Interesting Ending to Manu-in-Ayodhya Imbroglio

 

Interesting Ending to Manu-in-Ayodhya Imbroglio

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

After my last three articles on the subject, this article had to be written. After Koenraad Elst gave his reply (in five parts), in all fairness I cannot ignore it, can I? It is a very interesting reply in itself as I will point out below, and indeed there is need to point out what his rather complicated reply tells us.

 

I. His five part reply:

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

“In expectation of an article about the Manu-in-Ayodhya controversy (which I ought to have taken more seriously), already this comment on the true story as per the horse’s mouth. I was apparently right in locating Ikṣvāku’s dynasty as per the horse’s mouth in Ayodhya, & at any/1”

Last edited 12:02 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

“2/ rate in the east, whence Aikṣvāku/Solar king Māndhātā came to help his Paurava in-laws, then to return to his Aikṣvāku seat in Ayodhyā. Ikṣvāku was the successor (& perhaps figuratively, "son") of Manu. The most economical hypothesis is that he was born in Manu's Palace.”

Last edited 12:24 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

“3/ But this isn't strictly proven. Since only 6000y have passed, I should have done better than to make this hazy assumption. So, Talageri's confirmed position about the Solar dynasty's eastern location does indeed imply nothing about Manu. Sorry there, Shrikant.”

Last edited 12:49 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

“4/ It so happens that in this case, the Purāṇa-based picture, of Manu's Lunar descendents trekking west from the Ayodhyā area, is supported by 2 Vedic data: the east-to-west rivers sequence, and the early reference to the Gaṅgā landscape as proverbially well-known.”

Last edited 12:53 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

“5/ It is this convergence of evidence that persuaded me, & it is what I have remembered since. This is a perfectly innocent psychology; at worst a "mistake" can be involved, but no indication of a "lie", a word I've lately had to hear a dozen times in this context.”

Last edited 1:12 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

II. The meaning of his reply:

Here is how a reader of his comments (the same one who prodded him into replying) takes his reply:

(After tweet no 3):

https://x.com/clstephensenior

“Sir Mr Talageri was extremely upset due to your taking this issue lightly. But now that You have said 'sorry' and admitted to misconstruing Talageri's position, you have set the record straight. Thanks (Don't forget to check out the article that he has addressed directly to U)”

1:01 PM · Jun 18, 2025

Was it a “sorry”? Well, I had never asked for or wanted a “sorry”, but for a clarification of a repeatedly repeated canard which was grossly misrepresenting my OIT case. Was his reply even a clarification of a repeatedly repeated canard? He calls it “innocent psychology”: so innocent that he stuck through it for months until a reply was practically forced out of him. He could have clarified that it was a “mistake” months ago instead of determinedly repeating it again and again against my repeated denials, and then comparing my alleged “location in Ayodhya” with Jijith’s stated “location in Haryana” to my detriment (repeatedly asserting that he found Jijith’s actually stated location more credible than “my” alleged location which I had never-ever-stated or even hinted).

Nevertheless this matter is closed: let us assume it was a mistake he is now admitting.

 

But is he admitting it? In any case, what is the new picture that rises from his reply?

His reply concedes that “Talageri's confirmed position about the Solar dynasty's eastern location does indeed imply nothing about Manu”. So I am out of the picture.

But this present round of discussion on Manu-in-Ayodhya started with Koenraad’s following tweet just six days ago:

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.

But while Koenraad now concedes that I have not located Manu in Ayodhya, his above reply seems to indicate that he himself now locates Manu in Ayodhya:

1. “Ikṣvāku was the successor (& perhaps figuratively, "son") of Manu. The most economical hypothesis is that he was born in Manu's Palace.”

2. the Purāṇa-based picture, of Manu's Lunar descendents trekking west from the Ayodhyā area, is supported by 2 Vedic data: the east-to-west rivers sequence, and the early reference to the Gaṅgā landscape as proverbially well-known.”

