Ancestry Of Jats

[Mad Indian]

Where I am bringing a straw-man. I was just replying to Razor about OOA. Also I think we should keep to our own views.


Those who believe in AIT, it is good for them. Those who don`t, for them it is better. After all ignorance is bliss.

Dude? So those who believe creationist crap as a valid theory like evolution are also equally right in their shitty opinions?

OOA and OIT are not mutually exclusive

 

[Mad Indian]

Actually I stated earlier that OOA theory is a theory and not proven fact. It could be revised in the future as more finds in the field of archeology are made, and @Peter was replying to that post of mine.

I dont know how much evidence you will need to take OOA to be a proven fact . Almost all genetic data agree that OOA is a rock solid theory

 

[Razor]

Yes, You are right about What OIT means, as the current genetic data is that genetic diversity in Indian subconitnent is higher than that in the Europe. So the origin must have been IndoIranian plains and not europe.

Also, linguistics can only tell that few things are linked -and not in what timeline they were linked and how they are linked. For example, the migration could have occured in 60000bce(as per OIT) or could have occured in 1500BCE(as per AMT/AIT). So how do you explain at waht date the migration occured ? OTOH, genetics pretty much confirm that the Indians migrated into India well before 12000 BCE, which means that AMT/AIT count never have happened. So IVC must have been completely Aryan. And Dravidian is actually a british concoction to d divide and rule.. There is no equivalent term for Aryan/Dravidian divide in Tamil or any of the Dravidian languages. Dravidian itself is a sanskrit word meaning southern.

And note that Tamil and the supposed dravidian languages have much more in common with Sanskrit than Latin languages have in common with Sanskrit regarding grammar - correct me if I am wrong, since I am basing it from the little knowledge I have of Hindi. For instance unlike the European languages, Both Tamil and Sanskrit are phonetic languages

And also, the genetic studies do note that there are two anscesteries to Indian population - Anscesteral south and Ancesteral north Indians, both of whom migrated at about 45000 BCE and 60000BCE. And Indians are a complete mixture of both.SO the IVC must have made up of Mixed race Indians of ANI/ASI origin, not much different from the current Indians . Also, note that the term Aryan itself only refers to "learned man"

When I said I-E langs and Dravidian langs, I meant languages and not any racial connotations that brits used.
And yeah I m also not sure how the languges in india were divided up. (@pmaitra might know.)
"SO the IVC must have made up of Mixed race Indians of ANI/ASI origin, not much different from the current Indians" Yes IVC is a mixed "race" of lets say "Indians" but how does that relate to small central asian groups moving into the fertile plains of North-West India and Ganga during/after decline of IVC?

 

[Mad Indian]

When I said I-E langs and Dravidian langs, I meant languages and not any racial connotations that brits used.
And yeah I m also not sure how the languges in india were divided up. (@pmaitra might know.)
"SO the IVC must have made up of Mixed race Indians of ANI/ASI origin, not much different from the current Indians" Yes IVC is a mixed "race" of lets say "Indians" but how does that relate to small central asian groups moving into the fertile plains of North-West India and Ganga during/after decline of IVC?

Why do you think that migration out of India occured during/after IVC? Cant it have occured before IVC was even formed?

Also, I am also talking in the linguistic sense only dude. I dont know how Britshits divided a seperate dravidian language group when Snaskrit and Tamil have so much in common

 

[Razor]

I dont know how much evidence you will need to take OOA to be a proven fact . Almost all genetic data agree that OOA is a rock solid theory

I am not saying it is wrong.
But it is difficult to take it as "rock solid" proven fact when the scientist themselves are calling it a model/hypothesis which is most accepted.

 

[Razor]

Why do you think that migration out of India occured during/after IVC? Cant it have occured before IVC was even formed?

