A soon to be published genetic study of the population of Northern India is sure to get the attention of some right wing groups who like to come up with their own alternate “theories” with regards to the history of Hindu/Muslim interaction on the sub-continent.
Scientists have confirmed what historians have known.
Genetic studies have suggested that Muslims in northern India are mostly descendants of local people who embraced Islam rather than repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders.
The studies by scientists in India, Spain and the US indicate that while the Shias and the Sunnis in Uttar Pradesh are mostly descendants of converts, the former have some elements of paternal foreign ancestry…“In the mtDNA, we do not see discrete signals from outside India,” Rene J. Herrera, a biologist at Florida International University in the US and one of the collaborators, said. “Thus, both are, for the most part, descendants from local caste groups,” he told The Telegraph.
However, the Shias do show some signatures of foreign DNA from southwest Asia and North Africa in the Y chromosome, Herrera said. [Link]
Within the last decade it has continued to amaze me how some strands of DNA can help corroborate or disprove decades worth of historical investigation. As the techniques become quicker and cheaper I’m sure we’ll be unlocking all kinds of secrets about the movements of humans and whether they mated with each other or killed each other.
Principal component analysis (PCA), a statistical tool that separates individuals on the basis of differences in their properties was employed to place each social group on a plot. According to this plot Shias and Sunnis are much closer to Brahmins, Bhargavas, and tribals from Karnataka than people from UAE, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and or Central Asian countries. PCA generated a plot that showed three clear clusters- Souther Arabian Peninsula, North East African population in upper left quadrant, East Central Asian and Middle Eastern group in the lower right hand corner, and all Indian groups can be found closer to each other to the right. [Link]
A while back I blogged about this National Geographic Project that is looking to systematically trace the movement of humanity’s genes. Have any readers swabbed their cheeks and sent in their DNA yet? Want to share your results?
around 20% of Uttar Pradesh (34 million) are Muslims. And among those aroun 20% are Shias.
Where did you get the 20% Shia numbers from? I dont think there are many Shias outside of Eastern UP (Lucknow/Kanpur)
I remember reading it somewhere.. let me try to get some links. Ofcourse you would know better..
Here from wiki.. (anyone can edit wiki, so it could be unreliable)
Hey Razib, What did you think of Gattaca?
From the report it seems like we the browns of this world have this mystery marker which they don’t know much about – not even where it originated. So in that sense, the project tracing our genes wont tell us about this aspect, maybe it would tell us about some other markers we may have which would give us an idea of what other mixes we have in our blood. The only thing which seems marginally conclusive is that we may have been part of the second great migration characterized by M89.
It would be interesting if some study did an analysis of how the genetic ancestry varies over the Indian subcontinent and thus maybe it might be easier to isolate the location of appearance of this marker. For eg, if it is found that this marker is found more in people who also show ancestry from the middle east than those who don’t, then the probability of this marker appearing first there is higher.
But then all these theories Out of Africa might not make a lot of sense and M52 might be truly Indian!
Isn’t that a ridiculously small sample space?
if it is geographically representative check their p-values (i don’t have access to the original paper).
What I’d like to know is more about the controversial invasion of the Vedic Aryans and their conquest of indigenous dravidians via genetic studies…is it a myth as claimed by Hindutva groups, or is there genetic studies to prove such a mass migration?
we’ve gone over this before on SM and a lot of emotions are wrapped up in this. suffice to say that my own opinion is this:
1) the frequency of ‘vedic aryan’ ancestry which was exogenous in north india (inclusive of the whole gangetic plain), where exogenous means from beyond the mountains which bound the northwest of india, and precede the indo-aryanization of north india, is the minority. perhaps a very small minority.
2) but, there is every reason to think that india was a populous nation, so it was likely still a mass migration, even if the immigrants were a small proportion. as an analogy, the genetic signature of the finno-ugric maygars from the lower volga region is weak in modern day hungary, but, we know that their “hordes” probably totaled tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people in the 10th century. the majority of hungarian ancestry is indigenous though.
