What’s a post on “independence” 60 plus years after it happened going to tell you that’s new is the question, no???!!
We in India know that the history of the East India Company in India is unparalleled in the history of entire mankind in using fraud, deceit, rapacity and every other gross immorality and wickedness in the inventory of evil for the purpose of acquiring an empire by a commercial company solely for gain and greed. As you are aware, this was achieved with the active and passive military collaboration of many Indian princes.
History says the British monarchy assumed control after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and finally “Independence” was granted to India in 1947 due to the freedom struggle lead by Gandhi and Nehru.
This post attempts to look behind the mask of this official version of history to check if the East India Company, and the Jewish Zionist money lenders who owned it have not used the same methods of fraud and deception to retain their empire in India this time with the willing and knowing collaboration of Indian politicians.
Read on and see if what you find is chilling, startling truth:-)!
Ok, so ye all know that we Indians received our independence from centuries old opression of the British on the midnight of August 14, 1947 and bla, bla, bla...but the BIG question is why at midnight? Why all that hype and drama about receiving freedom at midnight? And finally if we are indeed "FREE"?????
To understand this "Freedom at Midnight" fraud, we first look at the statement made by Nehru on this "momentous" (or is it?) occasion...
"At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to LIFE AND FREEDOM. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the OLD to the NEW, when an age ENDS, and when the SOUL OF A NATION, long suppressed, FINDS UTTERANCE"
-- Jawaharlal Nehru Claiming Independence from British
Midnight of August 14, 1947
With those high sounding words Nehru claimed "independence" for all ye Indians, my poor country men long oppressed and suppressed that is, under the clutches of the British rule, and heralded the "end of an age" (really?!), and told us all that we, as a nation, have finally found utterance for our soul....
WOW!!....I guess the only thing he forgot to add was simply that "We Indians will live happily ever after..." and it would have then been like in a fairy tale with chacha Nehru and members of his dynasty playing our demi gods generation after generation, looking after us through their coterie of wide bottomed, pot bellied Congress nethas, with the atma of the mahatma smiling down at us from over the clouds and gentle showers of flowers falling all around us as we go about our every day lives wrapt in blissfull nirvana....but hey hang on a minute, are we missing something here??????
How did the fairy tale ending that echoed through Nehru's statement on the night of 14, August, 1947 distort into a grotesque nightmare for millions of Indians? There's something wrong somewhere, the picture of "independent" India is more crooked and distorted than Nehru was trying to paint it to be, our experience of "independence" has certainly not been as sweet as Nehru promised.....mmm....what could have gone wrong...does it have anything to do with being made free at midnight you think?:-)
You know people, we Indians, the drifting, directionless, toiling and manipulated masses that we were in 1947, and even more so today, were so filled with the euphoria of the moment that our grand fathers failed to check with chacha Nehru if what he claimed in his statement on the night of August 14, 1947 is all true. But well, they couldn't quite do it because like I told you, they were swayed by the euphoria generated by this announcement of the British and Nehru's subsequent high sounding statement that for a moment, everything else receded into the sidelines of life and that one unguarded moment was all that the British and their Indian collaborators needed to dupe and trick the masses in India into believing this "freedom at midnight" fraud that keeps us duped till today...
And another reason Nehru was not available to check could perhaps be that immediately after he made his statement, Edwina (Mountbatten's wife) pulled him back into bed so it really wasn't possible for our grand fathers to check with him even if they intended to. You shouldn't forget that chacha Nehru was also a charming lover boy (or grandpa?) for whom the Viceroy's wife (or whore?!) herself droooooled. And if their romance were not because of chacha being charming in any sense, it may be more because Zionist Jewesses with leaky cracks are always round the corner in the corridors of power all over the world to readily pitch in and do whatever it takes with finesse and ease to forward the Zionist agenda:-)! And when it comes to serving the British Crown or getting a favor for the powers that be in London, these Jewesses come in handy as good lays....Anyways, we'll call him charming chacha for puposes of this post:-)
The purpose of this post is to do what we as a nation failed to do on the night of August 14, 1947. Better late than never. This post offers you some indisputable facts and I will thereafter leave it entirely to you to conclude if that statement made by charming chacha Nehru has any element of truth in it. Ok, so here are the claims in charming chacha's statement that we need to check to verify if India was indeed made “independent” and FREE or if.....
OK, charming chacha Nehru's statement again...!
"At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, INDIA WILL AWAKE TO LIFE AND FREEDOM. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, WHEN WE STEP OUT FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW, WHEN AN AGE ENDS, and when the SOUL OF A NATION, long suppressed, FINDS UTTERANCE"
From the statement above, it’s clear to you that in essence, we need to check the following four claims made by Nehru to make sure to ourselves that we are indeed FREE. I have capitalized them in the statement above but also listing them separately below as they are very important:
1. Did India really wake up to LIFE & FREEDOM?
2. Did we really step out from the OLD to the NEW or does it smell like its still the old wine in a new bottle....?
3. Did the age of oppression really END?
4. And finally did the soul of our nation find its UTTERANCE?
So in the first part of this series, we will examine the first claim – Did India really wake up to LIFE & FREEDOM?
