Shrikant Talageri and his dubious Theory!

While the “Aryan Invasion Theory” (AIT) is being widely disputed, Mr. Shrikant G. Talageri has proposed the “Out of India Theory” to add to the further dispute. Though Talageri, often dubbed a Hindu nationalist scholar, has heavily been criticized for that, still, we still need to look into his theory and discuss how he, like other AIT/OIT theorists, is going wrong unnecessarily complicating the simple issues.

According to Talageri, it is evidenced from Rig Veda that the Aryans moved from east to west, from Haryana to Iran and Europe. He cites the chronology of the River names appearing in various Mandala’s of the early to late part of the Rig Veda and implies that the changing graph of the river names shows that after the time of King Sudasa Aryan movement began from east to west. “In the Early period, right from pre-Rig Vedic times to the time of SudAs, the Vedic Aryans were   settled in the area to the east of the Punjab: MaNDala VI knows of no river to the west of the Sarasvati.” Talageri states in his book, “Rig Veda” A Historical Analysis, chapter 4 titled “The Geography of the Rig Veda”

It is clear that Talageri is implying the demographic migration of the Vedic Aryans from east Punjab, Vedic Aryan’s original habitat, to Afghanistan, from the graph of the rivers appearing in Rig Veda. From the battle of Ten Kings also Talageri wants to impress upon us the westward movement of the Vedic Aryans and not otherwise as has been claimed by the AIT/AMT theorists.

Let us have a closer look at his theory. The mention of river names in Rig Veda in a different order does not imply the demographic migration of the Aryans in either direction. Rig Veda has been composed over the time span of about 300 to 500 years in the families of the ten Seers. 300 to 500 years time span that is given to the composition of Rig Veda, however, may not be accurate. It is just an assumption based on the calculation of generations of the Rig Vedic seers. Still, it can be assumed that the composition of Rig Veda continued for at least a couple of centuries. Talageri himself classifies Rig Veda in early, middle, and later parts thus agreeing that the Rig Veda was composed over a longer period. Over this longer period of a few centuries, and being mostly the pastoral, semi-nomadic, community, it is but natural that they would have been aware of the rivers located nearer or farther. If, as Talageri claims, the oldest part of Rig Veda does not mention any river from the west, they did not know any other river of the west, hence they must have been settled east of the Sarasvati River, which is a strange logic! He forgets that the main purpose of the Rig Vedic texts is religious, not to document geography.

The order of Rig Veda, from the first to the tenth Mandala is not chronologically correct. For example, the first Mandala of Rig Veda was actually has been composed in the late Vedic times. From the 2^nd to the 7^th Mandalas are said to be older whereas the remaining Mandala form part of the later compositions. Even the arrangement of every verse and hymn incorporated in them has not been chronologically composed. From the late addition of Purusha Sukta in the tenth Mandala, it clearly seems that the available Rig Veda is also interpolated to some extent though the claim is that the Rig Veda has orally been preserved as it is from ancient times without any alteration.

Hence the scholars should have been more careful while taking every word from Rig Veda as a final to support their theories. The riddle of the original language of Rig Veda also remains unsolved, though attempts are being made in that direction. Originally, it could be far closer to the old Persian, similar to the Gatha's, and kept changing in the course of time as a handful of Vedic Aryans shifted from west to east. 

However, we will have to do with the available text because we will not know what was contained in the missing portions of the Rig Veda. Rigveda is preserved orally like a tape recording from the time they were first composed and recited is a myth. 

If considering Talageri’s Aryan migration theory, it seems that Vedic people were hopping from one place to another while compositions of Rig Veda were continued by the Vedic seers. The basis of his theory is, as described before, the names of the rivers appearing in each Mandala in a certain chronology. For example, in early Mandala, only the Saraswati River finds its mention and he thus concludes that Vedic Aryans didn’t know any river located to the west of the Sarasvati. Doubtless, this is a bold statement. Mention or omission of any river name cannot become evidence of the geography known to the Vedic people.

