Book Review Analysis; Shashi Tharoor on the Great Brexit of 1947

Last Updated on June 30, 2019 by Hamad Subani

When the British put a brutal end to the Mughals following 1857, they were presented with a unique historical opportunity. They could have redeemed themselves by ruling India better than their Mughal predecessors, thereby establishing themselves in the Indian Subcontinent for all time to come. Instead, what unfolded was a calculated program to sacrifice the economy of the Indian Subcontinent, which was then 27 percent (p. 4) of the global economy (more than Europe), for global conflict to advance Illuminati agenda throughout the rest of the world. The most prominent of these conflicts would be the two World Wars, in which Britain (and British Intelligence) played a major role in coordinating the conflict as well as instigating it. Such a bewildering course of action was inevitably unsustainable, resulting in the Great Brexit of 1947. The British left in ignominy, unlike the Mughals who continue to be romanticized. The India they left behind was in shambles, commanding just over 3 percent of the global economy, and the Subcontinent was now fractured into warring nation-states. British administration of India still mystifies historians, because there are no parallels. Their administration can best be described in a hypothetical scenario, in which a monopolistic, money grubbing corporate retailer like Walmart® takes over a prosperous country like USA and their scrounging upper management converts the entire nation into captive shoppers.

In a recent book entitled An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India (alternatively titled Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India), Indian MP (Congress) Shashi Tharoor attempts to pick up the pieces and find out what happened to the Subcontinent during the British rule. This book grew out of a 15 minute Youtube video of Shashi Tharoor addressing the Oxford Union on 14th July 2015 which went viral. Cabal Times recognized the importance of the video and covered it when it was released. Now we review and analyze the book.

Quoting from a book review rather than the actual book is considered sloppy. But should you choose to do so, I am adding a citation reference and a bibliographic reference to the book below. The review is peppered with page numbers whenever Shashi Tharoor is quoted on something I deem important. This is for all you tired, hustled and weary readers whose attention span is already maxed out for checking the actual book. This is of course, no substitute to getting the actual book, which any serious reader should. There are also quotes of other people taken from within the book. To get the references for these quotes, you must buy the book. While the book has received a favourable response in India, it has slipped below the radar in the West. Don’t expect to find any mentions of it on the Ellen Degenerate DeGeneres Show.

Readymade Citations for Shashi Tharoor's book......
  • MLA style citation: Shashi Tharoor, An Era of Darkness – The British Empire in India (Aleph Book Company, 2016)
  • MLA style bibliographic entry: Tharoor, Shashi. An Era of Darkness – The British Empire in India (Aleph Book Company, 2016)
  • APA style citation: Tharoor (2016).
  • APA style bibliographic entry: Tharoor, S. (2016). An Era of Darkness – The British Empire in India. Aleph Book Company.


The past is not necessarily a guide to the future, but it does partly help explain the present. One cannot, as I have written elsewhere, take revenge upon history; history is its own revenge [………] I seek nothing from history –only an account of itself.

Tharoor, xxv-xxvi.

Any statement, theory or factoid derived from Tharoor’s book is followed by a page number reference. Everything else is my extrapolation, intended for my niche audience.

The Destruction of the Indian Textile Industry and the Substitution of British Industry

The so-called Industrial Revolution centered around textile mills in Manchester was all about substituting the thriving Indian textile industry for a polluted, mechanized, British one.

Up to 8 percent of India’s GNP was transferred to Britain each year

When the British came, they first set up shop at Masulipatnam, a textile trading hub. The British initially exported highly sought Indian textiles to the rest of Europe, such as the light muslin fabrics, produced by generations of skilled Indian weavers using hand-operated looms (p.7). Such great was the East India Company’s demand that the textile output increased to 33 percent (p.8). But once the British managed to gain political power in Bengal, they imposed a monopoly on the export of Indian textiles. Other traders were pushed out, and centuries old trading links were interrupted (p.7). They stopped paying in pounds brought in from Britain and instead paid in the revenue they extracted from the province (p. 8). Once they established mechanized textile manufacturing in Manchester (what became known as the Industrial Revolution), they not only destroyed the looms of Indian weavers but also forced the captive Indian economy to import textiles from Britain. Whatever Indian textile industry survived was imposed export tariffs as high as 80 percent (p. 8). Duties were imposed even on Indian merchant ships moving to and from Indian ports, and not just those plying foreign trade routes (p. 32). India had earlier enjoyed a 25 percent stake in the global textile trade (p. 8). This would disappear, and in its place, British India would export raw cotton to the mills of Manchester and elsewhere. The weavers and personnel of the Indian textile industry were driven into agriculture, and into obvious poverty.

By the end of the 19th century, India became Britain’s biggest source of revenue, and the world’s biggest purchaser of British exports (p. 24). Up to 8 percent of India’s GNP was transferred to Britain each year (p. 25).

The Obliteration of the Indian Steel and Shipbuilding Industry (Wait, India had a Steel Industry?)

While the composition of wootz steel has been determined, the forging process has been lost.

India was a pioneer of crucible-formed steel, known as wootz steel, and Indian-made swords had quite a reputation throughout the world. The ore was obtained from the mountains of the Western Ghats, and the brickwork from the raised furnaces still dot the region. The British forbade the industry since 1866, pretending that it was leading to deforestation. The two biggest consumers of steel in British India, the Government and the Railways were mandated to only use British Standard Specification Steel, which drove local steelmakers out of business (p. 38-39). Modern metallurgists have used spectroscopy to determine the composition of wootz steel artifacts from medieval India, but they have failed to duplicate the forging process.