Well, I know what some of you must be thinking...Ok so let's try out an argument as we go about finding out!!
You: "Are you trying to tell us that "freedom at midnight" was a fraud? Do you understand that if that were the case then it will undermine the very basis of our constitutional experiment since 1947? This country has produced eminent authorities on constitutional law and all you have to count, if it ever does, is a Masters in Political Science and are we to believe you more than we can trust them? If our independence was just a spin played on us by the British and the Congress, do you think our constitutional lawyers and experts would fail to let us know? Why haven't any of them ever told us that ? We know that we're FREE you idiot what the heck are you crapping in this post?????"
Me: You know we're free? I agree I'm no expert on constitutional law, so could you tell me how you know we are FREE???? I'd also be thankful if you enlighten me since like you said I'm just a nobody who knows nothing...:-)
You: "How do we know??? We know it like how we know you're so dumb that you don't know it. Anyways, since you asked...we know we're free because, Gandhi drove away all the British just with his hand stick, they were so scared of his langotta and his stick that they never dared to come back here again, and we've been celebrating "Independence" day ever since, we hoist the national flag and distribute sweets, take a day off, have elections every five years, and that's how and more than anything else, our chacha Nehru told us on the night of 14 August, 1947 that we are FREE."
Me: I agree I'm not as smart as you guys and I know charming chacha Nehru told you we are FREE but don't make a big deal about elections, we had them even before 1947. Somehow I get a feeling that being FREE is not to be as simple as some one like charming chacha Nehru telling you that you are before going back to bed with Mountbatten's wife again and you believing it. Being FREE has a lot more to do with it than that...
You: "We don't know about all that and all we care is what we're told and that's what we like to believe. Now stop asking stupid, dumb questions and get on with your life..."
Me: Easy, easy folks, you're almost close but there's the catch exactly:-)! You said you've been celebrating "Independence" Day since 1947 and that's how you know you're FREE?? Well, that’s the catch!!
You: That's the catch? What catch and where??
Me: The catch is that you believe you're free and think that what you believe is what you know as true. Believing you're free is not the same as you BEING FREE. If celebrating Independence Day makes a nation free, you certainly need to think about it because a famous thinker (Goethe) once said "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." So see, the best way to enslave you more effectively, with far less effort and hugely multiplying results is simply by making you believe you're free and if that's what happened on the midnight of August 14, 1947, then we Indians are really hopelessly enslaved indeed. Like I told you in my earlier posts also that if the British(Zionist Jews included) are good at anything, its first in pulling the wool on your eyes with your own hands! So you'd better read the rest of this post and make sure for yourself if you're really FREE!!
Some of you must be losing patience with me I know and so let's continue our arguement:-)
You: "Nuf said, we don't come to your blog to be told things that we find hard to believe and find it even more hard to unbelieve the things we've always believed to be true, enough of you and your blog we're leaving...."
Me: Hey, hang on guys, this is unfair:-) You still haven't given me a chance to present the facts to you so you can check for yourself if we Indians are really FREE. First see the facts and then you conclude and tell me and may be i'll go with you this time....:-)
You: "Ok, agreed, but if you fail to convince us, we'll make sure you're history"
The deal is struck and so here we move on to check if the four claims made by charming chacha's statement hold good in the light of fact and evidence:
Here we start with the first of the four claims:
Did India awake to LIFE & FREEDOM? Were we made really FREE in 1947?
This can be studied through three aspects of our post 1947 history:
1. Symbolism of the Transfer of Power Ceremony
2. Continued practice of allegiance to the Crown
3. Name change game; real masters remained the same.
Symbolism of the Transfer of Power Ceremony – What message does it convey?
Through that statement, Nehru is in effect saying that from the midnight of August, 14, 1947, India and Indians were made FREE. Ok, so we will check how true this is. We don't have to dig up volumes of research. It’s enough to start at square one itself. And that square one indicates everything....
You: Square one? Well what is it?
Me: When an occupied nation is given "independence" and made and "free", it is customary to symbolize this event by ceremonially lowering the flag of the occupying country while that of the occupied country being made "free" is raised. I hope some of you who saw the transfer of power ceremony in Hong Kong in 1997 on TV would be able to recall how the British flag was lowered while the Chinese flag was hoisted.
Ok, so now we verify our history records to examine what happened in the case of India. Well, what say the history books in the case of India.....let's check...yea here it is and it says...."it was symbolical that Union Jack was NOT lowered; it flew proudly when the Indian flag was unfurled."
You: You mean the British flag was NOT lowered in our transfer of power ceremoney? How come none of us ever knew about this?
