Suraj,
I thought I was clear on why I rejected what you said. I didn't just dismiss it. I rejected it on several premises, which I will outline and clarify below:
1.
Errors of basic fact
There is a principle I follow in the evaluation of sources. If the material proves unreliable in regard to what I know, then I hold it suspect in what I do not know. The more unreliable it is, the more I consider it suspect. You included information on the "Aryan Invasion theory" for the origins of the Indo-European languages, and it betrayed a complete ignorance of the theory. In no way, no way at all, is it based on biblical chronology
I think No, and I say this with all sincerity, you are only aware of one perspective on Indian history and don't seem to give any credit whatsoever to Indian scholars to offer their own perspectives. I am aware of both perspectives though, I won't say I am a scholar in either Indology or Indo-European history, but I have a functional knowledge in both to do a comparative analysis and evaluation.
You lose credibility with me as soon as you call all Indologists(which are not all Indian by the way) dubious. As if all these indologists are not scholars, but Western scholars are scholars, despite the fact these indologists are educated in the same Western analytical and critical thinking tradition and are highly educated with Ph.d's, Masters and widely published in international journals? etc. They have only been brave enough to speak against what is academic racism. Many of these are non-Indian.
You said their theories of Out Of India are not supported, but actually their theory is based on modern scientific standards of evidence. They have provided very extensive evidence that many scholars today are being forced to revise their history. In fact AIT in its classical form is now considered obsolete, even by academics from the Harvard school.
I really don't think you know a lot about AIT and how it emerged, because if you did you would be coming to similar conclusions on AIT and will understand why it is discredited so widely today. Max Mueller, the founder of this theory, speculated that the Aryans and the Dravidians were different races. The Aryans were fair-skinned and the Dravidians were dark-skinned and concluded this can only be explained as an invasion of India by white-skinned nomads from Europe in the past(from the mountain regions of Russia he surmised) He then went onto render a translation of the the Hindu Rig Veda, the oldest text of India. He used the commentary on it by Sayana a medieval commentator to translate it.
How would you approach a foreign text in an arachic language of which you have no knowledge of? If you were going to read an unknown ancient text in Latin, you would consult Latin grammars and Latin speakers. You would look at the body of knowledge available on that text. This is the proper scientific method to approach language studies.
Max Mueller did not use this method. He dismissed Sanskrit Grammars, he dismissed all existing translations of the Rig Veda and the vast body of knowledge of commentaries, explanations, lexicons and discourses on it. The Rig Veda was seen as a philosophical text containing within it very high wisdom and was the backbone of Indian civilisation. The elaborate philosophical systems of India all saw their origins in these texts. The Vedas even had their own separate and pecuiliar grammar traditions, which were required to read them. This was based on using etymological science, where the meaning of the Vedic texts would be decoded by analaysing them into their root verbs and by rules of combination. This linguistic tradition was as old as the Vedic age.
Max Mueller and his associates rejected all of this. They derided this as "etymological fancies" and asserted that they have a far superior method of reading the Vedas; comparative phiology. That is that we can know what the meaning of the Vedic words were by comparing these words to other languages in the broad family known as Indo-European. A word in Sanskrit will be taken, then all other words in the Indo-European language it had some kind of similarity to would be studied and then Max Muller would opine what the most likely meaning is. He relied quite heavily on a Sayana's commentary on the Rig veda, because Sayana interpretation was ritualistic and consistent with Mullers thesis that the Aryans were primitive and barbaric ahd contained no high philosophy. Sometimes he even gave his own interpretations, when he found Sayana was going against his thesis.
The Sanskrit Pundits all protested against what Max Muller and his associates were doing. Their argument, and an argument that every modern student of Western science of research would agree with, how can they possibly translate their texts by rejecting Sanskrit Grammar and Sanskrit dictionaries? The most voiceforous of these was Swami Dayananda Saraswati, a leading scholar of Sanskrit at the time, he openly challenged the British Sanskritsts and exposed their complete ignorance of Sanskrit and what he saw nothing more than Christian missionary propoganda against his religion.
The translations of the Vedas done by Europeans using a dubious method of comparative philogy based on a lack of any kind of scientific method, had absolutely no resemblance with the translations done by Sanskrit grammarians themselves using Sanskrit grammar. The former showed the Vedas and the whole religion of Hinduism as barbaric, primitive, nonsensical and childish; the latter showed the Vedas to be high philosophy and metaphysical poetry.
The former created a huge split between Vedic period and the Classical period, which is only a few centuries apart. The Vedic period was polythestic and primitive to the extreme, the bards of the Vedas were just war lords. They sacrificed animals and humans to appease the gods, and spent their time high on Soma(an ancient narcotic apparently) They were racist and hated the dark-skinned and inferior people. Then, as if by some miracle a few centuries later, these barbaric people become civilised and begin to contemplate high philosophy, ethics, spirituality. They begin to build hospitals, universities, roads, find democracies, and do chemistry and surgery.
The criticism put forth thus by Sanskrit Pundits were, if your theory is correct our Vedic ancestors were buffoons, then how do you explain the high sophistication which emerged within a few centuries from the Vedic period. Such development do not take place suddenly, they require long periods of development. No satisfactory answer was given by the Western scholars, it is just assumed it happened.
The second criticism by Sanskrit Pundits were, if Western theory is correct, then why is it that all the Indian philosophical schools and sciences attribute all their knowledge to the Veda. In fact we can find many of these philosophies in latent form in Vedic hymns e.g, "Brahman as the ultimate reality" To this Western scholars responded that the Classical tradition were reading their philosophy into the Vedas, and the very few hymns(such as Nasadiya) that do relate to their philosophies are later compositions. To this the Pundit says, but the philosophical themes are not just contained in a few hymns, but are common themes running throughout. No satisfactory answer is given by Western scholars to this.
The third criticism of Sanskrit Pundits is if the Western theory is correct, why are Western translations of Vedas so incoherent and often make no sense, words seem to jump out of nowhere, sentences do not make sense.. The Western scholars respond that the Vedic bards were incoherent themselves and could not express themselves properly. To this the Pundit says that their translations observing the system of Sanskrit grammar produces lucid and coherent content, and it is only the Western system which produces garbled nonsense, indicating that the Western methodology itself is errornous. Again no satisfactory response has been given by Western scholars.
The fourth criticism is not even by Sanskrit Pundits, it is by European scholar peers of Max Mueller. They heavily abuse Max Mueller and his associates saying that they are are not scholars, but fanatics posing as scholars, trying to malingn the religion of the Hindus to facilitate their Christianization of India agenda. One of these is the dating by Western astronomers and mathematicians, who show that based on the astronomical records of Hindus, their religion is at least 4000BCE.(A view today held by Out of India theory) Western scholars have responded by accusing the Brahmins of fabricatubg all astronomical records to make their religion appear very ancient. But mathematians respond such accurate back-dating requires computer technology which was not available to the ancient Brahmins. Only somebody who lived during the time could have recorded such information.