Casteist Brahmin Supporters of the AIT on the Internet
Shrikant G. Talageri
The very first article on my blogspot, dealing with historical and socio-political
topics, was uploaded on 5/5/2016 (before that my blogspot only had four articles
on Lists of Hindi/Marathi songs in Jhaptaal/Roopaktaal, uploaded in April 2012). I
was compelled to upload my article " Manasataramgini on the Aryan Invasion
Theory" on my blogspot after the article (written in reply to an abusive article by
the blogger Manasataramgini, which referred to a whole list of writers, including,
among others, Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Dr.SR Rao,
Prof. BB Lal, and myself, as "idiots" for opposing the AIT) was rejected for
publication by the editor of a prominent Hindu internet journal. The editor had
himself asked for permission to post the article in his internet journal, and, after I
readily agreed, wanted me to delete all references to Manasataramgini from the
article as it would alienate and anger the myriad "Hindu" fans of that blogger. As
the whole point of the article was that it was a reply to his abusive reference to so
many Hindu writers as "idiots" (which apparently was perfectly acceptable to his
myriad "Hindu" fans!), I saw no sense in this ridiculous demand. I then decided
that my blogspot, lying dormant for four years, was the only spot to upload my
articles freely and fully in my own words without fear of "politically correct"
editing, censoring and modifications.
The amazing thing was that this motivated propagandist (Manasataramgini) for
the AIT, of which he seemed to know only the oldest and most outdated
arguments, was a militant Brahmin, and one who, as I was repeatedly told by some
mutual fans, had a large and devout following consisting of orthodox Hindus
(mainly, but not only, Brahmins). They apparently considered him as some kind of
great spiritual giant with high spiritual powers — on which point that gentleman
was apparently in full agreement, if one were to go by his pompous writings (in the
first-person plural!): e.g. ""We sat in front of Agni making the preliminary
offering with the ancient mantras, where Agni is described as being that of
Bh gu, Apnav na, and Aurva, our illustrious ancestors. The observant
individual would note, as we had done, that these mantras contain a key
reference that gives the identity of the original homeland of the Indo-Iranians,
and now likely all Indo-Europeans. We have never been to that place, but if
one realizes those mantras of the Bh gus, or the Bharadv jas or the
Vai v mitras one immediately sees the land it corresponds to – the land where
there is fire within water"!!
I had thought that the colonial days when Brahmins, as "Brahmins", were strong
supporters of the theory which linked them and their "illustrious ancestors" with
the colonial rulers and gave them a sense of superiority distinguishing them from
other lesser Indians with less illustrious (or even inferior) ancestors, was long
over. There were strong groups of such Brahmins in colonial India, and there is a
very important article by Madhav Deshpande (DESHPANDE 2005) titled "Aryan
origins: arguments from the nineteenth-century Maharashtra", which deals
with the writings of Brahmins from Maharashtra and Goa who militantly espoused
this connection or identity.
Lokmanya Tilak was one of those militant Brahmins who, in his book "Arctic
Home in the Vedas" (1903) likewise described the "Aryan" composers of the
Vedas as "the ancient worshippers and sacrificers of our race" (TILAK
1903:138), meaning the Brahmin race (!), and described with pride "the vitality
and superiority of the Aryan races, as disclosed by their conquest, by
extermination or assimilation, of the non-Aryan races with whom they came
into contact in their migrations in search of new lands from the North Pole to
the Equator"!! (TILAK 1903:431). And again: "the very fact that [….the
Aryans….] were able to establish their supremacy over the races they came
across in their migrations from the original home, and that they succeeded, by
conquest or assimilation, in Aryanising the latter in language, thought and
religion under circumstances which could not be expected to be favourable to
them, is enough to prove that the original Aryan civilization most have been of
a type far higher than that of the non-Aryan races" (TILAK 1903:409).