Dude, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Anyway, what I meant by AMT is that a group of nomads in search of greener pastures started moving into NW India sometime during/after IVC and started settling there. Here they might ve written the Rig veda. Then they started moving again. The movement might not have been genetic per se, but more like a cultural transmission. As this movement happened they mixed with the various other cultures and kingdoms of the region.
As for ANI and ASI (groupings of much more ancient origin); since these nomadic peoples (mentioned above) were smaller in numbers, they did not have much of an impact on the gene pool of the region (ANI/ASI). And therefore the previous ANI/ASI admixture remained much the same.
This is one of the hypothesis. Could it be possible?
Of course as I said earlier I haven't consulted much genetic data.

Also, I am also talking in the linguistic sense only dude. I dont know how Britshits divided a seperate dravidian language group when Snaskrit and Tamil have so much in common

Some of that commonality is because of usage of Sanskrit vocabulary in tamil. In malayalam it is around 60% of vocabulary which is exactly same as samskrit.

But then what is strange is even some old/pure tamil words have similarity. For eg: arasu sounds similar to raja. I had a list of such words, I'll try to find it.

In any case I don't know how/why tamil etc were classified into a separate language families. Must ask a proper linguistics guy.

 

[Mad Indian]

Dude, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Anyway, what I meant by AMT is that a group of nomads in search of greener pastures started moving into NW India sometime during/after IVC and started settling there. Here they might ve written the Rig veda. Then they started moving again. The movement might not have been genetic per se, but more like a cultural transmission. As this movement happened they mixed with the various other cultures and kingdoms of the region.
As for ANI and ASI (groupings of much more ancient origin); since these nomadic peoples (mentioned above) were smaller in numbers, they did not have much of an impact on the gene pool of the region (ANI/ASI). And therefore the previous ANI/ASI admixture remained much the same.
This is one of the hypothesis. Could it be possible?
Of course as I said earlier I haven't consulted much genetic data.

Dude? Da hell? Bunch of nomads had much better culture which spread to a settled culture of IVC? Do you see how stupid that sounds? IVC must have been far more culturally superior than any nomads anywhere and how in the name of god can nomads come up with vedas? Seriously?

Which is much more possible in occams' razor - IVC being Aryans who developed a culture or IVC being Dravidian and had to learn from Aryan nomads, who did not migrate into India , and had a culture superior , worthy of being assimilated into dravidians , all the while being nomads, while dravidians being settled civilisation had a much more chance of developing that said culture.

See how many mental gymnastics one has to go through to justify AIT.Seriously, use Occams' Razor. And what is your fascination with AIT anyway? Do you that desperately want to be associated with Europeans? If it is any consolation, Genetics prove that Europeans are linked to Indians by genetics- so OIT, meaning Indians are the ancestors of Europeans is very possible

Some of that commonality is because of usage of Sanskrit vocabulary in tamil. In malayalam it is around 60% of vocabulary which is exactly same as samskrit.

But then what is strange is even some old/pure tamil words have similarity. For eg: arasu sounds similar to raja. I had a list of such words, I'll try to find it.


In any case I don't know how/why tamil etc were classified into a separate language families. Must ask a proper linguistics guy.

Vocabulary can be easily explained, but how will you explain Tamil and Sanskrit having same grammar and both being a phoenetic language? Seriously, Sanskrit cant have influenced all of Tamil structure, all the while being a different language tree?

 

[Razor]

Dude? Da hell? Bunch of nomads had much better culture which spread to a settled culture of IVC? Do you see how stupid that sounds? IVC must have been far more culturally superior than any nomads anywhere and how in the name of god can nomads come up with vedas? Seriously?

I think you have taken the luxury of assuming a few things.
I did not say nomads have a better culture did I? Nor that they were culturally superior (whatever that means), nor that nomads came up with vedas.
I suggested that they settled in the region, settling down usually means more free time, which means more time to write prose and poems (veda)
And how do you know IVC was there when these nomads moved in. Maybe it was after the decline of IVC.
And again, I did not say nomadic culture spread to a settled culture. If and when these nomads settle, then they might develop a culture and when these settled people trade/move etc to other regions their culture comes in contact with other cultures. Sometimes admixture of cultures take place in such cases.
For eg: Kartikeya is known a muruga in some places and by other names elsewhere. This is due to different god being assimilated into one.

