There are a few thoughts I’d like to jot down, when it comes to the some issues I’ve addressed in previous posts on this blog.
I should clarify that I am a private individual who “works” alone, and am not, and have never been, part of any group, community, organization, or institution.
I loved reading books as a kid, and just reading incessantly led from one thing to the next, and I got to know a lot of stuff.
I am not an academician, a scholar, a researcher, or an intellectual.
I’ve not been formally trained in all this stuff.
Curiosity and Passion made me explore a lot of authors, texts and ideas, and I share my thoughts on this blog.
As for the other, more personal aspects, which mostly don’t matter in any issue – I’ll say that I am an Indian and a Hindu, by birth.
But I was not exactly raised in a traditional, conservative Indian-Hindu environment.
Quite the contrary: since my father was in the defence forces, we grew up in a highly westernized, liberal environment, where issues of caste, class, religion and even language, never entered our minds.
I don’t ever remember mentioning caste, or thinking about it, for the first 35 years of my life – though I was born into a Brāhmaṇa family.
Neither me, nor my family, nor anybody in our immediate environment, ever bothered about, or thought about, caste.
It simply never came up.
We were highly Anglicized, to be precise, and I literally grew up on British literature.
We typically moved from one place to the other in India, and I spent most of my childhood in a metropolitan-cosmopolitan environment, where we spoke only in English and read English books and English fairy-tales & stories (Enid Blyton!), and listened predominantly to western music.
British influence was very strong, in the 1980s, and more so, in the defense forces.
Luckily for me, at the same time, there was also an early parallel influence, a thread by which I was first attached to Ancient Indian literature: mainly, the whole bunch of Amar Chitra Katha comics which filled my pre-teen childhood with so much joy!
But most of my teens, I was totally out of touch with Indian culture.
My late teens were filled with the ideas of Ayn Rand – something which I regret, distorted my intellectual perception for a good 15 years.
It was only when I was about 20, that I started reading some serious Indian authors (Tagore, Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda) at a more deeply intellectual level, and I slowly started delving into Ancient Indian-Hindu thought & culture.
It was only in my early 30s that I could shake off the influence of Ayn Rand, and other liberal nonsense – and start thinking from my own original, authentic perspective as a human being.
My mid & late 30s were filled with thrilling forays into Indian literature (call it Hindu literature, if you will) – and a growing passion for seeing a Hindu Renaissance in India.
(For all that, I have nothing to do with Hindutva, have next-to-zero interest in politics, and have never subscribed to any Hindutva party or group or ideology.
It has turned into a maniacal Anti-Islamic propaganda machine, rather than a way of bringing about a Hindu Renaissance.
I do not approve of the incessant Muslim-bashing.)
Simultaneously, I also started paying attention to Ancient Indian art & architecture, and observing them at as close quarters as possible.
Needless to say, I had to acquaint myself, however cursorily & superficially, with many other Ancient cultures, in the process – it is unavoidable.
At the same time, I discovered occultism – or esotericism (whichever word sounds more respectable!) – and the world of occult politics & history.
To be precise, this started in 2006, when I read Madame Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled.
That was the time I saw the film The Da Vinci Code, and also read authors like Albert Pike and Alvin Boyd Kuhn.
Occultism is inextricably mixed up with politics and history.
So I’ve been juggling – or have been trying to juggle – all these related subjects, ever since.
This is the basic background.
I don’t make a living out of these (“intellectual”) pursuits – I can devote only a certain amount of time to them.
Nobody around me has any interest in these issues.
I have not been very comfortable with any organizations I might’ve contacted.
The people may be good – personally, individually they were all nice & kind.
But I didn’t fit in anywhere.
So when I make any statements of any kind, it might be necessary to keep all of the above in mind.
There is no agenda.
Only a deep enthusiasm, at a deeply personal level, to understand what is what.
I am too liberal to be a conservative, and too conservative to be a liberal.
So I’m neither here nor there :)
If I keep quoting Gerald Massey when it comes to the Out-of-Africa theory, it is because he is the only author I’ve read, who’s written consistently & passionately about it.
I don’t think the other authors are as emphatic as he is, in proving that all world cultures, religions and creeds originated in Africa – and truth be said, I’ve not had the time & opportunity to read them in sufficient detail.
Though I never quite agreed with Massey (there is no irrefutable proof) – I always respected him.
Over the years, though, I have suspected strains of dishonesty in his work.
It would be a backbreaking effort to “prove” or demonstrate this – because you need to be very detailed & elaborate, if you want to call some “dishonest” in public – and Massey’s muddled, chaotic works run into thousands & thousands of pages.
But he is, and I’ll say it nevertheless.
