Shrikant Talageri and his dubious Theory!

While Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is being widely disputed, Mr. Shrikant G. Talageri has proposed
Out of India Theory to add to the further dispute. Though Talageri, often is dubbed as Hindu
nationalist scholar, have heavily been criticized for that, still we 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 towards Iran and Europe. He cites chronology of the River names appearing in various
Mandalas of 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 as The
Geography of the Rig Veda
It is clear that Talageri is implying demographic migration of the Vedic Aryans from east Punjab,
Vedic Aryans original habitat, to Afghanistan, from the graph of the rivers appearing in Rig Veda.
From battle of ten kings too 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. Mention of river names in Rig Veda in 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 clans of ten different seers. 300 to 500 years
time span that is given to the composing 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 composing of Rig Veda was continued for at the least couple of centuries. Talageri himself
classifies Rig Veda in early, middle and later parts thus agreeing that the Rig Veda was composed

over the longer period. Over this longer period of few centuries, and being mostly the pastoral, seminomadic, 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 knew any other river of the west, hence they must have been settled east of the
Sarasvati River, is a strange logic! He is forgetting the main purpose of the Rig Vedic texts is
religious, not to document the geography.
I must draw your attention to a fact to which most of the Indologists give deaf ear. First of all it is not
certain that the present available Rig Veda is in complete form consisting of all the verses composed
by various seers over the period!
A mythology is the Vedas had become obscure and mostly forgotten in Ved Vyasas time. Ved
Vyasa gathered the available verses from different parts and put them in order dividing the bulk in
the four parts. Ved saMhita was originally said to be consisting of over hundred thousand hymns,
whereas the present Vedas are just 1/10th of the original compositions. Whether myth is true or not
is not a matter of our present discussions, but there seems various detectable interpolations in the
Rig Veda. The order of Rig Veda, from first to tenth Mandala too is not chronologically correct. For
example first Mandala of Rig Veda is actually has been composed in the late Vedic times. From
2nd to 7th Mandalas are older whereas remaining Mandalas form part of the later compositions. From
late addition of Purusha Sukta in tenth Mandala it clearly seems that 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 original language of Rig Veda too remains unsolved, though
the attempts are being made in that direction.
However, we will have to do with the available text because we will not know ever what contained in
the missing portions of the Rig Veda.
If considered Talageris 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. Basis of his
theory is, as described before, the names of the rivers appearing in each Mandala in certain
chronology. For example in early Mandala only Saraswati River finds its mention and he thus
concludes that Vedic Aryans didnt 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 an evidence of the
geography known to the Vedic people.
Also mention of any river in any verse does not also 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 are in praise of them in
poetic form. For such praises it does not necessarily requires that the Vedic peoples 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 being the Vedic River Sarasvati. Rather all 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 present Yamuna of India. Yamuna name derives from Yama, a
Vedic God, who also is frequently mentioned in Avesta as Yima. Hence there is probability that
Yamuna of Rig Vedic seers was not the Yamuna River that still flows through India.
In his above quotation Talageri uses his imagination to support his farfetched theory. As said earlier,
knowing the river names one needs not to be only mobile. One can acquire such information from
the travelers, traders or even from the friendly tribes. In a way Talageri contradicts himself. Finding
no mention of any western river except Sarasvati in oldest part of the Rig Veda doesnt mean at all
that they really did not 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 do not necessarily require the presence of the migrants. The similarities can be tracked 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 doesnt support any
of the above.
Also the fact should be noted that many river names mentioned in Rig Veda are not in use since
ancient times. Hence it is difficult to ascertain to which river Vedics are referring to by particular
name. For example Ganga is thought to be having mentioned in Rig Veda by another name,
Jahnavi. This identification is already disputed by the several scholars including Michael Witzel.
Case with Shutudri too is same. It is now being identified with Satlej. 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 to its name change! Many river names mentioned in Rig Veda
remains to be unidentified with any other river. How logical are these identifications is a matter of
another debate. Corruption in the river names in the course of the 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 not necessarily refer to the Indus River all the time, but is frequently used in plural for rivers.
The Sindhu word also has been used as a synonym for large lake or sea.
In short Talageris 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 TEN KINGS!
We will turn towards Talageris another argument in support of his out of India theory. Battle of 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 be have derived from Iravati. There indeed is
no satisfactory explanation to the drastic changes in the some River names whereas many rivers
bear the ancient names even today.
However, even if taken Talageris theory as it is for the moment, he states that King Sudasas
movement is from east to west whilst his enemies are attacking from western direction. He uses this
information to add one more proof to his pet Out of India theory.
Sudasa and his allies won this war. But what does it prove? How does it prove migration of

Vedic Aryans from east to west?