 

I have never spoken of Manu and Ikṣvāku as actual human historical kings with kingdoms, capitals, palaces and courts. or other geographical and chronological specifics (except in quoting the formulations of other Purana-based scholars). I have held that they were hypothetical ancestral figures postulated for actual existing tribal conglomerates which covered different parts of India at the point of time when the writers of the Puranas started collating their traditional history. I have started the historical Puranic narrative at the point where the Ikṣvākus are in the east, and the other five “Lunar” tribes in the west in their respective locations, and have never spoken about earlier people “trekking” in any direction, east or west, before those historical locations. Thus, I have never ever spoken of “Manu's Lunar descendents trekking west from the Ayodhyā area”.

[Yes, in my linguistic analyses, I have postulated that there were other “Indo-European” branches spoken to the east of the Vedic Pūru area, whose languages, lost to the actual record, contained linguistic features found in other IE branches outside India but not in “Vedic Indo-Aryan” or “Indo-Iranian”, and also suggested that the original PIE originated further east and had contacts with other eastern speeches. I have even suggested that the Ikṣvākus and other eastern and southern tribes must have spoken these languages which got completely Sanskritized in the course of time and have therefore not left detailed records. But I nowhere connected these with textual descriptions of migrations of Puranic tribes, and certainly not with hypothetical ancestral figures.]

Koenraad, however still treats the earliest names of ancestors as historical, and talks about Puranic tribes trekking in different directions before arriving in their historical Puranic original locations.

After Koenraad’s above tweet no 4, note someone’s comment and Koenraad’s reply:

(After tweet no 4)

https://x.com/RMV0210

“Manu is as real as Unicorn”

12:53 PM · Jun 18, 2025

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

“In "rationalist" circles you'll harvest some success w/ it, but it's hopelessly obsolete, from the scientistic wave of late 19th century. Of Laozi, Jesus, Mo & other founders it has been questioned whether they existed. By now their names are still doubted, but of course /1”

1:27 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

2/ someone on whose life events his foundational story was based, did exist. Unlike the names of his children, "Manu" was first a figure from myth (the Creator, together w/ Yemo/Yama, his "twin"), then the (possibly postumous) title of a founder-king. Greco-Roman sources call

3:23 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

“3/ him Dis Pater, "divine father". So many literarily attested figures (Troy, the Hittites, Jesus, Zarathuštra, Rāma) have been declared non-existent until their existence was corroborated, often from unexpected quarters.”

5:00 PM · Jun 18, 2025

 

So Koenraad clearly accepts Manu as an actual historical human being of that name having “Lunar descendents trekking west from the Ayodhyā area”. I have no argument with that: it just happens to not be my position: that is all.

Should Koenraad’s earlier tweeted “alternative” now be restated as follows: “the only extant alternative to Koenraad Elst's locating Manu in Ayodhya is Jijith Nadumuri Ravi, locating him in Haryana”? My views on this point are in a different category altogether: I don’t locate Manu, Ikṣvāku, Iḷā etc. anywhere in particular.

A Last Reply to Lies about My Position on Manu Vaivasvata

 

 

A Last Reply to Lies about My Position on Manu Vaivasvata

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

After months of prevarication and dissemination of disinformation on a war-footing, accompanied by a refusal to take notice of my repeated and very detailed refutations of his lies, Koenraad Elst has finally been forced to take note of what he dismissively (and very strangely in a person who always claims to stand for authentic references whenever he is dealing with critics on the internet) calls “some commotion … over the historical/scriptural location of Manu Vaivasvata” – it should have been “some indignation over a deliberate and sustained disinformation campaign to put words into the mouth or pen of Talageri about the geographical location of Manu Vaivasvata, words never ever spoken or written by him, in order to make his formulations sound as fictitious and immature as those of Jijith Nadumuri Ravi”:

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

“Some commotion has erupted over the historical/scriptural location of Manu vaivasvata. As I remember it, Shrikant talageri wrote in his 1993 book, still strongly Purāṇa-based, that Manu stayed in Ayodhya. In that area, his daughter Iḷā’s son Purūravas founded the Lunar Dynasty,/1”

1:11 PM . Jun 17 2025

After five more tweets on this issue where he makes rambling and irrelevant points, he ends (?) with a seventh tweet:

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

“7/Whether this flies in the face of a position once taken by Talageri, I'm presently in no position to check. But since this is not a spectator sport, among you some possessor of his 1993 book may get up from his couch & check, then let us know? Ah, good you Hs are so helpful”.

