Is India one people?

[Maira La]

In the past people in online forums could argue for hours and days based on nothing but personal opinions and very subjective observation of phenotypes, but with recent advances in dna tests and analysis over the last couple of years, we can now measure genetic distance between different groups of people and put an end to this debate.

There's an online tool called Vahaduo which is used very commonly by both the academic and amateur genetics enthusiasts. Publicly available dna result data can be entered into this tool to calculate genetic distance between two different ethnicities.

I have used the data available here to find the distances posted below.

Here's just one example why Indians cannot be seen as one people and no amount of argument can change hard scientific data and results.

Here is the distance between an Englishman and a Dutch, below. This means nothing by itself, but compare this number with the comparison further below, between an UP Brahmin and an average person from UP.

Distance between UP Brahmin and average UP person:

So basically an average guy in UP (India) is 6 times further away from a Brahmin living just next to him, compared to genetic distance between Englishman and Dutch.


So it's really absurd when Indians talk about Akhand Bharat including Pakistan, Tibet and Malaysia, when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

 

[Maira La]

@Indus Pakistan @masterchief_mirza @Taimoor Khan @Chhatrapati @shadowdragon @N.Siddiqui

 

[Gangetic]

Brahmins are outliers though. They make a very small portion of the overall population. The caste system is artificial.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

This does not surprise me one bit. Having traveled across Europe I know they are more homogenous then Utter Pradesh.

@Maira La

 

[magra]

In the past people in online forums could argue for hours and days based on nothing but personal opinions and very subjective observation of phenotypes, but with recent advances in dna tests and analysis over the last couple of years, we can now measure genetic distance between different groups of people and put an end to this debate.

There's an online tool called Vahaduo which is used very commonly by both the academic and amateur genetics enthusiasts. Publicly available dna result data can be entered into this tool to calculate genetic distance between two different ethnicities.

I have used the data available here to find the distances posted below.

Here's just one example why Indians cannot be seen as one people and no amount of argument can change hard scientific data and results.

Here is the distance between an Englishman and a Dutch, below. This means nothing by itself, but compare this number with the comparison further below, between an UP Brahmin and an average person from UP.

View attachment 727977


Distance between UP Brahmin and average UP person:

View attachment 727980



So basically an average guy in UP (India) is 6 times further away from a Brahmin living just next to him, compared to genetic distance between Englishman and Dutch.


So it's really absurd when Indians talk about Akhand Bharat including Pakistan, Tibet and Malaysia, when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

You may be right. We Indians have different ethnicities, language, customs, religions - but we have a common idea. We have a shared history.
We believe in 'Unity in Diversity'.

It is difficult for non-Indians to grasp this concept. It is natural for Indians since this has been ingrained in us since childhood.

 

[Chhatrapati]

when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

There are no "races" in India. Race is a western construct that mostly identifies people based on their physical features, societal or linguistic difference.

India is not a race, India is a country, and Indian is our identity. In India it trickles down to linguistic difference, class/caste difference, regional difference.

Coming to your data, it's inaccurate. I don't know how they modelled it, but there are quite large discrepancies in it when it comes to differentiating between a normal UP person or UP Brahmin or other castes classes you can compare to.

 

[nang2]

India is one people in term of <fill the blank>. No country is one people without some specific context.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

The Indian posters here fail to understand your well made point @Maira La . Or perhaps they're deliberately obfuscating your elegantly presented observations.

The point is not that India is wonderful and shining and pretty and glistening in the sun because of its diversity - maybe it is, but that's not the point being made. Rather, the point is that India isn't really the hindutva definition of India at all because of its disparate and mixed genetic origins.

First and foremost, we can put the majority of "out of India" theory to bed thanks to genetics, anthropology and archaeology.

The immediate knock on effect is that any "invader" has as much moral right as any other over the land, wealth and people of Hindustan. Aryans and Muslims are simply competitors, both fighting over a land foreign to them.