In the battle Sudasa defeated his enemies. His camp was at eastern side of the Parushni whereas
his enemies, such as Sivas, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas etc., had gathered towards the
western side of the river.
Parshus are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhtas are identified with present Pakhtun
tribe. Sivas may be the people from Sivalik Mountains. Bhalanas are identified with the people living
in Bolan Pass region. Except few tribes, it clearly seems that, 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 (present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, they would have to travel for longer
distances, 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 Sudasas
enemies did cross that huge distance to approach Parushni to wage war against Sudasa.
After defeat, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated. Number of dead of the war
is given 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 the defeated kings like Ajas, Sigrus and yaksus. RV
7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemy and gave treasures of
Anu to Sudasa. (Talageri identifies Anu's with Iranians.)
Sudasa, after this victory would have returned to his capital, whatsoever and wherever the war took
place. Surprisingly there is no mention of his capital in Rig Veda. It does not mean he had none. Also
we are left to mere guesswork as to how large had been his tribe? What was expanse of his
kingdom? Looking at the population of those times his tribe could not have been too large occupying
vast lands. Area of about forty-fifty square miles would be enough to provide his tribe the necessary
livelihood. Had the tribe been settled in Afghanistan or India, it needed not to cross vast distances in
an order to migrate unless there was natural calamity of any kind or enemies driving them out of
their original habitat. Rig Veda mentions none of such incident. Rather Sudasa had won the war!
However, battleground being at the banks of Parushni and both the parties to the war attacking from
different directions, how does it can prove the demographic migration of the Aryans to either
direction?
If Talageris theory is considered true, then it will appear that the Pakhta, Bhalanas, Parshu
and some other tribes were certainly had come to the war from 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 victory he too moved to settle somewhere in the west. 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 doesnt seem to have changed. Then why only
Sudasa would desert his habitat and migrate?
As stated earlier, the description of the battle of the ten kings is mixed up with mythical elements,
such as active involvement of Lord Indra in the war and his destroying seven fortifications of the
enemy. One cannot take the rhymes as describing the exact history. Also the location of the war can
be disputed as the river Parushni itself is unidentifiable. Its identification with Ravi is farfetched. Even
if we agree to this identification for the time being, it does not prove migration of any tribe from east
to west or west to east. Battle taking place on the banks of the River Parushni also does not indicate
Sudasas homeland being at the east of theParushni. The positions of the warring parties are
decided by so many other strategic factors at the given moment of the war. Direction from which they

fight does not indicate their homeland too belonged to the same direction.
In nutshell whole premises that there was Aryan migration (or expansion) from east to west can be
surmised as a whimsical idea of a scholar.
Demographic migrations are not new to the even 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 circle of their
habitat. That too applies to the clan of Sudasa in whose rein the entire corpus of the Rig Veda was
composed. Had Rig Vedic society been constant on move, there would have been at the 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 the almost circular positions, if
Avestan Harxvaiti basin is considered to be center point of Vedic Aryans habitat.
Except few tribes related to Puru brotherhood all other tribes were non-Vedicayajnyas. (Non
performers of the fire sacrifice.) Even the tribes those fought against Sudasa and his allies are
described as non-performers of the fire sacrifices. True reason behind the war may be the religious
conflict between different faiths. From the Rig Vedic story of enmity between Vashishtha and
Sudasas former priest Vishvamitra that became main reason of the battle suggests that there were
many tribes that were against Vedic religion and finally gathered against Sudasa for 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 does it can be
connected with the western migration of the Vedic Aryans as Mr. Talageri suggests?
Actually Talageri indirectly supports to the theory of Vedic homeland being a part of Afghanistan or
bordering north-west regions of ancient India. The most of the rivers mentioned in Rig Veda are of
Afghan 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, can
be applicable to any river or rivers, whenever used in plurals. Hence it does not necessarily mean to
have used all the time for 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 Talageris migration theory is bad in the light of his farfetched conclusions.

Place names in Rig Veda:

Now let us look into the place names appearing in Rig Veda and Talageris conclusions based
on them.
Talageri states that there are five different regions are mentioned in Rig Veda. Those are;
A. Afghanistan.
B. Punjab.
C. Haryana.
D. Uttar Pradesh
E. Bihar.
Afghanistan was known to the Indians from ancient times as Gandhar. There is huge corpus of the
Buddhist ancient literature in Gandhari language as well. In Gandhari language Indian
Prakrit G phonetically changes to K. Present Kandahar is none but Gandhar to the ancient Indians
as evidenced from the various epigraphs. Except such phonetic changes we do not find drastic

