Hans Henrich Hock A Scholar Lying Through His Teeth

satyameva jayate nānṛtaṁ, satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ, yenākramantyṛṣayo hyāptakāmā, yatra tat satyasya paramaṁ nidhānam - Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6

Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood. Through truth the divine path is spread out by which the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled, reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides.

Share:- Facebook

Hans Henrich Hock -A scholar lying through his teeth

-by Shrikant Talageri

Hans Henrich Hock, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Sanskrit at the University of Illinois, and a prolific speaker and crusader for certain points of view on various forums, including the internet and particularly Youtube, spoke at the Lucy Ellis Lounge of the University on 9/9/2013. A summary of the gist of his talk will be found at the following site:


In this summary of his talk, there is a reference to my name in the context of the three books written by me on the problem of the Indo-European Homeland: "only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008".

In his review of my third book (2008) on his internet blog, Koenraad Elst had disapproved of my criticism of “mild-mannered Prof. H.H. Hock” in that book in my rebuttal of a linguistic argument made by him. Elst further elaborated to me personally later that Hock was, in his well considered opinion, a reasonably honest, open-minded and unbiased scholar.

Is Hock an honest scholar or is he an agenda-driven “scholar” who can be brazenly dishonest and can lie through his teeth when it suits his purpose to malign and libel the writings of someone whom he regards as being from an academically opposite point of view? We will examine this in detail in respect of the above reference to my name in the above summary of his talk at the Illinois University.

His statement summarizes the three main “ideologically motivated” equations which I am alleged to have presented in my books:

“Aryans” = Hindus
Only “Aryans” are “Real Indians”
Only Hindus are “Real Indians”

Further, his statement announces that:

I presented these three equations in my books.
These equations in fact represent a complete summing up of everything written in my books.
My book is the leading or most typical representative of the ideological agenda behind these three equations.

Note the following points:

1. My three books present a complete and irrefutable case for the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages originated in India. The data is so varied and complete and so final that I challenge anyone to examine my data, analysis and conclusions and prove where I am wrong. I can not of course insist as a personal right that every scholar of the Indo-European Homeland question should accept my hypothesis and admit that whatever he wrote all these years is wrong. I can not even insist as a right that such scholars should at all take cognizance of my books and my hypothesis. The truth, whatever it is, will ultimately prevail in the course of time. But, if any such scholar does take official cognizance of my books, I do have an intellectual right to expect that he deals with a minimum amount of fairness and honesty with my case.

What Hock does is he refers to my books, but completely and absolutely ignores everything relevant to the academic discussion contained in those books. In an act of extreme intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and charlatanism, Hock treats the entire content of all my three books (1993b, 2000, 2008) as completely non-existent, and sums up my entire case as consisting of an ideological agenda which he derives from three extraneous non-academic additional chapters contained in version 1993a of the first book. (His bibliography in the above summary refers to them as follows: “Talageri, Shrikant G. 1993a. Aryan invasion theory and Indian nationalism. New Delhi: Voice of India.Talageri, Shrikant G. 1993b. The Aryan invasion theory: A reappraisal. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. [≈ 1993a, omitting the first, Hindutva-ideological chapter.]”).

2. Not only does he treat the sum of my entire case in my three books as consisting only of the ideological message he derives from the three additional extraneous chapters contained in version 1993a of the first book, but he lies through his teeth even in summing up the ideological message in these three chapters, and gives the gist of my books as “only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians”, which, as we will see in detail in this article, is an outright and a brazen lie.

3. Finally, in the same above summary, he advises all scholars studying the Indo-European question (or perhaps any historical question involving India) to suppress facts and self-censor their own studies and conclusions so as not to provide any quotable material favorable to any “Indian nationalist” agenda: “Indo-Europeanists must exercise caution, lest they unwittingly support ideologically motivated agendas”

We will examine in detail these three ideological equations supposed to represent the sum total of my three books.


To begin with, I have made it clear everywhere in my books that the word “Aryan” is a word which just incidentally came to be applied to what we would now call the “Indo-European” languages, and after the Nazi misuse of the word, it is usually used only for the “Indo-Iranian” languages, whose oldest texts, the Rigveda and the Avesta, seem to use the word in a first-person sense. It is therefore a purely linguistic word which applies to languages and not to a group of people.

Again, wherever the word is used in my books for a group of people even in the linguistic sense of “people speaking the Indo-European languages”, it is only used for the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European speakers (mainly in quotations or discussions where the word is so used), or, more regularly for the ancient Vedic people in the phrase “Vedic Aryans” (the word “Vedic” always a necessary part of the combined phrase).

The use of the word in a racial or ethnic sense to be identified with any living community of the present day has been completely rejected by me in detail right from my first book in a full chapter “The Racial Evidence” (TALAGERI 1993a:236-253).

Further, I have, in great detail, throughout my three books, made it clear that even from the Indian Homeland point of view, the “Vedic Aryans” were not the ancestral race of the entire present-day population of India in any sense of the term. The “Vedic Aryans” were just one of many tribes inhabitingNorth India in ancient times. Specifically, “the Vedic Aryans were the Purus of the ancient texts. And in fact, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were one section among these Purus, who called themselves Bharatas” (TALAGERI 2000:138), the Purus/Bharatas being the ancient inhabitants of Haryana, eastern Punjab and western U.P.

And, for people whose dull brains fail to get the detailed messages repeatedly hammered throughout the pages of my three voluminous books, I once again reiterated in the last chapter of my third book: “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” (TALAGERI 2008:363), and, even more specifically, ”Nor is there any group, caste or community in India which can be directly identified ethnically with the Purus: neither the inhabitants (or particular castes from among them) of present-day Haryana, U.P. or Punjab, nor the different Brahmin groups, found in every part of India, which claim direct descent from the different families of rsis of the Rigveda….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, caste or communal groups of the present day. The biases and conflicts of ancient times are the biases and conflicts of ancient peoples with whom present day peoples have no direct connections” (TALAGERI 2008:365-6).

These are just a few quotations from my three books. I could produce countless more such quotations to show that I have continuously reiterated that the word “Aryans” can not be used even in any ethnic sense, let alone in a religious sense, for any group or community of people of the present day. Can anyone produce even one quotation to the contrary from my three books to show that I have in fact identified “Aryans” with a specific present day group of people, let alone a religious group like Hindus?

