More Out of India Madness

We continue to have crazies coming here proposing the OIT (Out of India Theory) of Indo-European. The theory is a pitiful joke and has virtually no support among any mainstream academics. In fact, it is so ludicrous that the mainstream does not even bother to respond to the respond to the arguments, because they are deemed not worthy of response.

What is sad, and frightening, is that almost every intelligent or intellectual Indian I have ever met is a fervent supporter of the OIT. They have all the arguments down pat, and they roll them right out for you. Supporting the OIT goes along with opposition to the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) which the Indians hate. The idea is that “our history came from the White man.”

Indians hate Whites, mostly due to British colonialism, so the idea that the White man came to India and gave them quite a bit of their civilization and their religion is resisted ferociously.

What’s pitiful is that the smartest Indians believe the most insane and stupid things. There is something deeply sick and wrong with Indians, and Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism are exemplary of that sickness. As with all fanatic nationalisms, Indian nationalism stems from deep-seated feelings of inferiority. This sense of inferiority was magnified by colonialism.

In recent years, the rejection has spread to all things Western. I know an Indian man who almost refuses to patronize Western medicine, I suppose because it is the medicine of the White man. Instead, he believes in some weirdness called Ayurvedic medicine. His fury and hatred towards Western medicine is shocking to behold.

Nevertheless, their ridiculous arguments must be refuted, because they have so much support inside India, along with some support outside of India.

That they have support outside India can be seen in the comments of Sojournertroof in the comments section. This fellow is an anti-White White man. He supports the OIT simply because it is anti-White, that is, the OIT is in opposition to the AMT which is seen as a pro-White theory.

Hydrology. Much of the OIT is based, believe it or not, on hydrology. It is true that rivers in the north of India all have Indo-Aryan names, not Dravidian or Munda names. Dravidian and Munda were the language families spoken in India before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. The idea is that since the Indo-Aryans were migrants, some of the earlier names should have been retained. Since they were not, obviously, the Aryans must have been indigenous to India.

What must have occurred was total replacement of the earlier names with new names for the rivers. As language replacement in North India was total (all North Indians speak Indo-Aryan languages) apparently they changed the old names of the rivers to new Indo-Aryan names.

The Sarasvati River. This is one of their favorite arguments. The argument goes something along the lines that this river existed 6000 YBP, and therefore the OIT is correct.

No one quite knows what river we are referring to here. The Sarasvati appears to be two rivers. The earliest Rigveda references are probably to the Helmand River in Afghanistan. Later references are to the Ghaggar River. But the Sarasvati is always this sort of mystical unseen river in the Rigveda. It became fuzzy and mystical early on. So all arguments about the Sarasvati are null and void anyway.

The OIT is counterintuitive. Exactly what evidence is there that IE speakers left India, moving north towards the steppes 6500 YBP, then moved to Persia 5000 YBP, then moved to Arabia and Anatolia 4000 YBP? Yet somehow it took them a full 2,500 years to even cross the Ural River. The theory is insane.

After much debate, in the 1990’s, the Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) granted the OIT folks a chance to show their stuff. The issue was so contentious that JIES had to void peer review in order to publish the issue, which was authored by an OIT proponent named Kazanas. Kazanas is a crank operating out of Greece who has picked up on the OIT. In the next two issues of JIES, Kazanas was utterly demolished, and the matter has not come up again.

Lack of memories of an Urheimat. An Urheimat is a homeland. The homeland of the Indo-Aryans is in the north, on the steppes of Russia. Yet there is a lack of legends of memories of this homeland or any migration, so this is said to be evidence that there was no AMT. However, most peoples lack memories of their migrations from wherever they came from to wherever they ended up. This is true even in Europe. The Greeks had no memories of any immigration to their lands, though they clearly came from somewhere.

Nevertheless, Harvard professor and Sanskrit expert Michael Witzel notes:

It has frequently been denied that the Rig Veda contains any memory or information about the former homeland(s) of the Indo-Aryans. […] However, in the RV there are quite a few vague reminiscences of former habitats, that is, of the Bactria-Margiana area, situated to the north of Iran and Afghanistan, and even from further afield.

Such a connection can be detected in the retention by the Iranians of Indo-Aryan river names and in the many references in the RV to mountains and mountain passes.

Also, there are some sources in the Vedas or in the Gathas that point toward a migration of the Indo-Iranians from Central Asia, including the Zend Avesta – Vendidad: Fargard 1:

“…There (Airyanem Vaejah – “Land of the Aryans”) are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees…”

That is a description of the cold steppes of Central Asia. There are also descriptions of warfare being waged by the semi-nomadic Vedic and Avestan populations against urbanized people who were not “Arya.”

The sequence of the AMT was as follows: The speakers of the linguistically slightly later, though still pre-Iron Age Indo-Aryan language, then moved into Arachosia (*Sarasvatī > Avestan Hara aitī), Swat (Suvåstu) and Punjab (Sapta Sindhu), before 3200-3000 YBP – depending on the local date of the introduction of iron.

We can trace the movements of the AMT by the introduction of iron, that is, they brought metals with them, in particular iron smelting technology. They also brought stone forts, chariots and horses. We can trace all of these things in the archeological record and they are powerful evidence for the AMT.

Recently, Armenians have come out with an Armenian Theory of Indo-European which states that Armenia was the homeland of Indo-European. It is almost universally rejected, yet pitifully it has much more support for it than there is for the OIT.

Genetic evidence. One of the major R1 clades, R1a1, associated with Indo-European, has indeed been traced back to India. However, this is not evidence for the OIT, since this clade goes back to 18,000 YBP, long before IE existed into far pre-IE times. Long after the clade was birthed, some members of the clade left India to go towards Europe and the steppes, where they became the IE peoples. There is a lot of debate going on now about R1a1, but none of the points being debated detract from the theory of Bronze Age Indo-Aryans moving into India.

There are also reports that there are little to no Central Asian genes in Indians, that is, there are few if any genetic markers of Aryan migration. Yet many invasions leave no genetic trace later on, and genetics generally gives little to no support for or against prehistoric migrations. It’s quite common. For instance, there is no trace of Italian genes in the British, but does this prove that there was no Roman invasion? Clearly, there was a Roman invasion.

There are also few to no Central Asian genes in Europeans either, but Europeans speak IE languages, and these languages came out of the steppes. By the way, there are also no South Asian genes in Europeans. We should expect some of those if OIT is correct, no?

Anthropomorphic evidence. What do IE speakers look like? They look like Europeans. Even the IE speakers in Central and South Asia look quite European. Afghans, Pakistanis, Iranians and North Indians look strikingly European. This is because of their IE roots. The IE people were an European/Caucasoid appearing people. Notice the striking difference in appearance between North Indians and South Indians or Dravidians.

If IE speakers all came out of India and moved to Europe, everyone should look like people from India. But this is not the case. Even Iranians don’t look like people from India. No one does. Only people from India look like Indians.

There is indeed a Dravidian substrate in Indo-Aryan, which is what would be expected if Dravidian speakers gave up speaking Dravidian and started speaking Indo-Aryan. It’s true that there are few Dravidian loans, and the substrate cannot be seen in hydrology. But the substrate is nevertheless clear, as is influence on Indo-Aryan from Munda languages.

