In South Asia, many decide who they are before learning the same based on evidence. It's all about identity which is often used to carry out all sorts of projects including "nation-state" building. So identity matters though it may not always matter which one that is.
People also tend to switch their 'national identities" depending on needs. We were a "Muslim" nation once seeking a state based on the "2-nation theory" and then we switched to become a "Bengali" nation overnight seeking a state based on the language identity. Now nobody is sure of who, what and when.
Meanwhile Indians have always claimed that there is only "One nation"- India. Everyone is an Indian hence there should be one nation-state -India naturally. Interestingly both India and Pakistan are dominated by the same North Indian ruling class descendants. Compared to the two, Bangladesh is marginalised deltaic composition, quite marginalised and never ruled over others at all.
How has history seen this emergence of Identity over time that is historically fluid? Are we one nation? Several nations put together in a clumsy cluster like a mixed meat soup? Or is the idea of a nation really not tenable in South Asia given that state seeking based on "national" identities are a very recent phenomenon.
We have ignored history and chosen politics as it suits the elite hungry for control through state making. The impulse to do so is ancient but questions about who we are, how did we come to be here and from where all remain? What does history say about the questions using scientific methods based on using DNA as evidence markers?
The search for pre- historic roots
The search for a "pure race", "mother nation", "root identity" etc in South Asia has a long history which began with "Aryan" supremacy as the dominant. Aryans mean a "higher people" because they came and later controlled North India, which was the most powerful region in ancient South Asia.
During the colonial era Aryans were depicted as "invaders" from outside who militarily conquered local civilisations such as Harappa and established supremacy. However, that history has been debunked and now it's about how people came as migrants over a long period of time and settled here.
In fact there are two strains of Aryans -those who were original settlers in the Iran zones and called Iranian Neolithic farmers. They came around 10,000 -5000 years back from the Zagros mountain region in Central Asia. They bought ancestral skills which helped the local hunter gatherer economy to transition to a Neolithic or new stone age era. They are both ancestors of many current South Asian and even some Western Asian populations.
The other Aryans
But that's not the only Aryan group that came to India. Another group called the Indo-Aryans who were part of other Aryan groups migrated to India over a period of time between 2000 and 1500 BCE. Their route was from Central Asia to the Eurasian steppe and then settling in the north-western part which roughly is the region which is now the Northern part of both India and Pakistan. This inroad came in the wake of the fall of the Indus Civilisation.
Although semi-nomadic pastoralists they introduced the Indo-Aryan languages, Vedic religion as well as chariots and metallurgy. In other words, socio-political power of North India as manifested by the current Indo-Pak conflict are rooted in the socio-economic crisis of nomadic groups forcing them to migrate from the region which may be traced to Afghanistan and which occurred many centuries back.
But are they the original inhabitants? Did they invade and defeat the locals? Should the Aryans, one or both be considered the mother race?
The original inhabitants?
There are some people who are considered the "original" inhabitants though it doesn't mean their ancestors emerged from the soil of South Asia. It means they were the first settlers in India, who arrived long before the two Aryan varieties and even the Harappan lot.
So, who are the "Adivasis", the "originals" if one may say so. Well, they were migrants too, descended down from the earliest African arrivals. Their DNA code-based acronym is AASI or Ancient Ancestral South Indians. Their popular identity would be the Negritos group who came around 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, now very marginalised and generally called tribals etc.
Perhaps it's more apt to call them "Adi-ovibashi" original migrants than Adivasis or "autochthonous" (original) people. The Bhils, Gonds, Santhals, Todas etc fall in this category. Their dark skin is a popular marker and some South East Asian population groups which have Negritos DNA are also linked to them. This includes the Negritos/Australoid groups such as those in the Andaman Islands.
In summary, all South Asians are migrants and the first to arrive are the Negritos from Africa. They were followed by the groups called Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) and they later mixed with the Iranian farmer groups (IFG) and many moved to south India, whom many call "Dravidians".
The next wave after the AASI were the IFG followed by the Indo-Aryans from the central Asian zone when the Harappan dominance was in decline. And after that too many kept on coming.
Who are we? Depends on what we seek.
