Friday, June 13, 2014

Shrikant Talageri and his dubious Theory!

Mr. Shrikant G. Talageri
While “Aryan Invasion Theory” (AIT) is being widely disputed, Mr. Shrikant G. Talageri has proposed “Out of India Theory” to add to the further dispute. Though Talageri, often is dubbed as Hindu nationalist scholar, have heavily been criticized for that, still, we need to look into his theory and discuss how he, like other AIT/OIT theorists, is going wrong unnecessarily complicating the simple issues.

According to Talageri, it is evidenced from Rig Veda that the Aryans moved from east to west, from Haryana towards Iran and Europe. He cites chronology of the River names appearing in various Mandala’s of early to late part of the Rig Veda and implies that the changing graph of the river names shows that after the time of King Sudasa Aryan movement began from east to west. “In the Early period, right from pre-Rig Vedic times to the time of SudAs, the Vedic Aryans were   settled in the area to the east of the Punjab: MaNDala VI knows of no river to the west of the Sarasvati.” Talageri states in his book, “Rig Veda” A Historical Analysis, chapter 4 titled as “The Geography of the Rig Veda”

It is clear that Talageri is implying demographic migration of the Vedic Aryans from east Punjab, Vedic Aryan’s original habitat, to Afghanistan, from the graph of the rivers appearing in Rig Veda. From the battle of ten kings also Talageri wants to impress upon us the westward movement of the Vedic Aryans and not otherwise as has been claimed by the AIT/AMT theorists.

Let us have a closer look at his theory. Mention of river names in Rig Veda in a different order does not imply the demographic migration of the Aryans in either direction. Rig Veda has been composed over the time span of about 300 to 500 years in the families of the ten Seers. 300 to 500 years time span that is given to the composing of Rig Veda, however, may not be accurate. It is just an assumption based on the calculation of generations of the Rig Vedic seers. Still, it can be assumed that the composition of Rig Veda was continued for at the least couple of centuries. Talageri himself classifies Rig Veda in early, middle and later parts thus agreeing that the Rig Veda was composed over the longer period. Over this longer period of few centuries, and being mostly the pastoral, semi-nomadic, community, it is but natural that they would have been aware of the rivers located nearer or farther. If, as Talageri claims, the oldest part of Rig Veda does not mention any river from the west, they did not know any other river of the west, hence they must have been settled east of the Sarasvati River, is a strange logic! He is forgetting the main purpose of the Rig Vedic texts is religious, not to document the geography.

The order of Rig Veda, from first to tenth Mandala too is not chronologically correct. For example, first Mandala of Rig Veda is actually has been composed in the late Vedic times. From 2nd to 7th Mandala’s are said to be older whereas remaining Mandala’s form part of the later compositions. Even the arrangement of every verse and hymns incorporated in them have not been chronologically composed. From the late addition of Purusha Sukta in tenth Mandala, it clearly seems that available Rig Veda is also interpolated to some extent though the claim is that the Rig Veda has orally been preserved as it is from ancient times without any alteration.

Hence the scholars should have been more careful while taking every word from Rig Veda as a final to support their theories. The riddle of the original language of Rig Veda also remains unsolved, though the attempts are being made in that direction. Originally, it could be far closer to the old Persian, similar of to the Gatha's.

However, we will have to do with the available text because we will not know ever what contained in the missing portions of the Rig Veda.

If considered Talageri’s Aryan migration theory, it seems that Vedic people were hopping from one place to another while compositions of Rig Veda were continued by the Vedic seers. The basis of his theory is, as described before, the names of the rivers appearing in each Mandala in certain chronology. For example, in early Mandala, only Saraswati River finds its mention and he thus concludes that Vedic Aryan’s didn’t know any river located to the west of the Sarasvati. Doubtless, this is a bold statement. Mention or omission of any river name cannot become an evidence of the geography known to the Vedic people.

