The Typical Brown Sahib — "From OIT to AIT"

 

The Typical Brown Sahib — "From OIT to AIT"

 

Shrikant G Talageri

 

I am using the phrase "the typical Brown Sahib" — some others would have used the phrase "the typical Brown Sepoy", which would have been even stronger ad-hominem? — to describe the writer of a blog article, Gaurav Lele, who I am told is also a very prominent Indian tweeter who is very active on twitter in debunking the OIT and promoting the AIT, although he admits everywhere that he has not read my books or blogs (except apparently my exchanges with Witzel after my second book in 2000 and Witzel's abusive review of it).

The blog article:

https://gaurav-lele.medium.com/from-oit-to-ait-516d7d0f850

Since he has apparently not read any of my books and blogs, it would not have been necessary for me to react to his article. But, in this article, he admits that he has read Witzel's review of my second book and my reply to it, and his comment is: "following the Witzel-Talageri debate I found a lot of criticism by Talageri ad-hominem and patronizing." I find this the most amazing statement that could possibly have been made by a person claiming to be neutral, and very frankly a "neutral" person who found Witzel's review of my book (in 2001) scientific and convincing but not "ad-hominem and patronizing",  but my reply to it "ad-hominem and patronizing" but not scientific and convincing , is anything but a neutral observer. He is definitely a "Brown Sahib" or "Brown Sepoy" who would find a western academic Professor saying "2+2=5" and "the sun moves around the earth" more scientific and convincing than an Indian ex-bank employee saying  "2+2=4" and "the earth moves around the sun".

In the above "review article" of my book, Witzel has devoted as much space to personal ad-hominem against me as he has to telling outright lies, and in my reply to it, I listed all this ad-hominem and personal slander as well as all his lies (against which I quoted every time the actual factual data, or the exactly opposite stuff Witzel himself had written in different papers/articles of his own over a period of many years). In my reply, I picked up every single point made by Witzel and replied to it with facts and figures. In return, Witzel ignored every single point of data pointed out by me, and every lie of his exposed by me, and continued his personal slander campaign and outright lies. I have put up my reply on my blog: "Michael Witzel – An Examination of His Review of TALAGERI 2000" 29/9/2021.

If after reading all this, Lele actually reaches the conclusion he does, it is clear that he is indeed a Brown Sahib or Brown Sepoy. That this is so is reiterated by Lele further on in his article, where he finds all the data and evidence totally irrelevant, and the main or only thing which makes him reject it is: "I still find the lack of scholarly approval of Talageri’s work a problem from believing his work".

[Let me add that Witzel did indeed point out a factual mistake made by me in giving the hymn numbers of six hymns in Book 3, which did not change the conclusion but was indeed a careless mistake on my part and I accepted it in my reply. In fact, about this, I wrote as follows in the preface of my third book:

"The first and most important mistake is the one pointed out by Witzel (WITZEL 2001) in his otherwise pointless review of my book. In discussing the order of the six Family Books of the Rigveda, I quoted the testimony of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (VI.18), that six hymns (21, 30, 34, 36, 38-39) in Book 3 are late additions into the Book, and that these six hymns contain a total of 68 verses (TALAGERI 2000:73-74). Actually, these six hymns are III.30-31, 34, 36, 38, 48, and they contain a total of 81 verses.[…..] I am genuinely grateful to him for pointing out the mistake, and to Witzel for pointing out the other, more important, mistake regarding the hymns referred to in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa VI.18; and I will be grateful to anyone else who brings forward to my notice any similar mistakes in this present volume (although it has been my effort to try not to make similar careless mistakes this time). I will be happy if they do so in a friendly and helpful spirit, but the exercise will not be any the less welcome even if it is done with unfriendly or hostile intent: the point is that mistakes should always be corrected" (TALAGERI 2008:xxxii).

