Communism and Kerala -iii

My reading tells me, the Marxist-Leninist socioeconomic model of a society was Feudalism-> Capitalism-> Socialism-> Communism. Here the former two were realities and the latter two were dreams. The socioeconomic model that I have dealt with till now envisages a society's transition from feudalism to capitalism and then to welfarism. But I do not consider this a standard model for every society. In fact, a tribal society that had self transformed itself to sedentary civilization may not exhibit this. Feudalism which requires slave or bonded labourers may have many reasons for its origins. The point I want to discuss here is Kerala's socioeconomic transition model.

Kerala might have experienced a different sequence in the formation of its society. This model probably is restricted to Malabar (North Kerala) along with Tulu region.

Though there are evidences that Dravidian tribes in Central India moved to sedentary life and started occupying all of South India for almost 3000-3500 BP, it should be said that bourgeois life was crystallized in  East India long before South. In fact, the earliest Prakrit speakers who moved to South were most likely artisans and merchants (or after nomadic herders of North).

The Malayalis even though ruled by Tamil kings for a long time were most likely in tribal stage. However, since both Kerala and Tulu region had a maritime trade life, they attracted various guilds to that region as back as 2000 years ago. Considering the fact that there was a caste of ship builders (called Odiyon, subcaste of carpentars), we can argue they had an active maritime trade.

If one considers the North Kerala, the earliest extant ballads (Vadakkan Pattugal, Songs from the North) then one can observe the transition from a Bourgeois society to Feudal society. The earliest available work, Payyannur Pattu, is completely devoted to merchants (I suppose true in the case of Tamil region too). Curiously, merchants are the city[1] chieftains. There is absolutely no mention of any castes in Kerala society of that period. However, the later Vadakkan Pattugal(Aromal and Unniyarcha or Taccholi Udenan) give a picture of feudal Malayali society.

Because of the above factors I would consider the first transition that Kerala society experienced was from tribalism->capitalism. But soon both Tulu and Kerala society turned into feudal societies (Tulu earlier). The reason I believe was because of the stagnant knowledge[2] of ship builders. This caste could no longer match the advanced ships of Arabs and later Europeans.

In my opinion, the transition of Malayali society has been: Tribalism -> Capitalism -> Feudalism -> Socialism(present).

Notes:
[1] The term for city, 'Nagara', was associated with aristan or merchant guilds. Wherever these guilds established themselves they called that place 'Nagara'. Similar to word 'bourgeoisie' even these guild people were known as 'city dwellers'. In fact, a Tamil merchant caste is called just that, Nagarattar, city dweller or bourgeoisie.

[2] Primitiveness of skill was common across all occupations castes. I suppose the knowledge stagnation caused by the caste system was responsible for keeping all the artisans and other occupational groups in South to their primitive techniques for a very long time. However, their northern counterparts were somewhat liberated from this fate because of repeated attacks from outside the subcontinent which brought in new ideas.

Negatively and Positively Privileged Groups - i

Max Weber observed that positively privileged and negatively privileged groups develop worldview in conformation to their orientation to the world. Positively privileged groups have a sense of their human dignity that is related to their "being" - that is, their "beauty and excellence" - so that their "kingdom is 'of this world'" and they "live for the present ... by exploiting their great past." Negatively privileged groups cultivate a sense of human dignity that is related to the future. These groups are "nurtured by the belief in a providential mission," or by a belief that "the last will be first" in another life, or that in this life a messiah will appear who will "bring forth into the light of the world which his cast them out the hidden honour of the pariah people."

I read the above paragraph in "Sociological Theory" (Adams and Sydie). According to the editors, Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech was future oriented dream, just as white supremacist references to glorious Confederate tradition are present - and past - oriented.

I suppose the entire thing boils down to, positively privileged people think of a glorious past that has continued to the present. Whereas the negatively privileged (Oxymoron?) people think of glory in the future.