Dr. Ambedkar reacted sharply and critically to "the support which this theory
receives from Brahmin scholars". As he pointed out, "this is a very strange
phenomenon. As Hindus they should ordinarily show a dislike for the Aryan
theory with its expressed avowal of the superiority of the Aryan races over the
Asiatic races. but the Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion, but he
most willingly hails it. The reasons are obvious. The Brahmin claims to be a
representative of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as
descendants of the non-Aryans. The theory helps him to establish his kinship
with the European races and share their arrogance and their superiority. He
likes particularly that part of the theory which makes the Aryan an invader
and a conqueror of the non-Aryan races. For it helps him to maintain his
overlordship over the non-Brahmins" (AMBEDKAR 1990:80).
[It is one of the ironies and tragedies of casteist Indian politics that "dalit" leaders
who swear by Ambedkar today reject his anti-AIT views, and form an alliance
with the Breaking India Forces to propagate the AIT on a most militant and vicious
political level].
But apparently, though Brahmins in general have completely lost this casteist
obsession to link Brahmins as a "race" with invader elements "superior" to other
castes, there are still some mindless orthodox groups of people, even among the
most educated sections of Brahmins native to (and living in) different parts of India
or even living abroad, who like to believe they are the scions of superior invaders
from the past, and abusively oppose the OIT and militantly support the AIT. And
the internet is full of the pompous discussions of these fossils. They use fossilized
arguments, showing the outdated nature of their knowledge on the subject, and
make ignorant critical comments on different aspects of the OIT, showing that they
are unacquainted with the details of the OIT data and arguments. And they give
plenty of references to textbook Indological studies of the Vedic language, and to
the latest "scientific" genetic arguments, without showing or knowing how these
arguments in any way pertain to the movements of the IE languages. Or, more
important, how these genetic arguments fit in with, or explain in any way, the
linguistic and textual data and facts.
One funny aspect of many of these Brahminical AIT warriors is their fondness for
having twitter handle names based on Rigvedic names and words, which
emphasize and underline their ignorant status without in any way connecting them
with the Vedic composers. There is, to give just one example, an Indra
Vrtrahaana. I assume the double a signifies , but there is no such word as
V trah na in the Rigveda, or in any other Veda Samhita, or even in the later
Vedic texts. We only have V trahan and V trah .
And the points they discuss are as illiterate as possible: one tweeter, calling himself
Sud s Paijavana Respecter, refers to my having "insulted Witzel's wife". As I
have already, long ago (on 17/2/2021) uploaded an article on this stale allegation,
titled "False Allegation About My Insulting Witzel's Wife", this slander is
inexcusable:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/02/fake-allegation-about-my-insulting.html
Yet another person suggests that I place the Bharadv ja Ma ala (Book 6) as the
oldest — he insists the Vasi ha Ma ala (Book 7) is the oldest — because my
own gotra must be a Bharadv ja gotra. Actually my gotra is a Vasi ha gotra:
Kau inya!
Although many such ridiculous tweets by ignorant AIT warriors on twitter (and not
all necessarily Brahmins, but definitely Brahminists: the person who argued with
me loudest and longest after my article on Manasataramgini was uploaded was a
Reddy from Hyderabad, who had met me earlier in Mumbai and had expressed his
admiration for Brahmins), and no doubt equally ignorant comments, claims and
allegations on other internet sites and social media, are being regularly brought to
my notice, I do not find it necessary to reply to them since they are too petty,
childish or irrelevant to waste time on, besides usually already having been
answered by me earlier in my books and articles. However, I will take this
opportunity to point out a few hard facts about ancestry to those AIT warriors who
think they have some special caste pedigree, starting out with this business of
gotra. I know I may displease many supporters also in the bargain, but I think
logical thinking is of primary importance.
My gotra, as I pointed out, is a Vasi ha gotra: Kau inya. Is this then my
Brahminical gotra identity: that I am a descendant of Vasi ha? Well, logically, as
my father's gotra was Kau inya, and my mother's was expressly not (since gotra
is exogamous), I am only half a Kau inya even at the stage of my parents. Of my
four grandparents, only one was a Kau inya, and of my eight great-grand-
parents, only one was a Kau inya, and if I go up ten generations, only one of my
ancestral strands, out of 1024 ancestral strands, is Kau inya. [Of course, I am
speaking simplistically: there could have been many other Kau inyas up the
different lines, since we don't have anything even remotely close to a total of 1024
different gotras in our entire community]. So if I base my ancestral identity on
only one out of 1024 ancestors ten generations ago, there is something very
seriously wrong, and very seriously ridiculous, in such a presumptuous selfidentification.
