Are the People of India Caucasians? Yes

A visitor, apparently a Black man, questions whether Indians are Caucasians .

All the people of India are Caucasian? Really?

Your post is not making any scientific or anthropological sense. For how can anyone say that a transient people occupying an area of landmass, which is by far not genetically isolated, could all fall into one indefinable racial group, i.e. Caucasoid? It is obvious to almost anyone with a discerning eye that second probably only to Africa proper that the demographics that make up India or sub-continental Asia is very genetically diverse.

Genetically speaking, there in no such thing as a ‘unique Caucasoid racial group’, let alone any evidence that the genetic and phenotypical dominant features observable amongst many so-called “white Europeans” predates any similar or almost identical genetic phenotypes observable or expressed in most of Asia or Africa.

And besides skin color, which in the case of the so-called “white European Caucasian” is the absence of melanin, basically making their skin literally translucent, all other features are easily phenotypically observable amongst other people who have an older and more diverse genetic variation that has been relatively constant for tens of thousands of years (predating that of so-called “white European Caucasoids”).

At best, the so-called “Caucasoid” who are actually a minority of nomadic people that developed in Western Asia, should, as mentioned previously, be a sub-group of some other more ancient people, such as Dravidians, Australoids, or of course Africans.

The archeological evidence shows that the anomalous phenotype of the “white Caucasoid” is not the earliest found even in Europe proper, or better yet Western Asia, and is one of the most recent derivations of Homo sapiens.

Indians that have a broad phenotypic appearance and range of skin color that is similar to that of sub-Saharan Africans, do not have to identify with Africans, that’s their choice.

But it is sad that these same Indians who post here, being some the earliest to migrate out of Africa, acquiesce to European folklore to allow white Europeans to thrust upon them their erroneous and nonscientific racial standards.

These standards subgroup and defines Indians via of an obscure geographic region, the Caucasus Mountains, a region chosen to define the mythological origins of all “white people”, who in all actuality, are actually the Indian’s former colonial masters (what a coincidence).

This is a typical comment we receive on the Indian race posts. This person may be a Black person from his tone.

The question of the race of the Indian people can be determined in a few different ways. One way is to look at their genes. If we do, it is clear that most Indians have genes that line up fairly well with the rest of the Caucasian or Caucasoid group.

If we have to put Indians into different major races – Asian, Caucasian, Australoid, or Black, we are forced to put them into Caucasian. And there is no smaller major race that they can be lumped into either – Negritos, Oceanians and Amerindians won’t suffice. They are closer to Caucasoids than they are to any of those other groups, so they must go into that category by default.

It is true that Indians are one of the most divergent Caucasoid groups out there. The others are the Kalsah, a group from Pakistani Chitral that is sometimes considered to be a major race of their own and the Berbers, a Caucasoid group that is so divergent that they are barely into the Black quadrant on some charts.

Indians are divergent in the direction of Asians. If we plot them on graphs, Indians will look like Caucasians, but they will be at a far end of the Caucasian spectrum heading over towards the Asian end.

We can also look at skulls. Looking at skulls, we see that the vast majority of Indians have Caucasian looking skulls, that is, their skulls look more Caucasian than anything else. Some South Indians such as Tamils actually have Australoid skulls, but their genes are Caucasoid. What race you put them in depends on the system you use.

There are people in Northeast India who are clearly Asians and not Caucasians. In this part of India, Asian or Caucasian can best be determined phenotypically. Looking at genes and skulls, many Northeast Indians will indeed plot as Asians.

In the northwest of India, one can also see some Asian genes, though the people are mostly Caucasian. Punjabis have ~14% Asian genes in them, probably from the Stans and possibly from the Tibetan region.

Nepal is a very mixed bag racially, with many both Caucasoid and Asian types and a lot of mixes.

The visitor does make an interesting point – he suggests that Dravidians may actually be “ancient Caucasians.” I believe there may be some truth to that. The classical European White man is a pretty new model bipedal vehicle.


Filed under Anthropology, Asia, East Indians, India, Nepal, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, South Asians, Tibet

63 responses to “Are the People of India Caucasians? Yes

  1. Actually, the question “Are the People of India Caucasians” is like asking “Are the People of Europe Slavs?” The answer is, “It depends on what ethnicity they are”. Sure, a Caucasoid looking Punjabi could be classified as a Caucasian but could you say the same for a Mongloid looking Naga or Mizo ‘Indian?

    • Most Indians are Caucasians. Yes, there are some Asians in the northeast. I mentioned that in the post. Almost all Indians outside the northeast are actually Caucasoid on genes. I have seen the genetic charts.