When it comes to India there are no absolutely positively privileged(PP) people since non-Indians have colonized us. Though there are absolutely negatively privileged people (NP). However, surprisingly, both PP and NP have only glorious past. We don't find visionaries like Martin Luther King among our NP. The creation of glorious past begins with one of the greatest leaders and scholars of India Dr. Ambedkar.

Ambedkar was the first one to come up with theory of Kshatriya -> Buddhist -> Shudra transformation. The problem was old works/scriptures did not have any clear identities so anybody could fill the gap.  I'm not sure which approach was better. Dr. King's hope of better future or Dr. Ambedkar's hope of reclaiming better past. Of course, many castes of India (who are relatively PP and NP) have their own glorious past. But the people who created these glorious past for other castes were generally primitive casteists. But Ambedkar was certainly not one among them.

In my opinion, Ambedkar was forced to come up with the glorious past theory as he was unable to counter racial superiority theory that was being circulated during that time, mostly based on pseudo scientific skin colour and skull shape. He might have come up with that theory in the hope that his people wouldn't be discouraged by their born inferiority as suggested by those pseudo-scientific studies.

References:
1. Sociological Theory - Adams and Sydie
2. Essential Writings of  Dr.B R Ambedkar - Ed. Valerian Rodrigues

Communism and Kerala -ii

My previous post discussed how true Marxist philosophy, which at the core envisaged a class struggle by urban workers against the bourgeoisie, never really materialized. As Maju pointed out wherever it had succeeded (Russia and China) the class struggle was against the feudal system.

When Karl Marx had come up with his theories, his reference society was a bourgeois society. His society had already moved from the feudal economy (which was broken by the bourgeoisie) to the capitalist economy. His theories, though not intended, became successful in feudal societies. Kerala was not different in this respect.

However, it's tough to call this as a success of Marxist ideology. First of all, his(Marx's) fundamental theory about 'alienation' has no meaning in these societies. A peasant or an independent artisan (who still would form the bulk of these societies) weren't the true alienated people. The movement that happened had Marxism in name but not in essence. Therefore, we must conclude that the communist movements in any feudal societies were devoid of any ideology. But that stand needs to be corrected after 'Maoism'.

 Mao Ze Dong, in fact , gave clear ideological base for a communist revolution in the feudal societies. In this ideology cadres are peasants and not urban workers. Therefore, alienation is irrelevant. It's also called 'Agrarian Sociology'. Even though Maoism is probably the much later ideology, we can extrapolate it to Indian communist movements and consider Indian communists of Kerala and Bengal were following the ideology of Mao. I suppose, main communist party of India which calls itself Communist Party of India (Marxist), should rename itself to Communist Party of India (Maoist). The ideology that best describes it is Maoist and not Marxist.

Now, this also explains why a Marxist economy failed absolutely in Mao's China or Kerala and West Bengal. The creation of new economy in Marxist sociology was based on a worker who felt alienation in a Capitalist society. However, psychology of feudal society people is entirely different. The socialist economy model is not for these people. Now, it also explains the post-Mao China. We need to bear in mind that Marx's reference society had moved from feudalism to capitalism. This gives us clue for the natural course a society should take. One should bring down a feudal society and then create a capitalist society in its place. China is exactly moving towards Marx's reference society. Since Marx's reference society mostly moved from  capitalist to socialist-capitalist (centrist...capitalism with insurance and social security) economy instead of pure socialist economy and this would probably be the case with China too. Urban worker would probably remain alienated as long as he has leisure to think about it.

Now, there is another movement in India which though calls itself Maoist is nothing but that in its orientation and essence. The Naxal cadres are mostly tribals. Now, the tribal life is entirely different from a civilized human life centred around labour. Also, tribals don't live in feudal society but a free society of their own. Their problem is that they are exploited by non-tribals. But there is no ideology that defines their movement. It's totally chaotic. The scope of the movement has nothing to do with true aspirations of people it represents. And I'm sure their economic model would be catastrophic.

But does that mean the state need to help creating a feudal society among these tribals hoping that they would someday bring it down and create a capitalist society and then move to a centrist society?

