Aryans, India, Vedas

 

 

ईरान और भारत 

ईरान से हमारा पहला परिचय 516 ईसा पूर्व में हुआ जब डेरियस प्रथम का भारत पर आक्रमण होता है। साम्राज्य विस्तार और लूटपाट की नीयत के साथ किये गए इस आक्रमण के समय उसने पश्चिमोत्तर भारत के नगरों को ध्वस्त कर दिया। पंजाब और सिंध के हिस्से उसके कब्जे में आये और भारत ने पहली बार गुलामी का स्वाद चखा था। फिर सीधे सन 1739 में, जब दिल्ली में घुसा ईरानी नादिरशाह! जिसने मुगल बादशाह मोहम्मद शाह रंगीला पटक दिया। दिल्ली को लूटने से पहले कत्लेआम का हुक्म दिया। हजारों में हिन्नू मुसलमान दोनों मारे गए! एक दम सर्व धर्म समभाव वाला मामला. ईरान से मिले कुछ शब्द- 'दर्द', 'लाश', 'सरकार', 'बेरोजगार', 'बेईमान' आदि। आठवीं सदी मध्य में सौ दो सौ ईरानी परिवार भाग कर भारत आये, हमने उन्हें बसने के लिए अपना दिल दिया। अतिप्राचीन मानी जाने वाली दो श्रुत रचनाएँ यथा-ऋग्वेद और अवेस्ता की समानता से की जा सकती है जिससे ईरानी और भारतीय एक ही मूल के साबित हो जायेंगे। 1400 ई0 पू0 के बोगेजकोइ शिलालेखों में हिट्टाटाइट राजा और मितन्नी के राजा के संधियों के रक्षा के लिए कुछ देवताओं को साक्षी माना गया है जो वैदिक देवताओं के अनुरूप हैं: मित्र, वरुण, इंद्र और नास्तय। यह तुर्की और ईरानी क्षेत्रों की बात है। ठीक इसी तरह अरब तैल-एल-अमर्रना में मिट्टी के टैबलेट्स पर भी लिखा मिलता है। 700 ई0 पू0 असीरिया में 'अस्सर-मजस' देवता का नाम मिलता है जो अवेस्तिक 'अहुर' से अधिक संस्कृत के 'असुर' के निकट है। ये सब प्राचीन इराक और ईरान क्षेत्रों से ही सम्बंधित हैं। कुछ बातें और पहले की भी हैं जैसे सिंधु घाटी, मेसोपोटामिया और ईरान के जेग्रोस घाटी से। 3000 ईसा पूर्व में सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता (हड़प्पा) और फारस (ईलाम) के बीच व्यापारिक रिश्ते थे। डीएनए सबूत बताते हैं कि ईरान के जेग्रोस घाटी के लोगों के साथ मिलकर हमारे पुरखों ने हड़प्पा जैसी तत्कालीन उत्कृष्ट सभ्यता को विकसित किया। छठी शताब्दी ई0 पू0 में ईरान के हखमानी शासकों ने पश्चिमोत्तर भारत के छोटे-छोटे राज्यों के आपसी फूट का फायदा उठाते हुए सम्राट दारयवहु(डेरियस) के समय 516 ई0 पू0 के आसपास पंजाब और सिंध को जीतकर अपने साम्राज्य का बीसवाँ प्रान्त बना लिया था। इन्हीं प्राचीन ईरानी लेखों में सिंध को 'हिन्द' नाम दिया गया है। यहाँ से भारतीय सैनिकों की भर्ती ईरानी फौज में हुई जिन्होंने डेरियस के उत्तराधिकारी क्षायर्ष(जरसिस) की ओर से यूनानियों से युद्ध किया था। तत्कालीन पश्चिमोंत्तर भारतीय क्षेत्र में खूब मारकाट हुआ और हम गुलाम भी बने पर भारत और ईरान का यह सम्पर्क लगभग दो सौ सालों तक बना रहा। इससे दोनों देशों के बीच व्यापारिक सम्बंध प्रगाढ़ हुए। इनमें सांस्कृतिक आदान-प्रदान भी हुआ, ईरानी लेखक एक नई लिपि लेकर आए जो 'खरोष्ठी लिपि' के नाम से प्रसिद्ध हुआ। पश्चिमोत्तर भारत से मिलने वाले अशोक के कुछ अभिलेख इसी लिपि में हैं जो पहली शताब्दी बाद के शासकों के अभिलेखों में भी प्रचलन में रहे। कई विद्वान मौर्य राजकीय कला पर भी ईरानी प्रभाव का उल्लेख करते हैं। इनके अनुसार अशोक के राजकीय आदेशों की प्रस्तावना और उसमें लिखे जाने वाले शब्दों में भी ईरानी प्रभाव देखा जा सकता है। मौर्य काल में बौद्ध धर्म ईरान तक पहुँचा। अशोक के शिलालेखों में इसका सबूत हैं। ईस्वी शताब्दी से कई सदियों तक 'रेशम मार्ग' से मध्य एशिया, ईरान के साथ हमारा व्यापारिक सम्बन्ध बना रहा। फिर तीसरी सदी में ईरानी सासानी शासक भारत पर आक्रमण किये और यहाँ के कुषाण शासन को नेस्तनाबूत कर दिया, लोकल राजाओं ने जल्द ही उन्हें बाहर कर दिया पर कई सांस्कृतिक सम्बन्ध फिर से बने। इन्हीं ससानी शिलालेखों में ही हमारे देश का पहली बार नाम लिखा मिलता है- "हिंदुस्तान"। मध्यकाल में तुर्क आक्रमणकारीयों के साथ कुछ ईरानी भी आये जिनमें कुछ लड़ाकों और ख़्वाजा मुईनीद्दीन चिश्ती का नाम प्रमुख है। भारत में मुस्लिम शासन के समय ईरानी/फ़ारसी भाषा और नौरोज जैसे त्यौहारों के साथ फ़ारसी वास्तुकला भी आया जिसमें "ताजमहल" बना। तैमूरलंग का खौफ़नाक आक्रमण भी ईरान के साथ जुड़ा है क्योंकि ईरान उसके साम्राज्य का अंग था। बाकी ईरानी शासक नादिरशाह का कत्लेआम और लूटपाट का उल्लेख किया ही जा चुका है, आप उसमें अहमदशाह अब्दाली को भी जोड़ लीजिये जिसके कारण मराठों का सम्पूर्ण भारत पर राज करने का सपना टूट गया। 

मितानी इनस्क्रिप्शन पढ़ लो . इंद्र नहीं इनतार है. मित्र नहीं मीत इतर है. वरुण नहीं अरुण है. ऋग्वेद 12- 15 वी सदी की रचना है. जिसमें बुध, स्तूप, कवि जैसे बहुत बाद के शब्द मिलते है.

संस्कृत और फ़ारसी के बहुत से शब्द मिलते जुलते हैं। 

---------------------------------------------------- 

इतिहास में असुर का महत्त्व - संस्कृत भाषा में देव शब्द देवता के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है। देव शब्द का अर्थ होता है उत्तम (दिव्य गुण युक्त)। इसी प्रकार असुर का अर्थ होता है दानव या दैत्य। इस प्रकार हम देखते हैं कि देव शब्द का अर्थ उत्तम, अच्छे रूप में और असुर बुरे अर्थों में प्रयुक्त होता है। इसके विपरीत प्राचीन ग्रन्थ अवेस्ता में असुर शब्द अच्छे अर्थों में और देव शब्द घृणित अर्थों में इस्तेमाल किया गया है। प्राचीन ईरानी आर्य असुर के उपासक । वह लोग अपने प्रधान-देवता (उपास्य देव) अहुरमज्द (असुर महत) की पूजा किया करते थे। असुर का अर्थ होता है-'प्रतापशाली'। प्राचीन आर्यजन भी काफी समय पहले असुर को पूज्यनीय मानते थे। इसका सीधा-सा अर्थ निकलता है कि आर्यों में धार्मिक मतभेद उत्पन्न हो गए थे। आर्यों का एक वर्ग देवों की आराधना करता था तो दूसरा वर्ग असुर की।अवेस्ता के अनुशीलन से ज्ञात होता है कि मित्र, वरुण, अग्नि, अश्विनी कुमार की आराधना ईरानी आर्य करते थे। पर इन्द्र की आराधना वे लोग नहीं करते थे। इन्द्र को वे उपास्य नहीं मानते थे। दूसरी तरफ वेदों में इंद्र प्रमुख देवता हैं। (भूषण गिरि गोस्वामी,वैदिक कालीन सभ्यता एवं सांस्कृति,पृष्ठ 35)