      • Mike

        you are correct that north region Indians are caucasian but the word Caucasian does not mean white as the brown Caucasian is not European white at all. the brown Caucasian is the first Caucasian and the word Caucasian never meant ethnicity of racial identity as there is European Caucasian, and north African Caucasian, the word Caucasian meant bonestructure similarities. it wasn’t until the year 1785 a german philosopher by the name of Christopher meiner changed the definition making the word Caucasian mean exclusively white European and excluding north east Indians. that’s why in western countries like Canada and the u.s their government uses the term Caucasian to mean white European in passports ,census statistic reports, online dating etc.

      • mick

        but they are not white European. hope you know Caucasian doesn’t mean white European .

  2. Xera

    There is a theory that the Dravidians are actually from the Levantine, and may have been an original form of North African/Middle Eastern types that originated there; I keep hearing this. What is your take on that Robert Lindsay?

  3. Xera

    I have seen Egyptians that strangely resemble Indians by a long shoot actually

    • Check out the Mozabites. Very primitive looking Berber people. They look something like Indians. I think they are very ancient Caucasoids.

    • It is more than a physical remsemblance. They even have the same thought process and personality types, in spite of having different sets of gods and different cultures.

      • Egyptians and Indians. From a Sociological perspective, both the people of Misr and Hindu India have river civilisations, agrarian cultures, ethnocentric outlook and a strong religious fervour.

        On a more personal observation, I find that people of the Middle East in general have an outlook and attitude towards life and people that is uncannily similar to Indians. Cultural puritanism, xenophobia, a tendency to pull down their own,a tendecy to look down at other ethnic groups to feel better about themselves, a strong disdain for liberal/secular ideologies, a pre-occupation with BC era ‘glories’ and such. They are pretty much from the same ‘mental box’ seperated over two geographic regions.

        • Dota

          @ AI

          Many of your observations regarding these 2 groups are basically the result of a post colonial hangover. Traditionally Hindus have never been too puritanical or history obsessed, these are merely responses to the humiliation of imperialism. Same for the Arabs.

          If I were making a cross civilization observation, I’d say that the Indian culture of antiquity bore a resemblance to the culture of Iran. Both cultures had an introverted artistic style where art was used as a form of decoration (instead of representation as in the west), and both cultures placed a large premium on telling the truth. I think it was Herodotus who noted that telling the truth was the ultimate virtue in the Achemenid domain. This was also the case with the Aryans of India and the Mahabharat cites several examples of the Pandavas deceiving the Kauravas without technically uttering a lie. Truth was an intrinsic good in both cultures.

        • Xera

          True but something I have noticed is that unlike India, people in the Middle East have a sense of fecal hygiene rights, and the sense that one needs privacy when defecating. Indeed they even have the uncanny notion that people need toilets and paper towels so that their entire population have somewhere to defecate appropriately. Even the ancient Egyptians had toilet papers too, can’t say the same for this sub-continent.

          So did Iran have toilets or did they have people openly defecate on roads and fill their path ways with ditches? Iranians seem pretty keen on hygiene & fecal rights.

        • Iranians seem pretty keen on hygiene & fecal rights.

          I am a very strong supporter of fecal rights.

        • Some people at Stormfront are like that.

        • Dota


          The people who crap out in the open are generally peasants or dalits, the lower castes. They behave like animals because they have always been treated like animals. I’m disgusted by their behavior but my anger is not directed at them; but against the religion that refuses to acknowledge their humanity. I’ve said this before but in Indian culture the individual on the rung below you is not quite as human as you. He may possess human form, but no substance. A simulacrum. This is how caste has shaped Indian culture.

        • Xera

          I was arguing with some Indian lady the other day, about Indian poverty in that region and the lady started raising her tone at me just for asking why that sub-continent is a shithole (not literally saying that word but still). I was given the usual bullshit of blah blah blah Indian its too poor and they don’t have enough money to construct a sewer system. But then I mentioned that some of the richest people in the world were Indians (no doubt leeched by those people) so they should have money to actually build a proper sewage system. I was given more and more bullshit about there being too many people so they can’t actually build anything to sustain that. Bullshit why are they having so many fucking people and how can they have many fucking children survive, then she gave me some crap about the human body able to adapt to one piece of bread and soup so they can survive.

