Rationale for Caste Reservations - notes

 Therefore, the tendency to point out a well-to-do Dalit (or any other marginalised position), while pointing out an economically unfortunate person from a forward caste, stems from the very fact that both are anomalies.

Generational Capital and the Privileged Bahujan

I had expressed similar thoughts previously here.

That makes me wonder whether an odd poor Brahmin invokes more sympathy not just for himself but for his whole caste because he himself was and is an anomaly. A rich Dalit getting benefits of the reservations sets tongues wagging, - even though, the caste altogether always struggle to fill their justified proportion in education or job- because a rich Dalit is an anomaly. Thus those individual cases are generalized for the whole Dalit castes.

Marx on Religion and Caste

Past few months have demonstrated that the people can have delusional happiness by not only consuming narcotics but also consuming news about it[1]. For many of us, it also reminded Karl Marx’s metaphorical use of it. In the present situation, it’s rather intriguing how this narcotic is so closely interlinked with a religious right-wing government and with all its shenanigans literally and figuratively.

When you see some of the Hindu sects/groups consuming opium as part of the religious traditions, one could almost make a comment that it’s a literal demonstration of Marx’s irreligious observation. It’s as if some people have understood all they need is the stimulation of neurotransmitters to experience god. This psychedelic expression is observed in other religions too. 

Sufi Islam’s obsession with wine and women as manifestations of god experience, the trance that is found in many religions, are probably some of the other examples. These are extreme cases of religions but in general every ritualization serves the same purpose. In some parts of India, rituals have been infantilized with activities like keeping the dolls or enacting child’s games with the deity. Some religious people would explain it as the literal expression of the philosophical understanding that the world is a theatre and humans are dolls in a puppet show. Overlooking the fact that gods are part of the puppets(or the only puppets, it’s as if tit for tat puppet show), we may find that (which is true for any explanation of god or ritual) the philosophical understanding itself is limited by the knowledge of man-made institutions. While we can dismiss religious people’s unmethodical explanations, one would wonder whether Marx was thorough in his observation or not.

It probably ambitious of me to criticize Marx without fully understanding his structural-functionality approach to Socialism, but I believe, I can point out the variables he might have overlooked before making the observations on religion.

Before venturing into religion, I should comment on the other area where I feel his observation failed completely, the caste system. According to Marx[2]:

“the caste system of India was based on the hereditary division of labour, which was inseparably linked with the unchanging technological base and subsistence economy of the Indian village community.”

It’s true that many castes are occupation based. However, it’s strictly not division of labour in Adam Smith’s terms. Here the division of labour is intra-caste than inter-caste. Also, the division of the occupation is hierarchical than isolationist. Privileged castes could take up other occupations without the loss of their caste. The unchanging technological base and subsistence economy were the results of the caste system than the foundations. However, the biggest drawback was that, Marx didn’t understand that the foundation was purity and pollution rules as correctly observed by many Indian sociologists. Even Gandhi, with all his casteist biases understood this fact and tried things like cleaning the toilets. I consider Marx’s theory on the caste system is flawed mainly because the dogmatic Marxists of India failed miserably when it comes to the caste system. The class system is part of the caste system, however, in India, the class struggle has no meaning without the caste struggle. I would even say, the class struggle is irrelevant in Indian society. Marx correctly observed how the caste system degenerated the Indian society. However, it should have been up to the Indian Marxists to come out with a proper explanation on the foundation of the caste system based on their direct experience than building upon the Marx’s flawed theory. I believe this lack of direct experience or feeling about the caste system in Marx’s theory can also be observed in his views on religion.

The main variable that Marx missed about religion was ‘identity’. He only talked about ritualization, but failed to notice how religious identity also plays a big part as it is the only basis for pride or self-worth for many people. Marx missed this point as religious identity didn’t play any part in his life. 