What did you think of Gattaca?
didn’t watch it.
the idea that east bengal was more tribal & less hinduized does not negate a relationship to buddhism. buddhism’s relative strength may be a symptom, not a cause, of hinduism’s relative weakness. in other words, the relative on the peripheries of the subcontinent of heterodox religious movements between the 6th and 11th centuries might simply be due to the relative weakness of the elite ‘hindu’ cultural complex in this area which was radiating out of the central gangetic plain.
There should bee some evidence for widespread Budhhist identity, no? As I mentioned to Amitabh, the presence of a Buddhist monarch does not imply that the population followed Buddhist tradition. Brown kings tended to extend patronage to Buddhist, Hindu – and sometimes Jain – sanghas, monasteries and temples simultaneously, even the Buddhist Asoka and the Hindu Guptas. Also, Buddhism seems to have had many “centers,” Kashmir, and South India (the Mahayana Buddhist philospohers whose metaphysics spread through Asia were largely South Indian), which were not within reach of the invaders to be expurgated (liberated?) upon arrival. This does not imply there was no Budhhist or Hindu influence among the tribals of East Bengal, just that it was thin.
As for the Northwest, Muslim court historians themselves document forced conversions. There is little debate over that. I agree with Amitabh that the conversion of Punjab was gradual, over several centuries, and did meet with resistance. There are still Jat and Rajput identifying Muslims in Pakistan.
i do think the tribal hypothesis is plausible because it has widespread analogs in the rest of the world. in mainland southeast asia christianity spread amongst the tribes outside the pale of therevada buddhist high culture. e.g., hmong of laos and parts of thailand (the lowland lao are very buddhist), the montagnards of the vietnam highlands, the karens and mizos. in island southeast asia christianity spread amongst those groups with the least contact with the malay and javanese hindu-buddhist cultures,
Agreed, and the only major success Christian missionaries have had in the modern period in India is amongst northeastern tribals as well.
I wonder how this DNA testing thing would work on a mixy-swirly-desi-au-lait like me? My understanding is that some test your maternal lineage and some test your paternal lineage and you get mixed or incomplete results depending.
There should bee some evidence for widespread Budhhist identity, no…This does not imply there was no Budhhist or Hindu influence among the tribals of East Bengal, just that it was thin.
i actually don’t think the ‘lower orders’ are not that important in religious conversion. as i have argued elsewhere i believe that the basic religiosity of peasants, no matter outward or nominal confession, is very similar. this explains the pre-modern ‘syncretism’ of bengali peasants, muslim or hindu. the point for me is that cultural leaders (e.g., chiefs) were less influenced by orthodox hinduism. the buddhism of the pala kings might be indirect evidence of this since their support, or lack of resistance, from tribal leaders was probably necessary. but this is not a piece of evidence which can be viewed in isolation.
Ok…(I am pretending that i understood that;))
Yes, because genetically North Indians are more Similar to South Indians than Iranians (Hindus didn’t used to marry outside their castes, so this couldn’t be due to intermixing of North Indians with South Indians).
No expert on this but do we have enough information from the time period we are talking, i.e. around the time the Aryan migration is supposed to have occurred, to conclude this?
I did this around a year ago. My results are pasted below. About me: Hindu punjabi male. Mother’s family is originally from NWFP (Pakistan) and Dad’s family has always been around the Delhi area.
Haplogroup is R1a (M17) Members of haplogroup R are descendents of Europe’s first large scale human settlers. The lineage is defined by Y chromosome marker M173, which shows a westward journey of M45 carrying Central Asian steppe hunters. The M45 marker first appeared about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago in a man who became the common ancestor of most Europeans. Haplogroup R1a originated 10,000 years ago, most likely on the grassy steppes of the Ukraine and southern Russia. Its defining genetic marker, M17, first appeared in a man of the M173 lineage. His descendents spread from Europe to the Middle East, India and even Iceland. Early M17 peoples were nomadic steppe farmers and possibly the first to domesticate the horse, which might have eased their numerous migrations. From the Czech Republic to Siberia, and south through Central Asia, some 40 percent of all men are members of this haplogroup. This interesting line of descent may be responsible for the birth of Indo-European languages. The world’s most widely spoken language family includes English, the Romance Languages, Farsi, and various Indian tongues. But many Indo-European languages share similar words for animals, plants, tools, and weapons-suggesting a common ancestor that linguists call proto-Indo-European. Some linguists believe that the nomadic Kurgan people were the first to speak proto-Indo-European languages, some 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. Geneticists subsequently theorize that these people may have been the descendents of M17. The Indo-European time line and linguistic distribution interestingly mirror this lineage’s genetic and physical journey. Further language parallels are seen in India where speakers of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi, are predominantly M17. Speakers of India’s unrelated Dravidian languages show much lower frequencies of this marker – even when they live in close proximity to one another. These data suggest a striking relation between the spread of language and the arrival of a unique genetic lineage brought to India by migrants from the steppes.
