The Taliban’s re-accession to power in Afghanistan is approaching an anniversary. Representatives of the extreme ethnic movement entered Kabul unopposed on August 15, 2021. The previous day, the Taliban methodically took control of important logistical and infrastructure hubs, towns, and provinces. It’s time to reach some initial judgments. Let’s examine the Afghan instance within the larger framework of world events occurring via the lens of political theories and schools of international relations (IR). What direction is Afghanistan heading towards under the Taliban? What changes have been made to the international and regional relations system? What about terrorism as a player in international politics?
A report on the state of terrorism in the globe was issued on the eve of the UN Security Council and contains material that has been meticulously vetted regarding the activities of Al Qaeda and the militant Islamic State (IS). The following document is the 30th report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team, which was established in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 1526 and 2253. The report’s findings are depressing, but they also support the theories of experts who foresaw an increase in global terrorism following the Taliban’s takeover of power. The statement in the paper reads as follows: “Al Qaeda and IS’s danger remains strong in conflict-hit regions and the bordering nations, however both of these terrorist organisations might seek to strike in non-conflict areas.”
Conflicts, instability, and contradictions abound in the contemporary world. In the Eastern and Asian areas, where there is a systemic tension of competing potentials, this is particularly true. As a result, the situation is considerably more stable and the conflicts are primarily of an internal political nature in the western portions of the world. Given the functioning institutions, these contradictions can be resolved through democratic plebiscite technologies, or by a change in power, elections, and representative democracy, in which, as political scientist Adam Przeworski wrote, each stratum of society receives its representation (agents in power). In other East and Asian nations, a comparable structure has not emerged. The political system and culture, with a few notable exceptions (Japan, South Korea, etc.), assume a zero-sum game in which the victors of internal political disputes receive everything and the losers are subjected to persecution. Foreign policy frequently functions as a continuation of domestic policy in such a coordinated structure. The governing circles are attempting to increase their influence in international politics and on the external circuit. This explains why tensions occasionally get worse right before elections campaigns.
The present multilateral system of international relations is unquestionably facing severe challenges as a result of current conflicts. Although the conclusion of this catastrophe is yet uncertain, the serious ramifications for geopolitics, the world’s system of trust, and the global economy cannot be overstated. Contrarily, compromise inclinations are rising in the western half of the world notwithstanding all the difficulties of the current situation. Since it has been at war for the last two thousand years, the West is especially sensitive to the need to preserve peace and stability. In fact, the so-called community of states—theoretical ideas being developed by the English School of International Relations—is becoming stronger after a number of decades. This community is small, segregated, and sparse. It consists of nations that share a same culture, set of principles, and conception of the world order. The most wealthy, powerful, and technologically advanced are forming (or strengthening) a power structure that exists for itself, for itself, and in accordance with its own norms.
Attempts to export values, modernization, and institutions sometimes have conflicting outcomes, as practice over the last few decades has demonstrated. It is clear that they do succeed occasionally. In fact, there are instances where the community of nations has been repopulated with individuals who have, in a short period of time, made significant strides in their own development and carried out—to use the jargon of political theory—an accelerated, occasionally violent modernization with above- or below-average levels of social and political legitimacy. There are, however, other instances where the modernization hypothesis did not succeed and, on the contrary, had detrimental effects. Two instances that can be considered extremes and that are located at the opposite poles of the vertical are offered in the literature in their most generic form: Japan and Afghanistan. We will now discuss Professor Samuel Huntington’s legacy once more. He gained widespread recognition for “The Clash of Civilizations“, a book that was incredibly vivid but also a little questionable, rather than for his classic works on political philosophy.
