World Wide Mind Management. Are we far from being Pavlov’s Dog?
People of Bharatavarsa (India) an Example. Supplementing Version
World Wide Mind Management
We are what we know. This is valid since ages. We observe, we make experience and we listen to fellow persons. Thus we gain knowledge. With the growth of horizon we become dependent to listening to tales told by fellow persons seemingly having other observations and experiences. We readily accept a story if it is consistent, if it does not create a feeling of unease in our mind, if it doesn’t contradict to our so far gathered experiences and to our knowledge stored in our memory. We save it as an addition, and we increase our knowledge a little. We are inclined to accept stories from the far afar innocently; even if an inner assessment is due; assuming that our memories are functioning well. We just don’t have the time to look out for “sublime” contradictions. We are accustomed to this process. Mostly, we don’t care about who the narrator is, how he got the story, how he earns his living, who finances his living, what are the interests of that financier, who are harmed by the story, who are gained and so forth. This is how our mind is managed in the society.
The Mind-Management of humankind has never been as comprehensive as it is today. The Might, Media and Manipulation industrial complex is being disguised in our days as “digital revolution”, “social networks”, “search machines”, “Wikipedia”, aided by technological gadgets like “Desktop”, “Laptop”, “Tablet” and “Smart phone”. People are kept permanently busy exchanging “views” and searching for “facts”. Which views? Which facts? Does it matter? Is it not all right as long as people like to chat? Is it not so amusing, so entertaining? What would be the benefit taking time to contemplate, to reflect, to think, to rethink over being busy and amused by chats, trivial news, information and facts?
When did organised manipulation begin? Is manipulation of mind is inherent to human societies? Is it just the nature of mankind to manipulate others to establishing power? Are there differences in the quality of manipulation? Could the differences be categorised? How does manipulation correlate with education? Many questions like these could be raised. And raising questions increases the scope of busyness in “research”. Reports on “research”, just add to the variety of media products to feed people with fresh news, information, facts. Raising questions alone may not lead to anywhere. So, why not chat and chat and be amused and be happy? Then there are games also.
There is a flood of news and “information”? This flood is not only the creation of the yellow press or of chat rooms or of video games. Search machines and online references are the main creating actors. “Google” and “Wikipedia” are exemplary. The “I-Phone-culture”, i.e. mobile phone culture! And it is available free of cost! Just free amusements and entertainments. Free of cost? How and why do they provide free of cost? What do they really supply free of cost? Why should anybody supply anything without costs? Does it really happen? Does it correspond to the experiences in other spheres in the society? Did it ever happen providing anything free of cost?
In actuality the flood of news and “information” is not free of cost. One must spend good money for the prerequisite gadget, the “hardware”: “Desktop”, “Laptop”, “Tablet” or “Smart phone”. The producers of these gadgets make high profits. Yet we are almost made to believe in benevolence, in compassion, in charity, in “philanthropy”. “Google” and “Wikipedia” culture makes it possible. More on the “I-Phone-culture”, i.e. mobile phone culture in a while.
What do “Google” and “Wikipedia” really supply free of cost in the “I-Phone- culture”? Here is a proof of the pudding in a specific context. Whoever comes across “India” would be, sooner or later, confronted by the ancient cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa. The ancient heredity of Bharatavarsa has been preserved in many walks of social life in the “Republic of India”.
The ancient heredity of Bharatavarsa lives in oral and in written modes: in the Vedas, in the Upanishads, in the Puranas and in the two Epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Affluent citizens of the “Republic of India” alike the visitors of the Republic are generally ignorant about the ancient heredity of Bharatavarsa. They are confronted seeing living social customs that they do not understand. They are equipped with one of the gadgets to gathering “information”. They make use of it. Here is the proof of the pudding.
Persons who would ever come across the word “Vedas” will use their “I phone” or “Tablet” or Laptop or Desktop and consult one of the search machines, preferably “Google”. Under the item “Vedas” one will meet “Wikipedia”. Wikipedia claims to be a free online encyclopaedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
For the users there is no time to check the claims of the “Wikipedia”. What should be wrong with “a free online encyclopaedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world”? Moreover, it is “hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation”. Are not “foundations” non-profit charitable institutions? Is there any reason to be sceptical? In a while more on this issue. The free online encyclopaedia informs:
‘The Vedas (/ˈveɪdəz, ˈviː-/; Sanskrit: वेद véda, "knowledge") are a large body of texts originating in the ancient Indian subcontinent. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeya, which means "not of a man, superhuman" and "impersonal, authorless".’
Everything appears to be serious and guided by sound scholarship and knowledge. Is it so? Once the recipients of this communication would raise a simple question - how does “Wikipedia” come to know all this about? - the whole panorama will change. The contributors of these lines have gained their “knowledge” from the following publications:
It is a self-telling story. Apart from the fact that “the references” are rather not exactly cited, all references are based on recent secondary sources. What are “recent secondary sources”? Recent secondary sources are writings by authors reproducing their personal understanding and interpretation of historical documents and of primary sources. It presupposes that the authors of “recent secondary sources” have personally viewed, studied and reviewed those historical documents and of primary sources.
None of the recent authors creating “recent secondary sources” have personally viewed, studied and reviewed those historical documents and of primary sources which they interpret. This fact is revealed simply by the fact that the recent secondary sources are based upon a generation older secondary sources, and none of the “creators” of recent secondary sources have cared to check the validity of the personal understanding and interpretation of historical documents and of primary sources of the producers of “a generation older secondary sources”. This is the sad truth. Any consumer of recent secondary sources can ascertain this truth by careful reading.
None of the authors have ever cared to check the validity of their secondary sources before using them for their publications. None of the authors ever cared to reveal the criteria of their selecting the secondary sources. None of the authors reveal whether the selection was made after considering the totality of the secondary sources and whether in critical review of validity was carried out. The selections are absolutely arbitrary. It obviously does not matter whether the selected sources carry facts.
It is taken for granted that whatever is printed carries facts. Otherwise they would not be printed.
This is the culture of “modern” scholarship that has developed since the 18th century. Just find published printed matters that serve the immediate purpose, propagate and use them as ultimate facts. These “scholarly” users of secondary sources are blind believers. So it seems. Or they are even worse.
It is just not acceptable that in our days there are persons who know nothing of printed propagandas. It is just not acceptable that these persons do not know the purposes of publications. It is just not acceptable that these persons did never hear about Mind-Management and Money-Making. Authors of this kind are guided only by the sellable quality of their writings. Authors of this kind are not out to get to the truths. Authors of this kind are “intellectual prostitutes”. More on “intellectual prostitutes” and on Wikipedia in a little while.
Presently we are back to the authors writing on the Vedas recently. None of these authors creating the Wikipedia-reference on Bharatavarsa (India) know anything about the Vedas. The Vedas are books of knowledge written in the Vedic language. These authors do not know anything about the ancient Vedic language because their academic teachers did not know and because their academic teachers did not know and because their academic teachers did not know and because their academic teachers did not know. Thus the first generation of academic teachers is identified who came to know anything about languages in ancient Bharatavarsa.
The first generation of academicians had to depend on “reports” (tales) by the primitive European-Christian Ruffians looting there since the 16th century on behalf of Christian Kingdoms in the name of the Christian God. The discovery of the language called Sanskrit was to come after the primitive European-Christian Ruffians had settled down and being engaged in exploiting the land and the people.
Vasco da Gama (1460 –1524) landed in Calicut on 20 May 1498 as the Portuguese pioneer Robber founding the Portuguese “stronghold” in Bharatavarsa. Filippo Sassetti (1540–1588) born in Florence, an academically trained mercenary of the Portuguese Kingdom, was the first European Christian being intrigued noticing recitations in an unknown no more spoken language on the occasions of social events.
Filippo Sassetti reached the Malabar Coast in 1583. He wrote thirty-two detailed letters communicating his observances. In two letters in 1585 he referred to this language. He reported about a learned community learning the language in many years like the Latin and Greek languages were learnt in European educational institutions. He did not mention the name of this ancient language. His letters were to be published in centuries to come.
Roberto de Nobili (1577 - 1656), an “Italian” Jesuit emissary of the Vatican and a mercenary of the Portuguese Kingdom had to take notice of ancient literatures compiled in an unknown language that was named Língua Guirindina by the Jesuit missionaries. Later in his missionary life he gradually came to know that “Lingua Guirindina” was in actuality the language called Sanskrit. He committed a lot of mischief till his death. The story of Roberto de Nobili and the stories of all celebrated “Indologists” are documented vividly in LIES WITH LONG LEGS (2004):
Heinrich Roth (“1620 - 1668“), a German born Jesuit missionary, reached Goa in “1652“, sent as emissary to the Mogul court of Agra around “1660“, where he got opportunity to learn a language called Sanskrit for more than six years. So it is said. He had compiled a grammar-book for Sanskrit in Latin that was discovered in the Vatican archive and first published as facsimile in Leiden, Netherlands, in 1988. The Indologists today confirm that the grammar by Heinrich Roth was the best in comparison with all others. No wonder! He had prepared a slim translation of the all-time perfect grammar for the Sanskrit language compiled by Panini. Heinrich Roth did not mention the Vedic language.
The prosperity of the Portuguese “Empire”, was based on War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation and Exploitation. This prosperity aroused desires and greed of other European Christian Kingdoms. These kingdoms added two additional vices: Piracy and Wars on European soil. ”Companies” were set up to mobilize maximum resources for robberies, occupations and exploitations.
In England the “East India Company” (1600), in the Netherlands the “Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie“ (1602), in France the “Compagnie Française des Indes Orientales“ (1664) were founded to mask the invaders as traders. They sailed out with war materials and ruffians only; sailing back with booties and slaves. They were never traders as they didn’t carry goods to trading with. Spain and Portugal lost their dominance and Portugal lost power and possession in Bharatavarsa.
These European Christians were not guided and blessed by the Vatican. They were accompanied by church functionaries. They killed European Christians on European soil and in Bharatavarsa indiscriminately. The Britons ultimately won the inhuman race in 1757 building up “strongholds” in Bengal. Till 1757 these primitive horde of ruffians did not know about anything ancient in Bharatavarsa. The ruffians were in general in their teens when recruited. Some of these combating ruffians were promoted to administering “writers”. During this process many academically trained persons viewed an opportunity to earn a fortune participating in the process of exploitation of occupied foreign lands. The British “Pope of Indology”, Sir William Jones (1746 – 1794), is an exemplary case. Before his arrival arrived at Calcutta in 1783 he knew nothing about a language called Sanskrit.
William Jones was raised by his poor but ambitious mother Mary Nix-Jones. His father William Jones died when he was three years old. Mary Nix-Jones tailored and stitched to earn a meagre lively hood for her two kids. Mary Nix was the youngest daughter of a furniture maker, George Nix, the main competitor of Chippendale, who, however, was never to know fame. Mary Nix felt the full impact of her father’s frustration of not being able to climb the “Chippendale peak", though it had been all the time so near. Mary Nix-Jones was determined to give her son William a better start. In spite of her poverty she managed to admit her son in the “Grammar School” in Harrow. He did well. Ambitions had become his nature.
After completing the “Grammar School” William Jones took up literature in Oxford although his mother and the well-wishers wanted him to study law. By a stroke of luck, he got an offer to become the private tutor of the seven-year-old Viscount George John Althorp, the son of Earl John Spencer. He was then just eighteen years old. In November 1768 he got his ‘A. B. degree' from Oxford. He was then twenty-two years old. He claimed to have command over quite a few oriental languages and earned the flattering name “Oriental Jones”. Living in the household of the Spencers he had established contacts to social networks.
William Jones took another two years to comprehend that the fame to be “Oriental Jones” alone would not pave the way to a lucrative career. He ultimately left the tutorship to take up the study of law in the Middle Temple on September 19, 1770. His mother congratulated him. Now the road upward to high political offices via a barrister-ship was in sight.
William Jones became a registered barrister in 1774. In spite of his many network contacts, established during his stay with the Spencers, a high political office for him was not in sight. In the spring of 1778 the news reached London that one of the judges of the Supreme Court in Calcutta, Stephen Caesar LeMaistre, had expired. On May 24, 1778 William Jones wrote a long letter to Lady Spencer that reveals vividly the degree of British nepotism and corruption and his character as well (highlighted by us):
“... Your Ladyship has, perhaps, heard that there is a great probability of my being thought worthy of a seat on the bench of Judges in India. My predilection for the East and my desire to unite Persian and Law make me eager for the appointment; but I must confess that a salary of £6000 a year to commence from the day of my embarkation and of which I know from the best authority that I need not spend more than two thousand, has contributed not a little to my eagerness; for, although my professional gains are very handsome and are continually increasing, I must be twenty years in England before I can save as much as in India I might easily lay by five or six; and on my return (if it pleased God to permit it) I might still be a young man with £30 000 in my pocket, so that I might proceed at the bar or in parliament with ease to myself and perhaps with advantage for others. The Chancellor has declared that he means to recommend me to the King as Mr. LeMaistre’s successor; Lord Mansfield’s kindness I may depend upon; and Lord North (who never gives wrong hopes) has talked to me both at his own house and at his levee in a manner, which sufficiently indicates his favourable intentions: with such a triumvirate I can hardly fail; but many things may intervene; and, as no ships will sail to Bengal till late in the autumn, they may keep me in suspense for the whole summer, unless my friends exert their interest to have the matter decided as soon as possible. For this purpose Sir Grey Cooper’s good offices may be very useful to me; I believe that he has the honour of being well acquainted with Your Ladyship; and if, on your recommendation, he would give me leave to call upon him in Parliament Street, which I cannot do without his permission, I might possibly be able to interest him in my favour. – I am fully persuaded, that, if your Ladyship has the power, you will not want the inclination to assist on this occasion, Madam, Your Ladyship’s much obliged and ever faithful servant W. Jones.”
Ultimately William Jones got that appointment in 1783 under many undignified ordeals. Deeply frustrated he was already on the passage to Virginia, “USA” hoping to make better there. Howsoever! He was knighted a few days before his departure from England in 1783 to ascribe him importance. He then married his long-adored Anna Maria Shipley, a woman approximately his age, on April 8, 1783. He was thirty-seven. The disgraceful story of William Jones and the undignified stories of all celebrated “Indologists” are documented vividly in LIES WITH LONG LEGS (2004):
On the “Crocodile” he was virtually a “prisoner” for five long months together with Lady Anna Maria. Though newly wedded, they were in their late thirties and just not meant for a long “honeymoon.” So he had plenty of time to revert to “Oriental Jones” and to let his missionary fantasy fly. He designed a mammoth programme as his contribution to the history of mankind before his arrival in Calcutta. The fact that he announced many a brainchild, his would-be “discoveries”, even before his arrival in Calcutta is mind blowing. Yet, no one till date has expressed any disbelief.
In the pecking order of the four judges in the Supreme Court William Jones was the last. But he knew how to command respect within the “honourable colonial society”. Demonstrate your superior knowledge. It was not in vain that Mary Nix-Jones had drilled her son from his earliest childhood always to place himself in the middle of events.
William Jones succeeded in convincing the European Christian posterity that he knew – believe it or not – 32 languages of the world. He was not even able to pronounce or write “Sanskrit” in 1784, though by then all higher ranked ruffians maintained their own local mercenaries called “Pandits” as “reference” and as guides in matters cultural. The “Godfathers” of Indology and/or of Linguistic are yet to look into the actual process of communication and of understanding that took place between these two intellectually primitive groups, the occupants and the hired Pandits. The ruffians had no knowledge of local languages and their mercenaries having no knowledge of the language of their masters.
This neglect of the “scholars” to look into this process may not be just “accidental”. The stories spread on and around this process are bizarre. The documented facts are not flattering. They tell a different story. Whatsoever.
William Jones called all “honourable colonial servants” to a meeting in Calcutta on January 15, 13 persons in all, and set up a “scholarly society” (without scholars) called “Asiatick Society of Bengal” (without a single Asian in that society). This was the beginning of the Christianisation of the cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa. The “Asiatick Society of Bengal” became the first factory for forging history. This was the beginning of systematic Mind-Management.
