Hotchpotch Rigvedic “Nationalist” History-Writing

 

Hotchpotch Rigvedic “Nationalist” History-Writing

Shrikant G Talageri 

 

I have basically stopped writing on historical and political writings. I have written everything possible on the subject of the OIT and Rigvedic history, and find, after over 33 years of research and writing, that even after repeating, reiterating and painfully clarifying every point again and again with irrefutable data and evidence, the “nationalist” or OIT school of thought is still floundering in quicksand because of various other half-baked writers (primarily of the Jijith Nadumuri Ravi type) entering the field and muddying the waters as far as they can to throw everything into utter confusion and chaos, on the ground that everyone (they also and not only myself) has a right to analyze Vedic history. They do not seem to realize the basic point, that it is not a question of “rights” but a question of data and evidence. The rubbish they write and propagate as their “right” completely ignores all the data and evidence, and only succeeds (perhaps that being the secret subversive motive) in sabotaging both the OIT as well as coherent writing of ancient Indian history. As I said, after over 33 years of writing, I cannot do anything more and must leave the matter to fate.

However, occasionally, I find myself impelled to stir myself to point out the muddied and muddled state of affairs, just for the heck of it.

 

The following tweet sent by someone has prompted me to give some comments:

https://x.com/PlanetObscure/status/2034874435061391520

“Follows the same pattern movement of tribes post Dasarajan War. The westward migration continued, launching waves of new dynasties & societies ranging from current Balochistan to southern Greece. Refer the likes of

@ElstKoenraad

, Talageri & Heggerty et el.”

11:37 AM · Mar 20 2026

The tweet shows two pictures:

This tweet is apparently written in response to tweets revealing that Ayatollah Khomeini’s close ancestors were apparently Indians (Hindus or Sikhs) who migrated to Iran a century or two ago. What this has to do with the migrations of Anu tribes from India to Iran thousands of years ago is not explained or thought necessary to explain.

I will not comment on the first picture, since it roughly represents what the data and evidence shows.

But see the second picture, which contains three points: again I will not comment on the second point, since it roughly represents what the data and evidence shows.

I will comment on points 1 and 3.

 

Point 1: “Formation of the Kuru Polity: Sudas’s victory established the Bharatas in the region, leading to the creation of the Kuru kingdom”.

This makes absolutely zero sense from every single point of view:

1. Chronologically, the battle took place in the period of the Old Books 6,3,7., even prior to the Middle Books 4,2. The Kuru kingdom came into being at the very end of the Rigvedic period, when most of the Rigveda was already composed and only stray hymns were being added into Book 10, and the only Kuru king (but not yet specifically called a Kuru) in the Rigveda is mentioned in a hymn composed by his brother in one of the the latest hymns in Book 10. The history of the Kuru kingdom is post-Rigvedic history.

Except that both were (subtribes of) Pūrus, there is nothing to directly link the Bharata dynasty of Sudās with the Bharata  Kurus. A wide chronological gulf (the entire New Rigveda for one) separated the two dynasties.

So there is no way in which the dāśarājña battle, or the expulsion of the Anus by Sudās could have led to “the creation of the Kuru kingdom”.

2. Geographically, Sudās (of the Old Rigveda) was already in Haryana long before the war: in fact all his ancestors recorded in the Rigveda were well-established in Haryana generations before Sudās. And the Kuru kingdom which came into being in the last part of the Rigveda and dominated the early post-Rigvedic era was also situated in Haryana.

So again, there is no way in which the dāśarājña battle, or the expulsion of the Anus by Sudās could have “established the Bharatas in the region”, since they were continuously established in that “region” (Haryana) both before and after the composition of the Rigveda.

The battle certainly resulted in the Anus (or a major portion of them) migrating westwards , but as other Anus (Madras, Kekayas) still continued to remain in the region till long after that, the battle did not “establish the Bharatas in the region” of Punjab (to the west of Haryana) either.

So no kingdom (much less that of the post-Rigvedic Kurus) was established anywhere by the the dāśarājña battle.    

 

Point 3: “Migration of Priests: the sage Vishvamitra, who initially sided with the ten kings, left the alliance. Later, Vasistha left Sudas to join the Samvarana faction”.

Again, the hotchpotch neo-history created by the flurry of neo-anti-AIT-“nationalist-historians”, based on purely imagined fairy tales with absolutely zero evidence in the data.

I have written so many times about the fakeness of the concocted story that Viśvāmitra was in any way involved (on either side) in the dāśarājña battle, that I feel bored to again have to deal with these hallucination-theories anymore. Not a single person has been able to produce even the faintest bit of evidence for this fairy-tale. and yet from AIT-supporters to OIT-supporters, people are still busy propagating the hallucination that Viśvāmitra was a participant in the battle, and that too a participant on the side opposed to Sudās!!!

And where is there any reference anywhere in any text to indicate that “Vasistha left Sudas to join the Samvarana faction”?

And in fact what is this concocted “Samvarana faction”? Before this ridiculous dynasty of “Samvarana Bharatas” was concocted by Jijith Nadumuri Ravi in his ridiculous book “Rivers of the Ṛgveda”, no such faction, dynasty or subtribe of Bharatas was known to any text, and certainly not to the Rigveda. And yet, such fictitious entities now have a part in discussions on Rigvedic history!

Rigvedic historical studies from a nationalist point of view, and from the point of view of data and evidence, have been successfully sabotaged from within by Trojan horse tactics. And I find that I have ceased to care two figs about it. I have done my duty, and now it is up to others (other than these saboteurs) to carry on the good work