As cleverer people haven't responded yet, I might as well try. I've got a moment.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are there people denying that River Saraswathi existed or that there was a significant civilization that thrived along its course?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes. Psecular-, christo- and islamicommunists (such as the likes of Irfan Habib). And one can drop the word communist from that list to get the other variations. Also, we can include the christo government of India, and the bribable bureaucrats appointed to make decisions at ASI. (See Ramar Sethu thread where Viren's post #43/Mudy's #44 contains the writings from an actual archaeologist at ASI on who is and who isn't in charge at the ASI.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If so why wouldn't they believe the overwhelming evidence, viz. a) the satellite images b) the innumerable references and descriptions in the scripts and literature, c) the expedition and associated photographs, d) the periodic element analysis of the Pokharan samples.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. If the govt is not pushing deep and urgent research it is unconscionable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are assuming they are after the truth. That is not the case. The thought of truth is sending shivers of fear up their spine - they are unable to sleep, and are always dreaming up new excuses. For an example of this behaviour, see the travesty related to ASI on Ayodhya compared to ASI on Ramar Sethu (Viren's post 201 in the "Ayodhya continual updates thread" which summarizes the situation perfectly. See also Bodhi's post 202 that follows it.)
The whole point is simple: if the opponents of truth admit to Saraswati (or, at least, were to allow investigating it and then publicising the actual discoveries), then they'll have to give public credence to everything else that the Hindu side has requested research on/provided evidence for: which includes Ayodhya and other stuff. And that's something *else* they cannot do.
There's the other ultra-major reason for stopping investigations on Saraswati or (if research can't be prevented) to rename it to something less indicative/harmful-to-their-intentions like 'Ghaggar' and pretend the two have nothing to do with each other. As you have understood, the matter concerns the AIT. And not just the AIT either, because the AIT is linked by a chain of domino pieces to that fundamental cornerstone of western (pseudo)history: the Oryan fable. No AIT means no super-'white' Oryans who created all civilisation and gave birth to yoga, all epics from Greek to Indian, and the most prized of all IE languages (Samskritam).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Who exactly has a vested interest in denying that Saraswathi once so existed? I am getting the impression (please don't go 'that's right Einsten' now) this somehow works against the Aryan invasion theory - is that correct? If so how exactly does it debunk? Just because Vedas refer to Saraswathi how does it debunk AIT? (Or is there a incompatible timeline in which case yes)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, you're faster in the uptake than I am, for sure.
AIT presupposes a W to E movement into India - anything else is considered unacceptable and outright blasphemy. Saraswati is the river praised as the greatest in the earliest portions of the oldest Vedam (Rg). In later portions of the same, the Indus was taken up as the greatest. Indus lies W of Saraswati: meaning Rg Vedam indicates an E to W movement. Result: major indological air bubble shattered, yet its defenders want to pretend it's still afloat. And hence all the hue and cry over "it can't be an Indian Saraswati mentioned in the Rg; it *must* be some Afghan river ....yes, it must be a Harahvaiti, today identified with <some river name - sorry, not stored in my memory registers at the moment>" And when that wish didn't pan out either (because the Afghan River did not at all match with the situational/geographic description given of the Vedic Saraswati in the Rg, whereas the Vedic river did match with the Indian Saraswati), they've gone back to outright denial of Indian Saraswati and all kinds of other desperations.
But then liars must ever keep lying; whilst our side has always stood by the one claim it ever made.
