Akbar and other Mughals

[Halaku Khan]

Also, if R1a1 originated in India, then why R1b is so rare, almost absent in India.

That may indicate that R1b split off from R1 somewhere outside South Asia.

 

[EjazR]

Taj city marks Akbar’s birthday with nostalgia

Agra, Oct 15 (IANS) Wishing Mughal emperor Akbar happy birthday Thursday, a clutch of local conservationists got together here to recall his contribution to the enrichment of Hindustani culture and his secular concepts. They said Agra would have been a different place had he been alive.

While the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) perhaps forgot all about it, the Braj Mandal Heritage Conservation Society made it a point to mark the occasion. After all, it was in Agra that Akbar had spent many years of his life.

Conservation Society president Surendra Sharma, claiming to speak on behalf of Akbar, read out a decree listing what all needed to be done to restore the Taj city’s lost glory and historical importance.

Had Akbar been alive, we “would not have been helpless spectators to the torturous killing of the city’s lifeline Yamuna”, Surendra Sharma said.

Historian Ramesh Chandra Sharma said: “Akbar’s experiments in governance, his ideas relating to coexistence and mutual tolerance of each other’s faith and recognition of talents like the nine jewels, have to be seen as part of a rich legacy he left behind.”

Akbar’s commitment to freedom of expression and respect for contrary views should be taken note of by the fundamentalists, Sharma added.

Akbar, a popular ruler of his time, was known for his intellectual contribution and advocacy of a composite culture through his Din-e-Ilahi, a concept that is of relevance in the present context of terrorism and religious intolerance, said retired wing commander H.S. Sisodia.

Other rulers like Shah Jahan were famed more for their architectural ideas whereas he is widely considered the greatest of the Mughal emperors and has been christened “Akbar the Great”, Sisodia said.

Talking about the sad state of urban planning in Agra, speakers accused government agencies of destroying the ethos of this Mughal city.

V.P. Singh said politicians of all hues were hell bent on rampaging the grand Mughal city with Quixotic ideas that had resulted in haphazard planning.

Eco-activist Ravi Singh said the historical monuments in Agra city were in a bad shape. “The conservational efforts were poor. While developing new areas, no care was taken to ensure that the new structures were compatible with the Mughal ethos of this city,” Singh said.

Others said Akbar’s tomb in Sikandra and the Agra Fort needed urgent conservational efforts. They also suggested that the city be made home to a Mughal museum and special arrangements be made for tourists to experience authentic Mughlai cuisine.

A 10-point charter of demands relating to infrastructure development and improvement in civic amenities was presented as a ‘firman’ or decree from Akbar for implementation by the district authorities.

 

[Halaku Khan]

That may indicate that R1b split off from R1 somewhere outside South Asia.

It is interesting that the ancestral haplogroup R* is found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia - Spain, Greece, Lebanon (particularly the Druze community), Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and India, but not in Arabia.

(The star after a haplogroup refers to pure haplogroup, not including descendants)

Also interesting is the fact that R* seems to be absent from the Russian Steppes, the alleged homeland of the Aryans.

R1*, which descended from R*, is also found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia (excluding Arabia).

R1b is high in western Europe, with highest percentage in Spain.

R1* also seems to be absent from the steppes, the supposed Aryan homeland.

R2, descended from R*, is found predominantly in India. R2 is found in all castes and regions of India. It tends to correlate strongly with R1a1. R2 and R1a1 are either high together or low together.

As far as I know, the only known significant pure R1a* population is in the Saharia tribe of Central India (some 22% of Saharias).

Pure R1a1* is at its highest amongst the upper castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal. However, it is also found in Central Asia and Europe. The diversity of R1a1 is highest in India.

So the picture that emerges is as follows: R* and its descendant R1* first spread across southern Eurasia, from Spain to India. In Spain, R1b branched off from R1*. In India, R1a* branched off from R1*. Also in India, R2 branched off from R*. Later, R1a1* further branched off from R1a*. This may have happened some 20,000 - 25,000 years ago.