Hindus didn’t used to marry outside their castes, so this couldn’t be due to intermixing of North Indians with South Indians
1) they did.
2) we have very specific genetic evidence of it. in particular, female lineages which ‘married up’ into the higher castes.
3) yes, north indians are closer to south indians than they are to iranians, on average. to be precise, if you took a random gene from a south indian (say a tamil) and a north indian (say a punjabi) and an iranian (say someone from khurasan to keep it close to brownland) and traced back its lineage, 2 out of 3 times the punjabi and tamils would have the initial ‘coalescence’ (the point at which it seems that the two gene lineages bifurcated) on that gene, while most of the other 1 out of 3 times the punjabi and iranian would have the initial coalescence (a small minority would no doubt coalescene first between the tamil and the iranian as well). the 2 out of 3 and 1 out of 3 numbers aren’t exact numbers, just to give a flavor.
Further language parallels are seen in India where speakers of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi, are predominantly M17. Speakers of India’s unrelated Dravidian languages show much lower frequencies of this marker – even when they live in close proximity to one another. These data suggest a striking relation between the spread of language and the arrival of a unique genetic lineage brought to India by migrants from the steppes.
yes, this is one interpretation. a plausible on based on the data, but it hinges on the population structure of r1a.
Why must you post something that I am so much interested in, during the day?? I can only check blogs from the “lab”. And now I will have to read all the comments and I am so busy… Damn you
Off -topic I know but: Qualified_trash # 15
Having grown up eating excellent Bohri food and excellent Tamilian food , I totally second your opinion on the exquisite cuisine that both your heritages provide .
Oh,I miss “paya soup”, “keema with green garlic” and “puliyogare” and “bisi bele bhath” because my own culinary repetoire is kinda limited
It is always entertaining when Americans speak about Indian politics with the authority that comes from ignorance. Everybody knows that Indian Muslims are local. What’s the big deal about this?
Although Vedas(1500 CE to 500 CE, Indus Valley collapsed in 1700 CE) allow shudras to take part in religious rituals, I doubt they could intermarry. Probably you are right about Caste system not being rigid in ancient times.
I think the study shows what most people in India already believe. The question never was whether Muslims were “outsiders”, it was “how did they become Muslim?” – i.e whether they were forcibly converted or whether they embraced Islam to gain acceptance with the rulers and escape Jizya or whether it was a genuine conversion to a foreign belief system. Is there any good unbiased data as to how the conversions happened?
You probably mean – BCE – (Before Common Era). I read somewhere that the time of the Vedas – usually agreed upon as to be 1500 BCE was first proposed by Max Muller, the German orientologist(is that the right word?). Muller was – what we call today – a “young earth” creationist, who believed that the earth was literally some 6000 years old. So he based his calculations on the ancestries in the old testament and other accepted figures for the ages of different races to come up with the dates for Vedas and other oriental texts. Are there any unbiased good studies which validate/dispute the commonly accepted ~1500 BCE date for the Vedas?
i.e whether they were forcibly converted or whether they embraced Islam to gain acceptance with the rulers and escape Jizya or whether it was a genuine conversion to a foreign belief system. Is there any good unbiased data as to how the conversions happened?
it seems likely that it was a mix of all of these. also, pre-modern religious conversions often aren’t individual choices in the way we’d understand them today. consider for example harald bluetooth of denmark, he was basically black-mailed into converting to christianity by threats of invasion from the german emperor. but, once bluetooth converted, under duress, he went about converting the subject populace. this did not involve “force” as much as simply switching royal patronage to christian priests from pagan ones.