Huntington was a brilliant theorist in his early years, and he was the first to postulate that rapid modernization would only succeed if solid political institutions were established. Barrington Moore, a professor at Yale University, once declared that “no bourgeoisie, no democracy.” Huntington rephrased that statement as “no political institutions, no modernization.” Both luminaries in political science were correct in their own ways, and their findings were supported by a large body of actual data. Moore published “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy“ in 1966, detailing his conclusions, while Huntington published “Political Order in Changing Societies” two years later. Political and social science’s episteme assumes a conflict between competing theories and hypotheses, as well as disagreements over which elements and premises should be taken as gospel. But in this instance, we may conclude that the two researchers complimented one another and systematized the development of what neorealism thinker Kenneth Waltz had dubbed “Man, the State, and War” a few years previously. Scientists express and attempt to analyze precisely what Waltz said, yet they come to different results.
It appears that thinkers, scientists, institutions, and international organizations will continue to lead efforts to identify the fundamental and consistent processes underlying human growth. We regret this; it’s a really terrible situation. In actuality, we observe escalating disagreements between many nations and communities. There are more advantageous conditions that must be met. This deviation from the global paradigm of identifying issues and resolving them collaboratively appears to be transient and, moreover, transient in nature. There are other causes for this, too. First off, no viable and practical alternative to the modernization theory (which has many various implications and sorts), institutional theory (which is also quite varied), or John Ruggie’s idea of embedded liberalism was offered. Furthermore, the economic, technical, and social achievements of nations and countries over the last few decades have been made possible by, or at the very least unwittingly facilitated by, devotion to the tenets of the aforementioned clauses. When a result, the disagreement will lessen as the concepts’ detractors eventually resume executing these programs in their largest and most generic form.
The theoretical concept of anarchy, which is stated in the article’s title, is another significant part of the issue. This idea, in general, is what many scientists who research IR, from various schools and ideas, believe about. Realists, neorealists, English School adherents, constructivists, and others now acknowledge the anarchy of international relations. Anarchy, in essence, separates a person’s existence inside a state from the life of a state. Within states, there is a supreme authority that sets limitations on the acts of units and provides a semblance of law and order. This power is legal in Max Weber’s ideal kinds. In terms of international relations, the situation is different. All states are officially equal; they have all been sovereign since Westphal’s time in 1648 and have all been national since the time after the Napoleonic Wars. There is no absolute power over states. Hence, the claim that international relations are anarchic. On this, realists and neorealists conclude their analysis. However, English school scientists and later constructivists continue it and reach remarkable results that have the potential to, if not “win,” at least contain the anarchy in the future.
Why does preventing anarchy make sense? According to conservative theorists or advocates of radical sovereignty, nations are sovereign and autonomous, and anarchy is the best thing to have occurred to them since the fall of big empires and the creation of international systems. Despite the fact that the most accomplished IR student sometimes overlooks this reality, the solution to this issue is simple. The objective of the scientific field of international relations is to triumph over anarchy. This is the thesis I want to emphasize. In the UK, the development of IR as a scientific field of study started during the interwar years. The USA received the palm a few while later. These specifics are quite intriguing and illuminating. First of all, IR is a top-tier science, and secondly, the world’s most developed nations provide the most cutting-edge innovations, ideas, hypotheses, and solutions.
The United States saw the fastest ascension to superpower status following World War II. Implicitly, Woodrow Wilson, a man who worked tirelessly to establish institutions that shielded the globe from a Second World War disaster, was the one who came up with the notion of creating a new scientific field, which had previously been a component of Political and Social Science. These efforts, it must be said, have failed. The objective of IR, which is to prevent conflict and triumph over the factors that lead to it, may be fixed in them. So, according to my argument, science strives to prevail and quell chaos.
But how can we control chaos? I can be taken lightly if I claim to know the solution to this query. I don’t think anyone has an answer to this issue from a utilitarian or theoretical standpoint that takes into account the diversity of the globe. If the situation were different, nations and countries would respond in a more successful manner. However, some of these attempts were successful. Europe is the most glaring example. According to Max Weber’s developments, the emergence of the EU as a worldwide, regional agency with extensive authority and a neutral, tiresome, involuntary bureaucracy is a major achievement in human political theory. It is difficult to see a battle within or outside of Europe. In actuality, anarchy has been tamed in Europe, which has long served as the epicenter of world affairs and conflicts. The EU has really come the closest to realizing the English School’s idea of forming a community of people rather than a collection of nations. Barry Buzan, a well-known proponent of this hypothesis, says as such. Because of its central notion of an international society, the concept of society has been removed from the state and from having individuals as members. Outside of the EU, there aren’t any other examples in the globe. This might be the only instance.