ऋग्वेद में उल्लेखित एक लघु युद्ध का विवरण इस प्रकार देखा जा सकता है-वृत्र को मारने वाले संग्राम में आपने बलवर्द्धक सोमरस का पान करके आनन्द एवं उत्साह से याजकों के निमित्त दस हजार असुरों का संहार किया। (ऋग्वेद, 1-53-6 ) इसी प्रकार अनेक बड़े युद्धों की झलक एवं जनसंहार का उल्लेख भी ऋग्वेद में अनेक स्थलों पर मिलता है जैसे-सुभ्रवस, राजा के सामने खड़े हुए बीस राजाओं और उनके साठ हजार निन्यानवे सैनिकों को व्यूह रचना या गतिशीलता से मार डाला। (ऋग्वेद, 1-53-9 ) इस प्रकार हम पाते हैं कि आर्यों की एक नहीं बल्कि सैकड़ों की संख्या में शाखाएँ पूर्व की ओर समय-समय पर प्रविष्ट हुई थीं और प्रविष्ट करते समय इन आर्यों को अपने जात-बन्धुओं के साथ-साथ आर्य भिन्न जातियों से भी युद्ध करने पड़ते थे। आर्य लोग इस क्षेत्र में पहले से स्थापित बसी हुई सभ्यताओं से युद्ध में रत रहते और समाजीकरण की प्रक्रिया अपनाते हुए उनके साथ पूर्वी क्षेत्रों की ओर अग्रसर हो रहे थे। ये आर्य-भिन्न लोग कौन थे ? ये वही लोग थे जिन्हें हम सिन्धु घाटी के लोगों के नाम से जानते आए हैं। वेदों में इन्हें 'दस्यु' कहा गया है। ये 'असुर' भी कहे जाते थे क्योंकि ये यज्ञ इत्यादि कर्मों को नहीं करते थे। वैदिक सूक्तों से यह भी ज्ञात होता है कि ये 'दस्यु' लोग कृष्ण-वर्ण के थे और आर्यों से नितान्त भिन्न थे। इनकी नाक भी आर्यों की नाकों की अपेक्षा छोटी होती थी। इसलिए आर्य इन्हें 'अनास' (नासिकाहीन) भी कहते थे। पर ये लोग अच्छे पुरों में निवास करते थे। ये पुर और कुछ नहीं इन लोगों के पक्के ईंटों के बने घर और नगर थे जिन्हें पत्थर के समान मजबूत होने के कारण इन 'ईंटों' को भी आर्य पाषाण निर्मित कहते थे। ऋग्वेद में उल्लेख मिलता है-पुरुकुत्स के लिए युद्ध करते हुए सात नगरों को तोड़ा। (ऋग्वेद, 1-63-7) (भूषण गिरी गोस्वामी,वैदिक कालीन सभ्यता एवं संस्कृति,पृष्ठ ६८) 

------------------------------------------------- 

जैन और बौद्ध 

जैनों के पहले तीर्थंकर थे ऋषभदेव। जैन वेद को नहीं मानते हैं। मूर्तिपूजा और यज्ञ को भी नहीं मानते। परमात्मा को भी नहीं मानते। मूलतः जैन व्यक्तिवादी होते हैं। लेकिन ऋग्वेद में ऋषभ देव उपस्थित हैं और बड़े सम्मान के साथ उनकी उपस्थिति है। परंपरा और क्रांति हमेशा पैरलल चलती है।  एक तरफ सनातन धर्म तो दूसरी तरफ उसकी विसंगतियों के विरोध में जैन धर्म। सम्भव है आज हम जिस जैन धर्म को जानते हैं जरूरी नहीं कि वैसा ही ऋषभदेव का रहा हो या पार्श्वनाथ का रहा हो या नेमीनाथ का रहा हो। आज का जैन-धर्म और उसकी सारी बनावट महावीर की दी हुई है। जो धर्म कभी क्रांति थी आज वह परंपरा है। बौद्ध धर्म भी क्रांति थी। जब बौद्धों पर हमला शुरू हुआ तो पल्लव राजवंश के एक बीस वर्ष के राजकुमार बोधिधर्मन ने चीन, जापान और कोरिया में बौद्ध धर्म का विस्तार किया। 520-526 ई० में चीन जाकर उन्होंने चीन में ध्यान संप्रदाय की नींव रखी थी जिसे च्यान या झेन कहा गया। वैसे उनके कई और योगदान हैं जो बुद्ध से अलग हैं। हिंसा का जवाब देने के लिए उन्होंने मार्शल आर्ट विकसित किया। इसके अलावा आयुर्वेद और सम्मोहन विद्या में भी उन्होंने अपने फॉलोवर्स को ट्रेंड किया। लो प्रोफाइल रखते हुए चीन के गाँव गाँव घूम कर उन्होंने बौद्ध धर्म का विस्तार किया था। अब लेकिन बौद्ध धर्म भी परंपरा में कन्वर्ट हो गया। बुद्ध कहते थे मेरी मूर्तियाँ मत बनाना। बौद्धों ने दुनिया भर में कोई पहाड़ कोई कंदरा बाकी नहीं छोड़ा। हर जगह बुद्ध खड़े बैठे लेटे मिलेंगे। उधर चीनियों ने अपना नया बुद्ध तैयार कर लिया लाफिंग बुद्धा के नाम से।  इससे दो निष्कर्ष मिलते हैं। एक तो जैन और बौद्ध धर्म, सनातन धर्म का ब्रांच नहीं है जैसा कि अक्सर कहा जाता है। बुद्ध और महावीर सनातन धर्म के खिलाफ क्रांति थे। दूसरी और सबसे महत्त्वपूर्ण बात कि वैदिक युग तक आर्यावर्त में अपने विरोधियों को भी सम्मान दिए जाने का सलीका था।ऋषभदेव और अरिष्टनेमि जो 22 वें तीर्थंकर थे ,उदाहरण हैं। उसके बाद देखें तो चीन में बौद्ध धर्म को आसरा मिलता है। वहीं बौद्ध धर्म फलता फूलता है। जाहिर है परिवेश और परिस्थिति के अनुसार बोधिधर्मन जैसे लोगों के माध्यम से ये खुद को परिष्कृत भी कर रहा था। जिस विलुप्त हुई ध्यान की पद्धति विपश्यना को बुद्ध ने पुनर्स्थापित कर इसे सर्वसुलभ बनाया, बोधिधर्मन जैसे लोग इस पद्धति से आगे भी गए और ध्यान की कुछ और छोटी छोटी पद्धतियां भी विकसित की। इतना तो तय है कि तब की चीन की सभ्यता इतनी समझदार थी कि छिटपुट विरोध के बावजूद भी एकदम नई और अनजान दुनिया को सम्मान दे सके। दरअसल कोई भी सभ्यता बनती है सभ्य मनुष्यों से। सभ्यता का मतलब ही है सभ्य मनुष्यों का समूह। दुनिया जब तक समझदार होती है तब तक अपने विरोधियों को भी कायदे से परिभाषित करती है, आसरा देती है। विरोध की चुनौती को स्वीकार करना और उस चुनौती के आधार पर ही खुद का परिष्कार करना ही सभ्य होना है।
 