The DNA and RNA’s have almost confirmed two pet theories of Hindu Nationalist movement …
1) Muslims were originally Hindus and they were converted to Islam. 2) Aryan Tourist Theory (TM by Rajeev Srinivasan) is bogus.
Other theories that have kind of being proven true by archaeological evidences ..
1) Krishna was historic figure and not mythological (Submerged Dwarka) 2) Rama was a historic figure and not mythological (Submerged Ram Setu or so called “Adam’s Bridge”)
I wonder what other claims of Hindu Nationalists would be proven true next …?
DNA and RNA’s
not RNA. RNA follows by necessity from DNA, they aren’t independent lines of evidence (except for splicing).
And so ended those mighty marauding Danes eh Razib? Settled down, became good Christian pig farmers, and eventually built a compassionate little welfare state… borrrrrrrring. Bring back Odin!!
@71,
there is an interesting issue here. the point is that you are looking at just the successes—they are pure chance. if what you learn from it is that you should believe the other things these people say, you are in deep sh!t.
neither the theories put forth by hindu nationalists/whatever-the-opposite-calls-themselves had any reasoning between then. to hindu nationalists the above was convenient. for racist colonials, max meuller was perfect. in independent india, we are unscientific beyond belief.
reminds me of a story abt louis pasteur. pasteur was supposedly a genius who fought against the tide of contemporary opinion to invent pasteurization and in general put the blame on germs for diseases/etc. the truth is very different. he was a dogmatic catholic who did not believe life could come out of nothing—and therefore if you see an organic disease/spoilage, there had to be life already there. not that he had the persipacity to see it scientifically.
now, pasteur, and in your case, savarkar got lucky. it is not to say i have any respect for max meuller’s theory, or for that matter, most of the people who are “scholars of history”. and of course, for all that i have against pasteur’s “genius”, he had some amount of empirical rigor to back him up, so i would go with his theories—in verifiable science, not otherwise. imo, if you believe every nut who can speak, we would be studying intelligent design and attacking every country on earth. oh wait… we are already doing the later!
Proud desis of the world, do not believe this RNA invasion theory foisted upon us by whitey!
…Everybody knows that Indian Muslims are local. What’s the big deal about this?
Most definitely, that is what a lot of Indians think. I’m not aware of mainstream Hindu nationalists claiming that Muslims are ‘outsiders’. But hey, a lot of people up north are quite proud of their ‘Aryan’ ancestry and then we have the Dravidian nuts down south. Everybody wants to show what a great race they are/were.
Well, with all this data coming out, there will be people on both sides who will start claiming that they’ve been vindicated. As always, the truth will be garnished with nice seasoning for consumption by respective audiences. But it does look as if some of the supermacist myths will unravel (sadly people need to be reminded that they are people regardless of ‘identity’).
Ok y’all, this DOESN’T ACTUALLY CONFIRM THAT MUSLIMS WERE HINDUS THAT “WERE CONVERTED” TO ISLAM. No one says Buddhists “were converted”… I’m not saying that imperial/conquering powers DIDN’T impose their religions and ideologies, but to make the leap from ancestry to assuming HOW people were converted is just bullshit. This evidence could just as easily reflect voluntary conversion. There have been plenty of reasons at different points in Indian history for which people would have wanted to change religions. A moment of reflection please. The Hindutva clowns are not being vindicated in any way by this information.
And so ended those mighty marauding Danes eh Razib? Settled down, became good Christian pig farmers, and eventually built a compassionate little welfare state… borrrrrrrring. Bring back Odin!!
LOL. canute was a christian. so no.
There were some schools of thought among historians which actually did proffer the theory that dark skinned natives of the Indian sub continent were invaded and conquered by fair skinned invaders. However, there was also another school of thought which when it said ‘Invasion’ in AIT actually meant a cultural invasion more than anything else. Which meant that a new culture came in and influenced the existing culture to a reasonable degree resulting in a amalgamated culture. This school of thought has gained more acceptance (where a migration wave is assumed to have occurred) than a militaristic invasion as believed in popular thought in recent times. Also to avoid the confusion created by use of the term ‘Invasion’ a lot of people now call it the Aryan Migration theory.
Well in the presence on inconclusive evidence, all theories are possible. People believe what works for them, but then isn’t that what religion is all about too.
