Many Hindus,as a friend noted,have a tendency to confuse the sthūla with the sūkṣma even in matters of directions of narrative weaving and geopolitics when it comes to narratives of our history,and the core reasons behind them. A particular example is the tendency to freak out on any suggestion that Aryans migrated to India(never mind that the seeing of the mantras of the śruti occurred all within the Indian subcontinent,which no one can deny). Of course,the (understandable) reason for the uneasiness with this is that it is used as a stick to beat Hindus with,calling them murderous Nazis,invaders,racial bigots(or some form of that) from the very beginning of their existence(or theses that extend in that direction). Most of them do not notice that even if OIT was proved beyond any doubt,the direction of the narratives purveyed by mlecchas and those who imbibe their ideologies would not change one bit at all. They will still continue to either blame brahmins or the entire society. Two examples in case would be DD Kosambi,who(along,or despite,or because of his belief in the fact that Indo-Iranians came from outside),noted about the genesis of brahmins
It seems that Kosambi was a little uncertain about the origin of the brahmanas, but he firmly and consistently held that they originally belonged to non-Aryan cultures and were very probably drawn from the Indus valley priests.
None of this prevented him from calling the intellectual production of āstika brahmins and everyone else like that of a mistletoe,which was beautiful but parasitic.
Or Hegel,who held an Out of India theory,but whose descriptions of Hindu philosophy are a manual on how to misinterpret and misunderstand Indian philosophy.
What needs to be needed is a properly oriented narrative,regardless of whether it is established that the descendants of Indo-Iranians/Indo-Aryans populated India or the Indian subcontinent was the Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans.
Source: Shalya Parvan,Critical edition(it is missing in the Southern recension).
pitāmahasya sarasaḥ pravṛttāsi sarasvati ।
vyāptaṃ cēdaṃ jagatsarvaṃ tavaivāmbhōbhiruttamaiḥ ॥
tvamēvākāśagā dēvi mēghēṣūtsṛjasē payaḥ ।
sarvāścāpastvamēvēti tvattō vayamadhīmahē ॥
puṣṭirdyutistathā kīrtiḥ siddhirvṛddhirumā tathā ।
tvamēva vāṇī svāhā tvaṃ tvayyāyattamidaṃ jagat ॥
tvamēva sarvabhūtēṣu vasasīha caturvidhā ॥
From the Grandsire’s (manasa) lake you have arisen,O devī! This whole universe is filled with your excellent waters! Coursing through the firmament, O devī,you give your waters to the clouds! All the waters are you! Through you we exercise our thinking faculties! You are Pushti and Dyuti, Kirti, and Siddhi and Uma! You are speech, and you are svāhā! This whole universe is dependent on you! It is you who dwell in all creatures, in four forms!
Note:Interestingly here,the devī still retains both her watery associations and her associations with speech and wisdom(contrast this with some medieval stavas).
Side note: Since I am lazy,this is the place where you can find this in the Ganguli translation.
Addendum: The stava in Devanāgari
पितामहस्य सरसः प्रवृत्तासि सरस्वति ।
व्याप्तं चेदं जगत्सर्वं तवैवाम्भोभिरुत्तमैः ॥
त्वमेवाकाशगा देवि मेघेषूत्सृजसे पयः ।
सर्वाश्चापस्त्वमेवेति त्वत्तो वयमधीमहे ॥
पुष्टिर्द्युतिस्तथा कीर्तिः सिद्धिर्वृद्धिरुमा तथा ।
त्वमेव वाणी स्वाहा त्वं त्वय्यायत्तमिदं जगत् ॥
त्वमेव सर्वभूतेषु वससीह चतुर्विधा ॥
The lakṣaṇa of ‘gauḥ’ in Hindu tradition is to be determined by seeing what our pūrvācāryas have commented on this,and not on pseudoscientific nonsense like ‘desi cows are associated with gold nanoparticles’, ‘A2/A1 milk’,etc.
“gōḥ sāsnādimattvaṁ lakṣaṇam” has basically been the definition since the time of Pātañjali (of mahābhāṣya fame).
Vidyāraṇya similarly quotes Pātañjali thus
tathā cōktaṁ bhagavatā patañjalinā mahābhāṣyē – atha gaurityatra kaḥ śabdō yēnōcyaritēna sāsnāmāṅgūmakakudakhuraviṣāṇānāṁ saṁpratyayō bhavati saḥ śabdaḥ
So ,our ‘gauḥ’ is any breed of cow that is humped with horns,and with a dewlap and tail. And not about A1,A2(I don’t think the rājan bhadravarman of champa near Vietnam,who was a śrotiya and boasted of performing vaidika rituals could have checked for A1/A2 or gold nanoparticles).
I discussed with others (like Hariprasad),who noted that there is no strong reason to deny respect to cows of foreign breed since they are all of the same jāti,one can at best to say that there is tārātmy within breeds of cows and that foreign breeds of cows have less abhimāni devatā sannidhyam. Also,we have consumed their milk for whatever reasons,so not slaughtering them and taking care of them till their death should be our way of showing upakāra smaraṇam.