          I was getting pretty annoyed by her tone, then she went on to the usual Indian BS of saying “oh other countries were and have the exact same problems as India in it’s rural parts” BS, where she thought Chinese rural towns were as big shitholes as Indians. It was so much crap for me to take, because I have been to Chinese rural towns and they are light years ahead of garbage Indiot run villages thought they are far from being paradies. China is actually going somewhere, has the technology and are doing a far better job of modernizing it’s country then India, yet this moronic women couldn’t accept that they’re was something wrong with that idiotic society. Then she went on the usual BS of saying no country is rich other then Western countries, and those other countries are facing the exact same problems as India and in the same position.

          Holy shit, I cannot stand Indians or people from that sub-continent, they are the most arrogant, ugly, close-minded, self-denying, pathetic, self-loathing, childish worthless people on this planet. Just nuke and bomb that entire sub-continent already and Indians can start fresh again.

        • @ Dota
          You have a point. A lot of the cultural hangups among Indians does appear to have something to do with the colonial rule. However I am not too sure about the “Hindus weren’t puritans” part. Most of the social taboos and puritanical aspects of both Indian and Middle Eastern cultures were pre-British in origin. As an example, I doubt that the Indian practice of Sati or the Egyptian practice of FGM has anything to do with British imperialism.

          The popular history of both these regions, which focus on the wealthy and nobles gives an impression of wealth and extravagance, but the life of the ordinary people was anything otherwise.

        • @ Xera
          It was ancient Chinese who used toilet papers, not Egyptians. The idea of toilet paper went to the Middle East in the 6th century AD after Arab explorers travelled to China and observed that the Chinese used papers to clean their derrieres, instead of sand as the people of Middle East did.

        • Xera

          Athiest Indian
          I am pretty sure the Egyptians had a paper cleansing method of their own, they didn’t need the Chinese to figure out how to cultivate the papyrus. The whole Chinese thing is just more factual modification by the recent ethno-pseudo China rising scholars, for example China never did come to America but it was the Vikings, but you would be told otherwise in this day and age. Please stop the factual inaccuracies, like you did with your previous post which I didn’t really have the inclination or patient to respond to. The Egyptians used the same material to wrap their mummies, which is one evidence that they didn’t need the help of anyone else.

        • Xera

          That’s completely irrevelent to the fact that modern Egyptians don’t shit out in the open and have a sense of fecal rights and privacy. Nor do they shit in rivers and act like slumdogs.

        • @ Xera
          Irrelevant or not, you DID claim that ancient Egyptians used toilet paper, which they didn’t. Speaking of factual inaccuracies, when was the last time you actually sprouted a fact, Xera. So far all I have seen from you is unsourced and uncredible bullshit that no amount of Egyptian tissue can clean up.

        • “I am pretty sure the Egyptians had a paper cleansing method of their own…”
          Yeah, right. Facts, anyone?

        • Hi Xera, 1% of Egyptians shit in the open right now. That’s mostly all in the rural areas AFAICT. 20 years ago or so, the number was a lot higher. Egypt has made tremendous progress in this area. Three cheers for toilets!

        • Take a shit and wipe your ass with sand? LOL. That sounds so terrible. Oh well, at least they wipe their ass. I don’t think sand would clean it up very well though.

        • @ Robert Lindsay
          Using sand or dried clay is rather common in the Muslim world. It is considered a ‘farx’ (obligatory) if water isn’t available and ‘sunnah’ (optional) if water is available. I agree, it is better than not cleaning at all, which is very common in the Hindu states of India.

        • Pepperoncini

          I agree with your 2nd paragraph.

          Re. the 1st paragraph; rivers were the lifeblood (and to a good many, still is) of ancient civilizations, without which intensive agriculture might not have arose. So being a river civilization isn’t really a peculair similarity shared just between Egypt and India.

          As far as Indians’ racial type goes. I am familiar with the general consensus and Carlton Coon’s assesement of India being predominantly caucasoid. I am Dravidian and disagree. While there are many among us who exhibit features that range from caucasoid looking to sort of maybee caucasoid admixture and some other race that can’t be defined exactly, I tend to picture Caucasoids as in addition to having certain features, also having fair skin generally across the board.

          Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis are supposed to be a mixture of Ancestral South indian and Ancestral North Indian. Neither term applies to a particular linguistic group, and there is no reason to assume that ANI refers to 1 race/ethnic group.

          I think it is too simplistic to just go by Caucasoid,Mongoloid,Australoid and Negroid classification. Andamanese can’t be put into any such category. What would proto Mongoloid ancestors of Amerindians , Siberians and possibly the Sami be considered. What I am getting at is that races today diverged at different times and evolved their look from a proto ancestor that we couldn’t really pin point accurately as Mongoloid or Caucasoid. The Solutreans much bandied about in some far right spheres as White European who were the first in America, can not really be called White as at that epoch we don’t really know what they looked like and how similar they are to modern Euro Whites.

