Tampering with history

[Sn. Subrahmanya]

Let me make a point clear:

When I say "retrofitting" - I am questioning the methodology of
the migrationists - i.e first assuming that a migration happened
and then trying to interpret data accordingly.

This is crucial, especially when equally valid other options/interpretations
are avaliable - for eg: Retroflexion - is it because of migration or
is it an internal  development ?
If one chooses migration -  what evidence is there to choose it ?.
If one calls it internal development - then what is the available evidence ?.

I would pick internal development, because there is no evidence of
any migration  from evidences like archeology, textual or genetic.

If one notices, the original evidence for a invasion/migration
i.e textual (racist interpretations like dasa,anaasa etc) and archeological
(Harappa was destroyed by invading aryans..) are no longer valid.

Thus the original evidence on which invasion/migration was postulated
doesnt exist !...So - the linguistic evidence  which relied on such
archeological confirmation is also suspect !!.

The bottom line is - when linguistic evidence is proposed - corroborative
evidence from other sources should be available. Proceeding with an
initial assumption of a migration, interpreting linguistic data accordingly
and then asserting that there is linguistic evidence of a migration is
example of a "circular" evidence.

For the rest, I guess we should agree to diagree and leave it at that.

Regards,
Subrahmanya