By Vishwamithra –

Sri Lanka has three distinct ethnic groupings: Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. Both Sinhalese and Tamils hail from Indian Arabs traders. An original Indian DNA. Sri Lankan Muslims, primarily consisting of the Sri Lankan Moors (approx. 9.3% of the population), trace their origins to Arab traders who settled on the island from the 7th/8th century onward, marrying local women and establishing trading networks. Historically, they thrived as merchants and were labeled “Moors” by colonial powers, maintaining a distinct ethnic and religious identity despite cultural integration. Yet Sri Lanka has maintained a distinct DNA which is called Sri Lankan.

While such statements reflect a common perception that national identity and biology are perfectly aligned, genetic research suggests the reality is more fluid and complex. While modern technology can often distinguish between people of different cultural histories if enough data is used, the idea of a “distinct DNA” for each nation is not scientifically accurate for several reasons.

Most Asian populations share deep genetic roots. For example, a major paternal lineage known as Y-DNA haplogroup O-M175 is dominant across large parts of East and Southeast Asia, appearing in roughly three-quarters of Chinese males and more than half of Japanese and Korean males. Human history has never been “genetically sealed off”. Modern nationalities like Malays are known to be highly admixed, carrying multiple genetic ancestries with no single “representative” component. Similarly, modern Japanese populations have been modeled as deriving roughly 91% of their ancestry from Korean lineages and 9% from the indigenous Jōmon people.

In many cases, the genetic difference between individuals within one nation can be greater than the average difference between two different nations. Research from Nature indicates a high degree of overlap between the genomes of all Southeast and East Asians, suggesting they entered Asia in a single primary migratory wave.

Critics often point out that “nationality” is a 20th and 21st-century political concept, while DNA reflects ancient migration patterns that occurred long before these borders existed. There is no “Korean gene” or “Indian gene,” only DNA carried by people who happen to live in territories we now call by those names. In summary, while scientists can identify genetic clusters that roughly align with geographic regions, these groups are almost always a blend of multiple ancient lineages rather than a singular “inheritor” of DNA.

Nevertheless, in the modern world, for public understanding and perception, the concept of a ‘national DNA’—a blend of shared ancestry and geographical identity—remains deeply entrenched in the national identities of developed Western nations, such as the German, English, Swedish, Norwegian, Irish, Italian, and French.

This national DNA is a subject that politicians exploit to a maddening extent so that the polarization that this process of identification entails becomes a rallying point for select segments of these societies.

Donald Trump and his cohorts- MAGA followers- indulge in this divisive and utterly dangerous campaign of identity politics and they have succeeded in bringing American society to the brink of social breakdown. Ruthless implementation of mass deportation of immigrants and the palpable venom with which it is being enforced has caused chaos and heartbreak amongst families. The very optics of this enforcement- under the guise of deporting dangerous and criminal elements- the Trump administration has managed to ‘cleanse’ American society so that the minority immigrant communities are being branded as real ‘aliens’ – the ‘other’ elements. A distinct electoral advantage is  in the process of being created. Whether they would ensure an assured electoral victory would result from these policies is yet to be seen. This policy is clearly marginalizing immigrant communities; a sense of fear is beginning to suffocate the political landscape.  Yet, many within the majority population would not consider this discriminatory application of existing laws as reasonable or fair.

In the optics game Trump and his Cabinet cohorts have lost. However, the alacrity with which the administration is pursuing these policies is baffling; its relentless motion is being lauded by the rhetoric expressed by men like Steve Miller and his ilk. They apparently have concluded that the very emphasis that is attached to the campaign is buttressing their viewpoint and would stand advantageously in the electorate.

Formulating and publicly articulating governance policies without any nuanced shades does not appear sophisticated. Such an approach is largely impulsive, and its lack of consistency risks irritating the public in both the short and long run. Engaging the country’s military in a war of choice while pursuing manifestly unfair immigration policies that have already provoked widespread public outcry is hardly a sensible way of running a government. Ethnic diversity in America is her strength, not her weakness.

Inconsistency in governance is repeated in President Trump’s foreign policies too. The Iran War is a manifestation of his erratic political conduct; fashioning his military and foreign affairs response to suit the daily Stock Market is evident not only in his regular press briefings, it also baffles his rivals and allies alike. While trying to maneuver these sophisticated and nuanced political operations, Trump also has to navigate the stormy waters of the Epstein-files saga which does not seem to go away; on the contrary, it continues to generate headlines.

Much to the dismay of the Black American population, White House-led attempts to restrict voter rights have deepened distrust among civil rights activists, succeeding in painting the Republican Party as anti-civil rights. In such a volatile context, Donald Trump’s current political dilemma is more of a self-made buffet of unforced errors rather than ones imposed by his rivals. Yet, his preoccupation with a purer American DNA, dominated by ‘whiteness’ and the affluence of society, indicates a psyche that is increasingly impatient with reasonable opposition and a failure to understand the ground situation.

The notion of ‘power’ has got ahold of his mind and what flows from that mindset is taking its own independent course. Instead of taking responsibility for his own action, Trump, as always, portrays himself as a victim of his surroundings, never projecting his manhood in courageous and authentic terms. His failure to read and calculate nuanced international politics was bared open when he sent his VP to assist in the reelection campaign of the now-defeated Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Despite these challenges and his apparent failure to meet them head-on, Trump continues to command unwavering loyalty from his MAGA base. The self-discipline and stoicism that define steady leaders have consistently eluded him. He persists in creating a fear psychosis amongst the public and wields Presidential power with numerous executive orders; he displays a sense of self-satisfaction in doing so. To the utter dismay of its supporters, the Democratic Party has failed to exploit this juicy context to their own advantage. The absence of a vocal charismatic leader from the Democratic benches is conspicuous. Yet, they too need to create their own leaders; expecting to win elections purely on the unpopularity of the sitting government could well be a daydream!

*The writer can be reached at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com