So do I
Re sanskrit ; (which you stated; “All western languages have their root in Sanskrit.”)
According to the linguistic centre of gravity principle, the most likely point of origin of a language family is in the area of its greatest diversity. By this criterion, India, home to only a single branch of the Indo-European language family (i. e., Indo-Aryan), is an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the Indo-European homeland, compared to Central-Eastern Europe, for example, which is home to the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Albanian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian and Greek branches of Indo-European.
The earliest written evidence for an Indo-Aryan language is found not in India, but in northern Syria in Hittite records regarding one of their neighbours, the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni.
Most scholars assumed a homeland either in Europe or in Western Asia, and Sanskrit must in this case have reached India by a language transfer from west to east, in a movement described in terms of invasion by 19th century scholars such as Max Müller. With the 20th century discovery of Bronze-Age attestations of Indo-European (Anatolian, Mycenaean Greek), Vedic Sanskrit lost its special status as the most archaic Indo-European language known.
Mallory: "It is highly improbable that the Indo-Aryans of Western Asia migrated eastwards, for example with the collapse of the Mitanni, and wandered into India, since there is not a shred of evidence — for example, names of non-Indic deities, personal names, loan words — that the Indo-Aryans of India ever had any contacts with their west Asian neighbours. The reverse possibility, that a small group broke off and wandered from India into Western Asia is readily dismissed as an improbably long migration, again without the least bit of evidence."
Leach (1990), as cited in Bryant (2001:222)
"Ancient Indian history has been fashioned out of compositions, which are purely religious and priestly, which notoriously do not deal with history, and which totally lack the historical sense.”
F.E. Pargiter 1922. However "the Vedic literature confines itself to religious subjects and notices political and secular occurrences only incidentally ". Cited in R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalker (editors): The history and culture of the Indian people. Volume I, The Vedic age. Bombay : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 1951, p.315, with reference to F.E. Pargiter
This argument is associated with the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, who interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro as the victims of conquest wars, and who famously stated that the god "Indra stands accused" of the destruction of the Indus Valley Civilisation
In the later 20th century, ideas were refined along with data accrual, and migration and acculturation were seen as the methods whereby Indo-Aryans spread into northwest India around 1500 BC
The Rigveda is by far the most archaic testimony of Vedic Sanskrit. Bryant suggests that the Rigveda represents a pastoral or nomadic, mobile culture, centred on the Indo-Iranian Soma cult and fire worship.
According to Cardona, "there is no textual evidence in the early literary traditions unambiguously showing a trace" of an Indo-Aryan migration.
But
Bryant: "It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages."
About 1800 BC, there is a major cultural change in the Swat Valley with the emergence of the Gandhara grave culture. With its introduction of new ceramics, new burial rites, and the horse, the Gandhara grave culture is a major candidate for early Indo-Aryan presence.
Indo-Aryan migration into the northern Punjab is approximately contemporaneous to the final phase of the decline of the Indus-Valley civilization.
According to Erdosy, the ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in North-western India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia.
A 2011 genetic study "confirmed the existence of a general principal component cline stretching from Europe to south India." They also concluded that the Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus.
Furthermore, the majority of researchers have found significant evidence in support of Indo-European migration and even "elite dominance" of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, usually pointing to three separate lines of evidence.
The previously widespread distribution of Dravidian speakers, now confined to the south of India; the fact that upper caste Brahmins share a close genetic affinity with West Eurasians, whereas low caste Indians tend to have more in common with aboriginals or East Asians;
and the comparatively recent introgression of West Eurasian DNA into the aboriginal population of the post-Neolithic Indo-Gangetic plain.
Other studies also claim that there is genetic evidence in support of the traditional hypothesis of Indo-Aryan migration. Basu et al. argue that the Indian subcontinent was subjected to a series of massive Indo-European migrations about 1500 BC.
The strongest such claims, though, are based upon studies of autosomal DNA, not only Y DNA. Several such studies have isolated two major components of ancestry amongst Indians, one being more common in the south, and amongst lower castes, and the other more common amongst upper caste Indians, Indians speaking Indo-European languages, and also Indians living in the northwest. This second component is shared with populations from the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia, and is thought to represent at least one ancient influx of people from the northwest.
According to one researcher, there is "a major genetic contribution from Eurasia to North Indian upper castes" and a "greater genetic inflow among North Indian caste populations than is observed among South Indian caste and tribal populations."
A more recent study has provided support for an influx of Indo-European migrants into the Indian subcontinent, but not necessarily an "invasion of any kind", further corroborating the findings of previous investigators, such as Bamshad et al. (2001), Wells et al. (2002) and Basu et al. (2003).
