Ancestry Of Jats

[pmaitra]

"Martial race" was a term applied by the British to fool Indians whose support they wanted after the 1857 war of independence. There must be Brits who are still laughing their asses off at the way some groups loyally served the British simply because they were praised as being "martial"

Pakistanis were prime dodos in believing that they were "martial"

Here is a quote from the book "Pakistan Failed State"

Humans transitioned from hunting/gathering to farming. Thus, humans transitioned from being mobile to sedentary. This applies to all. Some groups became sedentary earlier, while some later. So, everyone originated from martial races

Nobody served the British because they were praised as martial.

People allied with the British either because their local kings wanted to do so as part of political alliances, or because despite fighting bravely, like the Nepalis, they were defeated in the face of superior technology and training.

I pulled nothing out of anything.

What I said is only the logical conclusion of his stance. Its not my problem that his original statement is turns out to be that impossible


His original account on AIT/AMT being complete garbage due to genetics is that that there was no migration but rather only cultural shift/migration from Aryans into India rather than direct migration of Aryans bringing in the Aryan culture and language (and of course as per the original AIT which claims that Vedas are written by Aryan invaders and hence here it would mean that Vedas came from Aryan cultural migration).

Cultural transfer occurs from high cultured civilisations to low cultured ones/nomads. You will see that from Greek and later Roman civilisational culture spreading to western Europe while not into India and Indian civilisation spreading unto south east Asia (the indosphere of the south east Asia which is the whole south east Asia except Vietnam which was sino influenced). Also how India influenced the Chinese society rather than Chinese influencing us. This is how culture always works- from high culure/higher successful states to lower successful states.

So when someone claims that Aryan migration was migration of culturr- what it indirectly means is that the supposed aryans had better culture than the people who adopted Aryan culture (in this case IVC or Indian civilisation before Aryans as espoused by the AMT advocates). So what they are claiming is essentially the nomadic Aryans who had not yet discovered agriculture yet(they are nomads duh!) Some how had a better culture and language and religion which got adopted by the IVC or the Indian civilisation. Yeah , it is as retarded as it sounds. And its not my problem that AMT is sounding that retarded when I lay out the logical conclusions of that theory

As I said, AIT /AMT advocates have to resort to all these mental gymnastics to even support something as basic as origin of language. For these people , somehow some nomads who don't know agriculture were the ones who came up with Sanskrit and Hindu culture and not the well settled advanced civilisation at the time of 2000bce which is the IVC or the Indian civilisation. Yeah right. Somehow the concept of Sanskrit originating here in India looks too implausible to them. I mean come on stupid Indians can never have discovered something as great as Sanskrit or Vedas. No . it must have been nomads called Aryans from whom the culture of Sanskrit and Vedas passed down to stupid well settled, civilisation of Indians.

I reject your "due to genetics" comment. Not true at all. There is no genetic evidence that there was no migration, as you claim, in which case, all Indians would have had to originate from within India.

All you need to do is travel around India and see the diversity. Indians are very diverse. One does not need genetic evidence. What we see with our eyes is evidence enough that Indians are an eclectic mix.

 

[Simple_Guy]

The historian CV Vaidya traced the ancestry of the Jats to Jartrikas or Jartas, residing in early times in the vicinity of Sakala and who are mentioned in the Mahabharata.

Generally the British civil servants followed the "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" line, as in, if these communities are not mentioned in ancient texts, they were foreigners. Indian Historians views traced an indigenous origin for these communities

 

[bennedose]

People allied with the British either because their local kings wanted to do so as part of political alliances,

Are you saying that the 1857 war of independence was fought by Indians because the kings of the soldiers who fought in that so called "rebellion" wanted their men to fight against the British and the men who supported the British had kings who wanted them to support the British?

This is totally wrong.

The declaration of "martial races" came after the 1857 war when British Indian troops under the British monarch rebelled. That is they fought against their "king", and did not take his orders. The British wanted to retain the loyalty of the troops from Northwest India who helped them, as opposed to the "Politically active Bengalis and Eastern Indians". This set the stage for praising the loyal troops of the Northwest as "martial races" who were resistant to sexually transmitted diseases (amongst other laudable characteristics) while the Bengali was condemned as an unreliable coward. These nonsensical attitudes were absorbed and internalized by many Indians under the British.

 

[bennedose]

Gentically there is remarkable commonality between Indians despite the differences in facial characteristics and colour. There was a huge mixture of "Ancestral North Indian" (ANI) and "Ancsetral South Indian (ASI) genes starting more than 10,000 years ago. Now all Indians have a mix of ASI and ANI. In fact backward caste north Indians have pretty much the same ratios as forward caste (brahmin, kshatriya) north Indians while backward caste south Indians have the same ratios as forward caste (brahmin, kshatriya) south Indians. These facts consign the fictitious "Aryan migration/invasion" theory to the dustbin of history written by racists for racists. The only major differences are that the people of the North West of the Indian subcontinent - particularly Kashmiris and Afghans show a 60:40 mix of ANI:ASI while Southern Indians tend to show a 40:60 mix.In between it is 50-50

According to the Aryan Invasion/migration theory some cooked up group called "Aryans" came from Europe after Mohenjo Daro/Harappa (>2000 BC) and brought the Vedas to Punjab from Europe (in 1500 BC) - driving the original inhabitants south. This is complete nonsense and there is no genetic support for this concoction.