Also, mention of any river in any verse does not also necessarily mean that the Vedic people were settled by that particular river when the specific verses mentioning the river name (s) were composed. One should not forget the main objective of Rig Vedic rhymes is religious in particular, not to describe geography in general! Mention of the river names in Rig Veda is in praise of them in poetic form. For such praises, it does not necessarily require that the Vedic people’s or seers had to be inhibited in the close vicinity of those mentioned rivers.

Talageri states, “Sarasvati is still the most important river in the MaNDala: it is referred to by the eponymous RSi Atri (V.42.12; 43.11) who also refers to the RasA (V.41.15). All the other references to the western rivers (Sarayu, KubhA, Krumu, AnitabhA, RasA, Sindhu) occur in a single verse (V.53.9) by a single RSi SyAvASva, obviously a very mobile RSi who also refers elsewhere to the ParuSNI (V.52.9) and even the YamunA (V.52.17).”

From the above statement, Talageri shows that Seer Syavasva was a mobile person hence he could mention the rivers from Afghanistan to Punjab. Again this is a blatant statement as he has blindly considered Ghaggar being the Vedic River Sarasvati. Rather all above-mentioned rivers refer to the geography of present Afghanistan and bordering India. Of Yamuna, we cannot be so sure whether it is another river from Afghanistan or present Yamuna of India. Yamuna name derives from “Yama”, a Vedic God, who also is frequently mentioned in Avesta as “Yima”. Hence there is a probability that Yamuna of Rig Vedic seers was not the Yamuna River that still flows through India.

In his above quotation, Talageri uses his imagination to support his farfetched theory. As said earlier, knowing the river names one needs not to be only mobile. One can acquire such information from the travelers, traders or even from the friendly tribes. In a way Talageri contradicts himself. Finding no mention of any western river except Sarasvati in the oldest part of the Rig Veda doesn’t mean at all that they really did not know the western geography.

Migration and Invasion theorists often suggest that the Vedic people renamed the rivers out of their nostalgic sentiment when they reached new places. Here they forget that similarity in the river names does not necessarily require the presence of the migrants. The similarities can be tracked to the other circumstantial and linguistic factors prevalent in those times. Strangers giving some name to the existing places and locals accepting it are only possible if the locals are conquered or outnumbered by the migrants. This is not the case with Vedic people. Rig Veda doesn’t support any of the above.

Also, the fact should be noted that many river names mentioned in Rig Veda are not in use since ancient times. Hence it is difficult to ascertain to which river Vedics are referring to by particular name. For example, Ganga is thought to be having mentioned in Rig Veda by another name, Jahnavi. This identification is already disputed by the several scholars including Michael Witzel. The case with Shutudri too is same. It is now being identified with Satlej. Vipasha is said to be present Bias. Vedic Drushadvati is said to be present Chowtang! If Ghaggar is considered to be Vedic Sarasvati, there is no explanation for its name change! Many river names mentioned in Rig Veda remains to be unidentified with any other river. How logical are these identifications is a matter of another debate. Corruption in the river names in the course of the time is very much possible, but looking at the above name-changes, they at the least are not at all the corrupt forms of the original Vedic river names.

Sindhu not necessarily refers to the Indus River all the time but is frequently used in plural for rivers. The “Sindhu” word also has been used as a synonym for large lake or sea.

In short Talageri’s chronology of the river names appearing in various Mandala’s of Rig Veda to prove the westward migration of the Aryans is faulty because the identification of the rivers itself is based on flimsy premises. This applies to the Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration theorists too, because they too use the same logic to prove their theories.


We will turn towards Talageri’s another argument in support of his out of India theory. Battle of the ten kings was fought on the banks of the Parushni River. Parushni is identified with present Ravi. Ravi was known in ancient times as Iravati. “Ravi” is said to be have derived from Iravati. There indeed is no satisfactory explanation to the drastic changes in some River names whereas many rivers bear the ancient names even today.

However, even if taken Talageri’s theory as it is for the moment, he states that King Sudasa’s movement is from east to west whilst his enemies are attacking from western direction. He uses this information to add one more proof to his pet “Out of India” theory.