"Native Hindustanis" (except for the true andamanese bloodlines) or even "native Hinduism" are mythological and propagandised concepts.

 

[magra]

The Indian posters here fail to understand your well made point @Maira La . Or perhaps they're deliberately obfuscating your elegantly presented observations.

The point is not that India is wonderful and shining and pretty and glistening in the sun because of its diversity - maybe it is, but that's not the point being made. Rather, the point is that India isn't really the hindutva definition of India at all because of its disparate and mixed genetic origins.

First and foremost, we can put the majority of "out of India" theory to bed thanks to genetics, anthropology and archaeology.

The immediate knock on effect is that any "invader" has as much moral right as any other over the land, wealth and people of Hindustan. Aryans and Muslims are simply competitors, both fighting over a land foreign to them.

"Native Hindustanis" (except for the true andamanese bloodlines) or even "native Hinduism" are mythological and propagandised concepts.

The question is not who came when and from where.
The question is whether one considers the identity of 'Indian' above any other identity of caste, religion, region, ethnicity, race etc.

 

[HalfMoon]

In the past people in online forums could argue for hours and days based on nothing but personal opinions and very subjective observation of phenotypes, but with recent advances in dna tests and analysis over the last couple of years, we can now measure genetic distance between different groups of people and put an end to this debate.

There's an online tool called Vahaduo which is used very commonly by both the academic and amateur genetics enthusiasts. Publicly available dna result data can be entered into this tool to calculate genetic distance between two different ethnicities.

I have used the data available here to find the distances posted below.

Here's just one example why Indians cannot be seen as one people and no amount of argument can change hard scientific data and results.

Here is the distance between an Englishman and a Dutch, below. This means nothing by itself, but compare this number with the comparison further below, between an UP Brahmin and an average person from UP.

View attachment 727977


Distance between UP Brahmin and average UP person:

View attachment 727980



So basically an average guy in UP (India) is 6 times further away from a Brahmin living just next to him, compared to genetic distance between Englishman and Dutch.


So it's really absurd when Indians talk about Akhand Bharat including Pakistan, Tibet and Malaysia, when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

Pakistanis Muslims are Whites/Aryans.

Bangladesh Muslims are Blacks/Dravidians.

Indian Hindus are a mixed breed of both Whites/Aryans and Blacks/Dravidians.

You may be right. We Indians have different ethnicities, language, customs, religions - but we have a common idea. We have a shared history.
We believe in 'Unity in Diversity'.

It is difficult for non-Indians to grasp this concept. It is natural for Indians since this has been ingrained in us since childhood.

Why should Muslims of India unite with non-Muslims of India? We are white/Aryans and have nothing to do with your genes or history.

You may be right. We Indians have different ethnicities, language, customs, religions - but we have a common idea. We have a shared history.
We believe in 'Unity in Diversity'.

It is difficult for non-Indians to grasp this concept. It is natural for Indians since this has been ingrained in us since childhood.

Our identity will always be Muslims and Muslims only. We do not believe in fake nation states like India.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

common idea

Let me guess "unity in diversity". UK even sings that.

We have a shared history.

Slaves of the British.

It is difficult for non-Indians to grasp this concept

What we low IQ? The concept is called a "myth". You have brought up generation with that idea after 1947 and it has worked. Nothing wrong with that. Most nations revolve around myth. The myth is not important. Making your citizens buy into it is.

The reason Pakistan failed and it has failed spectacularly despite what they tell you on PDF is simple. Instead of a myth the Pakistan state tried to turn Islam into a citizenship. This would have worked if most Muslims were only in Pakistan. But there are 30 Muslim majority countries and billion plus Muslims across four continents. How could you shoehorn this global faith into a small geography called Pakistan? You can't. It failed. The only thing holding Pakistan together is the British era army.

The truth is Pakistan has already fragmented. The army is masking this.

 

[magra]

Let me guess "unity in diversity". UK even sings that.