 

[Mad Indian]

Humans transitioned from hunting/gathering to farming. Thus, humans transitioned from being mobile to sedentary. This applies to all. Some groups became sedentary earlier, while some later. So, everyone originated from martial races

Nobody served the British because they were praised as martial.

People allied with the British either because their local kings wanted to do so as part of political alliances, or because despite fighting bravely, like the Nepalis, they were defeated in the face of superior technology and training.



I reject your "due to genetics" comment. Not true at all. There is no genetic evidence that there was no migration, as you claim, in which case, all Indians would have had to originate from within India.

All you need to do is travel around India and see the diversity. Indians are very diverse. One does not need genetic evidence. What we see with our eyes is evidence enough that Indians are an eclectic mix.

You can believe whatever BS you want to believe.
The evidence that AIT/AMT is crap has been provided so many times that I won't bother doing it again here.

But more than that, it is simply useless. Creationist moron will still be a creationist moron no matter how much evidence and logic you give him that creationism is nonsense.

 

[bennedose]

Here is what the Priya Moorjani paper (2013) says
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

Priya Moorjani,1,2,6, Periyasamy Govindaraj,3 Bonnie Berger,2,4 David Reich,1,2,7 and Lalji Singh3,5,7 * Kumarasamy Thangaraj,3,6, * Nick Patterson,2 Mark Lipson,4 Po-Ru Loh,4

Although we have documented evidence for

mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years

BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into

India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study

that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related

to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence

for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West

Eurasia within the past 12,500 years.

<snip>
The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is

how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark

on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just

traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally

lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are

united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand

years.

 

[Khagesh]

Cultural transfer occurs from high cultured civilisations to low cultured ones/nomads.

By that token would Islam qualify as a culture or not.

Exact reverse order to what you suggest. From Nomads --> Settled high cultured civilizations.

There is no genetic evidence that there was no migration

If no 'migration' took place, then how/where/when, does one collect genetic evidence to falsify migration.

All you need to do is travel around India and see the diversity. Indians are very diverse. One does not need genetic evidence. What we see with our eyes is evidence enough that Indians are an eclectic mix.

Yes there is diversity. Actually terrible diversity - we harbour all the recognizable morphologies found in other part of the world.

But is that because all the migrations converged upon India or is it because India seeded the rest of the world.

Now well that is a tough choice to make. Nahi kya?

Like we have people with distinctive features that are found say in China, Far East, South East Asia. So by your logic migration also took place from all/any of these places into India.

Also we seem to have lesser number of people with features matching the Africans, except probably Siddis. And by the same logic non of the Indian ancestors should have migrated from the Africas.

How probable do you think it would be that several waves of immigration from all China/Far East, South East Asia, Central Asia, Tibet, Sri Lanka and Mauritius, even Ache/Australia and Newzie Maories (but mind you-absolutely none from Africa), interacted with the pre-existing local populations.

And how pre-existing were these pre-existing local populations that absorbed these inward cultural/genetic migrations.

Accha does this logic apply to other forms of natural life. Like say a forest. Does the forest exist because all the different varieties located at different edges of it converge to form a forest. Or is it the other way round.

Would you find the diversity and more ancient forms inside the forest and more specialized forms towards the outside or would it be the other way round.

Does specialization take place to manage the new circumstances or do specializations take place just so that diversity can be maintained. Maintained because diversity is holy and constitutionally mandated/protected.

Would the same bulk and brane idea also apply to something like a fluid flow also where the turbulence, that arises on account of a special condition being fulfilled, is towards the edge while the settled flow lies towards the interiors. Can I say for example claim that the settled flow exists because a lot of turbulence converged to created one settled flow.

 

[Mad Indian]

By that token would Islam qualify as a culture or not.

Exact reverse order to what you suggest. From Nomads --> Settled high cultured civilizations.

Movement of culture from high cultured society to low cultured society happens in absence of invasion or migration . I thought that was obvious since we are talking about supposed cultural migration and not migration of people

 

[bennedose]

I think "morphological diversity" (diversity in appearance) among Indians should not be confused with "genetic diversity". There is remarkably little basic genetic diversity among Indians although there is much morphological diversity.

Using morphologocal (physical appearance) diversity as a benchmark for ancestry and "race" is a purely 19th century example of racist non-science which gave birth to things like classification based on skin colour and skull shapes. This needs to be rejected and thrown in the bin where it belongs.

 

[Khagesh]

But morphological diversity has basis in genetics only. My nose was not pasted on to my face. It grew with me.

