Manu Vaivasvata’s “Court” in Ayodhya

Manu Vaivasvata’s “Court” in Ayodhya

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I have no intention of writing articles on history or politics any more. But when a campaign of disinformation is being carried on against me (or rather against my OIT case) from quarters which I, for over thirty years, wrongly thought were friendly quarters, I cannot remain silent. Lies are being written about my OIT case in public forums like twitter (X) and in mail discussions, which are distorting the strictly honest, logical and data-based OIT case that I have perfected over the decades, and presenting it as something ridiculous. The sad fact is that lies, once uttered in public, remain in public memory and get perpetuated to the extent that they remain alive while clarifications about the truth get blurred and lost in the fog of misinformation. And these lies are being repeated again and again, in spite of my equally repeated clarifications pointing out that they are lies. My clarifications, being mainly on email discussion threads but also in many of the articles I have written, may not be noticed as clearly as they should, so I am writing this article specially so that this particular lie which is making my OIT case look ridiculous is specifically nailed without other issues diverting the attention of readers.

This particular lie, being repeatedly publicized by two persons, Jijith Nadumuri Ravi and Koenraad Elst, is that according to my OIT case, the ancestral Puranic king Manu Vaivsvata, ruled in Ayodhya, and Divodāsa and Sudās ruled in Kashi! I have so often repeatedly clarified this issue by pointing out that I have nowhere in my books or articles ever made such ridiculous claims, the duo is repeatedly making these claims on twitter (and God alone knows on which other forums). I tolerated it for more than a year. But Koenraad Elst’s recent reiteration of this lie on twitter has become the last straw for me.

Just six days ago, on June 8 2025, I wrote my previous (to this) article “Out With The Old, In With The New” where I referred to this lie very specifically for the umpteenth time as follows: “3. In addition, my OIT version is being misrepresented by having it falsely propagated that in my OIT I have claimed that the Rigvedic Aryans originated in Kashi or Ayodhya, and that Manu ruled from Ayodhya or Kashi, and Divodāsa and Sudās ruled from Kashi (in spite of my clear and consistent reiterations of the fact that the Pūrus lived in the Sarasvati area and only the Ikṣvākus originally lived in the east in and to the east of the Avadh region up to Bihar).”

 

In spite of that, and even after reading that, Koenraad Elst put up the following provocative tweet just two days ago on June 12 2025:

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

“So much the better. Sometimes one is glad to have been wrong. At any rate, the only extant alternative to Shrikant Talageri's locating Manu in Ayodhya is Jijith Nadumuri Ravi, locating him in Haryana. I have no new arguments to add to their respective positions.”

4:08 PM. June 12, 2025.

So I added an appendix to my article (of June 8 2025) as follows:

“Unbelievable, highly unprincipled and shameful! After all my articles on this point (see above even in this very article) Koenraad is still lying through his teeth claiming that I have located Manu in Ayodhya. I challenge him to stop lying or else to point out the exact quote from any book or article of mine where I have located Manu in Ayodhya. These are not differences of opinion or interpretation: these are blatant lies (where ridiculous claims are being concocted and attributed to me) which anyone can verify as lies merely by checking up my writings!”

Anyone with an iota of honesty and shame would have immediately accepted that he was “wrong” (even if he could not admit outright that he was deliberately and repeatedly lying as part of a disinformation campaign to make my version of the OIT look ridiculous) and made a correction. But this brazen and defiant reiteration of this lie has not yet been corrected till the time I am uploading this present article.

 

Not only is he repeating this lie again and again, but he is actually getting people to agree with him that I am writing wrong things! Apparently one of the replies to his tweet by someone who claims to find my case convincing (after Koenraad condescendingly praised my OIT case as follows: “Talageri's enormous achievement of establishing the OIT to merely the exact intra-Indian, intra-Homeland location of Manu's Court.” Yes, that is right: Manu’s “Court” which I am supposed to have located in Ayodhya!) was:

https://x.com/jugram51036

“Talageri is just factually wrong on that point though”: disinformation successful!

 

I have always tried to avoid criticizing Koenraad Elst on so many points in the past because I know it is a fact that he has spent his whole life in the service of Hindu causes, and suffered strongly for that (financially, academically, health-wise, and in his social and domestic life), apart from being viciously neglected by a largely ungratefully Hindu society (and Hindu organizations which have benefitted from his writings). Once, when someone brought to my notice that he had written an article many years ago claiming that Yoga is not Indian but was imported from China, I wrote (on that reader’s request) an article completely demolishing his wrong claim, but I hesitated to put up anything which would give his critics more fodder. So I sent him a copy of the article and put it up on my blogspot only after he said he had no objection.

