Internal Sabotage or The Enemies Within
Shrikant G. Talageri
The campaign to prove a newly emerging DIT (Dravidian Invasion-of-India
Theory), under the guise of disproving the AIT (Aryan Invasion-of-India Theory), being carried on jointly by Koenraad Elst and Jijith
Nadumuri Ravi, is going on in full strength, and on an
international scale. Someone just sent me the following:
https://x.com/ElstKoenraad/status/2098055060546633942
“Do quote scientist Jijith
Nadumuri Ravi as proving that the Sindhū-Sarasvatī civilization was the Vedic
civilization par excellence.”
7:54 PM ·
Sep 10, 2026
This tweet
by Koenraad Elst (which is apparently attracting thousands of
views in a single day), is apparently in reply to the following tweet by Jijith:
https://x.com/Jijith_NR/status/2097721130786455846
“IVC was clearly a Vedic Civilization. The Geochronology of Rigveda
perfectly corresponds to the Geochronology of Early & Mature Harappan
Civilizations. The span of rivers in Rgveda is from Ganga upto Kabul River.
Ditto same, the Early & Mature Harappan sites are between the Ganga and
Kabul Rivers. Thus, Both Rgveda and Early-Mature Harappan have the same
Geography. Chronologically they are both in the 3300-1900 BCE Period. Thus,
both are two sides of the same coin. Early-Mature Harappan is the material
culture and Rgveda is its literature counterpart. All symbolism inside IVC is
Vedic in nature:- the altars, Svastika, Yoga, Pashupati, chakra (wheel) seals,
bull seals, horse seals Rajarshis - priest-kings, Apsaras - dancing girl etc.
The old notion of IVC as Dravidian has misled scholars for close to a hundred
years. Now IVC Script is deciphered as Samskrtam. Thus it is proved to be Vedic
civilization par excellence. This also means Vedic language (later named as
'Samskrtam') - a daughter language of Proto Indo-European (PIE) - was spoken in
North West India minimum since 4000 BCE. This is why, all the river names in
Rgveda are in Vedic language and not in Dravidian, Munda (Austro-Asiatic) or
other languages. A foreign language entering a new region cannot easily rename
the pre-existing river names in the native language of the region. This means
the Vedic language wasn't foreign to India. It was native to India. It was born
in India from its mother, PIE which was also native to India. This implies the
PIE originated in North West India and spread to Afghanistan, Central Asia,
Iran and Europe. There are many Dravidian origin theories- Central India
origin, Gujarat origin and Elam origin.
In Elam origin theory, the
Dravidian languages, after originating from Elam in South West Iran did pass
through the southern parts of IVC to southern Balochistan, Sindh and Gujarat
during the Late Rgvedic Period (2400-1900 BCE). The Dravidian languages and
culture absorbed some cultural elements of IVC and spread those into South
India. This much is true. This fact is reflected in Rgveda with some Dravidian
Rishis like Irimbiṭhi and Śirimbiṭha mentioned in the Late Rgvedic 10th Maṇḍala
(2100-1900 BCE). These Dravidian Rishis were inducted into Kanva and Bharadvaja
Gotras.”
9:47 PM · Sep 9, 2026
Today a massive transformation of Tamilnadu
from A Land of Hindu Temples to A Land of Evangelist Christians
is taking place, and the full effects of this will become apparent when, within
a decade or two, census figures reveal that Christianity has overwhelmingly become the majority religion
of Tamilnadu. Earlier, the so-called Dravidian Movement
concentrated on alleging that India was originally a Dravidian Land
which was invaded by “Aryans”. This was a tool in the hands of Christian
missionaries to propagate the idea that Hinduism is a religion
brought into India by a foreign race which invaded, conquered and dominated
over an original Dravidian India, and that Dravidian
speakers should reject Hinduism and accept Christianity.