We cannot be allowed to be right, so their tactic is either: (1) keep the issue hidden; (2) if that fails, toss up next excuse; (3) if next excuse doesn't hold up for long, repeat 2 with new excuse - until people see through the game; (4) Stop Saraswati research in India; (5) If 4 doesn't work, the new plan is to rename the project to 'Ghaggar' and create a whole new story about this river, and in that way disconnect it with Saraswati altogether. A secularised Ghaggar is safe to be reintroduced into Indian academia, you see. Whereas a Rg Vedic Saraswati - that has so many colossal implications if ever admitted to - is in all ways utterly unacceptable.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are there people denying that River Saraswathi existed or that there was a significant civilization that thrived along its course?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes. Psecular-, christo- and islamicommunists (such as the likes of Irfan Habib). And one can drop the word communist from that list to get the other variations. Also, we can include the christo government of India, and the bribable bureaucrats appointed to make decisions at ASI. (See Ramar Sethu thread where Viren's post #43/Mudy's #44 contains the writings from an actual archaeologist at ASI on who is and who isn't in charge at the ASI.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If so why wouldn't they believe the overwhelming evidence, viz. a) the satellite images b) the innumerable references and descriptions in the scripts and literature, c) the expedition and associated photographs, d) the periodic element analysis of the Pokharan samples.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. If the govt is not pushing deep and urgent research it is unconscionable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are assuming they are after the truth. That is not the case. The thought of truth is sending shivers of fear up their spine - they are unable to sleep, and are always dreaming up new excuses. For an example of this behaviour, see the travesty related to ASI on Ayodhya compared to ASI on Ramar Sethu (Viren's post 201 in the "Ayodhya continual updates thread" which summarizes the situation perfectly. See also Bodhi's post 202 that follows it.)
The whole point is simple: if the opponents of truth admit to Saraswati (or, at least, were to allow investigating it and then publicising the actual discoveries), then they'll have to give public credence to everything else that the Hindu side has requested research on/provided evidence for: which includes Ayodhya and other stuff. And that's something *else* they cannot do.
There's the other ultra-major reason for stopping investigations on Saraswati or (if research can't be prevented) to rename it to something less indicative/harmful-to-their-intentions like 'Ghaggar' and pretend the two have nothing to do with each other. As you have understood, the matter concerns the AIT. And not just the AIT either, because the AIT is linked by a chain of domino pieces to that fundamental cornerstone of western (pseudo)history: the Oryan fable. No AIT means no super-'white' Oryans who created all civilisation and gave birth to yoga, all epics from Greek to Indian, and the most prized of all IE languages (Samskritam).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Who exactly has a vested interest in denying that Saraswathi once so existed? I am getting the impression (please don't go 'that's right Einsten' now) this somehow works against the Aryan invasion theory - is that correct? If so how exactly does it debunk? Just because Vedas refer to Saraswathi how does it debunk AIT? (Or is there a incompatible timeline in which case yes)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, you're faster in the uptake than I am, for sure.
AIT presupposes a W to E movement into India - anything else is considered unacceptable and outright blasphemy. Saraswati is the river praised as the greatest in the earliest portions of the oldest Vedam (Rg). In later portions of the same, the Indus was taken up as the greatest. Indus lies W of Saraswati: meaning Rg Vedam indicates an E to W movement. Result: major indological air bubble shattered, yet its defenders want to pretend it's still afloat. And hence all the hue and cry over "it can't be an Indian Saraswati mentioned in the Rg; it *must* be some Afghan river ....yes, it must be a Harahvaiti, today identified with <some river name - sorry, not stored in my memory registers at the moment>" And when that wish didn't pan out either (because the Afghan River did not at all match with the situational/geographic description given of the Vedic Saraswati in the Rg, whereas the Vedic river did match with the Indian Saraswati), they've gone back to outright denial of Indian Saraswati and all kinds of other desperations.
But then liars must ever keep lying; whilst our side has always stood by the one claim it ever made.
We cannot be allowed to be right, so their tactic is either: (1) keep the issue hidden; (2) if that fails, toss up next excuse; (3) if next excuse doesn't hold up for long, repeat 2 with new excuse - until people see through the game; (4) Stop Saraswati research in India; (5) If 4 doesn't work, the new plan is to rename the project to 'Ghaggar' and create a whole new story about this river, and in that way disconnect it with Saraswati altogether. A secularised Ghaggar is safe to be reintroduced into Indian academia, you see. Whereas a Rg Vedic Saraswati - that has so many colossal implications if ever admitted to - is in all ways utterly unacceptable.