I will also assert that he seems to have copied many of his ideas directly out of the Hindu Vedas & Upaniṣads.
And yet, he is both useful as well as has my respect.
But only up to a certain point.
When it comes to Egypt, I’ll say that I do love Egyptian culture, but I’m emotionally invested in it (to repeat the phrase) only up to a point.
I don’t have very strong opinions about it.
It wouldn’t break my heart if Kemet wasn’t created by Indians.
I’m absolutely fine with the idea that Kemet was the creation of Inner Africans (though that raises a thousand questions when we come to the question of Egypt’s relations with, & influence on, the rest of the world).
This was Gerald Massey’s fiercest conviction.
But the moment anyone comes forward and says that Indian culture was created by Africans, or Kemetians, I am going to be on my guard immediately.
Indians are not going to just sit back & accept such statements.
Nobody will.
Neither the Chinese nor the Cambodians, neither Caucasians nor Arabs.
I am beginning to see some videos on YouTube in which some Africans are making such claims.
My humble advice: DO NOT GO DOWN THAT PATH.
The whole notion of a specific (existing) race or cult or community “civilizing” mankind is obnoxious, divisive, conflict-ridden, deliberately confrontational, and combative.
The Europeans have done enough damage to the peace & harmony of the world, for the past 200 years, in aggressively trying to establish that they “civilized” mankind.
Try to assess how much bitterness, rage, and hatred it has generated.
It would be very wise if all humans just collectively GIVE UP this confrontational attitude, and stop hurling challenges & accusations at each other.
You will keep bickering & fighting with each other – lying & slandering – hating & blaming – for the NEXT 200 years – and nothing good will come out of it – nothing will be accepted unanimously by one and all.
No one theory will satisfy anyone – and the very approach (“I am superior to you because I civilized you”) is faulty.
In itself, it contains a desire to hurt, to dominate, to humiliate, to deprecate.
This can never be successful: it can only lead to more conflict & frustration.
That said, some obvious truths and facts need to be established – and some very obvious narratives need to be destroyed.
I do recognize the need for that.
If Kemet was created by Black Africans, then this undoubtedly ought to be established coolly & calmly – because a huge number of people don’t think so.
That Romans & Greeks & Ancient Indians were predominantly dark-skinned is a conviction of mine, too.
But I don’t see any way by which it can be “proven” that they were Africans.
There is no such “proof”, till today.
Remember: there is a difference between being “dark-skinned” and being “African/Nubian/Sub-Saharan”.
So, a sort of path has to be chartered out by revisionist, maverick intellectuals & researchers, which de-politicizes this search for truth.
Keep racial-religious politics out of it.
People need to stop with the accusations of “stealing” & “copying”.
Or soon, everyone will be accusing everyone else of “stealing” & “copying”.
It’ll never come to an end.
Take the victimhood & vindictiveness out of the discussion.
There has to be a point at which we let bygones be bygones, and need to move ahead without wanting to cut each others’ throats.
The motive power behind research has to be love & passion, but the research itself has to be very objective & impersonal.
That’s all I can say, as of now.
It may not be very satisfactory, but it’s what my little experience & wisdom compels me to write.
I am content with observing the astonishing similarities between ancient cultures.
Over the years, I’ve realized how dangerous it is, to start making claims about origins & pioneering races & who began what from where.
One should be very cautious when one makes such statements, because research, and inputs, and politics, change every day – and “truth” (read “perception”), along with it.
I prefer making the broadest statements, without insinuation & allegation – when it comes to race & religion.
It may be best to say that we are all, ultimately, brothers & sisters, related, one big race despite different skin & hair & eye colours – and have learnt from each other over thousands of years in ways which cannot be documented or measured – and each region/culture/community/creed created its own version of beauty & truth & grandeur, which ought to be respected on its own terms, and not in relation to preceding cultures/races/creeds or surrounding cultures/races.
P.S.
As of now, almost in my mid-40s, I don’t hate Ayn Rand.
I have simply lost interest in her ideas & her work.
They do not, and can not, offer, any solution to the raging problems of the world.
I’ve communicated with some Objectivists many years ago: they were really fine people: intelligent, sensitive, intellectual.
Today, I’ll say that we simply disagree.
I just don’t think her philosophy is workable or useful.
An individual may attempt to be very rational in every decision of his life – he can certainly attempt it – but it won’t work.
Until my early 30s, for a good 15-odd years, I couldn’t shake off thinking from the Randian point of view – this certainly hampered & warped my own individual intellectual development.
If you’re introduced to someone’s ideas at a very young age – (and Rand is definitely a powerful author of fiction novels, & writes with great passion & conviction) – and you immerse yourself in it, and are completely taken in by it – you don’t develop your own individual, personal, unique viewpoint on life.
