Indo-Aryan invasion of India

Maoist insurgency are funded by China to destabilize India. They've done the same in Nepal

And in thirty years it will turn out that the aid the Naxalites received was negligible, by which point the tribals will be completely displaced.
Even if the central structure is funded by the Chinese, that does not explain why they are able to draw in thousands of militants willing to die for what you allege is the puppet of a foreign country.
If the Indian government protected the indigenous the Naxals would not exist.
Communists are maggots - they don't eat living tissue, only what is already rotten.
I'm not even anti-BJP, but pimping out natural wealth to foreign mining companies at the expense of the tribals is hardly nationalist.

>who was living there before the horse people came
Various groups of peoples. Original populations consisted of Mongoloids(Assam), proto-Australoids(Vedda), and Negritos(Andamanese) who were hunter-gatherers, 90% of Indians are descended primarily from the aforementioned groups. Caucasoid farmers from the Middle-East built the first civilization(IVC) in the region, specifically in the northwest around modern-day Pakistan. Indic horsepeople were also Caucasoid, but traveled through from Central Asia. All populations intermixed, but can be genetically divided into two groups:
>ANI - Caucasoid
>ASI - Australoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid

Ideologiests growth is not dependent on the original cause. It can grow organically via ideological purity or via external forces via chinese money/support

*Ideologues

>Caucasoid farmers from the Middle-East built the first civilization(IVC)
I think it's better to say the mixed inhabitants like you mentioned. The IVC was around for two thousand years where it slowly progressed from a culture into a civilization like all the other cradles contemporary to that period. The inhabitants wouldn't have remained the same.
>ANI
Good point. Although it's important to point out that the ANI doesn't mainly come from the IE but a separate migration around 10K years ago iirc.

I'm pretty sure IVC was Dravidian.

>The Indus Valley civilisation (2,600-1,900 BCE) located in Northwestern Indian subcontinent is often identified as having been Dravidian.[51] Cultural and linguistic similarities have been cited by researchers Henry Heras, Kamil Zvelebil, Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan as being strong evidence for a proto-Dravidian origin of the ancient Indus Valley civilisation.[52][53] The discovery in Tamil Nadu of a late Neolithic (early 2nd millennium BCE, i.e. post-dating Harappan decline) stone celt allegedly marked with Indus signs has been considered by some to be significant for the Dravidian identification.[54][55]

>Yuri Knorozov surmised that the symbols represent a logosyllabic script and suggested, based on computer analysis, an underlying agglutinative Dravidian language as the most likely candidate for the underlying language.[56] Knorozov's suggestion was preceded by the work of Henry Heras, who suggested several readings of signs based on a proto-Dravidian assumption.[57]

>Linguist Asko Parpola writes that the Indus script and Harappan language are "most likely to have belonged to the Dravidian family".[58] Parpola led a Finnish team in investigating the inscriptions using computer analysis. Based on a proto-Dravidian assumption, they proposed readings of many signs, some agreeing with the suggested readings of Heras and Knorozov (such as equating the "fish" sign with the Dravidian word for fish, "min") but disagreeing on several other readings. A comprehensive description of Parpola's work until 1994 is given in his book Deciphering the Indus Script.[59]

>I think it's better to say the mixed inhabitants
The mixed inhabitants didn't really exist in the time of the IVC, not until Vedic times that mass mixture occurs. Harappans kept their racial type intact it seems. Here's one of the skulls we found, absent of non-Caucasoid admixture.
>ANI doesn't mainly come from the IE but a separate migration around 10K years ago
ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers. Might not be from Indo-Europeans, but certainly related to the Caucasoid farmers and pastoralists.

>but certainly related to the Caucasoid farmers and pastoralists.

These would be the Proto-Dravidian CHG from Iran, who carried R2 and other haplogroups deep into South Asia.
The idea that indigenous tribals in South Asia could be a source of culture and language is stillborn.

>The Harappan language is not directly attested and its affiliation is uncertain since the Indus script is still undeciphered.
It's not known the language affiliation of the IVC, but we know genetically and racially, Harappans were not similar to modern Dravidians. Harappans were unmixed ANI, before the admixture event.Here's some more information:
>The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh, a site located in the Balochistan province next to Afghanistan/Iran, in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km2) site was a small farming village which was inhabited from circa 6500 BCE. It is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia.
>Mehrgarh was influenced by the Near Eastern Neolithic,[71] with similarities between "domesticated wheat varieties, early phases of farming, pottery, other archaeological artefacts, some domesticated plants and herd animals."[72]
>The most important conclusion of Kennedy's study is that the Harappan population was not derived from peninsular India
>Finally, and significantly, this study indirectly rejected a “Dravidian” authorship of the Indus civilization, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers rather than a source with proximity to the Indus....”
>The skeletal and dental study made it very clear that the Harappan population was not derived from peninsular India.

