How India got its Independence – The Real Story

[dadeechi]

How India got its Independence – The Real Story
October 14, 2009 by Desh Kapoor 29 Comments

Utpal Dutt, the actor who played comedian in one of most memorable role in Hindi Cinema in Golmaal, was arrested on December 27, 1965 by the Government of West Bengal under the Preventive Detention Act. The Government of Bengal and India feared he was “subversive”. Why? Because he wrote a play called “Kallol” (Sound of Waves) on an important chapter of Indian Freedom that is never mentioned in any official History book. The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny (or Naval Uprising) of 1946.
The Beginning
British were in trouble in 1946. Indians in the Armed forces were no longer trust worthy. The mutiny, that no one in our generation has ever heard of, did to the British colonization, what no other action could have done in the long struggle of 250 years.
Said Sir Stafford Cripps, intervening in the debate on the motion to grant Indian Indepence in the British House of Commons in 1947 (‘The Freedom Struggle and the Dravidian Movement’ by P.Ramamurti, Orient Longman, 1987)
…The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers. We have recruited our workers for the war; they have been demobilised after the war. They are required to repair the factories damaged by Hitler’s bombers. Moreover, they want to join their kith and kin after five and a half years of separation. Their kith and kin also want to join them. In these conditions if we have to rule India for a long time, we have to keep a permanent British army for a long time in a vast country of four hundred millions. We have no such army….”
In August 1945, Subhash Bose had reportedly died, while he collaborated with the Japanese and Hitler to fight the British. After the Second World War was over, three of the top officers of the Indian National Army (INA) – General Shah Nawaz Khan (Muslim), Colonel Prem Sehgal (Hindu) and Colonel Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon (Sikh) were put on trial at the Red Fort in Delhi. Their crime: “waging war against the King Emperor”
While Nehru was busy “defending” the three; he (Nehru), Gandhi, Mohd. Ali Jinnah, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had come to a secret pact that if Subhash Bose was to enter India (as many knew he hadn’t died in 1945), he would be handed over and charged.
Unprecedentedly, these trials were very public. Due to the sympathy toward Netaji and the INA in general, there was an instant and large outpouring of passion and patriotism in Indians. These stories were being shared via wireless sets and through media in general on the ships, where the sailors who were being given bad treatment (lack of proper service facilties), got inspired to go out and join together in a strike and rebel against the government.
The Spread
The mutiny started on 18 February 1946 and by next evening a Naval Central Strike Committee was formed where Leading Signalman M.S Khan and Petty Officer Telegraphist Madan Singh were unanimously elected President and Vice-President respectively.
The spread of the Naval mutiny, which started in Bombay was complete – Karachi, Calcutta, Cochin and Vizag. 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors had been involved in the strike.
Seeing this Naval strike, the Bombay-ites did a one day general strike. Even the Royal Indian Air Force and local police forces joined in the other cities. The NCOs in the British Indian army openly ignored and defied the orders of the British superiors. In Madras and Pune, the Indian Army revolted in the British Garrisons.
Riots broke out all over the country. The mutineers were hoisting 3 flags – Indian National COngress, Muslim League and CPI. British people in cars were made to get off and shout “Jai Hind” by the mutineers. The Indian Tricolor was hoisted on many ships and establishments, by just the second day.
Such was the crisis that destroyers were gotten and stationed at the Gateway of India in Bombay to deal with the mutineers. Navies of Australia and Canada were also summoned.
The third day into this – the Royal Air Force flew an entire squadron of Bombers over Bombay Harbor to show support. Meanwhile the sailors had taken over HMIS Bahadur, Chamak and Himalaya and from the Royal Naval Anti-Aircraft School .
It was by that time that the decision to confront the Navy ratings was taken by the British and the sailors aboard the destroyer Hindustan were challenged. The sailors lost many lives and could not fight back much and in the process the ship Hindustan was destroyed.
Betrayal by Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah and Azad
Despite the extensive public support and support from all the wings of the Armed forces – Army, Navy, Air force, and even police – apart from unanimous coming together of people across religious groups at a time when the religious situation had been made really bad due to Partition debate and passion, ALL the National Leaders not only did NOT support the Navy Mutineers and their supporters but instead condemned them.
They were leaderless, surely, but they had achieved what NO OTHER generation and group of Indians had achieved in 250 years – turn the Indian Armed forces personnel against their Masters. Subhash Bose had imagined this kind of situation. Little did he know that from the failure of his own Army, would arise a rebellion and a will to fight amongst the rank and file of Indian soldiers hitherto fighting dutifully for the British, often against their own countrymen, to strike back.
The Mainstream politicians – from Jinnah to Gandhi, to Nehru to Maulana Azad – ALL let these final Freedom fighters down. They just abandoned them and except for preaching they did nothing to help them.
In midst of one of most unprecedented religious tension in the sub-continent, this rebellion and its genesis was a Godsend to reinforce religious and class harmony, which was forged instantly WITHOUT any machination. Yet, it was squandered…. probably deliberately by all those who promised us peace and harmony.
These people – the so-called Mainstream politicians spearheaded by Gandhi were interested in only their hold of their masses.. to see themselves being upstaged by a bunch of young upstarts with romantic patriotism in their eyes was unnerving. (James L. Raj; Making and unmaking of British India. Abacus. 1997. p598) Show of fake “constitutional process” and “principles” was a good way to brush them aside despite all they had been able to do.
Real Reason for Independence
So what were the three things which convinced the British that India could not be governed by force anymore?
Subhash Bose, Indian National Army and the Royal Navy Uprising..
When Justice P.B. Chakrabarty, the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court once asked the British PM Lord Clement Atlee – responsible for conceding India’s Independence, the all important question -
“what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India”
His response, with a smirk: “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!“
So, then why did they have to leave if the Quit India movement of 1942 had subsided and nothing major happened in the mainstream politics – then why did the British have to leave so suddenly in 1947??
Clement Atlee’s response:
Erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji
Such was the Congress party scared of the truth coming out that as late as 1965, a Marxist theater actor and writer Utpal Dutt was arrested for writing a passionate play on the VERY event that ensured India its Independence – the Royal Navy Uprising!
But as the story goes in our History books…….

How India got its Independence – The Real Story

 

[dadeechi]

Did India Really Become Independent On August 15th, 1947?


The real violence is committed in the writing of history, the records of the legal system, the reporting of news, through the manipulation of social contracts, and the control of information
– Bryant H. McGill
This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation; through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that
– John Perkins
India was granted a dominion status on August 15, 1947. According to Balfour Declaration of 1926 ‘dominions’ is defined as autonomous communities within the British Empire but united by a common allegiance to the Crown. So, by the definition, India was an autonomous community “within the British Empire”. So, why do we celebrate August 15th as our Independence Day?

Many people in India still believe that a Dominion status is equivalent to an absolute independent status. All those who so believe should go back to elementary school to re-learn their English. According to the Oxford dictionary, a ‘dominion’ is a country of the British Commonwealth having its own government. This same mistaken belief was also held by all Congress leaders in those days who openly proclaimed that there was no difference between dominion status and independence and accepted the dominion status in their all party conference of November 1929. This same confusion was furthered by the approval of dominion status in the Lahore Conference of 1929. But later Subhash Chandra Bose proposed that independence meant complete dissolution of any relationship with the British; for this he was labeled a terrorist and foreign agent. Only on January 26th 1950 when India became a republic was the word Dominion replaced by Republic.
When Britain gave independence to America 170 years before India, the resolution relating to declaring independence read “the united colonies of America are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved”. Now look at the wording in the Indian Independence Act which was accepted by the British Parliament on July 18th 1947; “to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent dominions, to substitute other provisions of the government of India Act 1945 which apply outside those dominions and to provide for other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those dominions.”
There are two things very clear from the above statement:

1. The British did not want our allegiance to be completely dissolved from Great Britain and;
2. The British wanted to replace some provisions of the dominion status of India and Pakistan which were applicable to other dominion of British Crown, namely Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.