  4. Xera

    But why would these Dravidians go all the way to India? Did th y use sail boats or did this migration happen because it was when the continents were connected closely?

    • They probably just walked from the Levant to India.

      • Xera

        Yeah that’s like a really long way, you would have to cross parts of Russia, Europe, Iran, various other lands just to get there by foot, which is really a long way. Why go through that huge distance and trouble to get to this worthless [place. This must have happened long time ago when the temperature and climates were different.

        • Just walk across Mesopotamia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan and there you are.

        • Xera

          Robert what do you think about Indian immigration to the U.S? Honestly I’m terrified these third worlder’s might turn this country into a open sewer cesspool and implement their retarded moronic “values” and “views” so that one would never be able to actually fix an open sewer. Another problem is that they are not assimilating or intermarrying with other groups, thus they are carrying this rigid darwinistic shit system here, but also forming a separate entity that pretty much is unacceptable and goes against the cohesiveness/fabric of the country. You think the existence of the Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians will dissolve and neutralize any form of Indian existence and cultural takeover in the Western world?

  5. Xera

    This makes the Aryan invasion even more interesting, because what you have is one differently Caucasoid group enslaving another different colored Caucasoid group where two of the groups think they are entirely unrelated to each other. Along with the British and those Muslims rulers formerly enslaving a group that they think are below them and are not related to them genetically when they actually are and were. What’s more interesting is that these same Berber ancient Caucasoid Dravidian types ran the Barbary pirate white slave trade for half a century and raided all the way to Scandinivia, Imperial vessels and fought off the Vikings when their relatives in another continent were being colonized by the very white people these people were enslaving and raiding.

    • Actually the British were well aware that the Indians are Caucasians.

    • “…those Muslims rulers formerly enslaving a group that they think are below them and are not related to them genetically when they actually are and were.”
      The Muslims rulers enslaving Indian people is actually a Hindutva myth, to foster a hatred among Hindus for Indian Muslims. Most of the Muslim invaders either left the country after a pillage and plunder session or stayed back and integrated with the people. The concept of races and genetics as we understand today didn’t exist at those times.

  6. Xera

    You sure about that? They only thought a sizable portion of them were

  7. AlanJ

    Many Brahmin reformers from ages have tried to reform Indian system, some have succeeded, and most have failed. All blame is put on Brahmins, but Brahmins have tried failed to reform the society. Some reformers that are popular as Basweshvara, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Rajaram Mohan Roy. People associate Hinduism with Sati, Child Burning etc. All of these social evils are eradicated. These practices were practiced at times when we were beseiged Barbarians. Great Civilizations from Middle-east has been pillaged and ruined startiing with Alexander, and the Mongols.

    Most crime is done by lower castes, they are more rigid castists, sometimes a love affair between a Brahmin and a lower caste person can lead to the Brahmin being lynched. Most corrupt politcians are from lower castes.

    How do you reform a lazy, drunkard[ who drinks illicit liquor] does not shower and beats his family everyday.

    People quote Brahmins as poor. Our way of life expected is to be poor, not work for money, dedicate life to spiritual, religious and intellectual pursuits,. But modernity has changed many things.

    Brahmin by definition is one is seeking or realized the impersonal God [GodHead] known as PARAB-BRAHMAN. Realizing God is not for the faint -hearted..

    Many times one can physically distinguish a Brahmin from the general population. Most Kashmir Muslims were once Shavite Brahmins, foir that matter, Pakistanis, and for that matter Afghans were Buddists.

  8. Damien

    Its not what u are that matters, its what u are considered that matters. If an Indian was to claim to be caucasian, everyone would laugh. Lets be honest, they hate brown people including Indians, Iranians..etc.. Any Indian that thinks he is of european descent…LOL @ U! The Aryans were brown as well, they were Persian! Any Persian that considers himself European….LOL @ U! Brown people are just brown people, we are one race!

  9. rndratck

    If “Caucasians” are people of West Eurasian descent, the answer to the question is that the people of India are Caucasian *in part*. Autosomal DNA analysis indicates that South Asian ancestry is composed in part from SNPs that are most frequent in West Asia (e.g., Turkey, the Caucasus) but also in part from SNPs that are most frequent within South Asia itself (referred to as “Ancestral South Indian”). Ethnic groups located the further south have greater ANI ancestry, and those further north, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan, have greater West Asian ancestry. So basically, they’re West Asian/South Asian hybrids.