Marx’s father converted to Catholicism from Judaism to overcome the oppressive limitations enforced by the Christian government. As an oppressed community, many Jews would have strongly clung to the religious identity as an act of defiance. But for Marx’s family, a religious identity by itself was irrelevant. It should be noted that Marx’s father too was a revolutionary for a liberal society. His pragmatism was based on enlightened view about the religious identity than the opportunist turn. With this background, it’s no wonder that Marx didn’t see religious identity as a matter of pride or shame. Religion not only provides illusory happiness but also illusory pride. This aspect is missed completely in his observation about religions.

[1] https://scroll.in/article/972593/rhea-chakraborty-arrest-shows-how-india-sees-drug-addiction-as-moral-failing-not-the-illness-it-is

[2] https://www.cpim.org/marxist/200203_marxist_caste&class_jbando.htm

Origin of the Caste System - I

According to a new study on an IVC ancient DNA, there was no European component in the genetic makeup of the Rakhigarhi individual dated around 2800-2300 BCE. The Steppe component appeared 2000-1500 BCE onwards. During this period, Indus Valley Civilization was in total decline.

According to the authors, this IVC component is still the biggest among Indians. So, evidently, after the decline of the IVC, the people still survived. What would have been their condition? Most likely their society might have been in a disarray. There would have been no proper political structure and there might have been chaos. This would have been an ideal time for an invading group to impose itself politically and culturally on a people who had lost a unifying identity and political leadership. A similar situation one might observe throughout our history.

What we observe in the early stage of the caste system is the dominance of Indo-European deities. However, in due course, those deities became minor. The new dominant ones like Shiva and Vishnu appear to be an assimilation of native traditions with the Vedic tradition but within the caste structure. In my opinion, there could have been two exclusive phases in the interaction between Indo-Europeans and the IVC people.

- Broken IVC people enabling the IEs to impose their culture and create a caste system with themselves in the highest position

- Re-emergence native traditions which were then assimilated with the Vedic culture. However, without changing the caste hierarchy (though only Brahmins matter)

We can observe that this became a template for Brahmins wherever they migrated in the subcontinent - keep the caste hierarchy and assimilate the native traditions with the Vedic culture.

The only way to describe a situation where outsiders imposed their culture on the natives and kept themselves at the top of the hierarchy is "invasion".

Bengal famine of 1943 and the caste system

My colleague brought to my attention the point that majority deaths were among artisans because of the famine and not in castes who had land or involved in agriculture in some way.

This was also mentioned in the Wikipedia article

As in previous Bengal famines, the highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and small traders whose income vanished when people spent all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenters, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The explanation given, that artisans and small traders had no income as nobody spent money on their skills or wares, basically considers existence of artisans and small traders as a natural order of things in India as in any other society.

But that is never true in Indian society.

Those artisans and small traders were endogamous caste units. In other societies, artisans and small traders would have relations among farmers and others. Or in a village everybody would have been related to one another. Of course, there were class differences. But majority lower classes wouldn't have divisions based on occupations such that they would have kith and kin from the same occupational group.

Even class divisions are not natural order of things. However, consider a similar society in India. Would we have read that the majority mortality was among artisans and small traders in that case?

I would think there would have been less hoarding and more distribution of food because of kinship.

Considering the fact that the situation wasn't really bad for the poorest of the poor(who most likely involved in agriculture), I would think situation would not have been so worse for not so poor non-agricultural non-privileged castes. 

I certainly think the caste system was responsible for such caste specific deaths.

This is not the only moment of truth for the caste system where it failed spectacularly.

Sanskritization and Vegetarian OBCs

The caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. A caste was able, in a generation or two, to rise to a higher position in the hierarchy by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism, and by Sanskritizing its ritual and pantheon. In short, it took over, as far as possible, the customs, rites, and beliefs of the Brahmins, and adoption of the Brahminic way of life by a low caste seems to have been frequent, though theoretically forbidden. This process has been called 'Sanskritization' in this book, in preference to 'Brahminization', as certain Vedic rites are confined to the Brahmins and the two other 'twice-born' castes.

M N Srinivas in  Religion and Society Amongst the Coorgs of South India

We don't know what particular castes M N Srinivas was talking about. He was more a caste apologist than an objective anthropologist.