This theory is still the
official stand of both the “Dravidianist” politicians as well as the Christian
missionaries. But then a war is usually won with the simultaneous
use of two seemingly opposite strategies both working towards the same
end.
After my work of over three
decades, both disproving the AIT as well as proving that Hinduism is
more a “Dravidian” than an “Aryan” religion, and pointing out that in fact it
is Christianity which represents the foreign invading force, the effectiveness
of the AIT is becoming less important, and the emphasis on
disproving the OIT less necessary, in the Evangelist propaganda
sphere:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-primarily-dravidian-and-pan-indian_30.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/09/does-aryan-invasion-theory-mean-that.html
And in the face of the fact that despite
everything Christianity is still on a winning spree in Tamilnadu, it has
become both feasible and possible to open up a second front to
strengthen the Evangelist onslaught on Tamilnadu: strangely
by now propping up a Dravidian Invasion Theory to show
that Dravidianist ideology and Evangelist ideology
(as foreign comrades-in-arms against a common
enemy: Pagan “Aryan” India)
are on the same side of the battle-lines. And what more effective and
credible way to pursue this second front than through a caucus
of writers and scholars (including “scientists”)
who seemingly represent the opposite side in the war: who are nominally “OIT
supporters and AIT opponents”?
Hence the increasing intensity of
the new “AIT: NO, but DIT: YES” campaign by Koenraad
and Jijith. So now, whether AIT or DIT, or both
working simultaneously on seemingly opposite sides of the battle-lines, the
winner in both (or all) cases is Evangelist Christianity in
“Dravidian” Tamilnadu.
The first (but then still foggy)
signs of this New Evangelist Front were in Jijith Nadumuri
Ravi’s book “Rivers of Ṛgveda”
which, while purporting to show only the large collection of Epic-Puranic
data in his repertoire, was actually a direct attack on the Internal
Chronology and Geography of the Rigveda as shown by the Rigvedic data
and as forming the First Base of the OIT Case: his
book subtly tried to turn this Internal Chronology and Geography of the
Rigveda on its head (thus sabotaging the very First Base of
the OIT Case) by insisting that certain eminent kings (Purukutsa
and Trasadasyu) of the New Rigveda were actually older
than certain pre-eminent kings (i.e. Divodāsa and Sudās) of the Old
Rigveda, and that these kings of the New Rigveda were
actually already established in the Northwest of
India as Rigvedic kings well before Sudās
first crossed the Punjab from Haryana in the East and long
before Sudās’ descendants reached as far West as
Afghanistan.
In spite of this, Koenraad Elst
started propagating the book on a massive scale, completely refusing to note
(not only the OIT-sabotaging nature of Jijith’s book, but
also) the extremely stupid and zero-data-and-evidence-based
contents of Jijith’s entire book (including and especially baseless
fairy-tales about five different rivers named Sarayu,
two mutually-hostile “Bharata” groups in the
hymns with both being the heroes or enemies in
various hymns, a new fictional “Battle of Asiknī”, etc.
etc.).
And both Koenraad Elst
and Jijith himself started a campaign (which ran on for over a year)
where they simultaneously started propagating that Jijith was the
original pioneer of many aspects of the OIT, while at the same
time making blatantly false claims about what I
myself had written in my books and articles. in
order to make my OIT Case appear ridiculous. These have been the
subject of acrimonious debate in different internet groups and even in many of
my blogs, so I will not go into all that again.
Earlier this year, Koenraad
Elst (who has already undergone major surgeries for heart
and cancer – a fact in itself of great distress for all true sympathizers
of the Hindu Cause, since his valuable and unrewarded pro-Hindu writings are
beyond comparison, which makes his single-minded advocacy of Jijith’s “scholarship”
and more especially of the DIT all the more inexplicable), was away from the public eye for a long time. After that,
although he has started tweeting again, his tweets are few and far between and
all his other activities I assume are drastically reduced. Nevertheless, even
in this condition, he has been regularly exerted himself to make claims about “scientist”
Jijith’s revolutionary role as the pioneering scholar
in the matter of various aspects of the AIT-OIT debate. To give just
three out of literally countless examples, he propagated “scientist”
Jijith to be the first and/or only scholar to explain the presence of Steppe
genes in the Indian population, to date the Mahabharata
War to the first half of the second millennium BCE,
and (now) “proving that the
Sindhū-Sarasvatī civilization was the Vedic civilization par excellence.”