Sudasa and his allies won this war. But what does it prove? How does it suggest migration of Vedic Aryans from east to west? Has Rig Veda or any Vedic literature, even slightly indicates the movement of Sudasa from east to the west after this much-celebrated war?

In the battle, Sudasa defeated his enemies. His camp was on the eastern side of the Parushni whereas his enemies, such as Siva’s, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas etc., had gathered towards the western side of the river.

Parshu’s are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhta’s are identified with present Pakhtun tribe. Siva’s may be the people from Sivalik Mountains. Bhalanas are identified with the people living in Bolan Pass region. Except for few tribes, it clearly seems that rest of the tribes were inhibited the present day Afghanistan and its bordering regions. If we have a look at the geographical location of the Parushni (present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, they would have to travel for longer distances, even had to cross the vastness of Sindhu River to reach the banks of the Parushni. Though identification of Parushni with Ravi seems improbable, let us assume that indeed Sudasa’s enemies did cross that huge distance to approach Parushni to wage war against Sudasa.

After the defeat, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated. A number of dead in the war is given 6666. Though the figure could be speculative or exaggerated, the survivors of the war must have traveled back to their homeland after paying huge tributes. Rig Veda (7.33.6) mentions that Bharata’s under Sudasa received tribute from the defeated kings like Ajas, Sigrus and Yaksus. RV 7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemy and gave treasures of Anu to Sudasa. (Talageri identifies Anu's with Iranians.)

Sudasa, after this victory, would have returned to his capital, whatsoever and wherever the war took place. Surprisingly there is no mention of his capital in Rig Veda. In fact, no city or village name appears in the entire Rig Veda!  However, it does not mean that he had no capital. Also, we are left to mere guesswork as to how large had been his tribe? What was the expanse of his kingdom? Looking at the population of those times his tribe could not have been too large occupying vast lands. Area of about forty-fifty square miles would be enough to provide for his tribe the necessary livelihood. Had the tribe been settled in Afghanistan or India, it needed not to cross vast distances in an order to migrate unless there was the natural calamity of any kind or enemies driving them out of their original habitat. Rig Veda mentions none of such incident. Rather Sudasa had won the war!

However, battleground being at the banks of Parushni and both the parties to the war attacking from different directions, how does it can prove the demographic migration of the Aryans to either direction?

If Talageri’s theory is considered true, then it will appear that the Pakhta, Bhalanas, Parshu and some other tribes were certainly had come to the war from western side as their geographies are identifiable and they do exist even today. This is not the case with Sudasa and his tribesmen as there is no evidence that after the victory he too moved to settle somewhere in the west or east. Why a victorious king should have to migrate from his native place? Rig Veda describes that Sudasa and his allies chased the fleeing enemy, some drowned in the rivers and some were slain while on the run. But the original habitat of the enemy tribes doesn’t seem to have changed. Then why only Sudasa would desert his habitat to move elsewhere?

As stated earlier, the description of the battle of the ten kings is mixed up with mythical elements, such as active involvement of Lord Indra in the war and his destroying seven fortifications of the enemy. One cannot take the rhymes as describing the exact history. Also, the location of the war can be disputed as the river Parushni itself is unidentifiable. Its identification with Ravi is far-fetched. Even if we agree to this identification, for the time being, it does not prove migration of any tribe from east to west or west to east. The battle taking place on the banks of the River Parushni also does not indicate Sudasa’s homeland being at the east of the Parushni. The positions of the warring parties are decided by so many other strategic factors at the given moment of the war. Direction from which they fight does not indicate their homeland too located in the same direction. Else, we will have to consider Marathas had come from the north and Abdali from the south to wage the Panipat war! Positions at war do not indicate the directions of the homelands of the warring parties.  

In nutshell whole premise is that there was Aryan migration (or expansion) from east to west can be surmised as a whimsical idea of a scholar. This applies to the western scholars also those infer west to east direction from the outcome of the same war!