Earlier in the preface, I also wrote: "One person that I have to genuinely thank for this is Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. Throughout this present volume, I will be criticizing him sharply for the elements of fraudulent scholarship, and dirty politics, that he has introduced throughout the bitter debate on the subject, and for all the lies and manipulations that he has been guilty of in the process. But, at this point, I must admit that if he had not done all these things, I would never have been impelled to go as deeply into the matter as I have done after my second book, and this third book would not have been what it is — perhaps I would never have seen the need for a third book."]

And the Witzel whose scholarly attitude Lele finds so overwhelmingly respectable is the same Witzel whose every article dealing with his opponents is full of abuse and "ad-hominem", who did indeed try to indirectly bribe me into silence in 2001, and in fact whose attitude towards those whom he despises has him acting like a rowdy schoolboy out ragging and heckling his rivals, in his own words (in a post on Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com, dated 18-4-2010):

"Dear List,

since it is the weekend, a few amusing details about our old friend,
NS Rajaram’s, talk at MIT last week (4/10) and his subsequent
interview in the local Indian immigrants’ (NRI) newspaper Lokavani
“Voice of the People’ — sponsored by a clueless US immigration lawyer.

Along with one or two of my students, I went to MIT to have some fun.
And fun it was. Some very emotional people (among the c. 40
listeners) objected to our snickering at his “ideas” (see below).

Rajaram indeed repeated all the fantasies and unscientific nonsense
that he has propagated since he abruptly turned, overnight (why?),
from a mathematician at some US colleges and a (very occasional, but
hyped) collaborator of NASA-Houston, into a “historian” back in his
home town of Bangalore in India."

[I am not speaking about his factual criticism of Rajaram's ideas, where he is not totally wrong, but in the juvenile, gleeful hoodlum attitude displayed by him above].

Since Gaurav Lele admits he has not read my books and blogs, much less given a factual data-based answer to the evidence given by me, it would be senseless to bandy words with him. But since I am responding to his article, a few words on that article are definitely called for, although it amounts to talking in a vacuum. Almost every point he raises is answered in detail by me in my books and blogs, and it is time that people showed me why the data and evidence given by me is wrong rather than keep on raising the same silly discredited points again and again while ignoring the data and facts. So I will just take the trouble of repeating his points and telling him where, in my books and blogs, that point is conclusively explained with the data and facts:

 

1. "I am partial to the view that Genes and Languages are moderately correlated. There are exceptions as readers of this blog would know, but they are exceptions. As the genetic data points out that 10–20% of Indian ancestry comes from Bronze Age Steppe, I find it highly implausible that such large changes wouldn’t result in some language change — especially given the gradients of Steppe wrt North/South and Caste. Additionally, the complete absence of AASI like genetic ancestry beyond the boundaries of the Mauryan & Mughal empires at their zenith is big deal. If any kind of OIT that doesn’t explain satisfyingly falls short. (Roma Gypsies have AASI)".

All points pertaining to genetics are answered in ruthless detail in my 2019 book "Genetics and the Aryan Debate — 'Early Indians', Tony Joseph's Latest Assault" (Aditya Prakashan New Delhi, 2019), and my blog articles "What is the Value of the New 'Genomic Evidence' for the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory versus the Out-of- India Theory?" 21/4/2018 , Rakhigarhi and After" 19/9/2019.

 

2. "On the whole, I find the Steppe hypothesis works well linguistically and archaeologically to an exceptional degree in my reading — for Europe. By Occam’s razor, it would be fair to assume India isn’t an outlier among regions speaking Indo-European. Small objections like this don’t debunk the entire Steppe hypothesis IMO. The lack of material culture change associated with AIT is a problem, but the same objection is also present for OIT. Lack of evidence isn’t the absence of evidence. At best archaeologically the AIT/OIT debate is a Tie."

All points pertaining to archaeology are answered in chapter 8 "The Archaeological Case" of my third book "The Rigveda and the Avesta — The Final Evidence" (Aditya Prakashan New Delhi, 2008).