India was called “Dominion of India” from 1947 to 1950. We never taught in our history books that India had an official King in George VI post independence and this type of government system that could be called ‘constitutional monarchy’.
The monarchy of India was a system in which a hereditary monarch was the sovereign of India from 1947 to 1950. India shared the same person as it’s sovereign as the United Kingdom and the other Dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations. The monarch’s constitutional roles were mostly carried out by the governor-general. The royal succession was governed by the ‘Act of Settlement 1701’.

In 1948 Mountbatten left his position by appointing C. Rajagopalachari. Even till 1950, then Prime Minister of India was only the fourth in command. By January 26th, 1950 we wrote our own Constitution, and abolished the monarchy. So, effectively India’s Independence Day was January 26, 1950, and not August 15, 1947.
In the memoirs Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, Nehru’s aide M. O. Mathai wrote that even after India became independent, Prime Minister Nehru had to seek permissions from King George for all “humble duties of submission” by addressing himself in third person. One such letter, as Mathai recollected, had the following content:
“Jawaharlal Nehru presents his humble duty to Your Majesty and has the honour to submit, for Your Majesty’s approval the proposal of Your Majesty’s, Ministers in the Dominion of India that Sri Rajagopalachari, Governor of West Bengal, be appointed to be the Governor General of India on the demission of that Office by His Excellency Rear Admiral the Earl Mountbatten of Burma…”.
He had to affirm allegiance to King George VI, Emperor of India and also to affirm that he would well and truly serve “Our Sovereign”. Nehru was suddenly confronted with these. He had no choice. He suppressed his embarrassment and extreme annoyance and went through the affirmation of allegiance and affirmation of office which read as follows:
Form of Affirmation of Allegiance
I, Jawaharlal Nehru, do solemnly affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, KING GEORGE THE SIXTH, Emperor of India, His Heirs, and Successors, according to law.
Form of Affirmation of Office
I, Jawaharlal Nehru, do solemnly affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign, KING GEORGE THE SIXTH, Emperor of India, in the Office of Member of the Governor General’s Executive Council, and that I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of India without fear or favor of affection or ill-will.
What about our Army, Navy and Air Force leadership?
For any colonial nation, if independence means “not dependent” or not having to depend on anyone or anything else, it also means being strong and being able to survive alone. So, for India it means to see-off even the last British administrator from its land. We than would have to wait further until the late 1958 to celebrate ‘Independence’ because even after August 15th 1947, British officers Sirs Rob Lockhart and Roy Bucher were still heading the Indian Army and they left their positions in 1947 and 1949 respectively and World War veterans Sirs Edward Parry, Charles Pizey and Stephen Carlill were heading the Indian Navy until 1951, 1955, and 1958 respectively.
At the same time World War veterans Sirs Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman and Gerald Gibbs were heading our Air Force until 1951 and 1954 respectively. It was only in 1954 that we could see one of our own citizens, Subroto Mukherjee, at the helm of the air force affairs. Mukherjee himself was a war veteran and a graduate from the prestigious Royal Air Force College, Cranwell. But history has it that he told Mountbatten that he would need five to seven years time to take up the charge of the Air Force and also the navy took a very long time of eleven years for the transition of control to an Indian.
But then, how come the Army transition was over in just two years after our independence and that in the Navy took seven long years? Even Mukherjee, a winner of several decorations and awards from the mighty Queen, needed those seven years to rise to that level? He also had to undergo a course at the Imperial Defence College, London to shape himself up for the top post? After India saw ruthless rule of British for 250 years it would be foolish to think that they were under any sort of obligation to train us to the required level and ensure a smooth handshake.
What about Republic?
India became “Republic within Commonwealth on 1950”; now what is republic? Republic simply means ‘rule of law’ but note the word ‘within’; one cannot be free if they are ‘within’ other’s jurisdiction no matter how many constitutions we write.
On 2nd September 1953, Dr. Ambedkar clarified in his speech in the Rajya Sabha (Parliament) that
“People always keep saying to me: ‘Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution.’ My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will.
My friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody….”
During the Second World War the Allies accepted a San Francisco Peace Treaty on September 8, 1951 which came into existence on April 28, 1952. That same day on April 28th, Independent India also issued a statement stating that the war between India and Japan has ended and we signed the separate ‘peace treaty’ called Treaty of Peace Between Japan and India on June 9, 1952 restoring relations between the two nations. What this signifies is that from September 1945 when Japan surrendered or from 15th August 1947 when we became Independent until June 9, 1952 India was officially in a state of war with Japan. What was the need for India to go to war with Japan after independence? Was the decision to declare war with Japan undertaken by independent India or was India fighting a proxy war? In that case who was in control of India’s foreign policy even after independence? What is the implication of such a thing? It should be kept in mind that Subhash Bose during the same period had made an alliance with Japan to eject the British from India and achieve complete freedom. Is this the reason why Bose was labeled a terrorist?
For more details read Bose’s Plot To Bring Down The British Empire
India’s response to these events suggests that the leadership, and the populace at large, is as ignorant about the international equations as they were during the colonization of India. We have completely failed to understand the players in this game, their motives, their powers and their means. Further few Indians even today care to ask themselves questions that would lead them in the direction of these answers. While India has produced scientists and engineers of very high caliber, its failure to produce social scientists of even mediocre capability in understanding the political equations is surprising. Although our society has focused its efforts in producing a vast talent base of students trained to think with the precision of modern mathematics, it has abysmally failed to apply this precise thought to the social sciences. This has resulted in an utter failure to answer even the most elementary of questions in international politics. One cannot help but surmise that these engineers and scientists were perhaps encouraged to serve unseen masters who deliberately kept the society in dark about the social sciences themselves.
It is natural for masters to keep their slave subjects from knowing too much about them. Even in the start of this new millennium few in Asia, and fewer in India in particular, have heard about the subject of Geopolitics. With most of the major players centered around Europe and the Middle East, it is no surprise that the Indians were kept ignorant about the deeper forces that drove the world for the past twenty centuries. In the best of cases, we have viewed these awful events with ignorance and what is worse, with a self-destructive arrogance. More often than not, we have chosen to bury our heads in the sand and refuse to view them at all.
At the end of the day the brutal truth is ‘August 15th’ is not a day of celebration or a day of distributing chocolates or not even a day to feel that ‘We are free’. The fact is it is a day to feel sorrow and shame on ourselves to celebrate as Independence Day a major event that triggered the riots which preceded the partition in the Punjab region that killed between 200,000 and 500,000 people in retributive genocide between the religions due to the evil policy of divide and rule by British. UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition; it was the largest mass migration in human history.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet,
as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take;
but as for me, give me liberty (Swaraj) or give me death!”
– Patrick Henry, 1775, fire brand Patriot urging his fellow Virginians to fight against East India Company’s British oppression in todays USA.


Did India Really Become Independent On August 15th, 1947? - Great Game India

 

[dray]

I am looking forward to the date 23rd January 2016. I hope Narendra Modi would be brave enough to declassify all the Netaji files and take up the issue of declassification with all the associated foreign governments, Russia, Japan, UK, USA, Germany, Taiwan, etc.