Hmmm … Any idea about the Kashmiris? They seem more middle-eastern / Afghani than anything else.
look at kashmiris on this graph.
FWIW, the Hindu Right generally doesn’t argue that Muslims are the descendants of invaders and foreigners, but rather that they were all once Hindus and are still “culturally” Hindus, deep down, and should acknowledge this and excavate their basic-Hindu-layer (ethnically and culturally defined) from under their Muslim religious commitments and stop looking to the Middle East as a cultural or religious home/reference point. This is also one of the arguments for “reconversion,” an idea that was invented by 19C Hindu reformists.
Razib
Ah Canute, yes. Good old muscular Christianity, from darkest Karelia to Eton’s rugby pitches, a wily doctrine for European expansion, the only harbringer of perpetual peace & brotherhood, as Livingstone said. I wonder if Viking genes flowed through Kierkegaard’s blood? Frustrated fanatics do need an outlet for conquest after all, and in conquest’s absence they have a tendency to turn in on themselves… Although I’m sure he could’ve got a decent position in the Prussian ranks.
neither the theories put forth by hindu nationalists/whatever-the-opposite-calls-themselves had any reasoning between then. to hindu nationalists the above was convenient. for racist colonials, max meuller was perfect. in independent india, we are unscientific beyond belief.
I don’t know if the early nationalist position is necessarily “unscientific,” after all it was in part based on the empirical observation that the vast majority of subcontinental Muslims look much like Hindus. They were also aware of the accounts of the great Muslim historians and proto-anthropologists, like Al Beruni and Ferishta, who wrote about the troubling nature of some conversions. But they certainly had a political motivation as well: they were trying to subvert Caliphate driven pan-Islamism which sought to unite the ummah, and delegitimize the rationale for partition.
Well in the presence on inconclusive evidence, all theories are possible.
The Aryan (Japhetic) invasion theory enjoyed much more status than one of many claims inhabiting a horizon of competing viewpoints. Thanks to rock-solid linguistic and philological analysis, it enjoyed a much higher status. The genetic studies that appeared mostly in the early years of this century have spectacularly decentered it; though some scholars continue to uphold it as though it was the Godawful Truth. One need understand the typical contentiousness that informs a Kuhnian “paradigm shift” in the sciences to see where all the rancor is coming from. It will still be some time before things settle; agnosticism is probably the most prudent stance.
Is there any good unbiased data as to how the conversions happened?
Besides the accounts of Musim historians themselves. I would again recommend this analysis by Eaton, which at the very least has problematized the convential wisdom about the sword and “social liberation”.
The real question is, why do the Indian Shia have evidence of greater foreign genetic influence than do the Indian Sunnis.
Any thoughts on this matter?
My brother did this a few months ago, turns out we are traced back to Eastern Ukraine. We are Gujrathi Brahmins FYI.
As far as all this Muslim business goes, there is no point in crying over spilt milk. Identity politics on the sub-continent has been out of control for decades. How far back do you go to find “purity”? I think many Muslims have this need to be connected to Arabs or Persians in order to deny the fact that their ancestors converted. Its amazing how many Pakistanis you meet who claim links to the Middle East while totally denying they could have anything to do with the “kaffirs”.
On the Hindutva side, there is this need to manufacture a pure hindu Eden in which everything was wonderful until the Muslims came.
Either way, its bullsh!t.
I think once Muslims started agitating for their own state based solely on religion, the sort of issues we have today in the region were inevitable. As far as the global troubles today, once Muslims start treating their religion as something for their personal lives and not a political agenda, we should be able to solve most of the conflicts.
How about posting your family pics here so that we can all enjoy a hearty laugh?
There are plenty Sudras here who also claim Scythian or european ancestry. Its not just muslims who yearn to belong to a non-desi race.
In Islam there is no stigma in being descended from converts per se. The muslim arab, persian, afghan, and turk invaders of India were also descended from converts. The desperate attempts of desi muslims to claim non-desi ancestry has more to do with the fact that the natives of India, of any caste or creed, were considered an inferior breed by the mongol-turks, persians, afghans etc.
“How about posting your family pics here so that we can all enjoy a hearty laugh?
