ANSWER to Leo1239150


Since I am from the South Asian peninsular region, which is currently occupied by Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, I can speak with a level of profundity on the subject that cannot be done by any outsider to the region.

What you have queried is what is doled out by many years of insipid formal education and by other media including the films.

I can quite easily repudiate everything claimed by these centres. However, the subject matter is quite huge and complicated. And to counter all the fraudulent claims, it would require at least 200 thousand words. Since that is not possible, I will merely list of the things on which you can ponder on at leisure. In case, you want more details, I am willing to elaborate, as soon as I get some spare time.

The following list headings will give you ample things to think about.

  1. There was no India before the formation of a cluster of regions in the South Asian subcontinent, brought together by the English East India Company
  1. There were more than 2000 kingdoms of various sizes, including a few of relatively big size before the setting up of British-India in the region.
  1. Not only was there no single population in the region, inside each kingdom, there were various populations, each very powerfully suppressing the one which came under them.
  1. The English East India Company did not actually conquer any kingdom with a British or English army. In most cases, there were only a few Englishmen who were quite enthusiastically supported by the huge quantity of lower class populations.   [Example: Robert Clive’s first success was with 20 Englishmen and around 180 natives of the peninsula]
  1. If at all the English East India Company did suppress anyone, it was the traditional oppressive feudal classes and the kingly families.
  1. When the English East India Company was dismissed and the reins of rule taken-over by Queen Victoria, there was a change in attitude to the local small-time kings and kingdoms. They were treated as ‘equals’ by the British Monarchy. This more or less was a traitorous action towards the lower classes of the various locations. They, who had supported the Company rule, suddenly found themselves pushed back to the subordination of the local rajas and ranis.
  1. Even in the best period of the British rule in the peninsula, only less than half of the subcontinent was ruled by England. The rest was under the various independent kingdoms of the peninsula. They had their own extremely corrupt bureaucracies and terrible caste systems.
  1. In English-ruled areas, the officialdom was honest and incorruptible. There was no caste-based suppression of any individual.
  1. The British rule in the peninsula was actually an English rule. Even though there were Irish and Scottish elements (I do not know about Welsh) in the British administration, in effect it was solely and purposefully an English rule. And not an Irish or Welsh or Scottish rule.
  1. English language is a planar language. Almost all languages of the peninsula are feudal. This means in each word and sentence, a person can be defined as stinking dirt or as golden featured, in all ordinary communication. English does not have these codes. Hence for the first time in the history of the 2000 and odd kingdoms, a new egalitarian social communication came up.
  1. Speaking about Gandhi, he was not actually from British-India. He was the rich son of the prime minster of Porbunder kingdom. Many persons with means did move to England to enjoy the life and social communication there at that time.
  1. British-India rupee had an exchange value (I am told) of 7 USD at that time. That means British-India was quite rich.
  1. Rich people sent their children to England to become connected to the English society there. Some of these people did join some college or club and promote Free India movements. Actually they had no support base in British-India or in the various independent kingdoms. Some of them did even go to the extent of signing formal agreement and such things on behalf of the ‘people of India’ with no evidence to prove that they had been given such rights by anyone.
  1. Actually there was no ‘great’ Freedom struggle in British-India or in the independent kingdoms.
  1. Due to the English intervention in the independent kingdoms, many caste based discriminations had been abolished in the independent kingdoms.
  1. When Queen Victoria proclaimed the Slavery Abolishment Act, the order was enforced not only in British-India, but also in all the independent kingdoms. Millions of traditionally suppressed populations received liberty.
  1. Due to the feudal content in the native languages, there was no need for any chains to enforce slavery. It is in the words. This is a concept that English cannot understand. From this perspective, the so-called Negro slavery in the US was not actually slavery. It was one of the best social enhancement training in the world, freely given to low-quality populations. In other words, being a slave in the Confederate States of USA would actually be a divine blessing to millions of under-classes in most places in Asia and Africa of contemporary times.
  1. Even though in school textbooks, it is shamelessly taught that the British rule was exploitative and thieving, actually it was the opposite. The locations under the English rule were quite safe and secure.
  1. The English rule did not work for looting British-India. Instead every effort was made to consolidate and protect all natural resources.