2:12 PM . Jun 17 2025

 

I will address this man directly for hopefully the last time:

If you are not in a position to check whether what your very faulty memory tells you is right or not, how does it justify your militantly repeating this faulty “remembrance” for months on end in the face of continuous and strong denials from my end?

And now, cornered on this (to you, as you now claim, superficial and unimportant) issue, but which you made the very basis of comparing my OIT case with Jijith’s AIOIT case throughout your disinformation campaign, do you think you can get away with flippant and contemptuous remarks about Hindus being spectators sitting on couches and discussing irrelevant issues?

If you were in no position to check, why did you carry on this disinformation campaign for so long and in so militant and determined a fashion? And when you challenge people with whom you argue on different issues on twitter and elsewhere and ask them to produce exact citations, and they fail to do so, is it because you are sitting free on a couch while they are too busy to examine the sources on issues on which they are making categorical assertions?

And even now, when a response is being practically choked out of you by public exposure, you are trying to get away with fudging the issues. You still do not admit that you deliberately lied, or even that you were very wrong. You state: “As I remember it, Shrikant talageri wrote in his 1993 book, still strongly Purāṇa-based, that Manu stayed in Ayodhya.” It is your duty to give the relevant quotations from my 1993 book, not the duty of others to search out these references to expose your lies.

 

Well, it was my book; your false accusation is about me; I am a retired person with time hanging on my hands as I sit idly on my couch (but as the original writer you are misrepresenting, and not just a “spectator”); I do have a copy of my 1993 book with me; and I am in a position to check out the facts about your assertions about my 1993 book.

You are right: it was “still strongly Purāṇa-based”. But nowhere did I present the Puranic data as a result of my own investigations. Before writing my 1993 book, I had never even seen an actual copy of the Rigveda with my own eyes, or the Puranas. It was after my 1993 book that I started my own detailed investigation of the Rigvedic data and found out exactly where and how it clashed or contrasted – or fitted in – with the accounts in the Puranas. Throughout my first book, I was dealing with the Puranic analyses of other scholars like Pusalker, Bhargava and Pargiter.

And I was mainly concerned with demolishing their arguments (especially those of Bhargava). Thus even Pargiter, whose conclusions I found more conducive than those of Bhargava (since Pargiter concludes that all the Indo-European languages of Europe, Iran and West Asia migrated from India through the northwest), made extremely ridiculous arguments which I rejected in strong terms. I will mention some of them, just for safety, in case tomorrow your faulty memory tells you that I had made those assertions in my 1993 book: he asserted that there was an Aryan invasion from across the Himalayas; he asserted that the Ikṣvākus were Dravidian-language speakers; he asserted that Sudyumna ruled from Prayag; he asserted that all the Rigvedic rishis and the brahmana families descended from them were “non-Aryans”; he asserted that most of the Rigvedic hymns were translations into Vedic Sanskrit of “pre-Aryan” hymns in some “non-Aryan” language!

Nowhere did I accept their assertions: I only described them all, and rejected with detailed arguments those that I found most necessary to reject.

 

But, to come back to Manu, did I accept him at least in my first book as a genuine ancestral king with a kingdom and “Court”? Here is what I wrote even in 1993, when I had not learnt to look at the Puranic data with as much skepticism and careful scrutiny as in my writings after 1993:

“The Puranas commence the traditional history of India with the division of the whole of northern India among the ten sons of Manu. Now it is obvious that these ten kings could not have been the sons of a single person, and that this was the mythical way of presenting the relationship between the kings of the ten kingdoms which must have existed in India at the point of time at which the traditional historians commenced their recording. Manu Vaivasvata may have been an emperor who ruled over all the kingdoms.”

Note the last sentence. It was a nominal concession (as my first step into the subject) to the idea of a historical Manu who may have lived at some time in the remote prehistorical past, long before the situation “which must have existed in India at the point of time at which the traditional historians commenced their recording”. But nowhere, even in my first book, did I talk about his geographical location (whether Ayodhya, Kashi, Haryana or anywhere else) – and, what is more, I don’t think even Bhargava or Pargiter gave Manu’s “Court” a geographical location, and certainly not Ayodhya! 

