1) Indus valley genetic make up studies are not yet complete, the excavations prove that the genetic makeup is similar to Indian people. - Regarding your claim source pls.
Do your own homework, please; these have been widely reported in the popular press, and there are two separate academic papers relating to the studies in question. Of course the genetic make-up is similar to 'Indian' people; to present-day Indian people, who, in the ASI profile, are formed of migrants from this culture. So what is the discrepancy? Just to fill out the picture, elements from that Civilisation are also found in ANI profiles, and it is obvious that the survivors have moved out of their cities and merged with the surrounding population.
It is a bit late in the day to bat one's eyelids and profess innocence.
2) There are migrations through out the history from war zones, India's north west (located at a hot bed and a junction between Persian, Chinese, Turkic and Indic civilizations) is an unstable region and people migrated to more peaceful and prosperous South. History shows no evidence of your claim, there is no large scale migration that happened from India's north west.
Would you care to reconcile your first sentence above with your own second sentence above? Did they or didn't they?
At the risk of hurting your feelings, I must point out that you are beginning to sound like Donald Trump.
3) Where is the birth place of Indo-Aryan Language? I know there is no answer.
LOL.
Where is the birthplace of Tamil? Or Telugu? Or Kannada?
This is not the Ram Mandir, to be set up at one spot known instinctively to the true believer through the cosmic insight that his faith gives him.
- The language group "indo-aryan" is a creation if british to legitimize their colonization.
Actually, no. This found expression far earlier in the linguistic research conducted in different regions of the world, with notable concentration on the Celtic languages, on German languages, and on Greek languages.
The British contribution, as far as India goes, was to spot the similarity between Sanskrit and those languages, forming the idea of a world-wide 'family' of languages that the linguists call Indo-European.
As far as 'Indo-Aryan' is concerned, it is used to distinguish the language of the Vedas, before its systematic regularisation by Panini, a regularisation that came to be known as 'Sanskrit', or the polished tongue (in contrast to the Prakrit languages, the natural tongues).
It seems to be a particularly bad day for you.
Just like how they create a slaves out of black people showing a verse and twisting it to make them masters.
Self-pity is not a good foundation for beginning a scientific enquiry.
The similarities might be because of Out of Indian influence when we study the languages. What ever evidence AIT provides is refutable.when compared to that 'Out of India' theory holds good.
Considering that the similarities occur thousands of miles apart, and considering that the champions of the OOI hypothesis have no information about the parallel developments around the world, and have concentrated only on forming a ghetto for themselves and isolating themselves from the laughter of the world, there is not much substance in your supposition.
4) Regarding the genetic make up, Check persians - they wear sarees and follow Indian traditions.
Did you mean 'Parsis'? Persians do not wear saris, and do not follow Indian traditions. Parsis do; they have been domiciled in Gujarat for some four centuries now.
You must explain to us on some future occasion how wearing saris has a bearing on genetics.
India has its way of assimilating migrant groups like every other civilizations.
Your point being?
Brahmins are mentioned in Vedas which date back to atleast 5000 years.
The point is still not clear. It is precisely these Brahmins who are known to have been identifiable at an early date who have the strongest element of migrant DNA.
Brahmins do not eat non veg,
Wrong.
..follow certain rituals which are native to India,
Meaning only that their original rituals, including the Soma ritual, have died out.
use devnagari script which is native to India,
It is not. Devnagari, or Nagari, is derived from Brahmi, and that, in turn, has easily traced antecedents (look them up for yourself).
Holy scripts written by them only mention the places and rivers only in India. This proves there may be migrations but the culture never came from outside.
Naturally. That fits in with a late date for these, following their migration. If they had been composed before, they would have mentioned other places and other rivers. And how do you connect migration, culture and language? The point that was made was that language accompanied migration, and culture had nothing to do with it after the first few centuries.
How come Rig veda is alien to India if none of the places mentioned in it are in Persia or Central Asia.
How come indeed? Nobody said the Rig Veda is alien to India; all that people have tried to explain to the uncomprehending is that the Rig Vedic language came with migrants. You do get the difference?
British took us for a ride and people fell for their dubious tricks.
How terribly sad!