That I have been writing all this
(and much more) with much more data and evidence right from my first book in 1993
is stonewalled by Koenraad:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/06/cant-people-jijith-koenraad-lie-without.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-date-of-mahabharata-war.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-common-identity-of-rigvedic-and.html
Likewise, Koenraad
has been stonewalling my own blog articles as a whole. I have, in the last few years,
written many articles of significance in the AIT-OIT debate (my
three recent articles on Indra are a case in point) bringing out new and
clinching evidence. Even more significantly, I have written one long article
which was the result of extremely back-breaking original research
on the Rigveda, and of high academic level (I am told a French scholar Arnaud
Fournet, whom I have very sharply criticized and even abused in reply to
his unwarranted criticisms, recommended this article for reading) which I
consider my single most important article in the AIT-OIT
debate (although there are countless other important articles where I have
introduced pioneering and revolutionary new data and evidence of a fundamental
nature on various aspects like the Mitanni, the Dāśarājña battle,
the Elephant, various aspects of Linguistics, etc. etc.):
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html
Even this article (already
four years old now) has been completely stonewalled by Koenraad Elst
who so assiduously does diligent PRO work for every word written or spoken by OIT-sabotaging
Jijith Nadumuri Ravi.
The stupidity of Jijith’s
work should be apparent to any knowledgeable person who reads his books. Koenraad
Elst is not stupid. This makes one wonder if there is an agenda
involved behind Koenraad’s unremitting and unrelenting glorification of
such stupid writings. So far it seemed only a personal issue. But now it increasingly
looks like something more: like an alliance formed to propagate the DIT
or Dravidian Invasion Theory. Every single claim about Jijith’s
revolutionary new discoveries on the AIT-OIT Front
simultaneously propagates the DIT on a war footing and is endorsed by Koenraad.
Clearly we now have a new unspoken
Grand Alliance of
1. a section (an OIT-sabotaging
section) of the OIT side,
2. a section of the Evangelists,
and,
3. a section of Dravidianists who
seek to portray Dravidian(language-speaker)s as an earlier
invader group into Pagan “Aryan” India, as the Evangelists
are a later such group, and want to form an alliance between the two against
the Pagan “Aryans”/Hindus.
All these three groups are united
in their independent propagation of the utterly and totally baseless DIT.
Of these three groups, the second
and third groups still have to come out in the open to show their fangs and
claws. But all the signs are there.
Perhaps a prominent recent example
of the ever-strengthening Evangelist-Dravidianist Alliance,
and its capability to slowly co-opt Rigvedic culture into its
joint operations, is the recent “Prajapathi” controversy.
A Google overview of this
controversy:
“The new project
is called Prajapathi, a feature film and
long-running dramatic production that portrays the life of Jesus Christ by
mapping him onto the Vedic concept of Prajapati. [1, 2]
Key Details
About Prajapathi
Origins: It began as a live stage drama
and passion play that toured across India for more than 25 years before
transitioning into a feature film format. [1, 2]
Theological Premise: The
production and its promotional materials frame Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient
Vedic prophecies, equating the sacrificial post (yupa) in Vedic
texts to the Christian cross (Purusha-medha). [1, 2]
Presentation Style: Performances
and promotional events often blend traditional Indian musical instrumentation,
Vedic-style chants, and conch-shell soundscapes with biblical narratives. [1]
Cast & Crew: Instead of
mainstream commercial film actors, the project features veteran devotional
stage artists who have portrayed these roles in the live theatrical version for
decades. [1]
Reception & Debate: The
adaptation has drawn significant public discussion and critique from cultural
observers and publications like Swarajya regarding
how ancient Hindu texts and terminology are reinterpreted within Christian
evangelism in Tamil Nadu.
