Are the AASI black?

The whole thing about genetics has been very oriented around “whiteness.” Just as we had the historical supposition that most cultures were created by vigorous Northern races that degenerated after mixture with decadent Southern ones (which conveniently was appropriated by Euro-colonialists).

I do think in simple language. While the AASI seem to be related to the initial Negrito coastal waves that spread across Yemen, Southern Indo-Pak, parts of Malaysia, Melanesia, Papua New Guinea and the Aboriginals (hints of these genes are said to be in the Amazon); it’s important to realise that we are “brown” because of these ancestors.

The Aryans were fair & lovely; the Eastern Anatolian/ Elamitic (Iranian farmers is a misnomer) were probably olive & tanned (related to J2 population sort of look like modern day Caucasians; fair skinned but darkish colourings) but it was the AASI (the Dalit/untouchable) who gave us our swarthier complexions.

Maybe the race movement/ black lives movement in the US is needed in South Asia so that we can love our black ancestors.

It’s interesting Hollywood has an amazing and vibrant black Afram entertainment community. None of the cinemas in Latam and/or South Asian put darker skinned/Dalits front and centre.


Colonial Dravidian

Vijay makes a very important contribution on the Aryan-Dravidian debate and how all of it was cooked up by the British (Hindu/Muslim divide, caste system, martial races etc).

It is the absurdity and arrogance of the British to imagine they created/united India; India has always existed from the times of our AASI/Andamese/Negrito ancestors (maybe we should go back to 80’s Britain and call the AASI black so we are basically black according to one-drop rule).

Colonialism was an absurdity and travesty and did so much to hold back Hindustan (I define this from the Hindu Kush to the Indian Ocean). Even Lord Curzon mentions (again I go quoting colonial authorities; I’m such a munafiq) that Rivers are not real boundaries; India does not stop at the Indus but at her mountains (Hindu Kush, Himalaya) and oceans.

“3) Indian politics –<br />a) North South divide – North = Arya, South = Dravida or Non-Arya aka Natives”<br /><br />You are overemphasising the so-called North-South ‘Divide’ . ‘ Dravida’ referred ethonologically to the Pancha Dravida brahmins ; this included brahmins of Gujarat and Maharastra. 19th Century ametuer linguist Rev Caldwell mistakenly thought it referred to the four large south Indian languages and named the linguitic group as ‘ Dravidian family’ and as was the prevalent notion of 19th century thinkers , he conflated the linguistic group with a racial group. From a purely linguistic angle , his identification of the linguistic group is right, but wrongly named it and even more atrociouly mistook it for a race.<br /><br />It is testament to the success of the the 19th century colonial categories that western mistakes have become creed for a section of Indians.<br /><br />However , the bald ‘ Arya-Dravida’ division is prevalent only in Tamilnadu, and not in other south India states; that too it is politically hyped up. The irony is the Tamil literature knows no word called Dravida till late 19th century under colonial instruction. <br /><br />Political froth from Tamilnadu should not be mistaken as the opinion of majority of people. The majority of Hindus have refrained from taking control the social and historical narrative or even challenging the prevalent narratives which are of 19th century western provenance. That is their mistake. I don’t think the so-called ‘Out of India’ theory is the solution. One nonsense cannot be fought with another nonsense. Wherever you see nonsense , be relentless in challenging and exposing it.<br /><br />The so-called ‘arya-dravida’ divide has no histotical basis – however such toxic narartives need exposing . The narrative of “arya-dravida” divide in Tamilnadu is high decibel and aggressive – it gets more aggressive as it’s historical basis is non-existant and it is running on empty. History is made by aggressive lies in the short run – Satyameva Jayate is a pious hope


BP Round-Up / Open Thread

I am doing a round-up of the past 10 posts excluding my own since ordinarily I tend to write more. I try to judge the tempo of BP and when it’s moving on it’s own momentum I hum down and do other stuff. Incidentally I have excerpted the last twenty articles (the pages display ten articles at a time) and I was surprised that in 3 days we generated so much content.

Beyond cultural parochialism: Razib tells us what to read, which is a good thing because he reads alot. I don’t know how he does it!

Revisiting Somnath–A Review: Kabir revisits Somnath academically and I do agree that British historiography somehow intensified Hindu-Muslim political rivalry. Of course it was a complex equation but I’m surprised no one senses the nefarious hands of Imperialism!