----------------------------------------------

एक प्रोटो इंडो यूरोपियन भाषा होती थी जिससे भारत, ईरान और यूरोप की भाषाओं का विकास हुआ है। इसमें एक शब्द था h2nḗr. इसका उच्चारण "नेर" या "ह्नेर" की तरह होता था। ऐसा भाषाविदों मा मानना है। ज़ाशा और साशा के नामों का अर्थ पूछा जाता है। जोकि मानवता का रक्षक है। ज़ाशा और साशा दोनों ही रूसी में अलेग्जेंडर का छोटा यानी निकनेम हैं। अलेग्जेंडर शब्द प्राचीन ग्रीक के अलेग्जेंड्रोस से रूपांत्रित है। अलेक्स यानी रक्षक और एंड्रोस यानी आदमी। एंड्रोस शब्द का मूल है अनेर यानी आदमी या पति। अनेर का मूल है प्रोटो इंडो यूरोपियन भाषा का h2nḗr या ह्नेर। इसी से वैदिक का "नर" शब्द निकला है। जो आज भी साधारणतया मानव के लिये और विशेषतया पुरुष के लिये इस्तेमाल किया जाता है। नर से नृप यानी नरों का स्वामी यानी राजा।  प्राचीन प्रशियन में भी नर शब्द ही प्रचलित था।  एडिट : लेटिन में पुरुष के लिये मुख्यतः "विर" शब्द प्रचलित था। इसी से virility शब्द निकला है जिसका अर्थ है वीरता या पौरुष। या virtue यानी नैतिक बल। संस्कृत, हिन्दी या अन्य कुछ भारतीय भाषाओं में "वीर" शब्द होता है जो बहादुर पुरुष के लिये इस्तेमाल होता है। खैर यह अलग दिशा हो जाएगी। (पहले "नीरो" लिखा था लेकिन फिर पता चला कि यह सही भी हो सकता है और गलत भी तो पक्का नहीं था। इसलिये एडिट कर दिया।) एंड्रोस से आगे विकसित हुआ एंथ्रो। एंथ्रोपोलॉजी यानी मानवजाति का अध्ययन। हिन्दी में नृविज्ञान। हममें से अधिकतर लोग एंड्रॉइड फोन प्रयोग करते हैं। एंड्रॉइड का अर्थ होता है आदमी के जैसा यानी इंसान जैसा एक रोबोट।  शब्द मिलते ही जायेंगे। भाषाएं विकसित होती रही हैं और आगे भी होती रहेंगी। भाषाओं की ही नहीं बल्कि खुद इंसानों की वंशावली भी किसी कॉमन पूर्वज से जुड़ी है।  

----------------------------------------------------

DNA

अब अगर कोई व्यक्ति Y DNA हैपलोग्रुप R1a का है, तो इसका मतलब है कि उसके पितृवंश का उद्गम किन्हीं यूरोपीय या मध्य एशियाई क्षेत्रों से जुड़ा है। यह वही जीन है जो प्राचीन आरण्यक या आर्यों से जुड़ा माना जाता है। इसे स्टेपी जीन भी कहा जाता है। यह हैपलोग्रुप भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप, मध्य एशिया और यूरोप की आबादियों में पाया जाता है। इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि इन जगहों की आबादियों के कोई साझा पूर्वज एक ही जगह रहा करते थे। यह हैपलोग्रुप खासतौर से उत्तर भारत, पाकिस्तान, अफगानिस्तान, मध्य एशिया और पूर्वी यूरोप में पाया जाता है। भारत में विशेषतः उच्च जातियों जैसे ब्राह्मणों, क्षत्रियों, जाटों व उत्तर भारत की कुछ अन्य जातियों में इसकी उपस्थिति बहुत अधिक है, जो एक विशिष्ट पितृवंशीय विरासत की दिशा में संकेत करता है। जब हम उपमहाद्वीप की महिलाओं के mtDNA यानी मातृवंश का जिनेटिक अध्ययन करते हैं तो हमें पता चलता है कि दक्षिण एशिया की अधिकतर महिलाएँ यहाँ की पुरानी यानी आर्यों के आगमन से पहले वाली आबादियों से संबंधित हैं। लगभग 2000 से 1500 ईस्वी पूर्व के बीच, मध्य एशिया की स्टेपी क्षेत्र से एक पुरुष प्रधान प्रवासी समूह भारत में आया था। ये लोग पशुपालक और घुड़सवारी में निपुण योद्धा समुदाय थे। ये घोड़ों की मदद से तीव्रता से स्थानांतरित होते और अपने साथ एक नई भाषा, संस्कृति और जीवनशैली लेकर चलते थे। इनकी उपस्थिति के सबसे पहले प्रमाण अफगानिस्तान और फिर सिंधु घाटी के उत्तर पश्चिमी भागों में मिलते हैं। धीरे धीरे इनका विस्तार पंजाब, हरियाणा, गंगा यमुना के दोआब और फिर समूचे उत्तर भारत यानी मगध और बंगाल तक हुआ। 6वीं सदी ईस्वी पूर्व तक इन्होंने समूचे उत्तर पश्चिमी, उत्तर व मध्य भारत में जनपदों का निर्माण कर लिया था। इस दौरान इन प्रवासियों का स्थानीय महिलाओं से व्यापक पैमाने पर मिश्रण हुआ। जहाँ Y क्रोमोज़ोम के अध्ययन से स्पष्ट होता है कि पुरुष वंश में इस बाहरी जनसंख्या का महत्वपूर्ण योगदान है, वहीं दूसरी तरफ mtDNA का अध्ययन बताता है कि यहाँ के मातृवंश में भारत की पुरानी आबादी का अंश है। इससे स्पष्ट होता है कि आर्यों यह प्रवास पूरी तरह से सामूहिक न होकर ज्यादातर पुरुषों द्वारा किया गया था, जिन्होंने स्थानीय महिलाओं से विवाह या बलपूर्वक सम्बन्ध स्थापित किए। यही कारण है कि भारतीय डीएनए में पितृवंश में R1a जैसे विदेशी हैपलोग्रुप उच्च जातियों में प्रमुखता से मिलते हैं जबकि मातृवंशीय mtDNA अधिकतर स्थानीय रहता है।

वैदिक साहित्य, खासतौर पर ऋग्वेद और यजुर्वेद, मुख्यतः पितृसत्ताक सामाजिक व्यवस्था को दर्शाता है। इस युग में स्त्रियों की भूमिका सीमित थी, वे यज्ञों में भाग नहीं ले सकती थीं, वे शूद्रों की तरह उपनयन संस्कार से वंचित थीं। अवेस्ता, जो कि पारसी धर्मग्रंथ है और वैदिक संस्कृति की चचेरी बहन कही जा सकती है, भी एक योद्धा व पितृसत्तात्मक समाज का चित्रण करती है। बौद्ध और जैन ग्रंथों में भी स्त्रियों की दयनीय दशा मिलती है। इन धर्मों में भी उनके लिए कठोर नियम और उन्हें उपेक्षित मानने की प्रवृत्ति दिखाई देती है। इससे पता चलता है कि समय के साथ समाज में पुरुष वर्चस्व धीरे धीरे गहराता गया और महिलाओं की सामाजिक भूमिका और अधिकार कम होते होते लगभग नगण्य हो गये। राम शरण शर्मा, रोमिला थापर और सुवीरा जैसवाल आदि इतिहासकारों का मानना है कि जैसे जैसे उत्पादन के साधनों पर कुछ समूहों का नियंत्रण बढ़ा, वैसे वैसे समाज में वर्गों का निर्माण हुआ। इस प्रक्रिया के साथ पितृसत्ता भी संस्थागत रूप लेती गई। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि शुरू में वर्ण व्यवस्था लचीली थी, लेकिन कालांतर में यह कठोर जाति व्यवस्था में बदल गई। इस व्यवस्था ने उच्च वर्णों के लिए विशेषाधिकार सुरक्षित कर दिए और महिलाओं तथा शूद्रों को पूरी तरह से अमानवीय अवस्था में धकेल दिया। राम शरण शर्मा के अनुसार गुप्तकाल आते आते ब्राह्मणवादी पितृसत्ताक व्यवस्था द्वारा स्त्रियों को शिक्षा और संपत्ति से वंचित कर दिया गया था। सुवीरा जैसवाल के अनुसार पितृसत्ता का संबंध न केवल लिंग से था बल्कि उत्पादन के नियंत्रण और संपत्ति के उत्तराधिकार से भी था।

