(This is written by my friend. I thought it worth reproducing. It was written in a specific context however it can be read and enjoyed without knowing the context. Multiple readings would be required.)
One of the things that I would like to point out about western scholarship is that long before the sciences developed and froze the concepts of accuracy, documentation, proof, repeatability, falsifiability etc human studies revolved around language, philosophy, theology, law and rhetoric. These are in fact the exact subjects that are taught at the Islamic universities that create Ayatollahs and Imams, the high priests of Islam. The black cloak worn by graduates in Western universities (yes, in the US too) was borrowed from these Islamic predecessors, and long before science was established, western scholars too studied the same things – language, philosophy, history rhetoric etc.
Anyone who spends time reading the Pakistan and Islamism threads will know that mullahs are extremely effective communicators whose use of rhetoric is remarkable. It was science that killed rhetoric but I find that linguists apply less science and more rhetoric. Historically the study of language and rhetoric probably went hand in hand so linguists are great rhetoricians. Is it any surprise that command of language is a pre requisite for being a lawyer and lawyers become politicians? And the lawyers black coat/cloak come from the same Islamic predecessors
I keep mentioning rhetoric because it is the single biggest hurdle to knowledge. It might be great for lawyers fighting cases, but in the spread of knowledge it is a hindrance. One of the most common and classic tactics of rhetoric is to build up elaborate straw men so that people start arguing about the straw man while the main agenda gets through. Wendy Doniger, Martha Nussbaum, Witzel and Arundhati Roy are all past masters in the use of rhetoric. The language and culture of science are built in such a way that controversy and disagreement are allowed and diversionary tactics and straw men are dismissed at the outset. Clearly that is not so in linguistics, archaeology and other specialties that relies on guesswork to a greater or lesser extent.
An example of a straw man would be for me to say “Rajesh presented a fake degree to try and get a linguistics position at Oxford University and he has been on the warpath ever since” This puts Rajesh in a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” situation. If he responds to the accusation he will expend himself fighting an accusation and lose sight of the primary goal. If he does not respond to the accusation, it will be stated that he accepts it. Straw men divert the battle away from the point that needs attention and cause people to waste time and effort on chasing and fighting windmills.
In the case of AIT, “No horse and chariot in India but Horse and chariot present in Rig Veda “, “Horse present but not caballus”, River mentioned/not mentioned, cities not mentioned, Griffiths and Eggeling should be respected for spending lives translating (diverting the topic away from mistranslation) are all straw men.
By getting caught up in these deliberately manufactured straw-man side controversies and arguing about the Rig Veda it is easy to lose track of the primary goal of these people and that is to fix a date on the Sanskrit language. I personally have no problem with their fixing a date as long as they do not resort to lies and bluff about the Rig Veda. It is the dating method that is fake and the date too could be wrong. But currently AIT Nazi theories depend critically on the dating of Sanskrit by raping Rig Veda.
In fact I would not worry about genetic findings that show people migrating into India between 1500 and 1200 BC. It proves nothing about Sanskrit. As I said earlier, if India already had an Indo European language and in later centuries more Indo European speakers migrated into India even as conquerors, the superstrate language, substrate language and adstrate if any would all be Indo European only. Sanskrit could be a Creole of Indo-European+Indo-European. The fact that someone brought a horse to Mahomet in 600 AD does not mean that the same person brought revelation to Mahomet. And despite a history of migrations, Sanskrit remains nearly 100% “Indo European”. The language is likely very old and documents history in a way that is inconvenient to linguists who are trying to cook up a history of European languages
It is likely that the dating of Sanskrit is wrong. The rape of the Rig Veda to cook up that dating is a convenient tool to use to show how the dating is fake. If the AIT falls or survives – I wouldn’t give a rats’s ass as long as accuracy and truth are maintained