“Grok”s Brazen Lies
About the State of the AIT-vs.-OIT Debate
Shrikant G. Talageri
Someone sent me the following tweet by the Twitter AI app “Grok:.
Apparently there was the following question put to “Grok”:
https://x.com/__Vyshak__/status/1976494435417620576
“Give an honest verdict on Talageri's 1993 study And a verdict on Yajnadevams and others who say Indus script from IVC is Sanskrit. Be brutally honest without any filters mercy and sugarcoating.”
9:16 AM · Oct 10, 2025
”Grok” immediately (note the time) replies:
“Talageri's 1993 "Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal" argues for Out of India origins of Indo-Aryans via Rigvedic analysis, but mainstream linguistics and genetics (e.g., studies in Cell, Nature) find it methodologically weak, ignoring migration evidence.”
9:16 AM · Oct 10,
2025
Can there be a more
blatant lie than this? After correctly stating “Talageri's 1993 "Aryan Invasion Theory: A
Reappraisal" argues for Out of India origins of Indo-Aryans via Rigvedic
analysis”
(though it misses out on all the linguistic evidence and the archaeological
analysis given by me then and ever since, and my refutation of the “genetic” case), “Grok” brazenly
lies when it says: “but
mainstream linguistics and genetics (e.g., studies in Cell, Nature) find it
methodologically weak, ignoring migration evidence.”
Do the referred “studies in Cell, Nature” even take note of my textual (let alone linguistic or archaeological) case for the OIT (or my refutation of the “genetics case”), or even mention my name? How the bloody hell then does “Grok’ brazenly state that these, or other similar “mainstream linguistics and genetics” studies, find my case “methodologically weak, ignoring migration evidence”? Clearly, these AI apps are brazenly fraudulent vehicles for western vested-interests to spread organized disinformation.
On the other hand, I
have dealt in detail with these “mainstream
linguistics and genetics”
arguments point-by-point and in painstaking detail in my books and articles,
and completely demolished them, about which “Grok” feigns
complete ignorance. Just some example from my articles:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-full-out-of-india-case-in-short.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-complete-linguistic-case-for-out-of.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/01/witzel-and-ait-vs-oit-linguistic-debate.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/01/ait-vs-oit-chapter-8-archaeological-case.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/04/chapter-7-does-genetic-evidence-prove.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-new-paper-by-heggarty-et-al-on.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-battle-of-two-peer-reviewed.html
I know positively now that India, in a hundred years, will be an Islamic state with a sizable Christian minority and a slightly smaller Hindu minority (consisting of different caste groups fighting it out amongst themselves). But unless all my above articles are completely wiped out from all records and memory with Orwellian “1984”-like efficiency, the OIT will still prevail. Who knows: maybe Islamic India will be proud of being the Original Homeland of the IE languages (most of Indo-European Europe also having become Islamic by then)? After all, Pakistan does claim a history of 5000 years from the Harappan Civilization onwards: and the “Aryan” question is purely one of Language, not of Religion, Philosophy, Cosmology or Race!
In your analysis of the Bhṛgus in the Ṛgveda, you note that the Jamadagni branch of the Bhṛgus shifted allegiance, abandoning the Anavas to align themselves with the Purus. You also cite Goldman’s interpretation of the Bhṛgu myths in the Mahābhārata, suggesting that their transition was driven by “disillusionment” with the Anavas (or Asuras) and a consequent association with the Purus (or Devas). However, this view seems somewhat simplistic and fails to account for the internal diversity within the Bhṛgu lineage. The Śukra branch and the Aurva branch of the Bhṛgus occupied distinct geographical and political spheres. The Śukras were primarily based in the Punjab region and served as priests to the Anavas, whereas the Aurvas resided in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh along the Narmada, and were closely associated with the Haihayas, serving as their royal priests until the reign of Kṛtavīrya.
ReplyDeleteThus, the most plausible explanation for the Aurvas (the Aurvas) entering the Puru or Rigvedic domain lies in their fallout with the Haihayas. Their mistreatment and subsequent displacement likely compelled them to seek refuge in the northern kingdoms, such as Kānyakubja, with whom they forged marital alliances where Ṛcīka marries Satyavatī, daughter of Gādhi and sister of Viśvāmitra. This hypothesis would perhaps remain conjectural were it not for the Chyavana episode in the Mahābhārata, which explicitly states that Ṛcīka’s marriage to Satyavatī was motivated by the desire to form an alliance against the Haihayas. Such a context would also explain the Aurvas’ perplexity at the “Asuric” portrayal of the Śukras in the Vedic corpus - for the Aurvas themselves had never been in conflict with the Purus or the Devas.