The terms North Indian and South Indian are ethno-linguistic categories, with North Indian corresponding to Indo-European-speaking peoples and South Indian corresponding to Dravidian-speaking.
NOTE:
FROM A NATIONALIST POINT OF VIEW, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CONCEPT OF AN ARYAN-DRAVIDIAN DIVIDE IS PERNICIOUS TO THE UNITY OF THE HINDU STATE, AND AN IMPORTANT AIM FOR HINDUTVA AND NEO-HINDU SCHOLARSHIP IS THEREFOR TO INTRODUCE A COUNTER-NARRATIVE TO THE ONE PRESENTED BY WESTERN ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP.
[The same has happened in Australia with the indigenous, previous good anthropological work on the. has been ignored as it doesn’t suit the political case trying to be made for them at this point in time.]
Many furthermore link Indo-Aryan migrations to the origin of caste discrimination and thus the theory is a basis of sentiments around the origin of caste discrimination, as many believe that Indo-Aryans formed the upper castes.
The Hindutva movement.
Nationalistic movements in India oppose the idea that Hinduism has partly endogenous origins. For the founders of the contemporary Hindutva movement, the Aryan migration theory presented a problem. The Hindutva-notion that the Hindu-culture originated in India was threatened by the notion that the Aryans originated outside India. Later Indian writers regarded the Aryan migration theory to be a product of colonialism, aimed to denigrate Hindus. According to them, Hindus had existed in India from times immemorial, as expressed by Golwalkar.
“Undoubtedly ... we Hindus have been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land for over 8 or even 10 thousand years before the land was invaded by any foreign race. (Golwakar [1939] 1944.”
‘OUT OF INDIA’ THEORY.
In recent years, the concept of "Indigenous Aryans" has been increasingly conflated with an "Out of India" origin of the Indo-European language family. This contrasts with the model of Indo-Aryan migration which posits that Indo-Aryan tribes migrated to India from Central Asia. Some furthermore claim that all Indo-European languages originated in India. These claims remain problematic.
The Out-of-India view has virtually no academic credibility today, but it was "revived" as a political topic in Hindu nationalism in the late 1990s.
Mallory 1989 "the great majority of scholars insist that the Indo-Aryans were intrusive into northwest India"
The development of historical linguistics, specifically the law of palatals and the discovery of the laryngeals in Hittite, affected Sanskrit's preeminent status as the most venerable elder in this reconstructed family. This eroded support of India as the homeland of Indo-European languages.
“MANY REGARD THE SCHOLARSHIP OF THE INDIGENOUS INDO-ARYAN CAMP SO SERIOUSLY FLAWED THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN AN AIRING. THEY VIEW THE INDIGENOUS ARYAN CAMP AS MORE A RELIGION THAN AN ACADEMIC POSITION AND NO AMOUNT OF SCHOLARLY REFUTATION IS LIKELY TO HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON ITS ADHERENTS.”
NOTE:
editor J. P. Mallory (2002) the Journal of Indo-European Studies
Witzel (2003) warned: “ It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" – no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars.”
According to Bryant (2001:75), OIT proponents tend to be linguistic dilettantes who either IGNORE THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE COMPLETELY, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive (e.g. Chakrabarti 1995 and Rajaram 1995, as cited in Bryant 2001:74, OR ATTEMPT TO TACKLE IT WITH HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE QUALIFICATIONS.
Unlike the Indo-European migration hypothesis, there is no clear genetic evidence for a prehistoric migration out of India. There is no evidence of widespread genetic displacement in Europe after the Paleolithic. And Hemphill (1998) finds "no support for any model that calls for the ultimate origins of north Bactrian oasis Oxus Civilization populations to be inhabitants of the Indus Valley."
The virtual absence of India-specific mtDNA haplogroups outside of India argues against a large scale population movement out of India.[Chaubey et al. (2007)
The latest research conducted by Watkins et al. (2008) The historical record documents an influx of Vedic Indo-European-speaking immigrants into northwest India starting at least 3500 years ago. These immigrants spread southward and eastward into an existing agrarian society dominated by Dravidian speakers
Reich et al. (2009) indicates that the modern Indian population is a result of admixture between Indo-European (ANI) and Dravidian (ASI) populations.
In a 2011 genetic study "confirmed the existence of a general principal component cline stretching from Europe to south India”.
Further references, publications and papers can be found in the following links;
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory
Even this giant diversion to your own thread and giant diversion to your own learning process in this area (thread topic) - if that IS what you want to learn and isn't a cover - is of no consequence as ... you spent days trying to find sources to back up an unsupported idea that is actually a movement to support Indian nationalism ... is that your aim now ?
VERY good except you left out the required Thelemic bestiality