 

[dadeechi]

Vellore Mutiny was the first war of Independence and was a precursor to the Indian Mutiny of 1857

Vellore Mutiny, outbreak against the British on July 10, 1806, by sepoys (Indian troops employed by the British) at Vellore (now in Tamil Nadu state, southern India). The incident began when the sepoys broke into the fort where the many sons and daughters of Tippu Sultan of Mysore and their families had been lodged since their surrender at Seringapatam (now Shrirangapattana) in 1799 during the fourth Mysore War.
The July 10 outbreak, though encouraged by the Mysore princes, was basically caused by resentment at new British regulations that ordered changes in headgear and shaving style and the prohibition of ornaments and caste marks for the Indian troops. Little effort was made by the British to reassure the men or listen to their grievances, which included the belief that the regulations were detrimental to the religious practices of both Hindus and Muslims. There were also complaints about the sepoys’ pay. About 130 British troops were killed in the initial assault, but the fort was recovered within hours by a relief force of British soldiers and sepoys under Colonel Robert Gillespie from nearby Arcot. Hundreds of mutineers were killed, either in the fighting or in subsequent executions by the British.
The affair alarmed the British because of its connection with the Mysore princes, who were thereupon removed to Calcutta (now Kolkata). Lord William Bentinck, the governor of Madras (now Chennai), and Sir John Cradock (later John Caradock, 1st Baron Howden), the commander in chief at Madras, were both recalled. It is believed, however, that the severity of punishments meted out by the British—which included tying some of those convicted of mutiny to the barrels of cannons and then firing them—deterred sepoys in southern India from joining the Indian Mutiny of 1857–58.

Vellore Mutiny | Indian mutiny | Britannica.com

Vellore Mutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dadeechi]

The world of freemasons
IT IS an organisation with a worldwide presence, and is yet shrouded in secrecy.
Believed to be dating back to the times of King Solomon, it still holds appeal among people from a cross-section of society. Welcome to the world of freemasons.
Though freemasonry existed in the ancient times,the movement, as we know it today, took shape in the 16th-17th century, in Great Britain. A. V. Ranga Rao, a senior freemason, says, "The profession of architects and masons represented the cream of the intelligentsia in that period. And they constituted almost all the (masonic) lodges at that time. Over a period of time, its membership base spread to include people from all professions."
Freemasonry, in the words of some of the seasoned members, is one of the world's oldest secular fraternal societies. One of the fundamental pre-requisites for a freemason is belief in God. Atheists and non-believers are not `admitted'. Which is why while Motilal Nehru was a freemason, his son, Jawaharlal wasn't.
The most distinguishing feature of the freemasons has been the secrecy attached to the organisation, its rituals and the extreme reticence of the members.
But, "our meetings are held on dates and places known to many people. The notices of the meetings are sent by mail (therefore subject to interception), so where is the secrecy," ask the members. Though what goes on inside the `temple' (place of meetings) will never be revealed "for historic reasons". Says P. S. Moorty, "each profession has its own guild. It protects its members and through an oath keeps a close watch so that the secrets don't leak out."
Membership to the masonic lodges isn't easy to come by. Only adult men, with a firm belief in God, must be recommended by an existing freemason and then the lodge and its committees consider it. If found fit and appropriate, the person is admitted as a freemason. He needs to come through the rituals (in three stages or degrees).
Talking of rituals, there is grandeur to the rituals of the freemasons. Every freemason is dressed in a grand attire — regalia — and occupies a specific place in the temple. (The temple houses the holy works of all the important religions). Anyone who has read The Valley of Fear, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, will recall the graphic and pulsating detail in which the `Body of freemen' and their meetings are described. It is very difficult not to draw parallels between Conan Doyle's Lodges of Freemen and the masonic lodges. Says Ranga Rao, "The Valley of Fear is a wonderful novel. Perhaps, at one point of time, when you had the operational lodges, there was a tight leash over the members and leaked secrets meant death in some cases. It is not so anymore. With so many judges and advocates being freemasons, I think it is the most law-abiding society you would find."
Hyderabad has been home to masonic lodges for over 120 years. The British brought in freemasonry in 1872 when the St. Johns Lodge met regularly. Almost at the same time, the Mayo lodge also met here. The Nizam of Hyderabad, himself a freemason, donated a building to permanently house the movement in Goshamahal Baradari, where even today several lodges function.
The illustrious list of freemasons includes names such as Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Henry Ford, Clive Lloyd, Swami Vivekananda, C. Rajagopalachari, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Madhav Rao Scindia.

The Hindu : The world of freemasons

Bonding Through Brotherhood: Freemasons in India

Other than a bitter dispute that has killed thousands in the Middle-East, what's common between Yasser Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu and Yitzak Rabin? Or Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Winston Churchill? What united the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller family in the US, despite their enormous wealth? They were all Freemasons - a fraternal and yet mysterious society with its origins in early modern Europe and which now commands a global membership of almost six million people including some of the world's most powerful and the rich.
The coffee-table book, 'Bonding Through Brotherhood: 50 Years of Grand Lodge in India' published on the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the Grand Lodge, is an attempt at not only chronicling the history of the almost 400-year old organisation that has intrigued as well as inspired a host of people across generations and geographies, but also at educating the Indian readers on the movement's 'glocal' character - its global organisation and principles as well as its local history and spread across India. The book also details the activities of the society which includes social work, philanthropy, educational and health initiatives.

So who are the Freemasons? The members insist it is not a religion and instead emphasises secularism by teaching respect for and tolerance towards all religions. It is also not a political party or organisation. It is not a social club either. It nevertheless provides the means of socialising among its members. Freemasons however insist that it is not a secret society. "There is nothing secret or secretive about Freemasonry. Freemasonry does not conceal the time and place of its meeting nor does a member hide the fact of his membership," says the charter on its India website. It further says: "Like many other societies it regards some of its internal affairs as private matters of concern only for its members."
The India story of the Freemasons began as early as in 1728-29 under the British. Some of the most well-known early Freemasons were Swami Vivekananda, Motilal Nehru (father of Jawaharlal Nehru), C Rajagopalachary (former Governor General of India), Maharaja of Patiala and former President of India Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. The movement however suffered with the exit of the British and was only revived in 1961 with the constitution of the Grand Lodge of India at New Delhi's Ashoka Hotel. Today, the book tells us, India has over 370 Lodges and nearly 400 other Masonic bodies located in 150 cities and towns across the country with a total membership of almost 20,000 Freemasons.
The book has been published in memory of Col Anil Shorey who had originally conceived the idea of the history of Freemasons in India. A Freemason himself, Shorey was the brainchild behind the book, which was later compiled and finished by his fellow Freemasons. 'Bonding Through Brotherhood' is a valuable resource for those interested in knowing about this fascinating and mysterious society, the accounts of which are not easily available otherwise.
Bonding Through Brotherhood: 50 Years of Grand Lodge in India, 2011. Published by the Grand Lodge of India. Price: Rs 1990

Bonding Through Brotherhood: Freemasons in India - IBNLive

 

[Maira La]

How India got its Independence – The Real Story
October 14, 2009 by Desh Kapoor 29 Comments
...
The mutiny, that no one in our generation has ever heard of, did to the British colonization, what no other action could have done in the long struggle of 250 years.
...

Really? Did someone forget WW2?!
In short, Germany destroyed British Empire. Almost every ******* colony broke free of British colonization in the post-war era.

 

[dadeechi]

Really? Did someone forget WW2?!
In short, Germany destroyed British Empire. Almost every ******* colony broke free of British colonization in the post-war era.

Now thank me for this.


The Myth of India's Independence
April 15, 2012

The first Indian Prime Minister Pandit Nehru (1889-1964) was a Freemason and Illuminati shill. He was in bed, in more ways than one, with Lord Mountbatten and his wife Edwina.





by "H"(henrymakow.com, reprised from 2004)

As we know, the biggest Illuminati project of the 20th century was Communism. The Illuminati fostered the growth of the Indian National Congress through its operatives, A.O Hume and William Wederburn. The idea was to create an independent India which would be a proxy for the Soviets.

