Bharat Rakshak

eklavya wrote:

Atri wrote:
Atri ji,

Please take a look at brihaspati's posts where he openly accuses me of batting for British interests, etc etc etc. I merely mentioned that non-INC governments also had the opportunity to release the documents held on Bose, but decided not to. This led to a direct accusation of "how low can you sink to defend British masters"?

To oppose brihaspati on any subject involving the British is to become a "boot licker" and loyal to the "British master".

Did you read his ridiculous rantings about why India is not fully free, and how I am the key to understanding how my "class" collaborates with the British.

Now brihaspati is suggesting that Nehru and Gandhi were collaborators of the British in the partition of India etc etc

Are you saying that brihaspati should be free to label all and sundry as "British boot lickers" and accuse Gandhi and Nehru of being collaborators, but we should draw the boundary of civilised debate at calling anyone "worse than a paki"?

I stand by statement.

Yes, I am surprised as well. Lets hope the debate becomes more civil in coming posts.

Regarding inc check this post by vilayat.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1025770

We cannot get all knowledge by means of pratyaksha pramana or shabda pramana alone, eklavya ji. Anumaana (inference) and upamaana (comparison) are needed to be applied as well.

There is clear pattern in behavior of INC which makes one infer about the kids glove treatment that tjey recieved.

Lalmohan wrote:i find it amazing that people still assume that britain is as powerful as it once was and can dictate what happens in New Delhi

viv wrote:A kids glove treatment of Congress - moderate opposition vs the revolutionaries - can be easily discerned. And expected. A ruler will try to manage the dissension. That however does not make every moderate a knowing collaborator and one who planned to keep his/her people at a disadvantage. That is neither anumana nor upamana, but kalpana.

viv wrote:In your experiment let other bacteria and virus in and then let us see what happens. India was not a sealed and totally controlled environment .

Atri wrote:Viv ji, just to clarify myself again, this is the main point - Collaboration need not mean active scheming sitting in same room full of smart men with evil laughter. I would call the relation between me and my engineered bacteria as a "collaboration". it helps me achieve somethings in return of me guaranteeing it virulent reproduction and life and resources.

At various points, the relationship between various proxies and brits were similar. In other words, A win-win situation. Only thing is, brits coming here and flight of capital from India along with her monopoly over trade-routes (land based and sea based) was an outright Lose-Win situation. Only solution which is acceptable here to reverse that scenario is a win-lose solution in favor of India. Now those who preferred a win-win situation when the basic frame of reference is clearly against favor of Indians (Hindus, to be precise), are akin to the engineered bacteria.

The capital and the control over global trade routes which was taken away from India (and hindus) must return to India (and hindus). Once this has happened, any win-win solution is acceptable. MKG, JLN and the dynasty have tried to implement the win-win without this prerequisite (this is the best case scenario) OR have furthered the lose-win solution (this is the worst case scenario) without this primary reversal of frame of reference. Hence they functioned as collaborators (engineered bacteria) with brits even if their intentions were honorable (MKG for most of his life had genuinely honest intentions in heart, IMO, though he failed to appraise the changing situation after 1939). I must admit that I do not share similar opinion about JLN.

And this chain continues even today. You see, everyone who speaks of a win-win solution without reversal of frame-of-reference (return of Indian [hindu] capital and restoration of Indian control and access over sea-routes and land routes of trade in CAR and IOR and reestablishment of Indic socio-politico-economic worldview to rule India {swa-tantra}), is an engineered bacteria OR a collaborator; honest though his intentions might be. The frame-reversal will only happen in a win-lose scenario.

Britain wants more Muslim, Hindu spies
RASHMEE ROSHAN LALL, TNN Nov 26, 2007, 09.05pm IST

LONDON: They are not quite the prototype of Ian Fleming's Martini-drinking, Aston Martin-tooling, macho English playboy secret agent James Bond, but Britain's desperately-seeking, mainly-white foreign and domestic intelligence services have launched an unusual publicity drive to recruit Muslim and Hindu agents by allowing a few of the existing handful to speak out about their lives.

In a rare bid to open up its work to the world's curious gaze, MI5 allowed one agent calling herself 'Jayshree' and another with the assumed name 'Shahzad' to talk about their work.


