Indian society. The
one exception to the finding, that all Indian groups are mixed, is the indigenous
people of the Andaman islands …’ 31
In order to appreciate the messiness of
the Jati system of castes, note the distribution of the R1a1 genetic haplogroup, the
genes many Indians share with Eastern Europeans. 32 Their distribution in India across region and caste is telling. It is present
in high concentration among high-caste Brahmins of Bengal and Konkan as well as in
Punjabi Khatris, but it also shows up in tribes such as the Chenchus of Andhra
Pradesh. In other words, a Chenchu tribesman is closely related to an
upper-caste Bengali ‘bhadralok’ and a blond Lithuanian. You
never know where you will bump into relatives. A paper published in the
Journal
of Human Genetics
in January 2009,argues that the R1a1
lineage probably originated in India. The study argues for ‘the
autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian
Brahmins’. 33 Thus, we may well be dealing with a particularly successful Neolithic clan that
branched out in different directions and whose descendants experienced very
different fates.
There is a difference between the
genetic reality and the rigid and strictly hierarchical ‘Varna’
system of castes described in the Manusmriti (Laws of Manu). The Manusmriti is often
used by scholars as the framework to understand the phenomenon of castes. It now
appears that the formal ‘Varna’ based caste system described in
the text is a scholarly abstraction that may never have existed in reality. 34 Instead, what we have here is a very flexible and organic milieu consisting of
Jatis that can adapt easily to changing times by allowing for evolving social
equations. For instance, the system can spontaneously create new castes whenever new
groups need to be accommodated. Similarly, groups can be promoted or demoted in
status according to prevailing social conditions. This fits what we know from
historical experience—including the formation of the warrior Rajput caste
in the medieval period. In the past, these groups vied with each other to move up
the pecking order. Today we have the opposite situation where they vie to be
classified as ‘backward’ in order to benefit from affirmative
action. The logic of collective action is the same.
2
People of the Lost River
As we move from prehistory to history, we
are immediately confronted by a problem of plenty. The early history of India has
two parallel sources, but there is a great deal of disagreement about how they fit
together. On one hand there is the archaeological evidence of the sophisticated
cities of the Harappan Civilization (also called Indus Valley or
Indus–Saraswati civilization). On the other hand, there is the literature
of the Vedic tradition. Their geographies and timelines roughly overlap but
archaeologists and historians have long had difficulty reconciling them. Indeed,
this has remained a hot topic of discussion among scholars and often deteriorates
into a political debate. I do not claim to have resolved the debate. Therefore, I
will tell the two stories separately. I will then focus on the one thing that the
two sources agree on: the drying of a great river that theRig
Veda calls the Saraswati. No matter which way one looks at it, the drying of this
river was an important geographical event that defined early India.
THE HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION
Till the early twentieth century, as
already discussed in the previous chapter, it was believed that Indian civilization
began with the ‘Aryan Invasions’ that were supposed to have
taken place around 1500 BC . These European-like Aryans
were supposed to have come from Central Asia and to have conquered the subcontinent
and then ‘civilized’ the native population. It should not be
lost on the reader that this theory evolved in an intellectual milieu in which
Rudyard