[1, 2]”
[The film (or its trailer) was
launched by John Christian Devaram Prabhakar,
former member of the AIADMK and now speaker of the state assembly in Christian
CM C. Joseph Vijay led Tamilnadu.]
To sum up, people can understand
only as far as their intellects permit. As a Marathi saying goes: “zashi drushti
tashi srushti”: roughly “one’s understanding of the world is limited to the scope of one’s vision”. There can be anti-AIT and pro-OIT
people to whose intellects Jijith’s fairy-tales sound attractive and
convincing. But they should reflect whether the true agenda behind Jijth’s
writings, the DIT Dravidian Invasion Theory, sounds
equally attractive and convincing to them.
APPENDIX ADDED 16 Sept 2026:
Why Would Evangelists Want
To Promote a DIT?:
A reader sent me a private mail
asking me: “Why would Evangelists want to promote a Dravidian Invasion
Theory? And why would a staunch Hindu like Jijith, and one of the staunchest
supporters of the Hindu Cause like Koenraad Elst, support such a theory?”
It is a well-known fact that from
Day One, Evangelists have been strongly supporting the AIT (Aryan
Invasion Theory) and using it as a tool to break out pieces of Hindu
Society: Dravidian-language speakers are told that Hinduism
is an “Aryan religion” imposed on the originally Dravidian-language
speaking native people of India by “Aryan” invaders from outside
India (just as “SCs” and “STs”, to put it in present political
terms, are told that they are descendants of non-Aryan
inhabitants of India, conquered and reduced to a lowly status
by “Aryan” invaders who imposed not
just their religion but also their “Aryan” language
and an inferior status within the “Hindu” social system)
and that therefore they must reject Hinduism − and, of course adopt
Christianity, or just simply carry on the Evangelist battle from within
Hindu Society.
This fact is so well known to Hindu
activists that they automatically assume this to be the natural tactic of Evangelist
Christianity. But, on the contrary, this kind of reasoning is out
of sync with the normal and natural Christian Ideological
Playbook. Christianity does not typically
convert people of target communities by appealing to them to embrace their ancestral
identities (in this case, the alleged “pre-Hindu” “non-Aryan”
religious heritage of Dravidian-language speakers).
Christianity (like its successor Islam) typically converts people
by telling them that their ancestral religious identities
are “Heathen” or “Pagan” identities which will take them to Hell
and must therefore be abandoned for the One True Religion.
So the campaign to make sections
of Indians (Dravidian-language speakers, “SCs”
and “STs”, etc.) reject Hinduism by appealing to their “pre-Aryan-invasion”
identities (even if to ultimately accept Christianity), is
actually an aberration in Abrahamic Evangelist history.
Although it has been a grand and extremely successful tactic so far as
India goes, it does not represent true Christian Evangelism.
To a true Christian, any “Dravidian” religion, howsoever it is
to be defined, is as Heathen, Pagan and a “Doorway-To-Hell”
as any “Aryan” religion. And, as identifying Hinduism as “Aryan”
and therefore to be rejected in favor of “pre-Aryan” religion was only
the first step to Christianization, the next step is to define or redefine
what exactly was this “pre-Aryan” religion.
Today, the main target of Evangelism
is Tamilnadu, closely followed by Andhra, and both are Dravidian-language
speaking areas. And the problem is that howsoever it is redefined, it
is not possible to redefine “pre-Aryan” (or specifically “Dravidian”)
religion as somehow being the same as Abrahamic Christianity.