Also, the mention of any river in any verse does not necessarily mean that the Vedic people were settled by that particular river when the specific verses mentioning the river name (s) were composed. One should not forget the main objective of Rig Vedic rhymes is religious in particular, not to describe geography in general! Mention of the river names in Rig Veda is in praise of them in poetic form. For such praises, it does not necessarily require that the Vedic people or seers had to be inhibited in the close vicinity of those mentioned rivers.

Talageri states, “Sarasvati is still the most important river in the MaNDala: it is referred to by the eponymous RSi Atri (V.42.12; 43.11) who also refers to the RasA (V.41.15). All the other references to the western rivers (Sarayu, KubhA, Krumu, AnitabhA, RasA, Sindhu) occur in a single verse (V.53.9) by a single RSi SyAvASva, obviously a very mobile RSi who also refers elsewhere to the ParuSNI (V.52.9) and even the YamunA (V.52.17).”

From the above statement, Talageri shows that Seer Syavasva was a mobile person hence he could mention the rivers from Afghanistan to Punjab. Again this is a blatant statement as he has blindly considered Ghaggar to be the Vedic River Sarasvati. Rather all the above-mentioned rivers refer to the geography of present Afghanistan and bordering India. Of Yamuna, we cannot be so sure whether it is another river from Afghanistan or the present Yamuna of India. Yamuna's name derives from “Yama”, a Vedic God, who also is frequently mentioned in Avesta as “Yima”. Hence there is a probability that the Yamuna of Rig Vedic seers was not the Yamuna River that still flows through India. Sindhu is the generic name for water bodies including rivers. Hence equating Sindhu with the Sidhu River that flows from India and Pakistan could be wrong.

In his above quotation, Talageri stretches his imagination to support his exaggerated theory. As said earlier, knowing the river names one needs not be mobile. One can acquire such information from travelers, traders, or even from friendly tribes. In a way Talageri contradicts himself. Finding no mention of any western river except Sarasvati in the oldest part of the Rig Veda doesn’t mean at all that they really did not ever hear or know the western geography.

Migration and Invasion theorists often suggest that the Vedic people renamed the rivers out of their nostalgic sentiment when they reached new places. Here they forget that similarity in the river names does not necessarily require the presence of the migrants. The similarities can be traced to the other circumstantial and linguistic factors prevalent in those times. Strangers giving some name to the existing places and locals accepting it are only possible if the locals are conquered or outnumbered by the migrants. This is not the case with Vedic people. Rig Veda doesn’t support any of the above.

Also, the fact should be noted that many river names mentioned in Rig Veda have not been in use since ancient times. Hence it is difficult to ascertain which river Vedics are referring to by particular name. For example, Ganga is thought to be mentioned in Rig Veda by another name, Jahnavi. This identification is already disputed by several scholars including Michael Witzel. The case with Shutudri too is the same. It is now being identified with Sutlej. Vipasha is said to be present Bias. Vedic Drushadvati is said to be present Chowtang. If Ghaggar is considered to be Vedic Sarasvati, there is no explanation for its name change! Ghaggar is not a corrupt form of Saraswati in any case. Many river names mentioned in Rig Veda remain to be unidentified with any other river. How logical are these identifications is a matter of debate. Corruption in the river names over the course of time is very much possible, but looking at the above name changes, they at the least are not at all the corrupt forms of the original Vedic river names.

Sindhu does not necessarily refer to the Indus River all the time but is frequently used in the plural for rivers. The “Sindhu” word also has been used as a synonym for large lake or sea.

In short Talageri’s chronology of the river names appearing in various mandalas of Rig Veda to prove the westward migration of the Aryans is faulty because the identification of the rivers itself is based on flimsy premises. This applies to the Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration theorists too, because they too use the same logic to prove their theories.

BATTLE OF THE TEN KINGS!

We will turn toward Talageri’s other argument in support of his out-of-India theory. The battle of the ten kings was fought on the banks of the Parushni River. Parushni is identified with present Ravi. Ravi was known in ancient times as Iravati. “Ravi” is said to have derived from Iravati. There indeed is no satisfactory explanation for the drastic changes in some River names whereas many rivers bear the ancient names even today.