One look at the vegetarian profile of the castes in India shows Sanskritization was just a 'wannabe'ness than a real upward movement. This is particularly true for OBCs.

When Mr. Modi makes a comment that "people who eat meat have a different character", pointing to his upper caste meat eating colleague and rival, he only shows the castiest thought process and not his elevated caste position as a vegetarian.

When I hear vegetarian OBCs gloating that many IT professionals in the US are vegetarians, I wonder whether they really understand the caste profile or do they really believe sense of brotherhood with their non-meat eating privileged castes masks the social and educational backwardness of their fellow OBCs? Hasn't the progress of meat eating societies all over the world helped to overcome their overawed reverence for the caste reference society?

I would think they have a misplaced pride about being vegetarians.

Their real pride should show in non-conformity of Brahmanical rules and not in playing by the rules set by the Brahmins. I believe they should only consider the spirit of their ancestors who didn't think they were low but not the path (vegetarianism) which ultimately served only Brahmanism.

Maybe they just don't understand that they were Sanskritized.

Absurdities of Caste Genetic Studies - Notes

It appears population genetics studies are a great platform for new age Manu-s to come up with their own classification of different castes. It's unclear whether these new classifications are the results of latent casteism of the researchers involved or some kind of political pressure or some kind of malicious game being played.

Check the following from a new study on South Indian castes (which is an exaggerated claim as the study included samples from Tamil Nadu only) [1].

Indian populations are broadly classified into two categories: ‘tribal’ and ‘non-tribal’ groups [3]. Tribal groups, constituting 8% of the Indian population, are characterized by traditional modes of subsistence such as hunting and gathering, foraging and seasonal agriculture of various kinds [2], [3]. In contrast, most other Indians fall into non-tribal categories, many of them classified as castes under the Hindu Varna (Color caste) system which groups caste populations, primarily on occupation, into Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (warrior and artisan), Vyasa (merchant), Shudra (unskilled labor) and the most recently added fifth class, Panchama, the scheduled castes of India [2], [3].

First, I must appreciate that the description is far more academic than the one we found in the study of the Roma.

But what on earth is Kshatriya -> warrior and artisan? First of all, the four fold Varnashrama doesn't fit to the South Indian society (if at all it fits anywhere). But as of now, that's a first with the Kshatriya definition. Let's check the castes part of warriors and artisans.

Valayar -> Erstwhile Net weavers
Tamil Jains -> Jains (thus not a caste)
Ezhava -> This is a Malayali caste. Erstwhile agricultural labourers and toddy tappers
Mukkuvar -> Erstwhile fishermen

Theoretically, I suppose Valayar could be considered as artisans. However, from a general caste perspective typical artisans were smiths (goldsmith, carpenter, blacksmith etc...). They were not included in the study.

If being a soldier can be considered as a warrior/Kshatriya then, almost all castes in South India fit the bill. In certain regions few castes were exempted (not really because of their lower status, as Brahmins were also exempted) and most other castes had to send men when their feudal chieftain went for a battle. Most of the Dalit castes were also part of armies (true in Kannada/Tulu and Tamil regions as far as I know). However, the status of these castes were always low. Being a soldier had nothing to do with upward mobility or "assimilation".

How Tamil Jains became part of the list is still a mystery. 

Then there is a special category of "Dry Land Farmers" and it includes the following castes.
Yadhava -> herders
Vanniyar -> farmers
Nadar -> agricultural labourers, toddy tappers (equivalent to Malayali Ezhavas)
Piramal Kallar -> ?
Maravar -> ?

I wonder when Ezhava could be part of the warriors why not Kallar, Maravar and Nadar?

Also, I'm just disappointed to see the reliance on the oldest Tamil works to create an early Dravidian society. At least, in my opinion most of interpretations were nationalistic, highly biased and many of them not even peer reviewed (which I came to know was the case with the Brahmin apologist George L Hart's interpretation).

They make the following claim and I feel these (bolded) are strawman arguments.