As a result, international relations have become somewhat more regionalized. In their territories, where their interests and ideals are recognized, nations and countries temporarily bind together. The global West is the most obvious illustration of this tendency. The communities of nations appear brighter according to the patterns of the English school. However, how can we deal with situations that only initially appear to be of a regional or national nature? Specifically, why should the most forward-thinking and powerful segment of the West resolve Afghanistan’s issues? It is far distant, there have been attempts, but nothing has transpired. The most pessimistic analysts will eventually point out that the vast majority of the populace rejected modernization, acknowledged the Taliban’s rule, and is now prepared for archaisation.
There are actually multiple aspects to this query. The backing of any community is an essential step for responsible participants in international life, it looks like everything is obvious here. The other viewpoint is more realistic. It has to do with the interests of the genuine community of Western nations, which can only be closed in theory to safeguard their own interests. This is impossible in the current digital era. Even distant events that are more or less significant will have an impact on the Western society. A terrorist organisation’s ascent to power in a given nation cannot help but increase the threat of terrorism in the area, the rest of the world, and on a global scale. In reality, the UN study supports this concept. Afghanistan’s security situation is still precarious, and there is a chance that it may get worse. The peace process is still unpredictable.
Al-Qaida is present in at least 15 Afghan provinces, mostly in the eastern, southern, and south-eastern areas, according to the UN study. The Taliban defend Al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent from the provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimruz. Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has been consolidating splinter groups and stepping up cross-border attacks, continues to pose a threat to the area. TTP has grown its revenue through taxes, smuggling, and extortion. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Khorasan (ISIL-K) has expanded into other provinces, including Nuristan, Badghis, Sari Pul, Baghlan, Badakhshan, Kunduz, and Kabul, where fighters have established sleeper cells, despite territorial, leadership, manpower, and financial losses during 2020 in Kunar and Nangarhar Provinces. In and around Kabul, where it carries out the majority of its attacks on minorities, activists, public servants, and members of the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces, the group has fortified its positions. The terrible attack on June 8th, which resulted in the deaths of 10 humanitarian deminers working in Baghlan Province and the injuries of 16 more, was most recently attributed to ISIL-K.
As a result, UN specialists keep track on global terrorist organization activity. Let me remind you that, on the eve of the most serious terrorist strikes in history in 2001, the UN also very professionally recognized the possible risk from transnational terrorists. As a result, neither the Western society nor any other government or nation can ignore the threat of terrorism and concentrate on engaging in conflict with geopolitical rivals. Political power never leaves a void; eventually, numerous autocracies, extremist movements, and terrorists strive to fill it. Terrorism should be viewed as a single system with several interconnected or autonomous units, and when this system becomes stronger in one region of the world, its equivalents automatically get stronger in that region as well. As a result, Dr. Elisabeth Kendall of Girton College at the University of Cambridge underlines the expansion of Islamist influence in Yemen.
The Taliban’s ascent to power in the summer of 2021 proved that Afghanistan and the region as a whole have experienced a comparable vacuum. Actually, the US and NATO withdrew from Afghan politics, putting the Taliban in control of all that had been established over the previous decades. Autocracies took advantage of this power vacuum to strengthen their positions and fund proxies, such as the Taliban. The Taliban were sponsored by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Pakistani military. In reality, they carried out a coordinated special operation and organized the advance of combat troops, the seizure of vital supply lines, and ultimately the liberation of Kabul. Islamabad is currently attempting to exert tight control over the Taliban in order to utilize it to further its geopolitical objectives.