Some of these R1a1 people migrated northwards from South Asia to Central Asia and Europe. That explains how you have R1a1 over there, but not R* or R1* or R1a*.

Incidentally, this also indicates that the higher castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal are the descendants of the original R* and R1* migrants into India. In fact many of India's castes and tribes are also descendants of the same original R* and R1* people. Indeed, Indian Brahmins are around 35% R1a1, whereas Shudras are about 22% R1a1.

There is also another major group in India, which are the ancestral south Indians (ASI's). The ancestral north Indians (ANIs), i.e. the R and R1 people, migrated into India along southern Eurasia, whereas the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea. Most Indian people are mixtures of ASI's and ANI's - generally, the share of each group is 40-60%. There are a few isolated communities (such as the Andaman Islands people), who are pure ASI's, with no ANI ancestry.

 

[eastwatch]

eastwatch

Khajur has a very valid point. If Buddhists could withstand and survive the 'tyranny' of Brahminism for centuries, and not convert to Hinduism which would have relieved them from the tyranny, why then would they suddenly convert en mass to Islam, when Islam was replacing Brahminism - the perpetrators of tyranny.

Through out you have insinuated that the lower castes were tortured. Wouldn't that lead the lower castes to covert? But strangely you are saying that the upper caste (the perpetrators), converted, while the lower caste (the tortured) continued to retain their religion.

Things are not adding up.

You have missed one part of historical chronology. Budhists were dominant in Bengal until the demise of Pal Dynasty in 1095. When Hemanta Sena of SENA dynasty took over the reign of Bengal in 1095, he and his descendents, including Raja Laxman Sena, discarded the patronage of Budhism. Instead, they all patronized Hinduism with all its ingredients that also include the caste system.

With State patronage, Brahmins became again dominant both socially and politically. The Rajas brought many Brahmin families from north Hindustan. All these Brahmins together imposed their will on the Budhists, who were educated, to come back to the Hindu fold, but at the lowest rung of its caste system. Budhists were tormented by the tyranies of Hindu Brahmins for more than a hundred years.

The Afghan Turkic invasion and their first migration happened in 1203. This was the starting point for these educated Budhists to embrace Islam and strengthen the hold of Muslim power in the eastern part of Hindustan in a way that Hindus remained subdued until the British rule started effectively after the Battle of Buxar in 1764.

 

[toxic_pus]

It is interesting that the ancestral haplogroup R* is found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia - Spain, Greece, Lebanon (particularly the Druze community), Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and India, but not in Arabia.

(The star after a haplogroup refers to pure haplogroup, not including descendants) [As far as I know, it means non-mutated Haplogroup]

Also interesting is the fact that R* seems to be absent from the Russian Steppes, the alleged homeland of the Aryans.

R1*, which descended from R*, is also found across a wide swathe of southern Eurasia (excluding Arabia).

R1b is high in western Europe, with highest percentage in Spain.

R1* also seems to be absent from the steppes, the supposed Aryan homeland.

R2, descended from R*, is found predominantly in India. R2 is found in all castes and regions of India. It tends to correlate strongly with R1a1. R2 and R1a1 are either high together or low together.

As far as I know, the only known significant pure R1a* population is in the Saharia tribe of Central India (some 22% of Saharias).

Pure R1a1* is at its highest amongst the upper castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal. However, it is also found in Central Asia and Europe. The diversity of R1a1 is highest in India.

So the picture that emerges is as follows: R* and its descendant R1* first spread across southern Eurasia, from Spain to India. In Spain, R1b branched off from R1*. In India, R1a* branched off from R1*. Also in India, R2 branched off from R*. Later, R1a1* further branched off from R1a*. This may have happened some 20,000 - 25,000 years ago.

Some of these R1a1 people migrated northwards from South Asia to Central Asia and Europe. That explains how you have R1a1 over there, but not R* or R1* or R1a*.

