Lies with Long Legs. Prodosh Aich

of this science is to convince others. No, not exactly, not to convince. The principle is to make believe. The weak points are, wherever possible, packed in insignificant portions. And the debatable points, which might lead to criticism, are touched on, signalling that those aspects have been recognised, but could not be dealt with in detail due to the lack of space. Right?

      At the beginning of the “modern humanities”, we suppose, it was more difficult “to make others believe”. But today the means of manipulation are almost perfect. It is not that the scientists of our time have become cleverer and packed their messages slyly. No, that’s not the way. We are more and more losing our ability to recognise manipulations. This begins in the family. Applying the power principle. The main thing is first to assert oneself. It doesn’t matter by which means. Hypocrisy is the trump card. This principle of exercising power and applying hypocrisy continues to be practiced at school, on the job, in the subcultures and finally takes control of the entire culture. The mass media always play a major role. Nothing depends on the actual truth. Whatever is sold becomes truth. The logic is primitive but effective. The people wouldn’t buy it if it was not true, would they? Have we already forgotten the media report on the “Gulf war”, “Kosovo – air strikes” and “Afghanistan – crusade”? And the bombshells enriched with uranium?

      We have to apologise because of these provocative sentences. We are particularly angry because we have long been victims of this manipulation. It will not make much sense if we describe our way to emancipation in all details. It would rather make sense to read the above paragraph once again. This paragraph is exemplary. Let us read it slowly, word by word, sentence by sentence: “The dating of the texts and the cultures that produced them was vigorously disputed for quite a long time also among western Indologists (What could be the purpose of ‘for quite long time also among western Indologists' in this connection? Is it important to know? Is it not more important to know why it ‘was vigorously disputed ... also among western Indologists’? Why? And what is the meaning of ‘also among western Indologists' in particular? And all these controversial items in one sentence? Why aren’t we informed in a simple way that: for a long time the dating was controversial among Indologists? And thereafter the issues of controversies? Was all this done just by mistake?).

      “Based on astronomical information (Is the information correct or wrong?) the famous Indian freedom fighter (‘famous Indian freedom fighter’? What are we to be conditioned for now?) Bal Gangadhar Tilak has published in his book «The Arctic Home in the Vedas» at the beginning of this century his belief (‘belief’?) that the origin of the Vedas was to be backdated to the 5th and 6th millennium BC (Did Bal Gangadhar Tilak give some reasons also?). The German Indologist H. Jacobi came independently to similar conclusions and dated the beginning of the Vedic period in the middle of the 5th millennium.”

      The ‘famous Indian freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak' is not easily available to us. However, ‘the German Indologist H. Jacobi' is. Hermann Jacobi (1850-1937) was a mathematician. He got his doctorate in 1872 on: De astrologiae Indicae ‚Hora' appellatae originibus. Translated, it means: About the origins of the term ‚Hora' in the Indian astrology. He worked with Jainic texts dealing with mathematical and calculational background. He was proficient in Prakrit and in Pali, both spoken versions of Sanskrit 2600 years ago in the eastern area in India, in the present state of Bihar. Up to his middle age he remained a mathematician and natural scientist. He also wrote a Prakrit–grammar. He contributed an article on the age of Vedas on the basis of astronomical calculations on the occasion of a commemorative volume for the indologist Rudolf von Roth, which then was published in 1908 also in the “Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society”. In his published biography we cannot find any indications about his knowledge in Sanskrit. Having gained this background knowledge the next three sentences in our exemplary paragraph cast a different light.

      “Mostly one followed, however, (why so?) the dating set by the famous German Indologist Max Mueller who taught in Cambridge in the late 19th century (Was he famous because he taught as a German in Cambridge, or did he teach in Cambridge because he was famous before? Did he become “the leader (of the indologist–pack”) because he was famous, or did he become famous because he had ascended to “the leader of the pack”? We would prefer to know instead how this indologist established the dating of the Vedas. Absolutely no indication. And what is more, there had never been a German Indologist ‘in Cambridge’ called Max Mueller. We continue in that paragraph.). Setting out from the lifetime of the Buddha around 500 BC he dated the origin of the Upanishads in the centuries from 800 to 600 BC as the philosophy in them had originated before Buddha’s deeds. These were preceded by the Brahmana– and Mantra texts in the centuries from 1000 to 800 respectively from 1200 to 1000 BC (Are these methodological indications or arguments? Instead they foist upon us the information that the famous German indologist Max Mueller could read these texts brilliantly, judge them and consequently deduce when these texts were written. Nothing like that in fact. We shall deal with Friedrich Maximilian Mueller, that is his full name, in detail giving special attention to his knowledge of Sanskrit in particular and to the knowledge of Sanskrit of the indologists in general. Now we can continue our reading.).

      “Today one dates (just like that?) the oldest Vedic text, that of Rigveda, into the middle of the 2nd millennium of BC. Since the Vedas soon after this genesis (had there been anything before that?) as a divine manifestation (A divine manifestation is always related to a person. To whom was the Rigveda divinely manifested and by which God?) were not allowed to be changed anymore (how could it be ascertained?) and handed down to our contemporary time by priest families (priest families?) verbally in an unbelievably precise manner, they can now be considered, after their dating can be regarded as being fixed at least in specific centuries, as historical sources of first rank for in northern India (Is this sensible reasoning?).”

      How does ‘the history of the vedic society‘ emerge? We also fail to comprehend the meaning and purpose of: ‘a divine manifestation’, ‘historical sources of first rank’ and ‘the history of the vedic society‘. Another aspect is striking in this exemplary paragraph. It applies adjectives and adverbs, positively and negatively loaded, as an instrument of manipulation, like: ‘vigorously disputed’, ‘for quite a long time’, ‘western Indologists’, ‘famous Indian freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak’, ‘the German Indologist’, ‘mostly one followed’, ‘the famous German Indologist Max Mueller’. We were not led astray by the thought as to whether this loading was intentional. We have frequently endured such fruitless disputes staged in order to keep away from essential discussions. Just to give an example, we all remember the quarrels about ‘tapped – records’ being “illegally” published in many “democratic” countries. Mostly the public disputes were focused on the legitimacy of the publication. The essential question remained in the dark: What in fact did honourable democratic political personalities tell their political friends, opponents and leading administrators? Why should it be kept away from the democratic public? A diversion of focus as a technique of manipulation.

      Again we must apologise because we played a little mischief. In the beginning we talked about “Aryan conquerors”. Later we introduced “Aryan conquerors and/or immigrants” just like that. It was only done to get tuned into understanding the way we become victims of a common method of manipulation by the “historians”.

      The second section of that standard history book, The history of India: from Indus culture to today by Hermann Kulke and Dietmer Rothermund, second expanded and revised edition, Beck, Munich 1998, first edition 1982, is titled: “Immigration and Settlement of Aryas”. Now, ‘immigration of Aryas’ is an event which was called ‘Conquest by the Aryans’ till the first quarter of the 20th century. Due to absolutely unavoidable interdisciplinary rivalries among “modern scientists”, the “historians” and indologists got involved into more than a dating conflict with the archaeologists. The archaeological finds refute the conquest theory in so far, as the so called war trophies as a proof of the defeat of “Dravidians” were unfortunately already there much earlier, before the