For this purpose, Indian Freemasonry worked overtime to groom local Indian Mason operatives.

According to this official Masonic website, "Swami Vivekananda (initiated in 1884 under the name of Bro. Narendra Nath Dutt in Lodge Anchor & Hope, Calcutta). Motilal Nehru - Lodge Harmony, Kanpur (Father of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and grand father of Indhira Gandhi), C. Rajagopalachary (Governor General of India), Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer (Divan of Travancore), Dr. P V Cheriy (Governor of Maharashtra), and Fakruddin Ali Ahmed (President of India)."

Since this Illuminati project of delivering an "independent India" to the Soviet sphere of influence required top priority, Illuminati operative Helena Blavatsky founded The Theosophical Society in India. The purpose was two-fold. First, Blavatsky would dig up the swastika and Aryan theory for the Nazis who were created to attack Russia, which would result in the entire Eastern Europe and Germany being transferred to Communists.

Secondly, The Theosophical Society would coordinate the Indian Independence movement through the Indian National Congress. Even back then, rumors began circulating about Blavatsky and the "Russians".

A key theosophist activist was Mrs. Annie Besant who despite acting against the British, managed to mysteriously escape being punished by them. If one analyzes the Indian independence movement, we notice the British building a crescendo of antagonizing the Indian National Congress and then caving in to their demands....whereas transfer of power to the INC was predetermined.

Realizing that Indian National Congress leaders were phoney in every respect, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a British educated lawyer managed to get a mandate for an all Muslim Pakistan without shedding a drop of blood or going to jail.

The last Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten was associated with the Rothschilds. He realized the threat Pakistan would pose to Soviet-proxy India. He assured that independent India got more than its share of landmass, including islands in the Indian Ocean, many border districts initially marked for Pakistan (which resulted in the Muslims being massacred), and 95% Muslim Kashmir which should have gone to Pakistan.

The moment India was liberated coincides with a little known private ceremony known as "Hour of the British Empire" which is held in London.

Further, the Rothschild-owned British Petroleum was granted unlimited rights to all offshore Indian oil, which is valid to this day. There is reason to believe that the internationalists were behind the death/disappearance of Indian freedom fighter Subhash Chandra Bose who had become a popular rival to Theosophist groomed Nehru after independence.

Unlike Nehru, Bose was on the front lines using Indian POW's captured by the Japanese to fight back against the British. His death remains a mystery and it was conducted by the illuminati to ensure Nehru had control over all India.

The Congress party consisted of numerous Freemasons and Theosophists who ensured that India with its strategic landmass was always a total ally of the Soviet Union.

Later, many Communist countries including India became part of the "non aligned movement" which enabled them to remain allied to the Soviet Union and yet receive major aid from internationalists and their tax free foundations in America, including components for atomic weapons. Even Canadian Deuterium made its way into Soviet proxy India. All of Indian military hardware consisted of Russian technology and despite the cold war, the Illuminati was very reluctant to back Pakistan in any way.

Limited amounts of American small arms made it to Afghanistan through Pakistan but it is important to note that the American ambassador supervising it and the Pakistani President, General Zia were killed in the same plane crash!

India had major stakes in the Soviet Union, including a possible obliteration of Pakistan if the Soviets made it across Afghanistan. It is interesting to note that the UN turned a blind eye to the illegal Indian invasion and annexation of Goa. This proves that the UN was created to foster Illuminati plans.

Of course, the farce of Indian independence will never be known to the casual observer, who is subjected to whitewash such as the BBC movie, "Gandhi" and Larry Collin's (Of Illuminati Collins bloodline) "Freedom at Midnight". As for Indians, despite their population of around 1 billion, they seem to be too hungry, hate obsessed and materialistic to ever figure it out. And again, greeting the powerful of the world with folded hands is never looked down upon in India. Rather, it represents a 1000 year old tradition.

It is interesting to note that the Indian government crushed the real peasant classes who became genuine Communists without the Communist International batting an eye; and Soviet aid to India was never paused.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Illuminati switched horses; abandoning the Congress party for the Hindu fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Though never in control of this party, this was the closest the Illuminati could get to exercising influence. The UN and world media would turn a blind eye to the burning alive of 5000+ Muslim civilians by Hindu hoodlums.

Israel would become intimately involved with India, to the extent of Israeli fighter planes being detected in the process of launching preemptive strikes on Pakistani nuclear reactors after India conducted its recent nuclear tests.

The coming to light of this event enraged the Chinese allies of Pakistan to such an extent that they gifted Pakistan a complete fleet of fighter planes.

The recent resurgence of the Congress has upset Illuminati plans. The creation of a one world government under the Illuminati UN will require not just horrendous wars in the Middle East but the rest of the world as well.

In Asia, we may see a war with Pakistan, North Korea and China against India, Taiwan and South Korea. If it happens to be a nuclear war, the carnage will help pave way for a UN one-world government. For that purpose, the Illuminati is working to get the recently dethroned Hindu fascist BJP party back on its feet.

The Myth of India's Independence - henrymakow.com

The Untold Story of Gandhi and Theosophy
Submitted by David Livingstone on Sun, 12/15/2013 - 20:32