Only “Aryans” are “Real Indians”

When I have nowhere identified Aryans with any modern day group of people, is it possible that “Only‘Aryans’ are ‘Real Indians’” could in any way be a central point of the case presented in my books?

[Incidentally, I have not used the phrase “real Indians” even once in my three books or anywhere else. In fact, I can not even imagine what such a phrase would be supposed to mean. What for example would be the opposite of “real Indians”: false Indians, fake Indians, unreal Indians, imaginary Indians, fictional Indians, counterfeit Indians, “lies-lies” Indians …?]

In my very introduction to my first book, I wrote: “In India today the languages spoken by Indiansbelong to six language families: 1.Indo-European (Aryan)… 2.Dravidian… 3.Austric… 4.Sino-Tibetan… 5.Andamanese… 6.Burushaski” (TALAGERI 1993a:3). Does this statement somehow indicate that I am saying that only the “Aryan” language speaking people are “Real Indians”, while those speaking languages belonging to any of the other families are not? Is there any other statement anywhere throughout my three books which even hints at such an idea?

Only Hindus are “Real Indians”

Now when I say that Indians speak languages belonging to these six language families, does it mean that only the Hindus among the speakers of these six language families are “Real Indians”, while the Muslims and Christians are not? Is there in fact a single statement anywhere in my three books which indicates that?

I have, in these three extraneous chapters (included only in version 1993a of my first book, but excluded in version 1993b, which, like the two later books, is purely academic and technical in its contents), successfully countered the political ideologies which flourish in India, leftist and rightist, which are based on the theory that Hinduism is the evolved form of a foreign religion brought into India by “Aryan” invaders in 1500 BCE and therefore analogous to Christianity and Islam which were foreign religions brought into India by imperialist invaders. I have examined the issue from every angle and pointed out, that “Aryan invasion” or not, Hinduism is a totally (”Real”?) Indian religion while Christianity and Islam are totally foreign religions, and that “while Hinduism Indianizes foreigners, Islam and Christianity foreignize or de-Indianize Indians” (TALAGERI 1993a:47).

This may be a bitter pill for many people to swallow, and it may even seem irrelevant to many, but is it technically incorrect? Can anyone prove, to take the very first and simplest premise, that Kashi, Ayodhya Mathura, Madurai, Rameshwaram, Tirupati, Puri, etc. are geographically located outside India, or that Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Karbala, the Vatican, etc., are geographically located inside India? That the Hindu texts portray an area outside India, with heroes and religious figures from those lands, or that the religious texts of Christianity and Islam portray an area inside India with Indian heroes and religious figures? Will even any Christian or Muslim in his senses make any such assertion?

But is Hock so mentally retarded as to conclude that when I describe Christianity and Islam, and the cultures brought in by these two religions and adopted by converts, as “foreign” or “non-Indian”, in contrast with Hinduism and its culture which are “Indian”, I am automatically saying that “Only Hindus are ‘Real Indians’”? Is there no difference between religious and cultural ideologies on the one hand, and flesh and blood human beings on the other? Can anyone produce a single statement in all my three books, and in my other writings, where I even suggest that “Only Hindus are ‘Real Indians’”?

In fact, note the following clear statements from those very three chapters where I describe (and which I do only to make very clear, point by point, the falseness of those who try to brand Hinduism as a foreign religion like Islam and Christianity) the Indianness of Hinduism in contrast with the foreignness of Islam and Christianity: I firmly reject the “petty and ridiculous idea of dividing Indians into ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ on the basis of whether or not their ancestors actually, or supposedly, came from outside” (TALAGERI 1993a:47), I point out that “in historic times, there were invasions of India by Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans and Huns. Many of the invaders stayed in India and got integrated into the population. Today some anthropologist may manage to dig out material and claim that some community, or the other, constitutes the descendants of one, or the other, of those invaders. But who would treat such a claim, even if it were proved beyond any doubt, as the basis for branding that community as a ‘foreign’ community? Indian society and culture have been known for their capacity for synthesis and assimilation, and every single foreign community entering India, right from ancient times, has been completely absorbed into the Indian identity”. (TALAGERI 1993a:46)

Do I exclude Muslims and Christians from this Indian identity? “Muslim and Christian fundamentalists may identify wholly with their foreign brethren, and some Muslims may even gloat at the idea that they are the descendants of Islamic heroes who ‘conquered and ruled’ a land teeming withkafirs, the fact remains that they are all Indians, as much as the Hindus” (TALAGERI 1993a:46).

In fact, the only reason why the three chapters were written at all was not to promote any “ideologically motivated agenda”, but to counter already flourishing and viciously active “ideologically motivated agendas” which are wreaking havoc on the Indian body politic by propagating on a war footing that Brahmins or “upper castes” in general are the descendants of “Aryan invaders”, and only “lower castes” or “tribals” or “South Indians” are “indigenous people”. These “ideologically motivated agendas” are widely promoted by anarchist, leftist, missionary, and anti-Hindu elements in India, and “Indo-Europeanists” like Hock “unwittingly [or deliberately] support [these] ideologically motivated agendas”.

Far from claiming that the Aryan invasion theory, or its opposite, the Indian homeland theory, has present day implications for India, I end my three extraneous chapters as follows: “Did, indeed any ‘Aryans’ ever invade, or even immigrate into India from outside? Shorn of its leftist and anti-Hindu corollaries, this becomes a purely academic question with no present-day political implications. This academic question will be dealt with in the next two sections of this book” (TALAGERI 1993a:47). Consequently, the rest of the book (=1993b), as well as my next two books (2000, 2008) are purely academic analyses of the Indo-European homeland question.

So when Hock sums up the case presented in my three books as "only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008", would it be an exaggeration or in any way wrong to say that we have here a case of a fake and fraudulent “scholar”, in pursuance of his own “ideologically motivated agenda”, calculatedly lying through his teeth to spread libelous canards against another writer whom he wishes to malign?

Only “Aryan” religion/culture, i.e. Hindu religion/culture, is Real Indian religion/culture

Hock talks of flesh and blood people when he summarizes my books in one line as “only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008”. Can we assume that what he may actually be meaning is that my three chapters are claiming that “Only “Aryan” religion/culture, i.e. Hindu religion/culture, is Real Indian religion/culture”? That is not what he actually says, and in any case it does not excuse his insolence in treating the content of my three extraneous chapters as the sum total of my books and case, but let us examine if what I have written in my books and in my other writings amounts to even that.

