The genetic origins of Aryans is a distraction to keep the Indic side off balance and has little relevance outside of anthropological academic study.
Raghunandhan (Raghu) Bhaskaran is a Bharathi and like many today, he for long, ignored his heritage and was focused towards Artha, to the exclusion of the other Purusharthas and is yet another IT consultant. But now he is increasingly a seeker of what it means to be a Hindu, a follower of Dharma in every sphere of life - personal, social, cultural and political. Towards this, he uses writing as a sadhana, to attain clarity and shares his learning with others, learns from others. He considers himself as the 'Mongoose of Mahabharatha', from the Ashwamedha Parva. Serendipity has led him to some yagna-salas, the works/company of some wonderful people - from heritage, family, friends, teachers and even on social media. He rolls around in the crumbs of their wisdom and some stick to him. And he shines in parts, from those borrowed crumbs of knowledge.
When Obama was the president of the United States, his opponents kept demanding his birth certificate, to prove that he was not a Muslim or an American. There is a theory, that Obama could have shown his birth certificate at any point and shut down that clamour, but intentionally did not. Because it was convenient for him, to have his opponents distracted with a non-issue than them pinning him down on serious matters of policy, he chose to take the heat on this subject.
The genetic origin of Aryans is somewhat like that, a distraction aimed to keep the Indic side off balance, but actually is of no relevance whatsoever, outside of anthropological academic research. Let us look at the origin of this theory and who does the controversy benefit.
(1) 'Aryans are aliens theory' benefited the British: They could claim a racial relationship with Indians as justification for the colonial rule, to indicate that alien Aryans had invaded India earlier and ruled, and so they are just continuing that precedent. It benefited their divide and rule policy to estrange different populations of India from one another.
(2) It benefits the Missionaries: Promoting an Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy, and presenting Dravidians as victims, Christianity as the champion of victims, helps them with their conversion agenda.
(3) It benefits the Muslims: That Hindus as well were invaders to this land and therefore are no better than Muslims in association with the land, works for the Muslims.
But like with Triple Talaq, this issue has zero relevance to the Hindus. And here is why:
I. Supposing it is categorically established, that Aryans originated in the subcontinent of India,
• Would it make any difference to any of the anti-Hindu forces, will they give up their Hinduphobic narrative?
• Will the constitution be changed to give precedence and preference to the native beliefs and cultures of India?
• Will the politicians stop genuflecting to secularism?
• Will it overnight become that Muslims and Christians are not the privileged minority, coddled with secularism?
None of the above would happen.
II. Supposing it is categorically established, that Aryans originated outside the subcontinent of India,
• To ordinary Hindus, would it make any difference that their ancestors came from outside India 4000–6000 years ago?
• Would that mean the population with predominant ASI genes, would overnight stop being Hindus?
• Or would it mean that the constitution could be changed, to include Aryan Hindus as a coddled minority alien religion like Christianity and Islam?
Neither can any of the above happen so what exactly is the value of establishing the origins of Aryans to the Indic movement?
Getting overly involved with the subject is simply falling into the trap set by the OutDic Hinduphobes. (Indic are the folks who value the civilisational heritage, so I call the antagonists as OutDics, more apt that Right/Left)
To the dharmic Hindu, it would make no difference where their ancestors originated from — Caucasus or Cambodia, but try telling them that Vedas, Shastras, Itihaasas, bhakti — belonged not to their ancestors, but to foreigners, that would surely get a reaction. Civilisations are not defined by their genetic origins, but by the cultural continuum. Not understanding that, was the mistake of the Nazis.
Dr. David Frawley, Maria Wirth, Swami Ghananandha of Ghana, Swami Subramuniyaswami of Kauai are all Hindus and great contributors to the culture, yet not genetically Indic. Genetic origins are one of the many factors, but it would be foolish to limit ourselves to the trap laid out by Hinduphobic forces, who have established a fictitious narrative of alien origin and thus challenge Hindus to disprove it. This challenge should be ignored as irrelevant.
Even prior to Aryans, human life must have originated somewhere. Maybe it was in Pangea when there were no separate continents, maybe it was in the Nile rift valley of Africa. But it is the not the genetic origins that define us as Hindus, we probably share genetic material to different extents with disparate people as an Australian Aboriginal or an African Bushman, or even with the Apes. That does not matter as it is only the civilisation that defines us.
It is our heritage and culture, that differentiates us from the other two populations in the neighbourhood — the Chinese and Persians (Iranians), who also built distinct civilisations.
And the earliest record, sign of my civilisation are the suktas of Rig Veda which by its own descriptions were composed in the greater Sindhu region. It is the continuity of that, which echoes in Sangam literature in the far south, composed on the banks of Vaigai or in the literature of Navadwipa and Tripura in the east. That is what makes me Sindhu-Hindu and not my RNA or DNA.
And even if Dravidian or Moolnivasi or whatever, the acceptance of Islam or Christianity which requires the convert to deny the worldview of his/her ancestors, is what makes a person non-Hindu, even if his genes were 100% traced to India. Christianity and Islam are not Indian, not because they are alien in origin, but because they are alienating in design.
Hindu Dharma is Indian in origin. Even if we assume that genetically Aryans were alien in origin, it is here where this civilisation was born. So while scientists, anthropologists and researchers can do their work, in the political, social and civilisational narrative, it is better that the Indic forces delink the genetic origin of Aryans from the Hindu character of this land.
This is also important in another sense. To associate Hindu Dharma to only one particular race is actually accepting a limitation to the universality of Dharma. If Bharat is to be a Jagadguru, then this limited association is counterproductive, causing people to assume that they can’t be Hindus because they are not Indians. When Islam and Christianity are aggressive with conversion as their mission, applying everything from violence, corruption, coercion to charity to increase their numbers; Hindu leadership would be foolish to assume this unnecessary limitation upon ourselves.
If Yoga and Ayurveda are universal, then Dharma is even more so. Vasudaiva Kutumbakam is possible only when Dharma is the path available to all Vasuda (world). While proponents of Dharma will never proselytise religion like the salesmen of Christianity or Islam, it should never be presented that Hindu Dharma is associated only to India and those of Indic origin.
To be Arya is to be noble and nobility can spring from any source. It has no limitations. May the origins of Aryas be everywhere, may Aryas originate from everywhere.