In light of the preceding discussion, the racial interpretation of the of the notions light/white and dark/black found in Geldner's translations and … - Hans Henrich Hock

Best of all is his classic ending, declaring his honesty and openness: “Throughout I have endeavored to live up to the desiderata outlined at the beginning, namely being transparent and vulnerable – transparent by providing supporting evidence that is easily available to verification, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential falsification. As I stated at the outset, this, I believe, is the only way that we can establish a common ground for those working in Vedic studies. Without this common ground there is nothing to evaluate the many conflicting theories without either questioning each others’ motives, or saying ‘Trust me, trust me’. As I tell my students: If people merely say ‘Trust me, trust me’, don’t trust them, don’t trust them. And as to questioning each others’ motives, it is good to note that people as different in their motives as Elst and Zydenbos have stated on the Indology List that what really counts is the evidence and its interpretation – even racists and communalists can come to correct results if their evidence and their methodology are correct (however much we may deplore their ideologies and biases)” (HOCK 2005:303-4).

A close reading of the Rg-vedic passages in which terms meaning white or light and dark or black are employed in reference to human beings convinces me that a racial interpretation of these terms is not required by textual evidence.

Geldner's interpretation of [RV 9.73.5 , 10.116.4 ] strike me as even more arbitrary, given the limited context; Grassmanns' interpretation that the reference is to darkness or a dark cloud is at least equally possible.