For some people (may be like that BJP banker or the language guys) there might be an ideological issue. But their ideology is unclear to me. What ideology do they stand for? & how would denial/misapprehension help that ideology? My study of the H intellectual defects over years points to deeper issue.
Before we go there (& people will not like it) we must lay out something all of us are affected by:
- People (I’m no exception) are deeply concerned about their identity. They usually construct this identity over the first ~2.5 decades of their life in a piecemeal fashion. Some widespread factors going into this include: 1.1 religion; 1.2 food; 1.3 language spoken at home; 1.4 job & status symbols; 1.5 ancestry. This identity building goes hand in hand with distinction from nonself (remember the jackal’s speech to the lion in viShNusharman’s work with the famous lines that H like to spout, often for wrong reasons).
- It is obvious from biological theory that people place a lot of weight on ancestry for id building.
- Indians they have had misfortune of major encounters with predatory Abrahamists over the last millennium (in a big way). These have also gone into identity building. Because they were unable to assimilate the Abrahamistic invaders unlike say Turko-Mongolic, Iranian or Greco-Macedonian ones before them, the non-self id marker i.e. fealty to the Abrahamistic lands was the obvious thing the H saw. Thus, they tended to define the self-non-self distinction along the lines of H who accept the sacred geography of bhArata & Abrahamists who demolish their markers of sacredness and replace them with “disputable structures” 😉 with alien affliations
- This has resulted in the unerudite H having a very local sense of self-nonself discrimination. I’d be less inclined to term that ideology & more of roughly formulated discrimination heuristic.+++(4)+++
- The acceptance of AIT, in particular the reasonable inference that I support, that the Aryan invasion was a full-blown military affair launched from central Asian staging grounds, grates against this heuristic. The result is a knock on the id that many unerudite H have created for themselves. There is nothing from like an affront to ones id. It immediately leads to doubling down.
- At the lower end it sparks kneejerk reactions which this medium is geared for.
- On the other it evinces elaborate defenses (from the sarasvatI river to Harappan decipherments) that while looking well constructed ignore fundamental principles of knowledge generation.
Here is where we come to whole issue of H intellectual activity. Whereas the plebeian might construct his id based on simple geographical markers, the intellectual must give it much deeper thought. Fundamentally, he must ask if the medieval H got it wrong in creating a geographic id. Why did they continue to call the marUmatta-s as yavana-s? Why did they not distinguish the pArAsika-s from before the Abrahamist days to those from after? There is no need to continue with medieval constructs in this day & age with better knowledge.
There is a clear non-geographical way of understanding the incompatibility of Abrahamisms & self (H). But that framework has not been privileged over the geographical one. It more generally relates the H tendency to go with improvisation for everything. There are somethings like paNinian grammar or the brAhmI script that need to be constructed more solidly after a deeper analysis.+++(5)+++ Id, being so important, is one of them.