Which is much more possible in occams' razor - IVC being Aryans who developed a culture or IVC being Dravidian and had to learn from Aryan nomads, who did not migrate into India , and had a culture superior , worthy of being assimilated into dravidians , all the while being nomads, while dravidians being settled civilisation had a much more chance of developing that said culture.

I don't understand what exactly you are saying here?
Are you saying IVC are Aryan?
Also the term dravidian comes much later than IVC period, right?
So why are you bringing it up here?

See how many mental gymnastics one has to go through to justify AIT.Seriously, use Occams' Razor. And what is your fascination with AIT anyway? Do you that desperately want to be associated with Europeans? If it is any consolation, Genetics prove that Europeans are linked to Indians by genetics- so OIT, meaning Indians are the ancestors of Europeans is very possible

Fascination with AIT?
Maybe it is fascination with history that you confuse as fascination with AIT.
I also think that your description of AIT/AMT is different from what I think of as AIT/AMT.

Vocabulary can be easily explained, but how will you explain Tamil and Sanskrit having same grammar and both being a phoenetic language? Seriously, Sanskrit cant have influenced all of Tamil structure, all the while being a different language tree?

Maybe sanskrit and tamil are related but as I said I don't know how these language families are decided.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Please provide your opinions guys.Am I not Indian

When did Indian constitution said genetics is the basis to become an Indian?


Why I am getting a feeling that you are deliberately trying to showcase some of the proud traits of your ancestors and compare it with other races?

Physical traits or Genetics do not matter for most of the useful things !

 

[TejasMK3]

Indians have input from differnet parts of India's neighborhood no doubt.
AIT/AMT is a theory just like the OIT one. I not sure which one is right, but based on the linguistic data I leaning towards AIT/AMT. As for genetic data, I currently have less knowledge of that domain and therefore I think I need more information there to come to a conclusion.

Now similarly the OOA (Out of Africa) is also just a theory I think. Correct me if I m wrong.

Also, I think these "humans" mixed with various other species.
One example we know of is the Neanderthals.
Only humans outside of Africa have neanderthal admixture. And humans outside of Africa usually have between 1.5-2.1% neanderthal ancestry.
I did a 23andme DNA test and found that mine is 3.1%.

As @Mad Indian mentioned, AIT/AMT have pretty much been kicked out, even linguistically, which is really the only domain where they are even discussed due some inconsistencies their solution proposed i is full of holes, and is by no means conclusive.

AIT is not even talked about these days by even it's last defender Witzel, (but he still says there was a migration, and that he has genetic proof.....which he conveniently refuses to present).

When @Peter wrote in the other thread about AIT/AMT being "absolutely true" I was surprised because almost no one apart from some hardcore dravidian nationalist types believe in that.

When I asked for proof about what makes him sure about AIT, he confuses ANI/ASI populations living in India some 50,000 years ago (atleast) as Aryans and Dravidians and worse presents that as "proof" for Aryan invasions, an event that supposedly occurred 3000-4000 years ago.


Here is a very simple to the point write up, with multiple references to studies done by MIT and nature magazine.

Another study, this time involving Y-DNA haplotyping, rules out substantial gene-flow from Europe to Asia at least since the mid-Holocene period, i.e. the last 6,500 years. It has also been shown that the gateway to the subcontinent, the Hindu Kush – where the earliest archaeological evidence of human remains dates back to 26,500 years before the Rig Veda – was a confluence of gene-flows in the early Neolithic period as opposed to anindigenous population.

This has been pretty much accepted by most anthropologists, refer to the thread posted above for statements.

Here is the important one:

"This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
"There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
"Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.

 

[Mad Indian]

I think you have taken the luxury of assuming a few things.
I did not say nomads have a better culture did I? Nor that they were culturally superior (whatever that means), nor that nomads came up with vedas.

Because taking up of something as massive as "religion, language, Culture" requires that the donar has a better culture?!?!. Is it not obvious? Why would a civilised society copy culture from barbaric nomads . And how the hell would nomads have more culture than civilised societies?

I am actually puzzled you are even asking this question!