William Jones delivered at the beginning of the year programme-based speeches on Asia in the anniversaries of the “Asiatick Society”. All non-Asians were summoned to listen to his “discourses”. These were printed in Calcutta and marketed shaping the minds of “orient”-enthusiasts in Europe. He added the “Journal” The Asiatick Researches, printed by the Company owned press in Calcutta. All non-Asians within his reach were put under pressure to write on their own impressions in the field. These non-Asians were “colonial butchers” having no training to observe, to reflect, to think, to rethink and to write. William Jones then “edited” those “writings”. The Asiatick Researches was marketed for the “scholars” at home. Thus the factory for forging history, the “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, was extended to a factory for brainwashing. The King of Britannia and the East India Company approved and financed this first factory for systematic forging history and for systematic mind manipulations.
William Jones was allowed full bent of his sellable sick fantasies. The metaphor “in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king” doesn’t fit here. It is more like “a blind guide for a blind”! The depth in “intellectuality” of the “Oriental Jones” is best described in his letter to Warren Hastings (1732 – 1818) on October 23, 1786: “...since Mr. Wilkins determined on returning to Europe, I found myself without a guide in Sanskrit literature, and have therefore been under a necessity of learning Sanskrit myself. Since it will be my last language, I am learning it more grammatically and accurately than the indolence of childhood and the impatience of youth allowed me (interesting admission for a person claiming knowledge of 32 languages!) to learn any other.”
It demands tremendous fantasy to visualise those faces of the readers in Christian Europe eagerly consuming “re-searches” of William Jones. The “leading heads” of this undertaking - the East India Company and the Crown of Britain - assessed not only the monetary benefit realistically. The sustaining foreign occupation and rule over Bharatavarsa needed more than being content with just scattering fragrance flags like carnivores.
The call was how to rob the “identity” of the suppressed people by a revaluation of their cultural achievements by any means. The revaluation is, of course, preceded by humiliation, violence, assault and rape, deprivation of rights, contempt and destruction of the prevailing culture and “rewards” for the whole range of mercenaries and of collaborators. The procedure had always been as crude as this and remains the same under whatever cover it might be put. Today’s cover is named “cultural imperialism”, so as to play down its subhuman approach of the “blond-blue-eyed-white-Christian culture”, in simple words meaning: after killing, looting and occupation, the enforcement of own values. It is needed to take a little break here.
The call is in general how to rob the handed down “identity” of the suppressed people. How to neutralise humiliation, violence, assault rape, deprivation of rights and so on of the suppressed people without dismantling the suppression itself? The strategy has always been: Divide and Rule. It is primitively simple. Divide a part from the lowest strata of the occupied people and recruit them as “slaves”, the lowest category of mercenaries. Factually they “extended hands” of the occupants to accomplish the dirty job on payment, of course on differentiated payments. Thus they become materially better placed as slaves than they were before. The first batch was called “native soldiers”. They were bought and fired at ease. They did not possess bargaining power. Slaves become slaves for the lack of other facilities of living. They were hated by the rest of the suppressed people. The fronts were clearly defined. This had worked on the mind of the suppressed population.
The strategy of Divide and Rule had a second leg. “Mercenaries” were needed to establish domination by sheer force. The defeated and humiliated people were to be controlled (administered) to avoid revolts. Qualified manpower had to be recruited and trained. At the lower end clerks ranging up to subordinate “administrators. More and more mercenaries were needed to sustaining the domination by setting up a network to collect news, information and facts, and to sending out “information” to gain influence. An infrastructure was to be established for a flow of “information” in both directions. This flow of information enabled the new rulers to interfere in the inner battlefield of power-interests-holders amongst the suppressed people. Sometime taking sides, sometime disguised as “mediator”, a kind of an “appeasement” strategy. Though these new “mercenaries” could be hired and fired at will, the new rulers had to find substitutes. As a consequence the absolute power of foreign rulers had to be shared with a part of the mercenaries. By its nature no dependency is absolute.
The strategy of Divide and Rule had another leg. A new market was created for “collaborators” to offering their services to the new rulers. This was a market for “prostitutes” displaying the range and the quality to servicing the new rulers. This was the hour of “intellectual prostitutes” offering means and scopes of mind-management promoting “acclimatisation” towards foreign rule. The term of “collaborators” in this context is inadequate. We do not find a better term than “intellectual prostitutes”. We have borrowed this term till we find a more accurate one to describe this genus of individuals called, rather flatteringly, collaborators.
The term “intellectual prostitutes” has been created in the wonder that is the globally prevalent white-blond-blue eyed-Christian culture. John Swinton, the doyen of the New York press corps, probably in 1880, upon his retirement, made the following speech at the Dinner celebrating his retirement:
“There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting of an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
It is not handed down how those dinner guests reacted. It was, no doubt, an individual confession reflecting on “the business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon”. But does it not reflect the business of the “scholars” as well? This episode, “The Man Who Came to Dinner”, is worth of thorough reflection.
The term “prostitute” is associated in our days with a minority of people, who sell their body, voluntarily or under economic compulsion, for maintenance. This minority is socially loathed, also thanks to the “intellectual” class. Why the term has been reduced to “selling body for sex-activities to earn money”. In Latin original there is no association to sex-activities. The term literally means: to put up for sell frontally. The vast majority of us do it, have to do it to earn our living.
What do we sell? Do we sell us for survival only? Do we do it to get and accumulate as much money as possible? Do we do it indiscriminately? Are we conscious of a category called scruples? Why the “prostitutes” of our days are so despised by the bourgeois “intellectual prostitutes”? Do they not fall in the same category? The prostitutes generally don’t have anything else than offering their body in the market to survive physically.
The “Intellectual prostitutes” are highly “educated” persons who sell their body and soul out of greed and lust. They are prostitutes and pimps at the same time in the sense of “The Man Who Came to Dinner”, who did not speak on prostitutes in general, but on “intellectual prostitutes”. His speech came late, but it came. And it is an exception. “Intellectual prostitutes” do not possess time for self-reflection or they are in love with their white-lies. In all times “intellectual prostitutes” operate at all levels of mind-management. At the bottom are the “teachers”, of the “elite” universities inclusive. At the top are the “advisors” and the so-called “Think-Tanks”. Intellectual prostitutes serve all who can pay. The institutions of their operation assume the role of the brothels. The financiers assume the role of real rulers. At all level and in all categories there is their own pecking order.
After this little aside we get back to the ancient languages in Bharatavarsa. William Jones felt badly the need of a Sanskrit-English Dictionary immediately after his arrival in Calcutta. A dictionary is by definition a collection of words with meanings, etymologies and phonetics. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary means to find out English synonymous for words in the Sanskrit language. Nothing more. It is significant to note that he did not identify the need of a Grammar. He did not want to learn the language. He looked out for a short-cut to the contents transported by the language called Sanskrit.
In the whole setup of the Britons he could identify only one “writer”, Charles Wilkins (1749 (?) - 1836), who eventually could compile the dictionary for him. Charles Wilkins had been living in Kolkata since 1770 and had picked up the local language Bengali and was promoted to run two printing facilities within the British “administration”.
Charles Wilkins began to compile a dictionary on Sir William’s “request” in 1785 with the aid of his “Pandits”. A problematic method. Charles Wilkins could have learnt Sanskrit letters, even could have known to pronounce the letters and words as well. But he definitely couldn’t understand the meaning of the words without the help of his “Pandits”. Who were those “Pandits”? Did they know English? Where should they have learnt English”? Did they know the Sanskrit language? How could Charles Wilkins judge whether the “Pandits” really knew the Sanskrit language? Questions after questions. No answers.
Assuming that the recruited “Pandits” by the foreign invaders knew the Sanskrit language and that they had somehow acquired a workable knowledge of English for daily communications, how should they be able to translate sentences of Sanskrit texts into a language foreign to them and then transmit (pass on) the translated text? How were the “Pandits” to be sure, to verify that the receiver had really understood the real meaning? It goes without saying that any such verification would have been as inaccurate as the initial transmission itself. Assuming that there was no hitch in communications: what about the grasping capacity of the intellect, the brain at the receiving end – the decisive factor in any process communication?
William Jones or Charles Wilkins could not have known that there had not been a Sanskrit dictionary. Neither the Vedic nor the Sanskrit language needs a dictionary to understand the meaning of the ancient texts. Instead there were comprehensive grammar books. The main syllables carry basic meanings. In translation the syllables could be called “roots”. The meaning of these syllables changes according to the formation of words. Words are formed around these syllables. Without profound knowledge of the meaning of the individual syllables, their positions and their diverse combinations, strictly according to rules, the meaning of the words cannot be understood. Then the meaning of the words reveals itself only in the context of the sentence, the meaning of the sentence in the context of the paragraph and the sense of the paragraph in connection with the treatise as a whole.
It has not been questioned whether those “Pandits” on the pay list of the foreign occupants, the mercenaries, knew that compiling a Sanskrit–English dictionary would not help to comprehend the meaning of the ancient texts. There is considerable doubt. These “Pandits” might have been able to teach the Devanagari alphabets, reading words and simple texts written in the Sanskrit script and to explain in “broken” English the meaning of individual words in a sentence according to their own understanding. These “Pandits” were not teachers. They were simple “interpreters” or rather “translators” selling themselves at best as intellectual prostitutes. Please the customer and get as much money as possible. To cut a long story short, innumerable hired “Pandits” supplied only that for which a payment followed. The first Sanskrit–English dictionary was brought to the market by Horace Hayman Wilson (1786–1860) in 1819 only. Who was he? More about him in due course.
During the period between 1785 and 1819 miraculous things were happening in regard to the language called Sanskrit and in regard to the ancient literature written in the Sanskrit language. Charles Wilkins claimed to have translated a part of the epic Mahabharata written in original Sanskrit with the help of his “Pandits”. This translation “Bhagvat-geeta, or Dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon” was published in 1785, in London too. William Jones hurried to heave Charles Wilkins to the “Father of Sanscrit literature” and positioned himself as the “second father” of the Sanskrit literature.
Charles Wilkins left Calcutta in 1786 due to ill health. In Britain he tried to do some translation, ultimately he returned to his acquired skill in Calcutta moulding Sanskrit letters in metal for printing. Since 1786 William Jones claimed to have discovered “startling resemblance” between the Sanskrit language and the Greek and the Latin and propagated:
“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists”
How could William Jones have accomplished this “research” being ignorant about any ancient language in Bharatavarsa? Whatsoever. There is no doubt that the interest for ancient literature of Bharatavarsa in Christian Europe was on high tide. It is beyond our knowledge to judge whether European Christians from the 18th century onwards were equally interested in the past of other foreign lands where they robbed and massacred. It is an important issue but it would distract from the Factory of William Jones. His contribution managing the mind not only of European Christians deserve attention.
The English shoemaker William Carey (1761 - 1834) became a Baptist missionary to arrive in Bengal in “1793”. He is credited to have written grammars and dictionaries for Bengali, Sanskrit and Marathi. How did he manage to do it being a shoemaker and a preacher? He never returned to Britain. Alike William Jones he did not contribute spreading or teaching “Sanskrit” on European soil. On William Carey later more.
The English Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765 – 1837) came as a colonial “writer” in Calcutta when he was 18 years old. His father, George Colebrooke, was Chairman of the East India Company. Henry Thomas was educated at home. As a “writer” in the British establishment he had a fulltime job collecting “revenues”. He could not afford to keep a “Pandit” to take private lessons in the Sanskrit language. He has, none the less, composed a Sanskrit grammar in “1805”. How did he do it? He never faced questions like this. He returned to Britain in 1814. He did not contribute spreading or teaching “Sanskrit”.
William Jones intended, it may be recalled: “I must confess that a salary of £6000 a year to commence from the day of my embarkation and of which I know from the best authority that I need not spend more than two thousand, has contributed not a little to my eagerness; for, although my professional gains are very handsome and are continually increasing, I must be twenty years in England before I can save as much as in India I might easily lay by five or six; and on my return (if it pleased God to permit it) I might still be a young man with £30 000 in my pocket, so that I might proceed at the bar or in parliament with ease to myself and perhaps with advantage for others.”
Whatever might have been the reason, missionary zeal, power or greed, Sir William Jones took a second term though the climate absolutely did not suit his wife, Lady Anna Maria (Shipley) Jones. She had to return alone to Britain due to illness. William Jones never returned. He was buried in Calcutta in 1794. Anna Maria Jones died in 1829.
Wikipedia is not forgotten. We shall get back in a little while.
A language does not just travel. But booties do. As referred a little earlier the vessels of European Christians sailed out with war materials and ruffians. The vessels sailing back were loaded with booties and slaves. The booties included also all sorts of art-objects, old books and manuscripts. These art-objects landed sooner or later in central museums and the robbed old books and manuscripts landed in “Royal Libraries”, mostly at London and at Paris. It has not yet been re-searched why in these two cities only. The books and the manuscripts in unknown languages could not be catalogued. There was none to identify the language. These were just kept in the shelves.
In the beginning of the 19th century miraculous things started happening in Europe. In Europe the “Orient” was “in”. All luxury came from the East where the sun rises. From Arabia, from Egypt, from Persia. All wisdom came also from the East. And then the news spread: European seamen had taken possession of the rich Orient. A gold–digger atmosphere prevailed! But not for all of them. The “traders” were already in business. Now it was time for telling tales about the Orient, telling tales about glorious achievements of European Christians overseas. It was booming opportunity for “intellectual prostitutes” of all colours to participating in rich booties.
“India” became known. A language called Sanskrit too. The enthusiasm of academicians in the continental Europe for “Orient” was increasing, especially in the German States. These enthusiasts flocked together in coffeehouse, Museum, Library in Paris to “study” the indiscriminately robbed art objects and manuscripts. It is documented that none of these enthusiasts had been in Bharatavarsa. There had been no facility of teaching “the Sanskrit language” anywhere in Christian Europe. Yet a subject-discipline was created named “Indology”, initiated by a book titled “Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier“, published in Heidelberg in 1808 by Friedrich von Schlegel (1772-1829). Who is this Friedrich von Schlegel and where and how could he have acquired knowledge on “the language” and on wisdom of the “Indier?
Friedrich von Schlegel studied law at Gottingen and Leipzig for two years. He met in 1793 Friedrich Schiller when he was 21 years old. He shifted from studying law to literary work. From 1794 onwards he published papers on Greek and Roman literature. In 1796 he moved to Jena. After 1798 he studied Dante, Goethe and Shakespeare. He moved to Berlin. In 1801 he graduated in philosophy.
In June 1802, as life would have it, Dorothea and Friedrich von Schlegel moved to Paris because he wanted to learn oriental languages. He was then 32 years old. “The Schlegels” had rented a large floor at a reasonable price. They didn’t have enough money. They had planned to sublet furnished rooms. He was also lecturing on philosophy in private courses to earn money. There he was caught in “Orient-fever” and put it on record that he had learnt the Sanskrit language from an interned Englishman called Alexander Hamilton. How did he do it? He himself has documented.
On January 15, 1803 Friedrich wrote to his elder brother August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767 – 1845):
“The grammar of the ordinary Indian languages (Which ones? How should he know them?) I have acquired already (how?); but the Sanskrit I shall be able to begin in the spring only. Because the libraries are not being heated.”
Isn’t it interesting?
On May 15, 1803 he reported to his brother on a lucky coincidence (highlighted by us):
“I am perfectly fine. Because I learnt much, very much. I have not only made progress in Persian, but I am also nearing my great objective, that I master Sanskrit. I will be able to read the Sakontala within four months in its original text, though I will presumably still need the translation (which translations?). Enormous effort was required because of a great complication and I had to develop my own method of guessing (Divinierens); since I had to learn the elements without elementary books (how?). I was finally fortunate that an Englishman called Hamilton, the only one in Europe except for Wilkins who knows, and very thoroughly knows, could at least help me with advice.”
We recall Charles Wilkins who left British India in 1786 due to ill health. It is on record that he did not teach the Sanskrit language anywhere.
Whatsoever. We get back to Friedrich von Schlegel. On August 14, 1803, he let his brother August Wilhelm to know (highlighted by us):
“I worked through Sanskrit uninterruptedly and now I have achieved a sound fundament. I have by now at least a hand high Manuscripts lying which I copied. Now I am occupied in copying the 2nd encyclopaedia (the 2nd encyclopaedia?). Writing Sanskrit (copying!) daily for 3–4 hours and another one or two hours to work through with Hamilton; and whenever in the evening I felt like it, I had still work for 2–3 hours.”