On the one hand, the Taliban’s success was the inevitable result of the situation. It demonstrated that sizable portions of the Afghan public oppose modernization based on a Western paradigm. The tragic events also demonstrated that, despite their extremism and predilection for terrorism, the Taliban in Afghanistan represent the interests of a certain, mostly immobile segment of rural population. The Taliban has also developed into a far more skilled army that has mastered new hybrid techniques for carrying out contemporary combat, such as propaganda, information technology, public relations, and psychological operations. In actuality, the Taliban has evolved into a much wiser organization that employs both soft and hard power technologies. Additionally, there has been a distinct development that has been a feature of the extreme revolutionary forces gaining power. We are discussing attempts to play a multi-vector policy, which is a concrete rationalization of the political agenda. Although there have been no explicit attempts to export this ideology in the past year, this organization is nevertheless dedicated to an extreme interpretation of radical Islam.
The threat to the entire globe, the Western world, and Afghanistan’s neighbors continues to exist on a new level. First, it is clear that the Taliban were unable to establish a functional economic and governmental system in Afghanistan. The Taliban are still a violent, extremist organisation that engages in political terrorism. A complicated state system cannot be created by them, let alone managed. As a result, the Taliban’s rise to power did not resolve the issues facing Afghan society and the government. As reported by foreign organizations, the Taliban’s rule has, on the other hand, exacerbated the poverty that always existed among large portions of the people. No serious famine was reported by the same organizations, regardless of how flawed the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan was or how many errors were committed. Second, the issue is in the area of what political science theory refers to as recognition. The swift, clear, and unwavering victory of the Taliban against the United States and its allies in Afghanistan has served as a beacon and a signal for a vast network of despotisms, extremist political groups, and terrorist organizations. Outside of the Western world, many people saw this as evidence of American waning and decline as well as a lack of cohesion within NATO.
I’ll reiterate my opinions and theories to wrap things up. The world is evolving, and it is evolving rather fast. What the relationship system will look like in the upcoming decades is difficult to predict. There are significant changes taking place in the world that may have an impact on several states and countries. It seems that for a while, communities will form throughout the world based on shared interests and ideals. The most prevalent opinion is that democracies and autocracies will likely share these limits. This view has significance, and it is probable that this will be the case. However, it is important to note that the theory of the English school, which aims to “curb” anarchy, which is the objective of IR as a scientific field, will be used to explain the majority of contemporary events, in my opinion.
The simplest and most popular theory, realism, fixes the fact of conflict in international affairs, but it offers no explanations, doesn’t identify winners and losers, and, most crucially, doesn’t provide any ways to resolve it. The most potent, unified, and cutting-edge pole of power is the collection of nations that make up the Global West. He also had to deal with numerous contemporary issues, such as the Afghan campaign’s failure and the hardline Taliban movement’s stunning win. The position of international terrorists as actors in international relations has been significantly boosted by this element, and they now serve as a beacon for forces in world politics that lack responsibility.
Afghanistan cannot have straightforward linear answers, as history has demonstrated. Whether we like it or not, the Taliban represents the reality of Afghan society, a byproduct of the country’s long history of violence and constant war. The international community of nations cannot ignore the existing circumstances, let them develop on their own, or continue to overlook the escalating terrorist tendencies in Asia and the East.
Political stability to economic stability
Georgi Asatryan, associate professor, Lomonosov Moscow State University and Plekhanov Russian University of Economics.
India and the Five Eyes. Is the time ripe?
How students impacted the US Civil Rights Movement?
How Russia Must Reinvent Itself to Defeat the West’s ‘Hybrid War’
MozParks at the U.S-Africa Business Summit 2022
Chinese penetration and its destruction of all American spy networks on the Chinese territory
How the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Hurts the Blue States
Political stability is a very important variable for a country’s economic growth to induce consistent development in all sectors. Unless there is political stability in the country, there can be no economic stability and despite this awareness, the country seems to be failing to bring political and economic stability. Have we ever considered the reason why our beloved country has always been in a state of instability and uncertainty in terms of politics and economy? A few wondrous years passed by and then another such accident or tragedy appears that all good hopes are shattered to dust and the country begins the journey backward.