 

-------------------------------------------------

Dravidian iron for the Aryan horse

Colonial historians argued the ‘Aryan invasion theory’ that light-skinned chariot-riding people destroyed Harappan cities, conquered India, enslaved local dark-skinned people and created the caste system. To counter this, there was the ‘out of India’ theory popularised by many Brahmins, that Harappa was Vedic, that Aryans were originally India who migrated out of India, taking civilization to the world. Both were wrong. Neither explained what motivated these Aryans to move in, or out, of India. Now it seems increasingly clear that Aryans came for (newly smelted) iron, and they offered (newly domesticated) horses in exchange. Aryans were neither invaders nor migrants: they were traders. And like many merchants and sailors, they had local wives, which accounts for the spread of their genes (R1a-Z93), language (proto-Sanskrit) and patriarchal culture in India.

In Hindu myth, the horse-headed Vishnu rescued the Vedas and gave it to Brahma for safe-keeping. For over 3,000 years, Brahmins of India have therefore meticulously transmitted the Vedic songs containing some of the oldest descriptions of horses, chariots and composite bows in the world (Rig Veda 1.163.10 and 6.75.2). The Brahmins saw these Vedic hymns as timeless (sanatan), not of human origin (a-paurusheya). Today, thanks to ancient DNA analysis, archaeology and linguistics, we know that is not true.

Horses, originally bred for meat and milk, were fully domesticated only 4,000 years ago, around 2000 BC, in the region north of the Black and the Caucasian sea, west of the Ural mountains. The early horses were too small for adult humans to ride. This led to the invention of the earliest spoked-wheel chariots, light enough to be pulled by horses. They have been found in burial sites in Southern Russia, at Sintashta, east of the Ural mountains, also dated to 2000 BC. Composite bows (made of wood, bow and sinew) were invented around the same time, at the same place. This new military technology (horse, chariot, bow) spread to Egypt (indicated by wall art) in the east, Scandinavia (indicated by bronze statues) in the north and China (indicated in burial sites) and India (expressed in Vedic poetry) in the east by 1500 BC. With the horse-breeders, spread a new language Proto-Indo-European (PIE).

The eastern migration saw the spread of a gene variant found only in Steppe pastoral men, present in Y-chromosome, identified as R1a-Z93. It is currently seen across Central Asia, Iran and amongst all Brahmins of India. Those with this gene have another mutation that enables adults to digest milk. North Indians can digest milk easily. South Indians prefer curd. The men who came bearing these genes referred to themselves as Arya or noble (this term was appropriated by racist Europeans causing much academic confusion). Rig Vedic verse (Mandala 4, Sukta 24) refers to bargaining a fair price. These traders would have had to repeatedly return to Central Asia to fetch more horses as horses do not breed in India. The monsoon climate is not conducive to horse breeding. So Aryans were neither invaders, nor migrants. They were traders, probably with wives on either side of the mountain trade route. The mothers gave their children voiced aspirated consonants (gh, jh, h, dh, bh) and retroflex consonants (t, d, n, s). The spoked-wheel chariot pulled by horses could carry two men: a driver and an archer. This image is immortalised in the Bhagavad Gita, with Krishna holding the reins of four white horses, and Arjuna holding his mighty bow, the Gandiva. Both riders blow conch-shells. The Rig Veda does not mention this conch-shell; the Atharva Veda does. They are only found off the Gujarat coast, in the Indian ocean.

Recent excavations in Keeladi, Tamil Nadu, are drawing attention to iron smelting technology that was invented in India, in regions associated with Dravidian and Munda languages. This requires very high temperatures. Sites in Deccan have ash-mounds indicating a long-standing enquiry into fire-technology. Along with Anatolia (modern Turkey) and Africa (Bantu people), India seems to be another site where iron was first extracted. This could be a good reason why Aryans came to India from the Oxus river basin through treacherous mountain passes (not flat enough for wheeled wagons).Horse breeding in India came very late, after 1400 AD, in parts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Maharashtra. So for nearly 3,000 years, every year, horse breeders would bring their horses from Central Asia for local Indian kings, who would use the horse in war, to conquer new lands, and even slaughter them as part of land acquisition ceremonies (Ashwamedha). Traders had no reason to ‘invade’ or ‘migrate’ to India. They had to go back to fetch more horses from Central Asia where horse breeding was easy.

---------------------------------------------------------- 

Tony Joseph ने "Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From नामक एक किताब लिखी है.

● पूरी दुनिया का डीएनए अफ्रीकन है. भारत मे भी अफ्रीकन डायरेक्ट या इनडाइरेक्ट रूप से आये.
● भारत मूल आर्य हिन्दू देश नही है. 1 लाख साल पहले Ape जैसे Proto Humans यानी बंदर रहते थे.
● भारत मे पहला उन्नत इंसान 65000 साल पहले अफ्रीका से आया और बंदरो को हरा कर रहने लगा.
● 7000 साल पहले ईरान के ज़रगोस पहाड़ो से अफ्रीकन इंसान का एक ग्रुप भारत आया. इन्होंने हड़प्पा सभ्यता बनाई.
● इन्होंने द्रविड़ भाषा, खेती, शहर वगैरह बनाये. ये सभ्यता 1 मिलियन Sq Km यानी वर्तमान भारत के 1/3rd में फैली हुई थी.
● 2000 BC से 1000 BC तक सेंट्रल एशिया से लोग आए. ये यूरोप और मंगोल का मिश्रण थे. पर डायरेक्ट अफ्रीकन नही थे.
● संस्कृत, वेद और उत्तर भारत इन्ही लोगो ने बनाया. ये लोग दक्षिण से दूर रहे.
● बाद में Austro Asiatic ग्रुप, शक, हुन, तिब्बत और बर्मीज भी आये. अंत मे उज़बेक आये जिन्हें हम मुगल कहते है.
● सारी हिन्दू कास्ट, दलित और ट्राइबल का जीन अफ्रीकन, हरप्पन और Steppe जीन का मिश्रण है. जीवाश्मो द्वारा 1 लाख सालो की डीएनए रिपोर्ट बनाई गई है.
● Toney Joseph लिखते है कि भारत एक पिज़्ज़ा है - अफ्रीका ब्रेड है, सॉस ईरान है और टॉपिंग्स Asian Steppes और पूरी दुनिया.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 

35,000 BC – 15,000 BC: Early human arrival in India
15,000 BC: Rural culture and hunter gatherer societies
9,000 BC: Beginning of farming in the Indian subcontinent
8,000 BC: People began living in groups and forming early communities
7,000 BC: Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) began to develop
5,000 BC: Urban culture emerged in the IVC
3,000 BC: Indus Valley Civilization reached its peak
2,000 BC: Gradual decline of the Indus Valley Civilization
1,500 BC: Arrival of the Indo-Aryans 
1,200 BC: Battle of Sudas vs. the Ten Kings 
1,000 BC: Development of early Hinduism and Vedic traditions

--------------------------------------------------------------- 

First humans came to India from Africa 100,000 years ago but they died. Next humans who came to India from Africa 50,000 years ago and they survived. They were foragers and hunters. They domesticated bull (with hump) and buffalo. They painted in cave walls of India. They buried dead. Then came Iranian framers to India came from West of Hindu Kush 10,000 years ago via coast and introduced farming of wheat and millet. They married local women. Their children established cities of Indus valley 4500 years ago (when Egypt was also building pyramids). They traded with Arabia. The cities stopped growing 4000 years ago. Mundas came from Southeast Asia to India via East 3500 years ago. They brought (wet, not dry) rice cultivation. They married local women and their descendents are found in East India. Magadhi languages are linked to these people maybe. Aryas came to North India from West (via Hindu Kush) 3500 years ago - they came with horses, and chariots. This was a new military invention. Horses were domesticated and chariots invented 4000 years ago in Russia. Aryas married local women who were daughters of iron smelters. They moved via Punjab and Haryana to Uttarkhand Terai to Ganga river basin. They established farms. They formed the solar and lunar dynasties of North India. Brahmins came from this group. Brahmins migrated to South India (Crossing Vindhya) 2000 years ago. They followed path of Buddhists and Jains. They married local women of South. Our scriptures tell us how Parashuram and Agastya came south. Muslims came to India along coast and via mountains 1000 years ago. They came riding horses. They brought paper, pen and later gunpowder. They also married local women. Tai people came to Assam Brahmaputra valley from Vietnam and Khasi people speak language of Khmer people (of Cambodia). They came 800 years ago. They also eventually married local women. People only speak of men who immigrated and invaded. They forget the local women, who have been wearing bangles for 5000 years. 

