And, on this principle, Witzel’s papers themselves are “devoid of scholarly value”, since he is also “motivated” by the desire to counter the Indian … - Shrikant G. Talageri

But while he purports to present the latter, he studiously avoids dealing with the former with truly admirable consistency – a consistency he maintained with steadfast doggedness throughout our e-mail debate and which (I am told) he has been maintaining with equally steadfast doggedness throughout the course of Internet debates with other “Indian Superpatriots.”... Witzel, with characteristic disregard for the truth, claims that my criticism of his papers is based on my own views given in my first 5 chapters, and so it does not merit any reply! The readers must “see for themselves”: my criticism is not based on my views and criteria at all, but on glaring mistakes, contradictions and falsehoods in his own writings... Witzel clearly finds it impossible to defend his 1995 papers which stand totally discredited. Thus, his review already loses half the battle – and “battle” it is, as per the tone and tenor of his review, and his stated view that a “cultural war is in full swing” (§9, pg. 24). Indeed, Michael Witzel has now literally taken it upon himself to prove the advent of Aryan languages into India via the Aryan Invasion Theory or its softer versions. He has published numerous articles, the recent ones being replete with hysterical attacks, non-academic remarks and abuses against those who disagree with his views.

That is, none of the Rishi ascriptions (either for an allegedly “original” hymn or an allegedly “interpolated” hymn) shows a contrary order: i.e. if Mandala A has a hymn ascribed to an ancestor of a Rishi composer from Mandala B, we do not find another case where Mandala B has a hymn ascribed to an ancestor of a Rishi composer from Mandala B. And the references within the hymns follow suit: no hymn from Mandala A refers to a Rishi composer from Mandala B (for example, the three Early Mandalas do not contain a single reference to a Rishi composer from the Middle or Late Mandalas, the Bhrgu hymns being a special case apart).

Further, Witzel writes about the word Druhyu: “This word means, literally, ‘the ones who seek to cheat’. Non-linguist as he is, T. missed a great chance for a ‘socio-ethnic’ study based on an etymology!” Witzel, “linguist” as he is, is mistaken in the idea that this is the primary meaning of the word: the word had a positive meaning which became negative particularly in the Vedic and Iranian languages. In any case, why should Witzel imagine that I would want to conduct a “socio-ethnic study”? And to what purpose: to show that the enemies of the Vedic Aryans were “cheaters”? Witzel has clearly not understood my book: neither the general tone of my historical study, nor the specific points made by me in this regard...