 

It is probably this neglect by an ungrateful Hindu society which made him latch on to an “ISRO Scientist” who could put him in touch with influential quarters. Ever since Jijith wrote his absolutely ridiculous book “Rivers of the Rigveda” in 2022, Koenraad has become a complete propagandist for the book. His claim that Jijith’s book supports the OIT rather than the AIT does not explain this all-out refusal to note the glaring mistakes and OIT-destructive claims in Jijith’s book: after all, Nilesh Oak is also an OIT supporter and not an AIT one, and Koenraad has not become a propagandist of his books. I have repeatedly pointed out the utter ridiculousness of Jijith’s book on the Rigveda, and will not bother to repeat them here. It is strange that Koenraad, who was always so open and honest has suddenly become a partisan propagandist who is “blind” to all this. He has also been propagating the claim that Jijith’s book is an advancement of my OIT case, without caring to point out a single point to that effect.

Nevertheless, even while criticizing Jijith’s nonsense I consistently tried to avoid criticizing Koenraad Elst because I felt Koenraad deserves every good thing that happens to him, in view of the massive debt that Hindu society and Hindus owe him.

However, now “pani sar se upar gaya hai”. I would have continued to ignore his promotion of Jijith’s extremely faulty writings as the result of his personal compulsions. But I cannot and will not ignore any more these repeated blatant lies about my writings which seem to be an attempt to make my OIT case look as ridiculous as Jijith’s AIOIT case:

“Shrikant Talageri's locating Manu in Ayodhya … Jijith Nadumuri Ravi, locating him in Haryana”!!

I have repeatedly challenged Koenraad to point out where I have ever claimed that Manu Vaivasvata was a king of Ayodhya. He not only refuses to try to substantiate his lie, he keeps repeating it again and again with a defiant “what are you going to do about it?”! Clearly he knows his Goebbels well!

 

For the record, I have not even taken Manu Vaivasvata, the alleged ancestor of the different Puranic tribes, to be an actual historical living person, let alone a king with a kingdom, a capital and a “Court”.

[Incidentally, in response to Koenraad’s tweet, someone, believing his assertion that I have named Manu as a king of Ayodhya, has commented, without any reply-comment by Koenraad:

https://x.com/accelerator00_

“Manu and Ila were most likely not even real humans but gods who were humanized (Like Adam, Qayn)”]

 

See what I have written in some of my major articles and books where references to Manu were necessary:

1. The Recorded History of the Indo-European Migrations Part 1 of 4 Who Were the Vedic Aryans? 20/7/2016

“The Puranas refer to the mythical Manu Vaivasvata who ruled the whole of India, and divided the land between his ten sons. However, the actual Puranic accounts describe only or mainly the history of descendants of two of these "sons": the tribal conglomerates of the "solar" tribes (the Ikṣvāku-s) and the "lunar" tribes (the Aiḷa-s i.e. the "five tribes": Druhyu-s, Anu-s, Pūru-s, Yadu-s, Turvasu-s).”

 

2. Guide to Writing Fiction Set in the Mature Harappan=New Rigvedic Period 2600-1700 BCE 24/10/2019

“The beginnings of Indian history, according to traditional information in the Puranas, begins with a reference to the first king Manu Vaivasvata who ruled over the whole of India, and he was succeeded by his ten sons, who subsequently ruled over the different parts of India. [….]  This is the picture of ancient India, which, during the Mature Harappan period (= the New Rigvedic period) already had a tradition (long before latter-day Persians and Greeks called them "Hindus") of a unique composite identity as the descendants of a common ancestor to whom the Puranas at least give the name "Manu".”

 

3. The Rigveda and the Aryan Theory: A Rational Perspective THE FULL OUT-OF-INDIA CASE IN SHORT REVISED AND ENLARGED 20/7/2020

“The Puranas start their traditional history with the mythical ancestral king, Manu Vaivasvata, ruling over the whole of India, and dividing the land between his ten sons. However the detailed narrative in the Puranas is restricted primarily to the Indian area to the north of the Vindhyas, and they concentrate only on the history of the descendants of two sons: Ikṣvāku and Iḷa. The tribes descended from Ikṣvāku are said to belong to the Solar Race, and the tribes descended from Iḷa are said to belong to the Lunar Race. The history of the descendants of the other eight sons of Manu is either totally missing, or they are perfunctorily mentioned in confused myths in between narratives involving the Aikṣvākus and the Aiḷas. As per both the AIT and the Indigenous Aryans perspectives, all these numerous eponymous tribes are sections among, or descendants of, the Vedic Aryans.”

 

4. “The Rigveda and the Avesta – The Final Evidence” (2008):

“the mythical Manu Vaivasvata” (p.`3) – the only reference to him in this book.

 

The only thing I want to request people in this article is: please do not go by anyone else’s claims about what I have written, unless you yourself check my writings and find that I have indeed written those things. When Koenraad Elst, whom I mistakenly assumed for 33 years to be a friend, can deliberately carry on this kind of misinformation against me, what can I say about others less aware of these issues and my writings, and from whom I have no reason to expect friendly comments or reactions.