Me: Yep! You bet, it was NOT lowered. And may be your constitutional experts didn't want to tell you or they didn't know themselves:-)! There it is, hidden in our own history records, never brought to any of our notice in a discernable way by our history teachers....it clearly says that the British flag was NOT lowered when or while our national flag was hoisted during the transfer of power ceremony.
You: Well, may be this isn't something gravely serious or that it does not indicate we weren't made FREE in 1947...
Me: You are WRONG. 100%!!
This symbolism doesn't only mean a lot, it means EVERYTHING. Everything that's going on behind the scenes and also being played out right in front of your eyes except that it’s all done in such a subtle way that you would neither recognize what's going on or would find it hard to believe even if you're explained later.
You: Not really know what to say. Well, may be it not possible to equate our freedom with the formalities of a transfer of power ceremony. It’s just a ceremony you know and you shouldn't read too deeply into it. Well, how should we explain to you? Mmm...ok, it's like this. Are you aware that we in India use the mangalasutra to symbolize marriage between a couple? However, it’s not the mangalasutra but how the couple lives after the ceremony that gives meaning to their marriage. So it's kind of that way in this case also, you see now? You are trying to interpret our freedom from the narrow prism of the observance of a mere ceremonial ritual. Grow up!!
Me: Oh yeah, I see it very clearly, thanks. And I also know that a lot of us, are good at glib talk and philosophizing. I do understand that the mangalasutra is not the marriage but by the same token would you let the groom tie it in the mother-in-law's neck than on the bride? Wouldn’t that convey a different message? What happened during the transfer of power ceremony amounts to such a transgress of meaning. Coming back to our discussion, I'm not trying to forcefully equate our freedom to the formalities of a transfer of power ceremony as much as I'm trying to tell you that the way the ceremony is celebrated speaks for itself and that we should be careful in getting the message correctly without putting our interpretations on it. We need to let the ceremony speak for itself and understand the message it conveys without coloring it with our interpretations. And going by the general awareness in India, its 100% certain that the masses neither got the true message of what the transfer of power ceremony conveyed nor do they understand its implications to the extent that they can see through it if the politicians try to explain it away as nothing serious.
You: Well, c'mon now, it was just symbolical and Nehru and Mountbatten just worked out a work around and a small compromise to avoid hurt feelings. It's just to make every one happy and smiling on that day you know...(especially Edwina?!)
Me: May be true but we shouldn't miss seeing what the symbolism was trying to convey in unmistakable terms in the name of keeping every one happy. Do not ever even for a moment forget that this world is ruled by symbols not laws. “Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.” said Confucius. The British know this more than you and me and if they have deliberately allowed the lapse of a defining symbolism in the transfer of power ceremony, it's not something you can wink at or ignore or take lightly.
Implications of the Message:
You: Ok, fine then. We agree it’s hard to believe this kind of a thing was allowed to happen, so if not lowering the British flag was indeed such a serious thing, how do you explain its implications?
Me: Yes it’s hard to believe it happened. A lie repeated may sound like the truth but an untold truth always seems incredible to believe when finally heard:-)!! I told you there's something fishy about this "freedom at midnight" fiasco and you didn't believe. You even got angry with me when I said Nehru's statement that we are FREE needs to be verified. Now, it’s clear to you 100% that British flag was NOT lowered during the ceremony.
Implications:
When the flag of the occupying country is NOT lowered, it ONLY signifies ONE thing and that is we were NOT made FREE in 1947 in the FULL and TRUE sense of the word.
We were just made free to hold our own elections as fraudulently as the Congress can want them, make our own stupid laws that no one, especially the Congress nethas, wants to follow, make our sizzling Bollywood movies, and fend for ourselves in the mundane ordinary things of everyday life while the actual control over our economy continues to rest with the same zionist bankers who have been robbing us through the East India Company for hundreds of years.
We were just made free slaves so to say!
That is the implication.
So does Goethe's statement make sense now that none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who FALSELY believe they are FREE?
You: It sure looks like we were made to FALSELY believe that we are FREE if it really played out that way in 1947. But why will our loveable and adorable Nehru chacha join with the British and dupe us like this?
Me: Well, you never know. Perhaps he was just being thankful to the British for laying Edwina to him with perhaps Mountbatten watching it all smoking a cigar and Edwina's daughter Pamela tending to their refreshments as this was being played out at home...I don't intend to sound offensive but pardon me I'm just narrating what happened with a pinch of what might have in most certain likelihood possibly happened:-)!! (I'm grateful to the nuances of the English language for saving the day here for me!!)
Your love for Nehru and his dynasty! : (This part applies only to those die hard fans of the Nehru dynasty whose faith they continue to betray)
You: "But still why on earth would our great leader, our chacha Nehru join with the British and cheat us? We love the Congress party so much and we LOVE the Nehru dynasty so much and we in India would rather commit suicide and die than lose our LOVE for the Nehru dynasty"
Me: Well, if you so love him then for the moment let's extend to him the benefit of the doubt and reserve our conclusions till we finish reading the rest of the details I have to offer and you can think of committing suicide later!