  10. Cody B

    @ Xera. I am Trinidadian (West Indian btw)I have read all your post and it is based off uneducated and racist answers. You are an ass hole. There is no difference at all from the dark skin Indian and the blonde hair blue eye northern Europeans. The first Europeans to come to Europe looked just like an Indian person. Even today there are many Indians who look “white” they are mostly in Northern India and Pakistan, now what’s your opinion on white blue, green eye Indian, that in fact look just like you. I suggest you stay off this post and put your money where your dirty mouth is, you are just talk, and you are not going to do anything to an Indian person or else you will be arrested and ass ##$% in jail for the rest of your misery life on this planet. You are a poor soul, an internet thug. I bet in real life you will never do what you say. So I suggest you find something to do with your spear time instead of posting mean comments and degrading the Caucasian race. Some people on here need to do there dam research instead of posting false information and go back to school too. Yes, I have interacted with whites and they told me I am one of their own, treat me as such and look out for me as well. I live in Georgia the deep south where there is open racism, and they are not racism towards me at all, neighbors, friends and associates alike. I have also racial communicated with whites as well, and it was awesome! You probably don’t know what that is, if anyone knows what I am talking about reply back to me, cause I would like to know more about it and how to perform it as well, cause I can’t “activate it”!


      that’s not true I am north east indian and we are NOT white at all but we are Caucasian and Caucasian doesn’t mean white as the west changed its definition meaning racial identity when that’s not what it meant at all it means bonestructure and bvrown Caucasians were the first Caucasians and were not European nor white at all.the Aryan invasion theory is bs as max Mueller died in 1899 making that theory up when Aryan culture has been around in 75 bc e.there was no outside invasion and the rig veda Sanskrit mentions nothing of a outside intruder at that fact Christianity and Judaism ,ilsamic religion is recent compared to Hinduism.aryan culture is hindu culture and is the opposite of Christianity.

  11. Shubhrojyoti Mukherjee

    Just look at some of the faces of Indian celebrities like Hrithik Roshan, Nafisa Ali, Adhitya Pancholi, Mandakini, Aishwarya Rai, Celina Jaitley, Katrina Kaif, Pooja Bhatt, Fardeen Khan, priyanshu chatterjee, John Abraham, tulip joshi, swastika mukherjee.etc.

  12. ehsan

    what about the bangladeshi people? It is located on the north-eastern border of India, and most of the people look caucasian to me, their skin color varies from pale to yellow to tan, and only the tribal people looks different such as asians or blacks. What do you think robert?

      • I think most of mixture of Australoid Negroid and Caucasian race..

        they not pure ones, the composition of Mitochondrial DNA varies along the caste lines

        But no body is 100% pure like in Scandinavia or North Europe

        The Caucasian element in most indians is less than 5%,most are Australoids and Negroid race..

        Some north east indians from Assam and Sikkim have mongoloid and Caucasian admixture

        Most indians are Hybrid race,with very less Caucasian R1a Gene

        • According to the traditional physical anthropological point of view, the Indo-Aryan people of northern India were considered to be members of the Caucasoid race, albeit on its outermost peripheries; on the other hand, the peoples of southern India were seen as belonging to both an indigenous and biologically distinct Indo-Dravidian race, also variously known by anthropologists as Veddoid, Australoid, or Palaeo-Indid. Although there existed visible Australoid influence in terms of dark pigmentation and hair coloration amongst northern Indians due to a subcontinental gradient of miscegenation, it was argued that in terms of cranio-facial structure and limb proportions, they were metrically Caucasoid and of Indo-European origin (based on the available linguistic/philological evidence). In the same manner, it was also argued by a number of late nineteenth and twentieth century anthropologists, that the peoples of the Horn of Africa, such as Somalis and Ethiopians, were substantially Caucasoid in terms of racial stock; for example, the great American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon argued that North eastern Africans were only partially of Mediterranean origin, with some individuals being of full Caucasoid race. However, despite Negroid influence in terms of skin pigmentation and hair texture, these North eastern African tribes also possessed cranio-facial features and body limb proportions similar to those of other Indo-European and Semitic peoples, meaning that many of these people could be classified as members of the Mediterranean sub-race. In The Races of Europe (1939), Coon writes, in a section entitled “The Mediterranean Race in East Africa”:

          It may be well to state that all of the peoples of this “Hamitic” area, whether Hamitic or Semitic in speech, represent a blend in varying proportions between Mediterraneans of several varieties, especially of the tall, Atlanto-Mediterranean group, and negroes. Other elements include, of course, the Veddoid brought in solution from southern Arabia; there is also a possibility of traces of dilute pygmy and Bushman blood in southwestern Ethiopia and Somaliland, although neither of these has been proved. Needless to say, the Gallas and Amharas have mixed with each other greatly in the regions in which they have been in contact; both the Amharas and Gallas have absorbed the earlier Cushitic agricultural peoples in great numbers. The most important single influence has been the infiltration of negroes, through the slave trade, into the entire Ethiopian plateau region. So extensive has this infiltration been that it is unlikely that a single genetic line in the entire Horn of Africa is completely free from negroid admixture; but individuals may be found among the Amharas, Gallas, and Somalis who show no visible signs of negro blood. These individuals are extremely rare. On the whole the negroid element in the Hamitic cannot be much more than one-fourth of the whole, but it has penetrated every ethnic group and every social level. Just when this penetration had become complete we do not know, but one suspects that it had already occurred by the sixth century A.D., when the Ethiopians ruled the Yemen. The Gallas, despite their tradition of descent from white men, were already partly negroid at the time of their arrival in Ethiopia.

          Coon also argued that northern Indians were also partially of Mediterranean Caucasoid race, with strong Veddoid or Australoid affinities. In 1958, Coon wrote:

          Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations. In a dark-skinned and finer-boned form they are also found as the major population element in Pakistan and northern India.

          As to the specific racial affiliation of South Asian populations, Coon remained uncertain, as this 1962 passage from his writings demonstrates:

          [T]he racial history of southern Asia has not yet been thoroughly worked out, and it is too early to postulate what these relationships may be… shall leave the problems of Indian physical anthropology in the competent hands of Guha and of Bowles.

          Nevertheless, the latest evidence of modern genetic research indicates that the peoples of both north and south India are of mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid racial ancestry, consisting of an autochthonous sub-Gangetic base which has been gradually combined, through a series of population expansions and the historical migrations of various immigrants, with west Eurasian and East Asian elements.

          In the The history and geography of human genes (1994), Cavalli-Sforza et. al. argued that the peoples of the Indian subcontinent were genetically Caucasian, with some Australoid-Negrito admixture; he determined that they were about three times closer to western Europeans than to east Asians. This was directly challenged by Kivisild et. al. (2000), who argued that although the admixture studies and genetic distance trees based on classical genetic markers of Cavalli-Sforza et. al. had previously ascertained the underlying Caucasoid genetic structure of the peoples of the Indian sub-continent, the complete absence of mtDNA macrohaplogroup M amongst Europeans, a series of lineages which comprise over 60% of Indian mtDNA (Thangaraj et. al., 2006), contradict the notion that Indians should be classified as members of the Caucasoid race. However, it must be noted that Indians do share mtDNA U and R1a1 in common with Western European populations; another lineage, Y-DNA haplogroup L, is shared by Indians with other Central Asian populations, but is found in very low frequencies amongst European Mediterranean populations. According to Kivisild et. al. (An Indian Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond, 2000):

          The absence of haplogroup M in Europeans, compared to its equally high frequency among Indians,eastern Asians and in some Central Asian populations is inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians. Any relationship between Indians and ‘Caucasoids’ must therefore be based on qualitative and quantitative data on genetic markers common to Europeans and Indians.

          Bamshad et. al. (2002), in Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership, indicated that after genotyping at least 100 Alu polymorphisms in southern Indian caste populations, the vast majority of Indians were found to be more related to East Asians and only a small minority to Europeans in terms of underlying genetic structure. The authors of the study write:

          To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.

          In a 2003 study by Watkins et. al., Genetic Variation Among World Populations: Inferences From 100 Alu Insertion Polymorphisms, 100 Alu polymorphisms from 30 populations located in Africa, East Asia, Europe, and India were examined. It was determined by the authors of the study that Indians were a genetically intermediate population located between Europeans and East Asians:

          A two-dimensional principal components plot of the 31 populations (Fig. 4A) demonstrates clustering of the African, E. Asian, and European populations, with the Indian caste populations located between the E. Asian and European populations (as in the network in Fig. 3).

          Cordaux et. al. (2004), in a paper entitled Independent Origins of Indian Caste and Tribal Paternal Lineages, examined both Y-chromosomal variation in both Indian castes and tribal populations. They found that upper caste Indians are similar genetically to west Eurasians, but that lower caste Indians have more in common with (central and east) Asians:

          The evidence shows that Y chromosome admixture was limited in north Indian caste groups and more pronounced in south caste groups. A possible explanation for nous this geographic discrepancy is that the caste system comprised four classes in north India, whereas a fifth class was introduced in south India to integrate local people (those formerly called “untouchables”) in the caste system. This view finds support in that in south India, lower caste groups are more similar to Asians, whereas higher caste groups are more similar to west Eurasians.