Tuluva-Malayali Matrilineal System - Part 2

Legends of matrilineal inheritance:
There is only one legend that talks about the beginning of the matrilineal system in this region. However, that is not part of celebrated and well known Malayali matrilineal system. The legend is about the beginning of Tuluva matrilineal system. I believe the legend in Kerala could be that like everything in their society even this system could have been established by Parashurama (or Brahmins). Unfortunately, I have not been able to  find the English translation of either Sanskrit work, Kerala Mahatmya, or the Malayalam work, Keralolpati.

But the story I read when I was small is entirely different from what I have read recently online. The story I knew somewhat goes like this. I'm leaving out all names as I'm bit confused about them at present.

A king was sending his merchant ships to the sea. But they were confiscated by a spirit called Kundodara. He asked for human sacrifice. The king asked his wife to give one of their sons. However, wife refused. But king's sister came forward and gave her son for the sacrifice. The spirit Kundodara spared the life of that boy and released king's ships. The king was so overwhelmed by the magnanimity of his sister and her son that he declared his nephew as his heir apparent. And implemented nephew lineage (Aliya Santana Kattu) in his region.

But the story I recently came across is bit different.

Deva Pandya, a wealthy merchant of the Pandya country, was sending new ships, richly laden, to a dark island covered with snow, but before launching them, Kundodara, a Bhuta raja, or king of the demons, an attendant on Siva, observing that the ships were new, demanded a human sacrifice. Deva consulted with his wife as to sacrificing one of his own seven sons, but the wife fled with them to her native town. On which Deva lay in deep distress, until his sister Satya-vati, hearing of the case, came and offered her own boy, saying to Deva, ' You should not care for this trifling matter. Do you give the boy Jaya Pandya, a son of mine, as a human sacrifice.' But Kundo-dara refused the boy, being aware that Jaya was the son of Vira Pandya, king of that dominion, who had been defeated by Chand Rangada raja, and that Jaya was a Mahapurusha, destined to be a great man ; he desired Jaya to assume his, the demon king's name, as Bhutala Pandya, and promised to restore him to the dominions of which Chand Rangada had deprived him. On this, the demon king entered Ujjain, subdued the eight demi-gods, Bhairava, etc., gave Bhutala a throne that Davendra had given to Vikramarka, and entered the town of Jayantika, accompanied by Bhutala. On the demise of the king Siddha Vira Prassiddha Raya, Jaya was elected king. Jaya ruled for six years, during which the Makkala Santana, i.e. the law of inheritance by direct descent of sons, was, for the following reasons, set aside, and that of Aliya Santana, i.e. inheritance on the line of nephews, substituted. The ships of Deva had during a mercantile voyage grounded on the miry bank of an island covered with snow and darkness, and the crew were in great distress, when the demon king appeared and bid them load the ships with the Siddha sile stone (a green stone, husuru sile galu) and Siddha-rasam, and pray to him. This being done, a fair wind brought the ships to the river mouth of Hangara katte at Kalianpur harbour. King Jaya on ascertaining that the ships belonged to his uncle Deva sent for him to receive them but the demon king again demanded one of Deva's sons as a sacrifice Deva consulted as to this with his wife who refused the goods(?) on that condition and the cargo of stone and liquid was then delivered to king Jaya who placed both the stone and the liquid in front of the idol Someswara changing its name to Sidheswara and erected a temple and image to Kundodara the demon king to which he gave the name of Maheswara. On the demon king's recommendation he framed a code of laws containing 30 rules introducing the Aliya Santan a rule (the descensus a matre). At this time king Jaya is styled master of the throne of king of kings, master of the masters of the four countries called Tulu, Malayala Haiga and Karnatika the first person in the era of Sativahana. In the sixth year of his reign the demon king ordered him to bury the green stone (emerald) and shut up the Siddha rasa well and the image of Naga set thereon. The castes enumerated in these rules are

Tuluvaru -> Tuluvas (Tulu)

Malavaru

Jainaru  -> Jain (Tulu)

Nayammavaru ->Nayars (Malayalis)

Masadika -> A subset of Bunt caste (Tulu)

Haricetti -> Cetti -Shetty (Trader) (Tulu?)

