The most important "points" you make that you highlight in bold seem to be irrelevant, unrelated personal rants directed at posters. That's all that was meant to mean.
...
Well, at least you admitted to the possibility they might have come from a common word, it's not total denial. Much of archaeology is guesswork and trying to fit pieces together. Very rarely will you have a 100% full proof answer. However if you calculate the probability that totally unrelated words have the same pronunciation by chance in the same language and culture, you will find that the chance is extremely small. The probability you will have "Indra" and "Indus" or "India" or "Sindhu" coming from totally unrelated origins is extremely small.
Each of the three word you mentioned have their own etymology and origin.
The word Indra, is derived from "Indu"+"ra" in Sanskrit meaning "possessor of rain".
The word Sindhu comes from Sanskirt root "Sidh", meaning to "keep off". It is the generic word for "river or stream", although archaic.
The word Indus arrives very late and cannot be related to either of these two.
Even if we do suppose that the word Indra came from Sindhu, it doesn't change the location of the composition of the Rigvrda. (Note: I am not endorsing your view, but simply supposing it)
The location of the Rigveda is centered around Places, not Gods. Since the Saraswati is the most prominent river, and indeed the river of the vedic homeland, not to mention that the location of the source of Saraswati is mentioned in one of the earliest chapters, is tenable proof that the rigvedic homeland was the punjab region.
You explaining the MEANING of Indra, not the origin. You can even see that if "Indu" means "drop", ten the "-indu" in Sindhu will also mean drop. These are similar words with different suffixes to indicate person or tense, but they do not alter the meaning of the words. Even this statement of yours underlines what I've said. Indra coming from Indu, and Sindhu coming from Indu. They are all from the same origin. It's no rocket science.
So? I have explained my position above.
But even if we do suppose for a moment, that all Sanskrit dictionaries, literature, interpretations done in India for 3000 years are wrong, the common origin for the words "Indra" and "Sindhu" don't indicate a place for the Rigveda at all.
If anything, they lend credence to the aryan migration theory.
We were told by experts that Iraq had WMD, I didn't believe it. If your logic (depending on whether you have any or not), tells you something does not make sense, and the "experts" say something illogical that does not make sense, then it's clear they have agendas, much of what the Indian archaeologists have. The AIS (Archaeological Survey of India) is a governmental organization that comes under the Ministry of Culture. As such there is a political bias in the conclusions and results they come out with
Oh of course they are!! Didn't they just manage to pass off a "disguised slum" , in your own words, as an ancient harappan city?
I"m sure they're all a bunch of trishul-toting goons with no education!!!
ITs obvious that you don't have a semblance of objectivity about you. In such circumstances, it is silly for me to keep debating.
When the Hindutva was in power (BJP), you think they didn't push the Indocentric theories for the ASI to come out with. That's why a lot of what the ASI comes out with, I don't believe in the slightest. I don't think most non Indian archaeologists believe it either.
No I don't think so. They can favour the "out of India theory" a bit more, but thats about it.
It doesn't come down to artificially creating historical sites to prove their point.
This is India, not Pakistan, where mythology is passed off as history.
Indian archaeologists like S R Rao, B B Lal, V N Misra and S P Gupta are well renowned and respected in their field. If you like, you can read up their details yourself.
If you want to dismiss their theories because of your hatred for Hindus and Hinduism (I am not supposing this, it kinda obvious from your posts), then too bad. I am not going to press the point any further.
Hinduism was not a religion initially. It was the term given to the people of Sapta Sindhu by the Persian who pronounced Sindhu as Hindu. They called the area Hindustan, and th people Hindus. In this respect, it was not a religious term initially. It only became a relgious term under I believe perhaps the Mughals or the British, when the religion had evolved into its current form which included cow and rodent worship. You can see th differences between modern day Hinduism and Vedism. The Vedic people had no respect for the cow, they ate it happily, the horse was sacred to them. In Hinduism it's the complete opposite. They are totally different religions at odds with one another, and there was no such things as "Hindu religion" until 400 or 500 years ago - It was just a word to describe the people of Sindh, or Hind as the Persians called it.
