What
can progress in science and dis-semination of such knowledge
aid in accurate interpretation and widespread understanding
of one's own history? Very little apparently. Your readers
are probably aware that over the past couple of years, new
research - to be exact - three papers (Human Evolution:
The Southern Route to Asia, Current Biology 1999 Dispatch
R295; Deep Common Ancestry of Indian and Western Euro- pean
Mitochondrial Lineages, Current Biology, 1999; Fundamental
Genomic Unity of Ethnic India is Revealed by Analysis of
Mitochondrial DNA, Current Science, 2000, 79), have been
published, the last one just recently on both the genetic
breakup of modern Indian popu-lations as well as likely
conclusions regarding the time, magnitude and type
of their original migrations into the Indian subcontinent
and beyond. Since the facts are pertinent to make a case
later on, here are the simplified facts in a nutshell. The
published findings essen-tially draw upon the by-now well-known
facts relating to mtDNA data breakups within and outside
the Indian popula-tions, viz.
(1) In general, East Africans, most Europeans and most Indians
possess haplogroup U - considered a prime West European
marker.
(2) Some East Africans from Ethiopia, some coastal Arabians,
most East Asian populations and almost all Indians have
haplogroup M. Haplo-group M is considered a basic East Asian
Marker. This is however conspicuously absent in Europeans.
(3) The coalescence age of haplogroup M is considered about
60,000 YBP and that of haplogroup U around 55,000 YBP.
(4) Among Indian populations within each gene pool, tribal
populations have greater haplogroup M than any other, North
Indians have more haplogroup U than haplogroup M, South
Indians have more haplogroup M than haplogroup U, and as
one moves up the caste ladder - whether in North Indians
or South Indians - more haplogroup U than M is present.
From these, researchers have broadly come to a consensus
that there were most likely two migrations into India.
Each
probably a small group of females (or more females than
males). One carrying haplogroup M around 60,000 YBP start-ing
from Ethiopia, rounding the Arabian coast, landing into
the Indian subconti-nent, some of whom must have pro-ceeded
eastwards to populate SE Asia, Australia and beyond. Then
around 55,000 YBP, a second group of females carrying the
haplogroup U marker got out of Africa, and on reaching the
Middle East - split into two groups - one headed west to
Europe and the other east towards India, merging with the
forerunners, i.e. the haplogroup M. This explanation would
reconcile all of the above listed facts. Though there are
some data to indi-cate smaller admixtures around 32,000
YBP and a much smaller one centering over a time period
~ 9000 YBP, the researchers point out that none of these
or any other data indicate any major splash in our gene
pool occurring in the recent past. Now, what should all
this lead our eminent historians to declare vis-à-vis the
conventional take on our ancient history?
For
starters, one would think that the Aryan invasion theory
would be pro-nounced dead. And yet this theory has persisted,
not only among seasoned researchers within the ASI, ICHR
and other historical organizations entrusted with documenting
our history, but also finds its way into respected mainstream
magazines from time to time. Pick up any recent issue of
an in-flight magazine and odds are, you will to run into
the old-familiar 'when the Aryans overran Harappa around
1500 BC. . .', etc.
Why
would such notions persist in spite of seemingly water-tight
facts being now available? The reasons are not hard to find.
For one thing, the information is simply not widely known.
For another, it is still complex enough not to be easily
susceptible to sensationalism in the popu-lar press. It
is far easier to misinterpret some other data and breathtakingly
declare 'European gene found in upper caste Indians'. But
more importantly, when non-mainstream historians pointing
to the new facts draw 'non-traditional' conclusions, cries
accusing them of being revisionist-history-fanatics or pro-Hindutva
or some bogey is raised to pare them to size. And mainstream
academics? Well, in their safe positions, they are by and
large unwilling to rock the boat and say anything seemingly
radical, if at all. On the contrary, much efforts are directed
at belittling the new-fangled interpretations. The end result
is that our history text-books continue to carry outdated
and disproven theories and our popular magazines blithely
mouth inaccuracies oblivious of recent developments.
VENKATESH
NARAYANAN
2A/302, Rajgiri,
Siddhachal,
Thane West 400 601, India
e-mail: venkatesh_narayanan@vsnl.com
