IVC and its remains are perfect example of flood/tsunami aftermath. All buried and excavated 10 feet underground. Its not something alien to Indus region, few years ago, the landmass size of Italy within Pakistan was underwater due to flooding.
You really need to understand how and why ancient sites have to be excavated. Troy was such a site, and they have found multiple layers of culture and civilisation. So, too, were Greek cities, or Rome itself. This flooding in Mesopotamia, that is borne out by external evidence, has nothing to do with the cities of the Indus Valley. And occasional floods have happened and continue to happen in every location. A landmass being under water due to flooding is not by itself any kind of proof of Noah's Flood, or of it having been a factor.
Leave Islam, Christianity or Judisam aside. Explain this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_(Hinduism)
Do you understand what a myth is?
If a christian in furthest corner of the earth somewhere in south America know who Noah was, I refuse to believe that you lot next door to us wont know. The striking similarity not only in the story about the man but name given itself, cannot, should not be ignored.
Christians in south America know about Noah because there is an elaborate description in the Old Testament about Noah; there is no other source for his knowing about Noah, no native tradition in south America, not among the ethnic tribes from that location.
In Indian tradition, there is the story of the Great Flood, that was marked by the coming of one of the avatars of Vishnu. If we are to go by that, we need to go by the others as well: this was the fish avatar, Matsya, followed by Kurma, turtle, Varaha, the boar, Narasimha, the half-man half-lion, Vamana, the dwarf, Parasurama, Rama with the parasu, the axe, Rama, the protagonist of the Ramayana, Krishna, the protagonist of the Mahabharata and of the Bhagavat Gita within that, Balaram, who shared his godhood, and the avatar to come, Kalki.
While your effort to link the flood to Indian tradition is laudable, we are then asked to take all the other nine into account.
Thanks, but no thanks.
There are certain things one should take notice when studying any literature. The most important is language. It defines culture and governance. The sophisticated the language is the more clear the law can be written and governance made easy. the more vibrant that culture can become yet having a firm grip of the core identities.
Now as far as the twin river of Indus is concerned. There still runs the underground river and people still use it. The seismic activity up north diverted the water but what was once a sizeable river became a stream. The people who lived and still do in parts of Rajhastan and the parallel Indus belt came up with ingenious water conservation methods admired greatly by even the most modern traveler in those areas. Something quite similar to what the Cambodians or lets say Angkor Wat used in that same time period.
What interests me in all this is the human intelligence which developed in seemingly disconnected societies with different culture and language but the same fundamentals. Quite interesting indeed when you put the recent medical experiments into light that even feral children have similar words and theories even brought up in isolation and thousands of miles apart from each other. I name it the sub conscious intellect of being a human.
Have you read Chomsky on linguistics? In view of what you have just written, it might interest you.
Now that Aryan theory is completely different. The theory was developed more as a ideological warfare by the evangelical colonial rather than academics.
The problem remains if a culture or a group of people cannot get their history straight or find a consensus someone else does it for them and that is how dive and rule worked for the British.
While I greatly appreciate your post, I don't agree with the last two paragraphs, for the simple reason that the British (more than them, the Germans) merely discovered the parallels with other cultural developments in other parts of the world. As far as the Indians themselves were concerned, they had completely lost touch with their cultural and linguistic development, even to the extent of not being able to draw the links between Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit, Prakrit and the currently spoken languages of north India without someone rubbing their faces in it. There was no consensus, there was simply discovery and relation to the original subjects.
Much of the associated nationalistic claptrap was British policy, no doubt about it; the Hunter Commission Report, for instance, has its own importance and you might be intrigued to find out what it was. So, too, Risley's work on castes; that, too, froze a flexible system, that had hardened from the seventh century onwards, but hardened with much flexibility built in, into a cement overcoat on society.