Is it not a remarkable procedure to learning the Sanskrit language? Friedrich von Schlegel made hand written copies of Sanskrit texts and worked them through with Alexander Hamilton who apparently knew the Sanskrit characters better. What a miraculous coincidence. As already said, the Schlegels had to sublet furnished rooms. Friedrich von Schlegel was learning Persian from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Louis Mathieu Langlès brought Alexander Hamilton and the Schlegels together. Alexander Hamilton started living with the Schlegels. Helmine von Hastfer lived there also. Soon she was to marry Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Thus something like a “flat sharing community” had emerged.
This was just imponderability of life! We know, again from a letter to his brother dated November 26, 1803 (highlighted by us):
“I live now quite pleasantly here – as pleasant as it can be abroad. Since several months Hamilton lives with me, who was my teacher for Sanskrit; also Hagemann, a young Hanoverian, who is not only proficient in Greek and Arabic, but also knows a lot of and very thoroughly Persian, is our house mate (How could he judge the “proficiency”?). In addition there are three young men from Cologne taking private lessons from me. Thus I have a pleasant society in the house.”
The Schlegels left Paris at the end of April 1804. Friedrich von Schlegel published the book On the language and the wisdom of the Indians, Heidelberg 1808. This book will remain his only contribution to “Indology”. Alexander Hamilton (1762 – 1824) became famous because of this book being the very first one teaching the Sanskrit language in 1803 in Europe, though not institutionally.
The earliest record about Alexander Hamilton is found in the alphabetical list of all members of the Indian army of 1783. Accordingly he was recruited as a cadet for the “Bengal Army” in England. The date of his birth is missing, which was not usual. It is also not known when he came to Calcutta. He appeared on a list in Calcutta in February 1785 as an ensign of the infantry. This list suggests that Alexander Hamilton arrived in Calcutta not before the 4th quarter of 1784. According to the “Bengal Calendar” on February 22, 1785 and according to the “Calcutta Monthly Register” on March 13, 1785 he joined the infantry.
Alexander Hamilton remained from 1785 – 1790 a “supernumerary” in the infantry, i.e. the lowest grade in the career to an officer. On February 15, 1790 he became permanent: ”Ensign Supernumerary to the Establishment, to be brought from the 15th February 1790, on Full Pay and Posted to Corps.” He could not have learnt the Sanskrit language. His financial means were modest up to February 15, 1790.
From “The Bengal Calendar” and “The Calcutta Monthly Register” of October 1790 we know that: “Ensign Alexander Hamilton, having received permission to resign the service, at his own request, his name is struck off the list of the army.” “The Bengal Calendar and Almanac” of 1792 did not include the name Alexander Hamilton any more on the list of the British “civilians”. It is beyond doubt that he had not been a regular resident of Calcutta since 1792. How could he have learnt the Sanskrit language?
Between 1792 and 1803 he was virtually missing. When he returned to England is not on Record. In the 4th Asiatic Annual Register of 1804 a geographic dictionary of Asia was announced, edited by Alexander Hamilton Esq. and Lawrence Dundas Campbell Esq. When and how he arrived in Paris is also not on record. He could not have reached Paris before the “peace treaty of Amiens” was signed on March 25, 1802. Napoleon was at war with England.
There is evidence that he stayed in Paris for two to three years and compiled a catalogue of books and manuscripts in Bengali and Sanskrit. The catalogue was then printed in 1807 under his and Louis Mathieu Langlès’ name. Louis Mathieu Langlès was a windy “oriental” figure in Paris. A Frenchman.
Louis Mathieu Langlès was in charge of the oriental manuscripts in the royal library. He was not regarded as a scholar. Mainly he translated English texts into French. Alexander Hamilton did not speak French. How these two persons came to know each other is not on record. The fact remains that he marketed Alexander Hamilton as an Orientalist quite effectively in Paris and thereby himself as well. He made it possible that Alexander Hamilton became known as the first “Sanskrit” teacher in Europe, though through dubious private help for Friedrich von Schlegel.
The East India Company College, was founded at Hailey, nineteen miles north of London in 1806 to train “young gentlemen of sixteen to eighteen years old” recruited by the Company's directors to become “writers" (low graded administrators) for the “Honorable East India Company”. The training started in 1809. Alexander Hamilton taught there oriental languages, Arabic, Urdu, Bengali, Marathi, Sanskrit, Telegu, and Persian, so it is said. How did he do it? Where and when did he learn these languages? And, how was the quality of teaching? Well! No questions, no answers.
In 1814 he published the “Term of Sanskrit Grammar”, the single publication besides the catalogue in Paris that bears his name. In 1818 he left the East India College on his own wish at the age of 56. In 1824 he expired almost unnoticed. But in Paris another “Friedrich von Schlegel” was put on record: Antoine Léonard de Chézy (1773 – 1832). A Frenchman.
Antoine Léonard de Chézy became in 1816 the first professor for Sanskrit in continental Europe at the age of 43. How? This is another incredible story. He was working in the Egyptian department of the Royal Museum in Paris. The administrators of the artefacts from colonial booty were entitled to “study tours” to Egypt. When in 1803 such a trip was due for Antoine Léonard de Chézy too, but he fell ill. As luck would have it, however, Louis Mathieu Langlès was there, that “news pool” for “Orient enthusiasts” in Paris. So, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, then 30 years old, learnt from the young German Helmine von Hastfer, a friend of Dorothea and Friedrich von Schlegel, that Friedrich von Schlegel took lessons in Sanskrit from an interned Englishman called Alexander Hamilton.
It is on record that Antoine Léonard de Chézy met rather frequently Alexander Hamilton in the flat of “the Schlegels”. He was not interested in Sanskrit at all and knew nothing about Sanskrit before he met Alexander Hamilton. Hereafter there are two different versions of this small (hi)story within history. One version has it that the great misfortune of missing the study tour to Egypt due to sudden illness was more than compensated by the opportunity to learn Sanskrit from Alexander Hamilton. The other version is put on record by Antoine Léonard de Chézy self saying the meetings with Alexander Hamilton made him curious in regard to Sanskrit. But he learnt the language “secretly” and “by teaching himself” definitely after Alexander Hamilton had left France. It has never been questioned how the Frenchman in Paris could have learnt a perfectly developed language like Sanskrit without a teacher, without grammar books and without a dictionary. Incredible, isn’t it? The fact remains that he became in 1816 the first professor for Sanskrit in continental Europe. Which “Sanskrit” could he have taught?
Another incredible hi(story) how the Sanskrit language arrived in continental Europe began in Aschaffenburg, Germany. Helmine von Hastfer as Helmine de Chézy met young Franz Bopp (1791 – 1867) there in 1812. Helmine was actually Wilhelmine von Klenke. Her father was a military officer and her mother a poetess. They were divorced early. Wilhelmine grew up ‘under unregulated circumstances’, whatever that meant. In 1799 she married Gustav Freiherr von Hastfer at the age of sixteen and divorced after a year. Countess de Genlis invited her in 1801 to Paris. From 1803 to 1807 she edited the journal “franzosische Miscellen” (French Miscellanea). In 1805 she married at the age of twenty-two Antoine Léonard de Chézy, who was to begin 1807 teaching Persian in Paris. Helmine de Chézy got separated from Antoine Léonard de Chézy in 1810, retained his name, stumbled from one relationship to another, worked as a journalist and led the life of a “liberated women” of that time.
In 1812 Franz Bopp was just 21, Helmine de Chézy 29 and Antoine Léonard de Chézy 39. Helmine de Chézy recommended young Franz Bopp to go to Paris, especially because her ex–husband, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, had mastered the Sanskrit language. We know how he did it. Whatsoever. Franz Bopp arrived in Paris in 1812.
Louis Mathieu Langlès had contributed to popularise Arabic, Turkish and Persian in France. No one ever wanted to know when, where and from whom he learnt those languages. Between 1790 and 1794 he submitted several memorandums to the National Assembly, ultimately resulting in the setting up of the École des langues orientales vivantes (School for contemporary oriental languages) at the national library. In 1792 he became the curator of the oriental manuscripts at the national library. Nothing “oriental” was on in France without him.
Baron Antoine Issac Silvestre de Sacy (1758–1838) was appointed as the first teacher at the École of the langues orientales vivantes. “Contemporary oriental languages” was a rather highflying term because in 1795 only Arabic was taught. Quality unknown. From 1806 on Silvestre de Sacy taught also Persian. As far as “Oriental matters” are concerned, nothing else was available when Franz Bopp arrived in Paris. And he came to Paris to learn the Sanskrit language only. Why did he not go to Britain? Was there no facility to learning the “Sanskrit” language?
We get to know from Franz Bopp’s first letter from Paris dated January 1, 1813 to his academic mentor Karl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann in Aschaffenburg (highlighted by us):
“...ever since I am here I am busy only with Arabic, because I was advised to acquire some skill in it before I go for other oriental languages. After gaining some skill in the Arabic I shall begin with Persian, so I hope after 14 days to be able to read light prose in this language; ...Only the Indian languages are not taught here, and nobody studies them. ... I shall be the only one in the summer, who is engaged with them. I think indeed to begin with Persian and Sanskrit at the same time during the summer. ...Soon I hope to send you some blossoms of Persian and Indian poets in translation, if only my fate be so favourable as to let me be in Paris long enough. Chézy will be able to afford me good services when I begin the Sanskrit. He is the only one, as I hear, who engages in this language here.”
Franz Bopp was just 21 years old in 1812. In Aschaffenburg he did not do well. Twice he stood as “Defendent” (defender of his dissertation), but the doctor’s degree in philosophy was denied to him. It is indiscernible where and how his inflated self-esteem generated from. Whatsoever. On April 29, 1814 he reported to his academic mentor quite proudly:
“...I have overcome the first hurdles of the language of Indian wisdom. I see now, to my delight, that I am able to master thoroughly the most beautiful, most important, presumably also one of the most difficult languages of the Orient without any help from others. ... I find that the similarity of Sanskrit with Latin and Greek is very large. This can be extended further than Schlegel (Friedrich von) has done. ...”
Franz Bopp and William Jones seemed to be cut and carved from the same wood. Even before he started learning the Sanskrit language he wrote on July 27, 1814 to his mentor:
“The German language is so very much suitable to render faithfully the original Indian thoughts. And I want to contribute my utmost that it (Ramayana) can be read in German language. I am already now capable to translate the first part, available in English translation. The second part is said also to appear soon. ... Without a translation, even if it were a very free one, I am unable to translate any Indian manuscript yet, Chézy, either, hardly can, although he is engaged in that 6 years longer.”
Franz Bopp came to Paris to learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy only. Until March 1814 he learnt only Arabic. In July 1814 he reported to his mentor Windischmann that he could not learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Instead of giving an indication he maintained that he didn’t require any teacher for Sanskrit. Since:
” Indeed I think, ...when I shall have penetrated well into everything which has been written on Indian mythology in European languages, and if I will then be able to proceed further and to draw from the sources, when I shall have become conversant with the philosophical systems of India as well as with that of our fatherland (Vaterland) and that of the Greek, then, dear friend, I will be ready to understand Indian literature without any translation and, if necessary, also without a dictionary.”
In the same letter he explained also his plans and strategies:
“...I have worked out an alphabet by which one can reproduce the system of Sanskrit alphabetic characters in a pure form, ... Before I write the grammar, I presumably should make my system of characters known and for this purpose I want to take the Bhagawatgita, the most beautiful parts of which you already know from Schlegel’s (Friedrich von) translation, and publish the (original) text with a very literal translation in Latin, and my brother will probably make the Dewanagari alphabetic characters for a few pages.”
In his inexplicable zeal he wanted to “occupy” Sanskrit, take “possession” of Sanskrit, in his own way:
“One writes the Sanskrit in more than 10 different ways. Every different nation in India has adapted its system of alphabetic characters to the Dewanagari or to the actual Sanskrit system of alphabetic characters, and writes its Sanskrit accordingly. Why shouldn’t we Europeans, whose languages do actually originate from Sanskrit, also adapt our alphabet to that, in order to spread the precious writings of the “Indier” all the more?”
How revealing! Franz Bopp was not eager to learn the Sanskrit language. He was only after “stories in Indian mythology”. It is on record that he guided August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767–1835) to the study of Sanskrit in Paris. A blind guiding another blind. Whatsoever! August Wilhelm von Schlegel became a professor of literature at the age of 53 at the University of Bonn in 1818. But he occupied himself mainly with “Sanskrit”. For all practical purposes he functioned as professor for Sanskrit. The first in Germany. He founded the first printing office for Sanskrit in continental Europe. He acquired his knowledge, as reported, in Paris. How did he do it and who is he?
August Wilhelm von Schlegel was, as mentioned earlier, the elder brother of Friedrich von Schlegel. He was already famous before he turned his attention to Sanskrit. He completed in 1787 his studies in “classical philology” in Goettingen, became a private teacher in Amsterdam in 1791, worked for the journal “Die Horen” since 1796 which was edited by Friedrich Schiller in Jena, founded in 1798 together with his brother Friedrich the journal “Athenaeum”, started translating Shakespeare after becoming a “lecturer” in Literature and Art in Berlin. He was then 31 years old. In 1800 he became the travel-companion of Madame de Stael-Holstein, the widow of the Swedish ambassador in Paris, and the tutor of the children as well. In 1808 he gave lectures in Vienna, in 1810 he published Shakespeare–translations in eight volumes, in 1813 he became the press secretary of the Swedish Crown Prince Bernadotte, in 1814 he took introductory lessons in Sanskrit from Franz Bopp and became the first Professor for Sanskrit at the Bonn University in 1818. Many learnt Sanskrit from him.
In 1825 Franz Bopp became professor for Sanskrit in Berlin at the age of 34. He was to spread Sanskrit in Europe. No one else rendered a greater service in spreading “Sanskrit” in Germany, in Europe, indeed all over the world, than Franz Bopp. He is celebrated and honoured as the Sanskrit teacher per se. Franz Bopp became an “Indology pope”. He is well known worldwide and a lot has been written about him. He was also the founder of “comparative linguistics”. What is this subject named “comparative linguistics”?
All European Indologists after him learnt Sanskrit alternatively from August Wilhelm von Schlegel and Antoine Léonard de Chézy. None of them ever heard the sound of the Sanskrit language, not to talk about the sounds and scents of the world where the ancient rich literature emerged. All these “Sanskrit Scholars” claimed to have translated from the original Sanskrit texts. Their translations of “Sanskrit Literature” were printed in Europe and widely circulated. These translations have erected a sheer insurmountable wall against new searchers and re-searchers to get to the truths carried in the rich ancient literature composed in the Vedic and Sanskrit languages.
Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Franz Bopp and August Wilhelm von Schlegel claimed to have acquired ability to translate original Sanskrit texts without knowledge of the Sanskrit language. To recall: Charles Wilkins and Alexander Hamilton were privileged to hear the sound of the Sanskrit alphabets. None of them were available when Antoine Léonard de Chézy became interested to learning the Sanskrit alphabets “secretly” and “by teaching himself”. Without any help. All on his own. Absolutely self-taught. How could he have accomplished this?
One has to be extremely lenient about these claims. However, one must take into consideration that there was absolutely none to teach the Sanskrit language. At most about half a dozen Sanskrit “grammar guides” could have been available for them in Paris: A grammar by missionary William Carey titled “A grammar of the Sungscrit language, Serampore 1804”; a grammar by the writer Henry Thomas Colebrooke, “A grammar of the Sanscrit language, Calcutta 1805”; by Charles Wilkins, “A grammar of the Sanskrita language, London 1808”; and “An essay on the principles of Sanskrit grammar. Part I, Calcutta 1810” by “Senior Merchant on the Bengal establishment” H. P. Forster.
