> The remains of this 5000 year old capital of Lord Krishna

From Wikipedia, with citations[0]: “Archaeological findings suggest the original temple Dwarkadhish Temple dedicated to Krishna was built in 200 BCE at the earliest.” Any reference to Krishna further back than that is mere legend, and considering that the name Krishna is etymologically from a language family that did not even reach India until more recently than five thousand years ago, your claim is preposterous on its face.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarka

As an Indian, the rise of Hindutva has been so damaging to history. So I appreciate people like you who provide more historical context and grounding.

So much gets retconned with these apocryphal takes on how everything relates to Hinduism. So much of the rich history of the subcontinent has been reduced to religious politics.

There is so much cultural erasure in the name of religious vanity. I was raised Hindu but I just can’t relate to this religious fervour

I’m not claiming anything—-nor an expert. Just reciting the experts[0]

It is laziness to cite a Wikipedia article without doing any research.

[0] https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2021/05/the-mythical-underwa...

The Wikipedia article has citations, which one can follow up on. I would say what is lazy is posting a link to “The Yucatan Times”, not a reputable source on Indian archaeology, without even noticing that that article was sourced from a now-defunct article at New India Express, again not a reputable source on Indian archaeology. That source article, to judge from what was saved at Wayback Machine, does not cite a single scholar’s name or publication in making its claims.