People from rich river valleys never migrate out but people from dry desert mountains migrate. India has 7 rich river valleys. Muslims came from dry barren lands. Brahmins migrated from river valley to river valley. River valley people rarely migrate. Chinese never migrated. Mespotamians never migrated. Influx never efflux. Migration is post-industrial for better jobs.

The Agastya Brahmins came to South India only after 500 AD. The first mention of "Kaliyuga" comes from a Brahmin land grant made by Pallava king of Godavari delta (Pikira inscription). They slowly kicked out Buddhists and Jains and in Chola times declared Cholas to be Surya-Vamsa. People wil never whisper about ancient Brahmin migration after getting Vindhyas to "bow". They will only speak of how Agastya came with mountains, rivers and even grammar to "civilise" the south, but never the reality of Brahmin land-grab and brainwashing. 

----------------------------------------------------------

One way to understand the population structure of today's India [really South Asia] is to think of it as a pizza, with the First Indians forming its base. Some parts of the pizza are thin crust, some parts thick crust, but all parts need to have the base – the pizza doesn't exist without it. Then comes the sauce that is spread all over the pizza. And then the cheese and the toppings – the people who came into the subcontinent later, at various periods. The cheese and the toppings are not uniform across the different slices. Some slices have an extra topping of tomato, some have more capsicum and others a lot of mushroom. The sauce, the cheese or the toppings that you find on this Indian pizza are not unique; these are found in other parts of the world too – some in West Asia, some in Southeast Asia and some in Europe and Central Asia. But the base of the pizza is unique to India – you will not find another one like it anywhere else in the world. And neither will you find a pizza with this level of diversity in any place other than Africa.

If the archaeological evidence was a bit light and theoretical (Mehrgarh as prime example of initial movement from Zagros Mountains of agriculturalists and practices between 7000 and 3000 BCE into the subcontinent), the linguistic story much stronger (Sanskrit's Indo-Aryan roots from Central Asian migrations between 2000 and 1000 BCE). The origin of Dravidian languages in the Iranian plateau does not mean that the genes of those speaker predominate in areas where Dravidian is spoken today (as the use of English in the region today may not involve but a wisp of European DNA). 

First Indian population who came out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago, the agriculturalist move into Balochistan (and perhaps elsewhere) that likely helped spark the Indus civilization, and the Aryan migration that followed on the heels of the Indus civilization's decline. Andaman Islanders or the migration into India of smaller populations from Southeast Asia and China into the eastern subcontinent and Myanmar – it was not a continuous western movement, people actually moved into eastern India from China and Southeast Asia (things changed later when Indian religions and cultural practices moved further westward and northward all the way to Indonesia and China). 

Myths like an out-of-India movement of languages and people by using the Romani (gypsy) example from roughly the 10th century AD. Indian culture is not synonymous with or identical to Aryan or Sanskrit or Vedic culture. Aryan culture was an important stream that contributed to creating the unique Indian civilization as we know it today, but by no means was it the only one. There were other streams that have contributed equally to making Indian civilization what it is. Second, to say that Indo-European languages reached India at a particular historical juncture is not the same as suggesting that the Vedas or Sanskrit or the Aryan culture was imported flat-packed and then reassembled here. Aryan culture was most likely the result of interaction, adoption and adaptation among those who brought Indo-European languages to India and those who were already well-settled inhabitants of the region.

DNA story though is not only how Central Asian DNA strands seem much more predominant in certain higher castes, but also how much male DNA (Y-chromosome lineages), especially in North India, seems to have much higher traces of Central Asian DNA, whereas female mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has less and, in general, is more similar to 'base' Indian DNA. 70 to 90 percent of mtDNA lineages of present-day Indian populations derive from First Indians, while only 1- to 40 percent of Y-chromosome lineages have similar ancestry. This difference is attributable to sex bias in later migrations. This follows a pattern seen elsewhere in the world, and suggests that male invaders or migrants dominated the influx and took local women as brides or otherwise had children with them. While we have no direct evidence of how this happened, evidence from Europe and especially Central Asia often point to rape or forced marriage as the method (with male inhabitants slaughtered or certainly not procreating to the same extent).

The Han Chinese are truly a large population. They have been mixing freely for thousands of years. In contrast there are few if any Indian groups that are demographically very large, and the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two or three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans. The truth is that India is composed of a large number of small populations including neighbouring modern populations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka).

-----------------------------------------------------

5,000 years ago, the First Indians. Second, a population related to the farmers of Iran who were in the northwestern region from around 12,000 years ago and who mixed with the First Indians and together created the agricultural revolution that resulted in the Harappan Civilisation. Third, a migration from East Asia around 4,000 years ago that brought Austro-Asiatic languages such as Khasi and Mundari to India. And last, central Asian Steppe pastoralists from regions now known as Kazakhstan who brought Indo-European languages to India 4,000 to 3,500 years ago and called themselves Arya. Almost all population groups in India today are a mixture of these four components, in differing proportions.

First, Harappans are the ancestors of both north Indians and south Indians because when their civilisation declined around 3,900 years ago, they spread across the country, carrying their genetic and cultural heritage. Second, the language of the Harappans, most likely proto-Dravidian, continued to thrive in south India but was overlain by Indo-European language when the Steppe pastoralists arrived in the north later. Third, between around 4,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago, there was a great mixing between groups with different migration histories that left no Indian population group untouched (except perhaps the Andamanese). Fourth, endogamy, or the practice of people marrying within their own groups, began only around 2,000 years ago, which suggests that the caste system did not begin with the arrival of the Arya but was the result of political developments around the beginning of the Common Era. Fifth, almost all population groups of India carry 50-65% of their ancestry from the First Indians, no matter where in the caste hierarchy they stand, what language they speak, which region they inhabit or what religion they belong to.


The Indian ‘pizza’ got made, with the base or the foundation being laid about 65,000 years ago, when the Out of Africa migrants reached India. The sauce began to be made when the Zagrosian herders reached Balochistan after 7000 BCE, mixed with the First Indians, and then together went on to build the Harappan Civilization. When the civilization fell apart, the sauce spread all over the subcontinent. Then came the ‘Aryans’ after 2000 BCE, and cheese was sprinkled all over the pizza, but a lot more in the north than in the south. Around the same time arrived the major toppings which we see today in different regions in different amounts – the Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman-language speakers. And then, much later, of course, came the Greeks, the Jews, the Huns, the Sakas, the Parsis, the Syrians, the Mughals, the Portuguese, the British, the Siddis – all of whom have left small marks all over the Indian pizza.

Tribal communities such as the Onge of the Andaman Islands have perhaps the purist form of ‘First Indians’ DNA. For the rest of us, we’ve been infiltrated by various other migrations. Archaeological, linguistic and DNA analysis have now coalesced perfectly to buttress the hypothesis that starting from 9000 years ago, a migration from Zagros (roughly modern Iran) moved to the periphery of the Indian peninsular. Here, they mixed with the ‘First Indians’ to form the Harappan civilisation. Given the many common root words between the language of the Zagros (the archaic language Elamite) and the Dravidian language, this population possibly spread deep into India, after the decline of the Harappan civilisation.