It is therefore most likely that the Varna system was superimposed on the pre-existing and historically attested social system without significant population transfer or input, implementing a new social hierarchy and order during the Pallava/Chola period from the 6^th through 12^th centuries CE [15], [22]. However, the implementation of the Varna system may have not been uniform across preexisting non-tribal populations since many of the populations within DLF and tribes do not practice either Vedic rituals or have very definite patrilineal system and clan exogamy. Overall, our results suggest that the genetic impact of Brahmin migrations into TN has been minimal and had no major effect on the establishment of the genetic structure currently detected in the region

I suppose many Dravidian endogamous tribes became endogamous castes as society became sedentary. In fact, some of the endogamous castes had endogamous clans, likely showing different tribal origins but later consolidation under one identity because of the caste system. I suppose even now one can find endogamous tribes that speak the same language (eg. Pathans). My point is it's irrelevant if there were many endogamous communities before the enforcement of the caste system. It also masks the ritualized discrimination which was the caste system by equating the divisions to tribal endogamy.

Nevertheless, it requires a great stretch of imagination to call populations of that antiquity in South India (with a primitive agricultural setup) a structured society and also absolute naivety to believe the neat classification described in the texts (which clearly describe people with a complete idea of the caste system living in that society).

Reference:
1. Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System - Arun Kumar et al. (2012)

Identities - iii

Differentiating identities:
A homogeneous religious identity of classes and castes was, in my opinion, the sole reason why inequalities could sustain for such a long time between minority upper classes and majority lower classes. The success of Communism in some societies owe it to the new identity that it gave to people. Interestingly, opposing religious identities can become catalysts for class wars. One such example is the Mappila Rebellion of Kerala. The peasants who were Muslims rebelled against their landlords who were the castes.

The peasant Muslim rebels already had a practice for their actual struggle in the Khilafat movement. The Khilafat movement was a religious, a completely irrelevant for a slave Indian peasant, and in retrospect, absolutely shortsighted pan-Islamic movement of Indian Muslims. But that is expected from a wrong ideology like religion. The upside of this religious movement was a meaningful fight against the feudal system. In South Malabar , the feudals were the castes and the peasants were Muslims (and the castes). We hardly hear about the castes rebelling against their co-religionist feudals until the Communist ideology came to that society. This of course does not mean the castes accepted their fate or were passive. Obviously, there were no leaders to group them together and channel their anger. Anthroplogist Dilip Menon makes an interesting point on the plight of bonded labourers in North Malabar society where peasants more mostly castes and suffered more than the Muslims in the southern Malabar[1]. The opposition to the caste system he finds in the Teyyattam, a spirit worship tradition of Tulu and Malayali tribes and in the sorcery practices.

According to him, sorcery in Kerala society was generally associated with Brahmins and Parayans (one of the erstwhile untouchable castes). Whereas for Brahmins, sorcery was a way to maintain their grip on the general population, for Parayans it was a way to protect their space of dignity. Because of their position in the hierarchy they didn't have any protection from upper caste atrocities. Sorcery(or the fear associated with it) was their way of keeping away others from exploiting them. He states that (hope that is not conjectural), the regions where landlords were known to be malevolent the number of sorcerers from the lower castes were higher than the regions were landlords were known to be benevolent to their peasants.

The common religious identity is probably the main reason why Pakistan society is still feudal ridden and there was no revolution worth talking. Even though India too have feudal mafia run states like Andhra Pradesh, the situation is not as humiliating as in Pakistan where feudal dominance in the politics has been unchequered (but the tide is inevitably turning).

Reference:
1. The Moral Community of the Teyyattam: Popular culture in Late Colonial Malabar, Dilip M Menon, Sage Publications

Absurdities of Caste Genetic Studies - Notes

If any Indian Caste Genetic study has M J Bamshad as one of its authors then absurdities to serve their intellectual dishonesty is but natural. I used to wonder why not Bamshad et al. study Punjabi and UP castes thoroughly then come to South India. I would be more convinced of their assumed limitation of those studies once we interpret those results. But after reading this study I'm not so sure of their competency.