The recorded interviews, conducted at MI5's headquarters in the British capital, are the first in the organisation's nearly-100-year history. In the process, 'Jayshree' and 'Shahzad' are seen to have become walking "sandwich boards" for the British secret services as they try and interest younger members of the two-million strong Asian community in a life a la 007.

The interviews wax eloquent about second-generation immigrants' burning desire to give back to the host country by going underground and ferreting out potentially-explosive information on sleeper terrorist cells and other threats.

Just hours after the interviews were broadcast on the BBC's Asia Network radio station, whose heavy diet of Bollywood songs and sub-continental news is targeted at Asians, sections of the community admitted it was an eye-catching initiative by the security services.

MI5's current haul of black and ethnic minority staff stands at 6.5 per cent and the new publicity drive is seen as more than just another shard of political correctness. The intelligence services have long admitted their need for agents who belong to immigrant communities in order to identify potential threats to the UK.

But MI5's decision to showcase at least one agent bearing a Hindu moniker is seen to be part of its attempt to reassure British Muslims they are not the only targets of the enhanced drive to infiltrate immigrant communities.

Both 'Jayshree' and 'Shahzad' affirmed that their MI5 work was not about targeting specific religious or racial communities but about tracking individuals who might mean harm to their host country.

Agent 'Jayshree', who analyses intelligence from domestic and overseas sources, described her double life as an exercise in discretion. She said, "When out with friends or relations I tend to be quite vague about my work - I don't want the unnecessary attention". But as a good Asian girl, she admitted her parents were in on the secret but had never been "as excited or interested" as she thought they would be.

MI5, whose chief Jonathan Evans recently declared that at least 2,000 potential terrorists were on the run in the UK, plans to increase its 3,000-strong workforce to 4,000 by 2011. It wants a significant proportion of them to be Hindu, Muslim and Sikh, thus raising the possibility of Agents Amar, Akbar and Anmol Singh increasingly becoming a reality.

Ashis Ray, TNN Mar 7, 2011, 06.05am IST

LONDON: Britain has been turning a blind eye to Pakistan's ISI's activities including a virulent targeting of India for the fear of losing its counter-terrorism cooperation on British soil, a source said. "Please, could I ask you to re-direct your enquiry to the home office,'' a British foreign office spokesperson said, while the home office did not respond to TOI's queries on ISI's activities in the UK.

ISI's operations in Britain are among the most comprehensive outside Pakistan and draw heavily from the support of a million strong Pakistani community in the UK. There are at least three ISI agents posted at London's Pakistani High Commission as diplomats with the British government's knowledge . There are likely to be more at consulates in Birmingham and other places.

A Whitehall source said MI5 and MI6 — the UK's internal and external intelligence gathering agencies — are even aware of Lashkar-e-Taiba activities in the country. The British government has designated the LeT as a terrorist organisation and banned it. Britain's counter-terrorism officials are aware that the LeT receives assistance and protection from the ISI. Yet, the British authorities continue to soft-pedal on the ISI.

A recent interview of a Pakistani-descent taxi driver, Mohammed Adris, to the Derby Evening Telegraph was a typical example of ISI's tactics. Adris poured out his heart out about the alleged ill-treatment of Kashmiris. He said this was not first hand knowledge, but gathered from Pakistani newspapers and friends. "The Indian army has ruined people's lives in Kashmir. They kill young people,'' Adris told the newspaper. "It's not a Muslim country. There is no freedom for Muslims there. My friends' families don't know whether, when they go to the mosque to pray, they will be killed because the army thinks they are terrorists.''

Adris was among a group of Pakistanis, who organised an ISI-encouraged conference in Derby for British MPs and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to highlight the alleged plight of Kashmir last month. It was also aimed at persuading Pakistani Kashmiris to get involved in British politics. Derby in central England has a large Pakistani population.

The Telegraph reported that an English-origin councillor came back from the meeting with the impression that they felt a "very oppressed people'' .

brihaspati wrote:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... sh-mps-mi5
UK keeps eyes shut as ISI uses turf to hit India

Ashis Ray, TNN Mar 7, 2011, 06.05am IST

LONDON: Britain has been turning a blind eye to Pakistan's ISI's activities including a virulent targeting of India for the fear of losing its counter-terrorism cooperation on British soil, a source said. "Please, could I ask you to re-direct your enquiry to the home office,'' a British foreign office spokesperson said, while the home office did not respond to TOI's queries on ISI's activities in the UK.