These were the first ventures by persons with questionable intellectual abilities. The quick sequence of the publishing dates indicates not only haste. Careful reading of original deliberations of Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Franz Bopp and August Wilhelm von Schlegel hint that “translations” of those “Sanskrit Texts” were available to them. It is not on record how many or in which languages. It is on record that Arabs and Persians did translate many ancient Texts. Quite a few of these Texts were rendered in some contemporary vernacular languages in Bharatavarsa. It is worth to mention that no dictionary in a European language was available before 1819 in Calcutta.
It is on record that Arabic and Persian had arrived in Europe earlier than any language from Bharatavarsa. In addition it is also on record that all “Sanskrit-Scholars” in Paris started learning Arabic and Persian. The method of their translations is discernible. Take a translated version and the original book. It doesn’t matter whether this translated version is also a translation from a translated version. It can be a repeatedly translated version. The main thing is that one has some vague ideas about the contents of the original book. Now the guessing acrobatics begin. This was the time of academic acrobats. On the malice of translations more in due course.
The first Sanskrit–English dictionary by Horace Hayman Wilson was the begin creating a language named “Modern Sanskrit”. He took the credit of innumerable dubious contributions of “Pandits” on the pay roll of the East India Company in Calcutta. It is indeed striking that missionaries and colonisers of all kinds have tried frequently to compile workable grammars and glossaries of “Indian” languages. Quite understandable.
The grammar compiled by Heinrich Roth exemplarily decorated the archive of Vatican for long years. Though incomprehensible, nevertheless telling stories. Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg (1682–1719), a Protestant missionary, wrote in 1716 a grammar and a dictionary for Tamil. The French Jesuit Gaston Laurent Coeurdoux (1691–1779) wrote a dictionary for Telugu. Or that English shoemaker who did not stick to his last and became a Baptist missionary, William Carey, who came to Bengal in 1793 and compiled grammar books in Bengali, Marathi and Sanskrit. The colonial “writer” Henry Thomas Colebrooke brought out a grammar for Sanskrit already in 1805. Were they really qualified for such a task?
These are so far non-questions for “modern historians” and Indologists. After all, these authors of grammar books and dictionaries had been in “India”. However, the “Schlegels”, the “Chézys”, and the “Bopps” and their descendants had never been to “India”. They created their own rhyme from translations and from translations of translations of original Sanskrit literature, interpreted them in their own rhyme and marketed these rhymes unscrupulously without ever having heard the sounds of the language or having a glimpse at the people living the language.
How much are these still highly estimated books really worth? Did William Jones give us an answer to our a–little–off–the–beat question already? How much are those “science disciplines”, which were created in this context worth? Do they have anything to do with reality excepting for real brainwashing and the creation of their own realities? But only virtual realities!
We get back to Horace Hayman Wilson. He is an exemplary case. Born in 1786, he was recruited by the East India Company as an “assistant surgeon” for Calcutta in 1808 and landed in Calcutta in the same year at the age of 22. He started serving under a Doctor of Medicine, Dr. John Leyden as an assistant. Not in a hospital, but in the Calcutta Mint. They had acquired some knowledge of chemistry while “studying medicine” and Dr. John Leyden and Horace Hayman Wilson were loyal servants of the East India Company. Even though they had taken the oath (to serve the sick), and despite the fact that their compatriots in Calcutta were in dire need of medical service, they were asked to produce coins in the Mint and they agreed without protest. Dr. John Leyden and Horace Hayman Wilson were indeed loyal servants of the East India Company.
Horace Hayman Wilson succeeded Dr. John Leyden in 1811 as the “Chief metal tester” in the mint. Also in 1811 he was chosen as secretary to the “Asiatick Society of Bengal” and took the responsibility of publishing the Asiatick Researches. This triple load didn’t keep him away from translating original Sanskrit texts and preparing the first Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Yes, he is the same Horace Hayman Wilson becoming the first Boden–Professor for Sanskrit in Oxford in 1832. “Boden Chair” is the begin propagating a language named “Modern Sanskrit” financed directly by the exploited impoverished people of Bharatavarsa. How?
One Joseph Boden, year of birth unknown, began to serve in the “Bombay Native Army” in 1781. In 1806 he became a Lieutenant Colonel, retired in 1807 and died in 1811 but left behind a huge inheritance for his unmarried daughter with the condition that his property was to be donated for the foundation of a Professorship for Sanskrit in Oxford after his daughter’s death. No one has ever questioned how Joseph Boden earned his huge fortune in British India. Christian Europeans live the tradition: “Money has no smell”.
In 1827 Oxford University received £25000 and did not hesitate, as usual, to take the blood-money. The objective of this donation was, as per will, to promote the translation of the Bible into Sanskrit proving the superiority of the Gospel in comparison to the rich ancient literature to the “modern Indians”. On “modern Indians” more in due course.
The foundation of this Professorship was also a clear verdict on the quality of Sanskrit acquired by the missionaries and “scholars” in India. Reverse translations were, of course, less risky. To translate the Bible in Sanskrit was, however, very earnest. But where was the person for such a Professorship? The much praised “scholars” in the “Oriental department” of the colleges in Haileybury and Addiscombe who were responsible for training young people for the colonial service in India were not considered to be fit for this purpose.
By then the Schlegel brothers and Franz Bopp became renowned as Sanskrit scholars. August Wilhelm von Schlegel was well known in England through his Shakespeare-translations. He was, as already referred to, Professor in University Bonn since 1818. He was not unwilling to accept the first Boden-Professorship in Oxford. But there was increasing resistance against him. In 1831 the news came from far off Calcutta that Horace Hayman Wilson was interested in the Professorship.
When August Wilhelm von Schlegel came to know about the slanderous campaign regarding his qualifications by Horace Hayman Wilson, he became angry. He made this unfair game publicly known and stated that Horace Hayman Wilson had decorated himself with the feathers of “Indian Pandits” and wouldn’t be able to perform his duties in Oxford University without those “Pandits”. Horace Hayman Wilson did not translate the Bible into Sanskrit, nor was he able to promote a translation during his 28 years as Boden-Professor. Oxford University had suppressed the last will of Joseph Boden, the ruffian. August Wilhelm von Schlegel was to be proven right. Without their “Pandits”, “Sanskrit scholars” of that time were not worth much more than their vices.
Horace Hayman Wilson became automatically one of the “most eminent” Sanskrit scholars. Twenty-five years after the death of William Jones the first Sanskrit-English dictionary was brought out standardising the language named “Modern Sanskrit”. The purpose was never to learn the language called Sanskrit, but to claim translating ancient literature of Bharatavarsa.
The question has never been raised why the European Christians were so grimly determined to translate ancient literature of Bharatavarsa. Why translations and not narrations? As it was, this standardisation of the newly created “modern Sanskrit” began to expropriate the “Indians” of their literature, science and culture systematically. The foundation was laid by these four richly rewarded persons: Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Franz Bopp, August Wilhelm von Schlegel and Horace Hayman Wilson. This foundation is still functioning.
The systematic efforts of the European Christian occupants distorting all ancient literature of Bharatavarsa are documented in LIES ON LONG LEGS (2004) and TRUTHS. 500 YEARS EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY (2015). Wikipedia is not forgotten. We shall get back in a little while.
The Vedas are the most ancient books on accumulated knowledge about the Cosmos, about the Universe since time immemorial. Knowledge in general and Vedic knowledge in particular has been acquired by observations, evaluation of observations, comparisons and exchanges of observations with others and by storing these in human memory.
All senses, abilities of gesturing and creating sounds are required in developing a language. A language develops with growing accumulation of knowledge. A language is by its nature a medium for exchange of views and of knowledge. A language is by its nature a medium for exchange of views and of knowledge acquired and accumulated by immediate, “peer-to-peer” participants of human societies. In absence of views there is no need of a medium, as carrier, called language for exchanges, for “communications”. A language is the supreme medium of communication. A language is not knowledge, nor storage for knowledge. A language connects human memories, human “hard disks” so to say.
The accumulated Vedic knowledge is expressed and stored in the brain of human-beings constituting the Vedic society and culture to begin with. The Vedic language connects the Vedic people in cohesion. In course of time the essence of this knowledge has been stored in multiple secondary media and in guide-lines for daily life of the Vedic people. The Vedic knowledge is comprehensive in the spheres of human societies, of the nature and of the universe. The accumulation of knowledge is a continuous process. It has grown in the course of time immemorial. The uniqueness of the Vedic knowledge consists in the fact that the Vedic language has survived through ages though no more spoken, not even in the spheres of oral tradition.
This growth of Vedic knowledge and of the Vedic language along with its grammars have been descended and stored in the memory from generation to generation orally. In course of time a need was felt to store the knowledge in secondary media beside the storage in human memory. As a matter of fact the scripts of the Vedic language were created much later. Scripts are by its nature a medium of secondary transport of knowledge. It is irrelevant to explore how much time was needed to transform a spoken language into a written language via scripts. It might have been millenniums of human years. It is important to comprehend consciously that a script is always by its nature a secondary medium of transport, an inferior medium in comparison to articulated modus of the language. The scripts are secondary because scripts do not transmit the inherent sound and gestures of the language.
Another uniqueness of the Vedic knowledge consists in the fact that the knowledge could be transported by the following languages like the Sanskrit, Prakrit, Pali and down to the many spoken languages in our days in Bharatavarsa. Additional storages were invented in form of narrations, metaphors, poetries, songs and in all varieties of visual arts. Yet the Vedic language has survived through ages in the oral tradition.
The rise of Vedic culture and civilisation was based on the application of knowledge acquired and stored in the Vedas. The Vedas are books on science, trying to discover and to describe comprehensively all of what is in the society, in the nature and in the universe. Discovery and science grow by its nature. The application of knowledge was guided by discovered laws of nature and universe, their implications on human societies and all that follows defining the role of individual human-beings in the nature and universe, within the macro and micro Cosmos.
There are six Vedangas, six branches of knowledge. These branches are required to get into the four Vedas. Four of these Vedangas deal with the Vedic language and two of them deal with applications in real life and with Astronomy and Astrology. There are fourteen abodes of knowledge. There is no section dealing with beliefs. Belief is an unknown category in the realm of Vedic knowledge, Vedic culture and Vedic civilisation.
The Vedic cultures and civilisations are characterised defining duties of the humankind as a part in the whole of nature and universe. The Vedas, the books of sciences, were stored, as referred, in human brain and manifold secondary storages at manifold levels. The social practice of this culture and civilisation is "sanatana dharma", eternal and ultimate duties of the mankind towards the universe.
Civilisations rise and fall like all other entities in the universe. Entities come in the realm of human perceptions, exist for a period and then disappear. Our Rishis, the “Seer-Scientists” as rendered in the English language by Rishi Kumar Mishra in his Book: Before the Beginning and after the End (2000), our “Seer-Scientists” have raised questions like: Where do the entities come from, where do they arrive and exist for a period of time and when and where do they disappear. The ancient “Seer-Scientists” have given answers according to their acquired knowledge. The accumulation of knowledge continues to grow. There is no room in this process for a category like Beliefs. Accumulation and growth of knowledge and a belief or a set of beliefs are fundamentally contradictory.
Wikipedia is not forgotten. We shall get back in a little while.
The excavated sites in the northern parts of Bharatavarsa are remains of Saraswati-river-basin-civilisation. This civilisation has been wrongly named “The Indus Valley Civilisation” by “European Scholars”. Natural calamities have covered this civilisation; layer after layers. In none of the excavated sites there are signs of scattered or clustered human bones indicating a slow and gradual desertion of people from those areas of Vedic civilisation. The people have saved their life carrying their knowledge along with them trying to find refuge elsewhere. Thus the knowledge stored in the Vedas has remained unaltered in oral tradition. The continuous growth of knowledge must have come almost to a standstill for quite some time due to the adversity of nature and disassociation of the “Seer-Scientists”.
In none of the excavated sites there are signs of temples or of palaces. The settlements were planned, well organised and affluent. Water supply, drainage of waste water, irrigation of fields included. The residential quarters were egalitarian. In none of the excavated sites there are residues of “mechanical engineering devices” or of massive structures abusing the micro cosmos.
The calamities of the nature that have covered the Vedic civilisation set a distinct caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. With the fall of Vedic civilisations the Vedic knowledge must have taken different routes of developments in different geographical areas. The developments of post- Saraswati-river-basin-civilisation have not yet been reconstructed. It can be assumed that there was a standstill, even a setback in all areas of Vedic sciences, the Vedic language inclusive.
It is certain that the principal network of communications, i.e. face-to-face, between the “Seer-Scientists” ceased almost to exist. However the Vedic knowledge expressed in the oral tradition of the Vedic language stored in human memory has survived. With the decrease of face-to-face communications the importance of the written tradition of the Vedic language was on increase, i.e. solely based on scripts without the sound of the language and without visible communicative gestures. In this process the Vedic knowledge was losing precision and getting diluted. The written tradition of a language is always a secondary vehicle of transport of knowledge for storage. The perception and the comprehension of a communication by means of a language without the sound and without face-to-face exchanges are incomplete, erroneous and misleading.
A language is always a medium for the exchange of thoughts and knowledge. Thoughts and knowledge are acquired in specific environments using all human senses. A comprehensive exchange of thoughts and knowledge demands face-to-face spoken modus. There is no substitute for face-to-face spoken modus of the language.
A rich language is the expression of a rich treasure of observations, of experiences and thus of accumulated knowledge. The storage of this knowledge in human brain is the only primary storage; in the memory of all those who have shaped the language and who use the language. The written modus of a language like all other media of transport and storages outside the human-brain are secondary storages. These carry the lacuna of missing sounds as gestures.
Written texts, therefore, can never substitute the wholeness of content revealed in the face-to-face communication. This has always to be kept deep in our mind whenever we read texts in any language; we are cut-off from the wholeness of the contents. The availability of characters of a language for writing is a later development than that of the language itself.
Written characters, scripts, are, as repeatedly referred to, secondary media of transport only. Written characters, words or sentences are carriers and not the contents, not knowledge itself. Reading a text even in one’s vernacular does not reveal the whole treasure of experiences of the author. Understanding a foreign culture by reading texts is a mission impossible.
This is the reason why there was no dictionary for the Vedic language. As a matter of fact there were no dictionaries for the ancient languages in Bharatavarsa. The reason is simple. Word by word translations does not reveal the meaning of a sentence even at ordinary level unless the user of the dictionary is familiar with the subject. In sophisticated topics there is no short cut to learning the sophisticated grammar and to toiling to comprehend the matter in its wholeness.
The learning of the alphabets may enable to read words and sentences. This reading will be meaningless. A language is more than its alphabets and words. As already referred a language is a vehicle of transport. If there is nothing to be transported, there is no need of a language. This is as simple as that. This is the elementary basic of the relationship between knowledge and language. Knowledge comes first. Unless there is an urge to share knowledge with others, there wouldn’t be a need of a medium of transport, the language. The medium of transport is designed by knowledge. It is not the other way round.
After this little aside we get back to the ancient languages of Bharatavarsa. These languages were created for exchanging observations, reflections, contemplations, thoughts and knowledge. Dictionaries wouldn’t have helped. One must toil to get into the matters. To get into the matters one needs adequate transport to the matters. One must toil to learn all eventualities regarding adequate transport. One needs “manuals”. This is the elementary basic of the relationship between knowledge, language and grammar especially in regard to the ancient languages of Bharatavarsa. A grammar, i.e. a set of rules, of a language is never for its own sake. The set of rules make it possible to comprehend meaning in its proper perspectives. A set of rules of a language doesn’t depend on scripts and letters. They appear later.
Over a long period of time four languages (bhashas) were prevalent in ancient Bharatavarsa.
A long time had elapsed and many ways had been treaded before characters for written mode were invented as an external device to store the books, to conserve knowledge in secondary storage facilities for future generations. These were endeavours to compressing sounds and gestures into written characters. It is not exactly handed down whether also “Bhoota Bhasha” had invented written characters. It is known that “Chhando Bhasha” invented first the “Brahmi” characters and later on the Devanagari characters. Devanagari is also the type of characters of “Laukika Bhasha”. After the invention of Devanagari a fourth language is handed down: “Devanagari Bhasha” with 51 characters. A marginal bit of information to round up: From Pali downwards several types of characters have been invented. These new languages have 43 characters.
This small part of reference forces the question in the mind: What does the different number of characters mean? This question should have been an issue for modern “science-disciplines” called linguistics and comparative linguistics. Here is another small part of reference for “modern scholars” to take into account.