  1. Trade was free in British-India. However, in the independent kingdoms, trade was monopolised by the government. People were forced to sell their commodities to the government warehouses. To get adequate payment for their items, they were forced to pay bribes. Many people resorted to smuggling their commodities into British-Indian areas. The kingdoms imposed heavy punishments to stop this.
  1. The English rulers brought in the concept of public education. This provided to the children of the non-feudal classes an opportunity to study for the first time in at least 2000 years!
  1. Even though the traditional social bosses tried their level best to block it, the English government promoted English education to all those who desired to have it. This led to the intellectual development of the lower classes. However, the English administrators did not understand that they were providing this to very cunning populations, who traditionally had all practised the art of deceit and suppression on all those who came under them. Those who received English, tried to see that others did not get it.
  1. Almost all of the national governmental revenue was utilised to build up infrastructure for common use, in a land with zero infrastructure for the common man.
  1. Roads, bridges, schools, colleges, universities, medical colleges, museums, dams, water supply, police departments, judiciary, postal department, hospitals, veterinary hospitals, warehouses, public rest houses, public toilets, Sanitation department, industrial training, export of goods, import of goods, land registration, for the first time, the common man’s right to own land was established, &c. &c. &. The list is long. I can’t remember everything. I forgot to mention Railways.
  1. During the Second World War, 3 million soldiers from the peninsula region stood stolidly under the Union Jack. They were betrayed by Clement Atlee, the Satan. They were handed over to feudal language speaking officials of the newly formed Pakistan and India. Even though a huge amount had been handed over for the pension benefit, nothing was given to them. Many went into terrible penury.
  1. In 1919, an Irish military commander crushed a communal strife in Amritsar with a sort of unwarranted shooting, in which around 150 people died and many were injured. He was Irish. So his natural reaction to the local feudal languages would be more pre-emptive. For Irish also is a feudal language, I think. In 1947, a terrible communal rioting took place in the northern parts of the subcontinent, when the location was summarily divided into two nations.  No military leader did any shooting. One million people died –burnt or hacked. Women were taken hostage and molested for days.  No native ‘leader’ was bothered.
  1. Native leaders of both Pakistan and India were novices at best and cunning politicians at worst. They were simply handed over the huge number of administrative and military apparatus by the stupid British Labour Party politicians.
  1. Both Pakistan as well as Indian leaders immediately used the newly received parts of the erstwhile British-Indian army to intimidate all the kingdoms in their proximity. Many did not surrender to these intimidation. The political leaders send their armies to capture the kingdoms.
  1. Even now, there are many rebellions going on for so many decades. The freedom fighters are dubbed terrorists and tortured in small-time police stations and army garrisons. Women folks suffer most. No media dare report all this.
  1. The tribal populations who had nothing to do with the formation of the new nations did not know that they had literally been handed over to political systems which they had no affinity for. They were literally plundered by the local police and forest department staff. Their women were forced to produce hybridised children. They were taught the languages of the various Indian states and addressed in the pejorative part of the word codes.
  1. Gandhi is currently taught to be the ‘father of the nation’. However, there is no such mention in any statutory writings. Both he as well as Nehru was in the midst of terrible scandals connected to certain clandestine affairs in Gandhi’s ashram. The newspapers were full of it, with some even bringing out cartoons about the shady affairs. In fact, Gandhi was a burden for the new nation. He was killed in an unexplained incident which was quite cunningly described as the handiwork of Hindu Communalism. Hindu Communalism had nothing to gain from Gandhi’s death. Nor was there anything that could spur and antipathy for Gandhi.  However, his death gave Nehru a much required prop up. For, there was a real terror that Nehru would not become the prime minister. In fact, the Congress party did not like both Gandhi as well as Nehru. It wanted another local leader to be the PM. However, Nehru was at home in England, having studied there. He could manage from that side. British Labour Party was acting as a fool and a national traitor, as always.
  1. Currently around 90% of the Indian population live worse than slaves. However, you would not get to converse with them. They are maintained in the lower part of the languages. Naturally no one wants them to learn English. Once they learn English, they would start having claims and rights. Like the blacks in the USA.
  1. Now, about your word ‘equality’. The word as understood in English has no corresponding word in feudal languages. This is one of the most dangers that England faces now. It does not understand the others who speak other languages.

The above-mentioned words I wrote on the spur of the moment. In case you did read the whole listing, and you have a query, I would be happy to elaborate.

To know more about Gandhi, follow this writing of mine.

For knowing about Feudal languages, follow this link


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s