>>7373872 Yes, and indeed it does. >How closeVirtually identical, with only a negligible amount of foreign admixture differentiating the two groups in question.
Here's a more concise elaboration, if you need a more thorough clarification:
Indians/other South Asians are cross bred Aborigines. Not some sort of Asiatic Caucasian or something along those lines (although because of West Eurasian migration East, they are partially mixed with some Caucasian groups). With that out of the way, once you assess for their phenotypic traits, this assertion becomes self evident. For example take their conventional skin tone, and compare and contrast it with the other native ethnic groups in Eurasia. After you're done, what you'll see, is that they're the only race native to Euraisa with dark skin that exceeds the threshold of the conventional Eurasian tan(the darkest skin tone seen in other Eurasian groups). Not only that, but their eye sockets are also larger than what a Caucascoid should conventionally have. And their nostril shape is uniquely West African esk in appearance despite their geographical location. So what does this all mean? Well it means either they're recent African migrants(no genetic study points towards this) or are the cross bred descendants of the original Australasian population that balkanized and gave way to what we see in Australia, the Australian Aborigines. Who btw, seem to be their only unmixed descendants as India(their old homeland) was forcibly miscegenated into an old world Brazil.