Incidentally, this also indicates that the higher castes of UP, Bihar and Bengal are the descendants of the original R* and R1* migrants into India. In fact many of India's castes and tribes are also descendants of the same original R* and R1* people. Indeed, Indian Brahmins are around 35% R1a1, whereas Shudras are about 22% R1a1.

There is also another major group in India, which are the ancestral south Indians (ASI's). The ancestral north Indians (ANIs), i.e. the R and R1 people, migrated into India along southern Eurasia, whereas the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea. Most Indian people are mixtures of ASI's and ANI's - generally, the share of each group is 40-60%. There are a few isolated communities (such as the Andaman Islands people), who are pure ASI's, with no ANI ancestry.

This is getting a tad boring and a whole lot tiresome.

First, R* and R1* are extremely rare, because they represent nil mutation. Very few people on earth have those. Because of the general rarity of any non-muted Haplo type, the absence of such non-muted Haplo doesn’t imply that the initial Haplo type was absent in a particular region, neither does it imply that it was present. That would be like proving a negative.

Second, if R* has subclades, then it is no longer R*, but R. Presence of R* means that mutation stopped for some reason and would logically constitute a separate tree, as far as that non-mutated haplogroup is concerned. In other words, anybody carrying the subclades of R, is sure as hell, not a member of R* branch. Presence of subclades and also the un-mutated haplogroup, also doesn’t mean, in anyway, that the mutation of un-mutated haplogroup happened in that region. It may also mean that both the subclades and the un-muted haplogroup had arrived separately.

Third, there is no evidence that R1b had originated in Europe, let alone Spain. On the other hand, the generally accepted theory, as of now, is that it had entered Europe at the end of Ice Age. During the Ice Age population carrying R1 got separated into two distinct groups. One, later developed into R1b and entered Europe, while the other, developed into R1a and entered South Asia (but that’s what we are debating, aren’t we?). Incidentally, R1b is found in abundance (almost rising to 90%) in Western France and Ireland (in some places it reaches to 100%) as well. It is found in Central Asia as well.

Fourth, R1 may not have originated around 20-25 kya (thousand years ago), as you have proposed. Karafet et al. (2008) suggest that R1 may have originated circa 18.5 kya.

As with ‘the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea’, it is speculation, unless you back that up with research, that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal that is accepted by majority of scientists as decently reliable.

The above scenario, that you have presented, is way too simplistic, not to mention anachronistic and is based on a very wrong premise that since un-muted haplogroup is not detected in a region, its subclades must have then migrated from somewhere.

Given the paucity of evidence, the idea, that people carrying the Haplogroup R1a1 migrated to Central Asia and it neighbouring regions, is just a leap of faith. Additionally, if indeed the migration had happened north-westerly from India, it would fly straight into the face of archeological and linguistic evidences, which, as of now are the only tangible evidences in hand.

 

[toxic_pus]

...your nickname here in this forum gives a different impression.

Thats the idea

The Bangali Hindu caste relationship that you have written is to the point. This is also what I have read in some other research books. By the way, as far as I have read somewhere that Vaidyas were basically from the Brahmin caste, who became Ayurbedic doctors/Kabiraj in Bengal. In ancient Bengal, a Brahmin was not supposed to eat or drink anything from the hands of a lower caste Hindu. So, an educated group from the Brahmins came out to take up medicine.

This medical profession became the family occupation of that group of Brahmins. In the course of time, this group became completely detached from the main job of a Brahmin, that is, Puja and some related works, and started to be called as Vaidyas. But, genetically they are from the Brahmin caste.

Thats what I referred to as folk tale of origination. Nobody knows what is true.

 

[toxic_pus]

The Afghan Turkic invasion and their first migration happened in 1203. This was the starting point for these educated Budhists to embrace Islam and strengthen the hold of Muslim power in the eastern part of Hindustan in a way that Hindus remained subdued until the British rule started effectively after the Battle of Buxar in 1764.

