The other day I was privy to an amusing and often funny conversation at work between a North India colleague and Bangalorean on who is Aryan and who is Dravidian. Slowly the conversation veered towards notions of superiority, as my North Indian friend laid claim on the fact that he is an Aryan, and that fact by extension meant that he has superior genes ( what ever that means ) . ( Well it did not take long to poke into his ego when I gently reminded him that many of the states with predominantly ‘Aryan’ population are utterly backward ! )
When I gently asked, why does he think he is an Aryan and asked him to define what is Aryan, he was at a loss to define what Aryan was. When further probed about the origin of Aryan, he was entirely clueless, other than mumbling that Aryans are a Western European race and that is what his friends and parents had told him. Well he is not alone. Calling oneself Aryan has become a fashion these days. The word Aryan was perhaps used in the modern times by Max Muller and other European ethnologists who propounded the Aryan ‘Invasion’ theory. Somehow , a term used to denote a class ( noble ) has acquired racial overtones and transformed into a word meaning entirely something else.
While no one has completely refuted the Aryan invasion theory, no one has ever proved it with the kind of rigorous proof that can stand scientific scrutiny.
But with the advances in genetics , all this is set to change. We now have a very clear picture of various gene haplogroups that gave birth to modern Indians. And what that tells us is a different story.
In India there are broadly three major substratum’s of incursions.
1. A major influx of first ever humans who were primitive hunter gatherers out of Africa traveling along the coast around 70000 years ago. This is predominantly characterized by M130 marker which is also found in Australian aborigines, some Malaysian tribes.
2. A second major incursion of farmers from middle East, carrying with them agriculture , domesticated animals, quickly displacing and as well inter mixing with the original inhabitants around 15000-20000 years ago. This is predominantly characterized by J2/M410 marker
3. Another incursion of horse Riding and pastoral Indo Europeans from central Asia, mostly carrying R1b, starting 4000 BC perhaps till 2000 BC. This is predominantly R1a/R2 markers.
While many claim that R1a is the Aryan marker, R1a presence may not mean any Aryan presence, as the later tribes like Huns, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans, Gurjaras, all of them are predominantly R1a , as their origin is Central Asia.
In addition there were incursions of Greeks, Arabs, Moslems and several tribes from Central Asia during early and late medieval ages.
And modern days Indians seem to be a admixture of these three populations. While there is an attempt to identify current day castes to these three populations, I would only there is some correlation. Upper Caste populations across both North and South India seem to have a higher percentage of R1a/R2/J2 markers compared to M130 marker which is found more among the tribal population. And all caste groups in India, seem to be more closely related to each other than to tribals. And Indian caste groups and tribals are closer to each other than they are to outside populations like East Europeans or Iranians or even South East Asians.
And another fact that emerges is that caste system is a very recent construct, something that did not exist prior to the time Buddhism came into existence. And all the mixing of populations has been going on a few thousand years before that.
1. Every single caste in India seems to be an admixture of various haplotypes
2. There is a gradual variation in percentages of different haplogroups across India, consistent with proximity to other regions neighboring of India.
3. R1a, which is a European gene is absent from India.
4. R1a which is identified an Indo European Gene is present across various castes India, suggesting that haplogroups are caste neutral to a large extent
5. There has not been a major gene influx into Indian subcontinent in the last 10000 years years, and the population substratum’s are more or less constant since the last 20000 years or so. However, cultural or linguistic changes due to arrival of Indo European speakers is highly possible, as has happened in Europe ( Spanish and Portuguese or French have only R1a in their blood ,but they speak Indo European languages )
6. The caste system has complicated the haplogroup mixing, with each caste forming a sort of genetically isolated sub group for 2000 years. This means, often the founder effects of castes is more prominent and sometimes evolutionary selection pressure has probably played out at the caste level and sub regional level
One marker that has often been touted as Aryan, the R1a, is present many of the north Indian castes, as well several castes in south and west India. This obviously means that no one caste from any part of India, can claim to be Aryan, even if the term is assumed to be legitimate.
Well, then what is all this debate about this Aryan theory?. We all know that Indians tend to be more talkers than doers and we associate ourselves with any European race that we consider as superior.
The other part of the debate is about the connection between IQ and race. By IQ I refer to the average IQ of people residing in a geographical area rather than IQ of individuals. Now, that is a very dangerous territory for me to tread in. But, in the context of India, I definitely have some observations to make.
If we go by the fact that technological advance is an indicator of intelligence, then South ( dark brown ) and Western India and parts of Punjab appear to be more intelligent than the rest of Indians. some of the primitive tribes in India also seem to be indifferent to technology. Are we to conclude that South Indians, Punjabis , Gujaratis and Maharashtrians are more intelligent than the rest of the Indians. I really don’t know, but I am sure my Bihari friends will bristle with anger at the mere mention of this.
My take on all this is that, at the end of the day, there are may be more like 100 factors that affect the IQ of an individual, inheritable brain size being just one of them. So instead of swearing allegiance to any race ( Aryan or Dravidian or other ) or trying to show other races in bad light, it is probably good idea to confine pride to an individual’s achievements rather than a race. And leave the job of ethnic and racial taxonomy to professional anthropologists.
And government policies aimed at helping people should target individuals based on their IQ rather than their membership in any race or group.