An 18th-century Indian Matchlock Musket from Lahore. All we know is that it was acquired before 1859. Photo courtesy and copyright the Royal Armouries Collections ©.

Another 18th-century Indian Matchlock Musket from Lahore. All we know is that it was acquired before 1859. Photo courtesy and copyright the Royal Armouries Collections ©.

In the early 1760s, the nawab of Bengal, Mir Qasim, began to manufacture firelocks at the fort at Monghyr, where Raja Todar Mal had manufactured guns in the 16th century. The manufacturing continued after the nawab’s defeat in 1764, but as an EIC arms depot. Its guns enjoyed a reputation superior to the best British military muskets, especially in the barrel metal and flints made of agates from the Rajmahal Hills. As French fortunes declined in the second half of the century, French mercenaries offered their expertise to Indian manufactories. State arsenals and magazines across Agra, Delhi, Gwalior, the former Mughal heartland, produced munitions at the same standards as Europe. Factories in Lucknow, Pondicherry, Hyderabad, Lahore and Seringapatam produced most of the guns used by powers challenging both the Mughals and the British.

Priya Satia, 'Guns and the British empire ,' Aeon, 14/02/2018

India also had a thriving shipbuilding industry in Bengal. When the British first arrived, they found it so profitable to build their ships in India that there was rising unemployment in the British shipbuilding industry (p. 34). Soon enough, legislation was introduced and Indian-made ships were banned from plying trade routes between India, Britain, Europe and America. By 1850, the Indian shipbuilding industry was extinct (p. 34-35).

Ruinous Taxation

Behind the epaulettes and the jingle of harness, the levees and the balls at Government House, lay the hard calculus of the City of London. –Ferdinand Mount, 30.

Or maybe Ferdinand Mount was referring to the crypto-Jewish interests known as the Illuminati, who are still headquartered in the City of London?

Unlike the previous rulers of India who preferred to seek their main source of revenue from trade rather than from farmers and cultivators, the British started taxing the farmers who ended up in their political control to a minimum of 50 percent of income, resulting in two-thirds of the farmers fleeing their lands. With their sophisticated Intelligence network, they could not have been blind to the plight of their new subjects. On the other hand, farmers fared much better in areas not under direct British control. Under the British Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue in 1793, farmers no longer had to pay a share of their crops. Instead, they would pay a fixed rent on their own land, regardless if the crops failed, and sometimes even before the crops were produced (p. 21-22). The rules were strict and uniform, with no room for traditional face-to-face negotiation, or other environmental factors. Most of the peasants fled, while no peasants from other areas moved to British controlled areas. Another by-product of this system was the strengthening of landowners or zamindars, who continue to oppress peasants in India (p. 256). The British were focused on cultivating opium, for export to China, where it created social problems that further enabled the Illuminati’s foray into China. But both growing opium and selling it were strictly British monopolies (p. 265). Opium also started being sold in India later on, and soon accounted for 1/9th of government revenue (p. 266).

An infographic comparing the value of the sister of the British East India Company, The Dutch East India Company (VOC) with 20 modern companies. The Dutch East India Company had several operations in India, on the Coromandel coast, at the port of Surat, in Bengal, on the Malabar coast and Sri Lanka. All of this trade would later be taken up by the British East india Company, which probably became more valuable. Source

East India Company stock skyrocketed, making it the most sought after stock by British investors (p. 23). Even when the rule of the East India Company ended after the events of 1857, the Queen would compensate them by buying them out, adding the purchase price to the public debt of India (p. 23).

The British fixed the Indian Rupee at one shilling sixpence (p. 37).  But to protect their assets in India, they maintained this exchange rate even if it meant taking notes and coins out of circulation (p. 37) to the detriment of the Indian economy.

What is England now? A sink of Indian wealth.- Horace Walpole in 1790,14.

Indian Economy Sacrificed for Illuminati Wars in other parts of the world

The British Indian Army battling the Ottomans in 1917 to snatch Jerusalem for a future Zionist homeland.

In 1922, a whopping 64 percent of the revenue of British India went to paying for British Indian troops dispatched abroad (p. 25) for furthering Illuminati Wars, such as the two World Wars which I have discussed extensively in my book, The World War Deception. Every British soldier posted to India was paid, fed, equipped and eventually pensioned by the Government of British India (p. 28). In addition, Indian labour was used for railway construction and plantation agriculture abroad (p. 28).

Tharoor has come up with an interesting list (p. 27) of deployments of the British Indian Army in the 19th Century, all of which correspond to Illuminati undertakings in those particular regions. They are as follows:

  1. China (1860, 1900-01) This corresponds with British establishing control of Canton, and later Peking.
  2. Ethiopia (1867-68) This was for the rescue of British captives.
  3. Malaya (1875)
  4. Malta (1878)
  5. Egypt (1882, 1896) This was supposedly for the suppression of a rebellion.
  6. Sudan (1885-86, 1896)
  7. Burma (1885)
  8. East Africa (1896, 1897, 1898) This was supposedly for the suppression of a rebellion.
  9. Somaliland (1890, 1903-04)
  10. South Africa (1899; White Indian Army troops only)
  11. Tibet (1903)
  12. Sri Lanka (1818) This corresponds with a war that brought this nation under British rule.