You: "Yes, we love our chacha Nehru's dynasty so much that we are prepared to die for them. We love them so much that for the best part of 60 plus years since independence, we have not let any one else rule us than members of his family. We have voted for them in the past, we have voted for them now and we will continue to vote for members of their family whenever they are born and wherever they are born and to whomsoever they are born, Indian or foreign. We will vote for them right from their cradles to their graves. That's our birthright and you cannot take it away from us. We will die for our chacha Nehru's dearest dynasty and for our wide bottomed, pot bellied congress nethas bursting at the sides with the fat they put on living off on us, and we're even prepared to kill for their sake. Our lives are a sacrifice for their pleasure. Jai chacha Nehru, jai jai Indira, Rajiv amar rahe, hazar pranam priyathama Soniaji madam ki.....chacha Nehru ji ki jai, chacha Nehruji ki jai....huh, huh, huh, pani, pani, pani...huh...huh...huh...Priyanka Robert Wadhra ko jai...Yuv Nayak Rahul ko jai...pani...pani..pani...Singh is King, Singh is king, Singh is king, priyathama Sonia Mynoji Madam ki jai, jayaho, jayaho, jayaho Congress party....huh...huh...huh...pani...pani....pani…
Me: Ok, ok, easy, calm down now. You shouldn't get so emotional after all we're just discussing some history and politricks here and you should keep an open mind. Anyways, here's some chill, tanda, tanda pani to cool your brains:-)
Reasons offered by Nehru for NOT lowering the British flag – Do they sound valid?
You: Ok, that makes sense. Thanks so much for that tanda pani. Well, you know it wasn't about getting emotional but our hearts are squeezed with wrenching pain to hear our dear chacha Nehru did this kind of a thing. We find it hard to believe that our great leader and chacha Nehru would willfully ignore the observance of such a defining custom during the transfer of power ceremony. He sure must have had a very good reason to do so if indeed he really did allow such a thing. Do you have any facts to offer in that direction?"
Me: I understand how you feel and Oh sure, I certainly do have something in that direction also. I must certainly bring to your notice that charming chacha Nehru, perhaps knowing fully well that his actions and decisions may be questioned later, tried to play the apologetic...
Here it is in Mountbatten's own words....."When I discussed the ceremony with Nehru, he ENTIRELY agreed that this was a day they wanted everybody to be happy (Oh really, why so?), and if the lowering of the Union Jack in any way offended British SUSCEPTIBILITIES, he would CERTAINLY see that it did not take place, the more so as the Union Jack would still be flown on a dozen days a year in the Dominion."
You: "Ha, so you see, he just didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings and he wanted everyone to be happy including the British. It’s an indication of what a great paramatma our chacha Nehruji is. Now stop complaining will you? Hey, well, well, well, hang on a bit, I see something really strange at the end of Mountbatten's statement, does it say that the Union Jack would still be flown on a dozen days a year in the Dominion (India)? You mean even after we were given independence? What the shit fucking nonsense is that?"
Me: Folks, I understand your surprise, but first lets complete one thing before we move on to the next one. I'm not complaining like you think. All I'm saying is symbols and symbolism mean everything in statecraft and the conduct of polity. If the flag was NOT lowered, it means something totally unrelated to anyone's feelings not being hurt. The fact you see from Mountbatten's statement above is that Mountbatten and Nehru decided the symbolism of the ceremony between themselves and this was all somehow sought to be couched and explained away and played down with glib justifications like saying "Well, you know we are a great people and we don't want to hurt anybody's sentiments and feelings or "susceptibilities" and that's why we didn't want the British flag to be lowered you know...."
You: Do you think its wrong? Can't our beloved chacha Nehru take a decision on this in his personal capacity as our beloved leader?
Me: Absolutely not! You're missing the fine line. All I'm saying is simply that if the flag is lowered it means something and if it is NOT lowered it means something else and the two cannot be mixed up whichever way your loving, charming chacha decided to have it. And please don't bring in anybody's "susceptibilities" and sweet feeling here, it doesn't relate to this ceremony in any way. And yes, charming chacha Nehru could perhaps arrogate to himself to decide on such a defining ceremony in his "personal capacity" as our leader if only this matter pertained to something that belonged in his personal life like flirting with Mountbatten's wife.
What message did the Transfer of Ceremony convey?
You: May be true but sometimes beloved leaders take decisions and we should not question them.