ISI's operations in Britain are among the most comprehensive outside Pakistan and draw heavily from the support of a million strong Pakistani community in the UK. There are at least three ISI agents posted at London's Pakistani High Commission as diplomats with the British government's knowledge . There are likely to be more at consulates in Birmingham and other places.

A Whitehall source said MI5 and MI6 — the UK's internal and external intelligence gathering agencies — are even aware of Lashkar-e-Taiba activities in the country. The British government has designated the LeT as a terrorist organisation and banned it. Britain's counter-terrorism officials are aware that the LeT receives assistance and protection from the ISI. Yet, the British authorities continue to soft-pedal on the ISI.

A recent interview of a Pakistani-descent taxi driver, Mohammed Adris, to the Derby Evening Telegraph was a typical example of ISI's tactics. Adris poured out his heart out about the alleged ill-treatment of Kashmiris. He said this was not first hand knowledge, but gathered from Pakistani newspapers and friends. "The Indian army has ruined people's lives in Kashmir. They kill young people,'' Adris told the newspaper. "It's not a Muslim country. There is no freedom for Muslims there. My friends' families don't know whether, when they go to the mosque to pray, they will be killed because the army thinks they are terrorists.''

Adris was among a group of Pakistanis, who organised an ISI-encouraged conference in Derby for British MPs and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to highlight the alleged plight of Kashmir last month. It was also aimed at persuading Pakistani Kashmiris to get involved in British politics. Derby in central England has a large Pakistani population.

The Telegraph reported that an English-origin councillor came back from the meeting with the impression that they felt a "very oppressed people'' .

Neela wrote: In diplomatic circles, Britain and India are not on good terms and have not been for quite some time now.

Only a deluded fool will doubt Britain's hostile attitude!

viv wrote:Atri-ji, If you read my first post you will note that there is a reference to the interaction between the ruled and the ruler. And later that it was not an closed environment nor were the ruled one entity. And even the moderate entity had specific desires towards which it worked relentlessly. Therefore none was a collaborator.

viv wrote:ICS or the Rajas like from Tranvacore or Hyderabad who till the end opposed a union of India.

Lalmohan wrote:its easier to blame the british for 400% of our ills (instead of 200%) and not take responsibility for that which is caused by ourselves

shyam wrote:

viv wrote:ICS or the Rajas like from Tranvacore or Hyderabad who till the end opposed a union of India.

Correct the information you have. It was not the Raja, but Diwan (British rep) Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer who was opposed to merger with India. When independence was not possible, he argued that he was ready to join Pakistan. In the end Sir CP was hacked and ran away to Delhi.

Atri wrote:

viv wrote:In your experiment let other bacteria and virus in and then let us see what happens. India was not a sealed and totally controlled environment .

Exactly, Viv ji... You further my point.. The system ought to open up. It is not.

India is a vast country. While it is true that it is not possible to engineer an opposition in controlled environment for long, this is where the failure of proxies, as vilayat said, comes into picture..

It was Tilak and most notable MKG who brought in swarm of Indics into the political struggle of INC which was basically a socialite club of Bombay and Calcutta based anglicized elite. MKG threw open the game and raised the stake. While he did so, even he did not (and could not) cover entire India. The India which was mobilized by MKG was hardly 25%. rest were (and many still are) unconcerned about the gathering storm.

When the system became too unpredictable, the Indic men of action started gathering around MKG (please read the post cited above, it is really a well thought out post) which were removed systematically to give the keys to JLN. JLN did not do anything to mobilize the factions outside the controlled environment of Congress Working Committee.

This is the selection marker that I am talking about (the amp resistance gene). If it were in my hands, I would have thrown open the system for all indics (the real and rooted ones) to contaminate and outlive the engineered germs cultivated and nurtured by the brits.

I do not think that this has happened as yet. we still are not an open system as yet. It is the continuation of JLN proxy which calls shots on state-machinery. and many people hold this dynasty proxy by their balls. The recent release of two italian mariners is only a latest example of what is being said. I really do not think that this was a mistake by our system to let these guys go and that this has nothing to do with the chopper scam. Although it is too early and I am curious to see what steps the vyavastha takes.