Thomason and Kaufman note that the substrate looks like what we would expect in the case of language shift, and language shift is what occurred as Dravidian speakers shifted to Indo-Aryan. The Dravidian speakers appear to have shifted to Indo-Aryan yet retained their Dravidian accent.

Among IE tongues, only Indo-Aryan has a full set of phonemic contrasting retroflex consonants. Dravidian also has a full set of phonemic contrasting retroflex consonants dating all the way back to proto-Dravidian. Obviously, this set was borrowed from Dravidian into Indo-Aryan.

In terms of Dravidian loans, there are in fact some:

Parpola writes:

…numerous loanwords and even structural borrowings from Dravidian have been identified in Sanskrit texts composed in northwestern India at the end of the second and first half of the first millennium BCE, before any intensive contact between North and South India. External evidence thus suggests that the Harappans most probably spoke a Dravidian language.


The most obvious explanation of this situation is that the Dravidian languages once occupied nearly all of the Indian subcontinent, and it is the intrusion of Indo-Aryans that engulfed them in north India leaving but a few isolated enclaves.

Zero evidence of Munda and Dravidian influence in the rest of IE. If IE came out of India, all IE languages should show influence of Munda and Dravidian. Instead, only Indo-Aryan does. Therefore, Indo-Aryan moved into India and came in contact with Munda and Dravidian, and IE could not possibly have come out of India.

No accounting for IE once out of India. The OIT is great at talking about the Indian origin of IE, but is terrible at anything outside of that. There is no account of models of language development of IE after leaving India, or how IE is supposed to have spread elsewhere. Once IE is out of India, the OIT folks forget about their theory. It’s crazy.

Timeframes in the Rigveda. There is no reliable historical dating of anything in India prior to the 1500’s. So all Indian texts prior to that time must be treated very dubiously in terms of dating. There is no way to date anything in the Rigveda reliably, since the Rigveda uses no reliable method for dating.

Hindu culture is strongly ahistoric. It is not interested in dates and events. The fact that Hindu culture is so hostile to history itself and so lacking any sense of history is what opens up this whole field for debate. Hindus simply lack the ability to imagine that there is such a thing as historical change.

Archeoastronomy. This is a very dubious field. B. B. Lal uses archeoastronomy in an effort to buttress his OIT. However, the use of this method is treacherous. The model attempts to date astronomical events on the basis of astronomical calculations and is rife with error and speculation. Nevertheless, there are archeoastonomical journals. Lal’s theory has never been submitted to or discussed in any of these journals, therefore the validity of his claims is dubious. Even Lal notes that his theory is widely discredited.

The Bangani language. This language is referred to nowadays as Garhwali. Claus Peter Zoller claimed to have found Centum elements in Garhwali, which if true, would boost the OIT. Centum is part of the Satem-Centum split in IE that occurred about 4000 YBP with the splitoff of Indo-Aryan from the rest of IE. The split occurred on the steppes of Central Asia. Zoller made his claim eight years ago. No one believed him at the time, and that’s where the debate stands.

It appears that what he found instead dates from the Indo-Greek or Kushan periods of Indian history and has somehow persisted for about 2,000 years. That’s remarkable if true, but in no way does it support OIT. At any rate, most scholars don’t even believe that there is any Centum left in Garhwali, and most who do are fringe cases. Bangani-Centum is discredited and lies in ruins.

Occam’s Razor. OIT is so complex. India is a marginal area of IE distribution, not a central area. The main area of IE languages, with the greatest variety, is in Europe, especially southeastern Europe. This is obviously the linguistic center of gravity for IE. If OIT was true, we would not expect India to be such a marginal territory for IE languages.

OIT requires more and longer migrations than the standard theory in order for all of the branches to leave India. It requires a much more complex chronology in terms of isoglosses and archeology. The archaic shared isoglosses such as Satem/Centum are in Central Asia. Further, it requires the re-invention of the chariot by Indians, since they could not have acquired the Aryan chariot from Aryan migrants.

It requires all sorts of complex arguments of internal Indo-Aryan development to explain what appears to be substrate influence from Dravidian. In addition, all of this internal mess must have occurred in a short period of time – from the time between when the last Indic group left India to the beginning of the writing of the Rigveda. In contrast, the Dravidian substrate theory is much simpler.

The Kurgan theory is better. The Kurgan people fit the accepted time frame, expand their territory archeologically with time and have the basic cultural patterns of an IE people close to the center of linguistic diversity. Therefore, the Kurgan theory fits the IE model much better than OIT.

OIT requires an early dating of the Rigveda. The Rigveda is the ultimate book of Hindu literature. OIT proponents take the Rigveda back as far as 6000 years, but this is not possible, as the split between Indic and the rest of Indo-Aryan happened no earlier than 4000 years ago, even according to OIT. Furthermore, such an ancient date for the Vedas would have to reflect a Stone Age society, and the Vedas do not reflect that. The Rigveda cannot possibly be dated further back than 3,500-4000 YBP.

OIT seems to require a 7000 YBP date for the Rigveda. This is beyond the realm of possibility. Chariots? Horses? Stone forts? Metals? The culture of the early Rigveda is 2nd millennium BCE – 3,000-4,000 YBP. The Bronze Age. It’s as clear as air.

Vedic is much older than Hittite. This is a central claim of OIT folks and is necessary for their argument. It’s patently ridiculous.

Sanskrit is archaic. So what? So are Greek and Hittite, and none date back but a few thousand years. Ancient traits in IE are most commonly observed in Baltic and Hittite. Do IE reconstructions appear Vedic? Not at all. PIE look nothing like Vedic.

Horses. Horses are not indigenous to India. Horses are often seen on Vedic Aryan seals dating back 2,500-3,000 YBP. Obviously, horses, along with iron, came with the Aryan migrants.

PIE culture. The reconstructed PIE language does not fit with India. It fits with a much colder place, probably to the north of India on the steppes. India had a highly civilized culture before the arrival of the Aryans – these were the Dravidians. The PIE people did not have a highly civilized culture – instead, they were nomads, pastoralists and horse-riding warriors.

For OIT to be correct, the highly civilized Indians would have had to have lost the civilization and degenerated into a less civilized nomadic culture without writing or architecture (they lost their writing and architecture with the move to the steppes) after they left India, which then went to Europe.

This does not follow according to history. Less civilized cultures develop into more civilized ones and not the other way around. According the standard theory, less civilized Aryans contacted more civilized Dravidians and the result was Indian high culture – the Aryans went from a less civilized stage to a more civilized one, as we expect.

Early dates for Indo-Aryan don’t prove OIT. Early dates for Indo-Aryan are compatible with standard theories of IE development. The Anatolian homeland theory, which I subscribe to, pushes Indo-Aryan back to 4,600 YBP, which seems a stretch. Renfrew pushes Proto-Indo-Aryan all the way back to 5,000 YBP.

Red herrings. OIT proponents have all sorts of red herrings about the AMT. One of them is “there was no Aryan invasion.” But AMT proponents have abandoned the invasion theory a long time ago. Another is that there is no way that inferior horse-riding nomads of the steppes could have create the wonderfully complex language of Sanskrit, the Vedas, complex Indian culture, etc.

First of all, cultural complexity and linguistic complexity are not the same thing. Uncivilized peoples can speak very complex languages. Anyway, nomads did not bring fully-formed Sanskrit to India. Sanskrit, the Vedas, Hinduism, etc. were created in India by the confluence between Aryans and Dravidians.