The last three handed down languages have one aspect in common. Even the shortest sound, the syllables have strict rules and carry different weights. The main syllables, the roots so to say, evolved to words by prefixes and suffixes, i.e. adding other syllables before or after them. Or in both ways. In that process also the meaning of those “roots” changes. Following strict rules. Without acquiring thorough knowledge of every single syllable and its different connotations in different contexts the exact meaning of words in a context cannot be understood. In addition, even identical words have a different meaning depending on their position within the sentence and to the meaning of the whole sentence. The meaning of the sentence depends again from the meaning of the whole paragraph, the meaning of the paragraph depending on the whole chapter. Therefore, even an extensive dictionary will be less than crutches. There is no short cut to these languages.
Consequently, instead of dictionaries there are many comprehensive grammar books. It cannot be learnt just by flitting around how a seed (root-syllable) evolves to a tree with its many branches. Nor is grammar compiled out of nothing. Comprehensive grammars are only required when there is a comprehensive literature on metaphysics, philosophy and sciences followed by continuous discussions establishing rules. And not the other way round. Literature doesn’t come into being through complicated grammatical rules. The later created rules of grammar are needed to understand the exact meaning of the books. In spite of linguistics and in defiance of comparative linguistics. Without sensitive antennas for metaphysical and scientific knowledge those ancient languages cannot be learnt. No matter whatever “linguistic scientists” or “scientists of comparative linguistic” may say.
To sum it up: the grammar, i.e. the complex of rules, is in no language a purpose to itself. The complex of rules for a language does not depend upon the invention of written modes. A written mode comes into being later than grammar. We do seldom realize that characters and writing are only vehicles developed at a later stage as means for the transport of spoken messages. And such vehicles are superfluous when there is nothing to be transported.
We take up the thread following the decline of the Vedic civilisation due to natural calamities. In course of time the Vedic knowledge stored in the written tradition of the Vedic language, i.e. in scripts without the sound of the language took up momentum in comparison to the oral tradition. This was the process of rediscovering the knowledge stored in the Vedas leading to the Upanishads. The Upanishads indicate efforts to rediscovering the Vedas. The Upanishads are not composed and compiled in the Vedic language. The Vedic language was diluted to the Sanskrit language. The oral tradition continued.
The Sanskrit language makes use of one of the scripts, the Devanagari script, invented to storing the Vedic knowledge. The scripts in general are secondary storages of a language as scripts do not carry the sound and the gestures The Sanskrit language does not carry all sounds of the Vedic language, is thus inferior to the Vedic language in the oral tradition. This basic cannot be repeated enough.
In this process of rediscovering the Vedas a rivalry must have crowded the routes to the growth of knowledge for quite some period. I assume that this growth was negative. At the most this growth was unable to add to knowledge. Ramayana and Mahabharata are expression of this process. It is futile to try to calculate the time span. The fact is that the Vedic Rishis, the Seer-Scientists, have done their best to describe the solar system, star systems, the vast number of cosmic energies, rays and waves as well as their interactions in the universe influencing life. These descriptions reach far ranges than any other human culture on the earth has accomplished.
We take exemplarily only the concept of time and time calculations after the beginning of the Beings on the earth, the earth being a tiny part of the Universe. The concept of the four Yugas in this time calculations is remarkable. It is based on acquired knowledge of movements in the solar system and of the stars. The Vedic Seer-Scientists have calculated 4,320,000 Human-Years in the cycle of our time, which is currently the 28th cycle. Accordingly we are passing through the fourth Yuga of the 28th cycle. There is a Beginning and there is an End of the last 27 cycles. A human-year contains one hundred years of the climatic cycles. We are overwhelmed to deal with this highest form of mathematical calculations.
After taking this brisk glimpse into our Vedic heredity we get back to the calamities of nature that has covered the Vedic civilisation in course of time. Considering the excavated sites in the northern parts of Bharatavarsa We are inclined to conclude: The Vedic civilisation was founded on knowledge and on sciences. Search and discover were the spirit of the day. There was no need, no room for conceptions like that of God, of Temple, of prayer and so on. These are unknown categories in the Vedas and in the Vedic culture and civilisations.
The many efforts to rediscovering the Vedic knowledge have put more and more layers of cover upon the knowledge stored in the Vedas. Thanks to the oral tradition the Vedas in the Vedic Language have survived in Bharatavarsa. It is irrelevant whether the carrier of this oral tradition comprehend the full range of the Vedic wisdom. As long as the texts remain unaltered in articulation they are not lost. The Vedic Seer-Scientists were aware that there are positive and negative growths. As long as the once acquired growth is not lost, nothing is lost even if the later growth goes negative. The Vedic Seer-Scientists were meticulous to compose and compile the various aspects of knowledge and wisdom in many different rhythms, metrics and metaphors. Once dedicated searchers begin their effort to get to the truths, there is the scope of rediscovering the Vedas and Vedic wisdom.
In our judgement the emergence of Jain-Teachings indicate that the spread of Vedic knowledge had reached its low tide in the course of time. At some point some people felt, something has to be undertaken to save at least a few facets of the Vedic culture. In our judgement Jain-Teachings are a reflex to the successive deteriorations of the Vedic culture in daily life. Jain-Teachings have felt the need of “Temples” as centres of common social gathering. The spread of Jain-Teachings remained to a minority, geographically limited, in the north of Bharatavarsa.
The Jains focus on a minor part of the Vedic culture. It defines individual duties towards all kinds on the earth as well as to grow individually: “ahimsa”, „anekantavada“, and “aparigraha” on the one hand, on the other „satya“, „asteya”, „brahmacharya” and “aparigraha”. Vedic knowledge on interactions between the cosmic energies and all kinds of the universe are not present in the consciousness of the Jains. The language of communication was the Sanskrit language that evolved from the Vedic language. It is yet to be searched and researched in the literature created by the Jains how they designated and/or called the vast majority of the society living the Vedic culture.
The majority continued to live in the low tide of Vedic culture. The Vedic knowledge in its purest form in the Vedic language remained restricted to the oral tradition of transfer from generation to generation of the learned. The Vedas are thus not lost. The growth of Vedic knowledge has ceased. But the mainstream remained engaged in many different translations of the Vedic knowledge at many different levels; Metaphors, languages, sketches, drawings, pictorial images, melodies and so on; up from the Upanishads down to the folksongs. All these translations are storage of Vedic knowledge in multiple abodes.
Sometime later, as it seems, the Teachings of Gautama Buddha emerged. In our understanding the Teachings of Gautama Buddha emphasise more on human development at individual levels rather than mind-development of the humankind and neglect focus on the whole of the universe. Thus the Teachings of Gautama Buddha are further away from the Vedic culture than the Jain-Teachings. Teachings of Gautama Buddha have added two other social institutions in our cultural heredity during the low tide of the Vedic culture. “Teachers” were recruited and “Training Centres” of the “teachers” were established to spread Gautama Buddha’s Teachings of individual mind-development. This zeal to spread Gautama Buddha’s Teachings contradicted the practice of Vedic culture of acquiring knowledge and its growth excluding “missionary activities”. Yet the Teachings of Gautama Buddha could spread widely. Initially a need of “temples” was not felt. This low-tide was also characterised by the transitional phase of the Sanskrit language to Prakrit and to Pali.
We have searched to find a Temple in Bharatavarsa that was erected prior to the Jain-Teachings. We did not find one. We are far from claiming that our search has brought the final result. If the result of our search holds, it will mean that the “Hindu Temples” were built later than monuments and/or temples referring to Jain-Teachings or to Teachings of Gautama Buddha. Our claim is not more, also not less than that “Hindu Temples” have emerged in Bharatavarsa after the emergence of Jain-Teachings and of the Teachings of Gautama Buddha.
The focus of our search was not to identify the earliest ever built “Hindu Temple”. The focus was on the theory of “Aryan-Dravidian Divide” in Bharatavarsa concocted by the European Christians while they were murdering and exploiting Bharatavarsa. In Jainic, in Buddhistic literature about 2600 years back there is no mention of “Aryans” or of “Dravidians”. The results of this search are documented in the blog:
“Call of Shri Meenakshi Temple in Madurai southern Bharatavarsa
Or / And
The beginning of a search
A documentary film on Ancient History
Synopsis, treatment, Protagonists, Locations and Organisation-plan”
Madurai is an ancient city in the “land of the Dravidians” which has been mentioned in many different documents since the last 2400 years. The perfect architectural proportions of the whole of Meenakshi Temple complex, also the perfection of the original modest structure of the Meenakshi Temple, its location and its structure being fixed and built according to Agamic guide-lines, which is a part of Vedic knowledge. This would have meant that the “Dravidians” in the south were integrated into the “Aryan culture“ earlier than 2400 years ago. European Christians have yet to mention when this “Arian” invasion, occupation and cultural domination of the land of the “Dravidians” took place.
Evidently Bharatavarsa has never been a land of two “races", of the “Arians” and of the “Dravidians”. This Temple in Madurai has ever been dedicated to Meenakshi (another name for Parvati) and Sundareswarar (another name for Shiva). Both are Vedic characters describing in metaphors the nature of two particular cosmic energies.
The Meenakshi Temple is under-researched leading to silence of embarrassment of the “scholars” on queries. There was one rather casual remark that appeared to be witty in the beginning of this search and re-search:
“This temple is too complicated for historical, art and architectural research. There are so many other temples to keep yourself busy.”
If the result of our search holds, it will also mean that the “Hindu Temples” were built as reflex, respectively, as an answer of the majority of the people of Bharatavarsa to the Jain or Buddhist “Temples”. This hypothesis will hold until a remnant of a priory-built ancient “Hindu Temple” is discovered. We maintain further that no temple in Bharatavarsa was ever been called a “Hindu Temple” by the people of Bharatavarsa.
The emergence of Temples other than Jain and Buddhist Temples was a caesura in the history of Vedic culture. These Temples were designated as metaphors to Vedic characters, forces, energies. There is no mention in the ancient literature of an entity called “Hindu”. The term “Hindu” has been coined later. It would not be a futile exercise to finding out when and by whom the Temples designated to Vedic characters, forces, and energies were renamed as “Hindu Temples”.
Exact knowledge of cosmic forces and their interactions are conserved in manifold secondary storages at different levels, in the Vedas, in the Puranas, in narrations, in poetries, in songs. At all level a seeker for truths will find out the truths in his search. Names designated at all levels of secondary storages describe properties or features of different cosmic energies, cosmic rays and their interactions influencing living on the earth.
As indicated earlier, all entities perceived by humankind have a beginning and an end. Before the beginning of entities, there is nothing, having no name, no form and no function. This stage before the beginning cannot be described. It is, again in metaphor, an endless quiet sea. This stage before the beginning, before the creation, is called Brahma by Vedic Seer-Scientists. When an entity emerges, Brahma is transformed into the creation of a material world. Metaphors on Brahma are very few. This is being indicated by the limited number of Brahma-Temples.
All entities together constitute the universe. Manifestation of all entities is Vishnu, in metaphors in thousands names, Vishnu sustains, not for ever. Entities disappear. This stage is called Indra. Indra as metaphor has many names describing the various types of cosmic energy and their interactions. As metaphor Indra is most popularly synonymous with Shiva and carries many names. When all entities disappear it is Brahma again. The discovery of this spiral was the basis of time calculations in terms of human-years and Yugas, mentioned earlier.
In our understanding the temples in Bharatavarsa are secondary storage of Vedic knowledge at many levels and accessible to all in many different forms. The temples in Bharatavarsa are not places for collective or individual “prayers”. The temples in Bharatavarsa are places for mental concentration, contemplation and meditation in the intention to grow like the personified, incarnated metaphor of particular cosmic energy, the name of the temple, to attain harmony and happiness in the universe. Vedic texts in the Vedic language are regularly recited there.
It is remarkable as well that social events all over Bharatavarsa are accompanied by recitation of Vedic texts thanks to the oral tradition. Whether the deeper meaning is understood by the participants, the Purohits included, is not relevant. The texts are preserved in memory, in the human hard disk so to say. At another level the Vedic knowledge was equally preserved by learned personalities like Adi Shankar or by not “learned” but seer personalities like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.
There are no adverse reports on material prosperity in Bharatavarsa in spite of dilution of the Vedic knowledge up till the 16th century. At the material level the society was prosperous, produced enough wealth and the quality of distribution was such that there had never been a migration to other cultures. The spread of Vedic knowledge and culture was limitless. There had been intercontinental exchanges in the field of immaterial and in material culture and their exchanges with other cultures since millenniums as normal routine. However, the low tide of the Vedic culture continued. No foreign influence was responsible for this low tide. The systematic looting of accumulated wealth by foreign ruffians began in the 11th century. In our perception the foreign ruffians looting Bharatavarsa laid the next historical caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa.
The people of Bharatavarsa might have known all about the creation of “Almighty” by Moses. As a foundling Moses was brought up in the palace of the Egyptian Pharaoh - so is narrated in the mainstream cultural world. Later at an adult age Moses claimed that his “Almighty Yahweh” asked him privately to free a chosen part of the slaves in Egypt and to guide them into the “Promised Land Canaan” having Jerusalem as the centre. His Yahweh was almighty and all-responsible for his people.
While passing from Egypt to Canaan in Mount Sinai his “Almighty Yahweh” revealed him privately the “Ten Commandments” as the fundamentals of Law. His people believed him. Thus “belief” was introduced as a superior category replacing the natural drive of Humankind to know. “Belief” as a category in general and “Belief” in one’s personal and absolute “God” in particular. Factually “Ten Commandments” are ten bans, indicating the complete loss of inherent human moral amongst the “people” of Moses. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”, so the ten bans begin. Moses could not have used the term “God”.
The term “God” is a very recent one.
Being simple-minded and straightforward we raise the question for ourselves, what would have happened to the “people” of Moses if these fundamentals “Ten bans” would not have been installed. The “people of Moses” would have destructed themselves. Executing sheer force at all levels was the call of the day. Apparently the Belief in the all-mighty and all-responsible “Almighty Yahweh” had functioned for the Moses-people for a time till the Roman Ruffians occupied the “Promised Land Canaan” by sheer force, persecuting and dispersing the Moses-people. “Almighty Yahweh”, believed to be all-mighty and all-responsible, did not protect them. Yet the “Belief” in “Almighty Yahweh” sustained. Sometime later the rather desolated Moses-people created a second “prophet” named Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus of Nazareth is ascribed to be “the son of the ever invisible but all-mighty and all-responsible Almighty” as a visible human being on the earth. Jesus of Nazareth was personally sent for the salvation of the humankind. Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Apparently many people believed in this extraordinary story. This was the beginning of the Jesus-people in the midst of occupation of many Mediterranean Lands by the Roman Ruffians. That historical period was marked by the absolute “rulers” based on sheer force at all level; from the local gang-leaders to the “Kings” and “Emperors”. The oppressed down-trodden majority had only the option of resistance.
The “Almighty Father of Jesus of Nazareth” did never reveal himself. His son represented him preaching an enriched version of “Ten Commandments”: showing compassion towards the down-trodden fellows and practicing charity towards them. This enrichment has made the Jesus-people more attractive for the Absolute-Rulers as well as for the down-trodden. Thus the persecution of the Jesus-people in the Roman Empire was not that severe as it was in the case of the Moses-people.
The Jesus-people emerged at a period of time when the oppressed had begun to mobilise resistance against sheer force of the oppressors. The legitimacy of the oppressors was questioned. The oppressors were looking out for a “sheer force light” version. The conception of an all-responsible “Almighty” was welcomed. In the beginning the preachers of the Jesus-people were persecuted by the “Kings” apprehending rebellion of the oppressed. Bit by bit the “Kings” learned that it was advantageous to share power with the preachers of the Jesus-people than to have uncompromising resisting-fronts against sheer force. The oppressors began sharing power with those agents of the “Almighty” who asked the “Kings” to rethink their role. The “Kings” were summoned to show compassion and practice charity towards the oppressed. Simultaneously the agents of the “Almighty” propagated the idea to the oppressed that the “Kings” would not become “Kings” had it not been the will of the “Almighty”. These two additional aspects, “compassion” and “charity”, in the “teachings” of the Jesus-people helped preachers to manage the mind of more and more oppressed people.