All points pertaining to Linguistics are answered in all my books or blogs, but I will cite here particularly my blogs: "The Elephant and the Proto-Indo-European Homeland" 11/6/2017, "The "Aryan" Story vs. True Aryan History" 10/7/2017, "Are German and French Closer to Sanskrit than Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu?" 21/11/2017, "India's Unique Place in the World of Numbers and Numerals" 28/8/2018, "The Proto-Indo-European Word for 'Sea/Ocean'" 19/5/2020, "The Rigveda and the Aryan Theory: A Rational Perspective THE FULL OUT-OF-INDIA CASE IN SHORT REVISED AND ENLARGED" 20/7/2020, "The Chronological Gulf Between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda" 19/8/2020, "The Complete Linguistic Case for the Out-of-India Theory" 10/9/2021, and many more.

 

3. "I find Talageri’s work lays excessive claim on his interpretation of Rgveda and Avesta. I find the Rgveda has no memory of invasion argument weak. What we know of the Rgveda might just the memory preserved post the Bharata victory in the Dasarajna (Victor’s memory). It would be plausible that memories of invasion may be lost by accident of history. I am no expert on either Rgveda or Linguistics".

If Lele is no expert on Rgveda or Linguistics, he should hold his horses and give his opinion only after reading the evidence. Strangely, Witzel's case is also based on "his interpretation of Rgveda and Avesta" — but then he is not an ex-bank employee but a western academic Professor, so his claims are automatically not "excessive"!

Lele finds "the Rgveda has no memory of invasion argument weak". My case is not based on this argument, which is not necessarily a result of deep research but a fact which cannot escape anyone's attention. While many anti-AIT writers lay excessive emphasis on this, few AIT academicians would simply dismiss it as "weak". In fact, in the words of George Erdosy, an AIT writer: “we reiterate that there is no indication in the Rigveda of the Arya’s memory of any ancestral home, and by extension, of migrations. Given the pains taken to create a distinct identity for themselves, it would be surprising if the Aryas neglected such an obvious emotive bond in reinforcing their group cohesion” (ERDOSY 1989:40-41).

 

4. "I take the Horse argument seriously. The paucity of equid bones IVC itself is significant. Especially if you compare them to Steppe sites. (The Botai & other steppe sights are extreme in the sheer quantity of horse bones). On the whole, I find Anthony’s horse hypothesis holds in face of the data we have today."

All points pertaining to the horse are answered in detail in my books, notably in chapter 11 "The Horse" of my fourth book "Genetics and the Aryan Debate — 'Early Indians', Tony Joseph's Latest Assault" (Aditya Prakashan New Delhi, 2019), and my blog articles "The Elephant and the Proto-Indo-European Homeland" 11/6/2017, "The Horse and the Chariot in the AIT-OIT Debate" 11/6/2021.

 

5. "I don’t see the Sanuali find as a game-changer. The Daimabad hoard Bull drawn cart/chariot has been known for decades. I don’t think the argument for Sanauli chariot being Horse-drawn is convincing yet. Also, the lack of spoked wheels would make the chariot less agile which would make it not a War-chariot like Sintasta. Anthony had to fight a lot for years before even his finds (which are far more impressive than Sanauli) at Sintasta were taken seriously as a war chariot by the community. His chariots were disproved by peers for things like width, length, etc. At the least, it’s premature to call the Sanauli chariot as a deal-breaker for AIT. Additionally latest the dating of Sanauli at 1800BCE isn’t far enough from the 1500+-200 date given for AIT. Rather the 1800BCE dating appears consistent with Asko Parpola’s first Pre Rgvedic Arya migration theory".

About the Sanauli find, only time will tell its importance. Certainly it is the only find, and again proves that lack of archaeological finds does not mean absence of existence of chariots and horses. Also remember, it is found completely east of the Punjab-Haryana centre of Vedic as well as Harappan geography, in 1800 BCE. Since Lele is convinced by Reich/Joseph's earliest finds of Steppe DNA only after 1100 BCE, and only in the northernmost Swat areas of Pakistan, as evidence that the "Aryans" had already entered deep into northwestern India in 2000 BCE and completed composition of the entire Rigveda by 1200 BCE, already completely forgetting their external origins, connections and journey by that date, he is not quite in a position to classify conclusions as "premature" when it suits him.