There are plenty Sudras here who also claim Scythian or european ancestry. Its not just muslims who yearn to belong to a non-desi race.”
Prema, I think you misunderstood what I meant. If you do the National Geographic DNA test, they show you the migratory path yout Y chromosome has taken. As far as yearning to be european, I dont see anything about being a cheese eating surrender monkey that is particularly appealing.
jwb: Right after debunking two myths, you offer another one. Tracing all problems back to partition is a puerile exercise. That post is self-contradictory, as it also says, “As far as all this Muslim business goes, there is no point in crying over spilt milk.” Partition is a fait accompli. If partition hadn’t taken place, that would not have magically preemptively solved all of the hypothetical Greater India’s problems. Besides, Muslims didn’t start agitating for their own state based solely on religion, in a vacuum.
I’m a Rajput. My ancestors embraced Islam 18 generations ago. I’ve always found it puzzling that some Muslims from the subcontinent wished so badly to have some lineage from outside South Asia. Prema’s analysis seems plausible.
Many years ago I went to Washington, D.C. The ride I thought I had didn’t materialize. I met a really nice ABD fellow traveler at the airport It turned out that our destinations in D.C. were close to each other. His uncle graciously gave me a ride. The uncle asked me what I was. I told him, “I’m Rajput,” and that my ancestors were from Jullundur. He told me that I’m not a Rajput because I’m Muslim. I smiled because it was a curious thing for him to say and it made no sense to argue.
However, that incident shows that some (not all) Indians consider that Muslims can’t belong to an Indian ethnic classification (and by extension, perhaps to India itself). That mindset / mentality seems to be what the subject of this blog post is meant to counter. Granted, it’s not in the Hindutva canon or orthodoxy, but nobody claims Hindutva is the only form of Indian nationalism. Hindutva might be the most recognizable brand though. Sort of like, there are other breakfast cereal makers than Kellogg’s and General Mills.
Cyrus: My guess is that phenomenon is consistent with the Shia belief system, in which ancestry determines status (meaning whether one is a “Syed”) and how well one understands the religion. For example, by nature and not nurture, a man will have more insight into the Quran if his father was also a scholar of the Quran. That concept reinforces the Shia imamate as well.
I think many Muslims have this need to be connected to Arabs or Persians in order to deny the fact that their ancestors converted.
The fact remains that some muslims do and some more than others. For example, “the Indian Shia have evidence of greater foreign genetic influence than do the Indian Sunnis.” Check out this North Indian’s website: http://j2abraham.com/
I am an Indian muslim (memon) and I have absolutely no confusion about my ancestry. My ancestors got converted from Hindu Lohana in Sindh (Pakistan) during 16th century. I would be delighted to undergo DNA test along with a Hindu Lohana to confirm this historical fact. Any Arab or Persian ancestory would bring me a huge disappointment.
salim, go to http://j2abraham.com/ follow the links to FTDNA go to the National Geographic Genographic website to get yourself tested. regards bob
Hi all I do not agree with ‘converts not invaders’. I am a British-born muslim whose parents originate from Azad Kashmir. Without any disrespect to the Hindu’s or Sikhs of this area I think it is possible to make a distinction between races. Most of the my fellow people are lighter in skin colour, and have a stronger resemblance to European Aryan race than the local people no disrespect intended. Some of my cousins have light or even blue eyes, often fair skln and this did not arise from just leaving in the mountains. In our Bense caste I have seen people that look very Italian even Turkish. I have read some articles that in South India at least the Hindu’s their were shorter because they were invaded by the local people of what used to be Australia the Aboriginas and this is why they look so different. I think its important to say in India alot of the muslims are local converts but you should not say the same thing for people in Pakistan and especially Azad Kashmir. Thank you.
Na u didn’t lose me I just decided to stop using a nickname n going back to my real name…..but I have had many immitators who r disturbing around the net
I have my DNA analysed.The problem is that we do not seem to have a database of Indic dna analysis of various populations in South Asian countries.This is necessary to compare individual dna profiles which would provide genetic affinities between many populations of South Asian region.It would also prove the Indic origin of Pakistanis and other Muslims of South Asia.I would like to suggest that something like a yahoo group be set up where we can compare and discuss our dna profiles.Any takers?