Me: I'm not questioning, I'm only saying the way the ceremony was held conveys a different message whose meaning is well recognized in politics and it cannot be explained away with a bluff like Nehru sought to do. The ONLY thing I can say to Nehru's bluff is simply that this was an occasion and a ceremony which had NOTHING whatsoever to do with anybody's "susceptibilities" or sweet feelings. If this was a domestic wife-swapping party in Mountbatten's house, then I agree, Mountbatten and Nehru could take whatever decisions they liked, and like I said earlier, they could have Nehru fucking Mountbatten's wife Edwina with her daughter Pamela tending to their refreshments while Mountbatten sat and watched it all smoking a cigar....But sorry, this wasn’t a wife swapping party, it was a ceremony of defining significance to the birth of a new, FREE India and its not permissible for Mountbatten and Nehru to conduct matters of vital importance to the Indian state like they conduct their personal and family or sex life. India is not Nehru's grandfather's personal fiefdom to decide away things like he wants. This was ENTIRELY about SIGNIFYING the freeing of an occupied people through the lowering of the old flag and the hoisting of the new flag of FREE India. After all, millions of us died and allowed to be robbed of our lives for that flag to go up on that day. SYMBOLISM is EVERYTHING here.
You: You're passing comments on our beloved chacha's personal life, what if he slept with Edwina and what if he didn't, is it your concern?
Me: Absolutely not my concern! You’re side stepping the issue! Whatever charming chacha wanted to do in his personal life, he had all the freedom he wanted to do it and nobody's moralizing him on that. When you want to flirt, you flirt, and even if you want to swap partners you do it if that’s your choice in your personal life. But you cannot substitute the principles of state craft with the principles of wife swapping and what Nehru and Mountbatten did in 1947 was exactly that.
This apart, I do not have anything against wife swapping! You bet, you don’t expect someone who’s two years into a troubled marriage to look down harshly on partner swapping:-) Pardon me for a small digression here but I heard one of the most exciting ways this can happen is if you’re married to one of two beautiful twin sisters and unknown to you they switch places, like they used to do since childhood, just for some fun! And it gets grippingly romantic and exciting from there….:-)!Mmm…sure sounds interesting!!
Cool, so coming back to our story, chacha’s romance may have been a little different from that but nevertheless it’s his personal life. But the problem comes when you let that have an effect on other things. It amounts to betraying and cheating the people. Unfortunately, what Nehru did that day is the ONLY truth and that truth is simply that the British flag stood watching proudly, it was NOT lowered and that only means Indians were NOT made FREE. Nehru, Gandhi and the rest of the entire Congress were willing partners in this crime.
If we are not free, are we slaves?
You: "Hatha vidhi, we cannot take this anymore, if we're not free, then what are we now?"
Me: Go back to Goethe and you will find the answer. We Indians are a nation of hopelessly enslaved people who in Goethe's words were made by the British and the Congress party to falsely believe that we are FREE. So that makes us more hopelessly enslaved than even slaves themselves. Pretty much like Americans also think they're a FREE country!!
You: That’s it, another word and we’ll have your nerves stringed out and play guitar…
Me: Oh, yeah, that’s what the congress nethas were doing to you for decades…
You: *#@$%^
Me: *@@#%$&^*!
You: Ok, so what's the conclusion?
Me: The conclusion is that on Nehru's claim number 1, you lost the argument:-)
Ok, so let us capture our first conclusion briefly...
Conclusion 1:
The symbolism of the transfer of power ceremony proved in unmistakable terms that India was not made FREE in the TRUE and FULL sense of the term. We were only made to believe that we were made FREE. This criminality was superbly achieved with the willing and knowing complicity of the Congress, its entire bunch of leaders including half naked Gandhi and charming chacha Nehru. Charming chacha Nehru did make his best attempt to justify and explain this all away with glib talk and bluff such as saying he didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings. But we now understand that this ceremony is in no way about anyone's so called sweet feelings but about facts and the fact was proved that India was not being made FREE.
So now we have seen that the first part i.e., the symbolism of the transfer of power ceremony clearly indicated that we were not made FREE. Now we will proceed to see how we continued to live under the British flag.
Continued allegiance to the British flag even after 1947
Its in this connection that what you pointed out to me in Mountbatten's statement above which says that the British flag will still be flown in this country a dozen days a year makes sense.
Yes. 99.99% of us in this country do not ever come to know that the British flag is flown right on our very icons of state such as the Secretariat even after 1947. You want proof? Not a problem. Here it is.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=35026
Check out that video, watch the beginning scenes closely, it’s right there…
More proof? No problem!:
Refer to an article titled "Union Jack Over Indian Parliament" dated 13, June 1952. The article reports of a cut motion moved by the Communists over their objection to flying the British flag on our Central Secretariat on the Queen's birthday. Well again, charming chacha Nehru sought to play it all down with justifications such as it was done as a matter of "courtesy", “international courtesy".
"Courtesy"???? Well what courtesy are we talking about here? Will the British fly the Indian flag on their Secretariat on our President's birthday? Is it a reciprocal courtesy between two independent sovereign and FREE countries or a submissive, slave courtesy of a subject to its master? For all intents and purposes, Nehru and Congress did not intend it in any other way than to indicate this as a slave status of India with respect to the British.
