A "Librandu" Woke/Leftist Joker on Reddit.com

 

A "Librandu" Woke/Leftist Joker on Reddit.com

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

No, I am not the one using the phrase "librandu" here, it is the writer of a woke/leftist article on reddit.com who proudly announces his identity as a "librandu" and presents us with an article which he pathetically titles "The definitive guide towards debunking the Out of India 'theory'". And pathetic is just the mildest word I can think of to describe his plainly stupid and illiterate outpourings, which can be read to the full here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/librandu/comments/pu54px/the_definitive_guide_towards_debunking_out_of/

I would never have bothered to take notice of this truly pathetic piece if not for a combination of various factors:

a) it is posted on a "toxic" popular woke/leftist site,

b) it is representative of the kind of trash that woke/leftists of the pedestrian variety indulge in when they get the urge to be woke/leftist leaders and ideologues rather than mere foot-soldiers,

c) a comment to my last blog article asked me to read and comment on it, and

d) it mentions my name in the very first paragraph.

The comedy article starts with: "With the advent of nationalism of the toxic kinds, there have been people like Srikant Talageri, Nilesh Oak and Abhijit Chavda along with other "indic wing" YouTubers and so called "Historians" (none of them credentialed) ; there is a pseudo-historic theory floating that "Aryans" were Indians and they subsequently moved out of India and then conquered the rest of Indo European world, which is complete quackery. This is an attempt to create a definitive guide towards debunking this Psudo-History."

Surprisingly, although he takes my name, it does not appear that he knows anything about what I have written, beyond a passing acquaintance with my name, since not a single word of what follows in his article shows that he has even passed a sleepy eye over anything written by me. But then that is what woke/leftist rhetoric is all about: the greater the ignorance, the more the strong and know-it-all assertiveness in their writings: he actually believes he has set out a "definitive guide" (though shouldn’t he have called it a "toolkit"?) for "debunking the Out of India 'theory'". The only thing correct about his title (or article as a whole is that he seems to correctly realize that "theory" is an inadequate word to describe a fully proved case).

 

Here are the highlights of his article, where he presents 10 points (first 4 and then again separately 6) which are supposed to completely "debunk" the OIT:

1. "First argument of an OIT proponent: All these languages started from Sanskrit. This is not true because Sanskrit and other PIE languages have a common ancestor. Quite like the theory of evolution. The language changes simply do not signify that Sanskrit was the mother of PIE languages. (Examples can be provided on demand in the comments, since I dont want to make it too technical)".

This buffoon who first takes my name for my "toxic" idea of an OIT case (to woke/leftists, the idea that "Aryans" from the Steppes did not invade India is as "toxic" as the idea that Muslims from West Asia did) shows at first stroke that he knows nothing about my irrefutable OIT case.

2. Under the heading "Archaeology" he repeats the AIT theory of migrations from the Steppes through Central Asia that were current fifty years ago. Clearly, he knows nothing about anything written by me on this subject, much less that archaeology is considered to be a discipline which has categorically rejected the AIT (see my last article "AIT-vs.-OIT - The Archaeological Case").

3. He then tells his followers who are presumably expected to make use of his toolkit: "Genetics: This is your Brahmastra. This will conclusively destroy all claims of OIT. India has two genetic components, first is the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) which is made up of Middle Easterners, Central Asians and Europeans and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) which is completely distinct from each other. Today, indians are a mixture of both. Endogamy started after 4200-1900 BP (before present) so, we are a mixture of ANI/ASI. Dravidian/Aryan on the basis of genes just does not exist".

Again, he has not only very clearly not read anything written by me on the subject of genetics, but he also seems to be under some confusion about the concept of "Aryan" and "Dravidian": he does not know that the whole dispute is about the languages and not the genes, nor that his woke/leftist(/evangelist) gurus like Tony Joseph insist that brahmin/non-brahmin distinction at least is a distinction which exists "on the basis of genes".

4. "Literary evidence: When you compare the texts of Rig Veda and Zend Avesta, you can find the cultural similarities. Asuras of Rig Vedas became "Ahura" in Zoroastrianism with flipped roles. Long story short, Asuras are the good guys in Zoroastrian faith, their supreme god is called "Ahura Mazda", whereas the opposite is the case in Rig Veda. The same can be observed in other myths as well. Another name of Ahura Mazda is "Varuna" which is a prominent Rigvedic diety. These similarities are not possible unless they came from the same source."

This is the kindergarten level of his knowledge about the Indo-Iranian relationship, not written and posted fifty years ago but posted "four months ago" (whatever date that is meant to be). He takes my name to start with, but knows less than zero about the Rigvedic-Avestan-Mitanni common vocabulary and its implications, which is one of the most irrefutable and clinching aspects of my OIT case.