And this goes not just for gotra, but for surname, caste, community, language,
race, religion, and countless other identity factors. Ultimately our present identity
is based only on the identity we had at birth, and the identity of our parents and our
closest ancestors as far as personal or recorded knowledge goes. Therefore, it is
extremely presumptuous to talk about remote hypothetical people supposedly
living in the Polar region, or even in the Vedic area or the area of the Harappan
civilization, as "my" personal ancestors or the ancestors of "my race",
distinguishing me and my "race" (or "caste") as a distinct entity since thousands of
years from the "race" or "caste" of other people around me.
I remember a Kannada film "Vamsha Vriksha" (Family Tree) from 1971, which
we as a family had gone to see in a theatre since a second or third cousin of my
father's (distant relations were well known and familiar in those days, unlike today
when millennials in our community know few relatives beyond their immediate
family circles), Venkatarao Talageri, won the National Award for Best Actor for
the year 1971 for his role in that film. The film (among other things) was mainly
about an old orthodox Brahmin who is extremely proud of his pure pedigree until
he discovers an old letter which reveals that he is not the actual son of his legal
father, but the son of some unknown Brahmin who was invited by his father to
impregnate his wife (he himself being impotent) simply in order to prevent the
property passing over to his brother after him! The point, at least as relevant to this
article, is that we do not know all the different unknown factors which may have
intervened in the course of history during so many thousands of years leading to
the present human population. So let everyone be proud of his/her own identity,
whatever it is, and respect the identity of others, again whatever it is, without
trying to draw out actual personal (as opposed to general civilizational)
conclusions about direct connections with ancient entities and identities.
Which is why I find it extremely strange when people enthusiastically try to claim
that the Vedic culture was the ancestral culture of all Indians, or that the Harappans
were the ancestors of all Indians. All Indian cultures (as opposed to distinctly
foreign cultures in India which still forge exclusivist connections with their foreign
cultural origins) are as much our culture and as much Indian culture as the Vedic
or Harappan, without necessarily being "descended" from either of the two. Thus,
the Andamanese culture (which sadly is dying out, with a hard push from
"Hindutvavadi" ruling politicians who want to herd the remaining Andamanese
tribes out from the land their ancestors have lived on for almost 60,000 years into
settlements and camps so that that land can be utilized for commercial purposes to
generate wealth for these politicians) is the oldest Hindu culture in India, as Hindu
and Indian as the Vedic or Harappan or any other, even if it does not have the
slightest connections with either of the two.
So Brahmins are not necessarily descendants of particular Vedic rishis, whatever
they may like to believe. Even in my third book in 2008, I had written as follows:
"there is no direct ethnic connection between the identities of different peoples of
the Rigvedic period and the identities of actual different peoples living in
present-day India, or indeed in the world today.
Thus, we saw the history of the P rus, Anus, Druhyus, Yadus and Turvasus of
the Rigvedic period, but there is no logical way in which any modern or
present-day group of people can be identified with any of those ancient
groups. This fact is instantly clear in the case of the groups which migrated
out of India: obviously the present-day speakers of Germanic languages in
northern Europe are not direct lineal ethnic descendants of the ancient
Druhyus of northwestern India even though their languages are distant
descendants of the speech-forms of those Druhyus. It is nobody’s case that the
ancient Druhyus of northwestern India were blonde, blue-eyed Nordics
(although Witzel presumptuously assumes that such would be the argument of
OIT writers: “autochthonists would have to argue that mysteriously only that
section of the Panjab population left westwards which had (then actually not
attested!) ‘non-Indian’ physical characteristics,
very special pleading
indeed”: WITZEL 2005:368), and it would be as ridiculous for a present day
Germanic speaker to personally identify with the trials, triumphs and biases
of the ancient Druhyus (vis-à-vis the other peoples mentioned in the Rigveda)
as it would be for an English language speaking black or native (Red) Indian
of present day America to personally identify with the trials, triumphs and
biases of the Anglo-Saxons of mediaeval England (vis-à-vis, say, the Normans).
