R1a1/M17's origins:South Asia?

It looks like a quote to me or some sort of paraphrase. Regardless that quote is intended to be from Oppenheimers book.

At least we can eliminate nationalistic bias from there, so that leaves someone who cannot understand English yet he's managed to right an article for a major Indian magazine on the subject that is widely circulated. Eliminating nationalism from Indian papers, you get a fairly accurate picture of what is what, and there's hundreds of other websites that have come up with the same quote. If you think that they're all wrong, then you're trying to see something that is not there. Buy his book and you'll see what is quoted as R1a1 arising from the Pakistan/Gulf region is what Oppenheimer states in his book.

Right, now read what you quote carefully. Nowhere in any of that quote does it say that R1a1 arose in India. In fact it specifically says that R1a1 arose somewhere NEAR India. It says R1a1 is diverse in Pakistan, India and also Eastern Iran (Baloch areas preseumably).

Ignorant assumption. If you read my previous postings on this, I believe and still do, that R1a1 arose in Eastern Europe during the LGM. Though what I am saying is that diversity of R1a1 in Pakistan is much greater than in India which is what Oppenheimer is saying and it's what every investigator has said for R1a1

This is getting very very silly now. You quoted a paper to show that the Indian tribes had a variance of 0.53 R1a1. Guess what? This adds no further evidence to your point that R1a1 is likely to originate in India as opposed to Pakistan (or even Eastern Europe). The study needs to take very large samples from India, from Pakistan and Eastern Europe and compare them all. This has not been done in the study that you quote from where you're trying to make some nonsensical point about Indian tribals having a large R1a1 variance - it's been known that R1a1 in Indian tribes do have a large variance (but not the largest), and it's known the Indian tribes and castes group together. If you read the paper you quote from it says even that Indian castes and Indian tribes show similar variances for Ra1, so the tribal R1a1 could easily come from caste R1a1.

AMOVA analysis revealed 2.77% variation among the three tribal populations studied. They showed 2.18% variation, when compared with the 8 South Indian tribal populations studied earlier. When Andh samples were omitted from the analysis, the other two populations showed more closeness to the other Indian tribes, with 1.72% variation. Interestingly, the variation between the studied tribal populations and 13 Indian caste populations (Table 4) was only 1.14%. When all the available data were combined (11 tribes and 13 castes) the variance between the groups became 2.85% (north-east Indian tribal data omitted). This is a remarkably lower value than the earlier report of Cordaux et al [13], where they found 13% variation between the Indian tribal and caste groups. In this study, however, we omitted populations with samples size less than 20, and those for which all biallelic polymorphisms were not typed. A total of 508 tribal and 901 caste samples were included in the analysis; this forms the broadest dataset of Indian Y chromosomes, so far [see Additional file 1].