A Few Youtuber
Recommendations for Indians, Hindus and All Those Who Don’t Actively Hate
Hindus
Shrikant G. Talageri
I wrote a short article about a woke-leftist anti-BJP, anti-Modi, Congress-propagandist, viciously anti-Hindu youtuber (drooling over a “Shankaracharya”) whose channel has millions of subscribers, views and comments.
I just felt that I should also write an even shorter article recommending wonderful youtubers who (to my knowledge) every Hindu should view. I am aware that these youtubers (and probably many others whom I am not aware of, or do not recall at the moment of writing) also have millions of subscribers, views and comments, and my recommendations will be basically of zero value for them, but my purpose in recommending them is not to do my bit in increasing their viewership (which would be like pouring a cup of water into an ocean), but to express on record my great admiration for their superb work. May all the Gods in the heavens (I am an agnostic and not an atheist or a theist of any kind, so I can say this freely) give them a long, happy and fruitful life and may their videos and viewers multiply in geometric progression and spread light in all directions!
Keerthika Govindasamy
https://www.youtube.com/@KeerthikaGovindhasamy
Praveen Mohan
https://www.youtube.com/@RealPraveenMohan
India in Pixels by Ashris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANIxuF7Zles
I am starting out only with these three incomparably superb youtubers. If anyone can suggest any more youtubers who can hold a lamp to them, please let me know.
[My admiration for the above three youtubers is total. But obviously I cannot be answerable for everything they write or show. For example, in some of his videos “India in Pixels by Ashris” seems to support the AIT (I even posted a comment on one of them, where he suggests that Brahui is a remnant of the Dravidians left behind in the northwest after the Aryan Invasion). He provides plenty of information on different aspects of India, which is why I recommend him, but in his zeal he does often give wrong information. And while I totally bow my head to Praveen Mohan whose sense of observation in examining our Indian monuments is absolutely unparalleled, I cannot answer for some of his views on extraterrestrials and similar subjects. So far, I have seen nothing in any video by Keerthika Govindasamy which I could possibly object to or distance myself from].
APPENDIX
added 11 November 2025:
I have given the name of “India in Pixels by Ashris” above, and I qualified it by writing “in some of his videos “India in Pixels by Ashris” seems to support the AIT (I even posted a comment on one of them, where he suggests that Brahui is a remnant of the Dravidians left behind in the northwest after the Aryan Invasion). He provides plenty of information on different aspects of India, which is why I recommend him, but in his zeal he does often give wrong information.”
The maps presented by him are indeed interesting and often potentially useful. But the following tweet by him which was sent by someone to me just now makes me wonder whether his most erudite maps (erudite even when they “often give wrong information”) can excuse the extremely unbelievable level of stupidity, naïveté and unbalanced thinking that is represented in this tweet:
Hindu “tirths” in Iran, Russia and the Central Asian “-stans”? While his maps are interesting indeed, I feel I must record my apology to Keerthika Govindasamy and Praveen Mohan for categorizing them with him. And (a lesson I should already have learnt from previous experiences) I must be more circumspect in future in eulogizing anyone without diligent examination.
Subject: Clarification and Expansion on the Linguistic and Historical Identity of Paktha and Parśua in Relation to Pashtuns and Persians
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Talageri,
A new set of linguistic arguments has been circulating online claiming that the Rig-vedic names Paktha and Parśua have no connection with the later Pashtuns or Persians. These claims rest on internal Iranian sound-change hypotheses — for instance, that Proto-Iranian *c > Pashto ṣ̌ in words such as *Paṣ̌tānə < *Parcwāna — and therefore treat Paṣ̌tūn as an internal Eastern-Iranian development unrelated to the Vedic Paktha. Likewise, they argue that the Vedic Parśu cannot be linked with the Iranian Parsu/Parsa, since the Sanskrit form shows Indo-Aryan ś rather than Iranian s.
Because this discussion is now being used widely on social media to dismiss the Rig-vedic evidence altogether, it would be immensely valuable if you could write a detailed blog addressing it. Specifically, people would appreciate your analysis of:
Textual continuity – References to Paktha and Parśu in the Rig Veda, the Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, Mahābhārata, etc., and their geographical setting around the Paruṣṇī and the north-western frontier.
