It is claimed by one of the 92 scientists that the Indus-Saraswati civilization population has been replaced by a migration from the dry & barren grasslands of Central Asia.

Note: For a deeper technical prelude (and updates) please watch Dr. Priyadarshi’s current blog – The Aryan Invasion Myth. Technical data tables for various biologically plausible migration rates and gene proportion scenarios will be kindly hosted by The Rational Hindu.

The Indian scientist is quoted by Outlook as having said, “You won’t find this DNA in the north Indian population today, but only in south Indians”.

The Outlook magazine is coming up with a cover story dedicated to claiming that the Aryan migration (invasion) has been proved. It is because it claims that “92 top scientists and researchers from around the world” said so. [1]. [2]. [3]. Let us see what an entire field of scientists, the population geneticists, have left out (possibly deliberately) even though it is present in all basic and essential texts in population genetics. [4]. Is it so that they conveniently confirm with a racist theory based on a pseudoscience? Linguistics, a humanities subject has been elevated from being a subject of the arts to the social sciences to the sciences now.

It is claimed by one of the 92 scientists, that too from India, that the Indus-Saraswati civilization (also, IVC) population has been replaced by a migration from the dry and barren grassland of Central Asia called the Steppe. Somehow the cold arid desert was home to a teeming human population and civilization they claim. The Indian scientist is quoted by Outlook as having said, “You won’t find this DNA in the north Indian population today, but only in south Indians”. The scientist and the concurring Outlook magazine is basing this on just two ancient DNA (aDNA) samples found in Rakhigarhi, Haryana.

It is akin to the Outlook magazine doing a survey for an opinion poll, taking just two Congress party members as the sample, asking them whom they plan to vote for and then publishing that the entire nation is going to vote for Rahul. This is a fundamental flaw that if made by a first-year statistics student he/she will be failed for it. However, and of course, he is conveniently supported by “92 top scientists and researchers from around the world”.

Let us take a hypothetical example of ‘Delhites’ migrating to Chennai and becoming just 95 percent of the new mixed (admixed) population. For such a change in demography to occur there needs to be 95 ‘Delhites’ migrating to Chennai for each existing five ‘Chennaites’. That will give us 95 divided by five as 19 (95 / 5 = 19). That is 19 times the population of Chennai needs to arrive from Delhi for such a transformation to occur.

Recently, Scerri et al stated that, “Genetic models, need to incorporate a more complex view of ancient migration and divergence.”

Instead, imagine the Thar desert as the source of population for the migration to Chennai than Delhi. Can a barren desert ever provide enough population that can be 19 times that of Chennai? But that is what the “92 top scientists and researchers from around the world” want you to believe.

It is claimed that at the core of the IVC there were more than 5 million in population. Did 95 million (19 times 5) people arrive from the cold, arid barren Steppe to a densely populated India? Even the entire world would not have had 95 million population then. Yet, this is what the “92 top scientists and researchers from around the world” want you to believe.

This claim is absolutely against all archaeological and historical demographical evidence, amongst others. [5]. [6]. [7].However, the “92 top scientists and researchers from around the world” want you to believe linguistics over a better soft-science archaeology and worse are equating the humanities subject (linguistics pseudo-science) to the sciences. [8].

How unethical, corrupt and prejudiced is their claim? This is the state of affairs of Hinduphobia and anti-India conspiracy at the most international level, now infecting the sciences and spreading from the social “sciences”. [9]. [10].

Recently, Scerri et al showed in their review of the current research in the field of population genetics how inadequate and often inappropriate are the currently used genetic models for past population inferences by stating, “Genetic models, therefore, need to incorporate a more complex view of ancient migration and divergence.” [11]. When “92 top scientists and researchers from around the world” err on fundamental arithmetics and basic statistical principles on sampling in research methods (of the necessity of having an adequate sample size to be able to make population-wide inferences especially over many millennia) might it not be too much to expect them to have the capacity to “incorporate a more complex view of ancient migration and divergence”?

References:

[1] Menon S, Mishra S (2018) We Are All Harappans. Outlook Magazine – 13th August 2018.

[2] Witzel M, Menon S, Mishra S (2018) After Meluhha, The Melange. Outlook Magazine – 13th August 2018.

[3] Menon S, Mishra S “Harappans United Regions Across 2 Million Sq KM.” Outlook Magazine – 13th August 2018

[4] Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (Pearson Education India).

[5] Priyadarshi P (2014) In Quest of the Dates of the Vedas (Partridge) Amazon

[6] Kak S (2018) Playing With Zero and Ancient History – Subhash Kak. Medium

[7] Priyadarshi P (2018) A Critical Appraisal of Narasimhan et al 2018 bioRxiv. The Aryan Invasion Issues. WordPress – 29th April 2018

[8] Murali KV (2018) There are lies, damned lies and (Harvard’s “Third” Reich and Co’s) statistics – PGurus.com – 29th April 2018

[9] Malhotra R, Nīlakantan̲ A (2011) Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines (Amaryllis) Google Books

[10] An anatomy of an international scientific hit job by “92 top scientists and researchers from around… (2018) The Rational Hindu – 4th August 2018

[11] Scerri EML, et al. (2018) Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter? Science Direct – 11th July 2018

Note:

1. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.