This process of learning attained the peak when the Roman Empire welcomed the Jesus-people in around 380 AD. By this time “Churches” had become as remarkable as the Palaces of the “Kings”. This treaty between the “Kings” and the functionaries of the “Almighty” faced difficulties when Mohammed claimed to be next “prophet and the messenger of the “Almighty” challenging the cultural dominance of the Moses-people and of the Jesus-people. The emergence of the Mohammed-people is the third generation propagating the identical “Almighty” like the Moses-people and the Jesus-people. From Moses to Mohammed there has been continuous war, robbery, murder and genocide to establish the supremacy of the “Almighty”. All these happened by the nature of the claim: When there should be one “Almighty”, “He” must be mine. Others must believe in my “Almighty” or bite the dust. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”.
There are no historical documents indicating that there had been a conception of an “Almighty” prior to Moses. Being simple-minded and straightforward we raise the question, why it is so? All kinds on the earth have followed the laws of nature maintaining the whole of the universe since millenniums. At some period of time a part of humankind has began claiming parts of the earth to be their own depriving all others. They did it by sheer force. By its nature there was no need to legitimise sheer force. It has functioned for a period. The oppressed have known their oppressor. The invention of the “Almighty” by Moses is the beginning of mind manipulations of the oppressed majority. The majority must wipe out their knowledge about being victim of sheer force and learn to believe in the compassion and charity of the oppressors.
Bharatavarsa encountered the brutality of the exclusive claim of the “Almighty”, and all that goes with it, only after the 11th century. The Thomas –“Jesus-people” and many Moses-people came earlier to Bharatavarsa as refugees, not as missionaries. Missions and missionaries are aggressive and intolerant by their nature. Those Moses-people and Jesus-people were integrated in the societies in Bharatavarsa. Mohammed’s “grandchildren” in Persia being comparatively poor were attracted by incredible wealth accumulated in Bharatavarsa and started regular robbing. In course of time Mohammed’s “grandchildren” started settling down in the rich land. Mohammed’s “grandchildren” converted captives, slaves and quite a few “mercenaries” to Mohammed-people to build up enough manpower for their administration. They were not uncompromisingly missionaries. They focused on power, exploitation and accumulation of wealth. The impact of the Mohammed-people on the Vedic heredity in Bharatavarsa is as yet to be searched and researched. However the rule of the Mohammed-people obviously did not impoverish Bharatavarsa. This assertion is not a result of any systematic search and research. This is just inferred from the fact that European Jesus-people could begin systematic looting since the 16th century. Had there been no accumulated riches there would be no invasions and lootings.
The spread of the Mohammed-people and its rule in Bharatavarsa must have been extremely violent and brutal as foreign dominations always happen to be. Their “Masjids” were built upon demolished Temples. It is an open question whether during this period the majority section of the people felt a need to ascribe them a new name designation to differ from the believers of the Mohammed-people. A priori we would assume that there was no need. We would not rule out that the invaders had given a name to the majority of the people in Bharatavarsa and not the other way around.
In spite of atrocities, murder, and conversions the cultural identity of the vast majority remained. Many temples were demolished. Even the demolished temples were identified by the name of the personified, incarnated metaphor of particular cosmic energy. None of the temples were renamed. The cultural practice of mental concentration, contemplation and mediation to grow as human being was not replaced by beliefs and prayers. We would like to maintain further that the majority was not confronted or concerned with a term called “Belief” as yet.
The term “Belief” has been replaced by the term “religion”.
We would assume that the concept and the term “Belief” do not occur in the “Old Testament”, in the “New Testament” or in “Koran”. The term “religion” in the present context was created by European Christian “intellectual prostitutes” in the 17th Century only.
The scenario in Bharatavarsa began changing radically in the 16th century when European Jesus-people declared their first world war. The kingdoms of Portugal and Spain started “crusades” against the rest of the world, sanctioned and blessed by the “Vatican” in Rome. These two kingdoms avoided fighting each other under the influence of the “Vatican”. They agreed upon a demarcation line dividing the rest of the world, an imaginary line dividing the Atlantic Ocean east-and-west wards.
The rich booty of these two kingdoms attracted other European kingdoms joining this murderous campaign battling at three fronts; in Europe, on the seas and “overseas”. Yet this murdering period of history is being propagated, even in the school-books, as the “Age of Discovery” and as the “Age of Enlightment”.
Vasco da Gama exemplifies this period. He was selected by the Portuguese King to sail out with four vessels of 200-ton on July 8, 1497. The vessels did not carry goods for trade or exchange, no currency for buying goods, but strong men instead, many weapons, Jesus-people-preachers and provisions (food and drinking water) enough to reach the west-African coast. Thereafter they robbed gruesomely new provisions from coast to coast around Africa to reaching the western coast of Bharatavarsa on May 20, 1498. Same procedure continued till a solitary place was found, in the southern edge of Mormugao Bay, where the river Zuari flows into the sea.
Vasco da Gama sailed off from the western coast of Bharatavarsa in a fleet of four vessels in August 1498 reaching Lisbon again after a year with rich booties and slaves. The ruffians, the preachers and the weapons were left behind as the beginning of the so-called strongholds. Henceforth the Portuguese sailed with fleets of more ships, on the outward journey with as many troopers, weapons and preachers as possible, then homewards fully loaded with booty and slaves. After eleven years of careful preparation, the ruffian called Alfonso de Albuquerque took the capital city, now known as Old Goa, from its the then ruler Adil Adil Shah belonging to the Mohammed-people.
The celebrated and alleged great discoverer Vasco da Gama had previously “discovered” Goa at least three times, Alfonso de Albuquerque at least twice. The annihilation of the rule of the Jesus-people was so thorough, that nowadays nothing reminiscent of the earlier time can be found even in the archaeological museum of Old Goa, not to speak of the townscape. “Churches”, “cathedrals” and the “basilica”, all richly decorated in gold, characterize the townscape. The building materials were not imported from Europe. These were also not imported from other parts of Bharatavarsa. “Churches”, “cathedrals” and the “basilica” were built on old building foundations using the materials after “demolishing” the older buildings.
This gruesome history of robbery, genocide, occupation, deprivation of rights and continuous exploitation has been effectively covered by today’s “science-subjects” adding up to the “modern humanities”. “To make others believe” is the purpose to building up the industrial complex of mind-management. Fortunately, a lot of documents have survived.
After this little aside we are back to the authors writing on the Vedas and contributing to Wikipedia. None of the authors creating the Wikipedia-reference on Bharatavarsa (India) know anything about the Vedas and anything about the ancient history. They can only reproduce the rubbish-and-trash literature produced by their initial academic teachers. And this rubbish-and-trash is propagated by Wikipedia as knowledge.
Wikipedia on “The Vedas” is an exemplary case. Why does Wikipedia do it? What is the purpose? Who are the sponsors? What are their interests? Wikipedia does not give answers to these or to similar questions. There are no answers to these questions. Questions alike these are non-questions in the prevalent culture. Searching, digging and putting two-and-two together of undisputable facts is therefore the call of the hour to establish truths.
Wikipedia claims to be “the free encyclopedia“. What does it mean? Does it mean that the use of Wikipedia is free of charges or the Wikipedia is free from interests or both of the aspects? At first glance it may appear to be free of charges. But is it so? Is it not a deceptive package? It depends on the validity of “information” that is provided by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does not provide valid information on “The Vedas”. Wikipedia transports faulty, falsified and fake information to the users of “Wiki” at least in regard to our exemplary case Bharatavarsa. Faulty, falsified and fake information do not simply fall from the sky. These are created to conceal facts, to serve undisclosed interests. Wikipedia thus serves undisclosed interests. The claim of Wikipedia to be “the free encyclopedia“ is deceptive. Wikipedia serves undisclosed interest-parties generating money at the cost of others.
The fact of life is that we are what we know. Our mind is determined by our knowledge. We gain knowledge applying our senses, by our observations, by our experiences and by facts and stories communicated to us that are beyond the realm of our experiences. We judge the reliability of the communicator. Thus we build up our mind. The more we know, the more we grow. What happens when we are unable to judge the soundness of the communicators? What happens when we are fed with faulty and deliberately with false information? Before the written-mode, in face-to-face communications, the chances were much less to be deceived. The written-mode, the “Gutenberg-Axis” and electronic media have repressed face-to-face communications considerably. Only in face-to-face mode we can execute direct reliability checks and thus ensure communications which are genuinely free of charges.
All other modes of communications bring about more and more expenditures. The reverse side of “more and more expenditures” is more and more facilities to making money. Production and distribution of “information” in all variations and all that all that goes with it has become a commodity to generating considerable profit. In addition, these modes offer a variety of means to manipulating and thus to managing the minds of people. Mind management has become a big business having many facets, a fast growing industrial complex and an essential instrument to exercise power. Application of sheer force to establish power and the range of weapons needed for this purpose has been systematically extended to effective mind managements.
In view of this the claim of Wikipedia providing us with facts and stories benevolently free of charges is as deceptive as the claim of benevolence and charity. These claims contradict our experiences of life. We know, in the recent times there is nowhere a free ride, nothing occurs in life to zero tariffs. We must know what is behind this unusual benevolent offer of Wikipedia. The indisputable fact is that we can only have access to “information” offered by Wikipedia if we buy an electronic computer and pay for the access to internet. But how do we know, how can we know that we are not fed with faulty and deliberately with false information? We leave expressing our skepticism and focus into the next key-word: “The free encyclopedia“.
An encyclopedia claims to holding and to offering a comprehensive summary of information. A summary is by its nature a selection of essential points within the whole. A summary depends thus on the value judgments of the author who summarizes the whole. A publisher of an encyclopedia is an entrepreneur having interests including the monetary. The publisher selects editors, authors and topics to produce encyclopedia having sellable qualities for his profit and for mind management of his “clients”. The encyclopedia evolved out of dictionaries that went the same route. All media products have to follow this line. The competition in this area of industrial complex is as relentless as in dealing with weapons, drugs, chemicals, herbicides, Seeds and finance-products.
Another willful deception of Wikipedia is the claim that it is written “collaboratively by the people who use it”. The fast growing digital technology makes it possible that anyone can edit. Fact is also that edited parts can be deleted by one click. All editing are relentlessly censored. The purpose of this slogan is perverse. The users are flattered as already “knowledgeable persons”. If these persons are already “knowledgeable persons”, why do they need an encyclopedia? This is the malice of flattery. In actuality all consumers of an encyclopedia are enticed and encouraged to disclose their prejudices and sentiments. Thus the mainstream-need of easily consumable “news and information” is defined. Any facts correcting the prejudices and sentiments are deleted by the so-called “administrators”. The “administrators” are administered by “administrators” and so on till we arrive to “Wikimedia Foundation“ and read its slogan: “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.”
“The sum of all knowledge” is determined by (highlighted by me): “The Wikimedia Foundation or WMF (a.k.a. the Foundation)—based in San Francisco—is the organization that owns the domain wikipedia.org. It is an organization that raises money, distributes grants, develops software, deploys software, controls the servers, and does outreach to support Wikimedia projects, including the English Wikipedia. The WMF does not edit Wikipedia content (except for occasional office actions). ‘The community“ (largely volunteer editors) handle content, because if the WMF did take responsibility for content, it would introduce liability issues per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”
These lines are deceptive. This is all the more when we come to know about the formal beginning of Wikipedia. Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales, born 1966, an “American Internet Entrepreneur”, has founded an online non-profit encyclopedia in 2001. Apart from the obvious contradiction an “American Internet Entrepreneur” and an online non-profit encyclopedia the curiosity is raised to know details about the personality of Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales. He holds a master degree in Finance. He knows about the benefits of non-profit institutions. His government knows about the benefits of non-profit institutions too. Why does a Jimmy Donal „Jimbo“ Wales run a non-profit encyclopedia? Where do the contents of this non-profit encyclopedia come from? How should he be able to finance at least the organizational cost to run the encyclopedia? He was not born rich. This is on record.
Jimmy Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama, 1966. When he is twenty he earns a bachelor's degree in finance at Auburn University in Alabama. He begins thereafter a PhD finance program at the University of Alabama and then at Indiana University. So it is said. At both universities he carried out teaching-jobs during his postgraduate studies. So it is said. But he leaves university with a master's degree. He does not write the doctoral dissertation required for a PhD.
In 1994 he is picked up by Michael E. Davis, a 1983 MBA graduate, the CEO of Chicago Options Associates, to analyze the company's pricing-model strategy. It is not recorded how these two persons came together. Alabama and Illinois are not just nearby places. It is a small company founded in 1973 for option-speculations with securities and commodities, brokering at the Chicago Board Options Exchange, specialized in foreign currencies and interest rates. The Chicago Board Options Exchange was also founded in 1973. There he learns aggressive financial trading to make quick money and becomes a key person in this small company, Chicago Options Associates.
The 1990’s is the booming period of “dot-com companies”, “Internet startups” involving “venture capital” with the goal: "get big fast”. There is enough cash money around. Sell an idea if you can, earn as much as you can from the roaming capital. Amongst the educated youth prevails gold-rush-mood. The immediate links between Military-Industrial Complex, Stanford University, Silicon Valley, developments in the area of Microchips and Internet play a decisive role in the mind-management of the academic youth. The academic youth is dressed to make money at any price whatever it takes. Jimmy Wales aspires for more money.
In 1996 he is 30 years old. He sets up an Internet company named Bomis together with Michael E. Davis and Timothy Robert Shell. Tim Shell is picked up by Jimmy Wales in 1996 when he decided to joining up with Jimmy Wales to start Bomis instead completing his degree course in computer science. Bomis main business is the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal.
Bomis successfully introduces "Bomis Babes" devoting to erotic images; the "Bomis Babe Report" offering soft-core pornography, "The Babe Engine" assisting users to finding pornographies through a web search engine; partly selling “Sex” free and partly on payment. The revenue thus collected and the chances opened by hundreds of programmer, hardware and soft ware developers and Internet facilities in World Wide Web open up the perspective to generate more revenue in the mind-management business creating online encyclopedias. Jimmy Wales hires Lawrence Mark Sanger in 2000, a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy (1991) from Reed College, Portland, as well as a Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy from Ohio State University in 2000, to install a new wing of Bomis called Nupedia.
Lawrence Mark Sanger designates his occupation as Internet project developer. Before becoming the editor-in-chief of Nupedia (new online encyclopedia) he sets up a list, server as a medium for students and tutors. He propagates the chances and merits of “a voluntary, free network of individual tutors and students finding each other via the Internet for education outside the traditional university setting”.
As the editor-in-chief of Nupedia Lawrence Mark Sanger tries to get articles written by scholars having a quality comparable to that of the professional encyclopedias for Nupedia too. This process is too slow for Jimmy Wales. He installs in 2001 Wikipedia as a side-project of Nupedia to allow collaboration on articles before entering the peer review process.
Wiki means quick. Wikipedia grows rapidly and by and large independently of Nupedia, formally under Lawrence Mark Sanger by virtue of his position as Nupedia's editor-in-chief. Lawrence Mark Sanger ends association with Jimmy Wales in 2003.
In 2003 Jimmy Wales achieves affiliation of a Foundation named Wikimedia. This Wikimedia Foundation manages the website Wikipedia. The initial three members of the Board of Trustees are Michael E. Davis, Timothy Robert Shell and Jimmy Wales. What was the benefit for these three money-hungry people by creating this construction of a non-profit organization? This question has not been raised yet.
For all practical purposes Wikipedia thus has reached a safe haven within the all-embracing network of the Mind-Management Industrial Complex. The range of this complex begins with “Pentagon”, Arms-Production, Secret Services, Elite-Universities, Churches and goes down to all varieties of Foundations. A Foundation is the best possible cover for mischief. A Foundation is established by “endowments” for non-profit activities. What are non-profit activities? Do non-profit activities exclude business activities? “Endowments” are tax-free money. What is the benefit for the Government exempting Taxes upon “Endowments”?