And the differences are quite specifically recognizable in that hardly anybody confuses a chimp face for a human face even though the basic genetic diversity between a chimp and a human is say 2% (not sure). I am sure capable people will be able to go beyond mere recognizability and even be able to statistically quantify it.

There is reasonable ground to believe even higher diversity like say an elephant would have from a human still does not confuse people. Despite the fact that both elephant nose and human noses are placed at the same exact spot (over the mouth, under the eyes, between two cheeks).

So why should the lesser genetic diversity say between an African and a Naga or say a Kashmiri and a Lankan would begin to vitiate evidence.

If there is such a thing as 'basic genetic diversity' that can be quantified as being very little or very much, it still would make its presence noticeable given the right tools.

 

[Mad Indian]

But morphological diversity has basis in genetics only. My nose was not pasted on to my face. It grew with me.

And the differences are quite specifically recognizable in that hardly anybody confuses a chimp face for a human face even though the basic genetic diversity between a chimp and a human is say 2% (not sure). I am sure capable people will be able to go beyond mere recognizability and even be able to statistically quantify it.

There is reasonable ground to believe even higher diversity like say an elephant would have from a human still does not confuse people. Despite the fact that both elephant nose and human noses are placed at the same exact spot (over the mouth, under the eyes, between two cheeks).

So why should the lesser genetic diversity say between an African and a Naga or say a Kashmiri and a Lankan would begin to vitiate evidence.

If there is such a thing as 'basic genetic diversity' that can be quantified as being very little or very much, it still would make its presence noticeable given the right tools.

Dude? What the f? Genetic diversity trumps morphological diversity in science. Morphological differences are largely arbitrary compared to genetic differences which are hard science.


If some north Indian morons believe that they are Europeans because they are fair, that makes them just that - morons.

 

[Khagesh]

Morphological differences are largely arbitrary compared to genetic differences which are hard science.

So does the hard science claim that my nose was indeed pasted onto my face. Does it? Or does my nose get in the way of Hard Scientists doing Hard Science. I am sorry if it does.

 

[Mad Indian]

So does the hard science claim that my nose was indeed pasted onto my face. Does it? Or does my nose get in the way of Hard Scientists doing Hard Science. I am sorry if it does.

Actually yes. Genetics does explain why your nose is pasted onto your face. :biggrin2:

 

[Mad Indian]

Oh man. Looking at the euro wannabes here, I can only guess how badly Indians lack self esteem

 

[Simple_Guy]

"martial races"

The "intellectual races" and "mercantile races" played their part in serving British interests.

It is the hypocrisy of NRI traitors, who serve in foreign companies, and live in countries that always were anti-India, to then pass remarks on Indians under British rule.

 

[Mad Indian]

The "intellectual races" and "mercantile races" played their part in serving British interests.

It is the hypocrisy of NRI traitors, who serve in foreign companies, and live in countries that always were anti-India, to then pass remarks on Indians under British rule.

What are you talking about ? Euro wannabe idiots are present in India too. It has more to do with the garbage education they recieve in schools

 

[Bhadra]

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Jat Notification635297177533040713.pdf
RESOLUTION

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2014
F. No. 20012/129/2009-BC-II.—Whereas the Common Central List of Other Backward Classes comprising castes and communities included in both the lists in the report of the Mandal Commission and the Lists of the State Governments were notified in respect of 26 States and Union Territories vide Resolutions by the Ministry of Welfare as specified in Annexure-I;

(Whatever may be ancestry, history, illusory or genuine claims, DNA or the modern day claims about the Jats, (except Sikh Jats) modern day reality are very different.

Claiming higher caste status and martail status are not equivalent or not necessary complementary to each other.
Today's realities are that Jats are OBC - other backward castes generally synonymous with low caste / low status category in social order.) They demanded and agitated for it and they have been granted that. So what are the arguments.

************************************

 

[Bhadra]

C

So in 09 states of India Jats are Other Backward Castes...

 

[bennedose]

But morphological diversity has basis in genetics only. My nose was not pasted on to my face. It grew with me.

No. Morphological diversity can occur because of difference in expression of genes, not necessarily because of genetic diversity. For that reason, morphological diversity does not match genetic diversity "nose for nose" or "gene for gene". What this means is that you can take gene samples from aUP Brahmin and a Bastar tribal from Orissa and you will only find out
1. They are human
2. They are different individuals
3. It is possible to say that both are from the Indian subcontinent
4. Nothing further can be said about their appearance, height, skin color, nose shape, head shape etc

On the other hand, take a blue eyed dark haired Kashmiri and a similar appearing person from Europe and check their genes you will find
1. They are human
2. They are different individuals
3. There are gene markers that indicate that they could be from different geographic regions
4. Nothing further can be said about their appearance, height, skin color, nose shape, head shape etc

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Why are they differentiating indo sythians and indo Aryans ? I always read that vast majority of North Indians , Pakistanis some afghans and Iranians were Aryans?