Demographic migrations are not new to the even modern world. Small nomadic tribes can be seen on the constant move. From Rig Veda it seems that Vedic society could have been semi-nomadic as it was mostly a pastoral community. However, semi-nomads tend to move around in a circle of their habitat. That too applies to the clan of Sudasa in whose reign the entire corpus of the Rig Veda was composed. Had Rig Vedic society been constant on move, there would have been at the least mention of the alien tribes they came across during the movement. In Rig Veda about 50 tribes are mentioned in different contexts and they appear to be located in the almost circular positions if Avestan Harxvaiti basin is considered to be the center point of Vedic Aryan’s habitat.

Except few tribes related to Puru brotherhood all other tribes, including Puru, were non-Vedic…ayajnya’s. (Nonperformers of the fire sacrifice.) Even the tribes those fought against Sudasa and his allies are described as non-performers of the fire sacrifices. The true reason behind the war may be the religious conflict between different faiths. From the Rig Vedic story of enmity between Vashishtha and Sudasa’s former priest Vishvamitra that became main reason of the battle suggests that there were many tribes that were against Vedic religion and finally gathered against Sudasa for a war. Vishvamitra is said to have gathered enemy tribes against Sudasa over the religious conflict only.

Anyway, the war took place and Sudasa turned out to be victorious. How does it can be connected with the western migration of the Vedic Aryans as Mr. Talageri suggests?

Actually, Talageri indirectly supports the theory of Vedic homeland being a part of Afghanistan or bordering northwest regions of ancient India. The most of the rivers mentioned in Rig Veda are of Afghan origin, including Sarasvati. Most of them bear the same name even today though Afghanistan has undergone many political and religious upheavals. Sindhu means river or sea, can be applied to any river or rivers, whenever used in plurals. Hence it does not necessarily mean to have used all the time for Sindhu (Indus) river. Parushni could not have been present Ravi as the geography itself goes contrary to the Rig Vedic descriptions of the war.

Hence Talageri’s migration theory is bad in the light of his far-fetched conclusions.

Place names in Rig Veda:

Now let us look into the place names appearing in Rig Veda and Talageri’s conclusions based on them.

Talageri states that there are five different regions are mentioned in Rig Veda. Those are;

A. Afghanistan.

B. Punjab.
C. Haryana.
D. Uttar Pradesh
E. Bihar.

Afghanistan was known to the Indians from ancient times as Gandhara. There is a huge corpus of the Buddhist ancient literature in Gandhari language as well. In Gandhari language Indian Prakrit G phonetically changes to K. Present Kandahar is none but Gandhara to the ancient Indians as evidenced from the various epigraphs. Except for such phonetic changes, we do not find drastic variance in Gandhari and other Prakrit dialects of about 3rd Century BC to 2nd century AD those appear in various epigraphs.

Talageri states that the region name Gandhara appears only once in late upa-maNDalas of MaNDala I (I.126.7). He further adds that “But, the name is also found indirectly in the name of a divine class of beings associated with GandhAra, the Gandharvas, who are referred to in the following verses: III.38.6; VIII.1.11; 77.5; IX.83.4; 85.12; 86.36; 113.3;

X.10.4; 11.2; 85.40, 41; 123.4, 7; 136.6; 139.4, 6; 177.2.”

From this Talageri wants to impress upon us to suit his theory of westward migration of the Vedic people, i.e. from Punjab to Afghanistan. He suggests that the Vedic people landed in Afghanistan during the last phase of the composition of the Rig Veda.

If taken this theory at its face value, it would seem that Vedic people first moved from Punjab to the region of Parushni (Ravi) and from there they migrated to Afghanistan. But is it so?


Talageri, instead of explaining whether the name Punjab occurs anywhere in the Rig Veda, declares on us, “The Punjab is known in the Rigveda as “Saptasindhu”.

Punjab would mean the land of five rivers. Talageri’s explanation to this is, Sidhu being farther west and Sarasvati being farther east and the land between them constituting of the five rivers would mean Punjab.