It is unfortunate that people, who pretend to base their arguments (when arguing with other less careful critics) on quotable citations, treat exact citations in such a cavalier and even contemptuous manner: “among you some possessor of his 1993 book may get up from his couch & check, then let us know? Ah, good you Hs are so helpful”.

 

So now your positions (on which you are discreet and diplomatic enough to avoid committing yourself openly) on various issues is out in the open. According to you and Jijith:

1. In the Rigveda there are three different rivers named Sarayu (apart from the only two historical ones known to all students of ancient history: the ones in Ayodhya and in Afghanistan, which you both agree are unknown to the Rigveda).

2. The Ikṣvākus are archaeologically identifiable on the northern banks of the Sarasvati river (which was one of the three Sarayus) in pre-Rigvedic times. And there is an archaeological trail of their identifiably “Ikṣvāku” archaeological artefacts (pottery? tools? cultural items?) moving west-to-east from the Sarasvati river to Ayodhya in the east, such archaeological proof  standing in sharp contrast to the total absence of such “archaeological” evidence in my OIT case to show an east-to-west movement of the Ikṣvākus.

3. In the Rigveda (especially in the older and oldest parts) the Bharata Pūru dynasty and sub-tribe to which Divodāsa and Sudās belong are the heroes in half the hymns but the enemies in the other, and older, half (where the “Samvaraṇa Bharatas”, their enemies, are the heroes).

4. In fact, many kings in what I have called the “New Rigveda’ are actually older than Sudās who belongs to what I have called the “Old Rigveda” (so that the terms Old Rigveda and New Rigveda are plainly wrong), and these older kings were already in the NW (in the Swat area) even before Sudās commenced his westward journey from Haryana (so that the actual “Aryan” movement in the Rigveda cannot be east-to-west, or, at least, Sudās’ battles do not mark any such east-to-west movement).

 

And how does all this stand proved? Simply because I have made the supreme mistake of locating Manu in Ayodhya while Jijith correctly located him in Haryana!

Well, we will see whether ultimately the truth will prevail or your lies!

 

Incidentally, the war also seems to have been joined by other forces:

Jijith apparently sent a comment to your tweets, claiming that I am always making contradictory statements in my writings. He quotes my reference to Mandhāta’s father (for some reason, he persistently calls Mandhāta "Manthata") being from Ayodhya. However, his brainless comment was immediately replied to by a tweeter who pointed out:

https://x.com/clstephensenior

“Where in this image did Mr Talageri locate Manu in Ayodhya? He just said that an eastern IKSHVAKU king Mandhata's mother was a Puru from the west (haryana & westernmost UP) so he went to the west (Puru lands) to help the Purus & returned to Ayo to continue the line of Ikshvakus.”

 

Another person has apparently quoted my reference (in my 2000 book) to Pratardana as a king of Kashi. But I already replied to this when it was pointed out by a person commenting on my previous article:

“"Pratardana was a king of Kashi, which is in eastern Uttar Pradesh. This can only mean that the Bharata Kings of the Early Period of the Rigveda were Kings of Kashi; and, in the light of the other information in the Rigveda, the land of the Bharatas extended from Kashi in the east to Kurukshetra in the west."

This was an indirect attempt at interpretation of the late Anukramani attribution of a verse in Book 10, where I have suggested that (if true) Bharata Purus (extremely late descendants of the Rigvedic Purus) may have reached Kashi by the late period of Book 10. In any case, in the same book (in 2000) I also suggested (on the basis of information then gleaned by me) that Kikata was Bihar (while it is in northern-Madhya-Pradesh Rajasthan, which I have accepted in all my subsequent writings).

In the same book where I wrote the above, I also wrote on p.49 about Book 10:
"The ascription of hymns in this Maṇḍala is so chaotic that in most of the hymns the names, or the patronymics/epithets, or both, of the composers, are fictitious; to the extent that, in 44 hymns out of 191, and in parts of one more, the family identity of the composers is a total mystery.
In many other hymns, the family identity, but not the actual identity of the composers, is clear or can be deduced: the hymns are ascribed to remote ancestors, or even to mythical ancestors not known to have composed any hymns in earlier Maṇḍalas."

In all my writings after 2000, I have repeatedly reiterated that the Ikshvakus were the only people in the east.