What UK sings to its people is not a concern to Indians

Slaves of the British.

The entire landmass having Himalayas on north, Hindukush on west, Mountanoues jungles on east and ocean on the south had its own distinctive culture and history since millinea. Ofcourse, shared history of being ruled by British is an additional glue. We now know that if we again divide, it will be easy for a weaker but clever outsider to pick us one by one.

What we low IQ? The concept is called a "myth". You have brought up generation with that idea after 1947 and it has worked. Nothing wrong with that. Most nations revolve around myth. The myth is not important. Making your citizens buy into it is.

The reason Pakistan failed and it has failed spectacularly despite what they tell you on PDF is simple. Instead of a myth the Pakistan state tried to turn Islam into a citizenship. This would have worked if most Muslims were only in Pakistan. But there are 30 Muslim majority countries and billion plus Muslims across four continents. How could you shoehorn this global faith into a small geography called Pakistan? You can't. It failed. The only thing holding Pakistan together is the British era army.

The truth is Pakistan has already fragmented. The army is masking this.

So atleast you understand the problem that Pakistanis are confused about their identities.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The entire landmass having Himalayas on north, Hindukush on west, Mountanoues jungles on east

Whole of Eurasian has pretty well common history and that even includes North Africa. By your measure is Afghanistan also India?

o atleast you understand the problem that Pakistanis are confused about their identities.

They are not confused. Pakistan does NOT have any identity. Because unlike India which from 1947 began to build the the myth which by now has been ingrained in most of your citizens.

In Pakistan after 1947 the state began building up Islam. This has worked wonders. Only that Pakistan identity is Islam today. Since Islam is not a brand owned by one country the result is what you see.

This farce is exposed when a Pakistan meets a Turk, a Iranian, a Jordanian, a Saudi and he introduces himself as 'Muslim" as if the rest are not Muslims. I think they are waking up to it recently. After all you can't tell the world thatr Basmati rice is Muslim, or Pink Salt is Muslim etc

 

[magra]

Whole of Eurasian has pretty well common history and that even includes North Africa. By your measure is Afghanistan also India?

Some parts of Afghanistan too figure in our mythology. Eg. 'Kandahar' is termed as the ancient 'Gandhar' kingdom referred in Mahabharat. But it was Islamized pretty early and given no shared British rule, the bond and nostalgia with Afghanistan is weaker.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Arachosia, Gedrosia are the two ancient names of the western halfs of Pak in Ancient Greek...The correct self-identifier of Pakistan should be Gandhara....even the name Pakistan sounds hollow as its an acronym...the founding fathers of Pakistan really botched up with the nomenclature

In the past people in online forums could argue for hours and days based on nothing but personal opinions and very subjective observation of phenotypes, but with recent advances in dna tests and analysis over the last couple of years, we can now measure genetic distance between different groups of people and put an end to this debate.

There's an online tool called Vahaduo which is used very commonly by both the academic and amateur genetics enthusiasts. Publicly available dna result data can be entered into this tool to calculate genetic distance between two different ethnicities.

I have used the data available here to find the distances posted below.

Here's just one example why Indians cannot be seen as one people and no amount of argument can change hard scientific data and results.

Here is the distance between an Englishman and a Dutch, below. This means nothing by itself, but compare this number with the comparison further below, between an UP Brahmin and an average person from UP.

View attachment 727977


Distance between UP Brahmin and average UP person:

View attachment 727980



So basically an average guy in UP (India) is 6 times further away from a Brahmin living just next to him, compared to genetic distance between Englishman and Dutch.


So it's really absurd when Indians talk about Akhand Bharat including Pakistan, Tibet and Malaysia, when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

racially Historical India is seven groups...Linguistically 5 groups...no matter which way you slice...you will get 7 countries on the subcontinent....we have on the present day seven countries on the subcontinent

Maldives, SL,BD,Bhutan,Nepal,India,Pakistan