Talageri goes further to stress that the Avestan “Hapta Hindu” also refers to the Punjab region. This is something that extols the non-existent. “Hapta Hindu” in Avesta does not at all refer to the Punjab, but rivers in Afghanistan itself. “Hapta Hindu” (Sanskrit Sindhu) would mean the region of seven rivers…not the region beyond Sindhu River. If Hapta Hindu of Avesta is as same as Sapta Sindhu of Rig Veda and if is referred to one and the same region, in all probabilities Sapta Sindhu region cannot be Punjab but Valley of Helmand river of present Afghanistan itself. 

We should note here that Avesta does not refer to or mention any other river except those is present in Afghanistan. Hence Avestan Hapta Hindu could not refer to the region of Punjab but the region of Avestan geography itself. Rather Rig Veda mentions many rivers like Rasa (Raha), Kubha (Kabul), Krummu (Kurram) etc. which means that the Vedic people were more acquainted with Avestan geography than of the Punjab.For example, Talageri admits that Vedic Aryan's did not know any river to the west of the Sarasvati, means they did not know the Punjab, Sindh regions located to the west of Sarasvati!

C. Haryana.

Talageri admits that the place names such as Kurukshetra or Brahmavarta (believed to be in Haryana) do not appear at all in Rig Veda, yet he tries to derive meaning from the so-called epithets, such as “ nAbhA pRthivyA” (Center of the Earth) or “ vara A pRthivyA” (Best place on the earth),he thinks is addressed to Haryana region.

Further he states that “M.L. Bhargava, in his brilliant research on the subject, points out that these places are still extant: MAnuSa is still known as MAnas, still a pilgrim centre, a village 3½ miles northwest of Kaithal; the ApayA or ApagA tIrtha is still recognised at Gadli between MAnas and Kaithal; and ILAyAspada or ILaspada at SAraka is the present-day Shergadh, 2 miles to the southeast of Kaithal: MAnuSa and IlAspada were thus situated on the right and left sides of the ApayA, about 5½ miles apart, and in the tract between the DRSadvatI and the SarasvatI.”

First, let us have a look at Manas village. It is a small village situated in Kaithal district of Haryana State. Kaithal name is said to have been derived from Kapisthala, the birth place of the Monkey God, Hanuman. However, unlike what Talageri states, the village is named Manas because there is a pond named “Manas Sarovar “ besides the village. It clearly shows that the name is taken after famous highly revered Himalayan lake “Manas Sarovar” which is pilgrimage center from ancient times. Most importantly this Manas village is not any kind of pilgrimage center! Connecting it to the Vedic “Manusa” is a ridiculous idea. Need not to mention, others too are highly imaginative derivations by the author.

While finding the references of Uttar Pradesh in Rig Veda, Talageri admits that there is no direct reference, still, he blatantly states that “It may be noted that all the pilgrim centres of Hinduism are located to the east of Haryana. There is no Hindu pilgrim centre worthy of particular note in the Punjab or the northwest. This also discounts the possibility that the oldest and hoariest text of Hinduism could have been composed in those parts.” Thus he contradicts his own theory of westward migration.

First of all, Talageri is committing a blunder by mixing Hindu religion with Vedic religion. There is no pilgrimage tradition in Rig Veda or even in later Vedic texts. Also at one side, Talageri states that the Vedic Geography (where most of the Rig Veda was composed) is east Punjab, he admits that there is no noteworthy pilgrimage center in Punjab or west. Had Vedic Aryans were moving towards west, he cannot explain why the most of the pilgrimage centers are at the eastern side.

Reference to the River Ganga appears only once and that too as Jahnavi, not directly as Ganga. Whether Vedic Jahnavi and Ganga is one and the same is not yet proven beyond doubt. It does not prove that the Vedic Aryan's knew the regions of present Uttar Pradesh.

