as 583 BCE." So the editors at scroll.in can go to
this high degree of precision where even a difference of three years shows up
in their carbon analysis! Carbon-dating experts from all over the world must be
stunned at this super-advancement in technique and analysis]
Finally finished reading it one time, will process and re read. Thank you for your invaluable views on the papers and events that followed after it. I run a YouTube channel on the same topics, and probably echo the same sentiments and a huge fan of yours! If you do get time please take a look at the channel here,
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaDqiN03HRAX30-zmjH4qug
hiding inside all the facades of all the arguments, is the desire to show that hinduism is not native to india. It suits leftist politicians in their vote bank politicis. It suits certain dalit leaders in their votebank politics. Therefore the need to fight for AIT for their own survival. No number of studies will ever stop their vindictive articles and views. But there is hope, if we show existence of horses in India before 2000 BC, chariots before 2000 BC and an Indian origin of the R1a1-z93, the AIT fanboys and the AIT camp won’t be able to survive that.
ReplyDeleteKeezhadi excavations in TN show similarities with Harappa in age, in graffiti, in structure. This proves the existence of indigenous populations of like characteristics throughout India- aa sEthu Himaachalam- from the ocean to the Himalayas. If this does not disprove AIT what does? With scholars like Dr. Taligeri and others, can we now see a shift in knowledge gathering to India- a small beginning nevertheless significant. The four authors common to the two DNA papers should explain the collusion to the world, if they have the intellectual integrity.
ReplyDeleteKeezhadi excavations in TN show similarities with Harappa in age, in graffiti, in structure. This proves the existence of indigenous populations of like characteristics throughout India- aa sEthu Himaachalam- from the ocean to the Himalayas. If this does not disprove AIT what does? With scholars like Dr. Taligeri and others, can we now see a shift in knowledge gathering to India- a small beginning nevertheless significant. The four authors common to the two DNA papers should explain the collusion to the world, if they have the intellectual integrity.
ReplyDeleteI have heard about your work from kush mera and I have been looking at your work from a week. I think this post can be summarized as an intro to any newbie who would like to scratch the surface of your work!
ReplyDeleteEarlier Gondi language was linked to Indus markers & shown similar similarities to the Indus marks as excavations from Keezhadi.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/gonds-may-have-migrated-from-indus-valley/article6698419.ece
Does genetic marker from swat valley proves that it was from steppe how they
ReplyDeleteCompare it and you said they changed something in colour does that earlier it does not have steppe genes but later they changed to to suit this theory.
I am really glad you're back.
ReplyDeletePlease be more active man. India needs more of you and your path breaking research.
ReplyDeleteMy view on Rakhigarhi findings - It definitely goes more in favour of AIT than OIT. It doesn't prove anything and settle debate for once for all though. It's still possible R1a gene arrived in India in last 4000 years but made no revolutionising cultural impact as AIT says. India's cuktur and languages are continuous development despite gene inflow. or may be possible R1a people brought fundamental change in languages and culture of India but that scenario requires invasion. Migration wouldn't not cut it.
ReplyDeleteMy question to you sir - how they associate R1a to steppe people? Have they found R1a in DNA sample of 5000 years old Steppe skull or it (like most things in AIT) is just an assumption as linguistics has already "proved" steppe origin?
Your case is very sound on the basis of analysis of vedic texts. It can't be disproved unless someone decifers Indus script as Dravidian or finds something contemporary of RV in ruins dating 1200 BCE to validate AIT dates.
ReplyDeleteSee how all the AIT pro authors are reported scroll.in and The Wire who are left liberandu media houses.
ReplyDelete