However, even if Talageri’s theory is considered as it is for the moment, he states that King Sudasa’s movement is from east to west whilst his enemies are attacking from the western direction. He uses this information to add one more proof to his  “Out of India” theory.

Sudasa and his allies won this war. But what does it prove? How does it suggest the migration of Vedic Aryans from east to west? Has Rig Veda or any Vedic literature, even slightly indicated the movement of Sudasa from east to west after this much-celebrated war?

In the battle, Sudasa defeated his enemies. His camp was on the eastern side of the Parushni whereas his enemies, such as Siva, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas, etc., had gathered towards the western side of the river.

Parshus are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhta are identified with the present Pakhtun tribe. Sivas may be the people from the Sivalik Mountains. Bhalanas are identified with the Bolochi people living in the Bolan Pass region. Except for a few tribes, it clearly seems that the rest of the tribes were inhibited the present-day Afghanistan and its bordering regions. If we have a look at the geographical location of the Parushni (equated to present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, they would have to travel for longer distances and even had to cross the vastness of Sindhu River to reach the banks of the Parushni. Though identification of Parushni with Ravi seems improbable, let us assume that indeed Sudasa’s enemies did cross that huge distance to approach Parushni to wage war against Sudasa.

After the defeat, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated. The number of dead in the war is given as 6666. Though the figure could be speculative or exaggerated, the survivors of the war must have traveled back to their homeland after paying huge tributes. Rig Veda (7.33.6) mentions that Bharatas under Sudasa received tribute from defeated kings like Ajas, Sigrus, and Yaksus. RV 7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemy and gave the treasures of Anu to Sudasa. (Talageri identifies Anu's with Iranians.)

Sudasa, after this victory, would have returned to his capital, whatever it was, and wherever the war took place. Surprisingly there is no mention of his capital in Rig Veda. In fact, no city or village name appears in the entire bulk of Rig Veda!  However, it does not mean that he had no capital. Also, we are left to mere guesswork as to how large had been his tribe? What was the expanse of his kingdom? Looking at the population of those times his tribe could not have been too large occupying vast lands. An area of about forty-fifty square miles would be enough to provide for his tribe the necessary livelihood. Had the tribe been settled in Afghanistan or India, it needed not to cross vast distances in order to migrate unless there was a natural calamity of any kind or enemies driving them out of their original habitat. Rig Veda mentions none of such incidents. Rather Sudasa had won the war!

However, the battleground being at the banks of Parushni and both the parties to the war attacking from different directions, how does it prove the demographic migration of the Aryans to either direction?


If Talageri’s theory is considered true, then it will appear that the Pakhta, Bhalanas, Parshu, and some other tribes certainly had come to the war from the western side as their geographies are identifiable and they do exist even today. This is not the case with Sudasa and his tribesmen as there is no evidence that after the victory he too moved to settle somewhere in the west or east. Why a victorious king should have to migrate from his native place? Rig Veda describes that Sudasa and his allies chased the fleeing enemy, some drowned in the rivers and some were slain while on the run. But the original habitat of the enemy tribes doesn’t seem to have changed. Then why only Sudasa would desert his habitat to move elsewhere?

As stated earlier, the description of the battle of the Ten Kings is mixed up with mythical elements, such as the active involvement of Lord Indra in the war and his destruction of seven fortifications of the enemy. One cannot take the verses as describing the accurate history. Also, the location of the war can be disputed as the river Parushni itself is unidentifiable. Its identification with Ravi is far-fetched. Even if we agree to this identification, for the time being, it does not prove the migration of any tribe from east to west or west to east. The battle taking place on the banks of the River Parushni also does not indicate Sudasa’s homeland being east of the Parushni. The positions of the warring parties are decided by many other strategic factors at the given moment of the war. The direction from which they fight does not indicate their homeland was located in the same direction. Otherwise, we will have to consider Marathas had come from the north and Abdali from the south to wage the Panipat war! Positions at war do not indicate the directions of the homelands of the warring parties.  