Pariyaru -> Parivara, A subset of Bunt (Tulu)

Kumbararu -> Potters

Devadiga -> Temple singers/drummers (Tulu)

Saliya -> Weavers (Malayalis or Tuluvas or both)

Mulekudeya -> Malekudiya (Tribe)

Panchala -> ?

Kshauraka -> Barbers (?)

Agasa -> washermen (Tulu)

Halepaika -> Tribe (?)

Mundala -> Tribe (Tulu)

Karinnara -> ?

Holeya -> bonded labourers (Tulu)

Andekoraga -> Tribe (Tulu)

King Jaya prohibited the Brahmnns ofliciating in death and birth ceremonials; prohibited the Maha-layam or inauspicious ceremony for the deceased; prohibited the giving of the Panchajavyani; prohibited the Punya-Homa sacrifice with dubh grass on births and deaths, and permitted only the Nirmalya or remains of idol offerings for the dead, and authorized the continuance of the Puja and Abhishekam to the deity for those who brought forth children or died. In the twelfth year of his reign, he invited Jains from the Balaghat, and they built Mangalore and other towns. King Jaya made the Aliya Santana rules applicable to the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudras, but permitted Brahmins to continue the rule of direct descent.

The explanation of the above fable seems to be that in the time of king Jaya, all great works, such as shipbuilding, as is still the case in Polynesia, were inaugurated by human sacrifices in propitiation of demons ; that a woman of rank twice refused to part with any of her sons for such a purpose, and her husband's sister offered her son Jaya in their stead, but was refused ; from which king Jaya declared that descent of property should follow from the sister's side.

 Here we should note that the antiquity of this legend is highly disputed. Even thought it talks about Salivahana Era (Saka, 77 CE), the legend might have been constructed anywhere between 12th to 19th century according to the researchers. This should be inconsequential for my present post as I'm more interested in analysing the contents which would give clues to existing ideas.

 Few points from the story.
- Jaya Pandya/Bhutala Pandya was son of the king, Vira Pandya. His uncle Deva Pandya was not a king but a merchant. The central character for establishing the matrilineal system was not the king but a merchant.
- The region is mainly spirit worshipping which could be seen in the fact that the system was willed by a spirit ( and not by any gods or goddesses). But it should be noted that the present day region named after this spirit (Kundapura) is a Kannada speaking region and not Tulu speaking. However, matrilineal inheritance was practiced even in that Kannada speaking region.
- There is a clear sign of merging spirit worship with Saiva worship
- It appears as if Brahmin hegemony on religious life was removed. Until very recently, most of the matrilineal communities conducted religious activities with the help of washermen, barbers and castes/tribes outside the caste system. Probably, that passage was an explanation with a belief that Brahmins should have been conducting all those rituals in a normal caste society(which is the case now.. in the last 50 years or so, anyhow..washermen and barbers are no longer part of any rituals).
- It says Jains were invited from Balaghat. I believe that should be Palakkad (Palghat) in present day Kerala. It should be noted here that in Brahmin legends they were the ones invited by the kings. I would consider this is a proof of Jain connection with matrilineal system. Also, the presence Jains in Kerala(merchants) could be the reason behind the existence of matrilineal system there too.
- Interestingly, it also talks about four countries. Tulu (present day Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts of Karnataka), Haiga (I believe present day Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka), Malayala (present day Kerala) and Karnataka. But it should be noted that only the communities in Tulu and Malayala regions followed matrilineal system. But the ruling families of Haiga (Salva) and Kodagu (spoken language Kodava) district of Karnataka were believed to be matrilineal and Jain. But both these families were supposedly branches of Tulu royal families.

To be continued...