Just a thought:
I suppose it's almost 13 years(Mountain et al. 1995?) since studies of Indian caste population started appearing. The complexity of Indian population structure probably has made it difficult for Geneticists to work on a comprehensive study of Indian castes. Barring few attmepts (Sengupta et al. 2005/6, Sahoo et al. 2006, Trivedi et al. 2007) none of the other studies really had all India scope. But in my opinion, these studies have severe shortcomings like small samples sizes, random caste assignments etc...

I would think considering the vastness of the field a co-ordinated effort is the need of the hour. There should be consensus on;
- Sample sizes
- Castes to be studies
- Position of castes
- Non ambiguous caste names
->Many caste names are titles could be found among many castes in a region. A better approach would be exact occupation and if exists old tribal names).
- Validity of assumption that East Asians and Europeans are standard populations.
-> There is a study(Zhao et al. 2008) that calls R2 European when in reality there is hardly any R2 in Europe and even the few observations can be perfectly explained from many angles.

About this study:
1. The present study throws many surprises that help their pre-held notions beautifully.
- J2a is higher in ex-Sudras and Dalits compared to Brahmins. J2b has made vanishing act or shows similar frequency across all castes. Both contrary to Sengupta et al.
- R2 frequency (which was higher than R1a1 among Telugu castes) has nosedived. Contrary to many previous studies(Kivisild, Sahoo etc...)

2. Some of the interpretations are beyond me.
- East Asian mtDNA M. But we don't have any East Asian Y-chromosomes! According to the study we have non-South Asian chromosomes and South Asian chromosomes. There is an East Eurasian Y-chromosome C (Mongolo-Oceanic) but its distribution in this study is rather counterintuitive for our understanding of mtDNA M. So, I would rather call mtDNA M as Mongolic. Oceanic has problems as their major lineages belong to mtDNA N.

3. Selective quoting of other studies
According to this study:

A recent analysis of caste and tribal populations from eastern India (Orissa) demonstrated Indo-European influences on paternal caste lineages [41]. Brahmins showed high Ychromosome affinity to eastern Europeans (M17, haplogroup R1a1).

I have quoted this study (Sahoo, Kashyap 2006) many a time in this blog. The really important point from the study was:

Analysis of Y-chromosomes revealed that the average genetic distance between Orissa Brahmins and Eastern Europeans (0.066) is relatively less than the distance between Eastern Europeans and the Karan (0.098), Khandayat (0.150), or Gope (0.067). Since both upper and lower caste populations, i.e., the Brahmins and Gope, were closer to Europeans and Central Asians, than were the middle caste populations, the Karan and Khandayat, this indicated that genetic distances have no correlation with their position in the caste hierarchy.

This kind of Ghetto study could have ignored quoting that study. It is perfectly alright to have exceptions. However, it is rather appalling that these people went ahead and selectively quoted it.

4. Some mathematics if it helps
Let's take Tamil caste population as 6 crores (60 million)
Brahmins form 3% => Brahmin R1a1 at 34.2% : ~0.32 million
Dalits form 20% => Dalit R1a1 at 20.6% : ~1.25 million
Ex-Sudras form 77% => Ex-Sudra R1a1 at 18.6% : ~4.5 million

Reference:
Genetic variation in South Indian castes: evidence fr om Y-chromosome, mitochondrial, and autosomal polymorphisms
Watkins et al. 2008
Via Razib's Gene Expression

Absurdities of Caste Genetic Studies - Notes

Another absurdity that I come across routinely in the caste genetic studies is arbitrary distribution of upper/middle and lower caste categories. This random assignment of caste position adversely influences the haplogroup distribution and messes up our effort to understand the migratory patterns of various clans.

Consider the paper, "High Resolution Phylogeographic Map of Y-Chromosomes
Reveal the Genetic Signatures of Pleistocene Origin of Indian Populations", by Trivedi et al.(2007). I can summarize their method of caste categorization thus;

1. The states where Brahmins are not part of the samples, upper caste position is taken by middle castes.
eg. Kerala
-> Namboodiri Brahmins are not part of the study.

2. The states where Dalits are not part of the samples, lower caste position is taken by some of the middle castes.
eg. Andhra Pradesh
-> Mala and Madiga groups are not part of the study.

