British Colonial experiences 

However when speaking about the British rule in India, I need to be very clear about what I am speaking. The fact is, as I have mentioned earlier, there were two quite different and mutually opposite stages of British rule in ‘India’. The first was the rule by the commercial company named East India Company. The English persons who worked for this company had no intellectual limitations to understanding what they saw and about the ways and manners they took to correct the negativities of the place. 

One of the very confusing scenes they saw was the rather utter callousness that the feudal landlord classes showed to their subordinate classes. They treated their lowest level servants and serfs as abominable animals. There was no specific understanding that these were human beings like themselves. The English individuals were quite amazed at the way the lower classes were simply made to face the brunt of the brutal seasons and the coldness of the nights.

{Actually if one were to live in a place like Delhi, one can actually see a huge mass of population living in hastily made shelters with no protection from the terrific coldness of the winter months. It is freezing cold. People can die. But no one really bothers about them. In the hot seasons, they literally boil. But who cares? The political leaders and the officialdom are busy preparing a chart of atrocities they claim the British did on the native population here. They have no eyes for what is right there in front of them. They claim information about what happened some two to three hundred years back! Their actual preoccupation amidst this truculent endeavour is to get their children somehow into England, or any other English nation. The current Delhi CM admitted that in Delhi that a poor family of husband, wife and children can subsist for Rs. 600/- per month. I remember the ruckus that took place in Australia when in a TV talk show someone parodied on her name}. 

What amazed the early English pioneers in India was the worshipful affection that the serfs returned to those who very clearly were brutalising them. In fact the more brutally they were treated, the more was the respect they showed to their tormenting social seniors. 

[SEE the looks of the 'Indian' feudal lord of 1800s and the looks of the ordinary people of this geographical area: There is no contention that the zamindar was a bad man and the suppressed persons were better. In most probablity, it might be the reverse also in terms of refinement. Yet, who was there to do the refinement training?]

The officials of the East India Company had least of ‘respect’ for the ‘Indian’ feudal lords, who were good only for maintaining a suppressed social environment. They were not capable of creating a good system of law and order or anything worthy of copying. However, there were people among them who did collaborate with the Indian feudal lords and rajas. Yet, as a general policy, it was the considered opinion of the senior officials of the East India Company that the ‘Indian’ feudal lords and rajas were good for nothing other than to use suppressive words and usages to their subordinate classes. 

May be this was the reason that they as a policy slowly removed the Indian rajas one by one from power. These things are mentioned by modern Indian historians as examples of British imperial policy. However, these incidences had nothing to do with the British Crown. Moreover, if these actions were imperial actions, then what about the deeds of Nehru and his henchmen in Travancore, Kashmir and many other places, including the forcible occupation of tribal forest areas which really enjoyed their territorial rights till the Indian forest officials went inside and more or less laid hands on their women folk? Also on Goa and other places where only a minority of residents supported the joining with India, and liked to continue their French citizenship. 

However whatever repulsion they felt for the ‘Indian’ upper classes, the English officials, and their family members couldn’t see these lower classes as their equals. For, there was no sense in proclaiming any level of equality with a section of people who were traditionally preoccupied with self-degradation. What these people wanted was a personality appreciation. However one should not forget the fact that the English individuals were not here for any social service but squarely to earn a living or a fortune. They came as employees of a trading firm. The only improvement that could come upon the suppressed people of this geographical area was from the egalitarian codes in English and necessarily through the expressed desires of the English persons to improve the lot of the natives here. 

Apart from this there are various issues that come up for the first time in their lifetime. In England, speaking to a poor man or to rich man does not affect the words such as You, He, His, Him, She, Her, Hers, Them etc. However over here in ‘India’, each of these words can play havoc if one were to mingle without taking cognizance of what each of the indicant levels mean. A person who is placed on the lower levels by the local society being on ‘equal’ terms with an English native can only pull down the latter to a level beneath to that of the superiors in the society. These are things unknown and unheard of in England. 

A pertinent point may be that of Saab and Memsaab. When the East India Company had its army, there was not much problems. For, it was a very considered opinion that the local language Hindi was of poor quality. Moreover, the army was basically running on English, even though the lower section, the ordinary native soldiers were at home in their native vernaculars. As the chance for a local man to rise up to the higher ranks, now comparable with the Commissioned ranks, was literally nil, there was not much possibility of a superior officer communicating with the lower soldier in any feudal vernacular. 

However, when the Crown took over and allowed the recruitment of local natives as superior officers, there was actually a breach in the fortress. Among the superior officers came a group who could address the ordinary ‘Indian’ soldier with a despoiling lower indicant word. Now, this despoiled ‘Indian’ had to be kept in his place. As for the ‘Indian’ officer, he could mentally suppress the ordinary soldier by means of lower indicant words. Which would continuously inform him of his ‘s*it’ level stature. However, the English officers were without an effective tool to deal with a soldier who was made a s*it by his own native-land officer. They had to protect themselves from arriving at a level of equality with the ordinary soldier by some other means. This could be one of the reasons that they secured themselves also behind the screen of ‘Saabs’ and their ‘Memsaabs’. They couldn’t allow the ordinary soldier to use the same terms that the ordinary soldier in England could use to their officers. For, here communication codes were a mess with an array of indicant words that despoils the ordinary soldier, who in turn can plaster his own negativity on to the English officers and their family members if they do not keep a safe distance. 