Tuluva-Malayali Matrilineal System - Part 1

I have argued before that matrilineal identity has been a non-conscious identity. It was a natural outgrowth in some old societies. I have been trying to understand its origin and its survival in non-tribal societies of Tulu and Malayala region. But its realization by the males has greatly eroded its relevance in these regions now. Its lack of strong foundation in the religious domain is driving it to extinction among some of the castes (mostly among Taravadu centric Malayali families). Though its survival in some other probably could be due to lineage system (in Tulu regions) whose origin itself is rather shrouded in mystery. It won't be surprising if the lineage system itself owes its existence to patrilineal ideas. Its influence in social and economic life were anyway superimposed by patrilineal caste ideas and acted subordinate to it. Thus the system itself has been devoid of philosophical ideas and unstable. But it's still intriguing how this system came about in the first place.

Origin from tribal past:
It has been argued that male were the sole hunters in the food scarcity regions. Both male and females hunted in food abundant regions. In my opinion, only in food abundance regions we can find matrilineal communities.

Influence of civilization and classes:
The primary civilizations were founded by sedentary populations and these were generally patrilineal. But there were chances that the secondary civilizations (new civilizations founded by tribes who came in contact with primary civilizations) could still be matrilineal. I would propose if that had to be the case then following two conditions need to be satisfied.
- Food abundance region thus both male and female were hunters
- The contact population from the primary civilization should be merchants and not priests or warriors.

Recorded history:
Megasthenes's Pandyas: Megasthenes' Pandyas were matriarchal people. However, the Pandyas were generally thought be from Tamil region. But I would assume the Pandyas that Megasthenes described were originally from Tulu region. Therefore the oldest mention is 3rd century BCE.

I would consider these Pandyas were influenced by Jinaism. The name is derived from Mahabharata hero Arjuna, one of the Pandavas. There is story in Mahabharata that mentions Arjuna marrying Manipura princess Chitrangada but their son growing as part of mother's family. This story has been used to give higher birth to the ruling matrilineal families. This story doesn't make much sense to patrilineal Pandyas of Tamil region therefore matrilineal Pandyas of Megasthenes only be from Tulu region who subsequently established their rule over Tamil region.

However, the problem with this theory is that;
- We don't have any idea about historical Tulu rulers prior to 5th century CE
- all the Tuluva kings with names like Chitravahana directly out of Arjuna story were found only from 7th century CE. This probably coincided with the establishment of Jain communities (of worldly people and not just monks) around this period in South India (the communitization of Jain identity later spread to north-west India by 8th century).

The Tulu dynasty was known as "Alupa". They claimed they belong to 'Pandya Vamsha' (Pandya clan) and the title was 'Sri Pandya Dhanjaya' (Sir Pandava Arjuna).

Here my mind runs wild. Now I believe even the name  AlUpa can have some kind of Mahabharata connection. Another story that is intricately connected to the story of Manipura queen Chitrangada is the story of ulUpa, a Naga(clan of Cobra) princess. According to Mahabharata she was married to Arjuna and brought up Arjuna and Chitrangada's son Babhruvahana. I think Alupa was actually mis-spelt Ulupa (the actual Sanskrit meaning is 'soft grass' also spelt Ulapa) or Alupa, also spelt Alapa Gana in an inscription, was an allusion to Naga clan(or Gana may indicate Jain identity as various Jain denominations were called Ganas). We have to observe the western ghats of India have the highest density of King Cobras (known as Naga) in the world. People are traditionally serpent worshipers*. I wonder if that could be the reason for the name Alupa.

The question is if we agree matriliarchal Pandyas were ruling Tulu region around 3 century BCE what has happened between 300BCE and 400 CE. Somehow, I feel Dravidian tribal matrilineal ruling classes and Prakrit merchant classes still not fully merged and ruling classes were still illiterate tribals.

To be continued...

* A particular region in west coastal Karnataka was known as Haiga which was derived from Haviga (where haavu in Kannada means snake). There is a Kannada Brahmin community which until 19th century identified themselves as Haviga>Haiga Brahmins but later Sanskritized the name to Havyaka.