I suggested that they settled in the region, settling down usually means more free time, which means more time to write prose and poems (veda)

Which is contradictory to your statement that there was no immigration?!?!

And how do you know IVC was there when these nomads moved in. Maybe it was after the decline of IVC.

Of course IVC should have been there if IVC is to take up the culture from these nomads as you suggest

And again, I did not say nomadic culture spread to a settled culture. If and when these nomads settle, then they might develop a culture and when these settled people trade/move etc to other regions their culture comes in contact with other cultures. Sometimes admixture of cultures take place in such cases.
For eg: Kartikeya is known a muruga in some places and by other names elsewhere. This is due to different god being assimilated into one.

Again, this is completely contradictory to the claim of no migration. First decide whether there was migration/settlement. Genetics have proved that there have been no migration into Indian subcontinent for the past 12000bce which blows AIT/AMT right out of the window.

On one hand you claim cultural acquisition- which is highly unlikely given that one is a tribe and other is a civilisation, on the otheryou claim that they settled - which has been shown by genetics that it is impossible.

AS I said, you need to do all these mental gymnastics to justify AIT/AMT instead of the obvious blank slate Occam's razor assumption that Rig Veda originated in India in IVC/After IVC under Indians.

I don't understand what exactly you are saying here?
Are you saying IVC are Aryan?
Also the term dravidian comes much later than IVC period, right?
So why are you bringing it up here?

What I am saying is AIT/AMT is unjustifiable. You know what is occam's razor right- the most likely hypothesis is one which assumes the least/which make smallest assumptions?

And If Aryan dravidian divide is actually a thing, why do we find no record of such distinction in any of our texts - be it sanskrit or be it in Tamil?

Fascination with AIT?
Maybe it is fascination with history that you confuse as fascination with AIT.

If your real fascination is with History, you should look at the facts and come to conclusions - not make conclusions and try to suit facts to that conclusions. The facts are that genetics and modern day linguistics have blown AIT out of the water. It has no basis other than some Self hating euro wannabe North Indians and Self absorbed seperatist c**ts in the South, who desperately want to hold their "being seperate card" - for whom their very political survival depends on this Aryan Dravidian divide ( I am talking about the ADMK/DMK parties in case you are wondering who I am talking about)

I also think that your description of AIT/AMT is different from what I think of as AIT/AMT.

Come on. This is what I meant - first you assume something is true. So if disproven , you are supposed to go look for alternative - not more justifications for such crap. AIT/AMT as espoused by Max muller, Romilla Thapar and other marxist dingbats have been disproved. Now they are desperately clutching at straws that there was only cultural migration and other such bull shit instead of the obvious answer - culture originated in India . Why do you think it is far more likely that the culture came from outside of India rather than originate here? Do you have any justifications?

Maybe sanskrit and tamil are related but as I said I don't know how these language families are decided.

Oh come on. Sanskrit is supposed to be the Mother of Aryan languages and Tamil is supposed to be the mother of Dravidian languages and these two are supposed to be the most different from each other among the Indian language family and yet here we have more similiarities among these two in grammar structure and phonetics while the supposedly closely linked INdo european langauges - Sanskrit and German have none.

And yet Both are supposed to be of different language family. I dont buy this BS one single bit

 

[Mad Indian]

As @Mad Indian mentioned, AIT/AMT have pretty much been kicked out, even linguistically, which is really the only domain where they are even discussed due some inconsistencies their solution proposed i is full of holes, and is by no means conclusive.

AIT is not even talked about these days by even it's last defender Witzel, (but he still says there was a migration, and that he has genetic proof.....which he conveniently refuses to present).

When @Peter wrote in the other thread about AIT/AMT being "absolutely true" I was surprised because almost no one apart from some hardcore dravidian nationalist types believe in that.

When I asked for proof about what makes him sure about AIT, he confuses ANI/ASI populations living in India some 50,000 years ago (atleast) as Aryans and Dravidians and worse presents that as "proof" for Aryan invasions, an event that supposedly occurred 3000-4000 years ago.