Unfortunately, no member of the Indian parliament did ever walk up to charming chacha Nehru and told him NOT to conduct matters of state like a wife swapping party in his house. There are a million other ways to show his “courtesy” or anything else he wanted to show to the British queen and I have absolutely no qualms in saying that he could have even showed what he was showing Edwina to the Queen of England if they so wished than blatantly indulge in an action that only amounts to indicate that India is NOT a FREE country and still a lackey of the British.
Nehru makes India a continual part of British empire and the recognizes the CROWN as its Head:
This wasn't the only time the British flag was flown after 1947. There are others such as on the occasion of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. This time the justification was that the British Crown was the head of the “Commonwealth”....mmm....so there it is straight from the horse's mouth… if only everyone knew what the word "commonwealth" actually meant...
Yes, some members of Parliament had the good sense to question the Congress party as to which provision in our sovereign Constitution lays down that the British “Crown” is recognized as the Head of the Commonwealth of which we are supposed to be part of. The answer to this was again the glib talk that this is done in accordance with some "conventions" and "agreements".
Agreements entered into privately with the British and unwritten conventions override even our Constitution:
So there it is people straight from the horse's mouth of Nehru and his Congress henchmen and well documented by the press in this country in 1953. In essence, the Indian government headed by the Congress party under Nehru was making it clear to us that some "conventions" and "agreements" he entered into with Mountbatten in his own personal capacity and out of his own personal whims and fancies take precedence EVEN over our own sovereign constitution. And in accordance with those "agreements" and "conventions" we continue to honor and pay allegiance to the British CROWN as slaves and subjects. This is all done away from the public glare as far as possible.
So these news reports prove to us the second aspect which is that we have continued to pay allegiance to the British Crown as subject members of the "Commonwealth".
Only names changed but East India Company remained the real master:
Now we move to the final aspect to understand that the East India Company masters retained and remained in control of our lives both after the revolt of 1857as well as after 1947.
To understand this aspect, we need to study the word "commonwealth". As you know, our government's position was that the British flag was flown because charming chacha Nehru had agreed with Mountbatten that India would continue to recognize the British CROWN as the Head of the COMMONWEALTH. The key words here are "Crown" and "Commonwealth". So we have to see what these CROWN and COMMONWEALTH actually mean...
These words are not as transparent in meaning as they appear. They are NOT!
What actually is the CROWN?
The CROWN is not the British King or Queen like we are lead to believe. The word "CROWN" is the PRIVATE CORPORATION that is the inner 'City of London' itself, also commonly known as "The City" or "The Square Mile." This square mile that makes up the center of Greater London has its own mayor, laws, courts, flag, police force and newspaper. It is the heart of the GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM:-)
It is your EAST INDIA COMPANY of the Jewish, Zionist bankers in its element.
So when Nehru and the Congress made us pay our allegiance to the British CROWN, they are in effect making us pay allegiance to the very same East India Company without letting us know what we are actually made to do. The CROWN is the smoke screen for the East India Company that has for hundreds of years robbed and looted this country.
Here are some facts about the CROWN Corporation to which charming chacha Nehru and the rest of the Congress lackeys of the British have sold our country:
1. Like Vatican City, the inner city of London is also a privately owned corporation or city state.
2. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when William III of Orange privatized and turned the Bank of England over to the private bankers.
3. In 1812, Nathan Rothschild crashed the stock market and gained control over the Bank of England.
4. The city state of London is the financial power center of the world and the wealthiest square mile on the earth.
5. It houses the Rothschild controlled bank of England, Lloyds of London, the London stock exchange, all British banks, the branch offices of 385 foreign banks, and 70 US banks.
6. Its not part of greater London, or England or the British Commonwealth and pays no taxes.
7. It also houses publishing monopolies.
8. Its also the HQ for world wide English freemasonry...mmm that's interesting because chacha Nehru was also a Freemason and his allegiance is evidently to the British queen and not to this country.
9. And also the HQ for the world wide money cartel known as the CROWN.
10. Contrary to popular belief, the Crown is not the royal family or the British monarch, the CROWN is the private, corporate city-state of London.
It is the very Corporation that still rules India and USA by creating the illusion that their peoples are FREE.
So the "Crown" operating from what is known as "The Square Mile" denotes the sanctum sanctorum of the City of London, a Private Corporation from which the Zionist, Jewish bankers who held a controlling interest in the East India Company still operate from. This square mile recognizes no outside law, it owes no allegiance to any outside power, it is NOT a part of greater London or the United Kingdom, it is a law unto itself and it is to this den of banking thieves known as the CROWN or the Corporation of London that our charming chacha Nehru surrendered our freedom and acted in concert with them to create the illusion that we are FREE.
