Indo-Aryan migration vs Indigenous origin - scholarly debate

[Charles]

George Thompson wrote:
>
> Charles Poncet in good faith asks:
>
> >a) Was there an Aryan migration/invasion of India which destroyed the
> >Indus valley civilization ?
> >or
> >b) Is it a fairy tale concocted by certain scholars in the last century
> >and if so why ?
>
> a. There was a migration, no doubt whatsoever. Early archaeologists thought
> they saw evidence of violence at the last stages of IVC and assumed a
> connection with the incoming Vedic  Aryans. They were wrong. We know
> virtually nothing about what happened to IVC. Certainly what went on in the
> heads of IVC people will not be known by us until someone deciphers their
> script [if that is what it is]. Frawley and friends are not capable of
> reading IVC minds across great distances of time and lost culture and *no
> mediating language*.
>
> b. It is a fairy tale concocted by scholars to explain what looked like
> facts to them. That they were wrong is forgiveable if there were no
> malicious motives in their researches. If malicious, then no forgiveness.
> If that is what you want.
>
> Now, as for fairy tales, read Frawley and friends: they have turned IVC
> into pure Atlantis. If there are no malicious motives behind their fairy
> tales then they too are forgiveable. But their books are fairy tales. And
> to tell the truth I doubt their motives. Frawley's fairy tale factory
> appears rather lucrative. Rather filthy lucrative. [My views on the other
> hand have gotten me absolutely  nothing and I like it like that].
>
> I am no ivory tower elitist. I just do not want to waste the precious time
> that I have remaining to me -- who knows? tomorrow I may be hit by a truck
> -- repeating myself over and over again, to no avail. Especially to people
> who do not listen.
>
> If you will listen to me, I will listen to you. Fair enough?
>
> George Thompson
Dear George,
        Thank you for a very balanced and interseting comment.
        Let me emphasize that I totally share your view that one should never
blame scholars or scientists of the past for having been wrong. In fact
one of the nice things about western science and scholarship is that it
has the ability to figure out its own mistakes.
        On Frawley and Co, even a layman like me can figure out that they are
biased against anything non-Indian. This comes out also in Frawley's
attitude to Ayur-Veda. Nobody denies its value and beauty but Ayurveda
is not a cure all and neither is allopathic medicine a doomed technique
taught by quacks seeking to force ever increasing amounts of drugs on
defenseless patients as Frawley claims ! (This is a bit of an
exageration of mine actually, but only a bit)
        My point was to ask wether such works as Frawley's - clouded by
intellectual prejudice as they may be - should still be seriously
considered. Biased people can make valid points at times and I think our
exchanges on this topic in the last few days have certainly made that
clear.
        Thank you for contributing to what I thought was a very interesting
discussion of delicate topic.
Charles