You see everything through the lens of your personal hero.
To tear yourself away from that mold, and to develop your own identity, becomes very difficult.
...
There are parts I can agree with, but on a whole, Rand bores me.
Now I look back and wonder why did I spend so much time & energy on her – it could’ve been used elsewhere.
I just don’t care, just like I couldn’t care less about Franz Kafka – or John Dryden.
(Though I certainly prefer her to utter garbage like James Joyce.)
But I have to admit the great part she played in my life, and way of thinking, for a good 15 years.
For all that, Objectivism still makes some valid points occasionally: I respect the fact that they place the well-being of MAN at the center of their philosophy – not “the Earth”, “Nature”, “the environment”, “animals”, etc. etc. etc.
They do not, however, admit an after-life, or another life, or other dimensions, or an immortal soul – and I do, and at that point, we begin to diverge.I’ve gone through thousands of images from Ancient Indian art & architecture, and there is no definitive evidence of Ancient Indians being Africans.
Sculpture is not always a highly reliable source in these issues, though, what else can be?
India developed different artistic styles in different regions & different eras, though there is an astonishing unity of leitmotifs and symbols across 1,000 years of extant architecture (almost 1,700 years, if you take the Sanchi & Barhut stupas).
By artistic style I mean the facial features & body types used in sculptures in our temples.
The typical “yaazhi” of South Indian temples is not found in North India, as far as I know, though I reckon it is nothing but the vyāla, or yāli.
The “Pala” style, found in Bihar, Bengal & present-day Bangladesh – which also seems to be the mature Odishan style – is distinct from the Chandela style of Khajuraho.
The facial & body features of men & women, gods & goddesses, in Ajanta, Ellora, Elephanta etc. are different from those found, say, in Mahabalipuram.
The Chola form is distinct from the Hoysaleshwara form, which in turn is different from the Vijayanagara form.
Indian art is highly stylized, like Egyptian art, and it is difficult to draw conclusions about race, from the images.
The sculptures at Ajanta, Ellora and Elephanta tend to have some African-ish features, like a thick lower lip.
Apart from that, I see no distinct racial characteristics.
There is one strange exception.
That is Gupta Art.
Belonging roughly to the 5th-6th centuries CE.
Gupta art is stunningly beautiful, profoundly evocative & powerful, and – in some instances – the figurines are strikingly “African”.
I am no art expert, nor have I studied Gupta Era art, but the few images I’ve seen, are astonishing.
My knowledge is too limited to drawn any conclusions, so I’ll simply share two images which I found online, to illustrate my point.
The first is from the Cleveland Museum of Art, which shows an “Amorous Couple” found at Ahichhatra in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The second is a random female figurine I found several years ago from somewhere on Internet.
These two definitely look very African!
Mind you, one needn’t draw very big conclusions from this small fact.
They could be anyone, from anywhere, and the image in itself might not mean more than any of the hundreds of thousands of images from Indian temples.
Is it possible that the Guptas introduced realism into Indian art, and presented people as they were, rather than employ the abstract, stylized, often idealistic, forms which characterize Indian art?
It should be remembered that these are amongst the oldest surviving art works, going by modern historical dating.
But those dated older are not African at all (for instance, the figures on the Sanchi Stupa).
There is something very odd going on, out here.
This ample-bodied, beautiful woman (above) with her braided hair looks so African, that one would, at first sight, never suspect this was found in the Mathura region of India!
But I am sure that if you search, you will certainly find Indian women who look like this, just as many Pharaoh statues look Dravidian, or even Bengali!
There is yet another Buddha head – stunningly beautiful – from the same period – and Buddha basically looks like a very beautiful African girl!
This is also from the Cleveland Museum of Art.
I’m not going to make any bombastic statements: it would be very premature, very misleading, and actually untrue & unfair.
One idea that comes to my mind (and which I have hinted at earlier), is that the SAME RACE (A DARK-SKINNED ONE) WAS SPREAD OVER A LARGE PART OF THE WORLD, all the way from Africa to India, and maybe even further east.
Hence, the two Ethiopias.
But Indian literature does contain very explicit and unambiguous references to a mixture of skin colours, something also found in extant cave paintings, so that idea has to be modified with further serious and sober research.
It is possible that later, lighter-skinned races came in, and intermingled with them, everywhere.
This does not mean that the light-skinned races wrote the Vedas.
Quite the opposite: they merely inherited what the dark-skinned Indians had already created.
And it may just be the case that the original dark-skinned race died out, in India, the current dark-skinned peoples being their mixed, altered descendants.
Just my thoughts.