There was a person from my college who became a senior officer of the Indian army. Many years ago, when he was just a Second Lieutenant, he used to narrate how he used to terrorise the ordinary soldiers and even give them a physical whack if he felt that there was some level of inefficiency. Actually the impression that he gave was that he wanted to assure himself of his seniority above the soldiers who were much above him in age. He did mention that the officer class kept the ‘Johnnies’ at six feet distance from them. So as to emphasise the mental distaste they had for them. SEE THIS

Now, what was the improvement that the Englishmen could impart on to the natives here, as they themselves were quite in an insecure mood with regard to the social negativity? 

What ‘Indian’ culture of tolerance really meant

Now, there is this thing one has to understand about the feudal vernacular speaking ‘Indian’ society. If one wants to join it, there are basically two levels one can choose from. One is to join it in the interiors. In which case, one is subordinated in indicant word codes to so many others and one gets to dominate many others by indicant word codes. The other pose is to join it on the superior levels. In which case, one gets to dominate the vast majority of the population by means of inflicting the lower indicant word codes on them. A dynamic level of equality is then achieved with the higher or superior class. If this level can be achieved, then one has a lot of liberty. One can profess any religion and any philosophy. One can even propagate these things which are not there in the social set up. All one has to see is that the essential feudal structure is not tampered with, and one should not strive to create a new system of hierarchy in which the positions of the layers are changed.   

The fact is that many persons, philosophies and religious ideas have made use of this stratagem to establish itself inside this geographical area. However it is a stance that does not bring in any improvement to the suppressed classes as a whole, other than to change the persons. Some will go up and some will go down. The social structure remains the same.

Now, this historical phenomenon is generally mistaken as an ambience of toleration in this geographical area. Modern Indian historians try to connect this mistaken theme of toleration as a heritage of current-day India. It is actually an utter nonsensical idea. For, for one thing the modern nation of India is just a modern nation, and has no claims on the various historical incidences here than say the kingdom of Calicut or the Mogul kingdom can claim all these things as part of their heritage. It is true that people in far off Trivandrum do claim the antiquity of places just next to River Indus. Such is the amount of foolish indoctrination that they have been given. Second thing is that actually as seen from the arguments above, the signs of so many religions and philosophies existing here is not sign of tolerance, but of a cunning use of the feudal language structure of the society.

A curious personal experience on Religious Tolerance

I had a very curious personal experience of spiritual communication. It was a man known locally as Brother Venu. He had been a Hindu. I am told that he took up praying to God, and to Jesus Christ. Later it was known that he could communicate to ‘God’ and give answer to various personal issues of persons who came to him. I myself had the very uncanny experience of him more or less hinting on my love for English propagation, my theories and my writings. Beyond that at times what he hinted came very close to my own writings in Codes of Reality. He was not an educated man, that is my impression of him from a temporal perspective. However his sermons which he gave during the pray time on Fridays were quite impressive in its wide profundity.

The experience that a person got from him was that he was closing his eyes when querying for an answer and would come out with an answer which purportedly came from God. In many ways, it was similar to the ways of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad. Yet, his ideas of faith were not totally Christian, for all other gods including that of Hindus were also present in his words and talk. In many ways, it was quite uncanny for the very precise manner in which he was extracting out intimate information. Like a software being used to probe inside the human mind and inside the very software of reality, and seek not only the present and the past, but also the future.

I met this person many years ago, when he was more or less in a very feeble habitation. However, over the years, he had built a prayer hall, with un-plastered walls. He also had a very formidable following. However, the local church authorities forbade their congregation members from going to his prayer meetings. For, it was quite obvious that he stood outside their command route. In that he was dealing directly with God.

Even though he admitted that there some persons of good social standing among his followers, it was clear that the vast majority were the poor. The poor are really the fodder that maintains much other social leadership. I was a bit apprehensive as to what would happen when so many poor people shifted to his side. Suddenly one day, his place was besieged by the local communist party members. They shooed off the worshippers. The local police came and the case came to the High Court of Kerala. It decreed that the local police should give adequate protection to the place of worship.

Now, a few days back, that is around four years after that incident, when I went to this place, it was again deserted. On enquiry, I was informed that this time a huge crowd of Hindu activists had converged on the place and created a bedlam. They accused him of indulging in religious conversion. The police personnel also seem to have been compromised for they ordered him to close down the place. His son was bullied from a nearby town where he had gone for his studies, which a few persons cornering him and nudging him under his chin.

Now, this is actually a sample of the religious tolerance that is actually there in the nation. One may wonder why such belligerent stances become part of spiritual dispositions. However, the fact is that these things do not have anything to do with spiritual themes, but are connected to the tension that rises when leadership which hold command over poor people feel that the people kept under their thumb are escaping from their clutches.

I understand that no news media was willing to report this incident.

INSERT IMAGES OF BROTHER VENU’S PRAYER HALL and BROTHER VENU’S PICTURE