As many as 1,215,318 soldiers and support staff (p. 87) from British India were made to participate in the Illuminati undertaking known as World War I. Of these, 74,187 Indian soldiers would sacrificed (p. 87), with most of them seeing action against the Ottoman Empire. Several Indian rail lines were dismantled and shipped out to the Ottoman frontline in Mesopotamia (p. 215).  The amount of additional revenue and resources diverted from British India towards World War I amounted to up to USD $66.65 billion in today’s money (p. 88).

By the end of World War II, the British Indian Army consisted of 2.5 million men. World War II cost the lives of over 87,000 soldiers, air crews and mariners from British India. This included 24,338 killed and 11,754 missing in action. Another 34,354 more were wounded. 67.340 Indian personnel became prisoners of war, and many would fight for the Axis. Shashi Tharoor does not cover World War II in detail.

Surprising Facts About British Organisational Dynamics in India

[The East India Company’s operations] combined the meanness of a pedlar with the profligacy of a pirate [……] they united the mock majesty of a bloody sceptre with the little traffic of a merchant’s counting house, wielding a truncheon with one hand, and picking a pocket with the other.

Playwright Richard Sheridan on the operations of a modern Globalist Multinational Corporation the East India Company, 17.

Until the events of 1857, the British, like other Europeans in India, mingled with the Indian population, and even assimilated with, adopting their languages, attire, customs and even taking Indian wives. Some would even will their property to their Indian wives (p. 74). This phenomenon has been superbly documented in William Dalrymple’s White Mughals. It seems that The Powers That Be saw the dangers in this arrangement, as it would not be conducive to their aims and objectives in India. Therefore, after 1857, British bureaucrats, soldiers and personnel in India were organized in such a fashion that their involvement and exposure to Indians and Indian culture was drastically curtailed by the imposition of a philistine, apartheid-like organizational culture. This would enable a small cabal based in London to govern by remote control in a ruthlessly efficient manner.

Our force does not operate as much by its actual strength as by the impression which it produces  – Philip mason, quoting a Victorian administrator of British India (p. 263).

  1. Unlike the French who Francified their colonies in every possible way, and unlike the Spanish and the Portuguese, who brutally imposed Christianity, the British were driven exclusively by greed, and for most Britons, India was a career. Changing India was never an objective (p. 113).
  2. As late as 1930, the Imperial Civil Service (later dubbed the Indian Civil Service) had only 4 percent Indians at important levels (p. 60).
  3. The British in India were never more than 0.05 percent of the total population (p. 61).
  4. After 1806, Britons applying for the Indian Civil Service were trained at the Haileyburg College near London (p. 62). To quote, “The tests did not seek to establish any knowledge of India or any sensitivity to its peoples; they sought to identify proper English gentlemen, and emphasized classical learning and good literary skills (p.62).”
  5. Since British governance was not driven by strong moral codes instilled in the individual, individualism was frowned upon. And in its place, we see strict adherence to procedure and following precedent for new situations. This resulted in previously produced paperwork being consulted for new, unrelated situations, resulting in the previous errors also being repeated indefinitely.
  6. The British prided themselves with having reduced all rights, laws and correspondence to writing (p.63). But what the masterminds in London had accomplished was the enabling of a uniform and heavy-handed approach to a diverse place like the Indian Subcontinent. In other words, they were steamrolling the immediate imposition of their laws, their taxes and their governance rather than the traditional approach of face-to-face negotiation with the local subjects. While this enabled them to establish their own relationship as rulers, they blocked the emergence of a reciprocal relationship with their subjects,(p. 64) most of whom were illiterate and did not know English. Indians once held their rulers accountable in public places. But now, decisions were being made behind closed doors, by foreigners in offices (p. 64). The specially crafted British Penal Code (enacted in 1861) contained 49 articles on crimes related to “dissent” but only 11 on crimes involving death (p. 111). Sadly, the Penal Code still remains in effect in both India and Pakistan, as the development of preexisting legal structures was curtailed by the British. The governments of both India and Pakistan have repeatedly used British-era laws to curb free speech and legitimate dissent.
  7. Each district in British India was in charge of an Englishman holding the title of Collector, since it was implicit that his sole function was vacuuming as much revenue as possible. On the other hand, no developmental work was assigned to him (p. 66). The British did not establish a single grand hospital in the country (p. 190).
  8. To prevent mingling with local Indian populations, British personnel were required to live in British-only areas, known as cantonments and civil lines (p. 67). And plenty of diversions were provided, such as apartheid style white-only clubs, where drinking, gambling and hopeful Englishwomen (who came by the boatload) were to be found.  Vacations to hill stations in the mountains were arranged, where the cool climate and coniferous trees reminiscent of England provided respite from the Indian summer. The Englishmen of the Imperial Civil Service were required to remain bachelors until the age of thirty (p. 67) to discourage them from marrying locals. By the time they had finished their service, they were sent back to England for their pensioned retirement. It is no exaggeration to say that the  Imperial Civil Service attracted carpet-bagger types. Many British criminals also ended up serving the Empire in British India (p. 108).

A handful of people from a distant country maintain a predominance unmitigated by social intercourse, marriage, or permanent residence. Henry Nevinson, 67.

The Division of Hindu Society

Many of the divisions in Indian society trace their origin to Fort William College in Calcutta, which was established by the East India Company.

