Is This True Or Is
Jijith lying?
Shrikant G. Talageri
I have been sent the following tweet put up today By Jijith Nadumuri Ravi:
“I have minor differences with Shrikant Talageri. Not substantial - as per my PoV and most of which is supported by Dr Koenraad Elst's PoV, such as:- Sarayu as Haro in Pakistan vs Sarayu as Harirud in Afghanistan. Sarasvati Origin vs East UP Origin. Early Rgvedic Trasadasyu vs Late Rgvedic Trasadasyu. Manu, Ila, Ikswaku, Pururavas, Mandhata, Dividasa, Sudas etc in Haryana vs All of them in Eastern UP.”
8:23 AM. Apr 10, 2025
These differences are not minor. They are very, very substantial differences on very basic points. The extremely long list of distortions, fabrications, and fictitious entities and events in Jijith’s book is a different matter which I ignore here.
Here Jijith clearly states in a public tweet that Koenraad Elst supports his “POV” on most of these issues.
There are four differences here, as Jijith also lists them out:
1. According to me, the Sarayu of the Rigveda is the Harirud of Afghanistan, and according to Jijith it is the Haro river in northern Punjab.
2. According to me, the Ikṣvākus originated in eastern U.P., and according to Jijith, they originated on the Sarasvati.
3. According to me Trasadasyu is a Late Rigvedic figure, and according To Jijith, he is an Early Rigvedic figure.
4. The last sentence is false, at least regarding what Jijith claims are my assertions. Yes, Jijith does place Manu, Ila, Ikswaku, Pururavas, Mandhata, Divodasa, Sudas etc in Haryana. But it is a blatant lie that I have located them all in Eastern U.P. I have located only Ikswakus (including Mandhata) in Eastern U.P. I have located Divodasa, Sudas etc in Haryana. And I have not located Manu, Ila, and Pururavas anywhere (having had neither the occasion, nor the evidence, to locate them anywhere in particular).
But that is not the main lie in this tweet. Jijith (who could have simply stated his own opinion, instead of indulging in his habit of citing or claiming supportive testimonies from other people) states clearly that his own views are “supported by Dr Koenraad Elst's PoV”. Is this true, or is it a lie?
It is not for Jijith to appoint himself the spokesman for other people while they remain silent. Koenraad Elst should come out openly (now that Jijith has publicly testified for him) that he agrees with Jijith that:
1. The Sarayu of the Rigveda is the Haro river in northern Punjab.
2. The Ikṣvākus originated on the Sarasvati.
3. Trasadasyu is an Early Rigvedic figure.
4. Manu,
Ila, Ikswaku, Pururavas, Mandhata, Dividasa, Sudas etc. were all in Haryana.
If Elst agrees on all these points, everyone’s views will be clearly out in the open. If he does not, then the above tweet must be recognized as a lie.
APPENDIX ADDED on Evening of same date: 10 April 2025:
Very understandably, Koenraad has opted to be diplomatic in his reply to this article. He has put up two tweets, in the first of which he seems to neither support my stand nor Jijith’s. And in the second, he seems to be giving partial and tentative “equal” support to both!
A direct appeal to me, here. Reply: about the location of the Sarayu
or about the character Trasadasyu, I have never given an opinion nor do I have
any. I hope I haven’t said anything that somehow inplies an affirmation about
Trasadasyu or the Sarayu.
1:53 PM . Aprl 10, 2025
2/
Manu & kids' location is a hard nut to crack. Identifying their cities w/
Mānuṣa & Ilāspada sounds plausible,& archaeology suggests a massive
migration from Haryana to UP ca. 1900, confirmed by the Epics. But then,
Nahuṣa-Yayāti coming from the Gaṅgā west is also plausible.
5:06 PM . Apr 10, 2025.
But,
while Trasadasyu may be an issue on which there is no consensus as such
about early and late, there is an absolute consensus among almost
all scholars (and certainly all academic scholars) that the
Sarayu of the Rigveda is the Harirud of Afghanistan.