What we can conclude from Talageri’s Vedic geography is, he has recklessly tried to link Indian places and rivers with Rig Vedic river and place names, neglecting the overwhelming proofs indicating Rig Vedic early geography being Gandhar, that is to say, present Afghanistan. Most of the rivers those flow in the terrain of Helmand bear similar names even today. This is not the case with Indian rivers including Ghaggar, Jhelam, Chinab, Choutang, Ganga etc. There is no reason why the river names should have drastically been changed in the course of the time if they were so praiseworthy to the Vedic people.

Also, it does not indicate why demographic migration of the Vedic people would have taken place? Most of the tribes mentioned in Rig Veda can be identified with the tribes of northwest regions of India and of Afghanistan and Iran. It seems Vedic people were quite familiar with them and their dialects. They too shared similar dialect. Vedic people were familiar with Avestan religion and their faith and borrowed heavily from them, including God’s and Demons, though in later times Vedic people had changed the meaning opposite to the originals. However, terminologies remained the same. Asura (Av. Ahura) meant “Lord” to Vedic’s as well in the early period of Veda’s, though the term was used as Demons in later times.

This shows clearly that geographically Vedic people must have been settled in the close vicinity of the Avestan people. Had they been migrants from the Punjab to Afghanistan, the religious concepts, dialectical similarities, Gods and Demons wouldn’t have been similar. It is impossible. It cannot be said that Avestan people borrowed from Vedic people because Vedic Asura seems to have lost its original meaning immediately after the composition of some verses, whereas Avestan Ahura did remain the same with its original meaning throughout! This must have occurred after some kind of enmity arose between Avestan and Vedic people. Battle of Ten Kings could be a possible reason for this drastic shift. This may be evident from a fact that Parshu tribe too was a party to the war against Sudasa. Parshu’s are identified with Persian people. Talageri’s another bold suggestion is proto-Iranians were located in Punjab in pre-Vedic times is another blunder that we will examine in the separate article.

Talageri, to prove his theory of Aryan migration raises the following vital questions:

1. Why the tribe of Sudasa should have hopped from Haryana towards Afghanistan intermittently? What were the reasons? What was the reason for his tribe to vacate earlier settlements to move towards Afghanistan only when there were other better directions too were available to him to move?

2. It is assumed and agreed by the scholars that the composing of the Rig Veda continued for almost 300 to 500 years. This is not a small passage of the time in which many generations would have elapsed. If this is the case, was migration pre-determined or was Sudasa or his clan was forced out of India? Does Rig Veda give any indication of such happening?

3. If Talageri is right in his hypothesis, it would appear that the Seers of Rig Veda too traveled with the tribe adding the names of the rivers in Vedic verses as they came across. How then the bulk of Rig Veda traveled back to India?

4. Geologically it is proven that the Ghaggar River during the times of Indus civilization was in the condition as same as it is now, a monsoon-fed minor River. It was never snow-fed river. How then Talageri connects Ghaggar with the mighty river Sarasvati of Rig Veda?

5. If Talageri in his works claims that proto-Iranians too were located in Punjab in pre-Vedic times and moved towards Afghanistan later, how can it justify the linguistic differences in Vedic and Avestan languages? And what would be the reason for proto-Iranians to move from Punjab towards Afghanistan? If this really is the case why there is no slightest of the reference to such movement neither in Avesta nor Rig Veda?

6. If there were series of westward migrations of Indian Aryans, which were those migrating tribes apart from Sudasa’s?

7. Why Talageri frequently uses the term "Aryan's" when the Aryan race theory has been abandoned on all counts, including modern genetics?

To find the solution to any cultural or linguist problems, migration theories appear to be simple explanations, but they raise more questions those cannot be easily answered. Nationalistic approaches may delight to some Vedic people but it drives away the masses from the truth!

Shrikant Talageri’s theory thus proves to be unreliable that only can bolster the egos of Vedic Hindu nationalists, nothing else!