There is no evidence for a Dravidian origin in Iran or the Middle East. Not even a little. It's not 'stillborn', the idea that South Indians could've developed their own civilizations, without Middle Eastern people having to teach them everything. Dravidians are native to South India and built their own civilization, without it having to be imported.

>CHG from Iran,
>carried R2
Source ?

>Here's one of the skulls we found, absent of non-Caucasoid admixture.
But the Australoids were literally just proto-Caucasoids. I don't think theres that much of a distinction between them.
>The idea that indigenous tribals in South Asia could be a source of culture and language is stillborn.
They're not exactly.. sophisticated but they had a culture and language.

The proto-Australoids of India were not ancestral or closely related to Caucasoids, perhaps to the Mongoloids of SEA.
>pic related
You realize that's a Sinahlese Indo-Aryan Caucasoid man? Not helping your case. Here's an actual Australoid and you'll see the difference.

These mainstream Dravidians like Tamils are heavily mixed with CHG(not ANI, it's not Indian to begin with) compared to tribals.
Dravidian languages are the only viable contender for the West Asian Neolithic settlers.
Your average Northern Indian has minimal European admixture. They are naturally more Dravidian than most Dravidians.

It's found in the Caucasus, confirming the not so speculative link to CHG.
>In Caucasus high frequency was observed in Armenians from Sason at 18% (18/104)[12] while it was observed at %1 in Armenians from Van. R2 has been found in Chechens at 16%.[13] R-M124 has been found in approximately 8% (2/24) of a sample of Ossetians from Alagir.[14].
>In the Caucasus, around 16% of Mountain Jews, 8% of Balkarians,[15] 6% of Kalmyks,[16] 3% of Azerbaijanis,[13] 2.6% of Kumyks,[17] 2.4% of Avars,[17] 2% of Armenians,[13] and 1% to 6% of Georgians[13][15][18] belong to the R-M124 haplogroup. Approximately 1% of Turks[19] and 1% to 3% of Iranians[20] also belong to this haplogroup.

Of course it didn't come alone. G and J were fellow travelers.

>Dravidians like Tamils are heavily mixed with CHG
Do you have a source to back this statement up? The genetics and even physical look, is leaps and bounds different. CHG were Caucasoid, but Dravidians aren't.
>Dravidian languages are the only viable contender
No they are not. They are quite unlikely to have been their languages infact. Harappans were pure ANI, but Dravidians are almost pure ASI.

>Your average Northern Indian has minimal European admixture. They are naturally more Dravidian than most Dravidians.
Obviously. Modern day Europeans didn't exist before the IE's. What is meant by 'European' is Caucasian.

nature.com/articles/ncomms9912
>In modern populations, the impact of CHG also stretches beyond Europe to the east. Central and South Asian populations received genetic influx from CHG (or a population close to them), as shown by a prominent CHG component in ADMIXTURE (Supplementary Fig. 5; Supplementary Note 9) and admixture f3-statistics, which show many samples as a mix of CHG and another South Asian population (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Table 9). It has been proposed that modern Indians are a mixture of two ancestral components, an Ancestral North Indian component related to modern West Eurasians and an Ancestral South Indian component related more distantly to the Onge25; here Kotias proves the majority best surrogate for the former

Since the discovery of CHG, ANI has become Hindutva religious terminology moreso than science as it's fully obsolete.

>Harappans were pure ANI, but Dravidians are almost pure ASI.

They are about 50% ASI 50% CHG
Harappan DNA is sequenced but unavailable because the results were disappointing for Indian nationalism, mainly due to the lack of haplogroup R1a.

The European genome contains more components than CHG.

Harappans were farmers from the Middle East. ANI includes the Middle East.
>Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who are related to Middle Easterners
Harappans were pre-admixture event and were pure ANI. Your claim of ASI at any degree is verifiably false.
>a major mixture between ANI and ASI populations in India occurred 1,900–4,200 years BP, marking mainly post-Harappan times
>the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI
The Indus Valley Civilization covered the majority of Pakistan. Pakistani's are closer to Middle Eastern, European, and Brahmin populations, who are all similarly high in ANI levels.
>Importantly, the Pakistani (Indus Valley) populations differ substantially from most of the Indian populations and show comparably low genetic differentiation from European, Near Eastern, and Caucasian populations. In agreement with previous Y-chromosome studies, [41] and [42], the Brahmin and Kshatriya from Uttar Pradesh stand out by being closer to Pakistani and West Eurasian populations than to other Indian populations from the same geographic area
>ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, Pakistanis are almost entirely IE speakers.