Incidentally, here is what Littauer M., and Crouwel J. say in their article "The Origin of the True Chariot" in Antiquity 70/270 (1996) about the Sintashta chariots, after giving all kinds of technical details: "The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raises many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheel track measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions, and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing". Lele however has no doubts about the Sintashta vehicle being a "War-chariot" with a capital W.

 

6. "In historic times, since the Persian invasion during the time of Bimbisara to the invasion of Abdali — the flow of invasions has been Strictly One Way — from the Bolan/Khyber pass to the Subcontinent. (in some cases as speculated with some Hunas — via Kashmir). Examples of these being Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushanas, Hunas, Arabs, Turko Afghans, Mongols, Mughals, Persians, and Afghans. These invasions have a concrete economy to them — the fertile and prosperous lands of the Indo-Gangetic plains. So it begs the question — why would Indo-Aryans go out if they were indigenous. Many reasons for coming IN & almost no for going out."

Strange logic! That the "Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushanas, Hunas, Arabs, Turko Afghans, Mongols, Mughals, Persians, and Afghans" came is a matter of historical record as well as memory, but none of them came and completely replaced the local languages of India with their own, leaving behind an all-pervasive haze of amnesia about the whole process. All of them got linguistically adapted into the local Indo-Aryan linguistic streams.

On the other hand, "the flow of invasions has not been Strictly One Way": the ancient Mitanni, and, as universally acknowledged, the Romany (Gypsy) people, went out of India taking their Indo-Aryan languages with them.

And the exodus of the IE groups (Anus and Druhyus) is a matter of very definite and incontrovertible recorded evidence.

 

7. "I find the arguments over Sarasvati which convinced me once unconvincing today. I think the argument comes from the position of reverence to the holy Sarasvati from the Rgveda & laying excessive emphasis on it. I am convinced by the general argument of the same names being used for rivers by migrating people and we have many examples of that in the country. Additionally, the Shtich that the Yamuna changed course and dried up Sarasvati made famous by Amish’s fiction appears on its face — an extraordinary claim with almost no concrete evidence."

All points pertaining to the Sarasvati are answered in detail in my books and blogs, but see particularly chapter 10 "The Sarasvati" of my fourth book "Genetics and the Aryan Debate — 'Early Indians', Tony Joseph's Latest Assault" (Aditya Prakashan New Delhi, 2019).

My blog article "The Rigveda and the Aryan Theory: A Rational Perspective THE FULL OUT-OF-INDIA CASE IN SHORT REVISED AND ENLARGED" 20/7/2020, generally covers all the different aspects in short as the title points out.

 

8. "It’s fair to say both sides in India are fairly motivated by politics."

Yes, absolutely fair: I have made no bones about it, and have pointed out my own politically motivated reasons for my studies in the very first three chapters of my first book in 1993:  I have put them up on my blog under the title "Does the Aryan Invasion Theory Mean that Hindutva is not Equivalent to Indian Nationalism?" 8/9/2021.

But, as squabbling children will say: "they started it!". If not for poisonously anti-national movements in the name of Dalit and Dravidian ideologies (note that Dr.Ambedkar himself had rejected the AIT, and more particularly the caste implications of it), and if not for missionaries and leftists who made the AIT a weapon in their armory, "we" would perhaps not have gone into this subject in such detail as "we" have done.

So what is required is not name-calling and motive-hunting, but objective and honest consideration of the facts. Since the person who inspired this article, Gaurav Lele, says he has not yet read my books and blogs, then any further discussion on the subject becomes redundant and superfluous till he has actually done so. And if he reads the evidence, and if, after reading it, he dismisses the whole thing without disproving my conclusions, on the subjective ground that he is "not convinced", nothing more can be said.