No one will enquire where the money (“endowment”) comes from that is spent for various projects excepting for a few governmental “anti corruption” agencies. The Foundations in general and the Foundations in the “USA” in particular are agencies for money-laundry as well. As ever in the European culture, Money has no smell, Money doesn’t stink. Who are thereby the losers and who are the winners? Does it not associate to benevolence and charity?
Not all historical documents are destroyed yet. It is possible to reconstruct the history of the “new continent” between the arrival of Christopher Columbus, in 1492 and 1776. Christopher Columbus was a mercenary of the Spanish Kingdom. This period is a history of relentless War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation and Exploitation. In the 16th century the then known world was divided by an imaginary line from the north to south between the Portuguese and the Spanish Kingdom mediated, sanctioned and blessed by the Almighty of the Jesus-people, represented by his Deputy, the head of the Vatican Kingdom. The Spanish Kingdom could enjoy its monopoly on the “new continent” for a few decades only.
Other European Christian Kingdoms appeared on the world wide hunting ground to continue War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation and Exploitation. Slaughters started in Europe, on the seas and on the world wide hunting ground. This race of butchering ended provisionally in mid 18th century. The British Kingdom won the race followed by Russian Kingdom, French Kingdom, Spanish Kingdom, Portuguese Kingdom, Dutch Kingdom and many other Kingdoms. The world wide hunting ground is too large to be occupied by a single or by a few kingdoms. Robbery, Murder, Genocide was accomplished. Wars, Occupation and Exploitation continued.
In the 1770’s the Anglo-Saxon Christian freebooters on the “new continent” saw an opportunity to revolt against the “Anglo-Saxon” King refusing to transfer the booty to the “Anglo-Saxon” Kingdom. The British King lost the battle. The revolting Anglo-Saxon Christian freebooters declared the occupied foreign territories to be their own. This historical event has been successfully covered spreading myths of “an American Revolution” against the British kingdom. This is the beginning of systematic mind-management in a gigantic style to make people believe in deliberate lies. The concept of “States” was created to cover Wars, Occupation and Exploitation of foreign territories. Endless concepts have been created by “Christian-European-intellectual prostitutes” to cover their continued crimes against the humanity. The “Christian Cross” has metamorphosed in this process to “Democracy”.
This aside brings us back to the “Alpha Wolf” of the “Anglo-Saxons” domination, to the “USA”. Its foundation in 1776 is preceded by endless wars. Endless wars are continuing thereafter. The list of invasions of foreign lands and war-crimes committed by the “USA” requires many pages. The peaks of these war crimes were the so-called World Wars. From the beginning of the 20th century on wards the German Empire, Habsburg monarchy and Ottoman Empire began hunting in the world wide hunting ground of the European Jesus-peoples’ Kingdoms and of the non-Jesus-peoples’ Kingdom Japan. In the years 1914 – 1918 those three Empires were thoroughly crushed. Only the German Empire with reduced territories could survive because the German soldiers and land workers revolted following the example Russian “October revolution”. This history has been covered by European “intellectual prostitutes” called “Historians”. The wars continued against the new entity called the Soviet Union on the territories of Tsarist Russia. The rest of German territories and the territories of Habsburg monarchy and Ottoman Empire were distributed amongst the victor powers. The main winner was the “United States”. The “USA” declared war on the German Empire as late as 1917. Their resources were the least exhausted.
The “United States” and the “United Kingdom” had chalked out the plan of creating the “League of Nations” during the war years to consolidate the booty in the future years. The “League of Nations” was installed in 1919, having a General Assembly (representing all member states), an Executive Council (permanent membership limited to major powers only), and a permanent secretariat.
The “League of Nations” had already a champion before the “games” began. The League had to follow all rules set by the champion. The champion was holding all resources of the League. The champion was the “United States of America”. The resources of the “United Kingdom” were exhausted. Moreover, both of these governments belonged to the same breed.
The “text of Covenant is read by the US President in Paris on February 14, 1919”. Four fundamental speeches followed: by the “US”-Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on 28.02.1919, by “US”-Senator Philander C. Knox on 01.03.1919, both in Washington, by the former “US”-President William Howard Taft and by “US”-President Woodrow Wilson on 04.03.1919 in New York. The “USA” did not ratify the Text of Covenant, and thus never became a member of the “League of Nations”. Did it make any difference? Woodrow Wilson gets the Noble Award for Peace in 1919. Yes, the Noble Award for Peace!
The “League of Nations” did not alter anything in the continuous flow of the Era of Vasco da Gama. Modes of war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide got their ugly faces a little lifted by creating a network of “international institutions”, under the patronage of the ”League of Nations”. Economic exploitation was intensified under the new champion, the “USA”, the Alpha-Wolf, who was followed by the permanent members of the Executive Council. We are reminded of the wisdom of our ancestors:
He who has the gold makes the rules.
He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
The occupied areas remained occupied areas. New “states” were created. The borders were arbitrarily created. The exploitation of the people continued within the “states” of the exploiters as well. There was an exceptional case: the fall of the Russian Empire and the first “proletarian revolution” in 1917 there followed by the foundation of the “Soviet Union” (USSR). The second “proletarian revolution” could be evaded by a hasty offer of a “Peace Treaty” to the German Empire reforming it to a “Republic”. The USSR was invaded by “victorious powers” in late 1918. The war continued till 1923. Dismantling the first “proletarian revolution” failed. The wars elsewhere continued in a low tide till 1937. Then the next high-tide was there. This history has been coherently narrated in: TRUTHS. 500 Years European Christians in History (2015), based on documents and primary sources. In this context the (hi)story in a nutshell only.
As just mentioned, the USSR was invaded by “victorious powers” in late 1918. Nonetheless the Soviet Union was given a seat of a permanent member of the Executive Council, “League of Nations”, in 1934 as one of the great powers. “USA” continued its dominant role as a “Non-Member” of the “League of Nations”. In 1937 USSR was expelled from the “League of Nations”. Germany evolving to the Weimar Republic had joined the “League of Nations” in 1926 and withdrew in 1933. The Kingdom of Italy being also a permanent Member in the Executive Council of the “League of Nations” withdrew in 1937.
These are only a few peaks of a continued war. Remarkably enough the “main-stream-“scholars” of our days, belonging to “the wonder that is this culture”, have defined the years from 1918 to 1939 as a period of peace. They never look back as a matter of principle. These genres of “scholars” have ever sold their ability to throwing and spreading rubbish, layers after layers, diligently covering the ugly marks of the Era of Vasco da Gama and are well rewarded for their services.
These scholars have also denoted the new high-tide as unfortunate fallout from some “Casino” where unbalanced personalities flocked together for gambling. They failed to note that German chemists and physicists were busy producing the atom bomb based on Lise Meitner’s and Otto Hahn’s inventions since 1934, the Soviet Union since 1940 and those mainly immigrated Jewish-German physicists were making the atom bomb in the “United States of America” in a gigantic project. Not to talk on booming mass production of large range of military equipments and biological and chemical weapons while the “League of Nations” were playing the “peace show” and was practically obsolete by 1937, when the USSR was expelled. Japan, a “constitutional Monarchy”, had developed plans to establish dominance in foreign lands having abundant natural resources.
By the mid-1930s Japan, dominated by its “bourgeois” class, came closer to Germany and Italy pursuing similar “expansionist” policies. In 1936 Japan got into a pact with Germany against the Soviet Union, named as “Anti−Comintern Pact”. Japan invaded China in 1937. During 1938 and 1939 Japan launched attacks also against Mongolia. Thus these years became analogous to the years of 1920s and to the second half of the 15th century.
These dates were the beginning of a to-be-styled as “World War II”. Not so for the European “scholars”. For them the invasion of Poland by Adolf Hitler on September 17, 1939 and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and by the United Kingdom was the beginning. It was just an accident that Germany, Italy and Japan at one side against the rest of the earth dominated by the Anglo-Saxons. Does it indicate something?
On August 23, 1939 Germany signed a treaty with the Soviet Union of “non-aggression” in Moscow. They agreed to annex territories of their European neighbours, including Poland, Finland and the Baltic states between themselves. Japan signed a “non-aggression” pact in April 13, 1941 with the Soviet Union as well.
Yet Germany launched invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Japan attacked the “European” territories in the Pacific Ocean and the Pearl Harbour, occupied by the “USA” on December 7/8, 1941 and conquered much of the Western Pacific. At its zenith Germany, Italy and Japan controlled over territories that were occupied by European powers.
On December 8, 1941 the “United States” declared war on Japan. Three days later, on December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the “USA”. Yet the “USA” entered the war in Europe formally on November 8, 1942, only on urgent demands for a “west front” against Germany by the Soviet Union as an ally. The “USA” factually began the “west front” in Italy in 1943 and in France in 1944. By that time the Germans were decisively defeated by the Soviet Union and the Red Army was capturing Central European lands. The hard fact behind all these treaties and wars domination over foreign lands for the purpose of exploitation that had began since the 16th century and has never ended yet.
The major participants had to invest their entire economic capabilities behind the war efforts, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources; excepting for the “USA“ that practiced their old strategy to interfere in the war as late as possible, i.e. do the least and gain the maximum profit out of the wars. Resource-wise the “USA” came out of the war-crimes in the 1940’s as a super-power scoring one of the least causalities of their own. They relied on their killing machineries. Their civil causalities were practically nil. The Soviet Union evolved also to super-power holding gains in increased foreign territories.
A “state”-wise distribution of killed people in “World War II” tales an interesting story. The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people including 8.7 million military personnel during the high-tide between 1937 and 1945. One of every four Soviet citizens was killed or wounded in that active war-phase. China lost around 20 million, Germany 6 million, Japan 3 million, United Kingdom a ¼ million and the “USA” a ¼ million.
We should take a deep breath and reflect over these facts.
This high-tide, the active-war from 1937 onwards, was the beginning of mass killings indiscriminately and saving the real villains. Do we remember who invented and dropped those horrible Atom bombs? Were they “European Christians”? Were those “Jewish” nuclear-experts making the Atom bombs were less “Christians”? Do we remember in the period of H-Bombs, N-Bombs, and of various biological and chemical weapons?
The credit of all these inventions does go to the European “Christians” (the Soviet Union included) who claim to be the keeper of humanity in our days. But the Anglo-Saxon “Christians” won the race of developing the most murderous weapons and remain the all time champion in mass-murders of human beings. We should have to keep in mind that all murderous weapons have been created by European “Christians” only. Yes, all weapons in the Era of Vasco da Gama.
The industrial production of Arms did not discontinue after August 1945 dropping Atom Bombs on Japan, nor the continuation of wars. The world wide hunting ground was then divided between the super-powers and their “allies”. The “Anglo-Saxons” holding rich resources were able to create a more effective network of so-called International Institutions to sustaining exploitation of foreign lands, though disguised under various names and labels for camouflage. What is behind euphemisms like “United Nations”, “World Bank”, “World Trade Organisation”, International Laws, “International division of labour”, International Treaty organisations, “International community”, just to mention a few. The purpose and the procedures remained the same as it was how the League of Nations was created.
It is recorded that on August 14, 1941 the “USA”- President and the Prime Minister of the “United Kingdom” met on the ship “H.M.S. Prince of Wales, somewhere at sea" and signed the “Atlantic Charter” fixing the set of principles to maintaining international peace and security protecting their exploiting interests. We are reminded of the papal bull in the 15th century. And also of the knowledge of our ancestors:
He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
This Atlantic Charter was signed later by representatives of 26 “allied nations” fighting against the “Axis Powers” on 1 January 1942 in Washington and was called the “Declaration by United Nations”. This term was coined by the “USA” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 − 1945).
China, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and “United States” signed agreements in Moscow and in Teheran in 1943 to establish an international organization to maintain peace and security. An invasion of Italy by United Kingdom and “United States” forced that country to surrender and join the “Allies” in 1943. On June 4, 1944 the Allies launch the Normandy invasion on the beaches of northern France, commonly referred to as D-Day. In meetings between September 21 and October 7, 1944 in Washington China, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and “United States” agreed on the aims, structure and functioning of a world organization.
On February 11, 1945, the Heads of Soviet Union, United Kingdom and “United States” met at Yalta and declared their resolve to establish “a general international organization to maintain peace and security”. In an international conference on June 25, 1945, 50 nations adopted in San Francisco the 111-articled-Charter of United Nations. The United Nations was factually created as its Charter was ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council and by a majority of other members on October 24, 1945.
A complete set of specialized agencies were created to secure control over developments in the world. It is notable that the “UN - World Bank Group” was already founded in the “USA” in July 1944, i.e. before the foundation of the UN itself. The International Monetary Fund was also designed in July 1944, but founded in December 1945 in the “USA” as a specialized agency of the UN to control monetary policy, expansion of world trade, stabilization of exchange rates, lending, monitoring of monetary policy as well as technical assistance.
In the whole process to the foundation of the United Nations with all its specialized agencies there was never ever a mention of the hard facts that war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, mercenary, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands by European Christians in the Era of Vasco da Gama were causally related to “peace and security”. The “United Nations” was constructed to protect the Anglo-Saxon hegemony and to cover the Era of Vasco da Gama. The UN is a creation of the UK and the “USA” and is a financial dependent of the “USA”. And we all know: He, who pays the piper, calls the tune. And: He who has the gold makes the rules.
The “General Assembly” of the UN is a deceptive-package. The decision making “Security Council” as well. Nothing can be decided in the Security Council if one of the five permanent members votes against a resolution. These members are: “USA”, UK, France, USSR (now Russia) and China (now “People’s Republic of China). And, the “Secretary-General” has to carry out “his master’s wish”. Dismantling the Era of Vasco da Gama was never an issue in the UN, this Era remains veiled and thus the continuation of all those crimes committed in this Era are guaranteed.
Turmoil’s following the so-named World War II compelled the British Kingdom to restructure its empire. The Indian Independence Act 1947 was passed in the British Parliament dividing British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan and to many British-created “Princely States”. These States became part of the “Commonwealth”, another deceptive package.
All existing governing institutions continued as usual after the Britons had handed over the administrative authority to political leaders, all to the “grandchildren” of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The “heads” of the occupants had left and they could not adjust themselves with the “new heads”, with the clones. Immediately after the “Indian Independence” there was war between India and Pakistan. Thus the Britons remained in both “independent” states. We recall the years following the “World War II” when gradually almost all occupied lands became “independent”. The terms “decolonization” or “Independent States” were coined to camouflage the process.
The foreign occupants handed over the administrative authority to the “leaders” in the occupied lands, to “leaders” who spoke their language, who were trained by the foreign occupants and were only “different in blood and colour, but in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”, were just clones of foreign occupants. The only substantial change in the Era of Vasco da Gama was the reduction of costs for the occupants to maintaining the status quo established in the Era.
The so-called Cold War began between the “socialistic” USSR and “capitalistic” “USA” and its allies in 1947. The term Cold War is also deceptive. In April 1949 NATO was officially founded. A second “proletarian revolution” takes place after the end of the “World-War II” in 1949, the taking over of power and wealth by “peasants” and “soldiers” from the “feudal rulers” and from the “bourgeois” classes in China. The People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949.
The USA made war in Puerto Rica already in 1950. The war in Korea started also in 1950. In 1955 the Warsaw Pact under the lead of the “socialistic” USSR was founded. On the military front the “capitalistic” USA and its allies continued wars to consolidate their economic and military domination of the world. We remember Vietnam (1955), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Indo-Pakistani-War (1965) and Dominican Republic (1965). The issue that has been left out in this context has to be raised; the issue of Production and distribution of War-Materials. Which countries are involved?
The “USA” won almost the world-wide dominance as the “alpha-wolf” of the Anglo-Saxon-Christians. But the Soviet Union expanded in Europe and challenged successfully the Anglo-Saxon Christian’s hegemony. They continue worldwide wars (in tens), beginning with Greece in 1947 to Afghanistan and recent killings by drone attacks, as spearhead of the “bourgeois” class and with the almost continuous war-fares world-wide and with systematic policy of “encircled isolation” of the Soviet Union, now the much slender “Republic Russia”.
These war crimes are long planned means for the purpose of exploiting foreign lands and people to generate “money” as returns on investments not only for massive production of war materials. Investments in drugs, chemicals, herbicides, Seeds, finances-products and last not least in so-called information-technologies are the pivotal means for the purpose of exploitation. These and the so-called sanctions against foreign countries are auxiliary arms for the war-crimes as well.
