newsletter

 

 

On the 5th of August the Indian govt announced that it had changed the status of Jammu and Kashmir.  I think Professor Christine Fair has written a pretty good summary of the change and its implications (you can see it here), and you can read her article or a host of other articles to get the details (she has a bad rep in Pakistan right now, but I think this article does a very fair job of summarizing the issues involved, if you are a Pakistani nationalists you can ignore her comments about Pakistan, but the rest is still pretty useful in my opinion). Anyway, the bottom line is that the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir is no more. It was created after the Anglo-Sikh wars when the British sold Kashmir to the Dogra ruler and it operated as one of over 500 supposedly independent princely states in British India (the actual level of independence varied, none were truly independent in that a British “Resident” was around to make sure British interests were paramount, but the larger states had a good deal of internal autonomy, with their own armies and judicial systems); it included the vale of Kashmir (where most Kashmri speakers lived) as well as Jammu (mixed population, but dominated by Dogras), Gilgit and Batlstan (mostly Muslim and ethnically and culturally distinct from Kashmir) and Ladakh (Western Tibetan in terms of culture and religion). In 1947 the princely states were told they had to pick either Pakistan or India. The Dogra ruler dithered for a while (presumably because he wanted independence, and would prefer not to join either new state) but when Pakistan organized an invasion by Pakhtoon tribesmen to capture the state, he acceded to India and Indian troops landed to stop the tribal invasion and recapture Kashmir for India. They pushed the raiders back towards Muzaffabad, Pakistan also committed regular troops and the two dominions fought a mini-war for over a year. In late 1948 India took the case to the UN and the two sides agreed to a ceasfire that was supposed to be followed by a plebiscite, but that never happened. Instead both sides consolidated control over respective parts of Kashmir and the cease fire line has held with minor modifications since then. Pakistan insists that India should hold the plebiscite and let Kashmiris determine if they want to be with India or Pakistan. India insists that it is Pakistan that never fulfilled the first requirements for the plebiscite and that since then it has held elections in Kashmir and the issue is now moot. Or something like that, you can read more about the endless legal and procedural wrangles in a 1000 different posts from Pakistan and India and reach your own conclusions, but this post is not about the legal or diplomatic ramifications

Review: The Anarchy, by WIlliam Dalrymple

The glossary at the end gives two meanings for “Alam” – the world, and the battle standard used in Muharram by Shi’as. In fact, these are two different words: ‘aalam عالم = world ‘alam علم = standard BTW, ‘alam refers to battle standards in general.

Also in the glossary, “firangi” is translated as “foreigner”. In fact, the term refers only to Europeans, and is derived from “Frank”. Non-European, non-white foreigners would never be called “firangi”..

A truly startling error in the translation of the term “Id” عید in the glossary, which says that “Id-ul-Zuha” (actually “Id-al-Azha”) “commemorates the delivery of Isaac”. Muslims celebrate the deliverance of Isma’il (Ishmael), NOT Isaac…..

Again in the glossary, “Masnavi” is defined as “Persian or Urdu love lyric”, which is incorrect. “Masnavi” refers purely to the form of a poem, where both lines of each couplet rhyme with each other but each couplet has its own rhyme…..

The term comes from “ithnan”, the Arabic word for “two”, indicating the dual rhyme pattern. The most famous Masnavi in the world – by Rumi – is emphatically NOT a “love lyric”. The Shahnameh of Ferdowsi is also a masnavi, but not a love lyric…..

There are fanous masnavis in Persian by Nizami, Khusraw, Jami and many others. In Urdu by Mir Hasan, Daya Shankar Naseem and Nawab Mirza Shaoq. All these great masnavis are book length poems, which is the typical use of this genre …..

“Muharram” is not a “great Shi’a festival”; it is the first month of the Islamic calendar. Shi’as (and many Sunnis) mourn the martyrdom of Inam Hussain in this month, but not as a “celebration” and certainly not with “gusto”! It is a solemn – if often passionate – occasion…..