In any case how does this ascription about a king named Pratardana of Kashi (as per the Anukramanis) in Book 10 indicate that I have located Manu Vaivasvata (long into the pre-Rigvedic days) in Ayodhya? So much that in spite of my repeated denials these two keep on propagating this lie?”

 

As I have already replied to everything in this matter, I will ignore further trolling on this subject.

 

 

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.

Out With The Old, In With The New

 

Out With The Old, In With The New

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Out with the Old (especially “bank clerks” who have killed the Rigveda) and in with the New (especially “ISRO scientists” who have brought the Rigveda back to life).

 

I have basically stopped writing on the subjects of history and politics. This is because I have written everything I could on these subjects, repeating and re-repeating everything countless times, and nothing new is left to be written about, and nothing new has arisen (or is likely to arise), not even vicious abuse of myself, that I would feel impelled to respond to. And I have realized how futile it is, and how ruinous for my health and peace of mind. Now (unless something new in the field of Rigvedic research impels me inwardly to write something on it. But honestly, I doubt it), the only subject I will write about is music, which is the most beautiful thing in existence (or about the Konkani language).

But – and this is really my last article on the subject. I will not respond even to responses to this article – I feel it necessary to point out why I have realized the absolute futility of everything, and make my piddling effort to alert Indians and Hindus (whether or not it makes any difference in the long run) to this internal danger.

It is because the usual anti-OIT gangs that I have always referred to in my writings have been joined by a new, and much more powerful (because a “Trojan Horse”), anti-OIT gang (consisting of the duo Jijith Nadumuri Ravi and Koenraad Elst) which is capable of striking at the very roots of the OIT:

 

1. My very existence as a historian and pioneer of the OIT and of OIT-based research of the Rigveda has been completely cancelled out: read the tweet and the article appended below (“Indian history, as we know it today, usually starts with dynasties like the Mauryas, Nandas, and Guptas. The kings and events mentioned in the Vedas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata are often labeled as mythology. But this creates an odd situation—the grandfather of a well-documented king is called a myth! Jijith wanted to fix this gap […] Many researchers have studied Indian history, but no one has mapped it out this clearly […] His work is changing the way people see India’s past, turning myths into history and history into a story we can all understand.”).

2. All the most basic and fundamental aspects of the OIT have been viciously attacked (and all this has been done on the basis of completely concocted stories, entities and events, and zero data and evidence, in a manner never paralleled before):

2a) The concept of a proto-Indo-European civilization spread out all over most of North India (replaced by an internal AIT starting out from the Sarasvati river in the northwest of India and replacing the local languages and culture of the whole of northern India up to the borders of the Dravidian-speaking South),

2b) The concept of a unitary Bharata-Pūru Rigvedic tribe as the “People of the Book” in the Rigveda (replaced by the concept of two mutually opposed and concocted-out-of-thin-air tribes of “Bharata Pūrus” both of whom are, in different parts of the Rigveda, the “People of the Hymns Concerned”). In fact, in half of the Old Rigveda (and the “older” half) Divodāsa’s clan now becomes the enemies in the hymns!

2c) The chronology of the Rigveda, with its clear division into an “Old Rigveda” and a “New Rigveda” (replaced by a hodge-podge Rigvedic text where kings living in the time of the New Rigveda are older than or ancestral to kings living in the time of the Old Rigveda).

2d) The east-to-west movement of the Rigvedic Aryans starting with the ancestors of Sudās in Haryana, Sudās himself starting out from Haryana and proceeding to the Central Punjab (beyond the Paruṣṇī after earlier crossing the eastern Vipāś and Śutudrī) and Sudās’ descendants reaching Afghanistan, all in the course of the Old Rigveda (replaced by kings living in the period of the New Rigveda already being active on the far western Swat river even before the period of Sudās himself).

3. In addition, my OIT version is being misrepresented by having it 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).

4. And finally, while weakening the OIT by Trojan Horse methods, the duo has recently been actively promoting a Dravidian-Invasion-Theory (with origins in Elam in southwest Iran) and an Austric-Invasion-Theory (with origins in the Yunnan province of China). What next: a Burushaski-Invasion-Theory from the Caucasus mountains?