-------------------------------------------------------

There is no nation in the world today that has not been shaped by repeated mass migrations. Europe has seen its demography upturned at least two times through mass migrations. The Americas saw at least three major migrations that shaped their demography and these were even before the first European set foot there. 

The study says there was indeed a southward migration of pastoralists from the Kazakh Steppe – first towards southern central Asian regions, that is, present-day Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, after 2100 BCE and then towards south Asia throughout the second millennium BCE (2000 BCE to 1000 BCE). On their way, they impacted the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC, a civilization that thrived between 2300 BCE and 1700 BCE, centred on the Oxus river and covering today’s northern Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan), but mostly bypassed it to move further down towards south Asia. Here they mixed with the existing people of the Harappan Civilization, thus creating one of the two main sources of population in India today: Ancestral North Indians, or ANI, the other being Ancestral South Indians, or ASI, who were formed by the mixing of the people of the Harappan Civilization with the First Indians in southern India around the same time.

It is said that the original inhabitants of India came from Africa; that Proto-Dravidian is related to the Elamitic language of Iran; or that Mundari, Khasi and Meitei speakers came from east Asia. 

If Indo-European languages are spread over a large area of Eurasia, is there a genetic signature visible across this geography? Yes, there is: the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a or, more specifically, its subclade R1a-M417, which accounts for almost all the R1a lineages in the world today. A map of R1a-M417 distribution would show it extending from Scandinavia to south Asia, covering almost all of the Indo-European language-speaking world.

The present-day Indian population is a product of the mingling between the ANI [Harappans (First Indians + Zagros agriculturists) + Steppe pastoralists] and ASI (Harappans + First Indians)? When the geneticists tested whether the ANI–ASI mixture model fits 140 present-day population groups in south Asia, ten groups stood out – each of them being poor fits because they had much more than the expected levels of Steppe ancestry. The strongest signals of elevated Steppe ancestry were in two groups that were of traditionally priestly status, expected to be custodians of texts written in Sanskrit. What could explain this? According to the study, one possibility is that the migration of Steppe pastoralists into south Asia created different groups with different proportions of Steppe ancestry. And those with higher levels of Steppe ancestry seem to have had a central role in sustaining or spreading early Vedic culture.

----------------------------------------------------

The earliest date for the presence of Human species in Indian subcontinent has be put around 120,000 years ago. But the presence of first modern humans in India or First Indians i.e. the people who have left their genetic presence in Indian population has been dated around 65,000 years ago. An Out of Africa (OoA) Migration happened some 70,000 years ago. The OoA migration reached and settled in India around 65,000 years ago. Between half and two third of our genome wide ancestry today comes from the First Indians. The history of Harrapan civilization begins from the Mehrgarh settlement which happened some 9000 years ago. The Mehrgarh settlement was a result of expansion of First Indians towards north-western parts of Indian subcontinent and migration of people from Zargos region of present day Iran towards India. The Harrapans civilization was work of – a mix of the descendants of the First Indians and the Iranian agriculturist migrants.  After the Harrapan civilization fell apart after 1900 BCE, the people who built it and kept it going for centuries spread out to the rest of the subcontinent- to the east and the south in particular. Around the time when Harrapan civilization started to fell apart, there were multiple migrations happening in India simultaneously. The migration of Austroasiatic language speakers – The Austroasiatic languages belong to two families: Munda and Khasi. The Austroasiatic speakers in India today are derived from the dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local population. The migration of Tibeto-Burman –language speakers following increased contact between Indian and Chinese civilization. This language family includes the Meitei language of Manipur and the Tani language of Arunanchal Pradesh.

The Y chromosome (which is transferred from male to male) haplogroup (population which shares common ancestor in paternal or maternal line) R1a or more specifically, it’s sub-clad R1a-M417 is distributed over a wide geographical line i.e. from Scandinavia to south Asia- which covers almost all Indo European language speaking world. The R1a haplogroup split into two; R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93 around 3800 BCE, with different distribution pattern. R1a-Z282 is seen only in Europe, while R1a-Z93 is seen in parts of central Asia and South Asia and accounts for almost all the R1a lineages in India. The earliest evidence for the R1a-M417 comes from Ukraine dated to between 5000 BCE-3500 BCE, while its sub-clad R1a-Z93 which is common in India has been found in many central steppe samples that date as early as 2500 BCE- 1400 BCE. There has been several genetic study which has shown the higher prevalence of R1a among the upper caste than the lower caste  and that is about twice as high among the Brahmins as among the SC/ST’s. So there is congruence between genetic structure of Indo-European language speaking countries and traditional custodians of the oldest layer of Indo-European languages in India. So the genetic evidence in corroboration with archaeological and linguistic evidences completely supports that a group of pastoralists from steppes migrated to India. Jyotiba Phule- the anti-caste reformer, argued that the lower castes were the true indigenous population of the Indian subcontinent, with the upper as later migrants and invaders. Aryan culture was most likely the result of interaction, adoption and adaptation among those who brought Indo-European language to India and those who were well settled inhabitants of the region.

The OoA migration populated Eurasia some 50,000-35,000 years ago. The people who inhabited the region are today classified into two basic groups (i) Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) of the steppe region and (ii) Ancient North Eurasians(ANE) of the Siberian region. Some 7,000 years ago, there was an influx of people from Caucasus region who later mixed with the EHG and created the Yamnaya culture, which was heavily influenced by the Maikop culture of Caucasus region. By around 3000 BCE  Yamnaya people started westward migration into Europe and there was an eastward reflux of Yamnaya people after 3000 BCE with people carrying a genetic mixture of Yamnaya and European Middle Neolithic farmers.  By 2600 BCE, the Yamnaya has splintered into many different successor cultures. One of these cultures later on migrated into south Asia in the second millennium BCE and mixed with the already existing population from Harrapan civilization who were migrating to different parts of India after their fall. This whole process then created two major population groups in India, namely (i) the Ancient North Indian (ANI) which is a mix of First Indians + Zargosis + Steppe and (ii) Ancient South Indian (ASI), which is a mix of First Indians + Zargosis + existing population of southern India. Both these groups mixed again, to create the population of India as it is today. 

In the Indian population 10-40 % of Y – Chromosome or the Y- DNA lineage which comes from the paternal line is of First Indians descent, while 70-90 % of mtDNA lineage which comes from maternal line is of First Indians. This means that in case of 70-90 % of Indian women, their lineage can be traced back to OoA women who reached India around 65000 years ago, while in case of men; this figure is around 10-40 for respective OoA male migrant. What this data means is that later migrations were male dominated and male from migrant groups mixed freely with the then local population.    

----------------------------------------------------

Tony Joseph's Early Indians

Indian genetic history is mixed and multi-layered – there is nothing "pure" here as people who gravitate towards the simplifications of "racial purity" may wish. If the archaeological evidence was a bit light and theoretical (Mehrgarh as prime example of initial movement from Zagros Mountains of agriculturalists and practices between 7000 and 3000 BCE into the subcontinent), the linguistic story much stronger (e.g. Sanskrit's Indo-Aryan roots from Central Asian migrations between 2000 and 1000 BCE). The origin of Dravidian languages in the Iranian plateau does not mean that the genes of those speaker predominate in areas where Dravidian is spoken today (just as the use of English in the region today may not involve but a wisp of European DNA). 

Joseph is particularly fond of the pizza metaphor: "One way to understand the population structure of today's India [really South Asia] is to think of it as a pizza, with the First Indians forming its base. Some parts of the pizza are thin crust, some parts thick crust, but all parts need to have the base – the pizza doesn't exist without it. Then comes the sauce that is spread all over the pizza. And then the cheese and the toppings – the people who came into the subcontinent later, at various periods. The cheese and the toppings are not uniform across the different slices. Some slices have an extra topping of tomato, some have more capsicum and others a lot of mushroom. The sauce, the cheese or the toppings that you find on this Indian pizza are not unique; these are found in other parts of the world too – some in West Asia, some in Southeast Asia and some in Europe and Central Asia. But the base of the pizza is unique to India – you will not find another one like it anywhere else in the world. And neither will you find a pizza with this level of diversity in any place other than Africa" (p. 61).

