Sometimes, it does seem that you are the best person at confusing yourself, and that nobody needs to do that for you.
Academics, anthropology researchers, palaeontologists, Indologists, and the media, to assemble your very curious aggregate, happen to be people who are professionally trained to analyse their subject area with regard to the scientific spirit. This professional training consists of the undergraduate, post-graduate, doctoral and post-doctoral phases. It is interesting that you feel competent to judge their motives and their biases without having gone through this process yourself.
What is your competence to judge them and their work?
Further, you started by accusing me of mindless verbosity. That is all right by itself, and nothing that I take offence at, considering that it is the last refuge of a demagogue bereft of ideas. But you went on to suggest that people from JNU were also people who indulged in mindless verbosity.
Which part of your trenchant criticism above deals with verbosity? Which deals with mindless?
Your arguments merely suggest that they acquire unscientific biases in their work due to financial blandishment and bribery, or due to some other reason. However, they have nothing to do with mindlessness, nothing to do with verbosity. Do you just chuck accusations around as they occur to you or do you think about what you write, occasionally?
Coming specifically to the disciplines you have mentioned, what part of those disciplines have offended you? What have anthropologists said to offend you? What, for Heavens' sake, have palaeontologists done? What could they possibly study that clashes with your beliefs, unless you are a Christian believing in intelligent design? I can understand your anger against Indologists, as they do not support the Hindutva believers faith that civilisation began in India and spread outwards from here. Apart from that, what on earth do you find objectionable? Are you even aware of what offends you and what does not? Can you list them down, grouped by discipline?
Why, for that matter, are you annoyed with the media? What have they done except reflected what actually happens, in fact, in public?
Lastly, your example eludes me. What is that supposed to mean? That individuals belonging to the Dharmic religions (presumably you mean Indic, and forgot the phrase in the white heat of your response) do not use violence? It is difficult to think of anything more absurd, considering my grounding in history.
I am not here to defend the Abrahamic faiths, and will let somebody else try to do it, if they should please to take up that thankless task in the teeth of the thinking of a bigot like you.
Suffice it to say that you have given sufficient evidence of being a disturbed personality, and one who wishes to bring a false sense of order into the external world in order to compensate for the disturbances in his internal world. It would be better if you were to seek professional help rather than vent your frustrations and your personal angst on the world around you. It certainly helps to explain your interest in the Internet and in a forum such as this. Clearly, you have not the slightest interest in matters military, and merely joined here to take part in quarrels with Pakistanis = Muslims.
This is the most extraordinary, naked display of fascist ideology that it has been my misfortune to read.
I don't quite know how to deal with this, although some random thoughts do come to mind.