Today, there are many Indians who are so proud of their Vedic heritage and of the Sanskrit language that they like to imagine Vedic civilization to have been the ancestral civilization of the whole world. To such people, Vedic religion is definitely at least the ancestral religion of the whole of India, the fountainhead from which all aspects of Indian religion have developed, and all other cultures within India are derived from Sanskrit/Vedic culture and must be further Sanskritized/Hinduized to make them really Indian. There are many writers, organizations and internet sites which promote such views. Am I also saying the same thing in my books?

To begin with religion: in the third of these three chapters, entitled ”Hinduism as an ‘Aryan’ religion and the ‘Aryans’ as foreigners” (TALAGERI 1993a:35-47), I point out that as per the Aryan Invasion theory itself “almost every aspect of Hinduism as we know it today, certainly every feature relevant to the religion, is supposed to be of ‘pre-Aryan’ origin” (TALAGERI 1993a:35). I elaborate in detail in this chapter that the only “Aryan” aspects of Hinduism are supposed to be “‘worship…of the elements’ (fire, air, water, sky) [….] ritual worship of fire, in the form of yajna” (TALAGERI 1993a:34) and “the Sanskrit language and the Vedic texts” (TALAGERI 1993a:40). I reiterate throughout this chapter that apart from these, “all the fundamental features of Hinduism are supposed to be ’pre-Aryan’” and that as per the Aryan Invasion Theory itself, “Hinduism is practically a ‘pre-Aryan’ [….] religion adopted by the ‘Aryans’” (TALAGERI 1993a:39).

Is this only “as per the Aryan Invasion theory itself” that this is so, and do I present a different picture in my Out-of-India case? On the contrary, except for my postulation that the original Indo-European homeland was in India, and therefore the word “pre-Aryan” is meaningless in the context, my picture of Hinduism is practically the same.

I postulate, with evidence, that “the Vedic Aryans were the Purus of the ancient texts. And in fact, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were one section among these Purus, who called themselves Bharatas” (TALAGERI 2000:138), and they were inhabitants of Haryana, eastern Punjaband western U.P. I describe the process of the formation of Hinduism from the Vedic “Aryan” religion, in my very first book itself, as follows: “The modern Indo-Aryan languages are not descendants of the Rigvedic dialects, but of other dialects which were contemporaneous with the Rigvedic dialects, but which belonged to a different section of Indo-European speech (the Inner Indo-European section). The Vedic dialects died away in the course of time, and their speech area[….] was taken over by the Inner Indo-European dialects. But long before they died away, the Vedic dialects had set in motion a powerful wave of a cult movement which covered the entire nation in its sweep. This Vedic cult also finally gave way to the local pan-Indian religion of the Inner-Indo-Europeans and Dravidian-language speakers, but continued to remain in force as the elite layer of this pan-Indian religion” (TALAGERI 1993a:230). The “Vedic Aryan” religion of the Purus, as exemplified in the Rigveda and subsequent Samhitas, was rather like the Iranian religion of the Anus found in the Avesta, and most of the fundamental, common and most popular aspects of Hinduism today are originally features of religious systems of the Inner Indo-European (tribal conglomerates other than the Purus and Anus), Dravidian and Austric language speakers of mainland India. This is the hypothesis I have been postulating throughout my three books.

Whether or not anyone, from either side, likes this formulation or agrees with it, certainly no-one can claim that I am pushing an agenda equating “‘Aryan’ religion” with Hinduism.

The same goes for culture in general, and even more so. The context did not arise in the three extraneous chapters (in 1993a) which have been made the basis of an ideological indictment of my entire case by this dodgy “scholar”. But in my other writings, I have discussed Hindu nationalism and Indian culture in great detail, notably in my 2005 article on Hindu Nationalism (TALAGERI 2005).

In this article, I have described in great detail the greatness and richness of Indian culture, and quoting myself from an earlier 1997 article, I wrote: “Indian culture refers not just to the cultural practices springing from Vedic or Sanskritic sources, but from all other Indian sources independently of these: the practices of the Andaman islanders and the (pre-Christian) Nagas are as Hindu in the territorial sense, and Sanatana in the spiritual sense, as classical Sanskritic Hinduism” (TALAGERI 2005:252). Further on in the article, again quoting myself from an earlier 2002 article, I categorically pointed out: “I am opposed to even internal cultural imperialism. The idea that Vedic or Sanskrit culture represents Indian culture and that other cultures within India are its subcultures and must be incorporated into it, is wrong….All other cultures native to this land: the culture of the Andaman islanders, the Nagas, the Mundas, the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, etc. are all Indian in their own right. They don’t have to be – and should not be – Sanskritized to make them Indian” (TALAGERI 2005:293).

In the same article I wrote at length about how the Andamanese culture (not “Aryan” by any stretch of the term, and Hindu only in the sense that everything indigenous to India can be called Hindu) was being destroyed in the name of modernism, development, and “mainstream” nationalism, and wrote: “It will not be an exaggeration to say that the day on which the last of the Andamanese tribals breathes his last breath will be one of the blackest days in our modern human history, in more ways than one. Indian culture will be very much the poorer by one of its three native races and by one of its six native language families, apart from the different other aspects, most of them probably unrecorded, of Andamanese culture” (TALAGERI 2005:290).

Does all this show that I represent the ideological agenda that “Only ‘Aryan’, i.e. Hindu, culture is Real Indian culture”? Obviously, my clear “ideological” stance is that everything indigenous and native toIndia is Indian; and that it as Indian as Vedic or Sanskrit culture.

Further, while I have made it very clear in my three extraneous chapters in 1993a, in response to the Secularist and Leftist practice of branding everything Hindu as “communal” and everything Christian and Muslim as “secular”, that Hinduism is Indian and Christianity and Islam are foreign (not, as Hock libelously lies, that Hindus are Indian and non-Hindu Christians and Muslims are foreign), note what I have written in this more detailed 2005 article on Indian culture: “Now, most Muslims in India belong to communities that converted centuries ago. The same is the case with Christian communities in certain, particularly coastal areas. Their culture (de-Indianized or otherwise) is, therefore, in many ways, an intrinsic part of our modern Indian ethos, and these communities are an intrinsic part of Indian society” (TALAGERI 2005:274-5). Further on, I added, even more specifically: “I will go further here. In my 1993 book, The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian nationalism, p.33, I have, rightly in that context, criticized the secularist media for the ‘calculated glorification of Urdu, of Lucknowi tehzib, of the Moghuls, of gazals and qawwalis, etc.’ But the truth is that all this is also a part, and a rich part, of our modern Indian ethos” (TALAGERI 2005:293).