The book gives a clear picture of "First Indian" population who came out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago, the agriculturalist move into Balochistan (and perhaps elsewhere) that likely helped spark the Indus civilization, and the Aryan migration that followed on the heels of the Indus civilization's decline. It also answers questions about the Andaman Islanders for example, or the migration into India of smaller populations from Southeast Asia and China into the eastern subcontinent and Myanmar – no, it was not a continuous western movement from recent DNA evidence in pre-historic times, people actually moved into eastern India from China and Southeast Asia (things changed later when Indian religions and cultural practices moved further westward and northward all the way to Indonesia and China). He also debunks very nicely many myths, like an 'out-of-India' movement of languages and people by using the Romani (gypsy) example from roughly the 10th century ACE to show how such a westward migration from the subcontinent, had it happened earlier on a large scale, would have left far deeper DNA and other evidence.

Joseph is also to be complimented for taking the bull (or should it be the water buffalo?) by the horns when it comes "to the special sensitivity to the question about the arrival of Indo-European-language speakers? The answer is simple: it is the unstated by underlying assumption that Indian culture is identical or synonymous with 'Aryan', 'Sanskrit' or 'Vedic' culture. Therefore to ask when Indo-European languages reached India would be seen to be asking the same thing as asking 'when did we import our culture?'"

He continues: "But this is ridiculous on two counts. First of all, Indian culture is not synonymous with, or identical to, 'Aryan' or 'Sanskrit' or 'Vedic' culture. 'Aryan' culture was an important stream that contributed to creating the unique Indian civilization as we know it today, but by no means was it the only one. There were other streams that have contributed equally to making Indian civilization what it is. Second, to say that Indo-European languages reached India at a particular historical juncture is not the same as suggesting that the 'Vedas' or 'Sanskrit' or the 'Aryan' culture was imported flat-packed and then reassembled here. 'Aryan' culture was most likely the result of interaction, adoption and adaptation among those who brought Indo-European languages to India and those who were already well-settled inhabitants of the region" (p. 162-163).

What is very interesting (and disturbing) in Joseph's retelling of the DNA story though is not only how Central Asian DNA strands seem much more predominant in certain higher castes, but also how much male DNA (Y-chromosome lineages), especially in North India, seems to have much higher traces of Central Asian DNA, whereas female mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has less and, in general, is more similar to 'base' Indian DNA. In other words he quotes a 2017 paper to say that "70 to 90 percent of mtDNA lineages of present-day Indian populations derive from First Indians, while only 1- to 40 percent of Y-chromosome lineages have similar ancestry. This difference is attributable to sex bias in later migrations" (p. 181-2). This follows a pattern seen elsewhere in the world, and suggests that male invaders or migrants dominated the influx and took local women as brides or otherwise had children with them. While we have no direct evidence of how this happened, evidence from Europe and especially Central Asia often point to rape or forced marriage as the method (with male inhabitants slaughtered or certainly not procreating to the same extent).

The Han Chinese are truly a large population. They have been mixing freely for thousands of years. In contrast there are few if any Indian groups that are demographically very large, and the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two or three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans. The truth is that India is composed of a large number of small populations" (David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got There). This is an extraordinary statement to ponder, even more so when we include neighbouring modern populations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka) for whom the same is true and which add at least another 400 million to the equation. This is the largest, most genetically diverse pool of people on earth.

One might conjecture that the agriculturalist move from the Zagros mountains had many tentacles, and fits and starts, perhaps reflected in things like the Kulli and other cultures abutting the ancient Indus valley that we have not yet understood. Tony Joseph writes specifically for an Indian audience, but the closing lines of his book are applicable to the entire South Asian population world: "We are all Indians. And we are all migrants."

----------------------------------------------

The image from British Museum is first written mention of  Indra and Varuna in a clay tablet with cuneiform script, dated to 1350 BCE. Found in Turkey, it is a peace treaty between the Hittite king (modern Turkey) and the Mittani king (modern Syria), who was probably descendent of Indo-European-Aryan migrant from Russian steppes. 

1400 BCE (3500 years ago) is the period when horse-drawn chariots started being used extensively in war, even by Egyptians. This is also the period when the orally transmitted Rig Veda, referring to horses, Indra and Varuna, as we know it reached its final form in India, in the Gangetic plains. 

Mittani Indo-Europeans diverged from the Proto-Indo-European of Steppes over 4000 years ago. The Proto-Indo-European people converged with local post-Harappan, 3500 years ago, giving rise to Vedic Sanskrit that became Classical Sanskrit after Panini, who lived in the Age of the Buddha, 2500 years ago. This is based on recent genetic evidence, archeological evidence of horses, and robust linguistic evidence. 

Hence, the Vedic Sanskrit language has many common features with the Mittani language (Words for gods and horses and chariots) but it also has many differences indicating local Indian influence. The most important local influence was the retroflex sounds like ध for dharma. Dharma concept is also unique to South Asia and Veda. It spread from Gangetic plains, along with Buddhism to Jainism, to East, West and South India, roughly 2000+ years ago, as indicated by Tamil Sangam poetry. 

Did this 'dh' sound and 'dharma' concept come from Harappan people? We can only speculate. I am fairly confident it is so based on evidence.... dharma is an Indian idea established after generations of mingling of post-Harappan people and Steppe pastoral migrants in the Gangetic plains. 

Vedas and Horse-drawn chariots became popular only 3500 years ago. Of course, as per Hindutva they emerged out of India 7000 years ago in the Age of Ramayana. No scientist agrees with this.
 

----------------------------------------------------

The Indians (Africa to South Asia, Iranians to Aryans)

DNA samples proved that there were 3 broad types of people in India. The first were South Asian hunter-gatherers (indigenous people of South Asia/India), like the Andaman people. The second were Iranian agriculturists or farmers who brought wheat and barley (not basic farming). The third were Steppe pastoralists from the grasslands of Central Asia (Aryans associated with Indo-Aryan languages).

The first Indians came here around 70000-65000 years ago from Africa. Nearly 10000-9000 years ago, the mixing of the first Indians (indigenous people) and West Asian migrants (Iranians) created the Harappa people and the Indus Valley Civilization. Around 3500 to 4000 years ago, when the Steppe people (Aryans) came to the Indus region (north-west South Asia), at the time of decline or just after the decline of the Indus Civilization, a section of Indus people went towards the south and mixed with the indigenous people living there, forming the present-day South Indian population. Another section of Indus people remained in the north and mixed with the Steppe people, forming the North Indian population of today.

Thus, present-day Indians are mainly formed from these 3 groups: South Asians (Out-of-Africa migrants who evolved independently in South Asia), West Asians (Iranians), and North Asians (Aryans), with a fourth category consisting of other later groups, together forming the Indian population today.

The R1a1 genetic marker (belonging to Aryans and unofficially called the Aryan gene) was not found in the Rakhigarhi DNA. North Indian "male" DNA is about 17% close to R1a1. Indus people’s DNA was closer to Dravidians. Dravidians say that they were pushed towards the south by Aryans.

However, Swami Dayanand Saraswati said that Aryans belonged to India (and Tibet too, as stated). Bal Gangadhar Tilak said that Aryans came from the Arctic 10,000 years ago. Golwalkar said that Aryans came from the Arctic and claimed that at that time the Arctic was attached to India.

The origin of the whole world population started from Africa approximately 300000 years ago, and modern humans moved from there to everywhere around 70000 years ago. The first or oldest successful modern human movement was toward the East.