Perhaps Koenraad is letting diplomacy run away with him in this matter. But,
as I said, at least he clarifies that he has no definite opinion on either the Sarayu
or Trasadasyu. (and does not endorse Jijith’s “PoV”).
In the matter of Manu and Iḷā, again, while suggesting that “Mānuṣa & Ilāspada sounds plausible & archaeology suggests a massive migration from Haryana to UP ca. 1900, confirmed by the Epics”, there are many weak points. Firstly, both Manu and Iḷā are not that definitely established as historical figures that the two names “Mānuṣa & Ilāspada” alone should suggest (in the absence of any other data) that they lived in Haryana. [Nor is there any data suggesting “Nahuṣa-Yayāti coming from the Gaṅgā west”: I certainly have made no such claims. Concrete citable data about the geographical locations, and even the absolute historicity, of Nahuṣa and Yayāti is as completely absent as in the case of Manu and Iḷā.]
And the “massive migration from Haryana to UP ca. 1900” suggested by archaeology does not provide evidence of Ikṣvākus migrating: there is absolutely no recorded data suggesting this. On the other hand, the eastward-expanding horizon of the post-Rigvedic Veda Samhitas, as well as the gradual appearance of Pūru kingdoms eastwards as far as Bihar (see my last article on the Mahājanapadas), does provide evidence that it was the Pūrus who expanded eastwards.
So, however diplomatically and neutrally Koenraad words his replies, the one thing that is clear is that he does not outright support Jijith’s “PoV” (in opposition to mine) on any of the four points. So Jijith’s tweet has to be recognized as a lie.
FINAL APPENDIX added 11 April 2025:
Perhaps nothing illustrates Jijith’s method of deriving historical conclusions than a tweet he put up yesterday:
“Vedic Map of Haryana, the true homeland of Manu & Iḷā! Hence, it is also the homeland of Ikṣvāku (son of Manu and brother of Iḷā). Manu was at Manusha (Manas); Iḷā was at Iḷaspada (Shergarh) [….]”
8:19 PM. Apr 10 2025.
One can imagine a Pauranik film on the Ramayana showing a scene of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa residing in one residence in Ayodhya, because, whatever else may or may not be disputed about the Ramayana, no-one will dispute that Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa were brothers and therefore must have been living in the same house (or palace, or whatever) or at least in one vicinity.
One can go further and imagine a Pauranik film depicting the family of Manu with brother Ikṣvāku and sister Iḷā living in the same house and area. But it must be realized that Manu, Ikṣvāku and Iḷā are not literally a “family” in the sense of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa. They are reconstructed Pauranik figures and part of a narrative bringing all the people of India under one mythical ancestry of “Manu”. Nevertheless, a Pauranik film could very reasonably be made with such a depiction.
The question is, how excusable is it for a scientist to use this kind of logic to “prove” a contentious point of historical debate? Jijith argues that the place names Mānuṣa and Iḷāspada in Rigvedic Haryana prove that Manu and Iḷā were historical figures living in Haryana. From this, he argues “Hence, it is also the homeland of Ikṣvāku (son of Manu and brother of Iḷā)”. Elsewhere, he also deduces from this that the Original Ayodhya (since Ikṣvāku was the ruler of Ayodhya) was also in Haryana.
And, a question that defenders of Jijith’s case will avoid asking or answering: how does any of this, or any of anything else, prove the Dravidian Invasion Theory (which is much more untenable than the AIT) and the alleged origin of the Dravidian languages in SW Iran?
After this, I think it will be best for me to leave things to take their own course, and avoid any further comments on Jijith's AIOIT case.
I say this as one who has read your books and is generally supportive of your scholarship: could you PLEASE ease up on the name-calling? It does not help your cause. Jijith may not be in sync with you on everything, but it would be have been easier to state your position with evidence and not call him a liar.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree on the diplomatic angle, I am not sure if calling a statement "lie" equals calling the person "liar". Both are worlds apart. One is a specific point out, where as you are stretching it too far by using the word "liar".