There is zero(0) evidence for a Dravidian origin in the Middle East. Dravidians are genetically distinct from Harappans. Harappans were Middle Eastern farmers.

I made no claim about Harappans and ASI since it's irrelevant and still unknown if they were mixed or not, but if they were 100% CHG Dravidian like you imply that means they would cluster with Georgians not Pakistanis.
Pakis are not that close to pure CHG, much further than Cypriots actually.

I guess it depends on what you mean by Pakistani. Even the Punjabi populace can be quite diverse from another.

>I made no claim about Harappans and ASI since it's irrelevant
It's very relevant. Dravidians are mainly ASI, so Harappans being pure ANI shows they are not genetically related.
>100% CHG Dravidian
Where did I say this? Dravidians are ASI.
>but if they were 100% CHG Dravidian
They're not. CHG is one kind of Middle Eastern.

>It's very relevant.
Not at all actually since they accumulated more ASI as they moved through South Asia.

The Nature paper proves Dravidians are half CHG and Andamanese are the best proxy for full ASI.

>Nature paper proves Dravidians are half CHG
No it does not. You are assigning things that did not exist in the source. It does not say anywhere in that paper, anything about Dravidians or how CHG they are. In fact, Dravidian isn't even mentioned once in that whole paper. . The image shows that Dravidians have some of the lowest levels of CHG, with Europeans, Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and even Siberians having more CHG ancestry than Dravidians. The image also shows that Pakistani's/North Indians have much more CHG than South Indians like Dravidians.

This image specifically shows how close various groups cluster to the Caucasus, you can see Dravidians and other South Indians some of the furthest away groups that don't cluster.

You're an idiot. ASI is fully East Eurasian and decreases affinity to CHG just as much as Japanese admixture would.
South Indian affinity to Kotias CHG is consistent with being half CHG.

>ASI is fully East Eurasian
It's not, it originates from within India.
>decreases affinity to CHG
That's not how that works you moron. Having two different parent groups does not drastically decrease your affinity to one, it will still share certain genes and cluster relatively closely, but the Dravidian groups do not come close, indicating minimal admixture. This is how they're able to match Europeans with various ancestral groups, like ENF and WHG, which by your dumb logic shouldn't be possible because their affinity was decreased.
>South Indian affinity to Kotias
Is equivalent to the same level as a Tibetan or Mongolian, as demonstrated by this map. North Indian and Pakistani populations cluster much closer, as expected.

Aryan "art", over 1300 years of dark ages after those shitheads invaded, even pre indoeuropean fucking Sri Lanka developed cities before the so called "Aryans" managed to build them

>It's not, it originates from within India.

Just like Australian Aboriginals. India is the source of East Eurasians.

>That's not how that works you moron.

It's exactly how it works. West Eurasian components share alleles, CHG shares nothing with ASI or the Japanese.

Tibetans are blue so no affinity to CHG.

Harappans and BMAC were probably the same people and they came from Near/Middle East.

>Just like
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about to claim that Australian Aboriginals and East Eurasians are from India.
>It's exactly how it works.
No it's not. CHG have split from Europeans and Japanese for similar periods of time - 40,000 years. Europeans are mainly non-CHG but still cluster closely due to the genetic relation. Dravidians and South Indians have little to no CHG, only genetic drift admixture from North Indians, and do not cluster at all.

>Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about to claim that Australian Aboriginals and East Eurasians are from India.

This is easily one of the dumbest things ever said on Veeky Forums. Siberia is not a realistic alternative route so India is left as the only option.

>CHG have split from Europeans and Japanese for similar periods of time - 40,000 years.

Pure fiction based on nothing and refuted by everything.

On the other hand consider: agriculture and agrarian civilization are SHIT

Maybe the Aryans were too smart for cities. Ever think about that?

>negritos
You mean Dravidians?

>This is
You must be retarded to claim that Australian Aboriginals and East Eurasians are from India. Ancestral groups traveled through India, but did not become the distinctive groups they are while they were in India, you absolute idiot.
>Pure fiction
Maybe you should read what you source?
>"Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ∼45kya"

>Why? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite.
What the fuck are you smoking

People in the north-east are not Indo-Aryan at all. They look like this

Why?
I don't know why people would expect them to look like anything else.

>Ancestral groups traveled through India

And ASI didn't leave. They stayed.

WHG is still closer to CHG than East Eurasian components are and ENF and EHG even more so.

>tfw too intelligent for civilization
Not him but that's some next level stuff

Sorry I’m too tired for this shit. I read “north-west.”