I could give many more quotations from my writings, including the three extraneous chapters in 1993a, which make it clear that I have nowhere written anything which could be interpreted even as “Only “Aryan” religion/culture, i.e. Hindu religion/culture, is Real Indian religion/culture”, let alone as the “only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians” that Hock libelously propagates, and no-one will be able to produce a single quotation from my writings to defend Hock’s lies.

But the important question here is: why is this “mild-mannered professor” lying through his teeth with missionary zeal to propagate the idea that my entire case presented in three volumes, full of detailed, complete and authentic data never before collected and presented so systematically and conclusively [yes, I know I am saying this about my own books, but I dare to say it because it is true], adds up only to the ideological agenda that “only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians”?

What is my Case?

My three books present a complete case for an Indo-European Homeland in India theory which simply can not be challenged:

1A. In my third book, I analyze, with complete data from the Rigveda, the Avesta and the Mitanni “Aryan” records, the comparative chronological position of the three texts (taking the Mitanni data as representing a text), and show that (a) the Mitanni and Avestan cultures constitute a common culture with the culture of the Late or New books of the Rigveda (books 1,5, 8-10), which continues on into later Vedic and post-Vedic Indian texts, while (b) the culture of the Early or Old books of the Rigveda (books 2-4, 6-7) represents a different and considerably older and more archaic culture ancestral to all the three streams (Late Rigvedic, Avestan, Mitanni). [I also show that the division of the books of the Rigveda into Early or Old books 2-4, 6-7, and Late or New books 1,5, 8-10, is not only proved on the basis of umpteen criteria cited by me in detail, but is also the official division of the books by a consensus among Western academic scholars].

1B. I further show, by a detailed analysis of the complete geographical data in the Rigveda, including historical descriptions in the text of the expanding horizon of the Vedic Aryans, that the areas to the west of the Indus become familiar territory to the Vedic Aryans only in the period of the Late or New books, while the geography of the Early or Old Books shows the Vedic Aryans as old inhabitants of the areas to the east of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra) only just expanding westwards into the Land of the Five Rivers. This shows that the common culture (Late Rigvedic, Avestan, Mitanni) developed in the Land of the Five Rivers out of an earlier culture which had expanded into the Land of the Five Rivers from areas to the east of of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra) from the interior of India. Therefore, the ancestors of the composers of the Avesta (in Afghanistan), and of the Mitanni kings (in Iraq, Syria and Egypt), were emigrants from the Land of the five Rivers.

1C. While the Rigveda and the Avesta can not be materially dated, the dated Mitanni data from Syria andIraq goes back beyond 1500 BCE, and the related Kassite evidence goes back beyond 1700 BCE, already as the dead residual culture of remote ancestors. This automatically places the entry of these remote ancestors into West Asia at least a few centuries prior to 1700 BCE, and their departure from the Land of the Five Rivers a few centuries even before that. Even at minimum estates, the ancestors of the Mitannileft the Land of the Five Rivers well in the second half of the third millennium BCE. This places the beginnings of the common culture (Late Rigvedic, Avestan, Mitanni) in the Land of the Five Rivers at leastat 2500 BCE. The considerably older and more archaic culture of the Vedic Aryans of the Early or Old Books (2-4, 6-7) of the Rigveda, who originally expanded into the land of the Five Rivers from the east of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), therefore must go back, again at minimum estimates, well beyond 3000 BCE.

1D. The Vedic Aryans of the Early or Old books of the Rigveda (books 2-4, 6-7) can therefore be securely dated minimally well beyond 3000 BCE. In that period, these Vedic Aryans, on the basis of the data in these books, are settled inhabitants of the areas to the east of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), in present-day Haryana, Western U.P., and adjoining areas, in an area which then, as now, is purely Indo-European (“Aryan”) in a linguistic sense: the texts do not know a single person, friend or enemy, in the area, speaking Dravidian, Austric, or any other non-Indo-European language, the names of the people, rivers, animals trees, of the area are all purely “Aryan”, and they are yet totally unfamiliar with areas to the west of the Indus, and only just expanding into the Land of the Five Rivers from the east.

1E. As per all the linguistic evidence and consensus among the western academic scholars, the various branches of the Indo-European language family were still together in a chain of contact in the Original Homeland in 3500 BCE, and started separating from each other only after that as different branches expanded away from the homeland. The above minimal secure date well beyond 3000 BCE for the Vedic Aryans of the Old Books of the Rigveda, therefore, proves beyond doubt that the epicenter of the expansions of the Indo-Europeans was from the Land of the Five Rivers and its peripheral areas to the west, i.e. the Harappan civilization of the period was the epicenter of the Indo-European expansions, and India was the Original Indo-European homeland.

2. If the Vedic Aryans were originally inhabitants of a certain area (Haryana, western U.P., and surrounding areas), and the data in the Rigveda shows them expanding westwards into the Land of the Five Rivers in a certain period, who were the people living to their west and east? If the joint Indo-Europeans were together in their Homeland around 3500 BCE, in a historical period when other civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, China) were leaving their archaeological and historical imprints, why is it that the Indo-Europeans, whose every branch in every part of Asia and Europe left us imprints of great historic civilizations in later times, were so mysteriously faceless and anonymous in their Original Homeland and left no archaeological or historical imprints at all? The answer is: they have left us full fledged imprints. I have shown in my books, again beyond challenge, that the Vedic Aryans were the Purus of our Puranic traditions; the Anus to their west, and the Druhyus further west, were the ancestors of the Indo-European branches which emigrated from India; the Yadus, Turvasus and others to the east of the Purus in northern India were the ancestors of other Inner Indo-European groups which became largely Sanskritized in later times, and of course, the non-Indo-European speakers of Dravidian and Austric languages were the inhabitants of southern and eastern India. The Rigveda describes the great Dasarajna war between the expanding Purus and the Anu tribes of the land of the Five Rivers. The Anu tribes named are the ancestors of the “Southern” Indo-European branches of later times: Iranian (Parsava, Parthava, Paktha, Bhalana, etc.), Armenian/Phrygian (Bhrgu), Greek/Hellene (Alina) and Albanian/Sirmio (Simyu), who started expanding westwards after the war. The Puranas describe earlier emigrations of the Druhyus from Afghanistan northwards: the expansions of the “Northern” Indo-European branches of later times (Anatolian, Tocharian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic), whose priests were the Drui (Druids). The Harappan civilization is the Indo-Iranian civilization of the joint Purusand Anus.