The situation is similar for Karnataka samples where Gowdas(equal to Nair/Reddy/Kammas who occupy middle caste position in the social scale) have been grouped under lower castes. Ironically, if we check Tamil Nadu samples Gowndar (Tamil equivalent of Kannada Gowda) are part of upper castes (as Tamil Brahmins are not part of the
study).

With such a strange assignment of caste groups authors go on and determine distribution of various haplogroups in the pooled upper/middle and lower caste groups!

Now let's see about the consistency between two studies. In Thanseem et al.(2006) study, Kammas are part of upper castes and in Trivedi et al.(2007) study they are part of lower castes! Are any of the Indian genetic studies peer reviewed?

Once in a while Indian geneticists working with European counter parts take it upon themselves to teach a thing or two about Indian castes to their peers. So, we have Choubey et al.(2006) study with an information box on Scheduled castes and Tribes;

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are communities in India that are given a special status by the Constitution of India. Scheduled castes were considered as ‘Sudra’ in the classical ‘Chaturvarna’ caste system while Scheduled tribes were considered ‘outcastes’ and were not a part of the Indian caste system.

There is so much cynicism in that para that I dread to touch it. I must only point out that tribes as long as they didn't join the mainstream their ritual purity was higher than that of communities that are classified now as Scheduled castes (Probably Choubey needs to read Ambedkar's essays first).

Absurdities of Caste Genetic Studeis - Notes

Sengupta et al. 2006 (or 2005, Y-chromosomal variation in India) makes the following statement

Eight HGs display frequencies 15% within India and account for 95.8% of the samples.
They are, in descending frequency order, HGs H and its subclades H1*, H1c, H1a, and H2 (26.4%); R1a1-M17 (15.8%); O2a-M95 (14.6%); R2-M124 (9.3%); J2-M172 (9.1%); O3e-M134 (8.0%); L1-M76 (6.3%); and F*-M89 (5.2%) (p. 5 of 20).

The statement basically talks about haplogroup frequencies in their samples which of course is not representative of percentage distribution of various groups in India. Unfortunately, I have seen many people making the mistake of considering the frequencies as a representation of haplogroup distribution within India.

For example O2a forms about 15% of Sengputa et al. samples. But this haplogroup is mostly restricted to Munda tribes. Tribes make up 8% of Indian population and it includes Dravidian, Munda, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan. Mundas probably form 1 or 2% of total Indian population. Hence, the total frequency of O2a can be around 1-2% (or less) of total Indian male population.

Absurdities of caste genetic studies

The population genetic studies on caste population that began truly with Bamshad et al. (2001) study has seen many additions in the last six years. In one of my previous posts I had discussed about total lack of knowledge on part of Geneticists about internal migrations of Indians and the unique political developments in central and eastern India.

Aryan Invasion Theory and Bamshad et al.
The mainstream anthropologists now mostly hold Aryan Migration Theory in place of Aryan Invasion Theory. However, this study conducted thousand miles away from the region of putative Aryan invasion concluded that Aryans indeed invaded and developed the caste system.

The study has following drawbacks:
a. Kshatriya problem
-> It cannot distinguish Y-Hg-R1a1 of so-called Aryans( a misnomer in my opinion) from that of later invaders.
-> East and Central Indian tribes did become Kshatriyas married other ruling families (See my post: Identities - II)
b. Dravidian genes
-> Even today Dravidian genetic composition is unclear. The biggest Indian Y-Haplogroup H is too old in India to be associated with any linguistic family.
c. R1a1 problem
-> The idea behind selecting a South Indian state being north India was too much mixed with the later invaders to retain the purity of original Aryan composition. However, this does not negate the fact that Haplogroup R1a1 is observed in similar frequencies across caste groups in north India. The only problem is zaka (Indo-Scythian) R1a1 as they are thought to be from the region inhabited by older R1a1 migrants. Therefore, their composition might have been similar.
d. Clustering for various castes
-> According to Bamshad et al. upper castes cluster together with East Europeans and lower castes with East Asians(Asian in the study). However, some of the later studies have shown conflicting results on this. One of the studies has found Indians forming genetic continuum from west Asia/East Europe to East Asian/SE Asia. Another has found Indians (upper and lower included) forming their own cluster and being significantly closer to Europeans than to East Asians. Of course, Europeans include West Asians which is rather absurd. However, all these show non-reliability of autosomal analysis. Probably, overemphasis of known markers of European population in the studies might be the reason behind it.