----------------------------------------------------

The horse (in Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Kalki Purana)

 
The earliest secure archaeological evidence of horse-drawn chariots comes from the Eurasian Steppe (Sintashta culture) around 2000–1800 BC. The Hyksos (the horse-riding invaders) introduced horses and chariots into Egypt around 1650 BC. Later, the Egyptians fought the Hittites using chariots around 1300 BC- the first recorded use of horses in warfare. Mitanni inscriptions say that the names Indra, Varuna and Mitra were found along with the names of horses around 1500–1400 BC in Anatolia (Turkey).  Similarly, in the Rigveda, horses, horse-drawn chariots, and the Ashvamedha Yajna are mentioned repeatedly (around 1500 BC). But we do not find horses or their representation in Harappa. Most horse-related stories appeared after the Greeks (Yavans) came into India. 

This suggests that the Ramayana and Mahabharata were written after 1500 BC (at least the final compositions). In the Ramayana, there is mention of a ratha (chariot) in the story of Kaikeyi. This implies that the concept of the Kalki Avatar, associated with a horse, also came later, and its Purana was composed approximately around 300-500 CE. The horse plays an important role in the Zend Avesta as well. The word Iran comes from the word Arya. One branch of the Aryans went to Iran, and another came to India. The religious words like Asura, Sura, and Deva in both the languages with opposite meaning show religious split. Linguistic evidence can be challenged, but archaeological and genetic evidence cannot. 

If horses were domesticated only around 2000 BC and entered India by 1500 BC then events in the Ramayana and Mahabharata that refer to horse-drawn chariots could only have taken place less than 3500 years ago, and not 7000-5000 years ago as claimed by many.
 

-----------------------------------------------------

It is speculated that the common cultural-linguistic group — known as the Proto-Indo-Europeans (ancestors of most Indo-European peoples including Greeks) — likely existed between 4500 and 2500 BCE in the Eurasian Steppe region (around modern southern Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan).
From this group, the Anatolian branch (including the Hittites) separated early, possibly around 3500–3000 BCE, and moved into Anatolia (modern Turkey). The remaining group evolved into the Proto-Indo-Iranian (Aryan) community, which stayed together until around 2000 BCE, after which it divided into Indo-Aryans (India), Iranian Aryans (Persia), and an Indo-Aryan elite group in Mitanni (Syria/Mesopotamia). Then, obviously, Vedas (and Vedic gods) came into existence.

We’re all migrants — at some point in history, every footprint moved from somewhere else. DNA and fossils prove what borders try to deny. The world was never divided, only traveled.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

जिस सप्तसैंधव प्रदेश का विस्तृत वर्णन ऋग्वेद में एक ग्रामीण परिवेश के रूप में है, उसी प्रदेश में 1900 ई0पू0 के लगभग हड़प्पा जैसी नगरीय सभ्यता के भरपूर पुरातात्विक साक्ष्य उपलब्ध हैं जो 1900 से 600 ई0 पू0 की सभ्यता-संस्कृति को विशुद्ध ग्रामीण साबित करते हैं।

ईण्डो-यूरोपीय भाषा (ऋग्वेदिय भाषा इण्डो-यूरोपीय भाषा के अंतर्गत है) का का सबसे पूरा नमूना इराक में एक 2200 ई0पू0 के अभिलेख से मिला है। मध्य एशिया के बोगाजकोई(सीरिया) से प्राप्त एक अभिलेख(कीलाक्षर लिपि) और मिस्र के एल अमरना से मिट्टी की एक टेबलेट पर उत्कीर्ण लेखों की भाषा ऋग्वेदिय भाषा से प्राचीन और अविकसित है। इन लेखों की भाषा ईरानी जींद-अवेस्ता से भी प्राचीन है। अतः हम मान सकते हैं कि इण्डो-ईरानी भाषा(इण्डो-यूरोपीय का पूर्वी रूप) का विकास 1400 ई0 पू0 के बाद ही हुआ होगा। बोगाजकोई अभिलेख (1380 ई0पू0) से हिट्टाइट और मितानी शासक के बीच हुए एक सन्धि का जिक्र है जिसमें इन्द्र, मित्र, नासीत्य(अथवा अश्विन), उरुवनास(वरुण) आदि देवताओं का उल्लेख है जो ऋग्वेद के प्रमुख देवता हैं (ऐतिहासिक छठी ई0पू0 के काल में इन देवताओं का महत्व लगभग समाप्त हो गया था )। अधिकाँश मितानी जनसंख्या हुर्रियन भाषा बोलती थी फिर भी देवताओं के नाम इण्डो_आर्य जैसे हैं। लगभग इसी समय के एक हिटाइट ग्रन्थ में भी अश्व प्रशिक्षण तथा रथ से जुड़े बातों की चर्चा की गई है जिसकी रचना किकुली नाम के एक मितानी ने की थी। इस ग्रन्थ में बहुत सारे तकनीकी शब्दावलियों का प्रयोग हुआ है जो इण्डो-आर्य भाषाओं से सम्बंध रखते हैं। 

ऋग्वेद की भाषा और संस्कृति का बहुत ही स्पष्ट सम्बन्ध प्राचीन ईरान के ग्रन्थ अवेस्ता से है। अवेस्ता के प्रारंभिक हिस्से 1500 ई0पू0 के आसपास लिखे गए थे(1000 ई0पू0 तक अवेस्ता का पूर्ण रूप)। इसके बाद आने वाले हखमानी राजाओं(600ई0पू0) ने जो अभिलेख ईरान से उत्कीर्ण कराए वो अवेस्ता की भाषा का ही विकसित रूप था। चूँकि 400 साल इन भाषाओं के विकास के लिए पर्याप्त होगा इसलिए अवेस्ता का रचना-काल 1000 ई0पू0 के आसपास माना जा सकता है। ऋग्वेद और अवेस्ता प्रायः समकालीन हैं।

ऋग्वेद के विवरण में मिलने वाली सभ्यता-संस्कृति का सम्बंध भारतीय ताम्रपाषाणिक संस्कृतियों का प्रतिनिधित्व करती हैं और प्रारम्भिक लौहयुगीन संस्कृति का आभास भी इसमें दिखता जिसका काल मोटे तौर पे 1500 से 1000 ई0पू0 माना गया है( कार्बन-14 के आधार पर)। ऋग्वेद में वर्णित भौगोलिक-सामाजिक ज्ञान भी इसे एक प्राचीन ग्रन्थ साबित करता है। ऋग्वेद की तिथि पर अन्य मतों के विवाद को देखते हुए इसका काल 2000 ई0पू0 से 1000ई0पू0 के मध्य कहीं भी होने को नकारा नहीं जा सकता बाकी इसपे अभी और साक्ष्य तथा शोध की आवश्यकता है।

बाकी ध्यान रहे कि ऋग्वेद की पूरी रचना भी अन्य प्राचीन साहित्यिक रचनाओं के जैसे किसी एक समय नहीं हुई थी, इसमें भी सदियों का विकासक्रम समाहित है और अगर हम ऋग्वैदिक लोगों बात करें तो यह जरूरी नहीं कि इसमें केवल भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप की ही बात हो।

एक चीज और कि इतिहास पर बात करने के लिए किसी खास धर्मग्रंथ को पढ़-समझ लेना पर्याप्त नहीं, उसके व्यवहार का इतिहास भी जानना ज़रूरी है। वेद और गीता पढ़ने-समझने के साथ हिन्दू धर्म का इतिहास जानना भी ज़रूरी है। क़ुरआन पढ़ने-समझने के साथ इस्लाम का इतिहास जानना भी ज़रूरी है। बाइबिल पढ़ने-समझने के साथ ईसाइयत का इतिहास जानना भी बेहद ज़रूरी है। ठीक यही बात हिन्दू-मुस्लिम-ईसाई सहित बौद्ध और जैन सभी धर्मों पर लागू होती है। नहीं तो आपको फर्जी तरीके से 24 पूर्व बुद्ध, 24 तीर्थंकरों सहित पुराणों की लंबी-चौड़ी वंशावली को भी सत्य मनाने पर मजबूर किया जा सकता है।
 

------------------------------------------