External attestations – The appearance of related names in Near-Eastern and Greco-Roman records:
Mesopotamian texts mentioning Parahše, Paraḫšum/Baraḫšum, Parhasi, Marhaši (possibly connected with the Jiroft region).
Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian inscriptions using Parsua and Parsumaš.
Greek and Roman sources (Herodotus, Strabo, Ptolemy) describing Pactyans, Parsioi, and Parsētai in precisely the areas later inhabited by Pashtuns.
Historical linguistics versus textual evidence – How far internal sound-law reconstructions can actually override continuous ethnonyms across three millennia.
Cultural and religious traits – Whether the Rig-vedic Parśus show Iranian features (e.g., the name Tirindira Parāśva in RV 8.6.46 with its Iranian element Tir) and how these relate to later Avestan or Persian parallels.
Direction of movement – If these tribes appear first in Indian texts and only later in Iranian and Mesopotamian records, what this implies for Indo-Iranian dispersal.
The online debate would benefit from a response that draws on both Indian textual sources and extra-Indian evidence, showing where linguistic reductionism misses the wider historical picture. A comprehensive blog from you clarifying these points would help restore rigor to the discussion and strengthen the historical grounding of the Out-of-India interpretation.
This has nothing to do with this particular article, and should have been given as a comment on either of the two following articles:
Delete"The Identity of the Enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña Battle in the Rigveda"
"The Pṛthu-Parśu in the Dāśarājña Hymn"
I am aware of the source of this "new set of linguistic arguments [which] has been circulating online claiming that the Rig-vedic names Paktha and Parśua have no connection with the later Pashtuns or Persians." I am tired of endless quibbling on matters which are very clear, and have already written many times about these etymological textbookworms and their one-sided and selective arguments. I will not bother to reply to them.
However, your comment itself is a full answer to these quibblers. I need not write a reply or new article on this: I will merely add your present comment as an appendix to the two above articles. Thank you.
Talageri ji,
DeleteI wanted to let you know that your work has reached a much wider audience than ever before. There’s now a strong and growing online community actively supporting the Out of India Theory, and many of them refer directly to your research.
You should definitely check out My Instagram Page thehistoropill :- https://www.instagram.com/thehistoropill and the YouTube channel Slavman:- https://www.youtube.com/@RealSlavman who presents detailed videos in support of OIT and frequently cites your interpretations. On social media platforms like Instagram and X (Twitter), there are several individuals and groups—Millennia Archive:- https://www.instagram.com/millennia_archives/ , AryanSlavman:- https://www.instagram.com/aryan_slavman/, 6Stryhnine:-https://www.instagram.com/6strychine/ , and TheHinduMapper, among others—who are building serious discussions around your framework. They’ve combined your textual approach with archaeological, archaeo-genetic, and linguistic evidence to promote a unified picture of Indo-Aryan continuity within India.
This online movement is expanding fast. These creators often engage with Koenraad Elst and even maintain communication with scholars connected to the Archaeological Survey of India and Dr. Niraj Rai, who is soon expected to release important Sinauli and Kashmir ancient DNA datasets.
Your profound insights have inspired a new generation to question the old Steppe and Kurgan hypotheses. Many people now openly reject those models and prefer the OIT framework you built. While India by Pixels does recognize your contributions, he also leans toward the Kurgan model—so it might be worth lending your voice and support to the newer, younger researchers and groups who fully carry your intellectual legacy forward.
They deeply respect your scholarship and see you as the foundation of modern OIT thought. A short blog or message from you acknowledging these discussions—or even guiding this emerging community—would mean a lot to everyone involved
Shrikant talageri ji, have you seen work of ilija casule on burushaski and indo European connection.
DeleteHe thinks that Bur. is IE language and shows much influence on burushaski by Northwest language which in your OIT will be moving out of Bur. area. In our case Bur. will not be IE language but very much influenced.
This might also be a addition to OIT.
Thank you.