Likewise, the Zoroastrians of the present day (the Parsis) are not only the
inheritors of the Iranian language descended from the speech-forms of the
ancient Anus (although almost all of them now speak the Indo-Aryan Gujarati
language due to a long stay of many centuries in Gujarat), they are also the
proud and direct inheritors of the Zoroastrian religion and traditions which
developed among the ancient Anus. But, ethnically, they are definitely not
linear descendants of the Anus of Kashmir, or later of the Punjab, or even
later of Afghanistan, in the “racial” or biological sense. They are basically
linear descendants of different ethnic groups in ancient Iran which, at
different times, adopted the language and culture of the expanding Anus.
What is so clearly true in the case of the ancient Druhyus and Anus is equally
true, if not so instantly clear, in the case of the other ancient peoples closer to
home as well. No caste, community or ethnic group of the present day is
identifiable with the tribal or communal groups in the Rigveda. Not even
when they bear the name of Rigvedic groups: the Yadus of the Rigveda, for
example, have nothing whatsoever to do with the different caste groups, found
in different parts of the country, including in the southern and eastern states
of India, who are known as Yadavs. Nor are the Anus identifiable with the
inhabitants of present-day Punjab or Pakistan.
Nor is there any group, caste or community in India which can be directly
identified ethnically with the P rus: neither the inhabitants (or particular
castes from among them) of present day Haryana, U.P. or the Punjab, nor the
different Brahmin groups, found in every part of India, which claim direct
descent from the different families of is of the Rigveda. To take a direct
example, the Saraswat Brahmins of the south (to which community this writer
belongs) has a strong traditional history of having migrated from the areas of
Kashmir and the Sarasvat river, and even the name of the community
testifies to this claim. Moreover, a linguistic analysis of the Konkani language
spoken by the Saraswats shows different archaic features (pitch accents, an
inflexional morphological structure, and many crucial items of vocabulary)
which corroborate this tradition. But are the Saraswats themselves actually
direct ethnic linear descendants of the P rus or their priestly classes? Clearly
not: the physical features of the Saraswats are clearly identifiable with the
physical features of other castes and communities of Maharashtra, Goa and
Karnataka.
In short, the history of Vedic times is just that: the history of Vedic times. It
has to do with the history of civilizations and language families, and must be
recognized as such; but it does not have anything whatsoever to do with
relations between different ethnic, linguistic, caste or communal groups of the
present day. The biases and the conflicts of ancient times are the biases and
conflicts of ancient peoples with whom present day peoples have no direct ethnic
connections." (TALAGERI 2008:363-366).
But these Brahminical chauvinists go even beyond the Vedic period and identify
themselves as direct descendants of remote hypothetical "Aryans" in places far
outside India. And feel impelled to support the most absurd claims of the AIT in
order to glorify these "superior ancestors" who distinguish them from the rest of
the hoi polloi of the Indian masses. Their support for the AIT is not based on any
linguistic, textual or even "genetic" evidence, however much they may insist it is:
it is simply a case of casteist bias disguised as a "scholarly" outlook.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
AMBEDKAR 1990: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, volume
7. Ambedkar, B.R. ed. Vasant Moon, Education dept., Government of Maharashtra
Publications, Mumbai 1990.
DESHPANDE 2005: Aryan origins: arguments from the nineteenth-century
Maharashtra, p.407-433 in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and
inference in Indian history”, Routledge, London and New York (Indian edition),
ed. E.F.Bryant, L.L.Patton, 2005.
TALAGERI 2008: The Rigveda and the Avesta The Final Evidence. Talageri,
Shrikant G. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2008.
TILAK 1903: Arctic Home in the Vedas. Tilak, Bal Gangadhar. Tilak Bros.,
Poona, 1903. Arctic Theory. My pp.].