There is no doubt that only a few years have passed since the formation of Pakistan when the clouds of despair and hopelessness have dissipated and we have seen the sun shining on our land embracing the spectrum of progress and prosperity. Our political system seems to be the driving force behind all the failures and decline, which for one reason or another is always in a state of instability and uncertainty. This is sometimes due to the actions of undemocratic astrologers and occasionally due to the mutual animosity of our politicians or may be an incompetent and ignorant government who is bent on uprooting and canceling all the actions and plans of their predecessors because of their stubbornness and arrogance. No matter how much work has been done in the national interest because of these attitudes of ours, in spite of the bountiful blessings of Allah Almighty, Pakistan has not been able to achieve development and prosperity nor have we been able to bring political and economic stability to the country.
There has been an outcry for political and economic stability in every government but in practice, no progress has been made. The first political priority of every incoming government here has been blaming opponents and obtaining loans financially. Political and economic stability permanently has not been a priority in any government in this country. This is why the country is indebted to the outside world instead of being self-sufficient in every field. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also continues to claim the Charter of Economy and Grand Dialogue, but no practical steps have been taken so far. Until the government reaches the root of all crises and ensures practical steps, it is not possible to get rid of successive crises.
It is no secret that the country’s economy does not belong to any one party or government but is directly linked to the internal political stability, which is why there is always a national consensus on such issues in developed countries and it does not matter if there is a change of government while the nations that put their differences ahead of national interests have lagged far behind in the race for development. It seems that the present government instead of dealing with economic problems per established methods and laws is trying to resolve complex issues in unconventional ways, even though the current situation is enough to mirror all political parties, including the government which is not ready to look in the mirror.
It has been a tragedy of our political leadership that first, they blame each other for coming to power and then they resort to accusations to save power. In this country sometimes dictators and sometimes political leadership have sabotaged democracy. If fortunately, a government completes its term, the newcomer must consider all its actions to be rolled back even if it is not in the interest of this country and nation. Our leaders sporadically give many examples of China and Turkey but they forget how much time their nation and institutions have given them to work to cross this milestone of success and prosperity, unlike here when some signs of political and economic improvement begin to appear then some astrologers turn the whole system upside down. Political stability is very important for economic stability in the country. Both of these are necessary and inseparable. Let the nation know that unless political stability is possible in our country, there will be no economic stability.
We as a nation have to think about where we are heading and what our destiny is? These are the questions that the political leadership along with the Pakistani people have to think about, because the lack of rights across the country, the storm of inflation, and the unjust distribution, are pushing the people towards despair and uncertainty. It breeds unrest in the society, then the same unrest drives the society towards genocide by inciting hatred. Thus, we have to think that Pakistan has to be taken towards genocide and civil war or move from political stability to economic stability.
The farmer’s protest began, initially, with the sole aim to get the new farm laws repealed. The laws which were bone of contention were the: Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; the Farmers Empowerment and Protection Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
The farmers perceived these laws as a surreptitious and predatory attempt by crony “capitalism “to take away their lands, their single source of livelihood. But, the government infatuated by the hubris of the parliamentary majority shrugged off the farmers’ demand. They thought that the farmers lacked the capacity to mobilize their minuscule protest into a mass movement. Surprisingly, the farmers across several states, irrespective of their religious beliefs joined the protest, braving Police baton charges and water torrents on elderly farmers, besides inclement weather, sometimes becoming freezing. Farmers’ local and Diaspora sympathizers flooded them with food, fruit and even quintals of American almonds (from US-based toot brethren). The government is trying tooth and nail to sow seeds of discord among the Kisan unions. Formidable Jat Kisan leader, Rakesh Tikait, now on hunger strike, declared to continue the strike until his death.