This is a frankly racist argument anyway – that Central Asians were too stupid to create the great Indian culture – only wonderful Indians could do that. There is also a racist assumption that Sanskrit is better than other languages – or that it is the greatest language of all.

Physical anthropology. Skeletons look similar all over India for many thousands of years, so there is no evidence of an Aryan migration. Skeletons look similar all over Europe for thousands of years too. Continuity is typical in anthropology.

Northern Dravidian. There are isolated pockets of Dravidian speakers in the northern part of South Asia. These are obviously the remnants of a large area in northern South Asia that was entirely Dravidian speaking. Indo-Aryan speakers moved in, and there was mass language shift except for a few pockets here and there, the lingering pockets being just as we would expect in the case of mass language shift.

Horses. Horses have long been associated with IE societies, even in the Vedas. However, there were no horses in India at the time of the supposed migration out of India.

Impression of validity. Most of the arguments for the OIT are misleading, gratuitous, irrelevant or biased. They are pushed by kooks, nuts, chauvinists and fringe types. Mainstream academics usually don’t consider them worthy of a reply, contradiction or debunking, so the OIT arguments remain unanswered. This gives the impression that the theory carries some kind of weight. This is the case with a lot of fringe science, and OIT is very much fringe science.

Linguistic center of gravity. The linguistic center of gravity for IE is in Europe, specifically somewhere around the Balkans. Most branches are in Europe – Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek and various extinct branches. The Balkans seems to be the center of gravity for IE, clearly not where IE originated, but possibly a secondary spread inside of Europe. Central and South Asia appear to be ruled out.

Confusion of arguments. Typically, OIT arguments take the form of, “There was no Aryan migration into India.” That is, they argue against the AMT and not for the OIT. They waste all their breath on the AMT, attempting to disprove it, but then when evidence comes for migration out of India as required by the OIT, they are silent. OIT and AMT are separate arguments. You do not prove OIT by “disproving” AMT.


Mallory, JP. 1998. “A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia.” In: The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man. 

Parpola, Asko. 1998. “Aryan Languages, Archaeological Cultures, and Sinkiang: Where Did Proto-Iranian Come into Being and How Did It Spread?”, in Mair, The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.

Witzel, Michael. May 2001. Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7(3): 1-11.


Filed under Afghanistan, Afghans, Animals, Anthropology, Antiquity, Armenians, Asia, Asian, Central Asians, Colonialism, Culture, Domestic, Dravidian, East Indians, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Europeans, Hinduism, History, Horses, India, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Iran, Iranians, Language Families, Linguistics, Literature, Nationalism, Near Easterners, Pakistanis, Physical, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sanskrit, South Asia, South Asians, Whites

67 responses to “More Out of India Madness

  1. Harry S

    ‘I need 30CCs of cow dung, stat!’

    Not surprised to hear that Ayurveda accompanies OIT, since they both amount to the same kind of nonsense. It’s religion (Hinduism) being marketed as science/history.

    I used to live with a guy who followed Ayurveda. Apparently the cure to poor digestion is an incredibly limited diet revolving around mung beans, porridge and ginger tea. Oh, and don’t forget the ghee. Myself, I’ll just keep eating meat and having the occaisonal drink. It might be ‘tamasic’ but at least it’s sociable.

    Of course, I’m in Britain so an ayurvedic doctor is just someone who spiritual types living in Brighton go to when they feel a bit uneasy. I shudder to imagine what the ‘Ayurvedic hospitals’ in India are like. Yet Indians do go to these places, so I’m told, probably motivated entirely by supersticious nationalism.

    • I had great respect for Mr Lindsay upon reading his posts on intelligence even the once that pooh pooh intelligence of Indians. The Indian Engineer and doctors who lack the ethical values of white doctors etc.. etc. I do accept these observations, there is no doubt that there is a difference between White and Indian professionals in this respect.

      However, when you start porroting the colonial Aryan Invasion theory, all that disappears and I start wondering about the intelligence or morality deficit writer of such as post has. There is no proof archaeological/genetic or lterary of any so called theory. Infact from whatever my knowledge of genetics, I have read that basically all persons outside subsaharan africa originated in India. Cromagnon man originated in India as did the aryans.

  2. Wade in MO

    “There are also reports that there are little to no Central Asian genes in Indians, that is, there are few if any genetic markers of Aryan migration.”

    Could it also be that some of what we call central asian genes today didn’t become central asian until after later migrations.

  3. Wade in MO

    “What do IE speakers look like? They look like Europeans! Even the IE speakers in Central and South Asia look quite European. Afghans, Pakistanis, Iranians and North Indians look strikingly European. This is because of their IE roots”

    And what do the Basques look like Robert? What did the Etruscans look like? This idea that some have that Indo-European peoples are the only europeans is nonsense. There were ancestors of modern europeans who did not speak IE languages.

  4. Huax

    Aryan invasion theory claim that invasions leave no genetic trace, but then we look at Central Asia today and it’s 50% Altaic- so Genghis Khan must have really done a number on those Aryan supermen. Then again if they got their asses handed to them by a horse culture, as a horse culture, then I wonder if they really were all that super and conquer-y.

    It seems far more plausible that Central Asia always had an Altaic presence (as Eastern Europe and parts of Scandinavia did a Uralic one). IF the Kurgan (and Sredny Stog, Andronovo, etc where traces of East Eurasian Y and mtDNA were found) were I-E, then it seems easier to doubt that I-E and R1a are “white” than it is to doubt the genetic evidence of a Uralic or Altaic presence.

    Before anyone says, again, that I hate white people n’ sheeit, note that I am neither Uralic nor Altaic (far from it). It just seems far more reasonable to believe Indo-European expanded from Anatolia and SE Europe as an agricultural people. At most a group may have splintered off and absorbed Uralic hunter-gatherers and Altaic horse cultures, becoming the dominant phenotype in Central Asia and Eastern Europe via a demographic “edge” thanks to developed agrarian settlements in Europe/Anatolia bolstering their numbers.

    • Wade in MO

      “Aryan invasion theory claim that invasions leave no genetic trace, but then we look at Central Asia today and it’s 50% Altaic- so Genghis Khan must have really done a number on those Aryan supermen”

      Or the people invaded ( or migrated) into south asia were dominated by an elite group who spoke that language. Language groups are not synonymous with genetic groups. Many languages are spread by elite dominance. For example, in Turkey the people are mostly of indigenous anatolian descent, but the speak and altaic language because the tukic conqeuring class spoke and altaic language.

      Many groups in america today are not descended froEnglishmen in the slightest, yet they speak english as a first or only language. Large parts of sub saharan african speak french as a lingua franca, yet they have no french ancestors. Something similar could be said of Haiti. France is another example. 150 years ago only a bare majority of people spoke french as a first language. Many spoke other romance languages like Occitan or Catalan. Some spoke basque and other breton( a celtic language). There was also a group who spoke a german dialect (Alsatian). Now most everyone who isn’t an immigrant speaks French as a first language. The government has been at war with minority languages since that god awful revolution the had 200+ years ago. I doubt that everyone decided to fuck a french speaker and get the “french genes”. Obviously a language shift can occur without a large genetic shift.