3. Any Indo-European Homeland theory has to fulfill all the linguistic requirements and explain all the problematic linguistic phenomena which are peculiar to the interconnections between different branches. The fact is that the consensus candidate, South Russia, fails to do this; but, for the want of a better alternative (other candidates like Anatolia are even less tenable), it has been firmly upheld by the scholars, and all unexplainable factors and anomalies have been swept under the carpet. However, in my second book, and more completely in my third book, I have shown how the Indian Homeland theory explainsevery single valid linguistic factor and phenomenon, and nothing has to be swept under the carpet. I have presented a complete linguistic case which moreover fits in with the textual evidence of two waves of migrations of the “Southern” and “Northern” branches.

In the face of all the massive and complete data, analysis and conclusions presented in my books regarding all this, isn’t it rather strange that Hock refers to my three books as the major representatives of one particular point of view on the Indo-European question, but completely ignores everything written by me in connection with all the above data, and treats the three extraneous chapters in one version of my first book (1993a) as representing the sum total of the case presented by me, and furthercompletely falsifies the content of even those three extraneous chapters, ultimately narrowing down my whole case to an imaginary and even meaningless “ideological agenda”: “'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008”?

What is Hock’s purpose behind this brazen and cowardly falsehood? Is this in any way any kind of honest scholarship? Is it motivated by some kind of “ideologically motivated agenda”? Now I can not imagine what this agenda could be. I can not assume leftist, or missionary-inspired, or anti-Hindu motives, with the same glibness with which Hock encapsulates my entire case in one insolent and false sentence. The truth seems to be that the most important “agenda” in western academic circles today is Self Preservation.

A scholar is confronted with a new point of view, diametrically opposite to the view he himself has been holding and disseminating over the decades. What can he do? (a) He can either completely ignore the new viewpoint and act as if he does not know it even exists; (b) he can examine the data, analysis and conclusions presented in the opposite viewpoint, and either accept it if it is right and admit that he himself stands corrected, or else point out all the data-errors and flawed logic in the opposite viewpoint and show where it fails; or (c) he can play a game of “scholarly” tactics to obfuscate the issues.

Hock clearly belongs to the third category. A well-entrenched, reputed and respected professor, with the whole weight behind him of his University and a whole body of similarly entrenched scholars who have been writing on the same lines, and “buttressed by the weight of two centuries of scholarship” (as Erdosy put it in another context), can do quite a lot by way of political activity; and Hock seems to have decided to do quite a lot. In the last few years, Hock has launched an all-out disinformation campaign against the Out-of-India theory, with University talks, articles, and video-talks on internet media like Youtube.

Hock’s Blatant Hypocrisy

Initially, before he realized the formidable nature of the Out-of-India theory (as presented in my books) that he was up against, Hock’s “mild-mannered professor” act – the role of an unbiased, reasonable and honest scholar willing to objectively examine the Out-of-India case, to make a friendly and avuncular assessment of what the Out-of-India exponents were trying to say, and to concede minor valid points while showing how the Out-of-India case failed to pass logical and intellectual muster even after these concessions were made – was in full force.

In an article “Historical Interpretation of the Vedic Texts”, in 2005 (in a volume, which, incidentally, also carried an article by myself entitled: “The Textual Evidence: the Rigveda as a Source of Indo-European History”, p.332-340, written and sent to the editors at least six years earlier), Hock (who also may have submitted his article similarly early, since his bibliography mentions my first book of 1993, but not my second book published in 2000) portrayed his neutrality:

His introduction (HOCK 2005:282-3) to the article presents a very reasonable stand: he points out that there can be “two very different approaches to the study of the Vedic tradition, or of any tradition”: one approach is that of “somebody who already knows the truth [….] and is therefore able to characterize all those who do not agree as being blind to that truth”, and the other is that of “scholars who consider truth to be their ultimate goal, but realize that truth is always conditional, to be superseded by better evidence or interpretation of evidence”. Hock points out that “the problem with the first view as applied to scholarship is that its goal is to forestall all dissenting voices and that it therefore does not invite meaningful debate”, and proceeds to give a very broad and reasonable description of how open and honest such a debate should be.

He even-handedly takes up three Aryan Invasion interpretations and three Indian Origin interpretations from the Vedic texts, and cautions us at the very outset (HOCK 2005:283) that “the passages in question and their interpretation do not provide cogent support for the hypotheses they are supposed to support”, while reasonably conceding that “this does not mean that either of the two theories is therefore invalidated. It merely means that the evidence in question is not sufficiently cogent to provide support for the respective hypothesis and therefore must be considered irrelevant. First of all, neither hypothesis rests solely on the evidence here examined; and it is in principle perfectly possible that other evidence can show one hypothesis to be superior to the other”. He even reasonably concedes the possibility that “any new evidence or better interpretation would, in true scientific spirit, be able to overturn the so far victorious hypothesis”, or that “in principle none of the currently available evidence stands up under scrutiny and that nevertheless, one or the other hypothesis was historically coreect, except that the evidence in its favour has not been preserved for us”. [The Aryan Invasion arguments he debunks (HOCK 2005:283-292) are “Dialectal variation due to Dravidian influence”, “Racial differences between āryas anddāsas/dasyus” and “Textual evidence for Aryan in-migration”, and two of the Indian Origin arguments he debunks (HOCK 2005:295-303) are Astronomical evidence in the Kauşītakī Brāhmaņa for dating the Vedas?” and “Rig-Vedic astronomical evidence for dating the Vedas?” As I also place little or no credence on the “astronomical” arguments derived from Vedic texts, I find his arguments in all these respects perfectly reasonable. The third Indian Origin argument he claims to debunk is supposed to be an argument made by me in my first book. I will deal with this in the next section of this article].

And in his conclusion to the article, he writes: ”Personally, I feel that most of the evidence and arguments that have been offered in favor either of the Aryan In-Migration hypothesis or of the Out-of-India are inconclusive at closer examination” (HOCK 2005:303).

When it comes to “analyzing” silly, isolated arguments, and picking the silliest of them to “rebut” with detailed logical explanations, Hock shows a very great propensity to debate the issues at length to arrive at the “truth”. Note the number and variety of ways in which he advocates an unbiased and open approach based on free discussions, in the introduction to the one above article itself:

He emphasizes an approach where truth is the “ultimate goal”, but “truth is always conditional, to be superseded by better evidence or interpretation of evidence” (HOCK 2005:282).

The aim should be not to “forestall all dissenting voices”, but (a) to “invite meaningful debate”; (b) “to invite the scholarly challenges and ensuing debate that can lead to better insights and closer approximation of the truth”; (c) “to go beyond what can be grasped at first contact, and as a consequence of having to defend perceptions against competing views, to investigate matters more thoroughly”; (d) to “approximate truth more closely”; (d) to “go beyond initial impressions and beyond the validation of preconceived interpretations”; (e) to “embrace the scientific approach of being transparent and vulnerable – transparent by being open to verification in terms of providing supporting evidence and discussing potentially conflicting evidence, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential falsification“; (f) “to evaluate the very different perspectives that are current and thus to reach beyond the differences in perspective, ideology or bias” (HOCK 2005:282-3).

He also expresses his opinion about the Vedas that “whatever their original and/or secondary purposes may have been, they were not intended as data bases for latter-day historians”, and suggests that “whatever historical evidence they contain, therefore, can only be gleaned by a careful, philologically well-grounded reading of the lines – and between the lines – of the texts” (HOCK 2005:303). He emphasizes the need for “other” and “better” evidence (than astronomical references in the Rigveda) “to establish a date for the Rigveda” (HOCK 2005:303) and (than isolated words in the Avesta) to determine “historical movements in the Indo-Iranian linguistic territory” (HOCK 2005:295).

Best of all is his classic ending, declaring his honesty and openness: “Throughout I have endeavored to live up to the desiderata outlined at the beginning, namely being transparent and vulnerable– transparent by providing supporting evidence that is easily available to verification, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential falsification. As I stated at the outset, this, I believe, is the only way that we can establish a common ground for those working in Vedic studies. Without this common ground there is nothing to evaluate the many conflicting theories without either questioning each others’ motives, or saying ‘Trust me, trust me’. As I tell my students: If people merely say ‘Trust me, trust me’, don’t trust them, don’t trust them. And as to questioning each others’ motives, it is good to note that people as different in their motives as Elst and Zydenbos have stated on the Indology List that what really counts is the evidence and its interpretation – even racists and communalists can come to correct results if their evidence and their methodology are correct (however much we may deplore their ideologies and biases)” (HOCK 2005:303-4).

But now, presented not with silly, isolated and faulty “arguments” which can be laughingly rebutted, but with a full-fledged, coherent and well-knit case, covering all the textual, linguistic and archaeological points, and bursting with detailed data, evidence and analyses from the Rigvedic (as well as the Avestan and Mitanni) data bases, and conclusively establishing “a date for the Rigveda” as well as “historical movements in the Indo-Iranian linguistic territory”, he completely refuses to even pretend to look at the extremely detailed data, evidence and analyses, turns his back on all his earlier tall claims advocating openness, honest debate, and “truth” as the ultimate goal, and runs off from any debate on the pretext that my entire case only consists of the proposition that “'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008”. Thus he completely abandons honest debate for the policies of political name-calling and label-sticking, and falls back on “Trust me, trust me” as his only resort.

Further, now he openly advocates the policy of disinformation, concealment and suppression: “Indo-Europeanists must exercise caution, lest they unwittingly support ideologically motivated agendas”!

Hock’s “Scholarly” Tactics of Disinformation

The above, with a few concluding remarks, should have been the logical ending of this article. But, to illustrate Hock’s propensity to concentrate only on giving “intelligent” dissections of silly, isolated arguments, or his propensity to make such arguments himself (even as he resorts to “spit and run” tactics and runs off in the opposite direction when it comes to examining serious and unassailable case presentations), let us end with examining some of Hock’s tactics of disinformation.

I give four minor examples from within the same above article “Historical Interpretation of the Vedic Texts” (2005):

1. Even as he debunks the Aryan Invasion argument that the Rigveda offers evidence of racial differences between aryas and dasas/dasyus, he makes the following comment: “The archaeological evidence at this point does not support an in-migration of a different racial group in the entire second millennium BC; but then it also fails to furnish evidence for the well-established later in-migrations of Sakas, Hunas, and many other groups. So this evidence, too, fails to yield reliable results” (HOCK 2005:290).

Thus, Hock here subtly discounts the Anti-Invasion argument (made, it may be noted, by eminent archaeologists in the field, and not initially by “Hindu nationalists”) that archaeology totally repudiates the idea of an Aryan invasion in the second millennium BCE. But note the totally incongruous and untenable analogy that he presents:

“Sakas, Hunas and many other groups” were small groups of people who entered India, and left the imprint of their in-migrations (which are “well-established” in historical memory, in Hock’s own words). And they got submerged into the indigenous population, completely losing their original language, culture and identity.

The “Aryans”, on the other hand, whether in small or big groups, have left no imprint of their alleged in-migrations at all: neither in archaeology, nor in their own earliest and most detailed texts, nor in the memories or traditions of the indigenous populations. Their alleged in-migration only surfaced when European colonial scholars in the last few centuries discovered the relationship between their own languages and those of northern India, and theoretically postulated such an in-migration as the explanation for this relationship. And these “Aryans” are alleged to have swamped the whole of northern India, completely replacing the indigenous languages with their own (leaving not a trace of even the very existence of those original languages). And not only languages: “complete systems of belief, mythology and language [….] not only new languages but also of an entire complex of material and spiritual culture, ranging from chariotry and horsemanship to Indo-Iranian poetry whose complicated conventions are still actively used in the Ṛgveda. The old Indo-Iranian religion, centred on the opposition of Devas and Asuras, was also adopted, along with Indo-European systems of ancestor worship.” (WITZEL 1995:112). And, moreover, their alleged impact was so absolute that even the rivers of northern India have purely “Aryan” names even in the oldest texts, with no traces or memories of earlier “non-Aryan” names, a situation unparalleled in world history!

Surely, unlike the “established” in-migrations of “many other groups”, this purely theoretical in-migration should have left unmistakable imprints in the archaeological records; and Hock’s analogy is purely guided by a motivated agenda.

In an earlier article in 1996 published in 1999, Hock had made the same above silly analogy with even more untenable additions: “Interestingly, skeletal continuity seems also to hold for later, historical periods ─ even though we know for certain that there were numerous migrations or invasions into South Asia, by groups as diverse as the Greeks, the Central Asian Huns, the Iranian Sakas, and Muslims from Iran, Central Asia, and even the Arab world” (HOCK 1999b:161). The Muslims were also small in number, but, unlike the Vedic Aryans, they were armed with a militant proselytizing ideology which compelled them to Islamize local populations, in spite of which the local populations managed to retain their original religion on a major scale. And in all these instances, detailed records and memories, and other factors like the original “Aryan” hydronomy and languages, have remained as witnesses to the pre-Islamic past, unlike in the case of the alleged Indo-Aryan “migrations or invasions”.

2. Again, even as he debunks the Aryan Invasion argument that there is textual evidence in the Rigveda for in-migration, Hock makes another similar point. Referring to “the claim of opponents of the so-called ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’ (e.g. Rajaram and Frawley 1997:233) that there is no indigenous tradition of an outside origin”, Hock comments: “but note that with the claimed exception of Avestan for which see section 8.5, and the fanciful self-derivation of the Romans from Troy, none of the ancient Indo-European traditions are aware of an origin outside their settlement areas either” (HOCK 1995:291-2).

Again, the analogy is obviously untenable. Unlike the other ancient Indo-Europeans outside India, who are already well entrenched in their territories long enough to have no memories or traditions of outside origins, and indeed have left us no records of what their earliest memories and traditions wereanyway, the Rigveda is supposed to have been composed by a people (a) so close to the original “Proto-Indo-European” culture that “in its original language we see the roots and shoots of the languages of Greek and Latin, of Kelt, Teuton and Slavonian, so the deities, the myths, and the religious beliefs and practices of the Veda throw a flood of light upon the religions of all European countries before the introduction of Christianity” (Griffith), its religion being so close to the primitive Indo-European roots that the Vedic gods “are nearer to the physical phenomena which they represent, than the gods of any other Indo-European mythology” (Macdonell), (b) so passionately devoted to tradition that every single aspect of their tradition was meticulously kept alive in detailed texts in oral form for thousands of years without changing even a word or a syllable, and (c) so new to the area that they were still totally unacquainted with any part of India east or south of the westernmost Ganga, and even allegedly with the tiger so often depicted on Harappan seals.

Surely, in the above circumstances, total absence of extra-territorial traditions in the Rigveda is indeed a strong argument against the “Aryan Invasion Theory”, and Hock’s analogy is silly and untenable.

3. In the above article “Historical Interpretation of the Vedic Texts” (2005), as already mentioned, Hock cites and debunks six arguments (three from the Aryan Invasion side, and three from the Indian Origin side), and as already mentioned, the arguments being basically silly ones, he does so quite effectively in respect of the three “Aryan Invasion“ aguments and two of the three Indian Origin arguments. The sixth Indian Origin argument he debunks is supposed to have been made by me in my first book (1993), and it being a silly one, he debunks it equally easily. The only problem is: I did not make such an argument at all in my 1993 book, or anywhere else!

In my 1993 book, I had only examined all the “Aryan Invasion” arguments, and had only prepared the basic framework of my Out-of-India theory; I had not yet provided the formidable evidence I presented in my second book (2000) and incontrovertibly proved in my third book (2008). Therefore, the Avestan/Iranian evidence in my first book consisted mainly of preliminary arguments.

Hock quotes the two following excerpts from my book, the first of which is from P.L.Bhargava quoted by me, and the second being my own words: (a) ”The first chapter of the Vendidad or the handbook of the Parsees enumerates sixteen holy lands created by Ahura Mazda which were later rendered unfit for the residence of man (i.e. the ancestors of the Iranians) on account of different things created by Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit of the Avesta…The first of these lands was of course Airyana Vaejo which was abandoned by the ancestors of the Iranians because of severe winter and snow; of the others, one was Hapta Hindu, i.e. Saptasindhu”. (Bhargava quoted in TALAGERI 1993a:180). (b) “The Hapta Hindu mentioned in the Vendidad is obviously the Saptasindhu (the Punjab region), and the first land, ‘abandoned by the ancestors of the Iranians because of severe winter and snow’ before they came to the Saptasindhu region and settled down among the Vedic people, is obviously Kashmir” (TALAGERI 1993a:180-1).

I make three points here: (a) the Avesta (Vendidad) names Airyana Vaejo and Hapta Hindu as two ancestral Iranian lands; (b) Hapta Hindu= Saptasindhu= the Punjab region; and (c) The first land Airyana Vaejo= Kashmir.

The first two points are incontrovertible. The third one could have been contested by Hock, and indeed, he does identify Airyana Vaejo with Khwarezmia (but he is wrong: see my second book, 2000:189-194).

But Hock, surprisingly, introduces an element not found in my book at all: he claims that Hapta Hindu, found 15th in the list of 16 ancestral Iranian lands, is assumed by Bhargava and me to be 2nd in the list, and that on that basis we advocate “the sequencing of regions as indicating migration” (HOCK 2005:295). He calls this “the approach advocated by Bhargava, Talageri, Rajaram and Frawley, and Elst” (HOCK 2005:295), and even “the Bhargava-Talageri hypothesis” (HOCK 2005:293), and spends four pages debunking this idea that the sequence of regions in the Vendidad list indicates the route of migration, and showing that, if it does, it in fact supports the In-Migration theory rather than the Out-of-India theory!

But nowhere has anyone claimed that the Avestan list indicates the sequence route of migration or that Hapta Hindu is 2nd on the list! Bhargava, see above, writes “of the others, one was Hapta Hindu”, and I add nothing to that assertion, obviously, since both of us know that Hapta Hindu is 15th on the list, and that the list does not indicate the sequential order of migration. Yet, Hock claims to have debunked my (“Bhargava-Talageri”) hypothesis!

4. A peculiar feature of this above discussion of the Avesta (HOCK 2005:294-295) is the two maps ofIndia featuring alongside. For some totally mysterious and unknown reason, Hock’s maps show theIndus river flowing, not from Kashmir into Pakistan and out into the ocean through Sindh, but considerably farther to the east: the Indus in his maps flows through the Indian Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Kutch, and out into the ocean through Gujarat. Almost exactly the route of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), which river itself is missing on the maps! I am in no position to solve this mystery, or to offer any motive or explanation for it.

I have similarly shown some examples of disinformation in Hock’s writings, in my third book (2008): (a) Hock’s assertion that the Mitanni word satta for Sanskrit sapta (seven) is due to the influence of Hurritešinti rather than a Prakritic type development (2008:172-3), (b) Hock’s endorsement of Witzel’s claim that there are two distinct Sarasvatis named in the Rigveda (2008:115-121); (c) Hock’s similar endorsement of Witzel’s postulation of a relay-race, passing the baton, kind of immigration process for the alleged proto-Indo-Aryans from South Russia to India (2008:325-6, cf 2008:312-332). (d) Most serious of all, Hock’s presentation of the Evidence of the Isoglosses as the ultimate linguistic argument against the Indian Origin theory, with deliberate omission of the Tocharian language and many important isoglosses (which would have completely invalidated his argument) (2008:212-223). It was this last, and my criticism of it in my book, which prompted Elst’s disapproval of my seemingly harsh treatment of a “mild-mannered professor”.

All this could have been accepted (even the last, on Elst’s endorsement of Hock’s essential fairness) as natural flaws in the argumentation of an unbiased scholar rather than representations of a motivated agenda. This would seem to be corroborated by Hock’s logical debunking of the three Aryan Invasion arguments “Dialectal variation due to Dravidian influence”, “Racial differences between āryas anddāsas/dasyus” and “Textual evidence for Aryan in-migration” in his above article “Historical Interpretation of the Vedic Texts” (2005), and in his repeated emphasis in the article on the importance of arriving at the truth through unbiased debate on the facts and evidence and their interpretation. Also, we have his much quoted conclusions that the Brahui in Baluchistan are the remnants of a migration from the south within the last two millenniums, and not the remnants of an original Dravidian speaking population in the northwest. And most important of all, his admissions (in another article in 1996, published in 1999) that “….the ‘Sanskrit-origin’ hypothesis runs into insurmountable difficulties, due to the irreversible nature of relevant linguistic changes [….but….] the likelihood of the ‘PIE-in-India’ hypothesis cannot be assessed on the basis of similar robust evidence” (HOCK 1999a:2), and that “The ‘PIE-in-India’ hypothesis is not as easily refuted as the ‘Sanskrit-origin’ hypothesis, since it is not based on ‘hard-core’ linguistic evidence, such as sound changes, which can be subjected to critical and definitive analysis. Its cogency can be assessed only in terms of circumstantial arguments, especially arguments based on plausibility and simplicity” (HOCK 1999a:12).

But the significant point is that all these examples of an unbiased desire to examine the facts and evidence in order to arrive at the truth, and to consider the opposing arguments offered without laying emphasis on the real or assumed motives behind those arguments, are from a different age. An age when opponents of the Aryan Invasion theory only had quibbling arguments to offer against the theory, and silly arguments to offer in support of an Indian Origin case. An age when a “mild-mannered professor” could condescendingly and patronizingly examine all these Indian Origin arguments and refute them in detail, and kindly make a few innocuous concessions to them in the process. An age when an established “scholar” could wax eloquent and show his oratorical skills in promoting lofty philosophies of unbiased debate and a quest for the truth, without facing either the heat of the debate or the possibility of being proved wrong in all that he has been asserting to date.

Now Hock had a chance to practice what he preached: he could have examined in detail (a) chapters 1, 2 and 5 of my third book (2008), which conclusively prove that the Avesta, the proto-Mitanni and the Late or New books of the Rigveda (1,5,8-10) represent a common culture which continues into post-Vedic times, while the Early or New books of the Rigveda (2-4, 6-7) represent a far older and more archaic culture; (b) chapter 3 of my third book (2008) which conclusively prove that the geography of the Early or Old books of the Rigveda is of a people inhabiting areas within India to the east of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), who were only just starting to expand westwards into new and unfamiliar areas to their west; and (c) chapter 4 of my third book (2008), which conclusively proves that the proto-Mitanni emigrated from India in the late third millennium BCE and that the Early or Old books of the Rigveda go much farther back into time, that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was in India, and that the Harappan culture was Indo-Iranian.

Hock could have examined all this detailed data, evidence and interpretation without bias, and sought to arrive at the truth either by accepting the Out-of-India case or proving it wrong with ruthless logic.

But, faced with a formidable Out-of-India case, and masses of unassailable data, evidence and interpretations, and opponents who can not be patronized, Hock comes out in his true colors: he totally refuses to even pretend to examine the Out-of-India case, starts an all-out cyber and campus campaign against it, resorts to a libelous and calumnious dismissal of the entire case as a political case of “'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008”, and urges all western and academic scholars to censor and edit their conclusions “lest they unwittingly support ideologically motivated agendas”.

Is this the same Hock who delivered that philosophical sermon about “being transparent andvulnerable”, about evaluating “the many conflicting theories without either questioning each others’ motives, or saying ‘Trust me, trust me’”, and about the need for “scholars who consider truth to be their ultimate goal, but realize that truth is always conditional, to be superseded by better evidence or interpretation of evidence”?


HOCK 1999a: “Out of India? The linguistic evidence”, p.1-18 in “Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia: evidence, interpretation, and ideology” 1999. (Proceedings of the International Seminar on Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, Univ. of Michigan, October 1996)

HOCK 1999b: “Through a glass darkly: Modern “racial” interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on ārya and dāsa/dasyu in Vedic society. p145-174 in “Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia: evidence, interpretation, and ideology” 1999. (Proceedings of the International Seminar on Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, Univ. of Michigan, October 1996)

HOCK 2005: “Historical Interpretation of the Vedic Texts”, p.282-308 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 1993a: “The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism”, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1993.

TALAGERI 1999b: “The Aryan Invasion Theory – A Reappraisal”, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1993 (Being 1993a minus 3 chapters, and with a different Foreword).

TALAGERI 2000: :”The Rigveda- A Historical Analysis”, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000.

TALAGERI 2005: “Sita Ram Goel, Memories and Ideas”, p.239-346 in “India’s Only Communalist: In Commemoration of Sita Ram Goel”, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2005.

TALAGERI 2008: “The Rigveda and the Avesta – The Final Evidence”, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2008.

WITZEL: “Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters”, p.85-125 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. George Erdosy, Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, 1995.

Share:- Facebook