Aryan Invasion Theory: Genetics revisited

This is a follow up article on our previous article which presented recent genetic evidence to refute AIT. We will point out common misconceptions prevalent on the internet which stems from the facts that either AIT enthusiasts willingly ignore new evidence or cherry pick few studies that suit their narrative.

The example of such misinterpretations can be found even on some of the Hindu RW blogs such as this. This is a recent but long winding article by MT and mixes various evidences. But it makes sense to stick to genetic studies as according to the same author archaeology does not matter for studying population migrations as “pots don’t speak”. Also, for now we will stay clear of the linguistic arguments as they can be almost often made either way in favour of AIT or OIT. For those who wish to read more on linguistic arguments in favour of OIT can follow the research work of Srikanth Talageri or any other leftist historian for understanding the other side.

For those who find it difficult to go through this entire blog post can directly jump to the bibliography section in the end to understand that most of the quoted research material is old and in some cases patently wrong for explaining the genetic movement of the populations. In all the cases, MT uses genetic studies which show that there is similarity between Indians and Europeans but none of those studies put a time line on the connection. This has unfortunately become a favourite tactic of the AIT enthusiasts to use half-baked scientific truths to peddle their outdated fiction based on old genetic studies. This whole AIT defence was built on the assumption that the migration happened only from Caucuses to India and not from India to Caucuses. Unfortunately the recent genetic studies are poking many holes in this theory.

The old genetic studies were limited by the resources and could tell about shared ancestry but could not put a time line on the direction of migration; the newer genetic studies however could answer both. In fact, the latest genetic studies published took full cognisance of the proposed Aryan migration into India from Russia as well as OIT. But after analysing the genetics comprehensively with a larger, wider and deeper samples across all populations, the most recent genetic study came to the conclusion that Punjabi R1a1a Y haplotype is the oldest among the Indo-European population and is likely to be the origin of the Indo-Europeans. The time line of the genetics of the population is given by the SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) of the R1a1a alleles. Out of all the population groups studied from all over the world, Punjab showed the highest frequency of SNP variations and hence is likely the oldest population group among the studied populations and that the frequency of variation decreased from Punjab towards the Western European population with the lowest frequency of variations in the Western most and northern most Europeans (not lowest frequency of R1a1 but lowest frequency of variations in R1a1a) with mid-level of frequency variations in the Caucasus region, clearly indicating that Caucuses is not the origin of Indo-Europeans as the AIT fanboys want to believe (Read our previous article to check the sources and how SNPs are used for determining the age of population based on frequency of variations).

Also, notice that the above studies also explain why North Indian population have so much more in common with Europeans than south Indian population, because it was north Indian population which migrated towards Europe. Also, notice that north Indian population is composed of 60% ANI and 40%ASI and South Indian population is 60% ASI and 40% ANI. This mixing creates some confusion and usually AIT proponents use it to claim that ANI represents Aryans. But it is not true. ANI migrated into India around 45000 yrs BC and ASI migrated into India around 60000 BC and ANI and ASI are not synonymous with Aryans and Dravidians as AIT proponents want you to believe. So, if we compare the present day genome of north Indian population(with their 60/40 ANI/ASI) split with Europeans, you will find more similarity between North Indians and Europeans just in accordance with migration out of North India. But here is the kicker, South Indians also have genetic materials in common with the Europeans. There is a common myth perpetrated by MT in his blog that the ASI genes are not found in Europe. This is patently false claim and show poor understanding of what ASI means. There is no such thing as an ASI gene or ANI gene. The ASI/ANI is just population reconstruction models and are not specific genetic materials to claim ASI genes are not found in Europe.

And this mixture would have happened before IVC came to existence because IVC came to existence after 4000 BC and not later when genetics point out that no new gene flow came into India after 12000 BC and the date of admixture of ANI/ASI population is about 4000 years before toda. Also, the two ANI/ASI population mixing in India is not synonymous with Aryan invasion theory as proposed by MT. All the mixture of ASI/ANI by genetic studies mean is that two population groups inside India mixed thoroughly and gave rise to Indians. That is all. That’s not synonymous with Aryans invading India. That’s like suggesting if today , Tamils(ASI) and Telugites(ANI) mix, it must mean that Tamils(ASI) got invaded by Telugites(ANI), as per Aryan invasion theory peddled by MT. As one can see, this is a patently stupid way of reasoning. The fact still remains that there is no genetic evidence for the immigration of large populations into India for last 12000 BCE, while evidences are coming out for migration of Indians towards Europe as the Lucotte.G study points out


The study by Lucotte G. points out the same fact in its conclusion, i.e. the Indo-European population (by virtue of frequency of variations in R1a1 SNP) is 15000yrs old in the Punjab plains, 11000 yrs old in central Asia, 11000 in Caucuses , 7000 in Scandinavia and Western Europe. So all in all, AIT enthusiasts are just trying to use half information from out dated genetic studies to peddle their out dated fiction called Aryan invasion theory, just based on genetic similarity between North Indians and Europeans, when such similarity can be explained as well by North Indians migrating to Europe. And unlike AIT, this theory actually has newer genetic evidence to back it up without having to go through logic fallacies like why Europeans would migrate towards India, just when ice age was ending, while Indians could have migrated up north as north got warmer when ice age ended.