You are basically saying that the Buddhists cut their nose to spite the face. Can you cite any Buddhist literature that indicates such an attitude.

The reason why Buddhism started to wane in India was of course due to lack of royal patronage. But there was another reason for this. The philosophical difference between Buddhism and Hinduism became almost blurred, after Adi Shankarachrya inculcated within the folds of Hinduism, many aspects of Buddhism. By the time Sharkaracharya appeared, Buddhism was already weakened due to severe in-fighting. That made Shankaracharya's job even easier. Buddism, however continued to survive in pockets, like in Bengal, primarily because of royal patronage. Once this ceased, Buddhism virtually came to cease as well.

Buddhism, never really survived in Bengal till 1200 AD, for the Buddhists to convert to Islam. Of course, pockets may have existed, but there hadn't been any mass 'voluntary' conversion to Islam.

 

[eastwatch]

You are basically saying that the Buddhists cut their nose to spite the face. Can you cite any Buddhist literature that indicates such an attitude.

The reason why Buddhism started to wane in India was of course due to lack of royal patronage. But there was another reason for this. The philosophical difference between Buddhism and Hinduism became almost blurred, after Adi Shankarachrya inculcated within the folds of Hinduism, many aspects of Buddhism. By the time Sharkaracharya appeared, Buddhism was already weakened due to severe in-fighting. That made Shankaracharya's job even easier. Buddism, however continued to survive in pockets, like in Bengal, primarily because of royal patronage. Once this ceased, Buddhism virtually came to cease as well.

Buddhism, never really survived in Bengal till 1200 AD, for the Buddhists to convert to Islam. Of course, pockets may have existed, but there hadn't been any mass 'voluntary' conversion to Islam.

I have read one poem written in old days that described Muslims as the saviors of Budhist in Bengal. Neither I can remember nor do I have a book that has printed the poem. Philosophical thought apart, there were decfinitely conversions, but can you cite a document that says about a forced conversion?

Forced conversion is a new theory proposed by people like Bankim Chandra Chatterjy during British Raj. If Bankim is true, then all the Hindus would have been force converted to Islam. Bankim would then also have a different name.

In reality, even conversion was not in the scale that the present day population figures indicate. There are other reasons for the increase in Muslim population.

 

[Halaku Khan]

This is getting a tad boring and a whole lot tiresome.

You have the option of not reading and not replying. But if you choose to reply, kindly stick to the point.

First, R* and R1* are extremely rare, because they represent nil mutation.

They are both mutations of the most recent common ancestor.

Very few people on earth have those. Because of the general rarity of any non-muted Haplo type, the absence of such non-muted Haplo doesn’t imply that the initial Haplo type was absent in a particular region, neither does it imply that it was present. That would be like proving a negative.

When a haplogroup is at 20% plus in one population, and at undetectable levels in another, it is significant.

Nevertheless, more data is always welcome.

Second, if R* has subclades, then it is no longer R*, but R.

If there is a *, it means you are referring to the node itself - otherwise it means you're referring to the subtree of descendants. I thought that was clear in my post.

Presence of R* means that mutation stopped for some reason and would logically constitute a separate tree, as far as that non-mutated haplogroup is concerned.

It doesn't mean the mutation stopped, it means that the subesquent mutations did not happen in the paternal ancestry of the concerned individual.

In other words, anybody carrying the subclades of R, is sure as hell, not a member of R* branch. Presence of subclades and also the un-mutated haplogroup, also doesn’t mean, in anyway, that the mutation of un-mutated haplogroup happened in that region. It may also mean that both the subclades and the un-muted haplogroup had arrived separately.

All this is elementary.

Third, there is no evidence that R1b had originated in Europe, let alone Spain. On the other hand, the generally accepted theory, as of now, is that it had entered Europe at the end of Ice Age. During the Ice Age population carrying R1 got separated into two distinct groups. One, later developed into R1b and entered Europe ... Incidentally, R1b is found in abundance (almost rising to 90%) in Western France and Ireland (in some places it reaches to 100%) as well. It is found in Central Asia as well.

