Koenraad Elst on the OIT-vs.AIOIT debate

 

Koenraad Elst on the OIT-vs.AIOIT debate

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Apparently, AIT trolls on twitter are crowing over the OIT-vs.-AIOIT battle between Jijth and myself. There was absolutely no reason for me to ever believe this would not happen, and I care two figs about who is crowing and who is sobbing: if such were my concerns I would never have started writing on this subject 35 years ago and I would always have been avoiding taking on attacks from one front in order to try to prevent some other front “crowing”. My aim is to leave no legitimate question, and no likely-to-be-successful-as-propaganda attack, unanswered. If I sometimes wonder whether I could have been more discreet, that is a minor matter. I am not standing for elections or counting votes or "likes", and have no monetary gains or losses to consider. In the long run, facts will matter, not sweet words.

Actually, I have said everything that is to be said in the debate, and if people don’t read what I have already written many times, I will not bank on their reading it if I write the same thing again for the umpteenth time. So my basic debate with Jijith is over. I am writing an article on historical and mythical personalities in the Rigveda, and will post it when it is over, but not as part of a now completed debate.

 

But the occasion for this short article is that Koenraad has apparently finally replied in public on this debate.

Apparently, one person asked Koenraad:

https://x.com/clstephensenior

“Sir What do you make of the heated exchange of words between Sir Shrikant Talageri and Mr Jijith nadumuri. Sir Talageri calls Jijith a proponent of AIOIT and accuses him of sabotaging the internal chronology of Rigveda and thereby undermining the OIT itself.

1:51 AM · May 1, 2025”

And Koenraad answered:

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

“Overdone. On Ilā & Ikṣvāku's location, Jijith has the more up-to-date case, taking the archaeo migration patterns into account. On Trasadasyu, Shrikant has convincingly countered Jijith. That at least is my provisional conclusion in the evolving field that is ancient history.

11:57 AM · May 1, 2025”

 

Everyone has a right to his opinion, and, as I said, this debate as such is over from my side. But I find Koenraad’s reply rather “Secularist”: it is like Secularists who try to show neutrality between Hindus and Muslims in any discussion on the subject of any riot by equally apportioning blame to both sides, a trend which has been much discussed in Voice of India books.

Also, Koenraad apparently referred disparagingly to my use of ad hominem and rude and intemperate language. That is fair enough, and I have no objections at all to his strictures (or indeed, anyone’s strictures) on my rude style of writing. My critics on this point may be perfectly right, but it does not invalidate my data, logic or arguments, or my case in general.

 

But I cannot leave this statement on data, logic and arguments unanswered: “On Ilā and Ikṣvāku’s location, Jijith has the more up-to-date case, taking the archaeo migration patterns into account”.

What exactly is this case based on “archaeo migration patterns”, and for “Ilā  and Ikṣvāku’s location”? I expected a more sensible reply from Koenraad.

Till today, after decades of discussion on the dāśarājña battle, no-one (least of all I myself) has been able to locate or produce any kind of “archaeo …. patterns” for even the exact geographical location (beyond the broad conclusion that it was somewhere in Haryana and Punjab) for the most important events of the battle: either the exact location of Sudās’ capital, the location of the exact spot where Sudās held his sacrifice before marching out for conquest in all directions, or the exact location where the battle took place. All that we know about the battle is based on the literary descriptions in the Rigveda, and we cannot narrow down the geographical locations further than what the texts tell us: no “archaeo …. patterns” are involved anywhere.    

But (at least to my knowledge), no scholar has doubted that Sudās is indeed a historical figure, and that the textual records of the battle in the Rigveda are historical records.

On the other hand, the only thing we know about Iḷā from the Rigveda is that she is a Goddess – one of the Three Great Goddesses lauded in all the āprī-sūktas in the Rigveda. And the word Ikṣvāku occurs only once in the Rigveda as a name or epithet of the Sun. Neither does the Rigveda give the tiniest piece of evidence that these were two actual living historical figures, And nor does it give any hint that they lived on the banks of the Sarasvati. That one of the holy sites on the Sarasvati is called Iḷāspada is not conclusive evidence of anything historical in the matter of any person named Iḷā. And about Ikṣvāku, even that kind of flimsy textual argument is missing.

Then, if there is no textual argument in the Rigveda, are there actually some kind of “archaeo migration patterns” showing that Ikṣvāku and Iḷā were located on the Sarasvati and (they or their descendants) migrated from there? I knew pots and pans could not speak (any more than genetic haplogroups). Have they, for the first time in the history of archaeology, started speaking – for Iḷā and Ikṣvāku? I mean, exactly what new kind of archaeological evidence is this which can tell us the locations and migrations of individual persons whose status even as “historical” or “mythical” is still unresolved?

Not the Rigveda, but the Epics and Puranas, do give us the location of the Ikṣvākus (I will not say the eponymous Ikṣvāku), if not about Iḷā. And they are all unanimous in stating that the Ikṣvākus originally lived in north-central-eastern U.P and Bihar. And, except for one group descended from Mandhātā (after he temporarily moved over to do battle in the northwest and sired a new side-branch of Ikṣvākus there, which always remained distinct from the main branch in the east, as per the unanimous Rigvedic-Epic-Puranic testimony), the Ikṣvākus were always in the east (even till the time of the Buddha and Mahavir).

But then, I forget. It is not textual testimony, but archeology which tells us that Iḷā and the eponymous Ikṣvāku lived in Haryana. Is this a new branch of archaeology as yet known only to a select few?

If what Koenraad means (though that is not what he says) is that archaeological patterns of movement show movement from Haryana to the east, well, I have already pointed out many times that this pattern shows the expansion of Pūru kingdoms from Haryana to the east, confirmed by the expanding (from Haryana to the east) horizon of the three other Veda Samhitas, and by the resulting map of Pūru Mahājanapadas before the time of the Buddha. How does it show Ikṣvāku migrations west to east?

Well, nothing illustrates better than this (Koenraad’s “politically balanced” answer) the impossibility of expecting factually balanced conclusions from anyone. And again confirms me in my knowledge that I have to be frank and honest and fearless (though perhaps less rude) in my presentations without bothering about people “crowing” or barking.