In a nutshell whole premise is that there was Aryan migration (or expansion) from east to west can be surmised as a whimsical idea of a scholar. This applies to Western scholars and also to those who infer west to east direction from the outcome of the same war!

Demographic migrations are not new to the modern world. Small nomadic tribes can be seen on the constant move. From Rig Veda, it seems that Vedic society could have been semi-nomadic as it was mostly a pastoral community. However, semi-nomads tend to move around in a known geography of their habitat. That too applies to the clan of Sudasa. Had Rig Vedic society been constantly on the move, there would have been at least mention of the alien tribes they came across during the movement. In Rig Veda, about 50 tribes are mentioned in different contexts and they appear to be located in almost circular positions if the Avestan Harxvaiti basin is considered to be the center point of the Vedic Aryan’s habitat.

Except few tribes related to the Puru brotherhood all other tribes, including Puru, were non-Vedic…ayajnya’s. (Nonperformers of the fire sacrifice.) Even the tribes that fought against Sudasa and his allies are described as non-performers of the fire sacrifices. The true reason behind the war may be the religious conflict between Vedic and other opposite faiths. The Rig Vedic story of enmity between Vashishtha and Sudasa’s former priest Vishvamitra which became the main reason for the battle suggests that there were many tribes that were against Vedic religion and finally gathered against Sudasa to wage a war. Vishvamitra is said to have gathered enemy tribes against Sudasa over the religious conflict only.

Anyway, the war took place and Sudasa turned out to be victorious. How can it be connected with the Western migration of the Vedic Aryans as Mr. Talageri suggests?

Actually, Talageri indirectly supports the theory of the Vedic homeland being a part of Afghanistan. Most of the rivers mentioned in Rig Veda are of Afghan (Old East Iran) origin, including Sarasvati. Most of them bear the same name even today though Afghanistan has undergone many political and religious upheavals. Sindhu means river or sea and can be applied to any river, whenever used in plurals. Hence it does not necessarily mean to have used all the time for the Sindhu (Indus) river. Parushni could not have been present Ravi as the geography itself goes contrary to the Rig Vedic descriptions of the war.

Hence Talageri’s migration theory is bad in the light of his far-fetched conclusions.

Place names in Rig Veda:

Now let us look into the place names appearing in Rig Veda and Talageri’s conclusions based on them.

Talageri states that there are five different regions mentioned in Rig Veda. Those are;

A. Afghanistan.
B. Punjab.
C. Haryana.
D. Uttar Pradesh
E. Bihar.

It is suggested that Afghanistan was known to the Indians from ancient times as Gandhara, which is not true. Gandhara was situated around the Pehshavar region, presently in Pakistan country. There is a huge corpus of Buddhist ancient literature in the Gandhari language as well. The city name Kandahar is often said to be a corrupt form of Gandhar, but Kandahar is in fact evolved from the original name Alexandria which in the local language was pronounced as Iskandaria which took the form of "Skandar" in a later course, and finally came to be pronounced as Kandahar. 

Talageri states that the region name Gandhara appears only once in late upa-maNDalas of MaNDala I (I.126.7). He further adds that “But, the name is also found indirectly in the name of a divine class of beings associated with GandhAra, the Gandharvas, who are referred to in the following verses: III.38.6; VIII.1.11; 77.5; IX.83.4; 85.12; 86.36; 113.3;
X.10.4; 11.2; 85.40, 41; 123.4, 7; 136.6; 139.4, 6; 177.2.”

From this, Talageri wants to impress upon us his theory of the westward migration of the Vedic people, i.e. from Punjab to Afghanistan. He suggests that the Vedic people landed in Afghanistan during the last phase of the composition of the Rig Veda. However, the etymology of Kandahar does not support his theory. 

If this theory is taken at its face value, it would seem that Vedic people first moved from Punjab to the region of Parushni (Ravi), and from there they migrated to Afghanistan. But is it so?

Punjab.