Prior to the British, disputes in Indian civil society were settled by jati or biradri (p. 126). A person’s fate was decided within a community or clan by his own peers in accordance with prevailing traditions, and there was no approval required from a member of a higher caste (p. 126). To quote, “Indians in precolonial times lived in imprecisely defined ‘fuzzy’ communities with overlapping cultural practices, minimal self-awareness and non-existent consciousness of the details of the differences of their communities, except in the  most general terms (p. 128).” But Governor General Warren Hastings hired eleven Pandits (members of the Brahmin caste) to create what became known as the Code of Gentoo Laws (p. 125). Suddenly, ancient and obscure Hindu texts were being cited to reaffirm the position of Brahmins in all Hindu affairs (p. 126). The British would patronise the Brahmins over other Hindu groups, who being no more than a tenth of the population, now occupied over 90 percent of important positions available to Indians in British India (p. 127).

While no one in the East India Company knew Sanskrit, the speed with which they came up and published  the Code of Gentoo Laws was suspicious. Equally suspicious was its editor and English translator, Nathaniel Braffey Halhed, who belonged to a crypto-Jewish merchant-banker family. He didn’t know Sanskrit that good, so he had the work translated into Persian, which he then translated into English. Fort William College at Calcutta was closely involved in the composition of the Code of Gentoo Laws. The British would use such pseudo-scholarly treatises to accentuate caste differences, and when jobs, quotas and benefits started being disbursed taking into account these newly accentuated differences, hostility among different groups increased.

Fort William College was also later involved with the emergence of Hindi for Hindus (with a script borrowed from Sanskrit) and Urdu for Muslims (with a script borrowed from Persian). Both these languages were carved out of a common vernacular which was either braj bhasa or khadi boli, which was created as a result of ages of interaction between Muslim troops and Hindu vendors in the bazaars of North India. This vernacular was destroyed so that religious division could be later accentuated in India.

Censorship of the Press

The British are credited with establishing the first newspapers of India (p. 96). But as early as 1799, they also established the Censorship of the Press Act, which made it mandatory for all newspapers to be scrutinized before publication of daily news. Some British-owned and British edited newspapers such as Indian World, Bengal Gazette and Calcutta Journal closed down, and their editors were arrested and deported to England for violating the Act (p. 96). Later Acts targeted Indian newspapers published in Indian languages. They required the owners of Indian newspapers to deposit a very large sum of money with the British Government, and if they published anything that would be deemed “seditious,” not only would they lose the deposit, the newspaper would also be closed, its editors would be sentenced to 23 months of hard labour and the newspaper typeface would be confiscated (p. 100-101).

The Origins of India’s toxic fascination with Organized Sport

I always found the game of cricket and its numerous rules to be too complicated. Tharoor points out that India’s fascination with cricket originated as an attempt to access British power and recognition by mastering this mysterious and (then) expensive foreign game (p. 245). I can confirm this this was indeed the case of many early Indian cricketers. For example Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who came from a genuinely religious family (he is related to Muslim “fundamentalist” Sayyid Maududi) initially fell for the trappings of cricket. His family responded by ostracizing him for wearing pants for the game, which they referred to as kafir kurti. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan later emerged as a major British apologist among Indian Muslims, and was used by them for nurturing Muslim nationalism, which would play an important role in the upcoming Partition project.

Today cricket has grown into a national religion in the subcontinent. And it serves more as an instrument of division and hatred rather than a fun past-time. One can see the anger dating back to the Partition re-emerge in matches between India and Pakistan. Another malady created by this sport is that professional cricketers, having little ability or intellect beyond hitting or catching a ball, are elevated to the status of incorruptible national icons. Whereas they, along with the manufactured Bollywood “superstars” serve to endorse any product/campaign/idea which pays for their lavish lifestyle. In some cases these cricket “superstars” have been found to be rigging matches after being bribed by “bookies” connected to the Criminal Underworld.

The Hindu-Muslim Divide as a ploy against Mahatma Gandhi

When the British started to define “communities” based on religious identity and attach political representation to them, many Indians stopped accepting the diversity of their own thoughts and began to ask themselves in which of the boxes they belonged.

Alex von Tunzelmann, 143.

When the British would rewrite Indian history, they divided Indian history into “periods” based on the religion of the ruler of that period (p. 131), even though no  ruler of India ever wielded total power and influence over all parts and corners of India. Later on, Hindu and Muslim nationalists would lay claim to their respective “periods” of history as a rationale for advancing the notion of religious nation states. The scholar Gyanendra Pandey argues that present-day religious communalism in the Subcontinent originated as a colonial construct, and that the British hardened communal identities (p. 133).

When the Freedom Movement gained momentum and the British had to agree to give the people of the Subcontinent some form of representative government, they created separate electorates for Muslims of India, where they could only vote for Muslim candidates (p. 142). Despite this, the pluralist Congress Party stormed the 1937 elections, even winning 25 of the 59 seats reserved for Muslims (p. 149). But in 1939, the unelected British Viceroy would declare British India’s entry into World War II, and the Congress would resign their ministries in protest (p. 150). In the absence of the Congress, the war-supporting Muslim League would be supplanted by the British, and soon it would be elevated as the sole representative of all Muslims of British India, even though the Muslims of the Subcontinent had never assented to its role as such. However, theatrics were employed to cement the status of Jinnah. For example, in November 1939, Jinnah was allowed to broadcast a special message to Muslims on their Eid festival (153). When the Muslim League undertook mob violence in Calcutta on 16th August 1946 (Direct Action Day), the British stood by (p. 164).