The altered complexion of the protest
To express solidarity with the farmers, 18 opposition parties decided to boycott the Indian president’s address (January 29, 2021) to a joint sitting of the parliament at the start of the budget session (The Hindu January 28, 2021). They criticised the government for obduracy when 155 farmers, braving water cannons, tear gas and lathi charges, had already lost their lives. The government-sponsored media published stories that the movement was being backed up by Khalistani and Pakistani elements. Pakistani drones allegedly dropped hand-grenade through drones in East Punjab which eerily never exploded or displayed to the media. The government even drooped to filing an affidavit in Supreme Court to affirm its allegation of foreign aid to the peace movement.
The protest went on showing singular interfaith harmony where the non-Muslim human shielded the Muslims offering prayers.
To `strongman’ Modi’s chagrin, the protest assumed an all-Indian dimension as Bhim-army chief Chandra Shekhar Azad, founder of azad samaj party (open-society party) joined the protesters with declaration `ek juth ho kar larna hai’ we have to fight united).
Soon Azad’s harangues became viral on social media. He taunted the government that it prevented the peaceful farmers to reach Delhi, but it could not stop the Chinese from building 110 houses in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. The media blacked out pictures of farmers’ martyrs including the Sikh saints (sants) who committed suicides to express solidarity with the protesters.
Emergence of oppressed people’s joint movement
It was a nightmare for Narendra Modi to observe people from all walks of life joining the movement. The 41.73 percent “oppressed-people” wave appeared to have turned against him (Muslim 14.23%, Christians 2.3%, the Scheduled castes (numbering 1108)16.6%, and Scheduled Tribes (744) 8.6%.Modi’s fears were unfounded. despite rhetoric, the protesters could not turn their movement into a future-electoral alliance.
What prevented coalescence of protesters?
The caste factor militated against unity of lower castes with the upper castes. Even sikhs have an iron-clad caste structure. Besides the caste hierarchy, religions, languages and cultures put people’s poles apart. India’s 1.3 billion populations (2014) include Hindus (80 per cent including those who eat beef), Muslims 11 per cent, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Parsis and Jews seven per cent (combined). Hindi language dominates in Dravidian South India and Indo-European North India that are recognised under India’s constitution, besides 780 minor languages and dialects.
Dalit religion in the Indian Punjab
Most of the protesting farmers hailed from the Indian state of the Punjab or adjoin states. The sikhs are believed to be the most liberal community in India. Yet, even they, like Muslims are not immune from caste influence (arzal, ashraf ajlaf, etc).
Brahmins (priests) are regarded as custodians of religious Hindu traditions in the whole of India. But, so is not the case in the Punjab. They are pejoratively called mang khani jat (a community or caste living simply on alms). But degradation of the traditional Brahmans does not signify elimination of sikh caste hierarchy. Caste based discrimination in the Punjab has a different complexion. Sikh community replaced Brahmins with affluent jat sikhs with material strength possessing agricultural land as and enjoying hegemony over gurudwara and other panths (sikh holy organisations and institutions).
Dalits who convert to Sikhism are disappointed. They are excluded fromthe management of committees and gurudwara. The landowning sikhs dominate landless dalits.
Besides, under the local customary scheme of patron-client relationship popularly known as razat nama, they are even denied ownership rights to the plots of land on which they had built houses in segregated colonies in vicinity of the mainstream villages.
Dalits are the second largest community in the Punjab state. Numerically, they are almost equal to strength of the Jat Sikhs. Yet, their share in the land holdings is just 4.82 per cent. And they occupy only 2.34 per cent of the total area under cultivation. Being landless, dalits are deined their due share in management committees of sikh gurudwaras (shrines). Ravidassia dharma
The frustrated Punjabi dalits tried to seek upward social mobility through religious conversion to a different sikh dharma, Ravidassia Dharma.