According to Gandhi:
The soul of religions is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms. The latter will endure to the end of time. Wise men will ignore the outward crust and see the same soul living under a variety of crusts... Truth is the exclusive property of no single scripture.
These ideas mirror the those of a "universal brotherhood," expressed by H. P. Blavatsky, an avowed Luciferian and the leading figure of the nineteenth century Occult Revival, and the "godmother" of the New Age movement, which aspires to create a one-world religion based on the teachings of Freemasonry.
(the following is an excerpt from Black Terror White Soldiers)
In India, Blavatksy’s Theosophical Society evolved into a mixture of Western occultism and Hindu mysticism, and also spread western ideas in the east, aiding a modernization of eastern traditions, and contributing to a growing nationalism in the Asian colonies. The Theosophical Society had a major influence on Buddhist modernism and Hindu reform movements, and the spread of those modernized versions in the west. During the nineteenth century, Hinduism developed a large number of new religious movements, partly inspired by the European Romanticism, nationalism, scientific racism and Theosophy. With the rise of Hindu nationalism, several contemporary Indian movements, collectively termed Hindu reform movements, strove to introduce regeneration and reform to Hinduism.
The Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj were united from 1878 to 1882, as the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj. And, along with H. S. Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala, Blavatsky was also instrumental in the Western transmission and revival of Theravada Buddhism. Dharmapala (1864 – 1933) was a pioneer in the revival of Buddhism in India after it had been virtually extinct there for several centuries. Along with Olcott and Blavatsky, Dharmapala was also a major reformer and revivalist of Ceylonese Buddhism and very crucial figure in its Western transmission. Dharmapala also believed that Sinhalese of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) are a pure Aryan race, and advised that Sinhalese women should avoide miscegenation by refraining from mixing with minority races of the country.[1]
An important influence on western spirituality was Neo-Vedanta, also called neo-Hinduism, a modern religious movement inspired by the ecstatic visionary experiences of Sri Ramakrishna (1836 – 1886) and his beloved disciple Swami Vivekananda (1863 – 1902). It was Vivekananda who coined the term “Hinduism” to describe a faith of diverse and myriad beliefs of Indian tradition. Also a Freemason, Vivekananda was a key figure in the introduction of Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the western world. Vivekananda taught the doctrine of the unity of all religions, and is perhaps best known for a speech at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1893, the first attempt to create a global dialogue of faiths. Vivekananda quoted two passages from the Shiva mahimna stotram: “As the different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the different paths which men take, through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee!” and “Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths that in the end lead to Me.”[2]
In addition to Vivekananda, the Parliament of the World’s Religions was dominated by the Theosophists and their counterparts among the representatives of neo-Vedanta and Buddhist Modernism. According to K. Paul Johnson, the Parliament gave Theosophists “a breakthrough into public acceptance and awareness which had hardly seemed possible a few years before.”[3] Colonel Olcott shared his sentiments in Old Diary Leaves, “How great a success it was for us and how powerfully it stimulated public interest in our views will be recollected by all our older members.” Several of the World Parliament’s speakers on behalf of internationsl religions had been Theosopphists, such as Dharmapala and Kinza Hirai, who represented Buddhism, Mohammed Webb for Islam, and Chakravarti for the Hindus. In his 1921 history of the Theosophical movement, René Guénon wrote that after the 1893 Parliament, “the Theosophists seemed very satisfied with the excellent occasion for propaganda afforded them in Chicago, and they even went so far as to proclaim that “the true Parliament of Religions had been, in fact, the Theosophical Congress.”[4]
At the Parliament, Vivekananda’s speech also made a profound impression on Annie Besant (1847 – 1933), who had assumed the leadership of the worldwide theosophical movement when Blavatsky had passed away in 1891. Born in London into a middle-class family of Irish origin, Besant was proud of her heritage, and became involved with Union organizers including the Bloody Sunday demonstration, which she was widely credited for inciting. During 1884, Besant had developed a very close friendship with Edward Aveling, who first translated the works of Marx into English. He eventually went to live with Marx’s daughter Eleanor Marx, whose network was being spied on by Theodor Reuss. Besant was a leading speaker for the Fabian Society. The Fabians were a group of socialists whose strategy differed from that of Karl Marx in that they sought world domination through what they called the “doctrine of inevitability of gradualism.” This meant their goals would be achieved “without breach of continuity or abrupt change of the entire social issue,” and by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties.
After a dispute, the American section of the Theosophical Society split into an independent organization. The original Society, then led by Henry Steel Olcott and Besant, based in Chennai, India, came to be known as the Theosophical Society Adyar. Besant’s partner in running the Theosophical Society was Charles Leadbeater, a known pedophile. In 1909, Leadbeater claimed to have “discovered” the new Messiah in the person of the handsome young Indian boy named Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti gained international acceptance among followers of Theosophy as the new Savior, but the boy’s father nearly ruined the scheme when he accused Leadbeater of corrupting his son. Krishnamurti also eventually repudiated his designated role, and spent the rest of his life travelling the world and becoming in the process widely known as an unaffiliated speaker.
As President of the Theosophical Society, Besant became involved in politics in India, joining the Indian National Congress, and during World War I helped launch the Home Rule League, modeling demands for India on Irish nationalist practices. This led to her election as president of the India National Congress in late 1917. As editor of the New India newspaper, she attacked the colonial government of India and called for clear and decisive moves towards self-rule. In June 1917 Besant was arrested, but the National Congress and the Muslim League together threatened to launch protests if she was not set free. The government was forced to make significant concessions, and it was announced that the ultimate aim of British rule was Indian self-government.
After the war, a new leadership emerged around Mohandas K. Gandhi, who was inspired by the ideals of Vivekananda, and who was among those who had written to demand Besant’s release, and who had returned from leading Asians in a non-violent struggle against racism in South Africa. In 1888, he had travelled to London, England, to study law at University College London, when he met members of the Theosophical Society. They encouraged him to join them in reading the Bhagavad Gita. As a result, despite not having shown any interest in religion before, Gandhi began his serious study of the text, which was to become his acknowledged guide throughout his life. According to Kathryn Tidrick, Gandhi’s approach to the Gita was theosophical.[5] Gandhi later credited Theosophy with instilling in him the principle of the equality among religions. As he explained to his biographer, Louis Fischer, “Theosophy… is Hinduism at its best. Theosophy is the brotherhood of man.” The organization’s motto inspired Gandhi to develop one of his central principles, that “all religions are true.”[6]
Gandhi had met Blavatsky and Besant in 1889.[7] And when Gandhi set up his office in Johannesburg, among the pictures he hung on his walls were those of Tolstoy, Jesus Christ and Annie Besant, and in a letter he wrote to her in 1905 he expressed his "reverence" of her.[8] Besant bestowed on him the title by which he became famous, "Mahatma,” a Hindu term for "Great Soul,” and the same name by which Theosophy called its own masters. Besant's distinctive influence on Gandhi was through her contribution to theory was the “Law of Sacrifice,” which was set out most fully in Esoteric Christianity. The Law of Sacrifice was derived from a Fabian reading of the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna's selfless activity brought the world into existence and continues to sustain it. Action performed in this “sacrificial” spirit, says Krishna, is free from Karma. From this Besant developed the notion of the Law of Sacrifice, a form of “spiritual alchemy,” through disinterested action, “cast upon the altar of duty.” The man who acts in harmony with the divine selflessness animating the universe becomes:
..a force for evolution… an energy for progress, and the whole race then benefits by the action which otherwise would only have rough to the sacrificer a personal fruit, which in turn would have bound his Soul, and limited his potentialities.[9]
Despite his popular image as holy man, Joseph Lelyveld’s Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India, according to his reviewer, reveals Gandhi was a “sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist—one who was often downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi was therefore the archetypal 20th-century progressive intellectual, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually despising people as individuals.”[10] According to Lelyveld, Gandhi also encouraged his seventeen-year-old great-niece to be naked during her "nightly cuddles,” and began sleeping with her and other young women. He also engaged in a long-term homosexual affair with German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder Hermann Kallenbach, for whom Gandhi at one point left his wife in 1908.[11]
Though Gandhi was concerned for the plight of the Indians of South Africa, he shared the racist beliefs of the Theosophists. Of white Afrikaaners and Indians, he wrote: “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do.” Gandhi lent his support to the Zulu War of 1906, volunteering for military service himself and raising a battalion of stretcher-bearers. Gandhi complained of Indians being marched off to prison where they were placed alongside Blacks, “We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs [Blacks] are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.”[12]
Gandhi and Mussolini became friendly when they met in December 1931, with Gandhi praising the Duce's "service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about a coordination between Capital and Labour, his passionate love for his people." He also advised the Czechs and Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, saying that "a single Jew standing up and refusing to bow to Hitler's decrees" might be enough "to melt Hitler's heart."[13
The Untold Story of Gandhi and Theosophy | Conspiracy School

Atheists and non-believers are not `admitted'. Which is why while Motilal Nehru was a freemason, his son, Jawaharlal wasn't.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/how-india-got-its-independence-%E2%80%93-the-real-story.405280/#ixzz3po5Nzsnu

@Joe Shearer @Skull and Bones

Are you sure you want to continue as Atheists?

 

[Kaniska]

Thanks for such informative post about Indian independence.

 

[dadeechi]

Thanks for such informative post about Indian independence.

Gandhi was a student of Helena Blavatsky hence he got the title Mahatma.