Here is a very simple to the point write up, with multiple references to studies done by MIT and nature magazine.



This has been pretty much accepted by most anthropologists, refer to the thread posted above for statements.

Here is the important one:

"This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
"There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
"Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.

Most of the problem actually arises from the shitty history teaching in the schools. For instance IVC/AIT/AMT were all taught as fact in my school and I was a vehement supporter of this AIT crap until I hit this forum. Then i looked at evidences , logic and reason to come to the conclusion that AIT is crap.

Seriously, India can only be saved if we clean up the marxist filth in the history books

 

[pmaitra]

I think you have taken the luxury of assuming a few things.
I did not say nomads have a better culture did I? Nor that they were culturally superior (whatever that means), nor that nomads came up with vedas.

Well put.

@Mad Indian is creating a strawman and squabbling against it.

This, right after he advised someone else not to argue against a strawman.

No one has disputed the Out of Africa theory. Dont argue on a strawman

___________________________

Because taking up of something as massive as "religion, language, Culture" requires that the donar has a better culture?!?!. Is it not obvious?

No, it is not obvious.

The only thing that is obvious is you making things up and then arguing against it.

This is something like a man playing chess with himself. He uses the black piece(s) and makes a move, then turns the board around to use the white piece(s) to make a move.

 

[Mad Indian]

Well put.

@Mad Indian is creating a strawman and squabbling against it.

This, right after he advised someone else not to argue against a strawman.


___________________________



No, it is not obvious.

The only thing that is obvious is you making things up and then arguing against it.

This is something like a man playing chess with himself. He uses the black piece(s) and makes a move, then turns the board around to use the white piece(s) to make a move.

Yeah. So AIT/AMT styled migration dint happen and the goal post got changed to culture. When that claim is reduced to BS , now disown even that claim..


Typical pmaitraish post. This is the reason I would not have argued this subject with you. For you your ego is more important than facts or truth

 

[Simple_Guy]

We follow jathera religion basically and we used to be farmers basically.

I believe the "Jathera theory" was also propounded in the same 19th century period.

The first indigenous attempt at tracing the Jat origin comes from a Jat Sanskrit scholar and Raja of Beswa, Aligarh, Pandit Giribar Prasad. He employed a Sastri named Angad Sharma to find the origin of the Jats in the light of orthodox literature. Angad Sharma, relying mainly on the similarity of sound, lighted upon the Jatharas. as the hypothetical ancestors of the Jats; and propounded the Jathara theory in 1869.

In the Padma Purana : "When the son of Bhrigu [i.e.,Parshuram] exterminated the warrior-class. their
daughters, seeing the world empty of the kshatriya and being desirous of getting sons, laid hold of the Brahmans and carefully cherishing the seed sown in their womb [Jathara] brought forth Kshatriya sons called Jatharas."

The second attempt at shedding light over the mystery of Jat origin also comes from a Jat leader of Meerut, Chaudhary Lahiri Singh, who derives the word Jat from Jathara, but he differs from Angad Sharma by making the Jatharas a foreign people deriving their name from the mountain Jathara, mentioned in the Mahabharata.

But if they were really descended from the mythical "Jatheras" it is strange that this story is completely missing from Jat oral traditions.

A community called Jathara is found in Southern India, but they are neither Kshatriya nor farmers. These Jatharas belong to a subsection of the Maharashtrian Brahmans called Karhadas.

 

[Samar Rathi]

I believe the "Jathera theory" was also propounded in the same 19th century period.

The first indigenous attempt at tracing the Jat origin comes from a Jat Sanskrit scholar and Raja of Beswa, Aligarh, Pandit Giribar Prasad. He employed a Sastri named Angad Sharma to find the origin of the Jats in the light of orthodox literature. Angad Sharma, relying mainly on the similarity of sound, lighted upon the Jatharas. as the hypothetical ancestors of the Jats; and propounded the Jathara theory in 1869.