Another common mistake which gets repeated in the above blog is that it uses two parameters lactose tolerance and tallness gene to somehow corroborate AIT. This is patently absurd as both lactose tolerance and tallness gene result in survival advantages to the population and hence cannot be used for studying natural flow of population. Does it come as a surprise that all genetic studies use SNP, which don’t give any survival advantage instead of genes which do give some advantage? But why?

Let’s say a population of mixed tall and short population from Punjab has to cross the Steppes of Central Asia to go to Europe. Steppes being more hostile environment to hunt would have a huge selection pressure towards taller population. So, when the population crosses Steppes, tall population would be selected against the short and when the population reaches Europe, it will be almost entirely tall. So, genetics of European population of the same group which started from Punjab would have more tallness genes than the parent population of Punjab.

Now let’s reverse the scenario where Europe is the origin of the tallness gene and it crosses Steppes into Punjab. But now, since most of the population in Punjab is already short or mixed(as per AIT), the invading /migrating Indo-Europeans with their tall genes would mix with the short Punjab people. But here, the Punjab plains is not as hostile as Steppes and might not have the same selection pressure towards tall gene and hence the tall genes will get diluted by mixing with short people in Punjab. So, if you analyse the Punjab population now, it will have mixture of short and tall genes and not tall genes or short genes alone. So in both scenarios involving the tall genes, both Punjab population has short and tall mixture population and Europe has tall population. But genetics can be used to explain why it might be so in both migration from Punjab to Europe or Europe to Punjab because of the survival advantage/selection caused by migration through Steppes.

To summarize, tallness gene distribution cannot be used as a tool to study migration direction, as it can’t provide definitive answer to the direction of movement and can only say that movement might have happened. It is also the case with lactose tolerance genes. This is why population genetics and migrations studies are done using SNPs which don’t confer/alter survival benefits and are neutral w.r.t. such issues. MT further talks about vitamin D requirement which may have selected Indo-Europeans fairness. In fact this again can be explained in the same breadth as tallness- Indo-Europeans migrating to northern parts of Europe would be selected for fair skin due to their demand for vitamin D due to poor light in northern Europe compared to Punjab.

All in all, AIT enthusiasts have limited number of days to enjoy their falsehoods as new genetic studies will settle this debate once and forever. The fact that AIT was broadly accepted theory in most circles forced the earlier genetic studies to match their findings and present their results to corroborate existing consensus. This happened as genetics could not speak about migration direction 10 yrs ago. But it has changed now and we should see definitive and conclusive answers in the future.

  • Pingback: Aryan Invasion Theory: The Genetics (Part II) – YugaParivartan()

  • Singh Sardar

    Kitne Gorou Ki Phatne Lol

  • Very informative. Enjoyed reading it.

  • Pingback: The Aryan-Dravidian Divide()

  • C K G Gulia

    Correction. Sarasvathi civilisation began at least more than 9500 years ago (Bhirrana). Also other settlements show more than 8000 years of organised settlement. The Sarasvathi settlements (overall) were present until 1700 – 1900 BC.

    • Simba

      Hindol Sengupta has in his ‘Being Hindu” mentioned that our DNA hasn’t changed for 60000 years.I don’t know if it also includes the other nations in the Indian Subcontinents esp.Pakistan.Some of the Pakistanis look almost like Central Asians.

