Prodosh Aich - Lies with Long Legs

And, as already mentioned, the “Aryans” were tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired, blue or grey-eyed. So they would have been able to conquer Northwest India with ease if they had faced resistance. There was no doubt about the presence of the “Aryans” in India. Every simpleton who visits India can obviously see the “Nordic race” in Northwest India. In the south on the other hand the people are of short stature, dark-skinned and dark-eyed. “Scientists” imaging the “Aryans” are obsessed in describing this physical appearance. They were, as said, tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired, blue or grey-eyed. People with these features are of course superior to others. Does the scientists’ obsession not actually indicate an urgent desire to identify themselves with these “Aryans”? Is this desire rather an indication of “Ich-Stärke” (ego-strength) or of “Ich-Schwäche” (ego-weakness)?

Naturally the “race”, allegedly inferior to the “Aryans”, had also a name. They were “Dravidians”. Unfortunately we have not come across such an exceptional “scholar” having the “qualities” of a Friedrich Maximilian Mueller, who could have told us whether they also did call themselves “Dravidians” in their early literature. Did the “Dravidians” have “early writings”? Did they have literature at all? We do not know. We do however wonder how the dynamic, self-conscious and clever “Aryans” obviously never compared themselves with the “Dravidians” in order to develop their own “we-consciousness”. There is no reference whatsoever to “Dravidians”, to “two races” or to “race” in any ancient Sanskrit script.

Shouldn’t this lacuna have been noticed by the “modern scientists” and been reflected upon? Anyway. We are not yet through with the stories we are told. The “Aryans”, having either invaded India or immigrated into India, displaced the “Dravidians” to the South, settled down, developed their “Protosanskrit” almost to perfection, devised a script, produced literature of high cultural value, brought this culture to the pushed out “Dravidians” and spread the “Aryan” culture over entire India. Helmuth von Glasenapp gave clear indication that the “Dravidians” too are not indigenous people ( Ureinwohner ) of India. They immigrated in the “earliest early period” from ‚Africa and Melanesia ' to India. We won’t comment on this. We just take a note of this version of the earliest history of India. But we have many questions. It need not be specially mentioned that we don’t find answers to our questions in the “modern-scientific-literature”. It is even worse. Most of these questions have not even been raised yet.

What was the numerical ratio, for example, when the “Aryans” conquering and/or immigrating displaced the “Dravidians” to the South? Is it within the realm of the imagination of these scientists that the more unfavourable the ratio of the conquerors or of the immigrants to the inhabitants was, the more difficult and more improbable it would have been to drive them from the North to the South? The “Aryans” could not have passed the Hindukush in masses. Which routes could they have taken from the steppe to the south? How were the conditions of the routes? Did they encounter human beings on their way? Which ones? How much did they roam around until they discovered the only pass, the Hindukush?

What is known about their logistics? What were the prerequisites of logistic considerations for these grazing nomads in the central-Asiatic steppe? Were there any? Did these “historians” ever study a map of this area? Even if we accepted the story of “population explosion” in these nomadic societies, how should they have been able to keep their direction in an imponderable, incalculable terrain? Can one imagine how it should have functioned? If this proposition is accepted, we should find the central–Asiatic nomads all around. As generally known this is not the case. And don’t the nomads generally look at the ground or straight ahead? Doesn’t directional orientation in unknown, imponderable, incalculable terrain presuppose knowledge about the movements of the celestial bodies? How could the grazing nomads have developed skills in astronomy?

And what Helmuth von Glasenapp has told? Under the heading “ The vedic period” on page 32? “ Those Aryans who immigrated through the mountain route of the Northwest into the watershed of Indus and subjugated in continuous fight the prior residents of the north-west corner of India in the 2nd millennium BC, were warriors of a youthful group of herdsmen, who did already some farming, but knew nothing of town planning and of fine artistic work .”

Instead of asking at least a few of the many obvious questions, the “Glasenapps” describe how different the physical characteristics of those the two races, “Aryans” and “Dravidians”, were. As already said, the “Aryans” were tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired, blue or grey-eyed and the “Dravidians” were of short stature, dark-skinned and dark-eyed. Would it actually have been possible that the “Dravidians” were inferior to the “Aryans” due to the differences of their physical features and were therefore conquered? In spite of a vast majority of “Dravidian” people? Which question is more relevant, the numerical ratios or physical features? And how could those “modern scientists” determine the appearance of people of those “two races” who lived 3500 years ago? Is there any comprehensible method for that? Can there be a method to that purpose?

Obviously the designers of the “theory of two races” and their descendants do not only sympathise with the “Aryans”, but they also admire them and identify themselves with “Aryans” and their assumed physical attributes. It goes with it that these features rank higher and their evaluation is also internalised. These designers projected their own physical appearance to the assumed superior “Aryans” and developed with it a common “we-consciousness” vis-à-vis the “others”, whoever these others might have been. There are just the “others”. And the “others” were by no means tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired, blue or grey-eyed. What is not wished to be, cannot be.

After the construction of the “we-feeling” the individual features develop independently. We don’t have to remember the impressive meeting of Hitler and Mussolini in the movie “The great dictator” by Charles Chaplin, to understand the massive thrust behind the internalised value, for instance, that large is equal to great. The two dictators were sitting, as we all may recall, on swivel chairs and during their conversation continuously tried to sit higher than the other. Charles Chaplin took resort to this dramatically comic device in order to bring out that inferiority complex of dictators in general. Fortunately we were born later. We can observe on television or in magazines that celebrities with shorter stature are always presented from the frog’s eye view. We may not elaborate on the process of how camera people internalise this rule that celebrities should be tall. If they are not tall enough, why not make look tall?

We will leave it at the indication that every ”we-feeling” presupposes actual or pretended positive qualities which “the others”, of course, don’t possess. It does not matter at all whether scientists, publicists or journalists or others are concerned. Whether they write or not write something like, ‘ in the context of the early Indian history it appears to be appropriate, to speak of ‘Aryas’ in the German language, to distinguish the mythical primary race of Indo-Europeans of Northwest India more clearly from the ideological construct ‘Arier’ of recent times ’. The ascribed physical features and their valuations, which are imagined and internalised to assume magnificence and superiority, are reflected in their minds and emotions.