. Why Indian History needs to be re- examined                                                 Prof. Prodyut Das

The short answer to the question is that as written and taught post- Independence it does not make sense to the ordinary people like me.

Take the example of the myth that when Independence came in 1947 the British who had managed to extract some 43 trillion pounds of wealth during their regime simply shook hands with their ex -subjects and walked off leaving us of the sub -Continent to our devices. That is what a noted Historian (the late Hobsbawm?) would have us believe. Perish the thought they continued to meddle in our affairs in every way thereafter.

This enormously powerful and ancient economic region of MahaBharata that predates political boundaries of what is called – India ,Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ceylon- has had the maximum number of political assassinations and doubtful deaths at the level of head of state compared to anywhere else in the world. A cursory list would be - Gandhi (who was assassinated by someone who was NOT a member of the RSS at the time of the assassination), Liaquat Ali, Bandaranaike, Mujibur Rehman, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Gen. Zia ul-Haq,  Gen. Zia ur Rehman, Benazir Bhutto, Premadasa. That is a nice figure of 11 top head of state leadership material removed by violence in a space of perhaps seventy years. I have not included the official “doubtful” cases like Lal Bahadur Shastriji or the massacre of the Nepal Royal family nor have I included second rung Leadership felled by Regime Changes  and the steady killing of high level talent. It is impossible to find any region in the world where so much leadership blood has been shed on such a large and - more to the point- persistent- scale. Yet Historians of the Nehruvian Court have turned a Nelsonian eye to this unique phenomena . The Colonial explanations-"Damned Indians can't manage their affairs" given the above steady removal of our leadership- now does that makes sense? George Soros' recent public declaration of his concern for the state of Indian Democracy is a proof that a sect continues to be interested in controlling our economic resources. 

History is the soul of a Nation, without a correct History the Nation is a Zombie. Nota Bene that post Independence c 1950s an agreement was arrived at with the British as a condition for joining the Commonwealth was that the we would desist from re- writing our History after Independence. It will be noted that some of the senior Congress Leadership e.g. Rajagopalachari were even then against joining the Commonwealth so not joining the Commonwealth was a fairly viable option.. At least one Historian, the noted R.C. Mazumdar resigned in protest but the others sold their souls for the usual baubles. I give below a few very simple questions that proves that our History as written by the Court Historians of the Nehruvian era have been trying to cover up something.

1.     1, The Honourable (that is what the Prospectus of the Company said!) East India Company ( HEIC)  came to India to trade in spices. Yet we see no change in the British Cuisine and tastes which remained the blandest in the world and, if we believe the French, everything was boiled in water!

2.      2. Judging by the population of Britain at that time if all Britons insisted in having spicy food – say Chicken Butter Masala- and nothing else at every meal the volume of spices needed would be about 500 tons per annum!  i.e. about 3 or 4 shiploads of spices per year would have been enough. Textiles was initially important but why was spices emphasized because its volume was miniscule?

3.      3. Though by about 1800s the HEIC had organized an undefeatable Military machine they never showed any interest in subjugating under their direct control the entire territory of India. Almost fifty percent of the area was allowed to be ruled by “Native” rulers who were, barring the usual slander and sneer, left to rule pretty much in their own way. Kipling’s “ Rustom  Beg, ruler of Kolazai- a legend of Foreign office” being a neat depiction of the sneer and condescension of official British attitude. Amongst the bigger States left “fallow” by the HEIC were Baroda, Bhopal, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kashmir, Mysore, Patiala, Rewa. That is almost half of India when you add another 500 small Kingdoms the size of large Districts.

4.       The gain of Economic asset could not have been a cause for “annexation” or  leave for “local rule” as the case may have been; Afghanistan is not notable for economic wealth yet several expensive and – for an Indian point of view- amusingly unsuccessful- campaigns were fought to annexe Afghanistan. I think Afghanistan could not be  taken over because in other parts of the world taking a bribe- as at Palashi ( Plassey) or during the annexation of Punjab- a bribe had , paradoxically, a sense of a commitment to deliver. To the Afghan leadership bribes were like an amusing  card game, it was always open to higher bids or fun. One of the most potent of HEICs weapons was thus blunted.

5.      A great deal is written about British Famine relief measures and the irrigation systems. Golaghar the flawed granary (the door opens inwards and so when full it cannot be opened!) at Patna etc finds a passing mention even in fairly cursory Histories. There is no mention about why these measures became necessary. The Moghuls described Bengal  as “Hell filled with food”. So how did such historically productive regions become famine prone? This is never explained.

6.      1857 is hotly debated as to whether it was the First War of Independence or not. This is a deliberate debate to distract attention in research into more important areas like whether the HEIC itself had started the rumour of Pig and the Cows fat to start the Mutiny. The truth is that it is hard to believe that the Company did not know or was insensitive to the outrage of beef and pork would cause. A hundred years after Palashi (Plassey) the Company knew what was what; The Memsahib returning from the Club would tactfully place the sausages and salamis on the mantelpiece so that the Khansamah -who was often a Mussalman- would not be defiled by touching pork. A lower caste would take it away to the Bawarchi khana. In such a sensitive understanding of customs why did the rumour about unclean grease arise? For the record the grease used in the older “Brown Bess” was identical to that used in the later Enfield rifle (Mutton tallow, beeswax and vegetable oil) but all explanations are slanted to the direction that ignorant natives full of superstition and illogic and the demeaning behaviour of the younger officers was responsible. The possibility that the East India Company may itself have started the Mutiny to deflect attention from the growing protest at the inhuman extraction of Indian wealth and the inevitable storm of the people, is never examined. This I will cover later.

The facts do not add up. To quote the legendary detective Hercule Poirot “Obviously she is telling a lie but the question is why is she telling a lie. What truth is she trying to cover up?

The truth is so simple that all the questions above can be answered by one sinister truth. The HEIC was the world’s first Drug cartel making its money from Opium. This explains the partial colonization, the massive funding of the HEIC's army, the advent of famine into Bengal-the land was used for cultivation of Opium etc. 

Every question begets another? Why did our Historians- professedly Leftists and professedly at the forefront of the struggle of the toiling masses post Independence cover up for the drug cartel?

Prodyut  Das