      • C K G Gulia

        Most Pakistanis have the same Indian DNA. Only less diversity. Central Asians actually look more Mongoloid. Light skin originated from India. More specifically between Swat Valley and Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Any Caucasian element in Central Asia only contains the predominant Indian component. There are a lot of light skinned Indians (also way more telling than those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who like to think of themselves as so-called Ghoris and Ghaznis when most of their genes are Indic in origin). This doesn’t make them “foreign”. This belief where anyone who isn’t tanned is a Central Asian or a “migrant” who brought good for nothing Indians “good things” is terribly overrated since Indians are just too gullible and simply think of anything which makes them feel associated with being “videshi”. The 111t slc24a5 lightening gene became the most prominent before the combination of genes within the country. This has been proven multiple times over. Most north and central Indians and so-called Pakistanis and Afghanis consist of in and around the same phenotypes. Tamil Nadu and Kashmir have haplogroup K. This doesn’t mean that or the other are local and the others are no. It has been that no external input yet multiple extrications/expansions have taken place from India to Europe. For example, the biggest components are R1a-M17, R1a-z93 is of Indian origin and so are J2, J2b and U in which these made there way from Bharath into Central and West Asia. That is why. It is not due to the other way round. This “receiver of good things” attitude amongst Indians needs to stop. It is pathetic (not referring to anyone specifically but overall as it is a common disease which fortunately it is abating and is being shown as an Indic contribution once and for all). From the Indian hinterlands to the current area that is considered as Pakistan it made its way to Central Asia. Hence the relatively close proximity coupled with more variations/concentrations of phenotypes in one area due to movements tending westward and further northward from the hinterland resulting in their incubation. From Bharath to Central Asia. Hence in a radiated manner the diversity lessens in this region. The Central Asian component have all been shown to be younger to much younger than the Indian component (which also includes Pakistan). Hence it was fro. India tending to northwest. This being from Underhill, Sharma, Lucotte and more. A lot of light skinned Indians carrying the Indian component of the DNA within them are found. This only validates this case further due to light skin (especially for the Caucasian component) emerged in India, became concentrated and then spread. The case for Indians, so-called Pakistanis and most Afghans goes hand in hand as all major research papers have shown. This is why in regions that are north of the Vindhya Mountains (especially Central and North India in large concentrations) particular phenotypes are more prominent. India is the donor to Afghanistan, Iran, so-called Pakistan, Central Asia and Europe. The other way round has been disproven as there has been negigible input into the region over at least 90000 years. This includes various eye colours, hair colours and skin tones. Lies spread by Indians from within, the country’s neighbours and others regions as well as their ideologues have been debunked and are being debunked further still as only the opposite is being shown continuously. From India to Central Asia and onwards en route to Europe (as well as via the Caucasus).

    • Simba

      Thanks,Mr.Gulia for a detailed reply.Could you cite sources for this issue of migration from Indian sub continent to Europe and genetical variations as also Sanskrit’s origin? I still love to believe that S.originated in India.There are regular articles here and there about S.being Syrian,Central Asian and Persian though we don’t get to see any single manuscript in Sanskrit in those nations including Lithuania.

      • C K G Gulia

        All those articles have been debunked. Even their authors know it holds no water. They tend to keep saying that Sanskrit is of Indic origin but the false theories would still keep continuing until something arrives to replace the Syria, Anatolia, CentraL Asia and Lithuania. Indeed, no manuscript pertaining to Sanskrit has ever been found in recipient regions such as Lithuania and more. However, Mitanni, Hurrian and Central Anatolian records all attests to an Indic origin on their cuneiform tablets. This is clear. This is only coming to light now. Of course those with an agenda and getting a means to gain attention will keep speaking of the opposite when they themselves confess that it is wrong. A lot more successful theories can emanate from the debunked AIT/AMT. Yet, just like these theories being successul, they are popular but wrong. It is only delaying the inevitable and attempting to keep the careers of those for those who seek to spread disinformation intact and diverting attention from inevitable scrutiny and debunking and thus destroying their credibility. Baudhyayana and the Vedic texts (in most phases) clearly show an expansion westward and northwestwardly from the Ganga Ji and the Saptasindhu region. There is an entire manual on chariot construction and horse training and their uses in almost pure Sanskrit. With their origins being attested to be much more eastern, it only proves what is coming to light now (which is becoming more widespread than their false articles) that it originates from the Indic hinterlands. Koenraad Elst and Nicholas Kazanas are some who are literaly ovethrowing the falsehoods and proving tht it was from India to elsewhere. However, the multiple human migrations (since large and small emigrations took place in which small emigrations according to Indic standards would be considerable according to foreign standards) needs to be and is eventually becoming appreciated. Linguistics alone will not suffice when it clearly shows that the Indic transmission of peoples was entirely constituting of whole founding populations and subsequent migrations being reconstituting population groups. This only proves the case even further. Hence the linguistic case is much much stronger of its movement from Indic hinterlands to elsewhere in which the emmigrations varied from considerably large to smaller as well as medium in magnitude. It was multiple emmigrations well before, before, just before, during, after and also much after the composition of the Vedic texts. This being to varying degrees. This being considerably large to considerably small over time as well as medium in level.

        • Simba

          Thanks again Mr.Gulia. Have you read the recently published book by Audrey Trushke on Aurangzeb?How westerners want to whitewash those who brutalized India.I wonder why .I can understand if one is married to a Muslim.

          • C K G Gulia

            Exactly. Fortunately this is now being debunked and is being comprehensively countered. This is now being challenged. Also the Swadeshi Indology conference should do more on this. Focus on Sheldon Pollock has been comprehensively sought to. Now it is such apologists to such oppressors which needs to be countered and will be.