I really don't know why people jump into such complicated problems with not the slightest background or information regarding the problem. This is a debate that has been going on for more than 200 years, and there are several current versions of the historiography of India under vigorous promotion by supporters of different points of view. Be aware that what has been projected here and ascribed to Rajiv Malhotra is the standard Hindutvavadi+Sangh Parivar+BJP line, complete biased nonsense which deserves no encouragement or air space. I am appalled that this should be dragged out and displayed again and again, with no effort at learning the background of these theories. For a very brief background, read my summary note, post 151, in the thread "Battle of the Hydaspes", which contains some salient points about the discussion in extremely abbreviated form. None of what I have written should be interpreted as an endorsement of
- The Aryan Invasion of India theory, which is no longer considered sound;
- The origin in India theory, which is a concoction;
- A denial of the findings of some of the genetic studies, which have shown that the south Asian population has been remarkably stable, since 40,000 BC or so.
The picture that has emerged is complex, and not reducible to a few formulaic statements. Please consider these matters in their totality and do not allow yourselves to be sucked into controversies without understanding the context.