Origins of Malayalis ?.3.0

Mappilas:
Except for an exotic community, Malayali Jews, there are hardly any population genetics studies on Malayali population in general. Even though many tribes in South India have been studied extensively, non-tribes are yet to be considered. Recently there was a study on Indian Muslim population which takes into account Malayali Muslim community, Mappila.

If you read the introduction to Mappila by the authors of the study then you feel the Tamil propaganda in full flow. Therefore, it is necessary to revisit my model of Dravidian civilization and the formation of various communities in South India.

In my opinion, Dravidian languages survived in South India mainly because leadership was still Dravidian. As the Dravidian tribes in Central India made transition to sedentary life, the communities were still controlled by the Dravidian chieftains. Of course, not all. The exception you can find in the only lapsed Dravidian region, Maharashtra. In that region the Dravidian tribes were controlled by the Indo-Aryan chieftains.

Generally, ruling classes change the linguistic identity of the population they control. The examples could be found in South India too.

In Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the ruling classes of Muslims were non-Dravidian Muslims for a long period. As a result all Dravidian converts had turned into Indo-Aryans. Even in Tamil Nadu, a short span of non-Dravidian Muslim rule was enough to shift nearly half of the Muslim population to Indo-Aryan identity. However, in Kerala, Muslims were always under either Dravidian non-Muslims or Dravidian Muslim rulers. And they have retained their linguistic identity.

That's about linguistic identity retention of Dravidians in general and Dravidian Muslims in particular. I have previously discussed about Dravidian civilization and have argued that it's a synthesis of Dravidians and Prakrits from the beginning. Malayali Muslim community is not an exception to this rule.

The earliest Prakrit entrants to the Dravidian region were herders and merchant-artisans. This is the basis for my another argument for some of the Dravidian tribes in food abundant regions to make transition to matrilineal sedentary society(Tuluvas and Malayalis). The important factor is artisan-merchants and also priests may impart cultural motifs but they would not be influential enough to change the linguistic identity of the native population. Maybe a language can get the prestigious position in a society if it's part of the power circles. Nevertheless, synthesis could be seen in the emergence of the caste system in the native Dravidian region and  in the Dravidization of the assimilated Prakrit speaking brahmins and merchant-artisans.

The earliest Prakrit migrants would be from northern and eastern Indian (present day UP and Bihar) region, the centre of the Indian civilization. One would expect a high percentage of haplogroup R1a1 among these population. This is indeed the case with Mappilas.

Many Malayali communities were formed around the artisan-merchant guilds. The guilds which were initially formed in Prakrit speaking regions continued the motifs \of the earliest guilds of North India in South India. The guilds in South India of mixed Prakrit and Dravidian speakers exhibited native linguistic identity as the time passed. The castes of guilds in Andhra spoke Telugu, in Karnataka spoke Kannada, in Tamil Nadu spoke Tamil, in Tulu Nadu spoke Tulu and of course in Kerala spoke Malayalam. The migration to coastal Tulu and Malayali regions can be from either from west coastal route (Karnataka) or from Tamil Nadu. Couple of merchant guilds, Anju Varnam and Manigramam were native to Kerala region. Whereas, Valanjiar was probably a pan-Indian guild and a proof of the Prakrit migrations. Kannada term Banajiga, Telugu term Balanja (Balija), Tamil/Malayalam term Valanji are cognates with Indo-Aryan term 'Baniya'. These Prakrit or Prakrit derived terms are cognate with Sanskrit term Vanijya(trade).

As I have discussed previously many Muslim and Christian communities were formed around these merchant guilds. Since linguistic identity of these guilds were already Malayali, the immigrant Jewish, Christian and Arab merchants who assimilated with locals did not change the linguistic identity but profoundly changed the cultural identity.