What is the evidence that R1b did not branch off from R1 inside Europe? Here is the R1b distribution:

... while the other, developed into R1a and entered South Asia (but that’s what we are debating, aren’t we?).

Yes, origin of R1a and R1a1 are key questions.

Fourth, R1 may not have originated around 20-25 kya (thousand years ago), as you have proposed. Karafet et al. (2008) suggest that R1 may have originated circa 18.5 kya.

I just gave a ball-park figure. It's not a core issue here.

As with ‘the ASI's may have come out of Africa by sea’, it is speculation, unless you back that up with research, that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal that is accepted by majority of scientists as decently reliable.

Yes, it is speculation. Some of them certainly were sea-faring, since they ended up on the Andamans. It would be interesting to look at links with the natives of Taiwan, Madagascar, the Pacific Islanders and the Australian Aborigines.

The above scenario, that you have presented, is way too simplistic, not to mention anachronistic and is based on a very wrong premise that since un-muted haplogroup is not detected in a region, its subclades must have then migrated from somewhere.

If R* and R1* and R1a* are all present in location A, and if someone nevertheless claims that the origin of R1a1 is elsewhere in location B, where the former three are all absent, then he'd better have a good argument for that.

And in our case we have a lot of other supporting evidence, described in the many cited references.

For example, the R2 haplogroup, which which is largely confined to South Asia. It is correlated with R1a1 in India, but is absent from the alleged Aryan homelands.

If it came with the Aryans, how come it's absent from the alleged Aryan homelands, and in the other locations where the Aryans are supposed to have gone, such as Europe? If it evolved from R separately, then how come the correlation with R1a1?

The simplest explanation is that both R2 and R1a1 evolved in parallel, in India, from R* and R1* (via R1a*) respectively.

Given the paucity of evidence, the idea, that people carrying the Haplogroup R1a1 migrated to Central Asia and it neighbouring regions, is just a leap of faith. Additionally, if indeed the migration had happened north-westerly from India, it would fly straight into the face of archeological and linguistic evidences, which, as of now are the only tangible evidences in hand.

Actually, the AIT was advanced by Max Muller and William Jones based on their unscientific biblical beliefs. It has now morphed into an Aryan Migration Theory and people are trying to save it. The so-called archeological and linguistic evidence is heavily disputed.

 

[TopCat]

I have read one poem written in old days that described Muslims as the saviors of Budhist in Bengal. Neither I can remember nor do I have a book that has printed the poem. Philosophical thought apart, there were decfinitely conversions, but can you cite a document that says about a forced conversion?

Forced conversion is a new theory proposed by people like Bankim Chandra Chatterjy during British Raj. If Bankim is true, then all the Hindus would have been force converted to Islam. Bankim would then also have a different name.

In reality, even conversion was not in the scale that the present day population figures indicate. There are other reasons for the increase in Muslim population.

Well I even saw in some papers written by controversial hindus where they claimed that only Buddhist and some sudras did convert in Bengal and not a single one was Hindus.
You will not find a single hindu who will ever admit that any Bhramin got converted by the teaching of Islam.

 

[TopCat]

You have the option of not reading and not replying. Bit if you choose to reply, kindly stick to the point.


They are both mutations of the most recent common ancestor.


When a haplogroup is at 20% plus in one population, and at undetectable levels in another, it is significant.

Nevertheless, more data is always welcome.


If there is a *, it means you are referring to the node itself - otherwise it means you're referring to the subtree of descendants. I thought that was clear in my post.


It doesn't mean the mutation stopped, it means that the subesquent mutations did not happen in the paternal ancestry of the concerned individual.



All this is elementary.


What is the evidence that R1b did not branch off from R1 inside Europe? Here is the R1b distribution:

Yes, origin of R1a and R1a1 are key questions.


I just gave a ball-park figure. It's not a core issue here.