 

Here are the tweet and article referred to above:      

https://x.com/ElstKoenraad

No comment needed. Just buy them, & especially: read them. Jijith Nadumuri Ravi: The ISRO Scientist Who’s Bringing Rigveda, Ramayana & Mahabharata to Life. https://literarypioneers.com/litboost/jijith-nadumuri-ravi-the-isro-scientist-whos-bringing-rigveda-ramayana-mahabharata-to-life/1856/… via @Literary Pioneers

11 P.M. June 6 2025

 

https://literarypioneers.com/litboost/jijith-nadumuri-ravi-the-isro-scientist-whos-bringing-rigveda-ramayana-mahabharata-to-life/1856/

Jijith Nadumuri Ravi: The ISRO Scientist Who’s Bringing Rigveda, Ramayana & Mahabharata to Life.

ByLiterary Pioneers

April 4, 2025

 “Most people see history and mythology as two separate things. But what if they were never meant to be apart? Jijith Nadumuri Ravi, a former ISRO scientist who worked on Chandrayaan-1 and was appreciated by Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, is now solving one of India’s biggest historical puzzles.

His Geo-Chronology Series—which includes Rivers of Rigveda, Geography of Ramayana, and Geography of Mahabharata (Vol 1 & 2)—connects the dots between India’s ancient past and recorded history. Through years of research, he has mapped out real locations, identified forgotten timelines, and brought scientific clarity to stories many consider myths.

Why He Wrote These Books

Indian history, as we know it today, usually starts with dynasties like the Mauryas, Nandas, and Guptas. The kings and events mentioned in the Vedas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata are often labeled as mythology. But this creates an odd situation—the grandfather of a well-documented king is called a myth!

Jijith wanted to fix this gap. His books connect ancient kings with historical rulers and show how Indian civilization grew over time instead of appearing out of nowhere.

A Research Journey Like No Other

Writing these books was no ordinary task. It took five years of deep research, and three times more effort than a regular book. Here’s what went into it:

·         Studying 110,000 Sanskrit verses from ancient texts.

·         Using satellite maps, historical maps, and Google Maps to find real places from the epics.

·         Creating hundreds of new maps that show the movement of kings, armies, and civilizations.

This effort led to over 100 new discoveries that help us understand India’s past in a way no one has before.

What These Books Reveal

Jijith’s books are not just history—they are complete timelines of ancient India. They answer some big questions, like:

·         What was the time gap between the Rigvedic kings, Sri Rama, and the Pandavas?

·         Who were the common figures that lived during both the Ramayana and Mahabharata periods?

·         How did the Vedic civilization grow and evolve into later Indian kingdoms?

By matching mythology with history, he shows a continuous timeline from the earliest Vedic period to well-known historical dynasties like the Mauryas, Sungas, and Guptas.

Why His Work Stands Out

Many researchers have studied Indian history, but no one has mapped it out this clearly. Jijith’s books are different because:

·         They are backed by real geography—not just theories.

·         They connect different time periods into a single, easy-to-follow history.

·         They bring clarity to India’s ancient past like never before.

What’s Next?

Jijith is now working on his next book—a deep dive into Sanatana Dharma. While researching ancient texts, he found many important lessons about Dharma and the future of humanity. His new book will use both ancient wisdom and modern science to show how Sanatana Dharma can guide us into the age of space exploration.

A Must-Read for Every History Lover

If you’ve ever been curious about the real history behind India’s great epics, Jijith Nadumuri Ravi’s books are a must-read. His work is changing the way people see India’s past, turning myths into history and history into a story we can all understand.

Don’t miss this chance to explore India’s lost history—get your copies today!”

 

So this is it. Abusers (from every anti-OIT camp, including this one, or from Orthodox Hindu camps) are free to abuse me. No responses will be forthcoming from my side.

While I may be cancelled out for the moment, my books and all my blogs cannot be cancelled out of existence. They will live to see Justice done on this subject at some point of time in future. Meanwhile, I will devote my time to reading books, listening to music, and living my life to the enjoyable full as much as possible till my last breath without getting into these murky depths.

 

APPENDIX added 12 June 2025:

I never thought the day would come when I would call Koenraad Elst a liar. But it has come today!

Someone just sent me a tweet put up by Koenraad Elst today, less than three hours ago:

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.

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 repeatedly attributed to me) which anyone can verify as lies merely by checking up my writings!