East India Company: The Original Too-Big-to-Fail Firm

By Nick Robins Mar 12, 2013 3:48 PM GMT

For an institution that has been defunct for almost 150 years, the East India Company still evokes powerful reactions across the world.

Last year, when the Indian government debated allowing foreign companies to open supermarkets there, protesters shouted: “This is the return of the East India Company!” In the U.K., the East India Company’s extraordinary rise and fall have uncanny parallels with the stock-market bubbles and government bailouts that have shaken the economy over the past decade.

And little wonder: At the heart of the company’s story are eternal questions about how to cope with the powers and perils of large multinational corporations.

Established by royal charter in 1600 with a monopoly on all trade with Asia, the East India Company had many incarnations in its almost 275-year run.

For the first half of its existence, it remained a commercial supplicant, exporting bullion to pay for Asia’s luxury goods: first spices, then textiles and tea. Along the way, it became an early model for today’s joint-stock corporation and pioneered new management techniques for long- distance supply chains.

It also created a series of lifestyle revolutions in 18th- century England. Daniel Defoe described in 1708 how the company’s calicoes, shipped from India, “crept into our houses, our closets, our bedchambers.” This calico boom prompted fierce resistance from Britain’s weavers, who felt threatened by a flood of cheap Asian imports. In 1720, the government responded with a ban on Indian calicoes, and it was behind this protectionist wall that the Industrial Revolution would take shape.

Asian Intrusions

One market may have closed, but the East India Company refocused its efforts on the growing demand for Chinese tea on both sides of the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, at the company’s headquarters on Leadenhall Street in London, annual general meetings had become the arena for fearsome battles between management and shareholders and between rival management cliques.

These boardroom fights intensified following the Battle of Plassey in June 1757, when the company used a combination of force and fraud to place a puppet on the throne of Bengal. The company then loaded the contents of the Bengal treasury onto a fleet of 100 boats and sent them downriver to its base in Calcutta.

In one stroke, Robert Clive, who had engineered the victory, netted 2.5 million pounds for the company and 234,000 pounds for himself. (Today, this would be equivalent to a 262 million-pound corporate windfall and a cool 25 million-pound success fee for Clive.) The flow of wealth from Europe to Asia would now be reversed, and the East India Company’s shares soared on London’s markets.

After the boom, however, came the bust. When drought struck Bengal in 1769, the company raised taxes and refused to intervene; contemporaries estimated that as many as 10 million people died in the resulting famine. Back in London, the East India Company’s shares slumped in response to the conflict in South India. This provoked a wider credit crisis, forcing the company’s directors to beg the government for a bailout in the summer of 1772. {In 15 years, they squandered away lots of money} The East India Company’s centrality to Britain’s commercial and imperial ambitions meant that it was the original “too big to fail” corporation.

Tea Party

The British government tried to ensure that the East India Company would recover sufficiently to pay back its debts. One of the company’s assets was an immense amount of unsold tea. Instead of just importing the tea to Britain and then letting wholesalers ship it across the Atlantic, the company was granted the right to export the tea itself to Britain’s American colonies.

The arrival of this controversial corporation inflamed a flagging protest against Britain’s taxes on tea. The result was the Boston Tea Party of December 1773. Here, Chinese tea bought with Bengali money by a British corporation was dumped in the sea by American patriots dressed as “Indians.” This was globalization 18th-century style.

The East India Company’s fall from grace provided a compelling case study for Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations.” Smith argued that the impositions placed on European colonies, and the practices of monopoly corporations, had prevented the Age of Discovery from resulting in a generalized spread of commercial benefits. By the time he published the book’s third edition, Smith was even more convinced of “the Absurdity and hurtfulness of almost all our chartered companies.” And he added a new critique of the joint-stock model of ownership: “Negligence and profusion must always prevail, more or less, in the management of such a company,” he concluded.

The revenue that tea provided enabled the East India Company to eventually recover. But this glamorous trade rested on a deadly secret: By the early 19th century, growth in the tea business was paid for by the mass smuggling of opium from the company’s Indian territories into China. And in India, the company had switched its attention from commerce to conquest, using its private army to take over the bulk of the subcontinent.
An Anachronism

In Britain, free-trade advocates inspired by Smith had won the removal of the company’s monopoly on trade with India in 1813 and with China in 1833. Increasingly an anachronism, the East India Company continued as the administrator of its conquests in India until its sepoys rebelled in 1857.