          This has also been confirmed by the recent Watkins et. al. (2008) study , Genetic variation in South Indian castes: evidence from Y-chromosome, mitochondrial, and autosomal polymorphisms, which examined Y-chromosomal SNPs, mtDNA, and autosomal STRs in Tamil caste populations. In terms of autosomal STRs, higher Tamil castes showed greater genetic affinity to Europeans than lower Tamil castes. The study also affirmed that in terms of Y-DNA, the southern Indians were more similar to Europeans than East Asians, whereas in terms of mtDNA, they were more similar to East Asians than Europeans:

          For 32 lineage-defining Y-chromosome SNPs, Tamil castes show higher affinity to Europeans than to eastern Asians, and genetic distance estimates to the Europeans are ordered by caste rank. For 32 lineage-defining mitochondrial SNPs and hypervariable sequence (HVS) 1, Tamil castes have higher affinity to eastern Asians than to Europeans. For 45 autosomal STRs, upper and middle rank castes show higher affinity to Europeans than do lower rank castes from either Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh.

          In a study conducted by Yang et. al. (Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers, 2005), it was argued on the basis of a few hundred ancestry informative markers (AIMS) that had been analyzed using a Bayesian clustering algorithm (STRUCTURE), that South Asians (people from the Indian sub-continent) are a racially admixed population who are much closer genetically to Europeans than Asians:

          At k = 4, the South Asian subjects appear to be an admixed population with the major contribution from cluster 1 (predominant in European Americans) and a minor contribution from cluster 4 (predominant in East Asians).

          Another 2005 study, Large-scale SNP analysis reveals clustered and continuous patterns of human genetic variation, conducted by Shriver et. al., examined over 11, 000 single nucleotide polymorphisms in 12 different human populations. They determined that there had been continuous gene flow between both South Asians and Altaians, a Siberian Mongoloid people, however upper caste Indians were determined as being much closer genetically to Spaniards than Indians of lower caste:

          In addition to the Burunge, the South Asian Indians and the Altaians have relatively short population-specific branches, consistent with gene flow between these groups and other populations. … Notable are the near separation of the Indian sample into lower and upper caste, with the upper caste individuals positioned closer to the Spanish.

          In a 2006 study conducted by Rosenberg et. al., Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India, over 1,200 genome-wide polymorphisms amongst Indian immigrants living in the USA. In this study, Indians were much closer to Europeans than East Asians:

          Comparing allele frequencies in the groups from India to those in other geographic regions, allele frequency correlation coefficients are highest for the populations previously studied in Central/South Asia, followed by those of Europe and the Middle East and of East Asia. This similarity with Europe and East Asia has been seen in smaller-scale autosomal studies that have incorporated India; however, these studies, along with one study of more markers but a smaller number of populations, have disagreed somewhat about whether the similarity of India is greater with East Asian populations, greater with European populations , or about equal between these alternatives. We found that allele frequencies in India showed detectably greater similarity to populations in Europe and the Middle East than to those in East Asia.

          However, Rosenberg et. al. cautioned that their research maybe methodologically flawed and characterized by certain structural limitations:

          Although our sample is likely to be reasonably representative of first-generation individuals of Indian descent currently located in the United States, such individuals likely do not provide a random sample of the source populations in India, as urban and relatively mobile populations and populations of higher caste and socioeconomic status are overrepresented among immigrants. Thus, if variables such as caste and socioeconomic status do play important roles in producing genetic structure, more genetic differentiation would certainly be expected for a sample of the same linguistic groups in India compared to what we have seen in the United States. Additionally, if higher caste is correlated with a European or western Asian component of ancestry, a sample in the United States may be biased towards finding a greater similarity of populations from India to those of the Europe/Middle East rather than to those of East Asia.

          Kashyap et. al. (2006), in a paper entitled Genetic structure of Indian populations based on fifteen autosomal microsatellite loci, analyzed the microsatellite markers from 54 diverse Indian populations and noted that whereas most regions of India were homogeneous in terms of allele frequencies, being characterized by extensive racial admixture, with each population exhibiting membership in multiple clusters, considerable genetic substructuring and differentiation was detected amongst the inhabitants of north eastern and southern India. The authors of the study write:

          The distribution of the most frequent allele was uniform across populations, revealing an underlying genetic similarity. Patterns of allele distribution suggestive of ethnic or geographic propinquity were discernible only in a few of the populations and was not applicable to the entire dataset while a number of the populations exhibited distinct identities evident from the occurrence of unique alleles in them. Genetic substructuring was detected among populations originating from northeastern and southern India reflective of their migrational histories and genetic isolation respectively.

