A seeker wrote…
A word about Manasataramgini: he is well read & well versed in Sanskrit. He can understand some primary material & has a good genetics background. But he holds on to a weird version of AIT (mind you, not AMT) that assumes invasion dates that even predates”conventional” AIT dates. I think he holds on to some Tilak school of thought which purports that Aryans came from cold, Arctic-like climates.
When I pointed out genetic papers that explicitly rule out any gene influx into India in the last 12500 years, his response was pure hand-waving. He told me that he is convinced of AIT and nothing will change his mind. So, he goes into a silent mode when evidence against AIT is pointed out. But when something remotely supporting AIT comes out, he latches on to it.
All this being said, he is in the broad “Hindu, right-wing camp” and is a staunch critic of Abrahamic faiths. His non-AIT writings are very interesting (he wrote a couple of pieces for IndiaFacts). He has good scholarship
So, that’s where we need to co-exist with him: in the broader camp with a common vision for Sanatana Dharma’s survival, but not necessarily agreeing with everything
Another seeker responded…
Co existence is not a problem. But everyone who fights on the side of the Hindu or Indian camp have their strong points where they have a firm grip on what is known and what is provable or demonstrable. I have mine and if I find a person such as Manasataramgini using arguments that are easily toppled by what I can show I would advise him against using them. I would not ask him to change his views, but stop using arguments that can be butt kicked to jannat.
In medicine I find differences between Hindu/Ayurvedic beliefs and allopathic medical practices. That does not necessarily mean that only one is correct. But when the Ayurved uses pseudoscience with the allopath he is getting himself into trouble, There are perfectly good science explanations for what works in Ayurveda without using mumbo jumbo or obfuscation, but I digress. This was merely an illustrative example.
Neither I nor Shri Manasataramgin invented the term Aryan Invasion Theory. That theory has a fairly specific timeline and origin. If Shri Manasataramgini’s timeline is different and he feels there was a much earlier invasion or migration he is being extraordinarily ignorant is using the terminology “Aryan Invasion” invented by 19th century European Orientalists. All his claims of being a supporter of Hindus can fall flat if he is unable to show the difference between what he says and what those Indologists said. Coexistence requires that he recognizes that there are other viewpoints – some of which carry some weight of history, science or logic. Being in denial or being dismissive is a self goal.