  5. Wade in MO

    “That they have support outside India can be seen in the comments of Sojournertroof in the comments section. This fellow is an anti-White White man. He supports the OIT simply because it is anti-White, that is, the OIT is in opposition to the AMT which is seen as a pro-White theory.”

    I’m glad you finally see this douche for what he really is Robert.

  6. Dirty Bull

    The point is that EVERYTHING in India is down to caste.
    Furthermore, the lower castes are despised, and the higher castes are exulated.Now, there is very little doubt that *originally*, the Aryan invaders of India were of a totally different racial stock than the the indigenous people they found there (India was already very heavily populated at that time), and that the Aryan inaders set themselves up as the higher castes and the ididenous as lower castes/outcastes.
    Basically casteism as it was originally intended by the Aryans was pure racsism, rather like the ‘Immorality Acts’ of Apartheid era South Africa, the real intention was to segregate Aryan genetics from ‘contamination’ from indigenous genes – you see the Aryans held the indigenous in utter contempt in terms of physical appearance, customs, habits and religion.
    – Despite this, over the millenia, the quantum of Aryan blood in any ‘typical’ Indian, even of ehe higher castes, is vanishingly small.This is due to illicit miscengenation and subterfuge.

    Indians are all very aware of the above facts – and it is psychically painful for them to handle.Hence the lash out with downright lies, chips on their shoulders, and a deep seated hatred and envy of whites.

    • Harry S

      Would you draw a parrallel with the Norman invasion of Britain? In many ways there was a caste-like system with Normans on top.

      I can’t say I know that much about it, but I do know that for some time after the Norman invasion, the aristocracy of England was made up entirely of Normans. However, I’m under the impression that the small amount of social mobility in society reduced this in later years.

  7. Jaydeepsinh

    I am surprised at how arrogant and dismissive you are of Indians & their theories while at the same time triumphantly proposing theories based on flimsy evidence as fact.

    There is no evidence of migration of Indo-europeans into India. That is a fact you better accept for your own benefit.

    If you propose something you have to support it with evidence. But proponents of indo-european migration into India have no solid evidence.

    Moreover, Indian literature has memory of events very ancient. Do not be dismissive about the memory of a civilization.

    We Indians are justified in our anger when idiots outrightly dismiss our thousands of years of tradition & decide arbitrarily that Indo-europeans entered India in 1500 BC.

    What is the evidence for this date ?

    Our tradition dates the event of the cataclysmic war of Mahabharata around 3137 BC. To prove that is hard but one cannot outright dismiss it.

    Ancient people were not exactly lacking of intelligence & used reason, logic & sought evidence & proof of things just like we do. If they through thousands of years of history preserve something we have to pay attention to it & not dismiss it lightly.

    There are also genealogies of kings of various dynasties before the Bharata war mentioned in our puranic literature. None of them are complete. Yet the maximum no. of kings are mentioned in the solar race of Ayodhya where 95 kings are mentioned between the first king Ikshvaku & the one during the Mahabharat war. Infact, the greek ambassador Megasthenes said that the Indians had records of 153 kings & 6451 years between their first king & the time of Alexander.

    Do you think all of this is fairytale ? Especially, when even renowned scholars have over the millenia never doubted their historicity. Please also remember, people won’t remember something as historical unless it actually happened. Humans of the past were not fools.

    Also, we Indians had a very ancient tradition of recording the king lists of kings of various dynasties & also note achievements of great kings as also events. Kautilya in his Arthashastra, says that that tradition was waning in his time. Nevertheless, it was a family tradition where father transferred his knowledge to his son & the son to his own son & so on.

    In all our ancient literature there is no record of migration from outside. But there is evidence of kings defeating & driving out certain tribes further west.

    Moreever, the river Saraswati is mentioned in the Rigveda between the rivers Yamuna & Satluj. The dry river bed of Hakra river lies in that location presently.

    The current stream is small but its bed is far wider suggesting that in earlier times it was a big river. Moreover, there is evidence that the Yamuna & Satluj in the past were tributaries of this big river.

    Researchers have also found that there is a several meters thick layer of sediment below the dry bed of this identified course which indicates the presence of a large river in the past on the course.

    Moreover, of all the thousands of sites discovered of the Harappan Civilization more than 50 % of them are along this dry river bed.

    So, you have evidence of a dry river bed where a large river flowed in the past. You have thousands of settlements of the Harappan civilization along this river bed.

    Also, the dry bed is precisely where the Rigveda describes the river Saraswati to be flowing.

    Now, there is no evidence of any Indo-aryan settlement after the Harappan settlement on this dry river course.

    So what conclusion is drawn ? That the Harappans were themselves most likely the Indo-aryans.

    Also, there is evidence of continuity of tradition from Harappan times to the historical times.

    Our argument is not baseless & nonsensical so please show some respect & dont act brutish.

    • Your argument is utter crap. All of the OIT is based on nothing but lies, red herrings, nonsense and non sequiturs.

      OIT theory is utter crap. Science has known for 150 years now that the Aryan Migration Theory is true. Indian Hindus the most retarded shitheads on Earth for not believing this scientific fact.

      • Wade in MO

        “Our tradition dates the event of the cataclysmic war of Mahabharata around 3137 BC. To prove that is hard but one cannot outright dismiss it.”

        Remeber that link I posted yesterday Robert…..

        It’s a serious LOL, but I see our “friend” holds it as gospel truth.

        • What is this shit about them their great war in the Vedas 5000 YBP (when there was no writing LOL so the Vedas could not have been written LOL)?

          Fuck these Hindu dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • There may have been a great war, but no one knows. This is religious literature after all. It’s full of crap and lies. It’s like reciting the Bible as truth. It’s now been proven that many of the events in the OT never even happened. The Romans said they came from Troy. Not true. The Gypsies say they came from Egypt. Not so.

          If there was some big war, it was definitely not 5000 YBP. Maybe it was 3200 YBP or something like that if they were referring to present events.

          Everything a Hindu says is a lie!

      • Your entire article is so unbelievably unresearched and stupid, I had to laugh through the whole thing. To add to that, your rebuttal – “your argument is utter crap. OIT is utter crap” goes to show your very limited brain power. YOU my friend, are full of shit. Hilarious shit nonetheless.

        Love and hugs,
        An Indian, Hindu, Upper Caste, Aryan bitch.

      • You shit head buggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! u dnt have any rights to name us. Whats ur quality other than making citation from ur masters. You blatant slave!!

      • Inventor

        Dear Robert

        I am Swedish, and I don´t hate myself for it, but I am smart enough to try to keep my self comtempt and emotions out of my reasoning.

        First point: It is becoming clearer for each day almost, that our conception of how old “civilisation” is, must be pushed back thousands of years. As for instance the newly discovered submerged ruins of a city outside of the Indian coast.

        Second Point: When looking at these times for when civilisation began ( and perhaps languages with a sofisticated structure like Sanskrit ), Europe couldn´t have been( and especially not northern Europe), the cradle for the peoples bringing this. The climate factor was so obviously wrong at that time.

        You and others clinging to “accepted” science to pimp your own ego, you are all the time trying to subdue people with loads and loads of refferences of other supremasist assholes chielding themselfes with positions and titles, yet without really bringing anything new or firm to the discussion.