variance in Gandhari and other Prakrit dialects of about 3 rd Century BC to 2nd century AD those
appear in various epigraphs.
Talageri states that the region name Gandhar 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 to suit his theory of 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 composition of the Rig Veda.
If taken this theory 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
on us, The Punjab is known in the Rigveda as Saptasindhu.
Punjab would mean land of five rivers. Talageris explanation to this is, Sidhu being farther west and
Sarasvati being farther east and the land between them constituting of the five rivers would mean
Punjab.
Talageri goes farther to stress that the Avestan Hapta Hindu too refers to the Punjab region. This is
something that extols the non-existent. Hapta Hindu in Avesta does not at all refer to the Punjab,
but rivers in Afghanistan itself. Hapta Hindu (Sankrit Sindhu) would mean region of seven rivers
not the region beyond Sindhu River. If Hapta Hindu of Avesta is as same as Sapta Sindhu of Rig
Veda and if is referred to one and the same region, in all probabilities Sapta Sindhu region cannot
be Punjab but valley of Helmand river of present Afghanistan itself.
We should note here that Avesta does not refer to or mention any other river except those are
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 the Punjab.For example Talageri admits that
Vedic Aryan's did not know any river to the west of the Sarasvati, means they did not know
the Punjab, 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) does 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 3 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 5 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 Kaithal district of
Haryana State. Kaithal name is said to have been derived from Kapisthala, birth place of the
Monkey God, Hanuman. However unlike what Talageri states, the village is named Manas
because there is a pond named Manas sarovar besides the village. It clearly shows that the
name is taken after famous highly revered Himalayan lake Manas Sarovar which is
pilgrimage center from ancient times. Most importantly this Manas village is not any kind of
pilgrimage center! Connecting it to the Vedic Manusa is an ridiculous idea. Need not to
mention, others too are highly imaginative derivations by the author.
While finding the references of 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 Hindu religion with Vedic religion. There is no
pilgrimage tradition in Rig Veda or even in later Vedic texts. Also at one side Talageri states that the
Vedic Geography (where most of the Rig Veda was composed) is east Punjab, he admits that there
is no noteworthy pilgrimage center in Punjab or west. Had Vedic Aryans were moving towards west,
he cannot explain why the most of the pilgrimage centers are at eastern side.
Reference to the River Ganga appears only once and that too as Jahnavi, not directly as Ganga.
Whether Vedic Jahnavi and Ganga is one and the same is not yet proven beyond doubt. It does not
prove that the Vedic Aryan's knew the regions of present Uttar Pradesh.
What we can conclude from Talageris Vedic geography is, he has recklessly tried to link Indian
places and rivers with Rig Vedic river and place names, neglecting the overwhelming proofs
indicating Rig Vedic early geography being Gandhar,that is to say present Afghanistan. Most of the
rivers those flow in the terrain of Helmand bear similar names even today. This is not the case with
Indian rivers including Ghaggar, Jhelam, Chinab, Choutang, Ganga etc. There is no reason why the
river names should have drastically been changed in the course of the 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 with the tribes of north-west regions of
India and of Afghanistan and Iran. It seems Vedic people were quite familiar with them and their
dialects. They too shared similar dialect. Vedic people were familiar with Avestan religion and their
faith and borrowed heavily from them, including Gods 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 Vedas, 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 the Punjab to Afghanistan, the religious concepts,
dialectical similarities, Gods and Demons wouldnt 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 composition of some verses, whereas Avestan Ahur did remain
the same with its original meaning throughout! This must have occurred after some kind of enmity
arose between Avestan and Vedic people. Battle of Ten Kings could be a possible reason for this
drastic shift. This may be evident from a fact that Parshu tribe too was a party to the war against
Sudasa. Parshus are identified with Persian people. Talageris another bold suggestion is protoIranians were located in Punjab in pre-Vedic times is another blunder that we will examine in

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 too were available to him to move?
2. It is assumed and agreed by the 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 was 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 traveled back to India?
4. Geologically it is proven that the Ghaggar River during the times of Indus civilization were in the
condition as same as it is now, a monsoon fed minor River. It was never snow fed river. How then
Talageri connects 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 of the reference to such movement
neither in Avesta nor Rig Veda?
6. If there were series of westward migrations of Indian Aryans, which were those migrating tribes
apart from Sudasas?
7. Why Talageri frequently uses the term "Aryan's" when the Aryan race theory has been abandoned
on all counts, including modern genetics?
To find solution to any cultural or linguist problems, migration theories appear to be simple
explanations, but they raises more questions those cannot be easily answered. Nationalistic
approaches may delight to some Vedic people but it drives away the masses from the truth!
Shrikant Talageris theory thus proves to be unreliable that only can bolster the egos of Vedic Hindu
nationalists, nothing else!