This dharma was formally announced by Babu Mangu Ram Mugowalia in a declaration made by the Sants of dera Sachkhand Balan on January 30, 2010. The pre-partition Ad Dharam movement has its roots in this dharma. This movement is the only movement of its kind in north western region of India that aimed at securing a dignified place for dalits through religious reformation cultural transformation and political clout rather than seeking emancipation through conversion and sanskritization.
Dalits regard Guru Ravidas as as their savior. His teachings exhort dalits to stand up for themselves.
The exclusion of dalits in the sikh caste system obstructed amalgamation of sikhs with dalits and other minorities to shape an oppressed people’s joint movement in Indian Punjab.
That India has had waves of newcomers is historical. And now the original inhabitants of the country comprise only five percent of the population.
Known as Adivasis, they inhabit mostly parts of Central India as well as the northeast to which they were taken by the British for agricultural work. They also, particularly the women, harvest tea carefully picking the suitable leaves until they have met their daily quotas. Powerless people are frequently abused as are they.
Owners of the tea gardens hire out the harvesting and pay little attention to the working conditions or wages of the tea pickers. Minimum wage laws are flouted so much so that the workers often resort to their hunter/gatherer origins, picking roots, mushrooms and wild-edible plants to supplement their diet and fill their bellies.
Among the very early waves of migration to India, steppe farmers left their mark. In waves they came to Iran then to India bringing herding and farming to the native peoples. They introduced wheat to the northwest, a particularly nourishing crop though not ideally suited to the rest of India. Known for their Indus Valley Civilization, they thrived for millennia from 3300 to 1300 BC. Over this extended period naturally there was mixing with the extant Indian populations.
Groups fanned out eastward and continued to mix with locals, the aborigine Indians, and formed eventually a homogenized population comprising 25 percent Iranian farmer and 75 percent aboriginal Indian. Thus the Dravidian people.
This mixture, called “Ancestral South Indian” by scientists, is now found predominantly in peninsular India.
Next to come were the Indo-Aryans, a Central Asian people who spread west to Europe and the Middle East, and also south towards India; first to Iran and Afghanistan and eventually through the Hindu Kush mountain passes to India.
They are responsible for what became known as the Vedic religion, the ancestor of Hinduism. They introduced the Indo-Aryan languages and also the division of society into four groups based on occupation, the forerunner of modern castes. DNA studies have validated their presence. Thus in the Swat valley, tests on remains prior to 1200 BC do not have steppe ancestry but later ones do — confirming the mixing of the migrants with locals.
Yet despite the DNA evidence, the ruling BJP party in India has tried to give these people a native Indian origin.
The Muslims were to come later and in the centuries that they ruled India, they became Indian themselves, and their culture, architecture, religion and languages were swallowed up and absorbed. From the Red Fort in Delhi to the Taj Mahal in Agra and even Rajput palaces, their imprint now defines India.
To marginalize the oldest Indian peoples and the newest is to deny India’s rich heritage.
The Taliban’s re-accession to power in Afghanistan is approaching an anniversary. Representatives of the extreme ethnic movement entered Kabul unopposed...
We have witnessed time and again that intelligence deficiencies have extracted exorbitant costs from New Delhi. Be it the 1962...
The body is the basic vessel of human existence in the world and man’s basic connection to the world. It...
Monkeypox is not a new disease, and in some African countries it is endemic. However, the international outbreak which began...
Humanitarian crisis in Syria is among the most severe in the world, and there is little hope that the situation...
Any startup starts with an idea, but it’s important to understand that there are a lot of ideas in the...
The US entered a new era with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks inspired...
Russia and Africa: a future-bound partnership
Mitsuko Takahashi on the global egg industry
Invest in Africa, AfDB Chief Urges Investors at U.S.-Africa Business Summit
The relationship between the Chinese army and European universities
The first Russian rail transit passing Iran and its message for U.S.
Sergey Lavrov’s Working Visit to Africa
NATO Bracing for a New Security Competition
Slow Moving Regulatory Decision Making for Cryptocurrency not Economically Favourable