          The authors also affirm that traditionally, the population of India can be divided into four major ethnicities or races:

          Anthropologically, the populations are grouped into four major ethnic categories, which include the Australoid, Indo-Caucasoid, Indo-Mongoloid and Negrito populations and linguistically broadly classified as Indo-European, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan speakers. The complex structure of the Indian population is attributed to incessant, historical waves of migrations into India, the earliest, by the Austric speakers around 70,000 years ago, followed by the Dravidian speakers from middle-east Asia and the Sino-Tibetan speakers from China and southeast Asia around 8000 to 10,000 years ago. The last major migration is believed to have occurred around 4000 years ago by several waves of Indo-European speakers.

          That India can be divided into a number of races/ethnicities has also been confirmed by Bhasin (2006), in the study Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India: Indian Population Milieu:

          India has been peopled by human groups carrying a diversity of genes and cultural traits. We have almost all the primary ethnic strains Proto-Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid, Negrito and a number of composite strains. It is homeland of over 4000 Mendelian populations, of which 3700 endogamous groups are structured in the Hindu caste system as ‘jatis’.

          In short, the older view that north Indians are mainly Caucasoid whereas southern Indians are mainly Australoid is incorrect. Indians, both from the north and the south, seem to be a racially admixed population with each individual genotype exhibiting membership in multiple gene clusters, albeit in varying degrees in terms of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid admixture ratios. South Asian populations consist of an indigenous Australoid base combined with both Caucasoid and Mongoloid racial elements; Indo-Caucasoid (Indo-Aryan speakers and Coon’s hybrid Mediterranean strain) peoples tend to be concentrated in the east and west of India, Indo-Mongoloid (Tibeto-Burman speakers) seem to be concentrated in the north eastern region of the country, and Proto-Australoid/Indo-Dravidian peoples (Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian language speakers) are mostly found in the south, with peoples of full Australoid or “Negrito” origin located on the archipelagos (e.g. the Great Andamanese and Jarawa) surrounding the southern tip of the subcontinent.

          To repeat, most of the major Indian populations are so racially admixed that they exhibit membership in multiple gene clusters and are therefore homogeneous genetically on a subcontinental level. Moreover, higher castes tend to be more related genetically to Europeans than lower castes, who are more related to Central and East Asians.

      • Rawr

        You sound like everything is caucasian. Oh brother Lol. Next you’re gonna tell me that every race originated from caucasians. This sounds like theory more than fact.

  13. IamYourDaddy

    You are wrong Gandu.
    I am a Bengali Brahmin. The North European component in my DNA is 15%.
    Cry you motherfucker. Your lie is Nailed
    Y DNA R1a1a
    Suck it

  14. Indian

    Xera, you’re a racist Idiot. You claim to know a lot, when you don’t even know that the Aryan invasion theory is bullshit. It never happened. About poverty in India you are forgetting about a corrupt government; corruption is rampant through out the sub continent of India. Bring up China as an example but remember that they don’t have a corrupt government. Stop bashing/attacking other countries and the Indian lady had every right to raise her tone, you’re a condescending asshole. I’m gujurati I do agree India is backward and has rural areas but that gives you no right to hate on India, the caste system maybe bad but we are working to get over it. You really need to go out and get another hobby.

  15. Paolo Scarpelli

    Indians are not Caucasian but actively encourage this false notion due to their inherent inferiority complexes vis-a-vis race and color. They Should infact be categorized as Dravidian which should be at par with African/Negroid races. While they have adopted some Indo-European traits (language/culture) etc there phenotypic features clearly show them to be more similar to sub-Saharan Africa. Sorry but only stating the obvious.

  16. harsh facts

    Indians have always been white wannabes, as the idiotic caste system places fair skinned complexion at the very top of this sub-human social construct, which the moronic Indians follow religiously.

    Hence Indians love to place soo much emphasis on themselves being racially Caucasian. In other words, Indians find self-worth in reassuring themselves that they are from the same race as their white enslavers.

    Does it really matter if Indians are Caucasian or not?
    Because Indians will always be a race of lazy, useless, cowardly, immature, stupid, shameless, good for nothing, beggar-like losers with an enslaved mind.

    Plus on average, the Indians are an ugly people whether they are Caucasian or not.

    Harsh facts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s