ReplyDeleteShrikant Ji, your sharpness has brought much needed careful look at this whole thing. Perhaps this will bring more co-ordination between you and Jijith ji hopefully 🙏
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between calling a specific statement a lie and classifying a person as a liar. Here, listing out certain points and claiming that Elst supports him on those points, when Elst is clearly trying to avoid getting into controversial arguments and taking a stand, is indefensible.
DeleteWhat people who find my reaction to Jijith an over-reaction (and to an extent it may be so) do not see that Jijith is basically attacking the fundamental aspects of my OIT case (the Bharata Purus being the sole "People of the Book", the internal division of the Rigveda into Old and New, the meticulous care for authentic data while making identifications, etc.) while giving people the impression that he is "developing" my own case "further": which is why I find it a Trojan Horse attack. And now he is openly advocating a Dravidian invasion theory, which no-one is talking about. So coordination is not quite possible. It may not be obvious from my criticism of his writings, but I am really sad because I had a good personal friendship with him, but he leaves no choice in the matter. Hopefully, Elst's clarification ends this controversy.
I have the advantage on you. I know you quite well through your published work and you don't know me at all. I am irrelevant, and your work is important in establishing the chronology of the Vedas and the Vedic people and potentially to the spread of IE languages. I have benefited greatly from reading (and often rereading) your work, and now I am slogging through the Rig Veda myself. My observation, as an admirer, is that you always have your flame-thrower ready to blast and incinerate, whether you are aiming at Witzel or poor Jijith. Not even your fiercest critic is likely to mistake Jijith's (or Oak's) work to be an extension of your opus or believe that discrediting them would automatically invalidate your contributions.
DeleteYou have noted points of concurrence with Heggarty et al's "hybrid" paper. It would be wonderful if you could connect with linguists like him and sympathetic but independent-minded geneticists/archaeologists in India and abroad, perhaps organize a conference on the current state of PIE (now that Harvard seems to be retreating from the Steppe hypothesis). I would pay money to attend such a conference and contribute to facilitating it.
You are right when you say I always seem to have my "flame-thrower ready to blast and incinerate", and I have accepted it many times that I react or over-react too soon. But that is not the case in respect of Witzel or "poor Jijith". The very fact that you did not also say "poor Witzel" shows why I find Jijijith's version more lethal to the OIT and to Indian civilization. Instead of caring about what people may say about my critizing Jijith, I am more worried about dying and going from this world leaving the OIT to the mercies of such people without setting matters right when I am still alive to do so.
DeleteIt is a pipe-dream to expect established western academics to go against the stranglehold of the system and to even seem to be ready to connect or coordinate with me. Instead of attending conferences (which, as Sita Ram Goel had correctly told me when I was invited to the World Sanskrit Conference in Delhi in 2001) it is better to spend my remaining energies in producing real material for future conferences. Incidentally, would you also pay money to attend or contribute to a conference on "poor Jijith's" Dravidian Invasion theory?
I wouldn't attend a conference on the Dravidian Invasion Theory unless there were substantial evidence to set the stage to make it plausible. I wouldn't go to a Nilesh Oak presentation for the same reason, although I must say that Jijith, unlike Oak, crosses the threshold of plausibility some of the time. (Maybe this is why you are more afraid of Jijith.)