There are many short masnavis in Urdu, notably Iqbal’s “Saqi Nama”. Ghalib wrote a whimsical masnavi on mangoes, and another one complaining about his financial problems. Offhand, I can’t think of any masnavis that can be considered love lyrics, though there must be some….

 

 

Genetics, history, and identity in South Asia

In light of all the posts on Indian genetics, and my soon-to-be conversation with Vagheesh Narasimhan, I thought I would lay out some things in a single post rather than scattering across comments.

* I dislike the political/tribal valences of questions about South Asian genetic and cultural history. As an American, I’m very detached from the whole thing. As someone with an Islam-skeptic view (I have posted my sketches of Muhammad being sodomized by a camel on this weblog), I also am not someone who thinks that the Muslim impact on India was wholly good. Some of you lower IQ Hindu nationalists detect an Islamic subtext in my comments…but you just stupid and biased (which is OK, since most people are stupid, and everyone is biased). What you are detecting is that I generally find some of the anti-Islamic perspectives of Hindu nationalists ahistorical as well, and, strangely almost enslaved and haunted by Islam.

For example, while some Hindu nationalists linger on the violent and avaricious nature of the Turks and its impact on India as sui generis, I am quite amazed the more I think about it and read about it that Indian religio-cultural systems persisted so robustly. Islam is nothing special, just a flavor of another thing.

* As someone of the Right, I am not a fan of Marxism, though some Marxist analysis and historiography is useful. That being said, some on the Indian Left, Marxist and not, seem to support the migration-narrative for the “wrong reasons.” This includes some Indian scientists I follow on Twitter.

It’s pretty depressing when biologists spread scientific results not because the results themselves were interesting, but because of second-order impacts on internecine political arguments. Those second-order impacts happen to be that for whatever reason the Hindu Right as adhered itself to a set of positions that are difficult to support empirically, which have only ethereal and tenuous connections to Hindu nationalism.

Though I am probably more suspicious of Marxism than most, I am also not someone who thinks all Hindu nationalists are Nazi and that that position is ipso facto illegitimate. Not all positions and ideologies I disagree with are illegitimate. 

* The empirical data on migration of large numbers of pastoralists into South Asia between 2000 and 1500 BC seems very strong now. Before 2010 I assumed that something like this happened, but that it was a matter of a few percents. That is, I had assumed that the Indo-Aryan migration was likely as demographically impactful as the Magyar conquest of modern Hungary. Not very.

In 2009 Reconstructing Indian History was published. I also began examing genome-wide data myself. In short, South Asians were way too “West Eurasian” in relation to my earlier assumptions. I didn’t know what to make of it. Reconstructing Indian History presented a model where there had been a massive admixture between “Ancestral North Indians” and “Ancestral South Indians.” In personal communication of the authors explained just how similar “ANI” was to other West Eurasians (pairwise Fst). It seemed then that the admixture had happened during the Holocene.

* Looking at packages like Treemix and Admixture as 2010 progressed many were arguing that ANI was two populations. I saw it myself in my analyses. Follow-ups from the Reich lab confirmed this hunch. Some South Indian populations shared drift with Georgians/Armenians, while some North Indian populations (e.g., UP Brahmins) shared a lot of drift with Northeast Europeans and ancient steppe people.

* Model-based analyses today suggest that 10-15% of the ancestry of modern South Asians is “steppe.” In some groups, it is nearly 30% (Jatts, Kalash, some North Indian Brahmins). This is a huge demographic impact.

Like many of the authors, the confluence of linguistic affinities between Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryans and the genetic affinities point to a recently shared origin. As South Asians have ancestry components (AHG in particular) that Eastern Europeans do not, the most parsimonious explanation is that Eastern Europeans or their ancestors are a donor population to South Asians.

 

Pigmentation SNPs by population

I used the clustering and frequency feature in plink to get minor allele frequencies in 1000 Genomes + Sintashta. Since I did the Sintashta separately earlier you may have to flip the frequency. Use ccommon sen

Brown Pundits