There were so many attempts to decipher the Indus script in the past century, but none of them could succeed. What is the reason? Any archaeological artefact should be analysed in the context of the place it was found. These Indus excavation sites have been wrongly identified as metropolises; they were necropolises. This misclassification resulted in total confusion of the analysis of the artefacts and building remnants. For more details, read the’ Necropolis theory on IVC’ article. (1)

The interpretation of Indus seal inscriptions also got distorted. In my decipherment efforts, I have kept the idea that Indus sites were necropolises. Hence, I got through the breakthrough. I got this idea of necropolises from the book ‘secret of Crete’ by Georg Wunderlich.

The significant finding put forth in my book is that the Indus script follows the Egyptian hieroglyphic way of writing. This finding eliminates the need for Rosetta stone-like double lingual inscriptions. Now, we can confidently use Egyptian hieroglyphics as a reference point.
Another issue is the language of the Indus script. The Indus script shows the influence of Sanskrit and Egyptian hieroglyphics. The impact of Egyptian hieroglyphics I call the Dravidian component. The Egyptian priests and scribes were likely to have contributed to the development of Indus script along with Sumerian priests and Vedic priests. The Indus symbols show a composite culture of all these three great civilisations. It was a mixed culture 3500 years back, but scholars are unnecessarily quarrelling over that legacy as Aryan and Dravidian civilisations.