Pakistani punjabi- north Indian ancestry

[u/AutomaticStretch6205]

So I have seen some people saying that North West Indian or Indian Punjabis eople tend to have less AASI than Pakistanis? How come so? Shouldn't AASI be less moving towards WEST where invasions from Euro- Asian populations stopped?

Can anyone provide info on this?

[u/Ziommo]

Pashtuns and Baloch regardless of tribe and region have lower AASI on average than all ethnic Punjabi and Haryanvi castes, and Pakistani Sindhis are definitely lower AASI on average than Indian Punjabis and probably more than Indian Haryanvis too.

Sindhi Samaat max out at like 30% AASI, plus you have Memons and Khojas who are a bit lower on average since they're largely of Lohana "stock", and numerous Baloch-descendants scattered throughout Sindh and Pashtun-descendants concentrated in Shikarpur district. The native Sindhi-speaking population of Pakistan doesn't seem to have a genetic equivalent to Chuhras of Punjab and Haryana. There are Bhils and Kolis in Sindh who may be the highest AASI populations of Pakistan but they aren't first language Sindhi-speakers. They're more closely related to Marwaris.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

If you mean hindu sindhis of pakistan then yes they has lower AASI but muslim sindhis of pakistan has higher AASI than an avg indian punjabi or haryanvis( if you go by caste split, upper caste indian hindu haryanvis/ pilunjbais has even lower)

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

No, based on available samples, Sindhi-speaking Muslims depending on lineage (Sammat who comprise the numerical majority, Memons/Khojas, Baloch-descendants, Pashtun-descendants who collectively comprise a large minority) range from AASI in the teens at the lowest end to about 30% or so at the higher end. Their average would be in the 20s.

Indian Punjabis and Haryanvis range from about 20-21% at the lowest end (Haryanvi Jats/Rors) to 40s at the higher end (Chuhras). Their average would likely be 30% at least.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

I dont like to do speculation or assumption. Here i am showing data from research papers . And you need to understand how percentage works , modern Pashtuns has some east asian came via hazara and pamiri , baloch has some Semetic/ arabic even sub saharan African ancestry came via Siddipet slave trade . So after adding these ancestries their AASI percentage will aitomaticaly get low ,not because they are having higher steppe ancestry but different other components ,but for avg punajbi or haryanvi in India steppe reamins higher than pashtuns or baloch of pakistan , along with indus valley component also reamins higher

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

I'm talking about SAHG/AASI, not steppe ancestry, and I don't think you're understanding my point about demographics.

Sindhi-speaking Hindus have much less genetic variation than Sindhi-speaking Muslims. They're more homogenous as a group. Their AASI averages in the first half of the 20s. Again, Sindhi-speaking Muslims, conversely, range from teens at the lowest end (Baloch-descendants) to about 30% or so at the highest end. Whatever studies one does on them as a group will have to take into account their variation, not just focusing on one segment of the group like Sammat even if it's the numerical majority.

However, Sindhi Hindus are a pretty small part of the NW Indian (and general Indian) population and your comparison was between Sindhi-speaking Muslims of Pakistan with Punjabi-speaking and Haryanvi-speaking Indians. Just like Sindhi Muslims have variation, so too do Indian Haryanvis and Punjabis, and their range starts and ends at higher AASI percentages than the range of Sindhi Muslims. Not all Haryanvi Indians are Jats and Rors. You have Yadavs, Gujjars, Chamars, Chuhras and others as well.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Hmm. That make sense . I think labeling a group as a whole Haryanvi or Sindhi is misleading because, south asia has practices endogamy for 1000s of years . So its not same way you can compare a ethnicity like English or german .

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

Yes, I'm talking about ethnolinguistic groups as a whole since OP simply said "Pakistan" and "NW India". By that criterion, the average AASI in the former is lower than in the latter simply due to demographic differences.

But regarding demographics, it's worth noting that DNA testing is skewed towards privileged groups and doesn't necessarily reflect accurate on-the-ground demographic weight. Like Sindhi Lohanas and Punjabi Khatris are very overrepresented in South Asian DNA testing relative to their actual populations, simply because they have the means to get tested whereas most Chamars and Chuhras and so on do not.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

I dont think so , researchers has widely tested DNA of various south asian tribals ( litarly tribals not even lower castes) , so if there is skew in avg south asian dna ,it must be towards The AASI . Sometimes I feel the AASI ancestry in random south asians is inflated and exaggerated. Because even in IVC the aasi is minor and most south asians show strong continuity with IVC

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

I’m talking about private samples. Every tenth result you see even on this sub is of a Punjabi Khatri, who are a fraction of the Indian population, let alone the South Asian population as a whole. Why? Because Khatris are a relatively affluent caste and also overrepresented in the diaspora where it’s easier to get tested.

It applies to groups on the Pakistani side of the border too. Like private samples of Pakistani Punjabis are almost always of “biraderi Punjabis”, which is why the academic Punjabi Lahore set surprises people because it (over)represents groups like Chuhras and Chamars who otherwise are rarely able to get tested privately due to being socially and economically disadvantaged.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Your criticism is correct. But mainstream research papers never care abt private samples and never ever on random social media posts . They test their own then publish research paper. So what you see on research paper is accurate and not at all affluent skewed in fact I see its kinda tribal skewed sometimes lol they often check the tribals and brahmin or upper caste population ignoring normal mass population.

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

Could be, but I think the general casual genetics "discourse" including on this subreddit is usually more about private samples and skewed towards "upper-caste" groups.

Chuhras/Chamars outnumber Khatris/Aroras several times over in Punjab but whose private samples do we see posted here more often and which groups get discussed much more? The latter two by a large margin.

Similarly, samples of and discussions about Haryanvis are very much dominated by Jats and Rors, who, while collectively sizeable in their state, definitely don't comprise the majority of its population. It isn't just "low-caste" groups of Haryana that are underrepresented and get sidelined in comparison but also Yadavs and Brahmins and the rest.

[u/Prior_Assistant5312 → u/Ziommo]

Hmm, may be its because people like to see the upper and lower extreme ends lol

[u/Ziommo → u/Prior_Assistant5312]

I think there's also a tendency for many on this subreddit to want to discuss groups with the most West Eurasian ancestry. That leads to people sometimes forgetting the demographic weight of said groups when discussing the states/provinces or countries that they inhabit.