Just think for a moment. Just why will the East India Company which held an empire in India that was far greater and immensely richer than any other empire on earth in history and having such immense prospects opening up in America would ever really relinquish control over us? Just because a few petty rajah and disgruntled sepoys revolted sporadically here and there in 1857? Are they fools? If a petty business man in India is able to hold property worth a few paltry lacs of rupees under benami names, do you think the East India Company surrendered India to someone else and ran away after 1857? They simply created a smoke screen of the CROWN and said power is being transferred to the CROWN and nobody ever told you that the CROWN only means them under a different name. Its just a name change game.
Also, why would they pay taxes to anyone in London if their empire is bigger than Britain itself? The East India Company never relinquished its control of either India or America. It just morphed and shape shifted into a sovereign city state corporation from which it continued to rule us and Americans to this day through a network of politicians who are all freemasons including our own Nehru, Gandhi and 90% of all our Congress politicians and ALL freemasons owe allegiance to the British crown and not to their native people or governments.
This corporation of London is ruled by a council of 13 representative of the world's wealthiest banking families. The Crown Corporation owns the title to world wide crown lands in crown colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The British Parliament and the British PM are the public front for this ruling banking families.
What is the “COMMONWEALTH”?
So now, we return to charming chacha Nehru's shadow play in 1947.
Now it’s clear to you that the CROWN is not the British royal family but the morphed and shape shifted East India Company now operating as the Corporation of London. Hold that understanding close as we will use it next to understand how this affects us being part of the "commonwealth" that Nehru made us part of.
India joined the British Commonwealth of Nations, which recognized the British sovereign as head of the Commonwealth to whom all dominions had to swear allegiance, thanks to half naked Gandhi and charming chacha Nehru and the rest of the Congress. On 2 May 1949, after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee declared that with reference to the London agreement that no distinction should be drawn between the use of the terms ‘Commonwealth’, ‘British Commonwealth’ or ‘British Empire’, all of which should be regarded as interchangeable”.
Interchangeable terms? Oh ok!! So if India is a part of "British Commonwealth", it means that we are part of the "British Empire" because the two are interchangeable terms.
Appreciating Nehru’s role in the 1949 London Conference, Attlee said: “Mr. Nehru for India showed high statesmanship in accepting a new relationship whereby in respect for India, the [British] monarch was recognized as Head of the Commonwealth.”
So in effect, charming chacha went to London as a lackey of the British and came back with a pat on his back from Atlee that he appreciates Nehru's so called "statesmanship" in making India a continual part of the British empire and also in recognizing the CROWN as the Head of the "Commonwealth"...err I mean the "empire"...:-)
Not sure if he was given another chance to lay Edwina again or even Elizabeth:-)
So the Indian government, headed by charming chacha Nehru, as late as in 1953 and even in 1959 was telling us all that we are still part of the "Commonwealth" meaning the "British Empire" which is as much as saying we are still subjects and not FREE men, we are not an "independent" country.
If we’re part of an “empire”, then how is this country FREE? You are NOT a FREE country, if not in theory then certainly not in practice, when you are part of someone else's EMPIRE, whether functional overtly or operating covertly.
The Independence Day Irony
Some of you may scream out loud that the Constituent Assembly swore to make India a Sovereign, INDEPENDENT, republic. And how can you now say that we are not FREE or INDEPENDENT?
Oh! well, that was well taken care of by charming chacha Nehru if you didn't know. Nehru is individually and personally responsible for dropping the word "INDEPENDENT" from the Constitution of India. Well, the justification was again the usual bluff that "independent" is already implied in the word "sovereign" and that there isn't a need to repeat it again so he wanted it to be dropped.
C'mon. The Indian Constitution, thanks to its lawyer authors, is THE biggest in the world and are you saying there wasn't enough room to repeat one single word called "independent" if it really amounted to "repetition" in the first place? Who are you kidding? And does Nehru as a lawyer wants us to believe that the words "sovereign" and "independent" can be construed as repetitive?
The real reason is evident and obvious. Nehru did not intend India to be INDEPENDENT. Why? Because together with Mountbatten they have already drawn up plans to make India a subservient part in the "commonwealth" which is the "British empire". And that plot and crime cannot be enacted if the word "independent" is allowed to hang around in the constitution. It would lead to a contradiction in terms. It would become a conflict in constitutional theory and practice. So it was very artfully, tactfully and masterfully removed by our charming chacha Nehru through specific instructions to the Constituent Assembly.
So people, our so called "Independence Day" is a day without "Independence" as defined by our own Constitution. That's the wool on your eyes:-) And it was drawn with your own hands:-)
Its simply a "Sovereign Day". You know you can be sovereign with respect to a certain sphere of governance but can still be taking your orders, in a covert or overt manner, from an external power. That's exactly what Mountbatten, Gandhi and Nehru devised behind the scenes. The Indian Government is Sovereign with respect to all governance in India? oh YES but is it INDEPENDENT? oh NO, not rally. We have very subtle and secret mechanisms in place and front men to work for the Zionist bankers that the robbery goes on right through our noses. While in theory, this distinction can be easily erased with a bluff like Nehru used by saying Oh, "independent" is already implied in the word "sovereign", its virtually impossible to see how this is being done so in actual practice.