Talageri, instead of explaining whether the name Punjab occurs anywhere in the Rig Veda, declares to us, “Punjab is known in the Rigveda as “Saptasindhu”.

Punjab would mean the land of five rivers. Talageri’s explanation for this is, that Sidhu is farther west and Sarasvati is farther east and the land between them constituting the five rivers would mean Punjab.

Talageri goes further to stress that the Avestan “Hapta Hindu” also refers to the Punjab region. This is something that extols the non-existent. “Hapta Hindu” in Avesta does not at all refer to Punjab, but to rivers in Iran (Afghanistan) itself. “Hapta Hindu” (Sanskrit Sindhu) would mean the region of seven rivers…not the region beyond the Sindhu River. If Hapta Hindu of Avesta is as same as Sapta Sindhu of Rig Veda and if is referred to as one and the same region, in all probabilities Sapta Sindhu region cannot be Punjab but the Valley of Helmand River of present Afghanistan itself. 

We should note here that Avesta may be referring to or mentioning the rivers that were present in Afghanistan. Hence Avestan Hapta Hindu could not refer to the region of Punjab but the region of Avestan geography itself. Rather Rig Veda mentions many rivers like Rasa (Raha), Kubha (Kabul), Krummu (Kurram), etc. which means that the Vedic people were more acquainted with Avestan geography than of Punjab. For example, Talageri admits that Vedic Aryans did not know any river to the west of Sarasvati, which means they did not know the Punjab, and Sindh regions located to the west of Sarasvati!

C. Haryana.

Talageri admits that the place names such as Kurukshetra or Brahmavarta (believed to be in Haryana) do not appear at all in Rig Veda, yet he tries to derive meaning from the so-called epithets, such as “ nAbhA pRthivyA” (Center of the Earth) or “ vara A pRthivyA” (Best place on the earth), he thinks is addressed to Haryana region.

Further, he states that “M.L. Bhargava, in his brilliant research on the subject, points out that these places are still extant: MAnuSa is still known as MAnas, still a pilgrim centre, a village 3½ miles northwest of Kaithal; the ApayA or ApagA tIrtha is still recognised at Gadli between MAnas and Kaithal; and ILAyAspada or ILaspada at SAraka is the present-day Shergadh, 2 miles to the southeast of Kaithal: MAnuSa and IlAspada were thus situated on the right and left sides of the ApayA, about 5½ miles apart, and in the tract between the DRSadvatI and the SarasvatI.”

First, let us have a look at Manas village. It is a small village situated in the Kaithal district of Haryana State. Kaithal's name is said to have been derived from Kapisthala, the birthplace of the Monkey God, Hanuman. However, unlike what Talageri states, the village is named Manas because there is a pond named “Manas Sarovar “beside the village. It clearly shows that the name is taken after the famous highly revered Himalayan lake “Manas Sarovar” which is a pilgrimage center since ancient times. Most importantly this Manas village is not any kind of pilgrimage center! Connecting it to the Vedic “Manusa” is a ridiculous idea. Need not to mention, that others too are highly imaginative derivations by the author.

While finding the references to Uttar Pradesh in Rig Veda, Talageri admits that there is no direct reference, still, he blatantly states that “It may be noted that all the pilgrim centres of Hinduism are located to the east of Haryana. There is no Hindu pilgrim centre worthy of particular note in the Punjab or the northwest. This also discounts the possibility that the oldest and hoariest text of Hinduism could have been composed in those parts.” Thus he contradicts his own theory of westward migration.

First of all, Talageri is committing a blunder by mixing the Hindu religion with the Vedic religion. There is no pilgrimage tradition in Rig Veda or even in later Vedic texts. Also on one side, Talageri states that the Vedic Geography (where most of the Rig Veda was composed) is in east Punjab, he admits that there is no noteworthy pilgrimage center in Punjab or west. Had Vedic Aryans been moving towards the west, he could not explain why most of the pilgrimage centers were on the eastern side.