I know about the origin of the word "Hindu" very well. There is no need to lecture on it. Apart from being completely off topic, your post is rude, condescending and downright wrong.
I am not going to waste my time correcting each one of your irresponsible sentences, because i don't have the patience to do it.
Just because it was composed over centuries, does not mean the linguistical meaning of words change. I've proven Sindhu to mean Indus on one occasion in the Rig Veda. So far, you have not proved that Sindhu means river in any of the earlier verses. If you do believe this, explain why you do in your own words so I can understand it (I don't waste time reading Hindutva website).
Maybe you should try wasting some of that precious time of yours.
I am not going to quote each of the 176 mentions of the word Sindhu and explain individually how the word is used generically.
Perhaps a standard english translation of the Rigveda with explanations for each verse would help you.
For your information, I have studied sanskirt, I understand the language, and I have read the Rigveda before.
Just for your Info, all the rivers in the Rigveda are feminine gender, described as goddesses.
The word "Sindhu" however, is an exception, being of male gender. Thus, in the later parts of the Rigveda, especially the important Nadistuti Sukta, which you quote so often, the usage of the word "Sindhu" to mean a particular river is a very strange anomaly, since it was used more in a generic fashion earlier and was later changed to mean a particular river.
Also, out of the 176 mentions, 95 are in the prural.
I don't really support the theory that counting the number of times a river is mentioned proves beyond doubt the location of the Rigveda, but just for the record, the word Saraswati is mentioned a total of 72 times in all the books except book 4, and is recognized as the ámbitame nádītame dévitame sárasvati or "best mother, best river, best goddess saraswati"
Even Edwin Bryant, who you refer to later, has ascribed "Indra", "Indus", and "Indura" to the same stem.
"A number of Baltic river names have the form "Indus", "Indura", "Indra", and so on, which are explainable by comparison with the Sanskrit, "indu", drop. (Mallory, 1975, 169). These hydromic etymologies have been accepted as signs of Indo-Aryans".
The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate By Edwin Bryant
p. 133.
Yes, that would be some evidence to use for the Aryan migration theory. It doesn't ascertain the location of the Rigveda in the least.
Even Edwin Bryant would agree with me. Why would the main God of the Rig Veda, Indra, have a common stem with a more insignificant river? The argument that the Saraswati was more important falls flat on its face when you consider that the personification of th Saraswati, Sarasvaat, is virtually irrelevant in the Rig Veda.
Let us not presume what Edwin Bryant would agree to without first reading his version of events.
I have never heard of this Saraswaat. the Saraswati itself is prominently personified as a goddes in the Rigveda.
This argument anyhow is irrelevant. I've already proved with articles by foreign, neutral researchers that the home of the Rig Vedic people was somewhere in Gandhara, for sure it was nowhere inside India. Take it up with the researchers I quoted like Perpola and so on.
No, I am afraid you haven't proved it.
Simply flouting a researcher as "neutral" and dismissing another's as "hindutva", without reading what each one has to say is not what I would call a sincere analysis.
If you want to somehow force the conclusion that the Rig Veda was composed in Pakistan, then you are doing the right thing by disregarding all sources that don't support your viewpoint.
However, if you sincerely intend to ascertain the truth, then you are way off track.
Edwin Bryant sure seems to think that Indus and Indra have a common etymology. It's pretty obvious to anyone that they are related. Ask a statistician professor if you dont believe me (non Indian again).
Edwin Bryant was just mentioning the probable origin of the words as a support for Aryan migration theory.
He didn't link the finding to the Rigveda, and neither is it logical to do so.
No, because your links are all by Indians, who I consider to be biased in their analysis of history, not to mention some proven lies that the Indian archaeologists and researchers have come out with. Notice I don't quote Pakistani researchers (who at least don't have a government agenda to propagate myths).