DeleteI don't have your distrust of "western academics" since I am (or was) part of the system. i have more faith in peer review and self-correction in the search for truth in scientific inquiry. Part of the difficulty of the current state of affairs in IE origins research is the sheer weight of multi-author (typically over a hundred) papers. When a large multi-expert, multi-discipline group backs a finding, the inertia makes it much harder to retract a theory or even look for counterexamples. (If you will pardon the expression, we call this a "clusterfuck.") However, the tide eventually turns and the self-correction of the system does kick in. (For example, the Narasimhan 2019 paper has been silently sidelined, albeit without admitting its many flaws.) And there are enough principled researchers (Paul Heggarty comes to mind) who resist falling in line with the prestige of, say, the Harvard group and doing their own independent work. David Reich's exclusive backing of the Steppe hypothesis may have set things back by a decade or so, but he himself has expressed doubts recently; not only that, he has made available the entire corpus of ancient and modern DNA resources free to download and corroborate or refute the findings of his group.
Being the same age as you, I heartily support your resolve to devote your remaining energies to producing real material instead of dissipating it on trying to collaborate with those who are as suspicious of you as you are of them. I look forward to another compilation of your findings!
I have no interest in taking the credit of Talageri's OIT hypothesis. My whole objective to study Rgveda was to give a chronological anchor to Ramayana and Mahabharata, not for creating an alternate OIT theory. But I did see discrepancies in Talageri's location of the Rgvedic Sarayu in Afghanistan, even when Sarayu and Sindhu appear as new river in the 4th Mandala while the western tributaries of Sindhu like Kubha (Kabul) River giving access to Afghanistan appear much later in the 5th Mandala. Similarly, he dismisses Trasadasyu mentioned in 7th Mandala as not an Early Rgvedic king based on his own assumptions. Details in my larger comment under this blogpost.
DeleteMy responses regarding the Elamo-Dravidian Hypothesis (which Talageri called as me backing DIT) is captured as comments in this new blogpost where Talageri again called me a liar.
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/04/jijith-retractsretracts-on-dravidian.html?sc=1744563148135#c1570934286690647566
Sir if Ikṣvāku and manu are not related and reconstructed backwards to be a family in puranas then what was the language spoken by Ikṣvākus?
ReplyDeleteThe Iksvakus were definitely Indo-European language speakers. If you have been reading my books and articles on the linguistic aspect of the OIT, you will know that the Purus were just one of the many IE speaking groups in India. Groups among the Anus and Druhyus migrated out and developed into the other 11 branches of the IE family. Those Anus and Druhyus who remained behind got Puruized, but retained many words from their original languages (for trees found only in the NW, etc.) which are found in the other branches but missing in the Puru "Rigvedic" language. Likewise there were many other IE language groups in India the Yadus, Iksvakus etc. speaking other (than the Puru or Vedic) forms of IE, and they retain many original PIE features not found in the Vedic language. All these inner IE languages became Puruized (like the remmant Anu and Druhyu forms of speech). Many later Sanskrit words (leftovers from these eastern IE languages) are not counted among IE words because the IE paradigm has been formed only from a comparative study of the Rigvedic Puru language with the earliest recorded languages (Hittite, Greek, etc.) of the 11 emigrant branches. It was assumed (wrongly) that all Indian IE languages are descended from Rigvedic Sanskrit, but they are actually descended from other IE languages which became Puruized ("Sanskritized"). There are many clues, e.g. in Sinhalese (which has retained "watura:" for English "water" and Hiitite "watar", not found in Vedic. There is at least one other extant language retaining many non-Vedic IE words: Bangani in Uttarakhand.
DeleteWhat is this Shrikant Talageri Ji?
ReplyDeleteYour messages are becoming shriller and shriller and more and more insulting these days!
I have seen many of your new blogposts like this where I am the subject of ridicule. But out of respect for you and not to spam this group, I have not responded to them.
I still consider you as my Guru. That status has not changed.
All your criticisms against my book Rivers of Ṛgveda is already been addressed by me multiple times in Indica-emails and Academia Edu Papers. We also did a face-to-face debate at Chanakya University, where Dr Koenraad Elst was also a participant. There also, you were putting forth already refuted arguments, without bringing anything new into the table.