Semitic Introgression Theory(SIT) and Sahoo et al. (2006)
Also, studies can be used to prove some of the other theories too. Let us consider my theory. Keeping Austro-Asiatics and Dravidians out of it, I propose two main migrations that overlapped in the single word Aryan migration.

1. European Migration: Defining haplogroup R1a1. Migratin from European lands to South Asia via Central Asia. Period 5000 BCE to 2000 BCE. These people mostly came as refugees and labourers to present day Iranian and Indian lands. Indologist like Michael Witzel believes there could have been only few Indo-Aryan speaking migrants who spread their languages due to Elite Domination. I think that is only true for western and southern European countries.

Consider Greece. Greeks have R1a1 frequency around 10-15% same as that of Dravidians. That shows Elite Domination is responsible for the spread of an IE language in Greece. However, Indo-Aryan speaking population in north-west India and Pakistan carry this lineage at around 30-40%. That is a huge number. That probably shows European pastorals migrating to South Asia in search of greener pastures spread their language because of sheer numbers. Probably, were helped by IE-ised Aryan migration from west Asia as an elite society in the later stage.

2. Semitic Introgression: Defining haplogroups J2a and G2. Migrants from Iran and Caucasus. Also spoke Indo-Iranian languages. The self identification of these people is 'Arya'. The original language could have been different. However, the huge migration from eastern Europeans to eastern Iran and southern Caucasus changed the linguistic profile. These people heraled Vedic civilization that blended eastern European gods and classes with western Asian purity-pollution rules.

From Norse mythology it is clear that early PIE society had three fold varNa (colour) system or had three classes.
rulers/cheiftain(white)-herders(red)-serfs(black)
Vedic India had four fold varNa system
priests(white)-rulers/chieftains(red)-herders(yellow)-serfs(black)
I have discussed about this in one of my previous post. We have already seen that herders position became low or became equal to that of serfs or zUdra

The Aryan Invasion Theory believes the natives became part of zUdra. However, SIT believes since the caste system with purity and pollution rules has nothing to do with original European society even the other eastern European migrants must have been degenerated into lower castes. It has nothing to do with racial purity of Europeans but rather deals with racial purity of West Asians.

Sahoo et al. (2006) study "Phylogeography of Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Haplogroups Reveal Asymmetric Gene Flow in Populations of Eastern India" examines four castes from Orissa.

Brahmins (upper castes)
Karan and Khandayat (middle castes)- scribes(?) and Kshatriya
Gope (lower caste) - herders

The study makes an observation;

Analysis of Y-chromosomes revealed that the average
genetic distance between Orissa Brahmins and Eastern
Europeans (0.066) is relatively less than the distance
between Eastern Europeans and the Karan (0.098), Khandayat
(0.150), or Gope (0.067). Since both upper and lower
caste populations, i.e., the Brahmins and Gope, were
closer to Europeans and Central Asians, than were the
middle caste populations, the Karan and Khandayat, this
indicated that genetic distances have no correlation with
their position in the caste hierarchy. Similar findings were
reported by Bamshad et al. (1998) and Wooding et al.
(2004).

Of course, Bamshad made some other observation after few years. A post at Eurasian Linguistics at yahoo group mentioned that scientists deliberately make controversial statements to attract public interest and funding(especially in population genetics field). Probably, the kind of people they want to attract and who would pour money probably could be gauged from Bamshad et al. (2001) study.


Brahmins and Gopes being close to east Europeans is entirely expected. Interestingly, Khandayat who became Kshatriya are overwhelmingly Y-haplogroup R2. And authors ascribe their origin to tribes.