“Neutral Linguistic
Terms” in the AIT-OIT Debate
Someone just sent me a series of tweets by Jijth Nadumuri Ravi posted between 7 February and 8 February 2026 (i.e. yesterday and today). I was not going to comment on Jijith’s tweets any more, having said everything there was to say. But here some points fundamental to the idea of Linguistic Terms in the AIT-OIT debate have been made which require to be corrected.
His first or so in the series of tweets starts out as follows:
https://x.com/Jijith_NR/status/2019998803554890106
“Are “Indo-Aryan” and “Dravidian” divisive terms? - Clearing some misconceptions:
Many people automatically assume that using neutral linguistic terms such as "Indo-Aryan" or "Dravidian" automatically implies support for the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). This assumption is incorrect. It is true that AIT-era colonial scholarship weaponised these terms to construct a North–South civilisational divide in India. However, terminological abuse does not invalidate linguistic classification. Today, the same terms are used within frameworks that explicitly reject AIT, including the Out of India Theory (OIT).”
So far so good. Also, a map showing the distribution of language families in India, shown in the tweet, is fine (see map at the end of this article).
But then the fallacies start:
He, of course, starts out by repeating his usual lies about the locations given by me. Now on the model of “Shrikant Talageri places Manu in Ayodhya”, he writes:
“In Indian-origin models PIE is located within India, not outside it. Shrikant Talageri places PIE in eastern Uttar Pradesh. But we locate it in the Sarasvatī basin.”
Right from my first book in 1993, I have put it as follows:
“The original Indo-European
language, which we will here call “proto-proto-Indo-European” to distinguish it
from the hypothetical language (proto-Indo-European) reconstructed by European
linguists, was spoken in interior North India; but in very ancient times it had
spread out and covered a large area extending to Afghanistan, and had developed
a number of dialects, which may be classified as follows:
1. Outer Indo-European
dialects: Spoken in Afghanistan and northern Kashmir and the adjoining north
Himalayan region.
2. Central Indo-European
dialects: Spoken in what we may call the “Punjab region” and in southern
Kashmir,
3. Inner Indo-European dialects: Spoken in the expanse of northern India from the Gangetic region to Maharashtra and from Punjab to Orissa and Bengal.” (TALAGERI 1993:185)”
In short I located ““The original Indo-European language ……. in interior North India” without assigning any specific part of North India to it, and only specified the locations of three groups of IE proto-dialects.
Subtle modifications to this scheme in my later books and articles led to a stratification into three groups of dialects (Druhyu, Anu and Pūru) constituting the 12 extant IE branches used in the reconstruction of the “hypothetical language (proto-Indo-European) reconstructed by European linguists” not including the “Inner Indo-European dialects: Spoken in the expanse of northern India from the Gangetic region to Maharashtra and from Punjab to Orissa and Bengal” which existed but were not used by the European linguists in their reconstruction.
Nowhere does “Shrikant Talageri place PIE in eastern Uttar Pradesh”.
But there are other fallacies in his tweets:
1. He writes: "Multiple
Dravidian homeland models exist: ---------
In
Central Indian homeland theory Dravidian expands north-westward to Gujarat and
Balochistan. In Elam (south-west Iran) origin theory, Dravidian migrates from
Iran to Balochistan, Gujarat, and Central India. In both models
Dravidian reaches South India from Central India.".
There is no theory which locates the original Proto-Dravidian in Central India and then has the Dravidian languages moving into "South India from Central India." The two extant “theories” locate the original Proto-Dravidian in Elam in southern Iran (and in an exaggerated version even taking it further back into Africa!) and in South India respectively. Even western AIT supporters like Witzel, Hock, Southworth and others now accept that the minor Dravidian languages spoken in Central India and Baluchistan migrated there from South India.
2. He also writes: "Within OIT, the linguistic sequence remains structurally
valid: Proto-Indo-European (PIE) > Proto-Indo-Iranian > Proto-Indo-Aryan
> Vedic Sanskrit"
I have always completely rejected the concept of an "Indo-Iranian" intermediary between PIE and the Iranian and Indo-Aryan branches, so his claim is completely wrong, I have shown how all the similarities between Indo-Aryan and Iranian are not because of a parent "Proto-Indo-Iranian" but because one of the Anu branches (Iranian) in a late period, after the migration of the other Anu branches (Greek, Armenian, Albanian) remained behind and interacted with Pūru Indo-Aryan which produced all these common elements which the linguists wrongly assumed to be common elements from an earlier period and therefore wrongly postulated a common “Proto-Indo-Iranian”.
So, while “Proto-Indo-Iranian” may be part of the linguistic sequence in the AIOIT, it does not even exist in the OIT. [He writes: “These are two dominant OIT models of today.” No, there are not: there is one OIT model and one AIOIT model.
Further, note the muddled use of the word in the tweets: “From this Indian homeland, Indo-Iranian migrated westward into Iran. Other Indo-European branches moved into Eurasia. Indo-Aryan remained and spread within India”. Should he not say “Iranian migrated westward into Iran”?
3. There is more trivialization of terms and issues:
“Those
uncomfortable with the label PIE may simply call it the "Sarasvatī
language", but the linguistic relationships remain unchanged.”
“Don't like the name PIE? NO PROBLEM. CALL IT THE
SARASVATI LANGUAGE.”
So, because Jijith locates the original PIE on the Sarasvati, the language can be called “Sarasvati language”? No promulgator of Homeland theories has made such a suggestion: I have never suggested that it can be called “Interior North Indian language” (or, as per Jijith’s fabrication, “Eastern UP language” or "Ayodhya language"), supporters of a Steppe Homeland have never suggested it should be called “Steppe language”, and supporters of an Anatolian Homeland have never suggested that it should be called “Anatolian language”.
In a previous article, I had pointed out to someone (who insisted that PIE should instead be called Proto-Sanskrit or Proto-Vedic), that PIE was the (reconstructed) ancestor of all the known IE languages − of Latin, Greek, English, Sinhalese and Tocharian as much as of Vedic/Sanskrit – and could equally well be called Proto-Latin, Proto-Greek, Proto-English, Proto-Sinhalese or Proto-Tocharian. Proto-Indo-European is the only correct name because it is a neutral academic term covering all the IE languages, and is not based on pandering to any particular Homeland theory.
So Jijith basically has the concept of “neutral linguistic terms” correct does not seem to have understood it himself in his zeal to promote his own AIOIT case.
And, his map is also a nice one:
