AI Podcast Summary of this Article

This podcast is a Google Notebook LM-based summary of my article. Those interested in a deeper dive can head to the article with greater details, pictographs and tables.

Introduction

In Part 1 of this article series, I traced the quiet birth of the Upanishadic vision against the backdrop of one of humanity’s great turning points—what Karl Jaspers called the Axial Age. This was no isolated awakening. I explored how these shifts—driven by social and political upheavals, ecological strain, and spiritual exhaustion—unleashed a global wave of introspection. The sacred fire that once burned on ritual altars began to move inward, lighting up the question of self, meaning, and the ultimate. The Upanishads, then, were not a solitary Indian revelation, but part of a larger human moment: a collective reckoning with the old gods, the old orders, and the old ways of being.

In Part 2, the focus turns to the Indian subcontinent itself—not yet Vedic, but already in motion. I traced the social, political, and religious changes unfolding in pre-historic and proto-historic India, which together form the cultural soil from which later Vedic and eventually Upanishadic thought would emerge. In the conclusion of that part, I suggested that evidence increasingly points to a profound continuity between the Harappan (Indus-Sarasvati) civilisation and later Indian culture, suggesting that the Harappans themselves may have been the authors of the Rigvedic tradition that gave rise to the Upanishads.

This is a hotly debated topic amongst historians, archaeologists and politicians. In this article, I am going to critically examine the debates around who are actually the authors of the Rig-Veda.

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and its later refinement, the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT), have long served as the foundational narratives for understanding ancient Indian history. The theory that the Harappans themselves were the authors of the Rig Veda flies in the face of these theories. A debate on these theories is deeply intertwined with political, cultural, and nationalistic narratives, often extending far beyond purely academic or archaeological discussions. While proponents of AMT often emphasize linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence to support a gradual migration of Indo-Aryan speakers, challenging Hindu nationalist claims of an unbroken, indigenous Indian civilization, opponents (favouring the Out of India Theory or OIT) often view AIT/AMT as colonial constructs that undermine India’s ancient heritage. For them, OIT bolsters national pride by asserting an indigenous origin for Vedic traditions, making the entire discussion a battleground for competing historical interpretations, cultural identity, and political mobilization within India, particularly influencing curriculum debates and perceptions of national heritage.

More significantly, the debate surrounding the AIT/AMT (and its counter, OIT) has significantly fueled the North-South divide by creating a false historical narrative of racial, cultural, and social imposition, which has been used to sow discord and undermine a unified Indian identity. Here’s how:

Political Exploitation: Various political groups, both in the North and South, have leveraged these theories to their advantage. In the South, regional parties have historically used the “Dravidian identity” as a rallying cry, drawing on interpretations of AIT to foster a sense of distinctness and sometimes victimhood. This politicisation often reduces complex historical and scientific debates to simplistic, emotionally charged narratives that can widen divides.

Reinforcing the “Aryan-Dravidian” Divide: The historical interpretation of AIT often posited that “fair-skinned Aryans” invaded from the north, subjugating “dark-skinned Dravidians” in the south. The concept of “Aryan” and “Dravidian” was initially and often still is used in a racial sense, rooted in 19th-century “race science”. While modern scholarship has largely moved beyond this simplistic racial interpretation to focus on linguistic and cultural diffusion, the lingering perception of North Indians as descendants of “Aryans” and South Indians as “Dravidians” (the indigenous inhabitants) can fuel a sense of “us vs. them.” This narrative has been historically used by some South Indian political movements to assert a distinct Dravidian identity separate from and, at times, in opposition to a perceived “Aryan” North.

Language Politics: The North predominantly speaks Indo-Aryan languages (derived from Sanskrit), while the South primarily speaks Dravidian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam). If Indo-Aryan languages are seen as having an external origin (AIT/AMT), it can deepen the sentiment in the South that their languages and cultures are more ancient and indigenous, thereby strengthening resistance to the imposition of Hindi or any form of North Indian cultural hegemony. Conversely, OIT proponents might argue for an indigenous origin of Sanskrit, potentially downplaying the distinctness of Dravidian languages.

Caste System Allegations: A major and sensitive point of contention is the historical association of AIT with the origins of the caste system. The idea that invading Aryans imposed a hierarchical social structure on the indigenous population to maintain their dominance has been a powerful narrative, particularly in lower-caste movements in the South and West. While the origins of caste are far more complex and debated, the AIT narrative can be used to attribute social inequalities to this perceived historical conquest, fostering resentment against traditionally upper-caste groups, who are sometimes linked to “Aryan” lineage.

Cultural Pride and Identity: Both North and South Indians often draw strong pride from their distinct cultural heritage. For many in the South, challenging AIT and asserting a continuous, indigenous Dravidian civilization becomes a point of cultural assertion against what they perceive as North Indian or “Aryan” cultural dominance. Conversely, proponents of OIT in the North see it as validating the deep indigenous roots of Vedic culture, which they view as foundational to Indian identity as a whole.

The AIT/AMT can be described as a “powerful political tool” aligning with the agendas of various groups, including leftist, ‘secular’, ‘liberal’ political narratives, Dravidian nationalists, Dalit supremacists, missionaries, and separatists, collectively referred to as “Breaking India” forces. It has been used to sow discord and divide India into dichotomous categories like North vs. South, Aryans vs. Dravidians, fair-skinned vs. dark-skinned, and ‘high castes’ vs. ‘Dalits’.

Conclusive debunking of these two theories would remove the academic premise underpinning these attacks on India’s culture and integrity. The AIT/AMT has been entrenched in school, college, and university textbooks due to the “leftist choke-hold on Indian academia”. This has led to generations of Indians growing up hating, or, at the very least, feeling ashamed of their culture and heritage. Debunking the theory would pave the way for modernizing textbooks, expunging leftist slant and basing education on “hard facts and scientific evidence” rather than allowing it to be used as a political tool for indoctrination. Thus, the aim of this article, on one hand, is to uncover the authentic historical roots of the Vedas and, on the other, it is to reclaim India’s national identity. Through academic integrity and evidence-based scholarship, the article aims to establish the Harappans as the authors of the Vedas, thus catapulting India as a “Cradle of Civilization” predating Mesopotamia and Egypt.

The sources for all the arguments presented here are provided at the end of the article.

What Are the AIT & AMT Theories?

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and its later refinement, the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT), are foundational but highly contested narratives in the study of ancient Indian history. These theories emerged in the 19th century and have significantly shaped the understanding of India’s past, which are increasingly being challenged by new evidence.

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)

The AIT posits that the Indo-Aryans were not indigenous to India but rather invaded and conquered the subcontinent.

• Origin and Proponents:
  • The seeds of the AIT were sown as early as the 19th century, with renowned German scholar Max Müller being a prominent figure in its promulgation.
  • Concept of an “Aryan Race”: The very notion of “Aryan” was initially conceived in a racial sense, with Sir William Jones’ discovery of similarities between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin leading to the idea of an Indo-European family of languages and, subsequently, a “Proto-Indo-European race”. This sparked a search for the “original home” (Urheimat) of these people, often placed in Europe. European scholars, particularly Germans, aggressively identified themselves with these “valiant heroes”
  • A particularly influential figure was British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, who served as Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India from 1944 to 1948. Wheeler famously interpreted unburied skeletal remains found in the upper strata of the Mohenjo-Daro archaeological site as evidence of a massacre perpetrated by invading Aryans, declaring that the Vedic god “Indra stands accused” of destroying the Indus Civilization. The core tenets of AIT thus revolved around a violent invasion around 1500 BCE, leading to the displacement or conquest of the Harappan civilization, and the subsequent introduction of Vedic culture and Sanskrit.
  • Textual evidence from the Rig Veda was interpreted allegorically to support the invasion narrative. Passages describing conflicts between “light-skinned Aryans” and “dark-skinned Dasyus” were seen as accounts of the invaders’ struggles with indigenous populations. The depiction of Indra as “destroyer of cities” was also cited as a reflection of the Aryan conquest of urban Harappan centers. Linguistic similarities between the Rigveda and the Avesta, a Persian/Iranian text, further suggested a shared external origin for the Aryans.
  • Müller famously dated the Vedas to circa 1200 BCE through an ad-hoc method, assigning 200 years for each preceding textual period (Sutras, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, and Vedas), starting from the Sutra literature dated to circa 600 BCE. This conveniently placed the Vedic period after the supposed decline of the Harappan civilization and aligned neatly with the proposed Aryan invasion timeframe. This approach suggests that the theory’s timeline was constructed to fit the invasion hypothesis, rather than being an independently derived chronology that then supported the invasion. This dating significantly influenced the theory, declaring the Indus Civilization (discovered in the 1920s and dated to the 3rd millennium BCE) as pre-Vedic and non-Vedic. Max Müller operated under the strong influence of Christian theology, particularly the Biblical chronology, which asserted that God created the world in 4004 BCE and destroyed it with Noah’s flood around 3000 BCE. This rigid framework compelled him to artificially shorten India’s ancient genealogies and date the Vedas to no earlier than 1200 BCE, despite Indian sources suggesting much greater antiquity. This was a “preconceived” theory, with facts “selected to prove it”
  • The theory was rooted in Victorian and Eurocentric prejudices, including various kinds of racist ideologies. It was linked to the “Aryan Race Theory” promoted by German academics like Friedrich Schlegel, and later adopted by Adolf Hitler, leading to devastating consequences.
  • Justification for Colonial Rule: The AIT provided a convenient historical precedent for British colonial powers to justify their dominion over India. Max Müller himself speculated that the British, as “descendants of the same [Aryan] race,” were returning to India to “accomplish the glorious work of civilization, which had been left unfinished by their Aryan brethren”. This positioned British rule as merely another “Aryan wave” of conquest and “civilisation”
  • The British colonial powers used AIT to denigrate Indian civilization, divide Indian society into ‘Aryans’ and ‘Dravidians’, and portray Vedic culture as ‘imposed’ on the natives, thus serving their political and missionary agendas. The theory posited that “light-skinned Aryans” invaded and subjugated “dark-skinned Dravidians,” who were driven to South India. This created an artificial “Aryan-Dravidian divide” based on race and colour, which has no basis in genetic fact. This “racial science,” utilising methods like Herbert Risley’s “Nasal Index,” was used to classify and fragment Indian society into a rigid caste taxonomy, reinforcing a hierarchical and oppressive image of Hinduism.
• Core Components/Postulates:
  • Original Inhabitants: India’s original inhabitants were “dark-skinned” Dravidians, who developed a peaceful, highly urbanized civilization in western India and present-day Pakistan, known as the Harappan or Indus Valley Civilization.
  • Invasion: Around 1500 BCE, “white-skinned” nomadic Indo-Aryans of European origin, speaking Vedic Sanskrit, invaded India from the West.
  • Destruction and Subjugation: These invaders allegedly destroyed the indigenous Dravidian civilization, subjugated the natives, and forced them to migrate to South India. A small group of survivors were identified with the Brahui-speaking people in Baluchistan.
  • Imposition of Culture: The Indo-Aryans then composed the Vedas and imposed Hinduism and a rigid caste system upon the subjugated Dravidians and other indigenous peoples.
  • Key Evidence Cited (from the AIT perspective): Proponents of the AIT claimed textual references in the Rigveda to cities (pur) and mentions of “non-Aryan peoples” as evidence of invasion and the Aryans being outsiders. They also emphasized the supposed absence of the horse and spoked wheels in Harappan civilization, contrasting it with their prominence in Vedic texts.

AIT was used to portray Vedic culture (and later Hinduism) as a religion “imposed” on the natives by invaders. This undermined the indigenous origins of Hinduism and was leveraged to promote conversions to Christianity among various segments of Indian society, including so-called “Dravidians,” “lower castes,” and “untouchables” (Dalits).

The Aryan Migration Theory (AMT)

In the late 20th century, as archaeological and other evidence increasingly contradicted the violent “invasion” aspect of AIT, it was refined into the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory (IAMT). Many contemporary Indologists began to challenge the idea of a destructive invasion, advocating for a more “nuanced understanding of cultural and linguistic exchanges” that might have occurred over time. This led to the adoption of a “peaceful migration model,” which posited that existing civilizations were complex enough to assimilate newcomers without overt conflict. A crucial conceptual refinement accompanying this shift was the understanding of “Aryan” not as a racial construct, but primarily as a linguistic group, referring to “the people speaking it being Aryans”.

• Shift from Invasion to Migration:
  • Facing mounting archaeological evidence that found no support for widespread warfare, burned cities, or a “massacre” at sites like Mohenjo-daro, the theory evolved to suggest a more peaceful migration rather than a military conquest.
  • This alternative still maintains that the Aryans came from outside India, specifically from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in Central Asia, and were “pastoral cattle breeders”.
  • Despite the softer term “migration,” the implications for indigenous peoples remained largely the same: their subjugation and the imposition of Indo-Aryan religion and culture.

• Proponents of the Aryan Migration Theory
  • Professor Romila Thapar: She is explicitly named as having postulated an “Aryan Immigration” alternative, stating that if the invasion theory is discarded, “the mechanism of migration and occasional contacts come into sharper focus”. She suggests these migrations were of “pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and the Rigveda
  • Professor R.S. Sharma: He is noted for faithfully following and elaborating on Romila Thapar’s thesis. Sharma asserted that “the pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland came from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or BMAC, which saw the genesis of the culture of the Rigveda.
  • David W. Anthony is a key proponent of the “revised Kurgan theory,” arguing that the domestication of horses and the invention of the wheel significantly mobilized steppe herding societies. This increased mobility, he suggests, facilitated the widespread dispersal of Indo-European languages from their proposed homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. His seminal work, The Horse, The Wheel and Language, is frequently cited as a foundational text for this perspective.
  • J.P. Mallory is another influential scholar whose work, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, explores the origins and spread of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Mallory emphasizes the primacy of linguistic provenance and suggests that the spread of these languages often occurred through “recruitment” into new social structures rather than solely through military invasions.
  • Elena Efimovna Kuzmina is also recognized as a significant proponent of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. The core tenets of AMT propose a gradual, multi-wave migration of Indo-European speakers from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (modern-day Ukraine and Russia) beginning around 1800 BCE. These migrants are believed to have moved through Central Asia, particularly interacting with the Bactria-Margiana Culture (BMAC), before entering northern India. This migration is posited as the mechanism for the introduction of Indo-Aryan languages, Vedic culture, and key technological elements like the war chariot into the Indian subcontinent.
  • Michael Witzel: While described as an “ardent proponent of the Aryan invasion theory”, Michael Witzel’s views are presented within the broader “Aryan theory” framework that evolved to include migration. For instance, he is noted for stating that the “Indo-Aryans, as described in the Rig-Veda, represent something definitely new in the subcontinent,” suggesting a break with previous cultures.
  • A group of 92 scientists published a paper in Science in 2018, concluding that the Aryans were Central Asian Steppe pastoralists who migrated to the Indian subcontinent roughly between 2000 BCE and 1500 BCE9.
    
    More broadly, “mainstream” historians and academics, particularly those aligned with leftist ideologies, are described as perpetuating this narrative in Indian academia and textbooks, often dismissing opposing views.

• Supporting Arguments for AMT
  • Linguistic evidence remains central, with comparative linguistics demonstrating “striking” similarities in vocabulary (e.g., Sanskrit Mātṛ́ and English “mother”; Sanskrit Deva and Latin Deus) across Indo-European languages. These cognates are presented as strong indicators of a common ancestral language (Proto-Indo-European) originating from a steppe homeland. Textual parallels, such as the use of the term “Arya” in the Behistun Inscription and the linguistic similarities between the Rigveda and the Avesta (a Persian/Iranian text), are also cited to suggest shared origins outside India for the Indo-Aryans.  
  • Archaeological evidence for AMT points to the association of Proto-Indo-Iranians with the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE) and the Andronovo culture (1800–1400 BCE) in the Eurasian steppes, which exhibit advanced metalworking and the earliest known chariot burials. Interactions with the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in Central Asia are also highlighted, where archaeological finds suggest cultural blending and shared religious practices, including fire altars, which influenced later Vedic and Zoroastrian traditions. The presence of horses and chariots in these steppe cultures is then used to argue for their introduction into India by these migrating groups.  
  • Genetic evidence has become a significant pillar for AMT, with analyses of ancient DNA suggesting a “significant genetic influx from steppe populations into South Asia during the Bronze Age”. Studies have shown that modern Indian DNA contains “various percentages of Steppe ancestry depending on factors such as caste and location”. The R1a (specifically R1a1) Y chromosome gene, observed in the Steppe region in ancient times and found in higher percentages in some upper castes in India, is often considered an “Aryan” genetic marker.  

The shift from a violent “invasion” to a more “peaceful migration” model reflects an attempt to reconcile the theory with archaeological findings that consistently lacked evidence of large-scale destruction and warfare at Indus Valley sites. This refinement acknowledges the absence of clear signs of conquest, which was a major criticism of the original AIT. However, even a peaceful migration still implies a significant demographic and cultural shift, a point that remains contentious when evaluating the impact on indigenous cultures. The fundamental question persists: Did an external group arrive and profoundly reshape the existing Indian civilization, or did indigenous developments account for the observed cultural evolution?  

A key interpretation within the AMT, particularly from genetic studies like Narasimhan et al. (2019), suggests that the detected Steppe ancestry “likely spread the unique features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages”. This interpretation positions the genetic influx as a “conduit” for linguistic and cultural transmission, rather than necessarily implying a full population replacement. This subtle but important distinction suggests that language and culture could have spread through smaller groups, perhaps an elite, or through processes of acculturation, rather than solely through mass migration. This proposed mechanism sets up a direct point of contention with the Out of India Theory, which posits an indigenous development of Indo-Aryan languages and Vedic culture within the subcontinent

Academic Obstinacy Preserving the AIT and AMT Theories

Despite mounting archaeological, genetic, and literary evidence that consistently debunks AIT/AMT, many scholars stick to their theories due to entrenched mindsets and the fear that their names and reputations in the field of scholarship would collapse. This leads to the “ignoring, minimizing, or justifying at any cost” of contradictory data.

The theory was sustained through ad-hocism and simplistic historical interpretations. Scholars have been accused of “blatant dishonesty,” including inventing non-existent texts, deliberate mistranslations, inventing or distorting archaeological evidence, and using circular reasoning. Critics note a “confirmation bias,” where scholars believe[d] in something (like the 1500 BCE invasion date) and then ignored contradictory facts as “unreliable”.

A significant weakness in the early AIT formulation lies in what can be termed the “absence of evidence” fallacy. For instance, Mortimer Wheeler’s interpretation of skeletal remains at Mohenjo-Daro as massacre victims was a pivotal archaeological pillar of AIT. However, this interpretation was later widely dismissed by other scholars, who re-evaluated the remains as hasty burials rather than evidence of a large-scale violent conflict. Critically, Wheeler himself “eventually admitted that the theory could not be proven,” suggesting that the decay of city structures was likely a result of abandonment rather than conquest. This highlights how initial interpretations, even by prominent figures, can be based on limited or misinterpreted data, and how the absence of clear evidence of invasion was sometimes overlooked or explained away to fit the prevailing hypothesis.

Scholars who challenged the AIT/AMT narrative were often “demonized” or “instantly and a priori dubbed a nationalist, a communalist, or, even worse, a “Nazi”. This served to marginalize dissenting voices and maintain the choke-hold on Indian academia by the leftist clique.

The Out of India (OIT) Theory

The Out of India Theory (OIT), also known as the Indigenous Aryans Theory (IAT), represents a significant counter-narrative to the prevailing Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and its refined version, the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT). The “Indigenist position” started to take shape after the discovery of the Harappan civilisation, which predates the Vedas. While AIT/AMT posits that the Indo-Aryan people and their languages originated outside India and either invaded or migrated into the subcontinent around 1500 BCE, leading to the subjugation of indigenous Dravidian populations and the imposition of Vedic culture and the caste system, OIT fundamentally rejects this external origin. Instead, it postulates that the Indo-Aryan people and their languages originated within the Indian subcontinent itself, and that the Indus Valley Civilization (also known as the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization) was in fact the Vedic Civilization, the Vedas are older than the second millennium BCE, there is no discontinuity between the (northern) Indo-European part of India and the (southern) Dravidian part, and some OIT proponents even suggest a “reverse migration” or westward expansion of Indo-Aryans from India to other parts of Europe and Central Asia. This theory negates the 19th-century narrative of a superior Aryan race subjecting the native Indians, implicitly confirming the ethnocentric superiority of the European invaders of colonial times, instead supporting “a theory of indigenous development that led to the creation of the Vedas.”

The OIT draws upon a diverse and growing body of evidence across multiple scientific and academic disciplines, challenging the long-held assumptions of AIT/AMT.

Proponents of the Out of India Theory (OIT)

Many scholars and researchers have contributed to, or are seen as proponents of, the Out of India Theory. These include:

• Shri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda: These prominent Indian figures affirmed long ago that the Rigvedic people were indigenous to India and not invaders.
• B.B. Lal: A distinguished archaeologist and author of “The Rigvedic People: Invaders? Immigrants? or Indigenous?”, Lal asserts that the Aryan Invasion Theory is a “total myth” and the Aryan Migration Theory is “equally mythical”. He also notes that his work, among others that challenge the AIT, has been marginalized in Indian textbooks.
• David Frawley is another influential proponent, who, in his works such as The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India and In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, criticizes 19th-century racial interpretations and advocates for the OIT.
• Michel Danino: A long-time student of Indian civilization, Danino’s works, such as “The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati” and “A Brief Note on the Aryan Invasion Theory,” extensively argue against the AIT/AMT based on archaeological, textual, genetic, and cultural evidence.
• Dr. Nicholas Kazanas: A Greek scholar, Dr. Kazanas states that he found “no evidence whatsoever” for the Aryan invasion or immigration theory, and his studies indicate that Indians have been in India since at least 3500 BCE. He also argues that Sanskrit is linguistically closer to Proto-Indo-European than other languages and that Vedic is older than Avesta, implying a westward movement of Iranians from “Hindu land”.
• Shrikant Talageri: Through detailed linguistic, geographical, and chronological analysis of the Vedas and Avesta, Talageri concludes an “Out of India” migration scenario, showing that Rigvedic people migrated from the Haryana/Western UP region westward to Afghanistan and the Mittani Kingdom.
• Koenraad Elst: He has rejected the notion that the existence of Indo-European languages necessitates an Aryan invasion or migration into India, arguing that linguistic evidence is “completely wanting” for such a claim.
• Dr. Raj Vedam: As a theoretical physicist, Dr. Vedam provides scientific arguments, particularly from genetics and archaeoastronomy, to support the indigenous origin of Indians and to debunk the AIT/AMT as a “myth” and “fiction”.
• Jim G. Shaffer and Diane Lichtenstein: These U.S. archaeologists explicitly disagree with the “Invasion” theory, stating that “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods”.
• Lord Colin Renfrew: A renowned British archaeologist, Renfrew rejected the idea of an Aryan invasion, noting that the Rigveda does not imply one and that it is “difficult to see what is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley”.
• George F. Dales: An American archaeologist who critically examined and “rightly dubbed” the supposed “massacre” at Mohenjo-daro (a key piece of “evidence” for AIT) as a “Mythical Massacre”.
• M.K. Dhavalikar: An Indian archaeologist, Dhavalikar stated that “The theory of large-scale invasion by Aryans is now discounted as there is no evidence to support it”.
• B.R. Ambedkar: The architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar critically scrutinized the Aryan theory and found it “so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago,” calling it an “invention” and “a perversion of scientific investigation”.
• Mountstuart Elphinstone: A British historian, as early as 1841, he noted that neither the Vedas nor any other ancient Indian text contained “any allusion to a prior residence … out of India”.
• Moritz Winternitz: A German Indologist, he dissented from Max Müller’s proposed chronology for the Vedas, suggesting an earlier date of around 2000-2500 BCE, which aligns with the Mature Harappan phase and an indigenous origin.
• H.H. Wilson: One of the early translators of the Vishnu Purāna, he suggested that the Sarasvati river region was where Vedic culture was “first planted, and cultivated and reared in Hindusthān”.
• Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) officials like B.B. Lal, J.P. Joshi, R.S. Bisht, and others, whose excavations at sites like Kalibangan, Banawali, Bhirrana, and Sinauli have provided crucial evidence supporting OIT.
• Geneticists such as S. Sengupta et al., P.A. Underhill et al., and R. Tamang & K. Thangaraj, whose research papers have demonstrated the absence of significant external gene flow into India for thousands of years and identified the Indian origin of the R1a1a haplogroup that spread westward.
• Archaeozoologists like Sándor Bökönyi and P.K. Thomas, who identified horse remains in Harappan sites, challenging the previous claims of its absence.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Theories on Ancient Indian Origins

Feature	Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)	Aryan Migration Theory (AMT)	Out of India Theory (OIT)
Proposed Homeland	Central Asia/Caucasus	Pontic-Caspian Steppe	Indian Subcontinent (Punjab/Saraswati region)
Proposed Timeline	c. 1500-1000 BCE	c. 1800-1500 BCE	Pre-2nd Millennium BCE (7000-8000 BCE)
Nature of Arrival	Violent Conquest	Peaceful/Gradual Migration	Indigenous Development/Outward Radiation
Relationship with IVC	Destroyed/Displaced	Assimilated/Coexisted	IVC = Vedic Civilization
Authorship of Vedas	External (Aryans)	External (Aryans)	Indigenous (Indus Valley People)
Key Proponents	Max Müller, Mortimer Wheeler, William Jones (early interpretations)	David W. Anthony, J.P. Mallory, Elena Efimovna Kuzmina	Sri Aurobindo, Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, Michel Danino, B.B. Lal

How OIT Proponents Debunk the AIT and AMT Theories

The Out of India Theory (OIT) fundamentally debunks the claims of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and the refined Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) by proposing that the Indo-Aryan people and their languages originated in the Indian subcontinent, and that the Indus Valley Civilization (also known as the Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization) was, in fact, the Vedic civilization itself. This directly contradicts the AIT/AMT’s central thesis that Indo-Aryans were foreign invaders or migrants who entered India around 1500 BCE, destroyed or subjugated the indigenous Dravidian Harappan civilization, and imposed Vedic Sanskrit, Hinduism, and the caste system.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of how OIT debunks AIT/AMT claims, drawing on various lines of evidence:

1. Archaeological Evidence of Continuity, Not Invasion or Discontinuity:
   • Absence of Invasion/Massacre Evidence: Archaeologists, including Professor B.B. Lal, consistently refute the AIT/AMT claims of invasion, stating there is no evidence of warfare, burned fortresses, weapons, or large-scale destruction at Harappan sites. The supposed “massacre” at Mohenjo-daro, cited by Mortimer Wheeler, has been debunked as a “Mythical Massacre” by George F. Dales, noting that skeletons were scattered across the site and belonged to different time periods, not a single event. Instead, evidence suggests that Harappan cities were abandoned primarily due to climate change, particularly the drying up of the Saraswati, leading to population migration towards the Ganga valley, rather than invasion.
   • No Evidence of Intrusive Culture: Hundreds of Harappan sites have been excavated, but none have yielded remains of an intrusive culture that could be associated with invaders. Instead, there’s evidence of cultural continuity, though at some sites signs of deterioration are observed.
   • Harappan-Vedic Equation: Professor B.B. Lal asserts that “Vedic” and “Harappan” are respectively literary and material facets of the same civilization. Michel Danino notes that numerous connections have emerged between the two civilizations in technology, astronomy, crafts, art, games, religion, and rituals.
   • Urbanism and Architecture: Contrary to the AIT/AMT assertion of a “Vedic Dark Age” and a disconnect between Harappan and later Gangetic urbanism, OIT proponents point to continuities in urban planning, fortifications, and architectural elements. Examples like Dholavira’s precise city planning and the dimensions of later historical cities like Sirkap and Thimi align with Harappan measurements, suggesting a shared system.
2. Cultural Continuities and Religious Linkages
   • The early excavator, John Marshall, observed that the Harappan religion was “so characteristically Indian as hardly to be distinguished from still living Hinduism”. This directly refutes the AIT/IAMT claim that Hinduism was imposed by invaders
   • Numerous cultural traits and technologies demonstrate continuity between the Harappan and later Gangetic civilizations, directly linking them. These include shared house designs, brick ratios, weight measures such as the rattis and karshas, craft traditions (e.g., bronze casting, bead-making), ornaments (bangles), iconography.
   • Professor B.B. Lal and Michel Danino highlight numerous continuities between the Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization and modern Indian culture and Hinduism. These include practices like Yoga, the Shiva-linga-cum-yoni, the use of vermilion (sindura) by married women, spiraled bangles, the folk tale of the thirsty crow, the Namaste greeting, Lord Shiva’s trident, the sacredness of the peepal tree, the swastika, mother-goddess worship, and prevalence of fire worship through identifiable fire altars at Harappan sites like Kalibangan and Banawali. Vedic scholars recognize the semi-circular, square, and circular altars at Banawali as the basic shapes of Vedic fire altars (dakshināgni, āhavanīya, gārhapatya).
   • The presence of yogic postures in Harappan terracotta figurines and seals suggests an early form of yoga and meditation. Shiva iconography (including lingam-yoni motifs, meditating figures, and bull sacrifice imagery), depictions of yogic postures (like Bhadrâsana, Vajrâsana, Siddhâsana), and representations of Hindu fables (“The Thirsty Crow”), confirm deep cultural continuity with later Hindu society.
   • Shared Ideology and Systems: The Harappan emphasis on trade and religion, rather than military might, and the community-based distribution of power, align with the early stages of Gangetic civilization. The continuation of standardized weights and measures from the Harappan period into later Indian systems,
3. Sarasvati River Discrepancy:
   • Contradictory Chronologies: The Rigveda frequently refers to the Sarasvati River as a mighty, active river (“greatest of rivers,” “mother of floods”), “the best of rivers” (nadītamā) and flowing “from the mountains all the way down to the ocean”. Combined evidence from archaeology, radiocarbon dating, and hydrology indicates that the Sarasvati dried up around 2000 BCE. This directly contradicts Max Müller’s proposed date for the composition of the Vedas (circa 1200 BCE), as it would mean the Vedic people composed hymns about a river that had already dried up centuries before their supposed arrival. Therefore, the Rig Veda must have been composed while the Sarasvatī was still flowing, predating 2000 BCE, possibly even closer to 5000 BCE when the river was in its prime. This date aligns with the roots of the Harappan Civilization, which trace back to the 6th-5th millennia BCE at sites like Bhirrana. This makes the Rig Veda a strong candidate for the “world’s oldest known literature”
   • Geographical Fit: Geological and remote sensing studies confirm the existence of a vast ancient riverbed, the Ghaggar-Hakra system, which matches the descriptions of the Vedic Sarasvati, flowing from the Himalayas to the Rann of Kachchh. Archaeological findings demonstrate a significant geographical congruence between the area described in the Rig Veda and the extent of the Harappan Civilization. The Rig Veda’s “Nadi-stuti” hymn (RV 10.75.5-6) refers to the entire region from the Ganga-Yamuna in the east to the Indus and its western tributaries. This very area was occupied by the Harappan Civilization during the 3rd millennium BCE. This direct overlap strongly suggests that “the Harappans are none other than the Vedic people themselves”
4. Horse and Spoked Wheel Presence:
   • AIT/AMT Claim: AIT/AMT proponents argue that the horse and spoked wheel were unknown to Harappans and were introduced by invading Aryans around 1500 BCE, providing them a military advantage.
   • OIT Rebuttal: OIT presents archaeological evidence of horse remains and terracotta models of spoked wheels at Harappan sites like Lothal, Surkotada, Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, and Banawali, dating back to the third millennium BCE or earlier.
   • The recent excavations at Sinauli (c. 1900 BCE) uncovered burials of indigenous warrior tribes with chariots and weapons, further demonstrating that these were not external introductions but indigenous elements. Chariots unearthed there date back to 2000 BCE, predating the proposed Aryan arrival of 1500 BCE. The copper inlay work on these chariots correlates with Rigveda descriptions of “chariots glowing in sunlight,” suggesting a direct connection between the Sinauli people and Vedic traditions.
   • The Rig Veda’s frequent use of “ashva” (horse) often carries a symbolic meaning of “energy” or “speed,” not just the animal itself, and the text even mentions Dasyus possessing “ashvas”
   • Experts like Sándor Bökönyi confirmed the presence of domesticated horses in the mature phase of the Harappan Culture. The argument that horse remains are too few is countered by the fact that horses were not a primary food source, similar to other animals like camels and elephants that are undeniably present but have fewer remains.
5. Genetic Evidence for Indigenous Origins:
   Genetic arguments have provided some of the most compelling recent challenges to the AMT.
   • The Narasimhan et al. (2019) paper, based on the DNA analysis of a 4,500-year-old female skeleton from Rakhigarhi, found that the ancient Harappan genome “lacks ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers”. This finding directly contradicts the AMT’s central claim of a significant Steppe influx into the IVC population. The DNA from this individual, and others from the IVC cline, shows genetic affinity with people of South India, strongly suggesting indigenous origins for the IVC people.
   • Further research by Lucox and Kennedy indicates that “no Central Asian DNA has been found in the population of North-West India until 800 BCE,” a date significantly later than the proposed AMT timelines of 1800-1500 BCE.
   • The R1a haplogroup, often considered an “Aryan” genetic marker due to its presence in the Steppe region, requires “more nuance” in its interpretation. Studies show that some non-Brahmin tribes, such as the Chenchu and Todas, have higher R1a percentages than some Brahmins in different regions, challenging the simplistic narrative of “upper castes = steppe genes”. Furthermore, the M17 gene (a specific marker for R1a) is “heavily predominant in India” and exhibits greater diversity there than in its European carriers, suggesting an older origin in India and a “movement from East to West rather than West to East”.
     • Studies indicate that the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a, often associated with Indo-Aryans, originated in the Indian subcontinent over 15,450 years ago. Its presence in other regions, including Europe, is seen as evidence of westward expansion from India.
     • Genetic Unity of Indians: Genetic studies reveal that Indian populations are genetically unique and harbor high genetic diversity. Furthermore, research demonstrates that most Indians are genetically alike, debunking the “Aryan-Dravidian divide” as a myth. The R1a1a haplogroup is found in high frequencies across various groups in India, including North and South Indians, tribals, and different castes. Most Indians are genetically alike, irrespective of north or south, tribal, or caste distinctions. This unity is also supported by ancient Tamil Sangam literature, which mentions the Mahabharata, Vedas, and Ramayana, and covers all of India
   • Large-scale genetic studies, such as Priya Moorjani et al. (2024), involving over 2700 Indian genomes, have revealed that most Indian genetic variation stems from a “single major migration out of Africa” around 50,000 years ago, with minimal contribution from earlier migration waves. While acknowledging the presence of three ancestral groups (Iranian farmers, Eurasian Steppe pastoralists, and South Asian hunter-gatherers), this research highlights that the West Asian genetic components found in India are “much older than the purported Aryan invasion”. These studies collectively confirm a genetic continuity in South Asia for the past 12,000 years , and no significant influx of people into India during 4500 to 800 BCE.
6. Linguistic Re-evaluation:
   • Sanskrit’s Antiquity: OIT scholars argue that Sanskrit, particularly Vedic Sanskrit, is much older and closer to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language than other Indo-European languages. This challenges the AIT/AMT timeline which places the composition of the Rigveda after 1500 BCE. Sri Aurobindo’s detailed studies, revealing deep and extensive connections between Sanskrit and Tamil, challenge the notion of unrelated language families and suggest a common linguistic origin within India.
   • Westward Migration from India: The Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, a Vedic text, explicitly records a westward migration of Vedic people (Gandhari, Parsu, and Aratta). The presence of Vedic Sanskrit terms and deities (Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Nasatya) in the Bogazkoy treaty (circa 1380 BCE) from the Mitanni kingdom in present-day Syria/Anatolia is cited as archaeological evidence supporting an earlier, living form of Sanskrit that expanded westward from India, not into India. This implies that Vedic texts predate the Mitanni period, suggesting an Indian homeland.
   • Critique of Comparative Philology: OIT proponents argue that conventional linguistic models used by AIT/AMT have inherent flaws, use arbitrary laws, and lack chronological context, making them unreliable for dating migrations. These theories began with linguistic and an overemphasis on comparative philology as the “gold standard” for historical reconstruction, despite its inability to provide concrete dates. Nicholas Kazanas, a Greek scholar highlights that linguistic evidence “can give you no dates,” unlike archaeology and anthropology.
7. Distortion of Sanskrit and Vedic Texts: Vedic literature, supposedly written by the invaders, contains extensive references to Indian landmarks but no mention of a former homeland, a “collective amnesia” highly unusual for migrant populations. Scholars “remarkably twisted the words in the Vedas to give a racial interpretation,” such as interpreting anasa (a single occurrence) as “stub-nosed” to describe the indigenous Dasyus, to fit racial narratives.
8. Ancient Astronomical Observations Encoded in Vedic Texts:
   • Indian astronomical models, such as the Nakshatra and Rāśi systems, are pan-Indian and demonstrate great antiquity, suggesting continuous observation for millennia. Vedic texts contain numerous astronomical observations that, when cross-referenced with modern archaeoastronomy software, point to dates far earlier than the AIT/AMT framework allows. This directly challenges the AIT/AMT assumption that early Vedic people had limited astronomical knowledge or that it was borrowed from later Greek or Babylonian sources.
   • Kaliyuga Epoch (3102 BCE): The date for the start of Kaliyuga (18 February 3102 BCE) corresponds to a rare conjunction of planets (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) clustered in the Revati nakshatra34…. This precise astronomical event, encoded in texts like the Surya Siddhanta, is so specific that it likely represents an “ancestral remembrance” or “cultural memory” from a very ancient period, not a later calculation, as such precision was difficult to back-compute with available ancient tools.
   • Kritika Nakshatra and Solstices:
     • The Satapatha Brāhmaṇa (a Vedic text) refers to Kritika (Pleiades) never swerving from the true East. This observation is astronomically true for a specific period around 2982 BCE, when Kritika was on the celestial equator. This is centuries before the AIT’s proposed date for the Rigveda.
     • The Taittirīya Samhitā refers to Kritika being at the winter solstice, which corresponds to 28,921 BCE42.
     • The Mahabharata describes Kritika at the summer solstice approximately 24,000 years ago. Such observations indicate that Rishis were observing the skies for an extremely long time.
   • Abhijit and the Pole Star: The Mahabharata recounts the star Abhijit (Vega) “slipping down” in the sky. This is interpreted as a “cultural memory” of a time over 15,000 years ago when Abhijit was the Pole Star, and its later departure from that position. This implies continuous astronomical observation and transmission of knowledge over vast stretches of time in India.
   • Aditi/Punarvasu and Vernal Equinox: The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa mentions the vernal equinox shifting from Mrigashira to Rohini, which astronomers have assigned to circa 3500 BCE44. Additionally, an Aitareya Brāhmaṇa reference to the New Year beginning with Aditi (Punarvasu nakshatra) points to 6000 BCE or 8000 years before present for the vernal equinox at that position.
   • Ashvins and Solar Flares: The story of Surya (Sun) becoming too hot for Sanjana, who goes to a cooler region, leaving a shadow, and Vishwakarma having to “chop off the Sun’s brilliance,” aligns with a massive solar flare event around 7200 BCE (9000 years ago), evidenced by ice cores. This correlation of literary narrative with a specific deep-time astronomical event further points to the extraordinary antiquity of Indian cultural memory and observation.

Table 2: Key Archaeological Findings Challenging AIT/AMT and Supporting OIT

Site/Evidence	Traditional AIT/AMT Claim	New Archaeological Finding/Interpretation	Implication for AIT/AMT	Support for OIT
Mohenjo-Daro Skeletons	Victims of Aryan massacre by Indra	Hasty burials, not massacre victims; city abandoned due to other factors	Debunks violent invasion narrative; AIT’s core archaeological “proof” is invalid.	IVC decline not due to external invasion.
Sinauli Chariots	Chariots introduced by Aryans c. 1500 BCE	Chariots found dating to 2000 BCE, with Rigvedic correlations	Contradicts Aryan introduction of chariots; undermines key technological argument.	Indigenous development of advanced technology; Vedic culture predates proposed migration.
Sinauli Copper Helmets & Burials	Vedic traditions (e.g., Maruts, bull horns) external to IVC	Copper helmets & bull-horned burial faces found, correlating with Rigveda	Challenges external origin of Vedic traditions; shows indigenous Vedic practices.	Vedic customs were indigenous to India, practiced by Sinauli people.
Saraswati River	Vedic people arrived c. 1500 BCE, Rig Veda composed later	River mentioned in Vedas dried up c. 1900 BCE	Vedic texts must predate 1900 BCE; invalidates AIT/AMT chronology.	Vedic civilization existed in India much earlier, overlapping with IVC.
Lack of Invasion Evidence at Harappan Sites	Large-scale invasion/conquest	No burned fortresses, weapons, or bodies of invaders/defenders	Direct refutation of violent invasion; no archaeological support for mass migration.	IVC decline due to environmental factors, not external conquest.
Cultural Continuity Artifacts	IVC distinct from Vedic/Hindu culture	Shiva iconography, yogic postures, fire altars, Namaste, etc., found in IVC	Shows unbroken cultural tradition; challenges cultural discontinuity.	IVC was the precursor/part of Vedic/Hindu civilization.

Table 2: Genetic Evidence and its Implications for Aryan Theories

Study/Evidence	Methodology	Key Genetic Finding	Implication for AIT/AMT	Support for OIT
Rakhigarhi DNA (Narasimhan et al. 2019)	Ancient DNA analysis of IVC skeleton	IVC genome lacks Steppe pastoralist ancestry	Directly contradicts significant Steppe influx into IVC populations.	IVC people were indigenous, not external Aryans; genetic continuity with South Indians.
Lucox & Kennedy Research	Ancient DNA studies	No Central Asian DNA in NW India until 800 BCE	Challenges AMT timeline; Steppe ancestry arrived much later than proposed.	Indigenous populations remained largely unmixed by Central Asian genes until much later.
R1a Haplogroup Distribution	Y-chromosome gene analysis	R1a distribution nuanced; higher in some tribes than Brahmins; M17 more diverse in India	Complicates simplistic “Aryan gene” narrative; suggests older Indian origin for R1a.	R1a may have originated in India and spread westward.
Priya Moorjani et al. (2024)	2700+ Indian whole genome sequences	Most Indian variation from single Out-of-Africa migration (~50kya); West Asian components older than invasion	Undermines recent, transformative “Aryan” genetic event as primary shaper of Indian population.	Deep genetic continuity in India; diverse ancestry built over long periods, not single event.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the OIT presents a multi-disciplinary body of evidence from archaeology, hydrology, genetics, linguistics, astronomy and textual analysis that consistently points to cultural and genetic continuity within India for millennia, the indigenous origin of Indo-Aryans and Sanskrit, and the westward expansion of these groups and languages. This holistic approach comprehensively debunks the foundational claims and underlying biases of the AIT/AMT.

By asserting indigenous authorship of the Vedas and emphasizing the continuity of Indian civilization, the OIT reclaims agency for ancient Indian populations. This directly counters the colonial narrative, which often implied that Indian civilization required external “civilizing” influences for its development. This shift in perspective is not merely a historical correction but also a re-assertion of the indigenous capacity for complex societal and cultural evolution, challenging a long-standing colonial bias that minimized Indian contributions

The conclusion of this debate is profoundly beneficial for India:

• Reclaiming a Unified Identity and History: It allows India to reclaim its true history and national identity, correcting a distorted narrative that has been taught for decades. The AIT/IAMT imposed a sense of “white guilt” on people of Indo-Aryan ancestry and fostered resentment among Dravidian and Dalit groups, leading to separatism and rejection of Hinduism. Debunking it fosters a unified national identity.
• Celebrating Indigenous Culture and Hinduism: It establishes Hinduism as indigenous to India, with its origins in the very beginning of the Sindhu-Sarasvatī civilization, rather than a religion imposed by invaders. This validates the continuity of Indian cultural traditions and deepens appreciation for its heritage.
• Promoting Academic Integrity and Scientific Inquiry: The shift necessitates modernizing Indian textbooks and purging them of ideological biases, encouraging evidence-based education, and ending the leftist choke-hold on Indian academia. It prioritizes scientific observation and empirical evidence over narratives and dogma.
• Establishing India as a Cradle of Civilization: The evidence for India’s ancient and continuous civilization, dating back at least 9,500 years, positions it as one of the world’s oldest, continuously existing civilizations, potentially older than Mesopotamia and Egypt, making it a true “Cradle of Civilization”. This provides a stronger historical foundation and global standing for India’s civilizational contributions.

Postscript – Criticism Against OIT Theory

Though my sentiments strongly align with the OIT theory, rooted in my profound appreciation for Advaita that blossomed in Indian soil, and acknowledging the colonial distortions of India’s history, I realize that the OIT theory can be intricately linked to the Hindutva ideology championed by the ruling Indian political party – the BJP.

According to Abhijith Ravinutala, the indigenist position is essential for Hindutva exclusive claims on India:

The BJP considers Indo-Aryans fundamental to the party’s conception of Hindutva, or “Hindu-ness”: India is a nation of and for Hindus only. Only those who consider India their holy land should remain in the nation. From the BJP’s point of view, the Indo-Aryan peoples were indigenous to India, and therefore were the first ‘true Hindus’. Accordingly, an essential part of ‘Indian’ identity in this point of view is being indigenous to the land.

~ Ravinutala, Abhijith (2013). Politicizing the Past: Depictions of Indo-Aryans in Indian Textbooks from 1998–2007.

Being an anarchist, I decry state power, viewing centralized, monopolistic coercive power as illegitimate and therefore do not align with any political agendas. Therefore I consider it my duty to offer to the reader the strongest criticism made by mainstream AMT scholars against the OIT theory, encapsulated in the words of Michael Witzel – a German-American philologist, comparative mythologist and Indologist.

The Indigenous Aryans theory has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship. According to Michael Witzel, the “indigenous Aryans” position is not scholarship in the usual sense, but an “apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking”. He says that linguistic data have generally been neglected by advocates of the autochthonous theory.

The “revisionist project” certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purāṇas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different ‘discourse’ than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly ‘scientific’ guise … The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the “truth” of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at “rewriting” history out of national pride or for the purpose of “nation building”.

~ Witzel, Michael E. J. (2001). “Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts” (PDF). Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. 7 (3): 1–115.

Edwin Bryant, Anglo-Italian Indologist, though admitting that most of the evidence regarding the origin of Indo-Aryans is inconclusive and not convinced of the Indo-Aryan migrations theory, he is also not convinced of an “Out-of-India position”, since the support for it is not significant. He opines that OIT proponents tend to be linguistic dilettantes who either ignore the linguistic evidence completely, dismiss it as highly speculative and inconclusive or attempt to tackle it with hopelessly inadequate qualifications; this attitude and neglect significantly minimises the value of most OIT publications.

I have quoted Michael Witzel and Edwin Bryant as balancing critiques to OIT.

Sources

• Lal, B.B. (2015). The Rigvedic People: Invaders? Immigrants? or Indigenous? Evidence of Archaeology and Literature.
• “Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology | IndiaFactsIndiaFacts.”
  • This article is available on IndiaFacts: https://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/.
• “Aryan Invasion Theory: Time to Remove It From Textbooks.”
• “Chariots, warriors, burials — ASI has finally found proof Aryans were no invaders in India.”
  • No direct weblink for this article is provided in the excerpts.
• Danino, Michel. (2009). “A Brief Note on the Aryan Invasion Theory.” PRAGATI Quarterly Research Journal.
• Danino, Michel. “The Horse and the Aryan Debate.”
• “Greek scholar Dr Nicholas Kazanas debunks the Aryan Invasion/Migration myth – Part 1” and “Greek scholar Dr. Nicholas Kazanas debunks the Aryan Invasion/Migration myth – Part 1.” HinduPost. November 2, 2022.
  • This content is from HinduPost. You can find more information on their general website: https://hindupost.in.
• “Indian civilization: The Untold Story | Raj Vedam | #SangamTalks.” YouTube channel: Sangam Talks.
• Danino, Michel. (1996). “Invasion That Never Was.”
• Danino, Michel. (2010). The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvatī. Penguin Books India.
  • This book is published by Penguin Books India, whose website is www.penguinbooksindia.com.
• “No evidence for warfare or invasion; Aryan migration too is a myth: B B Lal.” NewsGram.
  • This article is from NewsGram. You can find more information on their website: www.newsgram.com.
• “Rejecting the Myth of the Aryans: A Primer — Part I – Indiafacts.”
  • This article is from Indiafacts. You can find more information on their website: indiafacts.org.
• “West’s Pre-conceived Models & Study Of Ancient Genetics | Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory |Raj Vedam” uploaded on the YouTube channel “Sangam Talks”.
• “Who are the Indians? Debunking the Aryan Invasion Theory | Dr. Raj Vedam | #sangamtalks” uploaded on the YouTube channel “Sangam Talks”.