Gandhi on Blavatsky and Theosophy

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), better known to the world as Mahatma Gandhi, was the most influential leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India. Employing non-violence (Ahimsa) and peaceful protest in his methods, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired many subsequent movements for non-violence, civil rights, and freedom all over the world.
Note: Numbers in brackets correspond to the source references for these passages, which can be found listed at the bottom of the page.
“Theosophy is the teaching of Madame Blavatsky. It is Hinduism at its best. Theosophy is the Brotherhood of Man. … Jinnah and other Moslem leaders were once members of the Congress. They left it because they felt the pinch of Hinduism patronizing. … They did not find the Brotherhood of Man among the Hindus. They say Islam is the Brotherhood of Man. As a matter of fact, it is the Brotherhood of Moslems. Theosophy is the Brotherhood of Man.” [1]
“It was through theosophy that Gandhi was induced to study his own heritage. This effect was generated in many Indians.” [2]
“Towards the end of my second year in England I came across two Theosophists, brothers, and both unmarried. They talked to me about the Gita [i.e. the Bhagavad Gita]. They were reading Sir Edwin Arnold’s translation –
The Song Celestial – and they invited me to read the original with them. I felt ashamed, as I had read the divine poem neither in Sanskrit nor in Gujarati. I was constrained to tell them that I had not read the Gita, but that I would gladly read it with them, and that though my knowledge of Sanskrit was meagre, still I hoped to be able to understand the original to the extent of telling where the translation failed to bring out the meaning. I began reading the Gita with them. The verses in the second chapter … made a deep impression in my mind, and they still ring in my ears. The book struck me as one of priceless worth. The impression has ever since been growing on me with the result that I regard it as the book par excellence for the knowledge of truth.” [3]
“I recall having read, at the brothers’ direction Madame Blavatsky’s Key to Theosophy. This book stimulated in me the desire to read books on Hinduism, and disabused me of the notion fostered by the missionaries that Hinduism was rife with superstition.” [4]
“He read Mme. Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, and on March 26, 1891, was enrolled as an associate member of the Blavatsky Lodge.” [5]
“It was in November 1889 that Gandhi met HPB [i.e. H.P. Blavatsky]. At that time, he said, he did not join the TS [i.e. Theosophical Society] because “with my meagre knowledge of my own religion, I did not want to belong to any religious body.” However, a year and a half later, on March 26, 1891, he became an associate member of the Blavatsky Lodge. Three months later, on June twelfth, he returned to India.” [6]
It is important to note that the only Theosophy recognised by Gandhi as actually being Theosophy was the original and genuine Theosophy taught and presented by H.P. Blavatsky. He very clearly expressed, when necessary, his distinctly negative view of the pseudo-Theosophy of Annie Besant and in particular C.W. Leadbeater. Since Alice Bailey’s teachings are largely based on those invented by Leadbeater, it is perhaps partly for this reason that Alice Bailey expressed a distinctly unfavourable view of Gandhi. He was a friend of B.P. Wadia and Sophia Wadia, influential figures in the United Lodge of Theosophists (ULT), an international association of Theosophical students whose expressed mission statement is “To spread broadcast the original teachings of Theosophy as recorded in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge.”
“I do not think that Mrs. Besant is a hypocrite; she is credulous and she is duped by Leadbeater. When an Englishman suggested to me to read Leadbeater’s The Life After Death, I flatly refused to do so as I had grown suspicious of him after reading his other writings. As to his humbug [i.e. fraud and deception], I came to know of if later.” [7]
“These essays of Sophia Wadia show at a glance how much similarity there is between the principal faiths of the earth in the fundamentals of life. All our mutual quarrels centre round non-essentials. Sophia Wadia’s labours will be amply rewarded if people belonging to different faiths will study faiths other than their own, with the same reverence that she has exhibited in her essays. An understanding knowledge of and respect for the great faiths of the world is the foundation of true Theosophy.” [8]
~ * ~
Mahatma Gandhi clearly echoed the words and message of H.P. Blavatsky and her mysterious Eastern Teachers who stood behind her and the Theosophical Movement when he said –
“The soul of religions is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms. The latter will endure to the end of time. Wise men will ignore the outward crust and see the same soul living under a variety of crusts. … Truth is the exclusive property of no single scripture. We may call ourselves Christians, Hindus or Mohammedans. Whatever we may be, beneath that diversity there is a oneness which is unmistakable and underneath many religions there is also one religion.”
The famous motto of the Theosophical Movement is “There is no religion higher than Truth.” With Theosophy and his destined 1889 meeting with Madame Blavatsky in his mind, Gandhi famously expressed it thus: “There is no God higher than Truth.”

Gandhi on Blavatsky and Theosophy – Blavatsky Theosophy Group UK

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Indians had achieved in 250 years

Incorrect. It was about 98 years

* Before that most of what is Pakistan (Punjab, Khyber Pakhtun, Sindh, Balochistan,Kashmir) was ruled by differant kingdoms and were not under British rule.

British were in trouble in 1946.

No there NOT. If you think that this "piss in the wind" had any bearing on the British leaving you are badly mistaken. The reason the British left was caused by fundamental changes taking place in the world. The British as back as 1920 knew the colonial age was drawing to close.

This can be seen in British making some changes like accepting natives for leadership role in the civil and military domains. Winds of change would blow across all colonies be they in Asia or Africa. WW2 hastened the process. From 1946 onwards there was steady pull out of European powers and by 1970 majority were free. Did they all have mutinies?

You don't think there were no Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah or Bose in 1857? That mutiny was a all out war where some South Asia joined the British ( Punjabi - Sikhs and Muslims ) with most of the Ganges basin up against the British.

 

[dadeechi]