Which lies? The Indian researchers I mentioned are some of the most prominent in the field. If you continue to disregard them, I'm afraid you will be missing out on a lot.
It is not logical to claim that Indra cannot have the same origin as Indus, India, or Sindhu, by saying that "Ind" means drop. If anything this just proves they have the same origin. They all contain "Ind"!
Note: "Indu" translates as "drop", not "Ind". Additionally it may indicate "Moon", depending on the context.
Your analysis is crude and, well, wrong.
please. Indian researchers have already been found to have made up lies in their research of the IVC. Not just lies, but they've invented stuff, and put altered the data. It's the most grotesque abuse of archaeology I've seen. Why should I trust anything that is government sponsored, when the government is composed of fundamentalists? I would much rather trust a neutral foreign, Western observer who is an eminent name with a good reputation in the field, like Perpola. To quote Frawley, who runs a Hindutva institute is not being objective.
Which lies? Kindly be more specific.
Once again, and I am tired of repeating this, simply dismissing a whole body of work as propaganda isn't going to help your case.
Especially since Indian archaeological finds are changing esblished views about the IVc.
Well, this isn't important. I showed that Cemetary H is located only in Pakistan. Having a cultural flow into India (Bharat) is a possibility. What does it indicate? Absolutely nothing, it does not even mean the people associated with Cemetary H (which is not a Rig Vedic culture), moved into Bharat, just the culture. I've proven with references from the most eminent archeologists from a reputable website (ucl.ac.uk), that the Rig Vedic people were associated with Gandhara, evidenced by Swat burial systems.
Here is a para from your source:
The burial rite of the Vedic Aryans has been reconstructed on the basis of Rigveda
(X: 14 18),
Atharvaveda (XVIII: 1 4),
Shatapathabrahmana
(XIII, 8), and later
texts (Caland 1896; Pandey 1982; Smirnov 1997).
Both Atharvaveda and Shatpathabhramana come later than Rigveda.
The author is referring to Vedic burial practices after the Rigveda was codified, which is later than the period that we are discussing.
Also, the version of the Rigveda being referred to is Mandala 10, which is the newest portion of the Rigveda, and is the one in which the Ganges river is mentioned.
Obviously, the people of Atharvaveda and Shatpathbhramana were in the gangetic plains.
SO naturally, the burial practices of these people are difference from Cemetary-H ones.
You don't know the meaning of objectivity then. Indian researchers researching on Indian history are anything but objective. I've already quoted one example, the "horseplay in harrapa" article, where the Indian researchers just invented data to suit their own agenda (which was to dravidianize the whole issue if i recall correctly).
This is getting irritating. the guy in the "Horseplay in Harappa" article is not a well known researcher or archaeologist. He was pretty much unheard of till his sensational claims.
Several failed attempts have been made to decipher the script by westerners as well, much much more than the Indians. Why don't you consider them as propaganda and then label all western researchers as propagandists?
I've quoted Asko Perpola!! The article I quoted clearly states that Gandhara was the home of the Rig Veda and the Rig Vedic people!.
Here's another quote from Perpola from the same article:
If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence
would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In
particular, did the Nâsatyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can
other traces of the Nâsatya cult be found in the Gandhâra Grave culture?
Clearly, this is merely speculation. It is a long shot from conclusively being accepted. Equally credible theories exist for the Punjab-Haryana region as the vedic homeland.
How can you be so sure? Atleast read his book before jumping to conclusions.
. Several things including their name associate the Nâsatyas with the nose in the Veda. If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In particular, did the Nâsatyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can other traces of the Nâsatya cult be found in the Gandhâra Grave culture?
. Anyhow, it's fine, I'm finding out stuff. How was my post rude. Let me post it again. I wonder if anyone else finds it "rude and condescending", or perhaps you just can't answer 