        The OOA thesis is one other example that is enforced by these powers of the western achademia, yet it will totally crack down soon enough now. I Think all this is a heritage of Rome and the Roman church knowing much more than anyone else and all others was simple barbarians. When in fact, Romans couldn´t even calculate with decimals or a zero.

        In my view, India is a much more probable candidate for the original Aryan civilisation, than most other places and Europé is just laughable to think of.

        My arguments or evidence? Look at dating methods that western archaeologists dismiss, because they are not telling them what they want to see, like zirconium dating. Look at “biological dating” measuring DNA mutational rates, and when they see 18000 years, then they dismiss it!!! Look at when the fossil called “Littlefoot” was far to young to fit in the OOA thesis, they rescued this by instead dating the surrounding stone, claiming that the fossil cavity have been filled out at a much later Point, corrupt bullshit, I´d say!

  8. Wade in MO


    I think I just hit a bullshit goldmine. I can only skim the site right now, but I already pulled out this link:

    “The Hindu origins of the Olmecs”

    Here is the original article, it looks loaded….

    “BHARATA: Root of all Western Civilization”

  9. carlos

    “This is a frankly racist argument anyway – that Central Asians were too stupid to create the great Indian culture – only wonderful Indians could do that. There is also a racist assumption that Sanskrit is better than other languages – or that it is the greatest language of all.”

    i agree, for example, the nomadic kushans brought art and culture to an unprecedented level in india.

  10. Dota-Player

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) believes that India has influenced Asia rather than the other way around. To the Hindutvadi, India is his pitarbhoomi (ancestral land). Therefore they will never acknowledge the migration of the Aryans into India, or the major persian and arab influences on Indian culture. Indians are emotional people and it is difficult appealing to their sense of reason. I used to be an Indian nationalist (albeit secular), I know they think.

  11. Akshay

    I don’t believe the Out of India crap and a lot of Indians don’t. A lot of historians in India don’t believe it too. There is something really wrong with overseas ‘Internet’ Hindu fundamentalists who are deluded. A lot of us in India are quite comfortable with a synetric culture. However, compared to the stuff you believe in, and your worldview, it almost sounds sane. Which it isn’t!

  12. Pingback: Dravidian history no one talks about … « 2ndlook – View From A Square Prism

  13. VERo

    SO Mr Lindsay you have the audacious temerity to call Hinduism as Shit. So what about Islam of whose fuckin dickless god Allah who preached Blast and explosion are the roads to heaven thats been the mantra of these shitty porkistanis and Talibans

  14. VERo

    Great Sarcasm… If you could travel to Pakistan, you can see how seeds of Anti-india and hinduism are being sown on to the minds of young kids..So when Islamists preach like this and believe blasts and destruction are gateway to heaven should we show love and peace for islamists????? would you guys after 9/11?? Didnt every one feel happy when Osama was shot down???.. Your posts about india are spot on, the country suffers from serious problems. I just want to apologize on behalf of other indians who used trash talk against you. Your views certainly doesnt seem racist against indians rather an anger echoed by every common indian man ..

    • Thank you very much sir. Believe me when I say that I only want the best for your country. I am not sure if a lot of Indian Nationalists do though. They seem to be content to cheer over the wreckage. Indians who want the best for their country can do better than that.

  15. Pingback: Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

  16. Manoj Pashte

    Robert before commenting on your article I would like to ask you to drop the words “crazies” “madness” from your writings. Each one has his or her own views. You are bent upon to prove your point about dating the Rig Veda to 1300 B.C. and not earlier than that. There are others who say that the date of the Rig Veda is much prior to 1300 B.C. By calling the people crazy and mad who propound the theory about the date of the Rig Veda being earlier than 1300 B.C. cannot give credence to your views at all. Be that as it may be,

    The Rig Veda contains so much mathematical an astronomical proof about its dating why is that being ignored by you?

    you talk about the invasion of the city of Mohenjodaro by the Aryans (by the way Aryan is not a race). In fact only about 37 skeletons of the period to which you attribute the invasion have been unearthed in the excavation of the walled city of Mohenjodaro. For your information all the 37 skeletons unerthed were observed to be properly buried NOT MASSACRED. The absence of arrow heads and weapons show that there was no war. Why is this fact not taken note of?

    Ashva in sanskrit means horse and the word occurs many times in the Rig Veda.

    Any way it seems that whatever you get against your setteled views about the AIT you tend to term it it as crap. Maybe that is your nature to overlook the truth even though you see it. May God bless you

    • Modern science has spoken on the question. An Aryan migration to India did indeed occur, and this is beyond all doubt. There’s nothing to debate anymore. The vast majority of Indian Hindus refuse to accept modern science and its conclusions because they are a backwards people who are ruled by emotion and not reason and who frankly reject the modern scientific method as a Western fallacy.

      This is no other theory. There’s the truth, and then there’s the nonsense, BS and lies that almost all Indians believe. It’s like Creationism versus Darwinism. There’s no battle of theories. Evolution is real, and there are no other theories, just lies and crap.

      • First, when everything was in colonial power u morons depicted blatantly AIT now climb down to Aryan Migration? theory wait some more time when your economy will see my foolish ancestors asses then you will eat on our vomits. You are so high on ur skin color to look down upon us and our view points i see it as my sun god wretched at yours lands n not giving enough light on you enough to keep u buggers in abyss that gave that pisach colors of urs. we love our pigmentation the real color of essential living entity. Wooooooo i pumped that i am trembling with angst>>>>>>>>>>GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!

  17. Manoj Pashte

    Modern science has proved otherwise. The satellite imagery of the saraswati river is for everyone to see.Indians believe in truth. Robert as is your nature you have given a go by to the proofs starring out at you about the falsity of the AIT theory.

    the proofs stated are only the start.there are many more proofs but you tend to overlook and give vague and unrealistic answers when you cant refute them.

    the river Euphrates or for that matter any other river from the mediterranian or from northern europe does not find mention in the Rig Veda. The land which is described in the Rig Veda is the land from the Himalays to the Indian ocean in the south and the land from Iran to east India. The religious places of the followers of the Sanatan Dharma are in India and not out side in Europe.

    the city of Dwarka has also been unearthed in the Gulf of Cambay. the carbon dating of the artefacts discovered goes back to 8000 yrs.

    Yes modern science has spoken you just cant hear it Robert. you are bound to overlook the facts.

  18. Anurag

    I find this article amusing. Science is based on pure logic not emotions. The same phrase when translated to sanskrit it is known as moksha or nirvana. I find this article filled with emotions rather than facts. I pity the way it has been written. It is hell bent to show aryan invasion theory as the superior one without any proofs. Never mind this just shows the amount of agony and insecurity one harbours against others. Be it OIT on part of indians or AIT on part of white(or aryans??). This article conveys us the message that legends are born out of emotion not facts. And for your kind information Rig Veda was not written by some lunatic but sages who left everything in their life to just pursue truth, the ultimate abode of God. People of our stature who feel the world with emotions are no match to these great men( i mean sages, monks, scientists etc who fall under this category).

  19. Firstly, I am seeing you dismissing this theory with such superficial evidence that you may not realize you are jumping the line. The OIT scholars are proposing some funny theories like the Earth is flat or we are living in vacuum or something that you are dismissing this theory without giving it a second thought.