Jaydeepsinh Rathod on the historocity of Sanskriti: AnAn compiles all of JR’s thoughts on the historocity of Sanskriti. In the Aryan threads there are some very knowledgeable comments; I remember Allama Iqbal ending his thesis that the reason Hinduism survived and Zoroastrianism did not was because the Brahmins obsessively discussed every detail of their philosopy and mythology whereas the Magis did not. I sometimes feel like my Magian ancestors and I like to hold on to my cherished notions..

Toxic textbooks and social engineering in Pakistan: AMA investigates how the Pakistani psychosis came to be. I myself of course thoroughly indoctrinate in the Pakistani psychosis; I am rather a bit too proud of my Hijazi camel trader ancestors (nos ancetres les Hijazis sounds a lot less glamorous than the Moghuls).


How to argue

LV sent this to me and I found this a useful guide to blog debate..

I am very sensitive to “tone” so I probably am between Step 2 & Step 3 on the 7 step path to Aristotle.. IRL I tend to shy away from much discussion or debate, except with the better half, as I’m a very kinesthetic learner.


The Bollywood caste

It’s nice to see BP so active – I completely failed in my goal to take up AnAn’s suggestion and do a compendium of recent posts but I shall indulge with some observations.

We seem to spend a lot of time on BP talking on caste origins.

The more interesting castes are Bollywood; where most of the acting families are linked and intermarry with the industrialist and cricketing caste (the Sharma-Kohli wedding was presaged by Malik-Mirza match).

The Bollywood caste is Punjabi & Muslim men (Ranveer Singh dropped his Sindhi name – who would watch Ranveer Bhavnani) with women stemming from other parts of the Subcontinent.

I’m surprised by the lack of Sikhs in Bollywood; Arijit Singh (who is a cut Sikh) and Ranbir’s mother + Saif’s first wife are Sikh. Where and who are the Sikh men?

I think people forget India is undergoing a breathtaking pace of modernisation. However because of Bollywood; this modernisation isn’t necessarily Westernisation. Bollywood takes a nod from the West and translates it in Hindustani culture, language & values which then influences the whole nation (Pakistan is undergoing the same process but is far more immunised from Westoxication; we are generation to half a generation behind in liberalism).

LV was showing me the new trailer for Veere de Wedding (Kareena Kapoor & Sonam Kapoor) and I was remembering what Kangana Ranaut was saying about nepotism in Bollywood.

Also Vidhi pointed out to me that a lot of the “Punjabis” are in fact half-Sindhi (KJo, RSingh, Kareena Kapoor, Sonam Kapoor).

One of the most shocking juxtapositions in the Subcontinent is just how cosmopolitan and glamorous Sindhi Hindus are whereas Sindhi Muslims have such a staid reputation (landowners, wadheras).


Asians & Aryans

A few things jump out of this map:

(1.) Tibet is important, real important. These rivers feed half the world and these are the population centres of what we mean by “Asia.”

(1a.) Continents ultimately are arbitrary political constructs; what geographic feature cuts off Europe from Asia (is it really the Urals)? This map represents “core Asia” and more than ever I can see why the Middle East has an entirely different orientation. If a world government did ever come about; for fairness sake there would have to be some redistribution in how the Asian super-continent is treated; Africa’s population is burgeoning but difficult to see how it can match this.

(2.) It’s interesting to see how all the South Asian rivers have a common source (the Ganges has another source); a poetic meditation on the unity of the Subcontinent.

(3.) invaders or not; foreign or alien what is admirable about the Aryans is the extent to which they co-opted local traditions. As most readers of this blog know, Mt. Kailash is known as the home of Shiva and it literally feeds the Subcontinent.

(3b) Each initial wave seemed to have weaker and weaker ties to the land. The AASI seemed to have settled in the mists of pre-history, the (Elamitic?) Dravidian farmers may have fused with them to found the Indus Valley Civ.

(3c) the best way to think of the Aryan invasion is the Mongol conquests. The demographics of Central Asia and Mesopotamia shifted (and collapsed) as they did not (only) because of the rapacity of the Mongols but because of the failure to maintain the qanat (complex irrigation systems). I know that for a fact in Greater Iran whereas I can’t be sure that they used qanats in Mesopotamia.

(3d) At any rate either the Aryans filled in an ecological collapse (which seems unlikely since they spread with a rapidity elsewhere meaning that they had some technical and military advantage) or they triggered it. The indigenous compounded Dravidian-Negrito/Australasian (sorry for the loaded terms but easier to use Arya/Dravid than the newfangled terms) collapses and the remainder population did a Latin America where Aryans males were polygamous and high status.

