The Genetic Distance between Karunanidhi and Mallika Sherawat

Some Aryan invasion/migration theories are highly entertaining. One fascinating version originates in Central Asia around the middle of the fourth millennium B.C.E when an “unknown disturbance” triggered a cluster of Indo-European tribes on a trip across the continent. This group of nomadic people, wandered around, looking for a place where there is sun, water and grass for their cattle. They reached India, around 1500 – 1200 B.C.E, “forgot” about their wanderings through Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan, and hence did not write anything about it in the vedas^[1]

This Aryan migration theory created two groups of people — the Aryans who came from Central Asia and Dravidians, the people who were already in India. In our diverse nation, these Aryans helped bring up new differences. Thus Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi still talks about the Aryan-Dravidian battles and Marxist historians write about the light skinned IE speakers over powering the dark skinned Dravidian speakers. Also, we have been told that the concept of caste groups came with the Aryans while tribals were the original inhabitants of the country. These Aryans also helped historians to categorically state that the vedas were composed not by Indians, but by the Central Asians.

If these theories were true, shouldn’t there should be scientific evidence to back it up? Shouldn’t we see a genetic difference between caste and tribal groups and between Indo-European and Dravidian speakers? Also, shouldn’t there be genetic markers which show Central Asian incursion into India around the 1500 – 1200 B.C.E time frame? In fact some genetic studies have shown relatively small genetic distance between Indians and West Eurasians and this has been used as proof of Aryan migration, but recent studies tell a different story.

Continue reading “The Genetic Distance between Karunanidhi and Mallika Sherawat” →

Lessons from the Renaissance

In 1503, the much awaited clash of the titans was to take place in the Salone dei Cinquecento, the imposing chamber of Palazzo Vecchio in Italy. Piero Soderini, an Italian statesman commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint Battle of Anghiari on one wall and Michelangelo Buonarotti, the Battle of Cascina, in the opposite wall. Even though the artists were contemporaries, they had never competed directly before. Both of them lived in Florence and had a strong dislike for each other and thus this contest was eagerly awaited for the people expected this contest would push each artist to produce his best.

They worked on the initial drawings, but both did not complete the task. Leonardo was known for not completing most of his projects and he turned his attention elsewhere. Pope Julius II summoned Michelangelo to Rome for an even more prestigious project – to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Thanks to the work of artists like Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Giotto, Brunellesci, Donatello, and Rapahel and writers like Erasmus, Francois Rabelais, and Shakespeare, there was a resurgence in art, philosophy and literature from the late 13th century, which we know as Renaissance.

Renaissance fostered an atmosphere in which value was placed on human excellence, demonstrated with real examples that have set the standards for the modern age. While sitting through a lecture on Renaissance, the question in my mind was: Are there lessons we can learn from the 14th century Italians? Can we also achieve that level of greatness?

Continue reading “Lessons from the Renaissance” →

The Historical Rama

A Thai depiction of Rama-Ravana battle

Lazarus was a man who lived in the town of Bethany near Jerusalem. When he was ill, his sisters called for Jesus, but by the time Jesus reached, Lazarus was dead. In the presence of the mourners, Jesus had the stone of the tomb rolled away and called for Lazarus and he got up and walked in his grave clothes. Besides this story, the gospels contain other miracles attributed to Jesus like walking on water, converting water to wine and feeding a large crowd with a few loaves of bread and fish.

The historians of the 1^st century wrote nothing about Jesus and so modern day scholars have to rely on the gospels, which contain stories like these to find out details of the historical Jesus. Instead of dismissing the story of Jesus as a myth, biblical scholars look for places mentioned in the gospels, conduct archaeology and try to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus.

All epics have a seed story which then gets layered with exaggeration, poetic imagination and addition by later scribes. Mahābhārata started out with the name Jaya with just 8800 verses by Vyasa. It increased to 24,000 verses when it was recited by Vaisampayana and it reached the size of 100,000 verses when it was recited by Ugrasravas, the son of Lomaharsha. Theravada Buddhists have a version of Ramayana in the Jatakas which does not have the abduction of Sita. While Biblical scholars affiliated with prestigious universities in the west look at texts, they know that the texts contain theology and modifications, but still try to find out their historical basis. No such work was done by the ASI or the Central Government.

In Stanford University, there is a course called The Historical Jesus, which attempts to disconnect Jesus Christ from Yeshua, which was his actual name. (Christ just means the anointed one, like how Buddha means the awakened one). There are many Biblical scholars who look at the scriptures from a historical perspective without getting into theology. Biblical archaeology has led to the discovery of structures like the Pool of Siloam, Second Temple, Shechem temple, Jericho’s walls and artifacts like Ebla cuneiform archives, Arad ostraca, and Caiaphas family ossuaries. If the story of Jesus was dismissed as a myth, none of this would have happened.

When it comes to providing support for such research, the Archaeological Survey of India does not have a good track record. Few years back, there was an effort initiated by Jagmohan to conduct archaeology along the path of Saraswati river. The excavations at Adi Badri in Haryana revealed a 300 AD Kushan site. Excavations in Dholavira in Kutch revealed one the world’s oldest stadiums and sign boards. These excavations would have revealed more about our past, and answered questions like: Were the Harappans the Vedic people, but the project was scrapped. While there have been some excavations in Hastinapur and Kurukshetra, archaeology related to Ramayana is non existent.

While the Government is sure that Rama did not exist, historians disagree. A. L. Basham writes that Rama may have been a chief who lived in the 8th or 7th century BCE who did not have any divine attributes. He goes on to write that Rama and Dasaratha were insignificant chieftains, who were ignored by the Puranas, but whose exploits were remembered, elaborated and magnified by by bards. Rama’s father-in-law, Janaka of Videha, is mentioned a few times in literature and Basham says, is definitely a historical figure. Romila Thapar, our favourite eminent historian and disciple of Basham, says that the original version of Ramayana was an exaggerated version of local conflicts occuring between the expanding kingdoms of the Gangetic plain and the societies of the Vindhyan region.

The ASI has ignored the work of historians and have not tried to find the details of the local conflicts which resulted in Ramayana. They have not analyzed Ramayana from a historical perspective like the Biblical scholars and they have not conducted archaeology related to Rama, but still have concluded with confidence that Rama was not a historical figure.

Tags: ASI, Ancient History, Ramayana, Indian History