That's the sophistication of the deception in the changed realities of the neo-colonial world.
For a brief understanding, put it all this way. The Rothschild bankers were the ones who held a controlling interest in the East India Company. So if you read in your history books that the 1857 sepoy mutiny in India resulted in transferring the power from the company to the CROWN, you now know what it means. There was no real change whatsoever! The East India Company continued to exercise its ownership of India through another front called the CROWN which as you have seen above is only a private corporation which the same banking families who owned East India Company still run to this day. And the same way, when you read that half naked Gandhi, charming chacha Nehru and the congress party claimed "independence" for India in 1947 while making India a part of the "commonwealth" i.e. the "British empire", know that it’s the same name change game. They simply replaced the British administration through the CROWN which functioned till 1947 with Congress front men who in turn under Nehru’s leadership returned the favor with dropping the word “Independent” from the preamble of our constitution and also by making India a subject part of the British “Commonwealth” meaning British Empire and continuing to fly the British Union Jack over our state symbols of sovereignty with specifically pleading with the British not to publicize this. That’s how you did not know this happening…but this is what has been happening.
Since the "CROWN" is the one power that calls the shots in the "commonwealth", so as a part of it, India continues to remain under the East India Company clutches. They simply pulled the wool down on your eyes again! The words "Company" and "Crown" were now replaced with the word "Commonwealth":-)
OK, so we conclude now that India was not made either FREE or INDEPENDET on our so called independence day on the midnight of 14 August, 1947.
Here is the sequence of events and the modus operandi of these criminals:
First Deception
1. After the Sepoy Mutiy of 1857, the CROWN assumed control of India.
2. But the CROWN is not the royal family of Britain like we are lead to believe but the privately owned Corporation of London.
3. The Jewish, Zionist banking families that controlled the East India Company were the same as those that ruled this Corporation of London.
4. Hence, it was only a name change game but our masters remained the East India Company.
Second Deception
1. This rule by the so called CROWN continued till 1947.
2. Mountbatten and Nehru decide to conduct the Transfer of Power ceremony without lowering the British flag.
3. Nehru agrees to fly the British flag twelve days a year even after Independence.
4. This was sought to be done secretly avoiding publicity as best as possible.
5. Nehru agrees with the British privately and decides to make India part of the Commonwealth.
6. On the face of it, this is passed off as nothing bad as the so called “commonwealth” is defined officially as a grouping of all the countries formerly ruled by Britain now forming a voluntary union.
7. But away from the public eye, the “commonwealth” is given another definition which equates it with “British empire”.
8. To make India a part of the British Empire, Nehru moves a resolution in our Constituent Assembly instructing the framers to remove the word “independent” from the name of our country.
9. This was sought to be explained away with a bluff saying they were just avoiding a repetition which it was not.
10. Thus with a clever sophistry of deception and fraud, characteristic of Zionist bankers and the East India Company practices, and the willing and knowing complicity of Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress party, India was made a historical anomaly of a “sovereign” country without “independence” creating only a semblance of independence but not in substance.
11. This was all done inaugurate the new phase of colonial robbery of India in a far more subtle and secretive manner to suit the new realities of the 21st century.
Exactly how this robbery is continued, we will see in the second part of this series.
Jai Hind....ooops should we say Jai East India Company??????
(To be continued…)
Peace,
Dayavanth M Emmanuel
==================================================================================
Now for some picturesque speech...:-)
Mountbatten: Honey, it looks like your hair do is having the right effect on him
Edwina: You bet, he sure looks like he’s dazed and charmed….I’ll take it forward from here...!
Nehru: I swear by my country and its people from now on, I’ll only smoke these ladies cigarettes Edwina gives me.
Nehru & Edwina – Igniting each other’s passions?!
Nehru: Does this moron know you were sucking on me last night?
Edwina: We actually have a word for it, its called playing the “understanding” husband.
Mountbatten: Oh yeah, she told me yours was the sickest thing she ever did for the British Crown!
I told you Leonardo Di Caprios used to wear Gandhi caps and Kate Winslets used to look like fucked up grannies in 1947 and you didn’t believe me, see…!!
Hey, where’s Mountbatten looking?! What do you do when your wife’s fucking someone else? Simple, look the other way!!
Mountbatten: Are those UFOs in the sky?
General in the front: Huh, when I go back to Britain, I’ll write a book on the real story behind what UFOs are and when men see them…!
Edwina: This diary contains the complete list of all the dates when we made love
Nehru: I love the one we made on the night of 14, August 1947. Boy, it’s really good to fool around with you and fool my country as well.
Mountbatten: This way please Sir…honey he's all yours...
Edwina: Oh, gosh, do I have to suck on this old fucker now?
Nehru: I wish my country never got freedom so this farewell wouldn't be happening...