Now, you are after my general tweets and casual writings in social media too. These are generally used by people for informal conversations and occasionally for informal debates - where different ideas are debated, evaluated and new ideas evolve. For a more formal presentation, people write books to solidify their arguments.
https://x.com/yajnadevam/status/1910125299968200840
In the particular tweet you are referring to in reply to Yajnadevam's tweet about my Rgvedic Migration Map which has now 11K views, responding to a minor sub-tweet, I only implied Dr Elst is in general agreement with me on many points, not on those specific points. The list in the tweet is a list of our disagreements and not a list of Dr Elst's agreements with me. Neither me, nor Dr Elst would have given much importance to it if you had not written a scathing blog on your blog site with such a title: " Is this True or Is Jijith Lying?". Naming a person in the title and accusing him as a liar, etc, is crossing the limits, Shrikantk Ji. Please control your tone of writing.
For others, I am reproducing my old arguments on Trasadasyu and Sarayu, bringing it into their memory:-
On Sarayu as Haro.
The name Haro itself makes it very clear. Sarayu (Vedic) -> Harôyû (Avestan) -> Haro. This is simple word morphology at play. The 'yû' part of Harôyû is dropped due to the passage of time, transforming Harôyû into Haro.
Sarayu - Harôyû - Harô-[yû] - Haro
In addition Ṛgveda gives a hint that Sarayu is in between Sarasvati and Sindhu (and hence not to the west of Sindhu like Harirud in Afghanistan).
RV 10.64.9: sarasvatī sarayuḥ sindhur ūrmibhir maho mahīr avasā yantu vakṣaṇīḥ
Here, the sequence of the rivers is Sarasvatī, Sarayu, and Sindhu. This hints that Sarayu has to be located between Sarasvatī and Sindhu. We have identified the Ṛgvedic Sarasvatī as the Ghaggar-Hakra river flowing through Haryana. Hence, as per verse 10.64.9, Sarayu has to be located to the west of Ghaggar-Hakra and the east of Indus. Sarasvatī-Sarayu-Sindhu in verse 10.64.9 is an east to west river sequence like found in the 10.75.5 of the Nadī Sūkta.
Finally, when we follow the Mandala Chronology established by Shrikant Talageri himself, 6,3,7,4,2,1,5,8,9,10, we have the river Sarayu first mentioned in the 4th Mandala. River Sindhu (Indus) is also mentioned chronologically for the 1st time in the 4th Mandala.
We get clear evidence of crossing Sindhu to its west only in the 5th Mandala onwards, where the western tributaries of Sindhu like Kubha (Kabul River) and Krumu (Kurran) are mentioned for the first time. Thus, the Vedic People and their Anava enemies, being chased by them, reached the west of Sindhu only in the 5th Mandala Period onwards and later in the 8th, 9th 10th Mandalas as well as in the Post-Rgvedic Period.
Thus, the identification of Rgvedic Sarayu as Harirud in Afghanistan to the west of Sindhu is INVALID and FALSE.
On Trasadasyu's Status as an Early Rgvedic King
DeleteWithout any hesitation, we can say Trasadasyu was a 7th Mandala king, hence Early Rgvedic. Here is the complete mention of Trasadasyu in Rgveda:-
image.png
Note 7.19.3: You (Indra) helped on Trasadasyu, son of Purukutsa, and Pūru in the winning of land, in the smashing of obstacles. - Reported by Vasistha.
The only possible counter to this is to plead that this hymn 7.19 is a late-hymn in 7th Mandala. But that is not possible because it is not classified as late-hymn by Oldenberg or Aitareya Brahmana.
Below is the list of Late-Hymns in the Family Mandalas 2,3,4,5,6,7 as declared by either Oldenberg or Aitareya Brahmana. The Hymns 7.18 (Dasarajna Battle) or 7.19 (the list of kings helped or punished by Indra) are not Late-Hymns based on the declarations of Oldenberg or Aitareya Brahmana.
image.png
Thus, Trasadasyu is an Early Rgvedic King.