So the most ideologically
feasible tactic is to leave it almost totally undefined (except to hint that it
was somehow ideologically similar to Abrahamic Christianity, without going into
specifics). If the Dravidian speakers are accepted as native
to India, it leaves the door open for the idea that they were
originally idol-worshipping polytheists who held India’s
geography to be their sacred geography. Not quite
conducive to the Evangelist game! So: the original Dravidian-language
speakers must now be claimed to have no original connection
to the Indian soil, and it is necessary to make
them invaders (into a Pagan India) with no definable
religious features of their own which could connect them to idol-worshipping
and polytheist Pagan Hinduism. In this sense,
they were just like the Christian Evangelists who came much later.
Hence the two (Evangelists and Dravidianists) must now become comrades-in-arms
against Pagan “Aryan” Hinduism. And the binding force must
ultimately be Evangelist Christianity.
Thus, both the AIT and the DIT
can be used as weapons in the service of Evangelist Christianity,
in different hands and/or in different contexts. [On a broader scale,
emphasizing that all Indians, and all their cultures, are
ultimately “outsiders” in India is after all a basic element of Evangelist
propaganda to counter the point that Christianity is a foreign
religion].
As to the second question, there
can be many reasons why Jijith supports the DIT:
1. The very first reason is that Jijith
must have supported the DIT somewhere in the first place, in blind
acceptance f some western scholar. Going by his record, he is not the kind of
person to admit that he had made a mistake on any major point; and nor the kind
of person to at least stop repeating the mistake, whenever a mistake is
brought to his notice: the more the evidence is brought forward to show that
he was wrong.he just keeps on repeating the wrong assertion again and
again in more and more strident terms.
2. Jijith clearly belongs
to the school of thought which believes that attack is the best form of defense,
and somehow that the best way to defend the AIT is by postulating and
promoting on a war footing a counter-case in the form of a DIT!
Instead of “Aryans” migrating into a “Dravidian” India, he
prefers to insist that “Dravidians” migrated into an “Aryan”
India.
3. Jijith also belongs to
the particular school of Hindu thought which assigns the origins of all
the Vedic-Epic-Puranic tribes to the banks of the Sarasvati
river; and holds that the whole of Hindu religion and culture
(if not all the people themselves) in all parts of India emanated
from the Harappan/Vedic Civilization, as it spread all over the
land and gradually “developed” into modern Hinduism. Therefore
all aspects of Hinduism from all parts of India represent “Aryan”\Vedic
religion as it transformed over time. When speakers of Dravidian
languages (as per his theory) migrated through the northwest into South
India, they merely merged into the local “Aryan” cultures in the South,
replacing only the local languages (he does not clarify what
those earlier local languages were), but adopted the local “Vedic”- origin
religions. All this is perfectly in sync with the Evangelist
approach which seeks to erase all “Pagan Hindu” features from the
alleged “Dravidian” religion.
What is noteworthy is that while
not even the faintest vestige of any Dravidian language has ever been
found anywhere outside India, the northwesternmost language Brahui
had long been cited (as part of the AIT) to be a remnant of Dravidian
speakers who remained behind in the northwest after the other Dravidian
speakers migrated South. This is the only linguistic argument that
has ever been made so far to take the origins of the Dravidian to and
beyond the northwest (since attempts to connect Dravidian with Elamite
have been completely debunked: see also my articles on that matter). But
today all the major western academic scholars who support the AIT (including,
for example, Witzel, Hock, Southworth, etc.) have accepted that Brahui is a
migrant from South India. Isn’t it strange that it is Jijith
and Koenraad (supposed to be supporters of the OIT) who are today
citing an AIT argument which has been abandoned even by the topmost AIT
scholars?
As to why Koenraad has formed an alliance with Jijith to
propagate his fairy-tales, to spread disinformation about my own writings, and
to promote the DIT: Koenraad himself is best placed to answer
that question. Is he merely mesmerized by Jijith’s “scientist”
status, or is there a bigger agenda?