    Another thing, it has been a fashion among westerners to dismiss anything that is pro-India, and when someone opposes this, it is conveniently termed as Hindu Nationalism. The fact is, your racism knows no bounds. Instead of talking of colonial effects on India, you should think about the colonial mindset of Europeans. The very unnatural superiority among Europeans resulted in the formulation of AIT which in itself was an effort to prove one’s superiority of white skin and some sort of indebtedness that Indians should have for the introduction of some superior people coming to their land.

    The mere misinterpretations of Rigveda are too much, The word Arya occurs in Rigveda 36 times. I challenge you to show me one reference in Rigveda where this word comes as a race or people of white skin. It’s a baseless assumption that Aryans were white skinned or light eyed.

    Talking of Saraswati, this river is mentioned to be in between Yamuna and Sutlej in RV(10.75.5). Plus, the Helmond river in Afghan does not match the description of Saraswati as a river flowing from mountain to the seas- RV(7.95.2).
    And strange isn’t it, that the Dravidians don’t even remember the very event of invasion that made them to shift to South India?

    Another thing, Indian Astronomy is a well researched field. No one can take a doubt on the astronomical dating of the Mahabharat and Ramayana. The fact is, if the calender of the Mayans can be held as true, then why not Indian calender?

    Along with Rigveda, you have to consider the evidence from the Puranas and other scriptures which give evidence of what was happening during the Rigvedic times. Without considering that, you cannot conclude anything,

    And the last thing, you talked of Hindu Nationalism being fanatic. Are you doing something different by spreading your western dominated, communist ideas? You say Indians against anything that is western due to inferiority. But aren’t you the same? You dismissed Ayurveda and other things in Hinduism just because they were Indian due to your superiority complex. The fact is ,after the onslaught of OIT, all you western scholars (?) have become some sort of warriors of a holy war to spread the AIT and dismiss anything that is related to India. If you talk of political motives to support OIT in India, wasn’t Michael Witzel (Whom you call as a ‘sanskrit expert’) doing intense lobbying in America when the AIT was being dropped? You are much more politically motivated, racist and anti-Indian than anyone.
    If you have GUTS, then why don’t you disprove the OIT with proper evidence? Has your Michael Witzel or Parpola been able to disprove it so far? NO. And when they are unable to do it, they conveniently dismiss it as a theory ‘devoid of scholarly value’.
    And what do you think? The Indians will bear this? When westerners are distorting OUR history, do you think Indians will keep quite?

  20. Here is the link of my blog where I have tried to prove the OIT using Puranas and Rigveda. See if you can digest this… There are 11 blog posts

  21. Tom

    What is pitiful is how a Mleccha(Impure) meat eating cannibal, can ever claim to be India(Aryan) is pitiful is the Wests search for an identity.;)

  22. Sujay Rao Mandavilli


    please find all my six papers [edit]

    The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths

    I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.

    Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization!

    The older papers were written taking the assumptions of the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct.

    Part one

    Part Two very,very important!

    (These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem)

    for those who have trouble reading part two in the above link use the link below: part one part two (very important) Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

    Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

    Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

    Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)

    – There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing

    Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

    1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)

    2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)

    Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

    1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  23. iitian

    Hey lund sey ( lol ) you look very insecured , for you anything that speaks against AIT is unscientific , you cant even give a proper rebuttal . Poor lund .


    pleased to present my new paper’ historiography by objectives’ this delineates a theoretical framework for the study of history in the 21st century and exposes the perils/pitfalls of all ideology driven approaches. it also probes the histirians duties towards society

    My previous papers on the Aryan problem are here.. calling more mainstream researchers to take up research on Ancient India.
    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  25. sujay rao mandavilli

    So what brought us here in the first place?
    Please do your own homework and read literature published by non-Indians (and non-hindutvavaadins) outside india .
    the situation may not be as simple as you are given to admit.
    Hindutvavaadins are merely taking advantage of a bad situation

