There is a serious problem with the migration theorists, no matter whether they are Indigenous Aryan or Aryan Migration Theorists. Both use the same data drawing convenient inferences from literary, archeological or genetical proofs. After the publication of an article in Hindu, indigenous Aryan theorists have come forward to refute Tony Joseph’s claim that the Indo-Aryans entered India from the West. Both, A.L. Chavda1 and Anil Kumar Suri have tried to disprove Tony Joseph while pushing forth Indigenous Aryan Theory. They not only use genetic pieces of evidence in their favor by sheer misinterpretation or even lies but drag literary evidence to prove that the Vedas were authored by the indigenous Aryans and were composed on the banks of the now defunct Ghaggar River to which they identify with Vedic Sarasvati.
Before getting into their concocted and misinterpreted genetic evidence, let us first take stock of Chavda’s other arguments that he has forwarded in favor of the Indigenous Aryan Theory.
Chavda boldly claims that the family that conquered the world…originated in India. He also carelessly claims that a remote ancestor of the R1a family lived in India 15,450 years ago. He does not forget to inform the caste of the origin…and yes, it is Brahmin. He goes further to use the mythical mother of demons, Danu, and her children, the Danava clan, to tell us how the Danavas were defeated and banished by Devas and that they ended up in Ireland!
He, to prove his theory, tells us the various river names that are closely related to the Mother River Goddess Danu, such as the Danube, Don, the Dnieper, and a few others. These river names are derived from the Rig Vedic Sanskrit root Danu. Danu, in Sanskrit, meant fluid or drop. In Old Persian, Danu meant river. Hence, the river names could have been derived from the Persian Danu or Vedic Danu, because, anyway, both religions flourished in close vicinity and in the same linguistic atmosphere.
In the Rig Veda, Danu was the mother of Vritra, an Asura, and not the Danavas. Danu is also another name of Soma in the Rig Veda. (Rig. 10.43.7) It is used in many senses like cloud, rain, drops, giver, etc., and she is not evil but is praised in many places.
The relationship between Danu and Danavas is not clear in the Rig Veda. It is far later literature that she has been shown as the consort of Kashyapa and the mother of Danavas. There is no relationship between her name and her being as a River Goddess. In India, there is no river named after Danu. The rivers we have been associated with her name are all, in fact, flow from Central Asia and Europe.
Had Aryans originated in India and Danavas being a clan of Indo-Aryans, as claimed by Chavda, why is there not a single river named after the mythical Danu, though her name survived in the literature, adorning different characters? How large was the population of the Danavas to spread and settle over a large part of Eurasia? And why, except for river names and Irish mythological stories, is there no trace of the Danavas in any literature, except for a mention of Danu in the Avesta?
This is the contrast that tells us that the mythological Vedic stories flowed in India from the West, i.e., Iran, with a handful of migrants and did not originate in India. The Danu-Danava relationship was developed in a far later course of time. The original enmity was between Devas and Asuras, people of opposing faiths, and we get a series of stories of the wars fought between Devas and Asuras, i.e., Vedic Aryans and Zoroastrians, which took place in ancient Iran and not in India.
Chavda has forwarded this myth to prove that the migration of the Indo-Aryan clan named Danava from India is completely flawed, and so is his other so-called genetic evidence.
He has cited report 2 to make out his claim that the oldest example of the haplogroup R1a is found in India, and it is 15,450 years old! First of all, the author of the paper informs that the sub-group Z93 of R1a is ancient, not R1a. We have proof that the R1a-M417 subclade diversified into Z282 and Z93 about circa 5,800 years ago.3 R1a is as old as 22,000 or 25,000 years.
Now, when Z93 has not evolved at all during the time claimed, how can it be claimed that Z93 existed 15,450 years ago? Isn't it a blatant lie and misrepresentation of the research to prove the baseless theory?
This makes Chavda’s story a most concocted lie to mislead the people into the Indigenous Aryan Theory! Aryans, if they existed, cannot be proved indigenous using genetics or any other source, whether it be archeology or literature!
Why do they blatantly lie or misinterpret the proof? The only reason is that they want to claim authorship of the Indus-Ghaggar civilization and prove the Vedics, and that Brahmins among them were superior to all those who even reached Europe to spread their language and culture! This is, albeit supremacist, the racial approach that is dangerous to good science.
(In the next article we will discuss the article of Anil Kumar Suri and another article by Mr. A. L. Chavda.)
Ref:
1. Mr. A. L. Chavda’s article - http://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/
And
2. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi--haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf
3. Peter A. Underhill, (2014), "The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a" (PDF), European Journal of Human Genetics.