Tharoor believes that the resignation of Congress ministries in 1939, as well as the Congress undertaking the Quit India Movement paved the way for the Muslim League and the Partition (p.157). While this may be true in hindsight, the actions of the Congress resulted in an early departure of the British, who could not risk mass unrest during the war. My theory is that the British  intended to leave India at least ten years later, maybe 1957. Had the Congress not done what it did, this would likely have been a reality, a reality far more grim than the Partition of 1947. Because the British would no longer be preoccupied with the war, and by then they would have moved hundreds of variable factors in their favour to further divide and sub-divide the Indian Subcontinent. For example, princely states which had been taken over by the Illuminati would never be ceded to India. And there was even the possibility of a second Partition (a Sikh homeland). When the British did leave in 1947, things did not go according to plan, and they were nervous that even the Partition would be stalled. They were deliberately slow in demobilising British servicemen from the Royal Indian Air Force because they needed air power to bomb out any potential threat to their Partition plan, should the need arise (it never did). Their delay prompted a peaceful mutiny among the British servicemen.

Tharoor is also critical (p. 287) of Gandhi’s idea of Indian villages becoming a network of self-sufficient, sovereign republics, even capable of defending themselves. To quote Gandhi,

Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without.[1]M. K. Gandhi, The Completed Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi: Publications Division 1958) Vol. 85 page 32. Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World – A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004) 121.

Gandhi’s idea of satyagraha which played a critical role in the Great Brexit of 1947 would also be deemed ridiculous, were it left on paper and never enacted. On the other hand, Gandhi could never ordain his idea of village republics because he was denied the opportunity to do so because of his assassination by the Powers That Be.

Interestingly, Gandhi’s assassin read out a screed in court (most likely penned by Savarkar though), in which he whined that while Gandhi’s ideas were indeed lofty, they could not be manipulated, appropriated and bastardized by more opportunistic leaders. Only Gandhi seemed to have the formula to make them work. He was clearly echoing the concerns of The Powers That Be. To quote Nathuram Godse,

If the country wanted his [Gandhi’s] leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on in his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no half-way house; either the Congress had to surrender its will to his, and had to be content with playing the second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; nobody else knew the technique of that movement; he alone knew when to begin it and when to withdraw it.[2]Tushar A. Gandhi, ‘Let’s Kill Gandhi’ (New Delhi: Rupa & Co. 2009) 723.

In other words, the Powers That Be were worried that they could never appropriate and take control of Gandhi’s ideology, once it established itself. And Gandhi was stubbornly going ahead with his vision, even if it meant breaking away with the Congress. To quote Gandhi,

Would there be State power in an ideal society or would such a society be Stateless? I think the question is futile. If we continue to work towards the building of such a society, to some extent it is bounded to be realized and to that extent people will benefit by it. Euclid has defined a straight line as having no breadth, but no one has yet succeeded in drawing such a line and no one ever will. Still we can progress in geometry only by postulating such a line. This is true of every ideal.

We might remember though that a Stateless Society does not exist anywhere in the world. If such a society is possible it can be established first only in India. For attempts have been made in India towards bringing about such a society. We have not so far shown that supreme heroism. The only way is for those who believe in it to set the example. [3]M. K. Gandhi, The Completed Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi: Publications Division 1958) Vol. 85 page 266-7. Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World – A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004) 116.

And now Gandhi was surging ahead to accomplish what had never been accomplished in contemporary human history.The desperation of the Illuminati to stop him is palpable.

And now Gandhi was surging ahead to accomplish what had never been accomplished in contemporary human history. Unlike Western forms of government created by the Illuminati, where Power is concentrated on the very top and in an urban capital city, and which keeps growing more centralized with time, Gandhi was attempting the opposite. Once upon a time, Indian villages saw themselves as sovereign republics, and acted like ones. Now the entire nation was to discard the hierarchical organization being left behind by the British in favor of the self-governance structures that characterized the Golden Age of medieval India. The desperation of the Illuminati to stop him is palpable.

The British Colonial Holocaust

Bodies of starvation victims littered on the streets during the Bengal Famine of 1943. Note vultures on the rooftops. Winston Churchill was the architect of this one.

While systematic depopulation through deliberately organized famines is what one would expect from Stalin’s Russia (Update: the British did it in Ireland and called it a Potato Blight), there is emerging evidence that such artificially induced famines also took place in British India. Up to 35 million Indians perished in them (p. 177). No more famines have taken place since the British left (p. 177). There were several deliberate, yet indirect ways in which the British induced famines.

  • Doing nothing to reduce food prices (p. 179).
  • Not using Railways to transport food to afflicted areas (p. 186).
  • Exporting much needed grains to other parts of the world when famines were raging (p. 179).
  • Refusal to provide charitable help to the afflicted, and instead requesting them to work in labor camps for a pittance (p. 181, 183).
  • Discouraging locals to support the afflicted by charity (p. 181)
  • Threatening and reprimanding British officials who tried to help the afflicted (p. 183).
  • Newspaper censorship on any news pertaining to famines taking place (p. 184).
  • Opposing charitable  fundraising in Britain (p. 184).
  • Turning down offers of food aid from Canada and the United States (p. 188).
  • Diverting Australian wheat to military storage depots in Europe (p. 188).

Following the abolition of slavery, up to 3.5 million Indians were resettled as indentured laborers in frontiers and outposts of the British Empire (p. 192). Given the poverty in rural India, many did not have a choice.