Foreword to the Combined Chronology of Margaret Conger
By Grace F. Knoche
In December 1923, the theosophical world was electrified by the publication of The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett — over 120 letters purportedly written between 1880 and 1884 by two Eastern adepts, M. and K. H., to A. P. Sinnett of Allahabad, editor of The Pioneer, leading Anglo-Indian newspaper, and to his friend A. O. Hume, C. B., in the service of Her Majesty's Government in India, and an ornithologist of note. Until then, extracts only from this remarkable correspondence had been available for study, chiefly those portions which Mr. Sinnett had quoted in his book, The Occult World, in 1881. Now the original letters, without deletions, had been transcribed and compiled by A. Trevor Barker.
Two years later, a companion volume was issued: The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett — written not only to Mr. Sinnett, but many of them to his wife Patience, whom H. P. B. held in lasting and affectionate regard.
Just what prompted Trevor Barker to contact Maud Hoffman, executrix of the estate of the late A. P. Sinnett who had died in 1921, is not known. It is of record that the Mahatma as well as the Blavatsky letters had been bequeathed by Mr. Sinnett "solely and unconditionally" to Miss Hoffman, and that she in turn had allowed this young man the "great privilege of undertaking the whole responsibility" for their transcription and publication in book form. That Trevor Barker was keenly sensible of the "grave responsibility attending his action" is eloquently set forth in his Introduction to The Mahatma Letters (2nd edition), the more so as he was well aware that K. H., while encouraging Sinnett (ML 49) to "recast teachings and ideas" for his "future book" which became Esoteric Buddhism, had later on reminded him that the letters "were not written for publication or public comment upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I will ever give our consent to see them thus handled" (ML 63).
That was in 1884. By the 1920s the situation had greatly altered. The original message had in certain quarters become marred by intrusions of neo-theosophy, ideas counter to the teachings of H. P. B. and her teachers. So convinced was Trevor Barker that "the highest interests of The Theosophical Society demanded the full publication" of these documents in order that the members and the world at large could "study the truth for themselves concerning The Masters and their doctrines as set forth in these letters signed by their own hands," 1) that he determined to publish the whole of the Mahatma letters "verbatim from the originals and without omission" (ML Introduction).
Incredible as it may seem, publication of the letters roused a good deal of antagonism, mainly among those whom one would have thought would be the first to rejoice that at long last the direct words of H. P. B.'s teachers could be studied at first hand. Some went so far as to ban the book, for reasons of their own. A few believed sincerely that no good could come from "raking out of a desirable oblivion the faults and failures of early workers," forgetting that the penetrating analyses of character were compassionately motivated and, moreover, were not pointed to the individuals involved so much as to human frailties that all of us share in common. Others protested because of the final section in the Appendix in which Mr. Barker had outlined the facts of the "Mars and Mercury controversy" — a divergence of interpretation between A. P. S. and H. P. B. of the Master's teaching regarding the planetary chains (cf. "Mars and Mercury").
Most theosophists, of course, immediately recognized the book's intrinsic worth. Not least among these was Dr. H. N. Stokes, brilliant editor of the O. E. Library Critic, whose fearless reporting at the periscope of the theosophic ship was to earn him the title of 'watchdog' of the movement. To him The Mahatma Letters was "the most authoritative work of a theosophical nature ever made accessible to the public. It is simply transcendent in its importance" (March 12,1924). Now the actual letters, telegrams and memoranda from M. and K. H. in the possession of Mr. Sinnett at the time of his death could be read by all. In a word, the general public had access to the wellspring of inspiration, training and instruction on which H. P. Blavatsky herself had drawn. There was no further doubt as to authenticity of source or inner purpose.
Then in 1925, with the issuance of The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, covering the years 1881-87, students were given a glimpse into the innermost heart of H. P. B. as she valiantly battled to save the T. S., scarcely a decade old, and now reeling from the shock of the Coulomb treachery and the subsequent Report of the Society for Psychical Research, which had infamously branded her "as one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting impostors in history" (cf. Proceedings, December 1885, London).
To read her letters, especially those to Patience Sinnett written in the summer of 1885, is to come profoundly close to the reality of sacrifice. Of that memorable night when H. P. B. was shown the future and what she would have to endure if she chose to remain their instrument, she writes: "Death was so welcome at that hour, rest so needed, so desired; life like the one that stared me in the face, and that is realised now — so miserable; yet how could I say No to Him who wanted me to live!" (BL 105).
The world is vastly in debt to the karma surrounding these letters, First, to Trevor Barker for the impetus, courage and tenacity of purpose to consummate their publication. Secondly, to A. P. Sinnett for his faithful care of these priceless documents, all the more because in his latter days he wrote disparagingly of his old friend H. P. B., casting a slur on her role as intermediary between himself and the Brothers. And thirdly to Maud Hoffman who held the safeguarding of this bequest as a most sacred trust. A fact that is amply attested by her foresight in arranging with Mr. Barker to present the entire collection of Mahatma and Blavatsky papers to the British Museum in 1939, where they are now housed in the Department of Manuscripts, beautifully bound in several volumes, and protected under the most favorable conditions for future generations of students.
Having myself had the inestimable privilege in 1951 of examining the originals, it doesn't take much imagination to sense the enormous challenge that must have faced Trevor Barker on receiving into his hands the wooden box which Mr. Sinnett had had made to hold the letters. Here were hundreds of loose letters, of every size, shape and color, some of them written on fragile rice paper, others on heavier grained stock, with the writing at times startlingly clear, but again, in places almost indecipherable, and with the style of handwriting varying nearly as greatly as the quality of ink, pencil or crayon used. What is more, most of the letters are undated, or only sketchily identified by the recipient as to date or place of receipt. Inevitably, as in the swift momentum of history in the making, too much is coursing through the consciousness to stop for minutiae. To the historian decades (or centuries) later, the lack of documentation looms large.
Trevor Barker, at once recognizing the impossibility of accurately arranging the Mahatma letters in chronological order, did the next best thing: he assembled the material under several major categories, starting with those letters from Sinnett's Occult World. Not only were they already well known to students, but were obviously the earliest received. Then came those majestic epistles on philosophical themes, dealing with the grand evolutionary pilgrimage through the kalpas of man and the kingdoms both below and above the human; next, the section on Probation and Chelaship, to read which is to be immeasurably chastened, and strengthened also, through identifying with those who sought then, as does the earnest aspirant of every age, to purify the heart of selfish motive.
Naturally it would have been preferable if Mr. Sinnett and Mr. Hume had conscientiously jotted down the date and circumstance surrounding the receipt of each communication, for then the moving force behind the sequence of events during those formative years of the theosophical effort might now be more clearly revealed. To compensate for this lack, Margaret Conger in 1939, after years of careful, painstaking examination of the early documents and periodicals of the Society, published her Combined Chronology for use with both the Mahatma and the Blavatsky letters — this being designed as a table of dates, with explanatory notes, giving the order (in certain instances approximate only) of the letters as they were written and received, and by whom. Mrs. Conger brought to her research a lifetime's study of and dedication to theosophical principles, having joined the Society and also its esoteric section under H. P. B. in 1890. From 1927-1939 she had the added advantage of testing her findings in her Mahatma Letters Class, in which her husband, Colonel Arthur L. Conger, and Dr. H. N. Stokes were active participants.
The next year, Mary K. Neff, author of Personal Memoirs of H. P. Blavatsky, published two small pamphlets, giving a chronological order of the letters of each volume separately. Other suggested arrangements by different scholars were made over the years, but to our knowledge never publicly shared. Then in 1972, George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson issued a Reader's Guide to the Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, an important contribution inasmuch as it gives for each letter not only its physical description, 2) approximate date when received, but the circumstances as far as known, with references in the literature to support their research. They also indicate where they consider the Blavatsky letters fit in to the Mahatma series. No one claims to provide the definitive order, but it is useful to compare doubtful points with the conclusions of others.
The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett is again available, after being out of print for more than thirty years, and the reissuance now of Margaret Conger's work is therefore welcome and valuable. Her arrangement of order is just what the title says it is, a combined chronology. Simple and direct, there is nothing extraneous to detract from the full impact of H. P. B.'s or the Master's thought.
To be able to follow letter by letter, first in the Mahatma series, and then in the Blavatsky book, to find an illuminating sidelight by H. P. B. on the very event or person just alluded to by M. or K. H., is to get a feel, an atmosphere; it is to sense the flow not only of developments, but of relationships between the teachers and H. P. B., and between them and Olcott and Sinnett and Hume, and Damodar too, and, indeed, all who came within the circle of their compassionate interest.
It is a tremendously inspiring experience, even at this late date, to participate in the behind-the-scenes doings of those momentous years that finally persuaded the Chief to permit K. H. and his brother M. to enter into correspondence, through H. P. B., with those proud Englishmen, in order to instruct them in some of the laws of natural being. Unfortunately, these gentlemen, with all their amazing intellectual and moral endowments, and even their philanthropic urgings (which, alas, had "no character of universality"), never seemed able to grasp the simple fact that the "truths and mysteries of occultism," while of the "highest spiritual importance . . . for the world at large," would not be imparted for the delectation of a select group, a few 'enlightened minds,' but solely that they might "work for the good of mankind" (ML 6).
This is not to belittle Sinnett or Hume. Had it not been for their unique karma, humanity may well have had to wait a good deal longer before this mighty philosophy could have been given to the world as fully as it has. Indeed, who knows but that they, by their eagerness to learn, may have pushed the door sufficiently ajar so that H. P. B., far better equipped by training and innate soul-quality, could sweep through and unfold in master strokes the cosmic grandeur of the Stanzas of Dzyan on which her Secret Doctrine is based. From the perspective of the errors and successes of several generations of theosophists, of the decades of service given without thought of self, dare we be prideful? How would we have fared so close to the Flame, to the primal source of Power?
- - - - -
We are also reproducing herein two important letters because they rightly belong to the Mahatma letter series, although Trevor Barker did not include either of these in his published volumes. They are:
1) The first letter of K. H. to A. O. Hume, dated November 1st (1880), in response to Mr. Hume's proposition to form an Anglo-Indian Branch of the Theosophical Society, provided it would be independent of H. P. B. and the Parent Society (ML 4); and
2) View of the Chohan on the T. S., as reported to A. P. Sinnett in an abridged version by K. H. and received by A. P. S. either in 1880 or 1881.
Today, after nearly a hundred years of theosophic ideas in circulation, the current generations of earnest seekers find them as natural and inevitable as they were shocking and revolutionary to those of a century ago. But there is danger here as well. Along with an inrush of light, always deep shadows form. With the outpouring of spiritual vitality, the wave of psychic interest has been steadily cresting, and nowadays more and more people, untutored in discrimination, self-discipline and awareness of their own dual nature, are being caught in its wake. Knowledge of who man is, and of the perils of wantonly opening the door into the astral realms, is needed if the tide toward psychic experimentation is to be controlled.
This is reason enough to reprint these additional letters for study with the Mahatma and Blavatsky correspondence, for it is essential at just this time, when the concept of Masters and the Brotherhood has been cheapened by vulgar publicity, to have particularly the view of the Chohan as a guideline.
To read the letters of H. P. B.'s teachers and of their teacher is to remind ourselves that benevolence, compassion, generosity of soul, are not intellectual theories with them; they are profound realities born from the dedication of ages.
GRACE F. KNOCHE November, 1973