Sarasvati Origin vs East UP Origin (especially Ikshvaku Origin)
Because we don't yet have time machines, all of us can only argue based on available data. When arguing based on data, we often go with the oldest available data. The oldest available data about Manu and Ila is Rgveda.
Rgveda says, in its earliest Mandalas itself, that Manusha (a place related to Manu) and Ilaspada (a place related to Ila) are in Vara Prithivya, geographically identified as Northern Haryana and later known as Kurukshetra. This region is watered by rivers like Sarasvati, Apaya and Drishadvati. This naturally places Manu and his daughter Ila in Northern Haryana.
Naturally, Manu's son and Ila's brother Ikhvaku have to be located in the same region. If we follow the convention of the son inheriting the abode of the father, Ikshvaku will naturally dwell in Manusha after Manu. This is why I say the most ancient 'Manu's Ayodhya' and 'Ikshvaku's Ayodhya' is Manusha itself. It can also be some other place nearby. But that is for future researchers to find out, probably using a Time Machine. Based on currently available information, Ikshvaku, as located in Manusha, is the best fit.
Naturally, it follows that Sarasvati was the ancient Ancestral Sarayu, where the Iksvaku lineage developed. I get several data in support of this like Ikshvaku's descendant Mandhata - another ancient king (pre-Rgvedic as per Rgveda) in Yamuna-Sarasvati region as per Mahabharata and Manthata fighting the rulers of Mathura as per Ramayana.
I have also traced an eastward migration from Ancestral Sarayu (that is Sarasvati) to Yamuna, Ganga and Eastern Sarayu (Ghagara), which is shrouded in cryptic poetry in Valmiki Ramayana. Sagara and his son Asamanja in Ancestral Sarayu - Sagara's grandson Amsumat connected to Amsumati (another name of Yamuna), Amsumat's grandson Bhagiratha connected to Bhagirathi (another name of Ganga) and their descendants Aja, Dasaratha and Rama connected to Eastern Sarayu and its Ayodhya city as per the entire Valmiki Ramayana corpus.
This clearly shows that Ikshvakus originated in the Sarasvati Region just like the Pancha Janas (Yadu, Turvasa, Anu, Druhyu & Puru) descended from Ila-Pururavas-Ayus-Nahusha-Yayati.
Manu, Ila, Ikswaku, Pururavas, Mandhata, Dividasa, Sudas, etc. in Haryana vs all of them in Eastern UP
DeleteI put this point because in various earlier conversations with Talageri Ji, I have seen him influenced by the very late Puranic data.
Examples are Manu as the founder of Ayodhya city of UP, Ikshvaku and Mandhata as rulers of this UP's Ayodhya, Ila as connected to Prayaga (Ilahabad / Allahabad), Pururavas as connected to Prathisthana near Prayaga, Divodasa and Sudas as rulers of Kashi, etc. This is a general list of late associations made by the late Puranas after the eastward migrations from Sarasvati reached Ayodya, Prayaga and Kashi. This is not an exclusive list. Different people believe parts of it, or completely.
None of the places have an antiquity older than 2000 BCE in archaeology. This is the reality of 2025. This falsifies the very late Puranic assertions about these individuals as located in these far eastern locations.
In contrast, near Sarasvati, we have the oldest sites like Bhirrana (8000 BCE), Rakhigarhi (7000 BCE) and Kunal (4000 BCE). This confirms the Early Rgvedic assertions about these individuals as located in Haryana.
If Talageri Ji currently doesn't hold onto these views, then I am Okay. So be it!
About Trasadasyu, please read my two blogs to see the absurdity of your assertions about him being an early king:
Deletehttps://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/02/purukutsa-trasadasyu-and-internal.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html
And please don't try to avoid giving me the quotations from my books where you say I have located Manu, Ila, Pururavas, Divodasa, Sudas, etc. in the east. No amount of blustering and whining can be a substitute for evidence. Or please accept that you were lying.