  1. Not at all a rightwinger here and absolutely not a specialist in the subject but thought I would ask you if this new study makes the whole debate even more interesting: "it seems that southern Asian countries like India were key stopping points from where humans spread across the rest of the world" Of course we won't know for sure until the currently underwater remains of the migration are recovered but the new route map of human migration is definitely interesting:


  2. Your counter arguments are baseless & deliberate attempt to bring down a bright n honest scholar like Talagiri.
    Why don't you & other marxist turds like you just go & drown in a swamp.

    One world, one nation! Better tomorrow!! How? By selling Bharat mata to foreign agents & licking their boots!

    A proud historylays a foundation of a proud nation! Got that you fool !

    1. well replied .... :)

    2. While I do agree Talageri's arguments have great merit compared to this person's, I think everyone should desist from name-calling

  3. I do not know AMT is right or OIT is correct but OIT has answers to more questions than AMT.

  4. This blogger's arguments are shallow and hollow. Colonial history imposed on indians have wiped out dharmic(righteous) values from Indians. Marxist and other leftist undervalues the morals and ethics of Hindu Dharma ( dharma here stands for righteousness) in their atheistic zeal to reject religion. They have no shame in rejecting a superior ideology born on Indian soil and adopting a foreigner's ideology which is inherently inferior and proven so in the disintegration of USSR. I request all marxists to shun psychophancy of foreign ideologue and proudly accept hinduism morality for a better and strong society. Learn good lesson from marxism but don't accept his ideology in totality. Our history books are written by marxists and other leftists hence our mind wiped out of glory of Hindu Dharma, so I request you to search for true history urself. Jai Hind.

    1. Rather than lecturing on on the superiority of Hindu Dharma over other religions, why don't you specifically mention why the bloggers arguments are baseless and hollow ?
      Maybe you could pick up a couple of his points and refute them with your counter-logic ?

  5. This blogger's arguments are shallow and hollow. Colonial history imposed on indians have wiped out dharmic(righteous) values from Indians. Marxist and other leftist undervalues the morals and ethics of Hindu Dharma ( dharma here stands for righteousness) in their atheistic zeal to reject religion. They have no shame in rejecting a superior ideology born on Indian soil and adopting a foreigner's ideology which is inherently inferior and proven so in the disintegration of USSR. I request all marxists to shun psychophancy of foreign ideologue and proudly accept hinduism morality for a better and strong society. Learn good lesson from marxism but don't accept his ideology in totality. Our history books are written by marxists and other leftists hence our mind wiped out of glory of Hindu Dharma, so I request you to search for true history urself. Jai Hind.

  6. . Shrikanth Talageri's out of India theory challenging the Aryan Invasion Theory is based on chronological, textual and linguistic argument unlike the Aryan Invasion Theory which is purely based on Speculation.

    Micheal Witzel (who was then the head of the Sanskrit dept at Harvard university) had criticized Shrikanth's Talageri's first book without even reading it claiming that there are many indians like Shrikanth in India who have come up with this fundamentalist idea that Aryans did not come from outside. In his second book on Rig Veda , Srikant Talegeri devoted a chapter pointing out flaws and contradictions in Wiztel's analysis of the Rig Veda and backed it up with evidence. He then sent a copy to Witzel asking for his comments. Within a few days he was contacted by another professor in Harvard and was offered a free scholarship under Witzel under the condition that he was willing to modify his views. since he couldn't challenge Shrikanth criticizm he tried to buy him. (Source :Watch this video The Aryan Invasion Theory-Part I by Shrikant G Taageri) This is what the Aryan invasion scholars do.. if they cant refute a scholar's claims they tried to buy them. Now we all know what happened to Sanjay Sonowani!!!!

  7. The Indus valley civilization is not Vedic. The IVC is pre-Vedic
    there are many reasons for this:

    (a) The IVC went into terminal decline by 1900 BC and vanished off the face of the earth by 1400 BC- 1300 BC. Vedic culture was continuous till Buddhist times.
    (b) The epicenter of the IVC was the Indus River, the epicenter of the Aryavarta was the Gangetic plains.
    (c) Sanskrit was clearly never a widely spoken language
    (d) The Harappans traded with Mesopotamia, wrote on seals , gave a great deal of Importance to drainage systems and urban development besides metallurgy.