Combined Chronology of The Mahatma Letters - Foreword

Theosophical University Press Online Edition
Mahatmas and Chelas
By Leoline L. Wright
Theosophical Manuals Series
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Who and What are the Mahatmas?
Chapter 2: The Spiritual Powers of a Mahatma
Chapter 3: The Elder Brothers of Humanity
Chapter 4: The Mahatmas and the Theosophical Movement
Chapter 5: Chelas and the Chela Life
Chapter 6: Initiation: The Goal of Evolution
Chapter 7: How Can We Reach the Mahatmas?

Mahatmas and Chelas

Chapter 4: The Mahatmas and the Theosophical Movement
We come now to what is, for us, a most interesting and important and well known part of the work of the mahatmas: the Theosophical Movement. The word "movement" is used here instead of the word "society" for the reason that the Theosophical Society is only one phase of the immense and ancient Theosophical Movement itself. The Theosophical Society dates but from 1875. The Theosophical Movement extends backwards into prehistoric time (as already described in Chapter 3). The matter is explained by G. de Purucker in the following passage: To put it briefly: there has always existed in the world for almost innumerable ages, a completely coherent and fully comprehensive system of religious philosophy, or of philosophical, scientific religion, which from time to time has been given out to man when the world needed a fuller revealing of spiritual truth than it then at such time had. Further, this wonderful system has been for all those past ages in the safe guardianship of the relatively perfected men [the mahatmas] . . . — The Esoteric Tradition, pp. 33-4
To this statement the words of H. P. Blavatsky should be added: I must tell you that during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made by those "Masters," of whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality — or call it mysticism if you prefer — has taken place. Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed historical records extend. — The Key to Theosophy, p. 306.
Some indication of these different aspects of the Theosophical Movement in each century has already been given in Chapter 3. One interesting chapter in mystical history began in the Egyptian city of Alexandria in the third century a with Ammonius Saccas and the Neoplatonists. It was then that the word theosophy was first applied to the teachings of the secret doctrine or wisdom-religion. H. P. Blavatsky calls Ammonius Saccas "a saintly adept." He seems to have been the first of the public agents of the mahatmas to what we know as Western civilization. (See the opening chapters of The Key to Theosophy for an interesting account of this era and its great theosophists.)
We must remember that in every ancient civilizations the work of the great teachers of the Brotherhood of Compassion was well understood, for all of them had their Mystery schools, and the teachers connected with these had been initiates of the Brotherhood and taught its age-old system of ethics and spiritual science. Unfortunately, in the early years of our Christian Era the Mystery schools in Greece, which had been the chief source of all spiritual light in the antique world around the Mediterranean, had been gradually deteriorating. Their teachers had lapsed from their high calling, becoming faithless to the teachings and were no longer true initiates of the secret doctrine. Among them spiritual self-discipline and selfless devotion to truth and impersonal love had been replaced by love of power and privilege. He who would know the doctrine must first live the life, a fundamental principle of occultism. The influence of these Schools was therefore waning, and a little later in the sixth century AD the last of them was closed in Athens, at the request of its own teachers, by the Emperor Justinian.
After the termination of the Mystery schools the Theosophical Movement was obliged, because of the prevailing religious bigotry of the times, to follow more or less concealed channels, becoming almost completely hidden. From the sixth century to the nineteenth, there was a period of thirteen hundred years during which only a few teachers and some secret societies, such as the true Rosicrucian Order, could be used by the Lodge of mahatmas as their agents to keep the doctrines alive in the Western world. The last of these agents we know of were Count Saint-Germain and the celebrated Cagliostro near the close of the eighteenth century. The latter, who was called by H. P. Blavatsky the "last of the Rosicrucians," made an attempt to found a Mystery school through his work with occult Masonry, but was more or less defeated by the bigotry of his day.
We come now to the founding of the Theosophical Society in New York City in 1875. Ostensibly it was started by H. P. Blavatsky herself, assisted by a group of students whom she drew around her, including Henry Steel Olcott and William Q. Judge. But she has often told us how she was sent to New York by her teachers a little in advance of the opening years of the last quarter of the nineteenth century. She was told by them to start an organization through which could be restated in a form suited to the type of intelligence and to the needs of our modern world the ancient truths of the wisdom-religion. The mahatmas themselves say: One or two of us [the Brotherhood or Lodge of mahatmas] hoped that the world had so far advanced intellectually, if not intuitionally, that the Occult doctrine might gain an intellectual acceptance, and the impulse given for a new cycle of occult research. . . . We sent her [H. P. Blavatsky] to America . . . and the trial began. — The Mahatma M. in The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, p. 263
H. P. Blavatsky tells us: Orders received from India direct to establish a philosophico-religious Society and choose a name for it — also to choose Olcott. July 1875. — From one of her Scrapbooks, Blavatsky's Collected Writings, 1:
"From India direct" meant in her case but one thing — from the mahatmas.
The evidence showing their work in connection with the founding and progress of the young Theosophical Society can be read in their own letters as published in The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett. Here the student can find a complete and detailed picture, and also, scattered among these records of their activities are found hints on other lines of work — what we may call their more esoteric lines of spiritual activity behind the scenes of human affairs.
As time went on and H. P. Blavatsky established in 1888-9 with the active help of W. Q. Judge her Esoteric Section, the first step was taken towards the revival of the Mystery schools. As exoteric theosophy for the public brought back to humanity the long forgotten wisdom-religion of the ages, so the renewal of the ancient Mystery schools restored the ethical-scientific study of occultism, and established that study as a living force in the modern world. The old sacred relationship of spiritual teacher and his disciples pledged to live and work for the spiritual welfare of humanity became once more a vital factor in mankind's spiritual education.
Evidence that the mahatmas were behind H. P. Blavatsky's work in establishing the Esoteric Section can be found in abundance in H. P. Blavatsky's Collected Writings.. A brief, comprehensive and interesting account of the history of the modern Theosophical Movement where the above mentioned facts are more fully described can be found also in Charles J. Ryan's H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement.

Mahatmas and Chelas - Chapter 4

 

[Luca1]

Really? Did someone forget WW2?!
In short, Germany destroyed British Empire. Almost every ******* colony broke free of British colonization in the post-war era.

Actually, it's the US that forced the British to gave up its empire.

 

[Maira La]

Actually, it's the US that forced the British to gave up its empire.

Why would the US do that?

 

[dadeechi]

Actually, it's the US that forced the British to gave up its empire.

Why would the US do that?

Both US and India were founded by Freemasons.

 

[Abotani]

Actually, it's the US that forced the British to gave up its empire.

At least someone brought this important fact up.

Why would the US do that?

So that Britain would never recover it's glory days.As long as it controlled the colonies directly, UK could always rebuild it's empire.Without the colonies, UK was doomed to be a prosperous poodle barking above it's size.