→ Typically 15–35% in most Indians, higher in south & east/tribal groups (up to 50–70%), lower in northwest (sometimes <15%).

Iranian-related farmer / Indus Periphery ancestry — from early Neolithic Iranian plateau-related groups who mixed with local foragers to form the Indus Valley periphery populations (~4000–2000 BCE). Often called "ancient Iranian farmer" or just "Iranian agriculturalist". This is the biggest "Caucasoid"/West Eurasian-like stream in most models.

→ Usually 45–70% in the average Indian, often the largest single component.

Steppe pastoralist (Bronze Age) — Yamnaya / Sintashta / Andronovo-related ancestry brought by Indo-Aryan speakers (~2000–1000 BCE). This is the other main West Eurasian stream.

→ Typically 5–30%, highest in northern / upper-caste groups (especially Brahmins in north ~25–35%), near zero in many southern / tribal populations.

So a very rough pan-Indian average (not really a single "average" person exists) often looks something like:~55–65% Indus-Periphery-related / Iranian farmer

~10–25% Steppe

→ together ~65–80% "West Eurasian" / broadly Caucasoid-like

~20–35% AASI ("aboriginal" / Onge-like)

Your 60–70% "caucasoid, mostly Persian ancient farmer" is therefore pretty close if you lump Iranian farmer + Steppe together as "Caucasoid" (which many 23andMe / illustrativeDNA-style reports do). The "mostly Persian ancient farmer" part tracks well — the Iranian-related ancestry is usually the dominant West Eurasian piece.The 1–5% "Nowag" (East Asian / Northeast Asian) you mentioned shows up mostly in:Bengal & northeast Indians (Assamese, Bengalis, Tripuris etc.) — often 5–15% or more East/Southeast Asian-related (Tibeto-Burman or Austroasiatic influence)

Some east-coast / Odia populations — low single digits

Almost absent (<1–2%) in most of north, west, and south India

So yeah — your numbers are a decent shitpost-level summary for a generic north/central Indian gradient, but they overstate the AASI a bit for northerners and understate how much of the "Caucasoid" signal is actually Iranian-farmer rather than pure Steppe. The clines are huge: a Kashmiri Pandit and a Paniya tribesman are about as genetically distant as a Swede and a Saudi.If you're pulling from some specific ancestry calculator or G25 model, feel free to drop the source — those can vary by 10–15% depending on reference pops.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5836263&forum_id=2̃#49680731)

Indians (people of the Indian subcontinent / South Asians) are, on average, more genetically similar to Europeans (“whites”) than to Chinese or other East Asians.

This is consistently shown by multiple lines of genetic evidence:

Principal component analysis (PCA)**: In global or Eurasian PCA plots, South Asian populations form their own cluster or a gradient (the “Indian cline”) that sits between West Eurasians (Europeans, Middle Easterners, Central Asians) and East Asians, but closer overall to the West Eurasian side. Europeans and East Asians separate more strongly from each other, with Indians intermediate but pulled toward Europeans.

Genetic distance (FST)**: Pairwise FST values are smaller between South Asians and Europeans than between South Asians and East Asians. For example, one study reported average FST ≈ 0.042 with West Eurasians vs. ≈ 0.051 with East Asians. Distances from South Indian groups to Europeans are systematically lower than to East Asians. India–Europe continental-group FST is the smallest among major non-African comparisons in several datasets.

Ancestry composition**: Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of Ancestral North Indians (ANI)—related to West Eurasians (Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, Europeans)—and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), a more deeply diverged lineage not closely related to either Europeans or East Asians (though distantly connected to ancient South Asian hunter-gatherers and, more remotely, other eastern Eurasian groups). ANI proportions typically range from ~39–71% (higher in northern groups, upper castes, and Indo-European speakers). This West Eurasian-related component pulls the overall affinity toward Europeans.

Divergence timing and models**: Estimates indicate East Asians diverged from the ancestral Eurasian population earlier (39–44 kya) than the later split between the lineages leading to Europeans and South Asians (24–27 kya in some models). This is consistent with Indians sharing more recent common ancestry with West Eurasians.

Caveats and variation within India:

Northern and northwestern groups (and many higher-caste or Indo-European-speaking populations) are closer to Europeans.

Some southern tribal or lower-caste groups lean somewhat more toward the ASI end and can show slightly greater (still limited) affinity to East Asians in certain metrics.

Northeast Indian populations (e.g., certain Tibeto-Burman groups) have substantial recent East Asian-related ancestry and are genetically closer to East Asians.

India has high internal diversity due to ancient mixtures, endogamy, and caste/tribal structure, far more than the relatively homogeneous Han Chinese population. Overall averages and the bulk of the population still place South Asians nearer to Europeans than to Chinese.

These patterns come from genome-wide SNP and whole-genome studies (including work by Reich and colleagues, the Indian Genome Variation Consortium, and others). Human genetic variation is continuous and clinal rather than discrete “races,” but the quantitative measures of relatedness clearly show greater average similarity of Indians to Europeans than to East Asians.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5836263&forum_id=2̃#50110425)