Yes, it is speculation. Some of them certainly were sea-faring, since they ended up on the Andamans. It would be interesting to look at links with the natives of Taiwan, Madagascar, the Pacific Islanders and the Australian Aborigines.


If R* and R1* and R1a* are all present in location A, and if someone nevertheless claims that the origin of R1a1* is elesewhere in location B, where the former three are all absent, then he'd better have a good argument for that.

And in our case we have a lot of other supporting evidence, described in the many cited references.

For example, the R2 haplogroup, which which is largely confined to South Asia. It is highly correlated with R1a1 in India, but is absent from the alleged Aryan homelands.

If it came with the Aryans, how come it's absent from the Aryan homelands, and in the other locations such as Europe, where the Aryans are supposed to have gone? If it evolved from R separately, then how come the close correlation with R1a1?

The simplest explanation is that R1a1 and R2 both evolved in parallel, in India, from R1 (via R1a) and R respectively.



Actually, the AIT was advanced by Max Muller and William Jones based on their unscientific biblical beliefs. It has now morphed into an Aryan Migration Theory and people are trying to save it. The so-called archeological and linguistic evidence is heavily disputed.

This looks funny now. Does that mean african first came to India and evolved in two separate race (or by that paper, same race with different skin tone) and one race never tried to get out of India and other martial race conquered the whole world including the whole europe later gone all the way to America by boat with columbus.
That will kill all the theory of anthropology so far taught or discovered.

 

[ice_man]

No, not exactly ....there is not much difference between pakistan especially its most populous states pakistani punjab and sindh province... and just next door neighbour across the borders in Punjab,Rajastan,Gujart and most of north india in terms of racial profile based on scientific fact .I guess u hold some faith on scientific analysis.


Now we can understand that u'll never accept this simple fact which the whole world can figure out easily, because its going to negate the foundamental aspects on the basis of which ur country was created and india got partitioned in the first place . U have to repeat this false impression propagated during partition...usually get more vocal support from slightly distant pathan section of pakistan...so as to remind, explain and justify partition among ur own citizens.

well firstly your very own BJP blue eyed boy JASWANT SINGH cleared out who was wrong in the partition...so parition i guess is a reality get over it accept it!!! its been 60 years! and hell if you wanna go on ranting about partition nonsense then i guess no point arguing....

as for LOOKS....WELL we have a larger population of whitish skinned people..... colour eyed people....that my friend is a fact.....

and like i say that indians are OBSESSED with trying to be as good looking as us hence the whole debate about you are one of us we are the same!!! hell no!!!

partition was necessary so leave it out!

 

[sensenreason]

The DNA mumbo bumbo basically suggests that there might not have been an aryan invasion. Whether right or wrong, what is surely true is that all these are still theories without clinching proof.So if you wish to feel nice about your ancestry and fit the theory that fits your beliefs,then just go ahead and put your faith in them...but scientifically the jury is still out.

 

[TopCat]

well firstly your very own BJP blue eyed boy JASWANT SINGH cleared out who was wrong in the partition...so parition i guess is a reality get over it accept it!!! its been 60 years! and hell if you wanna go on ranting about partition nonsense then i guess no point arguing....

as for LOOKS....WELL we have a larger population of whitish skinned people..... colour eyed people....that my friend is a fact.....

and like i say that indians are OBSESSED with trying to be as good looking as us hence the whole debate about you are one of us we are the same!!! hell no!!!

partition was necessary so leave it out!

Thats funny too.. I know girls with darker skin will make you upside down too...
Ohh could you post your picture????
.

 

[eastwatch]

Thats funny too.. I know girls with darker skin will make you upside down too...
Ohh could you post your picture????
.

By the way, did Akber marry any dark-skinned woman? How many wives did he have and how many children from his wives and concubines? As far as I know, Rajput Jodha was not married to him, but to one of his sons. Was it Jahangir? Which story is correct? People have already derailed this thread. Can someone answer these questions and then correct the thread?