Reference to the River Ganga appears only once and that too as Jahnavi, not directly as Ganga. Whether Vedic Jahnavi and Ganga are one and the same is not yet proven beyond doubt. It does not prove that the Vedic Aryans knew the regions of present Uttar Pradesh.

What we can conclude from Talageri’s Vedic geography is, he has recklessly tried to link Indian places and rivers with Rig Vedic river and place names, neglecting the overwhelming proof indicating Rig Vedic early geography being Afghanistan. Most of the rivers that flow in the terrain of Helmand bear similar names even today. This is not the case with Indian rivers including Ghaggar, Jhelum, Chinab, Choutang, Ganga, etc. There is no reason why the river names should have drastically been changed in the course of time if they were so praiseworthy to the Vedic people.

Also, it does not indicate why demographic migration of the Vedic people would have taken place? Most of the tribes mentioned in Rig Veda can be identified as the tribes of northwest regions of India and of Afghanistan and Iran. It seems Vedic people were quite familiar with them and their dialects. They too shared a similar dialect. Vedic people were familiar with the Avestan religion and their faith and borrowed heavily from them, including God and Demons, though in later times Vedic people had changed the meaning opposite to the originals. However, terminologies remained the same. Asura (Av. Ahura) meant “Lord” to Vedics as well in the early period of Veda, though the term was used as Demons in later times.

This shows clearly that geographically Vedic people must have been settled in the close vicinity of the Avestan people. Had they been migrants from Punjab to Afghanistan, the religious concepts, dialectical similarities, Gods and Demons wouldn’t have been similar. It is impossible. It cannot be said that Avestan people borrowed from Vedic people because Vedic Asura seems to have lost its original meaning immediately after the composition of some verses, whereas Avestan Ahura remained the same with its original meaning throughout! This must have occurred after some kind of enmity arose between Avestan and Vedic people. The battle of Ten Kings could be a possible reason for this drastic shift. This may be evident from the fact that the Parshu tribe too was a party to the war against Sudasa. Parshu’s are identified with Persian people. Talageri’s other bold suggestion is that proto-Iranians were located in Punjab in pre-Vedic times is another blunder that we will examine in a separate article.

Talageri, to prove his theory of Aryan migration raises the following vital questions:

1. Why the tribe of Sudasa should have hopped from Haryana towards Afghanistan intermittently? What were the reasons? What was the reason for his tribe to vacate earlier settlements to move towards Afghanistan only when there were other better directions available to him to move?

2. It is assumed and agreed by scholars that the composing of the Rig Veda continued for almost 300 to 500 years. This is not a small passage of the time in which many generations would have elapsed. If this is the case, was migration pre-determined, or was Sudasa or his clan forced out of India? Does Rig Veda give any indication of such happening?

3. If Talageri is right in his hypothesis, it would appear that the Seers of Rig Veda too traveled with the tribe adding the names of the rivers in Vedic verses as they came across. How then the bulk of Rig Veda travel back to India?

4. Geologically it is proven that the Ghaggar River during the times of the Indus civilization was in the condition as same as it is now, a monsoon-fed minor River. It was never a snow-fed river. How then Talageri can blatantly connect Ghaggar with the mighty river Sarasvati of Rig Veda?

5. If Talageri in his works claims that proto-Iranians too were located in Punjab in pre-Vedic times and moved towards Afghanistan later, how can it justify the linguistic differences in Vedic and Avestan languages? And what would be the reason for proto-Iranians to move from Punjab towards Afghanistan? If this really is the case why there is no slightest reference to such movement neither in Avesta or Rig Veda?

6. If there were a series of westward migrations of Indian Aryans, which were those migrating tribes apart from Sudasa’s?

7. Why does Talageri frequently use the term "Aryan" when the Aryan race theory has been abandoned on all counts, including modern genetics?

To find the solution to any cultural or linguistic problems, migration theories appear to be simple explanations, but they raise more questions that cannot be easily answered. Nationalistic approaches may delight some Vedic people but it drives away the masses from the truth!

Shrikant Talageri’s theory thus proves to be unreliable and only bolsters the egos of Vedic Hindu nationalists, nothing else!