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  26. Sujay Rao Mandavilli


    This is with respect to a recent article on the Saraswathi River in ‘The Hindu’ dated 17-04-2015. The identification of the Saraswathi River with the Ghaggra-Hakkar is accepted by leading archaeologists such as the much-respected late Dr Gregory Possehl as well and I don’t think any other scenario is feasible- readers may go through material published by him and other scholars in this regard. This is because of the following factors (a) The River Saraswathi explains the desertification of Rajasthan. (b) It also explains the transfer of populations to the Ganga-Yamuna doab in around 1900 BC. (c) The Indus Valley Civilization could not have flourished or taken shape with the Thar Desert sitting right in the middle and large cities on either side of the Thar Desert. However, the IVC was pre-Vedic as was explained in my papers, and the transfer of power happened through a series of acculturations. THE RIVER SARASWATHI DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION WAS VEDIC. If this was the case, the IVC should have been pronounced Vedic a long time ago, as the Sindhu was known in the RV!
    This is not the first time such a trend has been observed- and Marxist historians are possibly as biased and prejudiced as Hindutvavaadins themselves. For example, conservative western scholars such as Witzel have often called for a reconstruction of history from Vedic and other texts- Marxist historians seem to have a penchant for claiming that effectively nothing existed before 600 BC. Even Edward Luce and Edwin Bryant suggest that Marxist historiography is of questionable neutrality. I would also challenge D N Jha to prove that his book ‘The myth of the holy cow’ is unprejudiced or unbiased or explains all facets of the complex issue impartially. I even have the following quote of Irfan Habib “Let us look at why a historian chooses a subject. To give a very mundane example, because I had a Communist background, I chose to work on the agrarian system of Mughal India, at the same time that my friend, the late M. Athar Ali, chose the structure of nobility under Aurangzeb, because, being of a liberal persuasion, he wished to examine how far religious identities impinged on Mughal administrative functioning. We would not have chosen these different topics if our personal predilections were identical. So, even in research work, the very fact that one chooses a particular topic may reflect some previous presumptions about what is more significant in history.” (THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY: Irfan Habib Journal of History and Social sciences Volume: II, Issue I, January-June 2011)
    To reiterate, anyone who adopts a myopic or one-sided view that acts against the interests of science, society and the education system must likewise be exposed through empirical facts and data, and this is a process that must be begun in right earnest. This includes Hindutvavaadins, Marxist scholars, Dravidian nationalists, Euro centrists and Indo centrists, and anyone else for that matter.
    Marxist historiography, like Hindutva, is perhaps a one-sided ideology- it is, if it can be empirically proved, anti-truth, anti-science and anti-progress and is such is sure, like Hindutva, to go into the dustbin and rubbish-heap of history. I have, in my papers, taken the views of several mainstream and non-Hindutva western scholars about how racism and imperialism continue to haunt us to this day. Marxist scholars on the other hand, are silent about the issue – Marxist historiography is one of the pillars of racism and imperialism in India, and as such, one should have no qualms or inhibitions in calling it the Colonial-Marxist-Imperialist school of Indology. Marxist Historiography is also one of the pillars of Hindutva because one kind of a bias legitimizes every other kind of a bias. I have also discussed in my papers why a Marxist historian ceases to be a scholar in the longer term and becomes more of a ‘politician’ acting against the interests of science, society and the education system. Clearly, dogmatic Marxist historiography of the kind practiced in India is biased, one-sided and irrational, and due to this, we declare them anti-national in most respects, even though they may have no mala fide intentions per se. The fact that their approach is one-sided has been pointed out by many other scholars and we are certainly not the first to have done so. In many cases, they may be working against national interest, and in what cases they are working against national interest, they themselves may have no control, given that they may be entirely driven by dogma, unlike that approach that should be ideally adopted by logical-thinking individuals. As has been pointed out Marxist historiography has become synonymous with obsolescence and senility, and this kind of an approach cannot even continue beyond one or two generations, and will lead to depleted intellectual faculties, illogical and irrational behaviour, loss of personal respect and dignity, lowered level of professional competence, and such individuals may frequently act against national interest and interests of science and will inflict, like Hindutva, damage on the education system as well. We will persist with this categorization, however provocative it may seem, till they change, or can at least provide a convincing refutation backed by data. The fact that the average age of the top five Marxist historians in India as of 2015, was around 83 years speaks for itself, and this by itself should serve as an indicator that something is very seriously wrong with their approach. Thus, the obvious conclusions are (a) Marxist historiography in India cannot continue and is doomed to failure (b) It death can come about due to a variety of causes such as death of its practitioners, senility or old age (c) its collapse may also be cataclysmic like the collapse of the Soviet Union and may be brought about by the takeover of the field by other ideologues. (d) Its collapse with be disastrous, as there is no credible alternative approaches to history, and a fossilized-approach has ensured that textbooks have not been updated for decades. (e) Marxist historians are not even interested in combating Hindutva in the longer term. While they undoubtedly did play a major role in exposing Hindutva in the 2000’s, and must be thanked for it, their long-term commitment to the healthy progress of science is under question; the reasons may not be difficult to seek: when an individual starts with a fundamentally wrong premise, and attempts no course corrections over a period of time, he loses a sense of direction, loses his purpose and will eventually cease to act in the interests of science and scholarship. Such approaches also work against the natural process of knowledge-creation, and are against the spirit of innovation, adversely impacting many fields of science. In a recent paper called ‘Historiography by Objectives: A new approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed Twenty-First Century School of Historiography’, we identified nearly forty key objectives of a historian which would be endorsed with any one with elementary common sense – the performance of Marxist historians in all these parameters as would be very obvious to even a casual observer, has not just been abysmal or sub-par- it has been nothing short of disastrous! All this warrants serious course-corrections in the interests of science and scholarship.
    Indology needs to be modernized, liberated from antiquated nineteenth century paradigms and brought into the 21st century before it is too late. The stakes for all related fields of science and scientific progress in general are simply too huge to be ignored- this time the transition must be led by mainstream scholars and researchers. Unless this happens, and all ideology-driven approaches are driven out from the purview of mainstream scholarship, mainstream scholarship will always be at a risk of losing relevance. However idealistic this may seem to some, this is the crying need of the hour and has to happen. The healthy growth of science and scholarship must override all other vested interests.
    To reiterate, the key objectives of modernizing Indology should be as follows, as these should be obvious to anyone who has read my published papers as well:
    1. To use a scientific study of Indology as a weapon against Hindutva, Marxism, Dravidian nationalism, Euro-centrism, Indo-centrism and other ideology driven approaches.
    2. To use a scientific study of Indology to combat superstition and blind faith as most Indians rely on tradition and blind faith and a scientific reconstruction of history will go a long way in educating the people and can do for India what Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution did in the West.
    3. To use latest theories and acculturation models to help synthesize archaeology and linguistics and help trace the spread of languages in India and elsewhere.
    4. To use latest acculturation models to interface with anthropology and other theories explaining the evolution and spread of humans across the globe.
    5. To help in Indo-Iranian studies and research on the ancient history of Iran.
    6. To help the research of the history of writing systems. Thus, the modernization of Indology and the adoption of latest acculturation models can have a major bearing on the research of writing systems as we have shown in one of our papers.
    7. To help promote indo -US ties and ties between India and other countries as cultural barriers have often led to misunderstandings between Western and Indian scientists/historians and approaches like this will allow scientists from across continents to work together in greater harmony. As Marxist historians are living in a long-bygone age, they may not understand all this.
    8. To help in reconstructing the languages of the Indus valley civilization as approaches to reconstruct the languages of the Indus valley civilization have been presented in these papers.
    9. To help in the research in alphabetic scripts as a very detailed theory on the origin of Brahmi is presented in one of these papers.
    10. To use latest theories as a template for the cultural studies of Ancient India.
    11. To use latest theories as a template to study the invention & dissemination of other technologies such as metallurgy and transportation technology.
    12. To help popularize multi-disciplinary and India-specific approaches for the study of Ancient India.
    13. To popularize approaches based on transparency, collaboration and goodwill among researchers in the interests of advancement of research. (This is certainly not possible so long as Hindutvavaadins, Marxist historians and other ideologues exist.)
    This is a part of a series of posts to create awareness both in the West and in India- particularly in mainstream circles- Indology needs a revolution and a makeover- ask for it in the name of science!
    If this still does not work, we have many other tools at our disposal- all Marxist scholars will be branded imperialist, one-sided, anti-science and anti-truth- just as Hindutva is branded anti-science – and we will prove it empirically- such that they are driven to death’s door. So far Marxist historians may have been lucky as awareness of India related issues in the West is low and because racism and imperialism have always been the pillars of Marxist historiography in India- but that may be about to change.
    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  27. “Indian nationalism stems from deep-seated feelings of inferiority. This sense of inferiority was magnified by colonialism.
    In recent years, the rejection has spread to all things Western. ”

    This deep-seated inferiority complex that lead to the rejection of all things Western is also manifested in another way. For example, unlike East Asians embrace of Western culture like their parents have their kids learn to play violin, piano or other musical instruments and quite a few of them made it to the top in classical music scene like Yo Yo Ma and Sara Chang. There is not a single Indian classical music players that I can think of.



  29. Rahul

    By looking at your article and replies you look like arrogant who does not want to discuss something and want to force your will on others. If you are an academia than learn to listen others who do not subscribe to your views.

    I hope you will read my reply with open mind as that will show you respect freedom of opinion and believe in open debate something for which USA stands for.

    First of all, all the three theories – AIT, AMT and OIT are just theories. Nothing is established on ground with final proofs, so dont take it personal if someone advocates OIT. If you dont subscribe then debunk them with logic than rants. By giving rants you show that you are loosing the battle and so using abusive language. Dont forget that USA was nothing when India was highly civilized even before 500 years.