5. "**Rig Veda makes a mention of Saraswati (Ghagghar Hakra) when it was a great big river some 7000-9000 years ago.Saraswati became seasonal later, how did Rig Vedic people write about Saraswati when it was in full force?**Saraswati is bound to remain a mystery given how less writing survives from the Vedic era, yet let me make an attempt to put the Saraswati question in context.Saraswati, according started to decline around 3000 BCE. Which should be contemporaneous with the Indus valley civilisation, more specifically, the Early Harappan Phase which lasted from 3300-2600 BCE. Now the problem with Saraswati arises when we take Rig Veda as the reference document for accurately dating itself. At 3000 BCE, in the Sapta Sindhu region, Sanskrit was not being used. We know this for a fact because we find no remnants of Sanskrit in the Indus Valley seals or other items there".

I need not point out his complete ignorance about all my writings on the Sarasvati (or those of other eminent scholars like Elst and Danino), but the last sentence provides us with vintage Wodehouse humor: "At 3000 BCE, in the Sapta Sindhu region, Sanskrit was not being used. We know this for a fact because we find no remnants of Sanskrit in the Indus Valley seals or other items there." He also apparently knows for a fact that some non-Sanskrit language was "being used" in the Sapta Sindhu region, because remnants of that non-Sanskrit language have been found there!!

But he continues: "issue that comes up is about the horses. Horses were not a thing in Asia minor till around 1800-1700 BCE. Rig Veda mentions horses extensively. We find no irrefutable proof of horses in the Indus Valley. I have seen the seals and most of the publically available items with my own two eyes. There are no horses to be found there. Other cattle are found, just not horses. . The problem with dating rig Veda pre-1800BCE is that the horse question remains unsolved. How can a civilization that did not see horses write so much about horses?"

Again, total ignorance about the state of the horse-debate, or my own writings on the subject. This mastermind has seen with his "own two eyes" that the no horses can be found in the Indus seals! Can one argue with that? Also, he has also apparently identified the exact location and date of the Rigveda to a geographical spot and time-frame where the Rigvedic composers should have been able to "write so much about horses". If only he would condescend to reveal this mysterious geographical spot and time-frame to ignorant archaeologists who have failed as yet to find any place and time in ancient India where horses-bones were so abundant that the Rigvedic composers should have been able to "write so much about horses" — but then this toolkit was not available to them earlier than four months ago!

6. "Astronomical evidence: In short: it is pseudoscience. Astronomical evidence cannot be taken on face value when other material evidence is against it. Plain and simple".

It's not really that plain and simple: Koenraad Elst has identified two or three references in the Vedic texts which are indeed scientific and not pseudo-science., and unfortunately for this toolkit-master, many serious western academics accept the veracity of these particular references and their datings, even if they are not able to explain them within the parameters of their AIT paradigm.

However, astronomical references (other than these two or three) have never been part of my case, and in fact even these two or three references, though correct, do not form a part of the evidence for my case as I have presented it from my analysis of the Rigveda.

7. "Yamnaya people were not white, hence they were indian."

Now frankly, I have never ever taken the Yamnaya people into my discussions (except perhaps somewhere incidentally in the course of detailing the AIT case), let alone spoken about the color of their skin or their nationality! And frankly speaking, I do not know anyone who has! I don't know whose utterances have been picked up by this mahaguru as a major argument of the OIT or even anti-AIt side!!

8. "These accounts were written by racist Britishers: There is some truth to it. The British were racists who gave the Aryan INVASION theory. Various Indian scholars have also concluded that there was no invasion, but migration in small waves. This is an outdated theory which no one accepts."

Again, this mastermind, who can provide scholars with a toolkit to debunk the OIT, shows that he has not read anything written by me on the subject. Not only have I never accused the Indologists (whether Britishers or otherwise) of racist intentions in concocting an AIT, but I have regularly taken up cudgels in my writings in support of the innate sincerity (if blinkered vision) of the Indologists. And, further, I have shown in great detail, with very precise quotations, how scholars like Witzel who claim, when speaking against the lack of archaeological and skeletal evidence for the AIT, that talking about an invasion is "an outdated theory which no one accepts", but in the very next breath, when analyzing the textual data in the Rigveda, describe what they consider to be Rigvedic references to the Aryan invaders fighting their way through the mountainous borderlands of India, fighting forty-year long battles to destroy indigenous fortresses, actually destroying hundreds of forts and even killing, in single incidents, 30,000, 50,000 and 100,000 natives (WITZEL 1995b:322, 324)!

9. "Chariots found in Sinauli is conclusive proof of chariots being indigenous to India".

Certainly I have never made any such claim, and in any case it is not part of my data and evidence.

10. "Horse paintings at Bhimbetka in MP which date back to 10,000-20,000 years BP".

Again, I I have never made any such claim, and in any case it is not part of my data and evidence.

That is all this path-breaking toolkit (or "definitive guide") knows about the OIT case! If this is the best that woke/leftists can produce in the "debunking the Out of India 'theory'" line, only God/Jehovah/Allah/Marx/Mao/RomilaThapar can save them!