In the Padma Purana : "When the son of Bhrigu [i.e.,Parshuram] exterminated the warrior-class. their
daughters, seeing the world empty of the kshatriya and being desirous of getting sons, laid hold of the Brahmans and carefully cherishing the seed sown in their womb [Jathara] brought forth Kshatriya sons called Jatharas."

The second attempt at shedding light over the mystery of Jat origin also comes from a Jat leader of Meerut, Chaudhary Lahiri Singh, who derives the word Jat from Jathara, but he differs from Angad Sharma by making the Jatharas a foreign people deriving their name from the mountain Jathara, mentioned in the Mahabharata.

But if they were really descended from the mythical "Jatheras" it is strange that this story is completely missing from Jat oral traditions.

A community called Jathara is found in Southern India, but they are neither Kshatriya nor farmers. These Jatharas belong to a subsection of the Maharashtrian Brahmans called Karhadas.

Well we do worship our ancestors in my family and all the jats family i know also do the same. You might see their monuments in our farms as white small temple like shape.

 

[pmaitra]

Yeah. So AIT/AMT styled migration dint happen and the goal post got changed to culture. When that claim is reduced to BS , now disown even that claim..


Typical pmaitraish post. This is the reason I would not have argued this subject with you. For you your ego is more important than facts or truth

I was specifically talking about your statement "Bunch of nomads had much better culture which spread to a settled culture of IVC?" Just re-read what @Razor said. I am talking about that sentence with the word "luxury."

 

[bennedose]

"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"

In 1857, soldiers of the British Indian army rose up in a rebellion in what is now known as the first war of Indian Independence. That rebellion was eventually quelled by the British with troops mainly from the Punjab particularly Muslim troops from what is now the Pakistani Punjab, assisted by Pashtun troops. After this event, the British greatly changed the composition of the Indian army forces, by recruiting mainly Muslim Punjabi troops and Pashtun troops from the North Western parts of pre-independence India, which are now part of Pakistan. These troops were subsequently in the thick of all the campaigns that Imperial Britain was fighting. The British gradually began to refer to these groups as martial races. Retired Pakistani army Major Agha Humayun Amin
wrote about the Pakistani army feeling of martial superiority (57):

The "Martial Races Theory" in reality was an Imperial gimmick to boost the ego of the cannon fodder. Various British writers like Philip Mason frankly admitted that the real reason for selective recruitment was political reliability in crisis situations, which the Punjabis had exhibited during the 1857-58 Bengal Army rebellion.

Pakistan the nation was formed with the belief that its army was, from the beginning, somehow superior by virtue of its being composed of martial races. Maj. Amin goes on to write:

The Pakistani nation had been fed on propaganda about martial superiority of their army...the Pakistani GHQ placed entire reliance on the Superior Valour and Martial Qualities of the Pakistani (Punjabi and Pathan Muslim soldier) vis a vis the Hindu Indian soldier, as proved in 1965 war and felt that somehow, in the next war to miracles would occur and the Pakistan Army would do well

 

[Mad Indian]

I was specifically talking about your statement "Bunch of nomads had much better culture which spread to a settled culture of IVC?" Just re-read what @Razor said. I am talking about that sentence with the word "luxury."

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.

 

[warrior monk]

AIT is pure gibberish theory concocted by racially bigoted Europeans for the cognitively impaired Indian population to justify their racism . It has been proven that the mt DNA and Y-chromosome markers of Indian population clearly demonstrate that the people of India are of indigenous, local origin from within India, thus negating the Aryan Invasion theory

Mitochondrial and Y chromosomal data of Indians have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of castes of South Asia and Y-chromosome binary markers from Indians proves that whatever little genetic variation of Indian haplogroups exeeds 15000 years damn !! ( Christians are pissed since the universe was created in 4004 BC in 6 days by a bearded fellow) so the the influx of genetic variation from central Asia is STATISTICAL INSIGNIFICANT.
European racism of this Aryan Theory has already caused a world war by bigoted Nazis and was used to eliminate 6 million jews using heady concoction of out of context Hinduism and racial bigotry. Sons of Bitches even USED HINDU SYMBOLISM " THE SWASTIKA " to justify their imagined racism so lets all bury this theory.