The Railways Debacle

The development of railways in British India was an elaborate scam.

The British needed railways for transporting raw material from the Indian heartland to their port cities, where they would be shipped to the mills of England. Since the British Indian Government was paying for the railways (read: the Indian taxpayer), the British guaranteed a 5 percent return on expenditure to the private British companies contracted, resulting in them charging up to 8 times more per mile than what American Railway Companies charged (p. 209). Only 1 percent of the railway material originated in India (p. 209). In contrast much needed irrigation infrastructure received only 1/9th the government funding that railways did (p. 214).  Once the railways were operational, freight tariffs were kept the lowest in the world (p. 210) to facilitate the movement of raw materials and British goods. Therefore the biggest source of revenue was not freight but the transport of Indian people, who were herded into third-class compartments, which are still referred to as “cattle class” in India today. The staff of the railways were exclusively European, right down to the ticket collector (p. 211). The Railways later played a controversial role in the Partition, transporting entire populations to new nation states. But maybe this was why the British emphasized railways (which they could always control) rather than developing India’s much needed road infrastructure.

The British Education System

British India’s total expenditure on education was less than half that of New York State alone

While the British fervently disrupted traditional forms of learning such as those of monasteries, madrasas and patshalas,  the British education that they substituted focused on rote learning and regurgitation, as opposed to analytic capability, independent thinking and creativity (p. 223). In 1930, British India’s total expenditure on education was less than half that of New York State alone (p. 226). When the British would leave, India had a literacy rate of 16 percent only (p. 215). Scientific accomplishments were rare under British rule (p. 235).

My Extrapolation

British India did benefit Britain. In 1600, Britain commanded 1.8 percent of the world’s GDP. But by 1940, they accounted for 10 percent (p. 254). While India regressed, British per capita GDP between 1757 and 1900 increased by 347 percent (p. 254). This makes the colonization of India appear like a project involving one nation becoming a parasite on another nation. While this is true to some extent, it is also a simplistic and misleading interpretation.

Establishment historians will never tell us that the Britain of 1600 was already a conquered and colonized nation. Except that it was not conquered and colonized by another nation, but by a small group of Illuminati bankers and merchants. And while the identities of these colonizers were more or less secret, the British people succumbed and accepted, without making much noise or resistance. The biggest proof of this colonization and conquest by a small cabal is the obnoxious British class system, where peerage plays a very important role, and where “Lords” even have a separate house in Parliament, so that they don’t have to mingle with the “Commons.” Nowhere else in Western Europe are such class distinctions accepted and upheld by the public than in Britain. Recently, these Lords have been dubbed Paedo-Lords by the rest of the world. Yet they still retain their privileges. Another feature of colonized people is that they are taxed into oblivion, and this is so true of British society, where the joke is that if you took a leak in a public toilet in the city of London, you already paid for it in advance through some indirect tax.

I propose that up till 1857, the colonization of India, while being an Illuminati operation at the highest level, still allowed for ordinary Britons to help themselves to the riches of India. And as such, many decided to live in India, and even adopted Indian language and customs. But after 1857, it was decided that ordinary Britons were to be curtailed from directly enjoying the fruits of colonization. This does not mean they didn’t. It means that their role was to be minimal, and would be gradually reduced, until the day the British left India (which was also decided following 1857). The evidence? Permanent Settlement of Britons was highly discouraged, even though the British had the means to transform India into another Australia or South Africa. Neither did they create islands of British settlers, which would later become little Israels all over India. Britons who voluntarily settled and half-British Indians were actually mortified when the British government started handing over power to the Congress, leaving them to fend for themselves. If the British people, rather than their Illuminati overlords were in charge of the colonization project, they would probably focus on maintaining long term connections to India. But the Brexit of 1947 was such abrupt that the British now need visas to visit India.

But Why?

The Illuminati had already made inroads into the native Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populations of India long before the first Englishman set foot.And the colonization of India was a smokescreen for maneuvering such Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs into position.

The Illuminati had already made inroads into the native Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populations of India long before the first Englishman set foot. And the colonization of India was a smokescreen for maneuvering such Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs into position, to take the helm of a new India, while at the same time, ensuring the complete obliteration of people, power structures and families associated with Mughal India. In other words, Illuminati operatives from within the local population offered a far promising deal to the Powers That Be than the greedy and demanding ordinary British carpetbaggers. And again, supplanting opportunistic Britons in India was a logistical challenge considering the size of the local population. The Indian people were less primitive than the aborigines of Australia, the Africans of south Africa and the Aboriginal tribes of Canada, which meant domination would always be uneasy.

Tharoor mentions the Code of Gentoo Laws imposed by the British, which cemented caste divisions among Hindus and officially made Brahmins a super-caste. According to the Code of Gentoo Laws, the eleven Brahmins who worked on it are as follows:

  1. Ram Gopaul Neeayalunkar
  2. Beereefhur Punchanun
  3. Kifhen Juin Neeayalunkar
  4. Baneemur Beedyalunkar
  5. Kerpa Ram Terk Siedhaut
  6. Kifhen Chund Sareb Bhoom
  7. Goree Kunt Terk Siedhaut
  8. Kifhen Keifub Terkalungkar
  9. Seeta Ram Bhet
  10. Kalee Sunker Beedyabagees
  11. Sham Sunder Neeay Siedhaut

A cursory inquiry into these names revealed that one of them (I won’t reveal which one until I have irrefutable evidence) is actually linked to the Tagore family of Bengal. To quote,

The Tagore family had long been at the forefront of India’s encounter with modernity, and with England. The poet’s grandfather, Dwarkanath, was one of Calcutta’s richest men, thanks to his connections with the East India Company and his investments in banking and mining. On a visit to England in 1842, Dwarkanath was presented to Queen Victoria and met celebrities like the Duke of Wellington and Dickens, who joked about how hard it was to pronounce his name: “I have spelt it backwards, but it makes no less tremendous nonsense that way.”