John Stuart Mill, the company’s leading executive, defended his employer against ferocious attack in Parliament, but he couldn’t stop the inevitable. The company was stripped of its operational responsibilities, and the British Raj began.

If you go to the site of East India House today, you’ll find no plaque outside to mark that this was where the world’s most powerful corporation once dominated both trade and territories. With the global economy now reorienting toward Asia, understanding the East India Company’s extraordinary journey may be more important than ever if we want to understand the shocks that are still to come.

(Nick Robins is the author of “The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational.” The opinions expressed are his own.)

sanjaykumar wrote:Christian ethics may be excused. the British did bring railways to India. Too bad they did not help Japan....

Lord Nazir Ahmed, 55, who became one of the first Muslim peers in the UK after former Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed him in 1998, has said that his prison sentence was a result of pressure applied on the court by Jews “who own newspapers and television channels,” the Times said on Thursday.He also claimed that the judge in the 2008 case was appointed to his position after he helped a “Jewish colleague” of Blair during an important case. According to Ahmed, Justice Wilkie was hand-picked to carry out the sentencing because no other judge was willing to handle his case.He also alleged that Jewish-owned media organizations pressured the courts to charge him with a more serious offense.Ahmed maintained that the plot to stemmed from Jewish disapproval of his support for the Palestinians in Gaza. The Times said he repeated his comments during a television interview in Pakistan, which was said to have been broadcast last April.“My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians. My Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels opposed this,” he allegedly said in the interview.Ahmed deed he ever gave the interview. The Times said it has sent his lawyer a copy of the transcript.A spokesman for the Labour Party said that they would launch an investigation to look at the disgraced peer’s comments.

vinod wrote:East India Company: The Original Too-Big-to-Fail Firm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 ... -firm.html

East India Company: The Original Too-Big-to-Fail Firm
In one stroke, Robert Clive, who had engineered the victory, netted 2.5 million pounds for the company and 234,000 pounds for himself. (Today, this would be equivalent to a 262 million-pound corporate windfall and a cool 25 million-pound success fee for Clive.) The flow of wealth from Europe to Asia would now be reversed, and the East India Company’s shares soared on London’s markets.

sanjaykumar wrote:Christian ethics may be excused. the British did bring railways to India. Too bad they did not help Japan....

1857: First Indian Revolution, called the Sepoy Mutiny, ends in a few months with the fall of Delhi and Lucknow. 1858: India has 200 miles of railroad track. By 1869 5,000 miles of steel track have been completed by British railroad companies. In 1900, total track is 25,000 miles, and by World War I, 35,000 miles. By 1970, at 62,136 miles, it has become the world's greatest train system. Unfortunately, this development depletes India's forest lands.

1860: S.S. Truro and S.S. Belvedere dock in Durban, S. Africa, carrying first indentured servants (from Madras and Calcutta) to work sugar plantations. With contracts of five years and up, thousands emigrate over next 51 years.

1876: British Queen Victoria (1819-1901), head of Church of England, is proclaimed Empress of India (1876-1901).

1879: The "Leonidas," first emigrant ship to Fiji, adds 498 Indian indentured laborers to the nearly 340,000 already working in other British Empire colonies.

1900: India's tea exports to Britain reach 137 million pounds.

1906: Dutch Christians overtake Bali after Puputan massacres in which Hindu Balinese royal families are murdered.

1913: New law prohibits Indian immigration to S. Africa, primarily in answer to white colonists' alarm at competition of Indian merchants and expired labor contracts.

1917: Last Hindu Indian indentured laborers are brought to British Christian colonies of Fiji and Trinidad.

1918: Spanish Influenza epidemic kills 12.5 million in India, 21.6 million worldwide.

1919: Brigadier Dyer orders Gurkha troops to shoot unarmed demonstrators in Amritsar, killing 379. Massacre convinces Gandhi that India must demand full independence from oppressive British Christian rule.

RamaY wrote:
These numbers are incorrect.

UK's GDP in 1757 was 74.5 million pounds. The EIC loot of Bharat (2.5 mil) is equal to 3.36% of UK GDP. In 2012 this is worth ~57 Billion pounds and Robert Clive's share is 5.7 Billion pounds.


This is how people are misguided.