The troublesome thing, if you will, was that my father has always had a "English" nationality and heritage separate from Indians (see the first post for my definitions of these words). Yes, he had a cultural affinity for India -- the food, the movies and love of heat -- but now he has a genetic link. His test revealed that one-third of his DNA originates in the subcontinent.*
Now I had an inconsistency to investigate: how is it that my father's eight great-grandparents were "English" but he was one-third "Indian"? It seemed that some of these Englishers were not "pure" but mixed into the rest of the people. Indeed, it seems that his family was a different kind of Anglo-Indian:**
The term Anglo-Indians can refer to... "Of mixed British and Indian parentage... or (chiefly historical) of British descent or birth but living or having lived long in India" [dz: without mixing]. This article focuses primarily on the modern definition, a distinct minority community of mixed ancestry, whose native language is English.These definitions allow me to match the DNA with the "official history" in a way that makes sense (my grandfather Andrew worked for the Raj), rather than carrying on some assumption about English and Indians staying separate.
During the centuries that Britain was in India, the children born to British men and Indian women began to form a new community... These Anglo-Indians formed a small but significant portion of the population during the British Raj, and were well represented in certain administrative roles.
Rather than worry about "the milkman," I can just say that these Jameses, Williams and Susans were Indian in more than a few ways. I'm curious to know how they lived among the relations they ruled, but most of them are dead, and the novels and movies about Anglo-Indians seem to exaggerate a bit.
Bottom Line Nobody is "born to rule" just as nobody is "born to a nationality." We are all people from places and cultures who have mixed in different ways. Is there one, pure, correct way? Not unless you're a hypocrite.
* My born-in-Romania girlfriend got her results: 99% Romanian/Balkan, which is suspicious for a region that's been criss-crossed for ages. Perhaps these tests are vulnerable to a "baseline" bias of who's considered to be "from" somewhere, but let's ignore that issue.
** I had never heard this term applied to my family.
Addendum (28 May 2016): DNA-tools are quickly moving from "identity" to "modification." The future of GMO-babies is less than 5-years away. Are you ready?
Addendum (4 Feb 2017): Watch this to see how information challenges people's prejudices.
Addendum (9 Sep 2017): Genes != ethnicity != identity, meaning that my "Anglo-Indian" grand parents were genetically 1/3 (or more) Indian but didn't act that way ;)