Of course, the cultural identity overwrites all other identities, therefore, the popular identity of Mappilas was Arab. We can gauge the extent of Arab influence if we check the Y-haplogroup frequencies of Mappila from that study:

H1a: 22.5% - Dravidian
H2:     5% - Dravidian
J2: 10% (Dravidian if J2b)
J*(J1): 10%  - Arab
L: 10% - Dravidian
K: 5% - Dravidian
R1a1: 32.5% - Indo-Aryan
R2: 5% - Dravidian

As you can see, the Arab ancestry accounts for 10% of the population. The rest are Indian. By my estimation, 40% of them descendants of Prakrit speaking merchant-artisans and the rest 50% are native Dravidian tribes.

Reference: 
Traces of sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages in Indian Muslim populations -Muthukrishnan Eaaswarkhanth et al. 2009
European Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 18, 354–363; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.168; published online 7 October 2009 

Race and Medicine - ii

Came across an interesting paper on statistical methods at Maju's blog. Few points that caught my eye.

“Determining the best treatment for a particular patient is fundamentally different from determining which treatment is best on average,” physicians David Kent and Rodney Hayward wrote in American Scientist in 2007. “Reporting a single number gives the misleading impression that the treatment-effect is a property of the drug rather than of the interaction between the drug and the complex risk-benefit profile of a particular group of patients.”

“What does probability mean in real life?” the statistician David Salsburg asked in his 2001 book The Lady Tasting Tea. “This problem is still unsolved, and ... if it remains un­solved, the whole of the statistical approach to science may come crashing down from the weight of its own inconsistencies.”

Article

Origins of Indians: Version 10.1

The tribes of Andaman and Nicobar:
There is a saying 'looks could be misleading'. However, we have an academic field(though most of the time termed 'pseudo science') that deals exclusively with looks of people. This is a field which allows shallow people to feel they are very scientific. I read some of them making the claim 'what is obvious need not be proven' and talk very authoritatively on looks. I have already discussed about dumbness of Anthropometry many a time. Unfortunately, what should have been a pure recreational field most the time taken little too seriously. Your present looks don't tell anything about your past in the timeline of human race.

Consider the case of Jarawas of Andaman islands. They look "African". Well their patrilineages and matrilineages are Asian. Their main Y-Haplogroup is D, which is mostly observed among Tibeto-Burman population and Japanese. Their main matrilineage is M, which is common in India. They don't carry any lineages that are characteristics of Bushmen (? ..I suppose that BBC author might have meant Pygmies).

They are cousins to Indians and Tibetans/Japanese. Now they don't resemble either. Therefore their African looks can only be explained in terms of convergent evolution. They are related to Africans with the same degree of relatedness of everybody outside Africa.

I would say the author of that BBC report might have sounded better educated had she also made this point that Jarawas are related to Asians though they look like Africans.

Ref:
Yap Signature in South Asia

Personal Blog

Moved mundane stuff to new blog, Nhaya Parened.

Origins of Indians: Version 8.3

Coastal Migration Theory and I:
I have always opposed the Coastal Migration theory. The theory appears to tell either the early humans were such an idiots that they moved quickly via hospitable regions of South Asia, SE Asia to Australia from their original homeland in Africa or people who have come up with this theory have no commonsense.

A new study that examines bacterial spread from Africa to Oceania and appear to support the Northern Route (that I haven't championed much, as I don't have much evidences). Check the figure given in the paper, " The Peopling of the Pacific from a Bacterial Perspective"(Link debt to  Gernan Dziebel, commenter at Music 000001)

The following figure shows how humans split in northern Asia. Though it doesn't talk about South Asia much I would say, there can be an arrow from northern Asia to South Asia. 

In my opinion, there could be following migrations to the Indian subcontinent.
Initial:

1. Y-haplogroup F* from West Asia (western corridor)
2. Y-haplogroups K and C from northern Asia (eastern corridor)

Another, important thing is back migration (red line) in the figure. Does it have anything to do with Y-Haplogroup NOP?
Maybe I can also propose, at least one subclade of NOP (R-M124 or commonly known as R2).
3. R-M124 from northern Asia (eastern corridor): This at least fit the present day scenario where we find its highest frequency in eastern Indian regions and its low but widespread presence in few Siberian populations.