Quite accurate. However, the common point of view is that the Mitanni and Aryans are descended from a common group off the steppes, one group going SW into the Middle East, and the other SE into India.
If you push back the dates before the known Persians you will clearly see that groups of Indians from Today's Iran/Persia migrated to the middle east and Egypt.
I have seen this claim made, but I have never seen anything but speculation to support it.
You will observe that Northern European languages are not Indo-european.
Actually, they are. All European languages are Indo-European, with the minor exceptions of those in the Basque and Uralic families.
Thanks for your attempt to explain why Indians are offended by the commonly accepted (outside India) theories of the populating of India.
I assume you do realize there is a general skin color gradient in India from lightest in the NW to darkest in the SE. The most logical explanation of this is that a different group entered from this direction and its genetic contribution became less with distance from point of entry.
The linguistic evidence parallels this. In particular, there is a linguistic principle whereby the diversity of a given language or language group is greatest near its point of origin. This has been applies to track the movement of many language groups back to their origin, including the Bantu and Austronesian groups. Even for the English language, the UK has many more accents and dialects than the much larger Engligh-speaking population of North America. Using this principle for the Indo-European languages, you wind up with a point of origin somewhere around the Urals.
My understanding is that the genetic evidence is not nearly as one-sided as you claim.
No offense, but to an unprejudiced outside observer, the violent resistance by some in India to the generally accepted scientific evidence looks like compensation for an inferiority complex. The claims I've read look like an attempt to find ammunition for a pre-determined position rather than a search for truth.
Science doesn't take the ancient myths of any people, by themselves, as valid evidence of the origin of peoples, so Indians shouldn't be so upset about it.
I can see that to an outside observer, people tend to see a ‘color’ gradient from north to south India. What many don’t know or are unable to regularly see on TV or movies is that North East India is made up of Mongoloid/oriental populations. The Skin variations in North west India/Pakistan has much more to do with the Offspring of South Indians and these groups than anything to do with ancestral populations of south Europeans. It is quite probable that further offspring between Semitic populations during the prominent silk road periods in the Punjab areas of India/Pakistan has given them a more Mediterranean appearance.
As to the languages of North Europe, the surviving languages Basque and Uralic—yet these hint at greater extinct languages that existed prior to a language change in the region. There are no extinct languages in India—they are all related. Sanskrit derived languages are spoken as far as Bali Indonesia so I don’t find it improbable that while languages can spread—significant genetic changes are not the only method of spreading them.
I suppose to Indians The claims they’ve read look like an attempt to find ammunition for a pre-determined position rather than a search for truth.
Believe me Mr Logan, If there was direct scientific proof that Indians are derived from ancestral populations, also related to Europeans, many Indians would be open to the idea and like to know and find out what their ancestors were about, how they lived, what they believed and found important.
Its just that there is no proof outside of a link in language/religion—you seem confident that there is, could you cite some papers?