The frank confession of John Foster Dulles (1888 –1959) is not forgotten. His reply to a precise hypothetical enquiry was revealing:
“If I were to be granted one point in foreign policy and no other, I would make it the free flow of information.”
He did not say the free flow of knowledge, but “the free flow of information”. That is it. The “gentlemen” Michael E. Davis, Timothy Robert Shell and Jimmy Wales are treading in John Foster Dulles’s steps.
The Dulles family was well versed in the business of Mind-Management and was architect of the conception of “cold war” as a cover for wars that never ceased since the 16th century. In the 1950s, John Foster Dulles worked alongside to strengthening Diem's Army and to "ease France out of Vietnam". He was always an anti-communist per excellence. He is one of the architects of ANZUS, Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty signed in 1951 ensuring military “co-operation” in the Pacific Ocean region. The treaty was the beginning of the series that the “USA” formed as “collective” response to the “threats” of communism during the “cold war”.
John Foster Dulles became the Secretary of State under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1953 the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), then headed by his younger brother Allen Welsh Dulles, was directed to plan “Operation Ajax”, overthrowing the elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh in Iran in 1954.
John Foster Dulles concentrated on building up the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) explicitly threatening USSR by massive retaliation in event of a war covering the aggressive “Cold War”. He was the architect of the SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) in 1954 for the same purpose. The members are Australia, Great Britain, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and the “USA”.
The strategy of the “USA” towards the rest of the world is at best characterized by its architect John Foster Dulles himself and by the conception of “Brinkmanship”, the pivotal conceptualization of the “Cold War”: “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art." He died as the Secretary of State of the “USA”.
Snatching out riches from others to making quick money without regard to anything else has ever been the ultimate goal of all those European Christian occupier of a “new continent”. This is the sole purpose of all invaders and occupiers. The “Silicon Valley” culture with its off-suites like Wikipedia, Wikimedia, “Social Networks”, Google and diverse “Search Engines”, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc. are means of generating Wiki(quick) money. Terms like “Globalization” and “Digital Revolution” are smart but pervert cover for exploitation of others. The “Silicon Valley” culture aims to keep people busy consuming information that is designed to rewrite the history of mankind. The consumption of these information willingly means reducing oneself to “Pavlov's Dog” sooner or later, conditioned to react automatically to conditioned stimulus.
The “Silicon Valley” culture is by no means an innovation. We recall William Jones in Calcutta in 1784 creating “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, “Asiatick Researches” and so on beginning systematically the rewriting of the history of Bharatavarsa. Before 1784 the European Christian ruffians were busy in establishing occupation. The Christian missionaries accompanying them were to look after that the ruffians ever believed in “God’s Will” while looting and murdering. The Christian missionaries tried to pick up local languages, helped to recruit mercenaries, converting them to Christianity, establishing training centers for the mercenaries and building up churches. All foreign occupants had to tread on this path determined by the nature of foreign occupation and its consolidation. These training centers were forerunners of missionary “schools” at different levels.
It won’t make sense in dating acrobatics regarding the Christian training centers (schools, colleges, universities) in Bharatavarsa. It would make sense to comprehend the normative force of actual requirements of the ruling power-instances. A sustained foreign occupation requires a growing number of mercenaries who were to be trained and integrated in the “administration” of foreign rule. Which languages were called for and which language was considered to be more appropriate medium for “training”, the vernacular language of the foreign rulers or the vernacular languages of the recruited mercenaries? Between 1784 and 1835 there had been heavy controversies amongst the ruling foreign-planners and the indigenous “collaborators” in regard to Bharatavarsa on this issue.
Collaborators are by no means mercenaries. Collaborators arise amidst mercenaries. Robbery and murder do not require mercenaries. Occupation of foreign lands is impossible unless mercenaries can be recruited. Mercenaries can be bought and fired at will. Mercenaries are like slaves, without rights. Sustained occupation does require creating a new class out of the defeated people to assume the role subordinate rulers, a class of deputies so to say. The malice of this process is however that the rulers have to depend more and more depend on their deputies. The members of this class cannot be fired at will. The loyalty of this class can only be bought creating a pecking order and opening up perspectives of ascents and descents in form of status unlike mercenaries. The loyalty of the mercenaries can be bought creating a scale of payments. Collaborators are potential “governors”. This is the Basics of foreign rule.
All foreign rulers follow the Basics without spelling it out. In the case of Bharatavarsa it was needed to spell out. The primitive European Christians were confronted with a no more spoken language carrying a heredity that has remained omnipresent in the mind of people. As indicated earlier they had to deal with this ancient heredity. This heredity is handed down in a unique oral-tradition. The key to this heredity was a no more spoken language. When the need came up to establishing training-centers there was controversies on the language to be adopted for training of mercenaries and collaborators. This controversy was resolved in 1835. The detailed histories of this process are documented in the narrations LIES WITH LONG LEGS (2004) and TRUTHS. 500 YEARS EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY (2015).
Only the historical essentials are highlighted at this point. The credit resolving the language controversy goes to Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 – 1859), a scion of Scottish Evangelical origin. He has also left behind many historical traces like William Jones, who was of Welsh origin. Thomas Babington Macaulay came to Calcutta in 1834 to serve in the “Supreme Council of India” on an unusually high annual salary of £10000.
On February 2, 1835 he introduced a draft-programme for education in “colonised India”. On March 7, 1835 the programme passed the Council and was published in Calcutta as “Minute”. This “Minute on Indian Education” is an explicit and a far-reaching “educational” programme. Bibliographic information about this minute is not available any more. But many clumsy references in recent books like this in: Aryans and British India by Thomas R. Trautmann (1997) – Arthur Llewellyn Basham was his guru – on page 111:
“Grant’s Anglicist policy as it applied to the education of Indians was fostered by Charles Trevelyan and given memorable expression by Thomas Babington Macaulay (scion of a famous Evangelical family), in his well-known Minute on Indian education of 1835. It aimed, in Macaulay’s words, through English-medium instruction in the arts and sciences of Europe, to form an elite class that was ‘Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect’ (Macaulay 1835:249) what Smith in the passage given above called the ‘middle Anglicised class’ of Indians.”
In the actual minute there is nothing that would resemble to Thomas R. Trautmann’s frame for his partial quotation. Here is the whole sentence:
“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”
There is nothing about ‘Grant’s Anglicist policy’, nothing about ‘fostered by Charles Trevelyan’, nothing about ‘to form an elite class’ and nothing about ‘middle Anglicised class’. But sentences like (highlighted by us):
“We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed as Government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the people of this country. The simple question is, what is the most useful way of employing it?...means of pursuing higher studies can at present be effected only by means of some language not vernacular amongst them. What, then, shall that language be? One half of the committee maintain that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommends the Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be, which language is the best worth knowing.
I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. – But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works. ...I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature, is, indeed, fully admitted (...) In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. ...of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be most useful to our native subjects. (...) We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices. (...) it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars. ... We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.”
Why diligent Thomas R. Trautmann doesn’t refer to this document and takes resort instead to Selected Writings of Thomas Babington Macaulay edited by John Clive & Thomas Pinney published in 1972. Why? Is this a technique making certain aspects of history obscure, even obsolete? Fact is, Macaulay’s Minutes on Indian Education is the least accessible writings in the language. They were not reprinted in his works. There is no complete copy in the British Museum. Instead there are only abbreviated texts. Why is it so? Is it so simply to conceal that thus “educated Indians” were intellectually grafted on to the stock of “western science and culture” detaching them from their roots? Whatsoever. The programme for “education” in “colonised India” was installed and executed. This had significant impact on the scenario of collaborators in “colonised India”. The “Pandits” as collaborators between 1784 and 1835, between William Jones, Charles Wilkins, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, and Horace Hayman Wilson, were almost out of business.
In contrary to William Jones, who installed the first factory for faking history to promote his personal career, Thomas Babington Macaulay was a Christian missionary by birth and by school “education”. His father was also politically active. He earned not only £500 annually as a secretary of the Sierra Leone Company. He had also set up the business enterprise “Macaulay & Babington” with a nephew to make money in the “Africa business”. The family lived with four sons and five daughters in comfortable prosperity.
Thomas Babington Macaulay’s early Christian missionary zeal was reinforced in the private school “Aspenden Hall” in Little Shelford, a village close to Cambridge. During his holidays at home he was a lively participant in the conversations with politicians who frequented the house of his father in Clapham Common. In October 1818 he finished his school in Aspenden Hall and joined the Trinity College in Cambridge. He distinguished himself in English literature and poetry, was good in Greek and Latin. In July 1822 he earned his first money giving private lessons for nine months, an hour daily, for a total remuneration of 100 Guineas (£105).
At the age of twenty-six he ended his studies at the Trinity College, Cambridge. A year before he was among the contributors to the influential Edinburgh Review. His breakthrough. He lived again in the house of his father who had lost property of estimated at one hundred thousand pounds through bad business deals. As the eldest son he had to take care of his siblings. In the meantime he was earning about £500. In January 1828 he was appointed a Commissioner of Bankruptcy. For four years. The annual earnings were £900.
In 1830 Thomas Babington Macaulay made a big leap by being elected to the House of Commons for the Whigs in Calne, a safe Whig constituency. He became a forceful speaker. 1830 was an eventful political year. The king died on July 24. The Parliament was dissolved. Thomas Babington Macaulay was re-elected in Calne. In Paris there was a revolution again. The Bourbons had seized the French-Throne again after the fall of Napoleon. In “India” everything moved on the tracks set by Warren Hastings. Horace Hayman Wilson continued to work in the Calcutta Mint.
Thomas Babington Macaulay was hoping urgently for a lucrative government office. On March 1, 1831 he was asked to introduce the “Reform Bill” (on the issue of reorganisation of “Political and Vested Rights” of the “politician’s caste”) on behalf of the Whigs. He made use of this chance. He achieved high reputation. Alike William Jones he had comfortable entry to the high society at an early age. But his fame even as a MP didn’t bring money. Much more money could be earned in “India”, he knew. He was as hungry and impatient as William Jones had been. In contrary to William Jones he paved his own way to “India”
Thomas Babington Macaulay also wrote innumerable letters. All hand-written. He befriended important personalities also in British India and cultivated contacts with those who determined policies in “India”. Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1774 - 1833) was one of them. He visited London after he had helped the “new rulers” not only to introduce the English educational system in Calcutta. He supported the colonial administration in the abolishing of the so-called sati, “ritual burning of widows”. He was also the founder of the “Brahma Samaj”, a socio-religious movement and the first westernised Indian to visit England. It was a great event in London.
Remarkably enough Thomas Babington Macaulay missed meeting Ram Mohan Roy on June 7, 1831. He preferred to attend a “Party” where he met Sydney Smith (1771-1845), the Canon of St. Paul. The appointment of the Bishop of Calcutta was on the agenda. When he told Sydney Smith that his meeting with him on this party was some compensation for missing Ram Mohan Roy, Sydney Smith was reported to have been rather quick-tempered:
“Sydney broke forth. ‘Compensation! Do you mean to insult me – a beneficed clergyman – an orthodox clergyman – a nobleman’s chaplain – to be no more than compensation for a Brahmin – and a heretic Brahmin too – a fellow who has lost his own religion and can’t find another – a vile heterodox dog who, as I am credibly informed, eats beef-steaks in private – a man who has lost his caste – who ought to have melted lead poured down his nostrils, if the good old Vedas were in force as they ought to be’.”
Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote this on June 7, 1831 to his sister Hannah revealing the esteem of “collaborators” in general and of Thomas Babington Macaulay in particular. More on Ram Mohan Roy in due course.
When Horace Hayman Wilson announced his interest for the Boden-Professorship in 1831 from far off Calcutta, Thomas Babington Macaulay had emerged in London as a key figure of the British policies for “India”. But he was restless and worried. He was angry with the ruling Whigs as he didn’t get a lucrative government post yet. He was however requested to become a candidate from Leeds for the House of Commons. This was the first concrete return for his speech on the “Reform Bill”.
William Jones strove to compensate his frustration by opportunism – to try his luck in “America” for example. Thomas Babington Macaulay, however, took recourse to arrogance and indifference. On May 30, 1832 Sir James Mackintosh died, one of the four “Commissioners” of the “Board of Control” in Calcutta. On June 5, Thomas Babington Macaulay was appointed “Commissioner”. It was a powerful government office, because this “Board of Control” regulated all policy-matters in “India” together with the East India Company since 1784. His salary also went up to £1200 per annum.
Thomas Babington Macaulay won Leeds for the Whigs too. His new post put him almost in a delirious state. He had built up a relationship to the President of the Board of Control, Charles Grant (1778–1866), months before. Charles Grant was born at Calcutta. Later he became the first Baron Glenelg. But his estimation of the other “Commissioners” was low. Now he had become a more influential figure than ever. He had become a “Placeman” of the East India Company.
At the time of Thomas Babington Macaulay a lobbyist was called a “Placeman”, meaning “holder of public office, esp. one appointed from motives of interest”. He was welcome to write again for the Edinburgh Review. This reconciliation did not just increase his earnings.
As a “Placeman” of the East India Company Thomas Babington Macaulay was tinkering at his career in “India”. He took breakfast and dined with Lords and Ladies of both political camps. He continued making brilliant speeches in Parliament on all important issues, though diplomatically. He wanted to get through the pending “India Bill” without resistance. It involved the protection of the Income of the East India Company and also his career in “India”. He made the best speech of his life on July 10, 1833. The Bill was passed with quite a big majority.
The new India Bill provided that one of the members of the Supreme Council who would govern the “Eastern Empire” was to be chosen from among persons who are not servants of the Company. It was a post of the highest dignity and consideration. The salary was ten thousand pounds a year.
No wonder, Thomas Babington Macaulay was chosen on December 4, 1833 by the Directors of the East India Company. Nineteen votes for, and three against. He was now 33 years old. His salary went up to £10000 from £1200 per annum, the highest salaried Member of the Supreme Council of India. He was to sail in February 1834. He was a bachelor. He took one of his sisters Hanna with him. Immediately after the arrival he started governing the “Eastern Empire”. He knew what to do. He was implementing his “new India Bill”.
Thomas Babington Macaulay did not dismantle any policy of the Supreme Council of India. He consequently sharpened all activities towards one ultimate goal, to transfer all administrative activities to persons belonging to the occupied people, cloned like Britons. All functioning training centres (elementary schools included) were uplifted in this direction more or less subtly. Collaborators like Ram Mohan Roy were necessary, but not enough. A mass of “Ram Mohan Roys” were needed.
“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”
Thomas Babington Macaulay completed the factory for faking history founded by William Jones in 1784 extending the factory to cultural cloning not just in “India” in 1835. Now he was 35 years old only. He had a mission. He returned to Britain in 1838.
His mission was implemented through the introduction of blond-blue eyed-white-Christian “educational” institutions, supported by many collaborators rising to “aristocrats” within the country, especially by Bengalis like Ram Mohan Roy. Another year later, in 1836, Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote in a letter to his father:
"It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection."
Thomas Babington Macaulay left British India in 1838. He was 38 years old. What did he do after 1838? He was knighted in 1857 and died in 1859 as the 1st Baron Rothley. In Chambers’s Biographical Dictionary we can read about him:
“Maccaulay’s reputation is not what once was - he has been convicted of historical inaccuracy, of sacrificing truth for the sake of epigram, of allowing personal dislike and Whig bias to distort his views of men and incidents. But as a picturesque narrator he has no rival.”
And in Encyclopaedia Britannica:
“Macaulay’s reputation, immense during the last decade of his life, fell steadily in the 50 years that followed. His undisguised political partisanship, his arrogant assumption that English bourgeois standards of culture and progress were to be forever the norm for less favoured nations, and the materialism of his judgements of value and taste all came under heavy fire from such near-contemporary critics as Thomas Caryle, Matthew Arnold and John Ruskin.”
How the mission of Thomas Babington Macaulay has functioned and what his “class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” has affected the future of Bharatavarsa is under-searched and under-researched yet. It is needed to look into the minds of the counterparts of foreign rulers in Bharatavarsa in general, especially between 1784 and 1947 in particular.