The article does not mention that Dwarkanath Tagore initially made his fortune as an accomplice in British opium cultivation in Bengal. When the Chinese protested against British dumping opium into China, Dwarkanath Tagore’s Company was used as a front to do so instead of the East India Company.

The British in India were never more than 0.05 percent of the total population. Maybe because British India was exclusively an Illuminati project.

Tharoor also tells us that the British in India were never more than 0.05 percent of the total population. In my opinion, this was because ordinary Britons were only employed as soldiers, technicians and administrators, only when necessary. They were not to be involved with the top secret project of maneuvering compromised Indians into position for the new India that was being created. This was an exclusively Illuminati project, and as such, we find Illuminati families of Britain sending their children for stints in India, usually in very important positions. Regular everyday Britons could not be trusted for such projects.

Miles Mathis, has been digging up figures associated with British peerage involved in modern-day Intelligence projects and conspiracies. And while reading his papers, it has become the norm to expect these figures (or their forefathers) to have done stints in British India, as if British India was a very important Illuminati project. Take this passage from a paper submitted to the Miles Mathis website,

[Patrick Terrell Vivian, a former vice-chief of MI6] Vivian (1886–1969) supposedly started his career as a superintendent in the Indian Imperial Police and became “an assistant director of central intelligence” in India. Orwell (1903–1950) worked for the Indian Imperial Police too, as an assistant district superintendent, in the same period.

Thats a reference to George Orwell, whose gloomy writings introduced us to a future New World Order. Maybe that was also a project, and maybe he was trying to subliminally prep us for what was coming. In his research, Miles Mathis keeps on stumbling on the Stanleys, the Kings of the Isle of Man, whom he has come to believe as the rulers of Britain.

So how many Stanleys do we find in British India?

So how many Stanleys do we find in British India?

Tharoor inadvertently gives us one. An Arthur Stanley compiled a collection of patriotic British poetry, which was meant to be studied under “English Literature” by Indian students (p. 229). He was a British Churchman who married Lady Augusta Bruce, sister of Lord Elgin, then Governor-General of India.

I will give you three more, as well as a modern-day Stanley who seems to be connected to the Subcontinent. Eerily, the Stanleys are on the forefront of modern-day historical research on the Subcontinent.

Stanley College: Was founded by the Protestant Methodist Church of India in the princely state of Hyderabad. It was named after a Stanley. Maybe Lieutenant Colonel Sir George Frederick Stanley. It was to be a female-only college in the heart of Hyderabad city, in line with the Illuminati program to introduce Feminism to India, and to Muslim women. It still remains a female-only college

Stanley Lane-Poole: A British historian who specialized in Muslim societies of India and the Middle East. He is also the author of a little known book, Aurangzeb and the decay of the Mughal Empire, which continues the narrative of establishment historians that the Mughal Empire came to an end because of Aurangzeb, and not because of an organised and concerted Illuminati conspiracy. However, his narrative is considered the most sympathetic of his time. When I would later read a translation of an original Persian manuscript on the Mughals, I came to the conclusion that Stanley Lane-Poole had plagiarised borrowed a lot of information from it, without giving it due credit. In particular his section on the geography of the Konkan and its importance to the Marathas. The strange fact is that this manuscript[4]Khafi Khan, History of Alamgir: Being an English translation of the relevant portions of Muntakhab al-Lubab with notes and introduction Trans. S. Moinul Haq (Karachi. Pakistan Historical Society. 1975) was translated into English in 1975, whereas Stanley Lane-Poole’s book was published in 1901. To have used this manuscript, Stanley Lane-Poole would have

  1. Had to have access to a rare Mughal-era document while never setting foot in India. He worked in the British Museum, so this could be possible.
  2. Had to have knowledge of Mughal-era Persian, or would have access to a secret translation.

Now why would a “Stanley” be so closely scrutinizing a King of India? Because the “Stanleys” were filling his shoes.

Stanley Wolpert: A modern historian of India and Pakistan. Wikipedia tells us that he was born to Russian-Jewish parents. His Ph.D dissertation was on Indian independence leaders Tilak and Gokhale, both of whom are Chitpavani brahmins (who in turn are of Jewish origin). Wolpert is better known as an apologetic of Jinnah, saying in a book “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three.” It is unlikely that anyone in British India could succeed in doing any one of these three unless it was part of the Illuminati program.

Now lets get some more Stanleys from Wikipedia

Edward Henry Stanley: 15th Earl of Derby:  First Secretary of State for British India. Prior to that, he was President of the Board of Control, which oversaw the British East India Company and he generally served as the chief official in London responsible for Indian affairs.

Eli Stanley Jones: A very well known Christian missionary in British India, who is considered the “Billy Graham” of India.

Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby: Secretary of State for the British Colonies.

Lieutenant Colonel Sir George Frederick Stanley: Served as the Governor of Madras from 1929 to 1934 and as Acting Viceroy of India in 1934.

