✌️

The following are books written during the erstwhile English-rule period in South Asia. Some of them are about the English rule itself. 

​

There are a few issues with these books. One is the very wording ‘British-India’.  In those days, England was ruling not only the English Empire, but  Great Britain also. 

What took place in the Subcontinent was essentially an ‘English rule’ and not a ‘British-rule’, per se. The basic input in this regard is that England was a planar-language nation, while the Celtic languages could be feudal languages. 

The second item for mention is the word ‘India’. This word has become a terrible misnomer in various locations, due to the fact that a new nation called ‘India’ was created in a portion of the very location which is generally mentioned as ‘British-India’. The new India consisted of only a portion of ‘British-India’. 

At the same time, it did attach to itself various locations inside the subcontinent, which were not part of British-India, but rather independent kingdoms, all of which had attached themselves to British-India in an unofficial manner. This voluntary attaching was to feel and experience the superb administrative, social and intellectual climate, based on pristine-English, that was there inside British-India.  However, these nations were independent kingdoms. Not part of British-India. 

The next point to note is that at least some of the writers here, even if they are well-disposed towards the English rule, or inclined to view it favourably, did not really posses certain crucial information on what was the real erroneous code that was running riot inside the subcontinent. It was the presence of feudal languages in the various social systems in the land. 

This information is something which cannot be understood in English. Lower-level human beings and populations literally get suppressed and deformed as per the slot they are forced into, in the language codes.

​

Human and animal personality can be atrophied by these languages, if used in a very callous manner. If these languages enter into any English location or nation, they can spread the same terrible disarraying of population and individuals.  These terrible languages can literally splinter a social system, if it is an English social system - leading some of the very placid individuals to terrible mental trauma and provocation. 

The next point for elaboration is that in many of the books here, the writings might convey an impression of a nation called ‘India’ or a nationality called ‘Indians’.  This is the not the actual truth. The subcontinent was actually like a huge geographical location, in which different kingdoms existed from times immemorial in a state of constant mutual belligerence. At the same time, inside each kingdom also, the population was not one or two, but a series of populations connected to various locations on the globe via ancestry, arranged in some kind of terrific hierarchy.

This hierarchy was not something that can be understood in English. For, the feudal languages do the customising of the hierarchy structure. Different populations are terribly mean and menacing to each other. The higher populations try their best to browbeat the lower ones into subjugation and slavery. At the same time, they lend reverence and servitude to those above them. 

The next item to mention here is that the various wars and battles that the English company had to wage with the local rulers are not to be seen as an attack on ‘Indians’. There were no Indians available then. 

The wars and battles were with the rulers who in most circumstances were rascal and scoundrels in their attitude towards the suppressed populations in their kingdoms.  When a better population came to the scene, it is no wonder that most of the local populations either in haste or over time, shifted their loyalty and devotion to them.

It is the people who supported the English rule. So all those histories which speak about the rulers, kings and ‘emperors’ of ‘India’ being defeated or displaced or dislodged by the English company, are actually talking nonsense, if the aim is to mix them up with the populations of the subcontinent.  These rulers actually do not represent any nation or country. They were merely individuals who had some kind of satanic control of the populations therein. 

Kings and Queens and other small time rulers are merely individuals, who do not really represent the peoples or their aspirations at all. If they have been disposed by the English rule, it was what the people of those times wished for. 

The next item for mention is the word ‘Hindu’ / ‘Hindoo’ generally seen mentioned in these writings in abundance.  It was a mistaken notion spread through these writings that all the peoples and populations in South Asia, who were not Muslims or Christians could be Hindus.  Actually the Hindu religion is the Brahmin religion. The others were not Brahmins or Hindus, even though many persons did aspire for this definition. It was only around the middle part of the 20th century that all the other aspiring and non-aspiring populations of SouthAsia became Hindus or got declared officially as Hindus. 

In all these writings, by native-English and native-Brit writings, there could be one major insight missing.  There were a huge number of populations in the various kingdoms in the subcontinent who had been literally waiting for the arrival of the English flag, to save them from the satans who had enslaved them.  Describing and defining these satans as their rulers or kings or as their royalty etc. would make these words and usages totally meaningless. Enslavers and slave-masters cannot be called kings and rulers.  A few of the pictures of the real suppressed populations of the land can be seen on this link. 

I would say that if the readers can go through my own writings about these events, which can be found on this link, it would be much useful. For, it would create a real background to the various information that are there in these books.