(3e) the Aryans were the last invaders to both fully merge and embrace India as their core civilisation. The Muslim (Turkic?) invaders were oriented West and the British even further West. Each succeeding invasion wave was invested in India by an order of magnitude less than the preceding wave. The English returned to their colonies, the Muslims created Pakistan and the Aryans kept Aryavarta while the Dravidians have their local politics that tie them (especially in TN; the heart of the Dravidian movement).

(3f) I know it’s contentious but I would imagine the AASI would be like the Negrito coastal population and a related equivalent further upriver in the Indus prior to the Dravidian farmer wave. Prehistory was probably pretty ugly and tragic we just don’t know about it as we don’t have records but think the New World repeated time and time again.

(4) a final point as to why Iran may not have had as much a genetic impact. The Iranian plateau is exactly that a plateau. As I was told in Tehran a couple of years ago by a geographic; the mountain is life, every city in Iran is based on hills and mountains the rest is all desert (fertile plains are in short supply). It’s probably why it’s difficult to effect population replace in Iran as it is in its neighbours (Turko-Mongols introversion in Central Asia, Arabs influx in Mesopotamia, Aryan “invasion” in the Indus).

That’s all I can think for now btw the title is a bit misleading since Aryans are always a good lede lol.


India would have been a dump for crackpot science had Modi not Nehru been its first leader

Instead of being noted for its exceptional space programme (Mangalyaan!) and brilliant string theorists (Ashoke Sen!), India would have become a garbage dump for every kind of crackpot science. Medical research would have concentrated on medicines made from cow urine and cow dung, the celibacy of peacocks would be under intense scrutiny, astrology would be taught in place of astronomy, and instead of teaching actual mathematics there would be Vedic mathematics. As in Pakistan, Darwinian evolution would be considered heretical and destructive of religious faith.

Nehru’s stamp upon Indian science can be seen across the length and breadth of India in the form of dozens of scientific institutes and universities that owe to him. India is probably the world’s only country whose constitution explicitly declares commitment to the “scientific temper” — a quintessential Nehruvian notion formulated during his years in prison. Briefly: only reason and science, not holy scriptures, provide us reliable knowledge of the physical world.

I was able to see the huge difference that Nehru had made to his country while on a speaking tour in 2005 before audiences in about 40 Indian schools, colleges, and universities in seven cities. Without Nehru there could never have been the huge and palpable mass enthusiasm for science. This was manifested in the many science museums within a single city, and countless scientific societies working to spread understanding of basic science among ordinary Indians. I do not know how much of this has changed under Hindutva. But most definitely not even a fraction of such enthusiasm was visible then, or can be seen now, in Pakistan.

Nehru must also be credited with keeping a lid on his generals. In a democracy the army should be subordinate and answerable to civilian authority, not the other way around. And so, immediately after Partition, Nehru ordered the grand residence of the army chief to be vacated and instead assigned to the prime minister. This move carried huge symbolism — it said clearly who was boss.

When Ayub Khan’s coup across the border happened in 1958, it led to rules that further diminished the role of the Indian army in national affairs. Gen Cariappa, who had retired but praised the coup, was told to shut up. Officers, serving or retired, were strongly discouraged from commenting on matters related to public affairs and economics — and particularly their pensions and retirement benefits. There was no concept of army owned enterprises and businesses.

All this could now be changing. Army chief Gen Bipin Rawat, known for his bellicosity, has broken with the army’s tradition by freely commenting on many foreign policy matters — the Rohingya refugee problem, how India should deal with the Doklam crisis with China, and the need to call “Pakistan’s nuclear bluff”. Time will tell whether Rawat is an exception or, instead, the new rule characterising an interventionist army. Ominously for Indian democracy, criticising the army chief is being described by its media as anti-national.

How much of Nehru’s India will be undone by Modi and his cronies remains to be seen. A demoralised and broken Congress opposition means that they are here to stay for long.

Meanwhile, it is becoming easier by the day for Pakistan to recognise its mirror reflection across the border.


Pictures in Handles

To all new commentators; please add pictures (any picture) to your handle.

Anonymity and privacy are of course the prerogative but it’s also for the quality of conversation that any handle have some sort of identity associated with it because otherwise it’s hard to keep track of who’s saying what.

I’ll keep reminding to all the newbies..

I’ll write up a post about guidelines for all new commentators to follow and pin it. Essentially have a picture on your handle and don’t be abusive.