    I would like to clear some of your misunderstandings:

    Hydrology: How come highly civilized IVC did not have any name for their rivers, specially when it was a river civilization? If there had been only one river i could understand, but there are so many and Indus and Hakra (if you dont want to call it Saraswati) rivers are very big ones. If IVC people had given names then how come handful of migrants could replace all of them? This raises eyebrows atleast.
    Saraswati River: Aryans knew their geography, and flora and fauna mentioned in RV suggest tropical India not cold deserted Afghanistan. Identifying Helmund with Saraswati is just laughable. Lets subscribe to established argument that RV was created after Aryans came to India, then how could Aryans worship a dry river bed of Hakra specially when they had to cross Indus? They could always praise Indus instead of Saraswati. We have to bear in mind here that RV has placed Saraswati between Sutlaj and Yamuna and only one river bed fulfills characteristics mentioned in RV – Hakra Nara river bed.
    The OIT is counterintuitive: If there is no archaeological proof to support OIT then there are no proofs to support AIT or AMT as well. The JIES ref you had given is also false, Kazanas did clarified his stand in following journals, so dont twist facts.
    Lack of memories of an Urheimat: If this doesnt apply to OIT then it doesnt establish that AIT/AMT is correct either.
    Genetic evidence clearly shows that there was no influx of new DNA in last 10k years in India. Even if there was some Invasion/Migration, that was not big enough to completely change how North Indians live. For example, we do know that Alexander, Arabs, Mughals, Britishers came to India and modified our way of life, but that did not replace it.
    Anthropomorphic evidence: Your arguments are laughable at best. Europe was under thick ice sheet as early as 10k YBP. To think they created PIE is the joke of the millenia. Languages flourish when people stabilize in one area and starts farming. People in Europe, even if there were some, were just hunting people and could not develop any language which would be mother of all the languages spoken in major part of the world.
    Dravidian influence on Sanskrit: H. Hock rejected the Dravidian substratum list of grammatical and syntactical features created by M.B. Emeneau (1956, 1969, 1974), F.B.J. Kuiper and Massica. P. Thieme examined and rejected Kuiper’s (1991) list of 380 words from the Rigveda, constituting four percent of the Rigvedic vocabulary in toto, gave Indoaryan or Sanskrit etymologies for most of these words, and characterized Kuiper’s exercise as an example of a misplaced “zeal for hunting up Dravidian loans in Sanskrit”
    The Kurgan theory is better: Just because you think one theory is better does not make it true.
    OIT requires an early dating of the Rigveda: Whats wrong in that? In fact its ridiculous to even think that nomad Aryans came to India in 3500 YBP replaced earlier culture, river names, language etc and created highly sophisticated texts like Vedas, Puranas, Ramayan and Mahabharat in span of 500 years at most.
    Horses are not the only animal mentioned in Vedas there are many more and more prominent. Even if Horses are not native to India, they can always import them from central Asia. Remember IVC had thriving trade links.
    Linguistic center of gravity: There is a lot of confusion whether homeland should be where there is most diversity in language or least diversity in language. Nothing is established beyond doubt though.
    Confusion of arguments: Since me being Engineering and Management graduate have refuted all of your claims then it seems that there is a lot of confusion in AIT/AMT camp as well.

    Increasingly except linguistic everyone is moving to a consensus that there had been no AIT/AMT and all of people here are indigenous to India. However, I would reiterate here that I am NOT advocating OIT as that is also not established as a fact. The answer to this question does not lie in Central Asia/Europe or in linguistics. The answer lies in IVC and ruins on Hakra Nara Dry river bed. As, if IVC is confirmed beyond doubt Vedic then AIT/AMT theory will die completely. If IVC is confirmed completely non vedic then OIT will die completely.

    • I was going to ban you for calling me ignorant, but I will be nice and let you post anyway, even though you are wrong.

    • pepperroncini

      Nobody is moving to consensus that AIT/AMT is wrong, it is the accepted and established theory. You Hindutvavadis are always talking like any academic takes you seriously or gives your Nationalist bile any currency.

      Only 2 locales are ever considered for the origin of PIE , the Anatolian Urheimat of Renfrew and the Pontic-Caspian origin supported by the majority of scholars. Renfrew’s Anatolian theory has very little support.

      Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit is established, the controversy comes in deciding just how much Dravidian there is. There is also Munda substratum in Sanskrit. Witzel points to Austro-Asiatic in the 1st part of the Rig-Veda and to Dravidian in 3rd part. Witzel has said there is evidence for Dravidian in the Punjab. Maharashtra was 1 time Dravidian speaking as evidenced by place names. Aryan languages have been spreading over time, destroying the indigenous Indian languages.

      Sanskrit is markedly different from Avestan and other I.E languages in its substantial utilization of retroflexion which is common in Dravidian. More proof Sanskrit was the language of the invaders that adopted local linguistic rules and that speakers of Dravidian languages or another retroflexion utilizing Linguistic group adopted Sanskrit. European IE languages do not have retroflexion , which would have to be the case if PIE came out of India.

      On the genetic front, people from South India to Pakistan have Ancestral South Indian genetic component. Apart from ASI, there is also Ancestral North Indian component shared by all peoples of the SubContinent. More proof that Eurassian invaders mixed with the natives. There is no Ancestral South Indian among Europeans , which would have to be the case if PIE came out of India.

      Last word:
      These arguments with you Hindutvavadis is always a waste of time because you lie shamelessly and use half truths.

      • Rahul

        Robert is there a way i can change my name using the same email Id so that comments are automatically published. Too many folks have this name so there’s no point in me posting with this name. BTw good points pepperoncini. You are pretty knowledgeable in this subject

  30. Sure just go get a new name. People do it all the time on here, unfortunately.

  31. The only ones who fervently support OIT are the Indo-aryan speakers LMAO i wonder why! They just hate the fact that they are “less Indian” than Dravidians, In fact the whole “Hindu-Hindi Nationalism” is more or less just a tool for them to quell their deep seated insecurities and cognitive dissonance of being related to Europeans.

    No wonder why the Cow-belt Hindu leaders view Dravidian identity as a threat(Of course in their fictitious narrative Dravidian identity is just made up by the evil West to divide India and not an actual ancient culture that is unrelated to Hinduism).

    It just disgusts me to see how Dravidians in India are being fed the Hindi Nationalist lie that they’re the same people as the Indo-aryans and that Aryan migration is “just a myth” the so called “National integration” of India is just codename for suppressing&erode the non Indo-aryan cultures like Dravidans&NE Asians.

  32. dravidians and aryans are the two root races of present day indians .Or should i say tribes because they are both caucasian on skull and bone structure. DNA proves this, dravidians and aryans must unite and fight for the true history of our country. WE were always original natives of this great land and lived side by side respecting and intermarrying each others culture language and religion until these white scum of the earth invaded out land to change and steal our great civilization

  33. Rako1

    What the heck is this:

    “”””One of the major R1 clades, R1a1, associated with Indo-European, has indeed been traced back to India. ….. this clade goes back to 18,000 YBP, long before IE existed into far pre-IE times. Long after the clade was birthed, some members of the clade left India to go towards Europe and the steppes, where they became the IE peoples.””””””””


    • Varun

      Some Russians came up with this.

      First, Indians went to Russia between 18000 to 12000 years ago. There in Russia, they became Aryans, and came back to India around 3500 years ago.

      This is essentially Back-to-India model. It combines both Out-of-India Theory (OIT) and Aryans Invasion Theory (AIT). Hilarious, isn’t it? LOL.

      (This also partly explains the deeper Dravidian influence on Aryans in the remote past).

  34. I am pleased to present my theory on the origins of language

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

  35. Sanskrit is not archaic. It is not even one of the oldest, and father of all modern language.
    Sanskrit itself is derived from the aryan languages of vedas, which hittie,mitani, andronovo people used to speak.

    When these aryans came in contact with the dravidians, the coastal medditeraneans of the north west, then the sanskrit language got created by taking words of dravidian people.

  36. Aryans must have learned fast how to communicate with Dravidian majority in order to convince them to a) embrace their religion b) agree to be its bottom-feeders c) let their women be screwed by Aryans.

    These primitive white or sorta white cattle herders or Arabs or whatever they were really must have been speaking some language the Dravidian people loved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s