Venetia Stanley: Wife of Edwin Samuel Montagu, British Jew who served as Secretary of State for India between 1917 and 1922.

Edward Montagu Cavendish Stanley, Lord Stanley: Served as Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma 1937–1938.

Sir Stanley Ismay: British civil servant and judge in British India, where he spent most of his career in the Central Provinces, acting as Chief Commissioner in 1906. After resigning from the civil service, he was a member of the Imperial Legislative Council 1905–1908, and Chief Judge of the Chief Court of Mysore from 1908 to 1912.

Sir Francis Stanley Jackson: Served as Governor of Bengal (1927–1932). Was also a famous cricketer.

Oliver Frederick George Stanley: Participant in the first two of the three Round Table Conferences of 1930–32 in India. These were a series of conferences organized by the British Government to discuss the future of India.

John Stanley Melville Keay: A modern-day journalist who covers India.

Major General Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart: a British military engineer noted for his command of the 79th Armoured Division during World War II. Hobart was born in Nainital, British India to Robert T. Hobart (of the Indian Civil Service), and Janetta (née Stanley).

Peter Stanley: Australian academic who is author of a book on the military history of British India.

Sir Herbert Stanley Reed: The longest serving Editor of The Times of India from 1907 until 1924. This newspaper served to disseminate British propaganda and disinformation. Some say things haven’t changed.

Stanley Kochanek: He was (1934-2010) the American Institute of Indian Studies Trustee from Pennsylvania State University for twenty years and made important scholarly contributions to the study of politics in India and South Asia. With Robert Hardgrave, he authored the influential text on Indian politics, India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation which is now in its eighth edition. He later extended his research to publish books on the state and business groups in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

John Francis Stanley Russell, 2nd Earl Russell: Elder brother of the Establishment philosopher Bertrand Russell, Francis was Under-Secretary of State for India in Ramsay MacDonald’s government from 1929 to 1931 and went on to become Secretary of State for India.

Major General Stanley Woodburn Kirby…or what a Stanley operating in British India looks like.

Major General Stanley Woodburn Kirby: He was a British army officer who served in both World Wars. From October 1937 until 1943, Kirby served at General Headquarters, India, first as Assistant Master-General of Ordnance, then as Deputy Master-General of Ordnance. He was Director of Staff Duties from 1 October 1941 and became Deputy Chief of the General Staff, India, in 1942.

Henry Wilberforce Clarke: Grandson of William Stanley Clarke, Director (1815–1842) and Chairman (1835–1836) of the East India Company, as an officer in the British India Corps Bengal Engineers. He was also  translator of Persian works by mystic poets Saadi, Hafez, Nizami and Suhrawardi.

Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan: He was a captain in the British Indian Army who was convicted of treason, after spying for Japan during the Malayan campaign of World War II. Heenan was reportedly killed by his wardens while in custody, but it is more likely that his death was faked, because he was going to be sentenced to death. Why would he spy for Japan? Since he was a cabal operative, it is likely that he was privy to the fact that until America would be involved, the British would lose anyway. So maybe he was trying to build trust with the Japanese, so that he could later feed them with disinformation.

Charles John Stanley Gough: He was a senior British Indian Army officer and a recipient of the Victoria Cross. He was born in Bengal. He later achieved the rank of general. He was involved in the brutal suppression of the 1857 Rebellion.

Even your measuring tape is made and patented by a Stanley.

And that was just what I found among 460 of the 9046 results pulled up by Wikipedia for Stanley+India. Documenting all the Stanleys in British India would probably need another website. And again, most of them use Stanley as a middle name, often omitting it, which makes them even more difficult to find. And apart from the Stanleys, there were hundreds of crypto-Jewish families of lesser rank, operating concurrently in India (and perhaps taking orders from the Stanleys). None of this has ever been investigated or documented. At Cabal Times, we are on the cutting edge.

As Miles Mathis demonstrates, the Stanleys can be found crawling over all places the Anglo-Saxon people set foot in, like some kind of secret royalty. They are prominent in special ops and projects in America. Most of us have used a Stanley Tape Measure, which is now made by Stanley Black & Decker Inc. Even in the children’s movie franchise Cars, the founder of the fictional town of Radiator Springs is a certain “Stanley.” Apparently, this is an inside joke, which the Criminal Elite sometimes make in their projects. They do have a sense of humor. It is understood that children won’t get it. But neither will the adults.

The Founder of the town of Radiator Springs is a Stanley, immortalized in a statue in front of the Town Hall. The kids won’t notice. But neither do us.

1 M. K. Gandhi, The Completed Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi: Publications Division 1958) Vol. 85 page 32. Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World – A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004) 121.
2 Tushar A. Gandhi, ‘Let’s Kill Gandhi’ (New Delhi: Rupa & Co. 2009) 723.
3 M. K. Gandhi, The Completed Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi: Publications Division 1958) Vol. 85 page 266-7. Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World – A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004) 116.
4 Khafi Khan, History of Alamgir: Being an English translation of the relevant portions of Muntakhab al-Lubab with notes and introduction Trans. S. Moinul Haq (Karachi. Pakistan Historical Society. 1975

1 Response

  1. John WatwoodNo Gravatar says:

    Excellent article. I need to get the book. England was just the next phase in the Western Empire. Now the US is the main arm of the West.

At Cabal Times, we welcome open, uncensored discussion. Please do contribute....