    Read my papers on researchgate.


    We need to act before it is too late


    1. If you carefully read Talageri's books, he has given enough evidence to prove the IVC came after Vedic period. Lets us consider you arguments :-
      1] Where is the evidence that Vedic culture was continuous with buddhist times? By the time of Budhdha, Sanskrit had already evolved to classical sanskrit and prakrith etc. Infact even upanishads predate the Budhist period by about 500years.
      2]Vedas were the compositions left by the preists of Kuru clan who were ruling the punjab region. That doesn't mean that there were no people in the gangetic plain.Ikshawaku clan of Solar race were ruling the Gangetic plains.
      3]At which timeline?
      4]WHat is the relevance of Harrappan drainage system to vedic or pre-vedic?

      I think you are a closet macaulite who inspite of evidence provided by Talageri blabbers with shallow arguments.

  8. why dont you have a face to face argument or write a book debunking every point he said? he always challenged people with absolute proof and data. no one still come. nor did you read all 3 books completely.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Rivers names should remain original. All the rivers in Europe, their names are non Indo-European. The names of Indian rivers, which are all in Vedic Sanskrit not in Dravidian language.

    There are so many facts with base are presented, but western scholars will not accept them? Should we assume that they're loyal towards their race and will not accept that their languages can come from outside, specially India or is it a simple matter of big fat paycheck, which is a reward for distorting history of the world including the native Indians in North America!

  11. Hi, interesting post, could you point me to reading material on south Asian origins with actual scientific evidence (genetic/ archaeological etc). It's getting harder and harder to sift through all the fantasy writing by so many of our 'scholars'. I have seen Witzel's name come up in many places- would he be considered the current leading authority on this subject? Thanks for your time :)

  12. The AIT/ OIT debate may not be settled in the 21st century, but the rancour and bitterness of "true Indians" (I see a lot of them in the comments section) is definitely on the increase. When will they realise that their rantings/ abuse at AIT/ AMT only weakens their own intellectual credentials ?

    1. It is settled. The IE homeland was in Central Asia

    2. Since you have settled the "Argument" why don't you give a brief point to point rebuttal for the arguments presented by Talageri? Not the kind of shallow observation made by the author here

      Talageri has brought up so many points including flora and fauna, comparison with external sources like Avestan etc.. Unless you can point out the flaws in each and every proof presented by Talageri with proper proof and references of yours, your response is as good as rantings of a mindless bigot who is a moronic supporter of the Aryan Nazi racist...

  13. hahaha... I am not Tamil but you don't even need to go to west of india to find ancient hinduism and the roots... recently ancient ruins were excavated in Tamil Nadu and would rewrite history ... secondly the meaning of "Aryan" in sanskrit is noble human... So if aryans came from outside india then does it mean There weren't any noble beings in India... hilarious

  14. The term 'Aryan' is a cultural term in the Rig Veda. I has initiated a 20 page discussion of the term 'Aryan' in one of my papers

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  15. 'I had' not 'I has' - sorry for the typo

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  16. Why don't you accept Talageri's challenge and enter into debate with him ? Not only you, but western scholars are also strangely silent. May be they and you have nothing concrete against his theory yet ?

  17. This is a truly rubbish blog. I've read through most of your articles and can say with confidence that you've got not understanding of Indian History and your articles are full of so many glaring flaws. First the OIT or Out of India Theory isn't at all a new theory or "Talageri's theory" because it has been around since the 1800s. There are so many more scholars who advocate for the OIT that are better educated and know the subject well. Unfortunately you've never read their work. There are brilliant scholars like Kazanas, Elst, Benedetti, and so forth who support the OIT with very good research to back it up. Unlike you they are experts in their field. I have my criticism of Talageri, however they are based on facts and grounded research not on bogus claims from a blogger or "acclaimed author". At least do some research before you write something, look at all the sides of the debate and be open minded. Your blog is just complete garbage.