India’s Independence and the Indian Constitution

There have been questions regarding Indian independence and the Indian constitution from 1947. All the voices would be silenced by threats, blackmails and emotional outcries from the Indian state. Let us see the history. Even death could be the reward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiv_Dixit 

Gandh(u)i and N(aked)ru were betraying Bose who had struck a deal with the Axis esp. Japan. They as freemason sugar daddys were scared of real freedom. This Junagadh propped paedophile and Motulal Masonic bisexual duo compromised for a 'dominion', independence for Jew born bastards like them from Brit bureaucracy but still with the Queen and her "commonwealth":

https://www.pgurus.com/gandhi-and-nehru-from-the-vantage-point-of-two-revolutionaries-rashbehari-and-subhas/

http://greatgameindia.com/did-india-really-become-independent-on-august-15th-1947/

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:

The British did not want our allegiance to be completely dissolved from Great Britain and;

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.

GreatGameIndia

#DomIndependence #GreatGameIndia

Join the GreatGameIndia Forum for debates and discussions related to geopolitics and international affairs from an Indian perspective.

References

1. With the permission from Sreejith Panickar author of ‘Why August 15 should not be Independence Day’

2. The London Gazette: no. 38330. p. 3647. 22 June 1948. Retrieved 25 August 2014. Royal Proclamation of 22 June 1948, made in accordance with the Indian Independence Act 1947, 10 & 11 GEO. 6. CH. 30.(‘Section 7: …(2)The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words ” Indiae Imperator ” and the words ” Emperor of India ” and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm.’). According to this Royal Proclamation, the King retained the Style and Titles ‘George VI by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith’, and he thus remained King of the various Dominions, including India and Pakistan, though these two (and others) eventually chose to abandon their monarchies and became republics.

3. Reminiscences of the Nehru Age by M. O. Mathai

4. Jawaharlal Nehru and the Mountbattens

5. History of IAF

6. UNDER TWO ENSIGNS THE INDIAN NAVY 1945-1950 by Rear Admiral SATYINDRA SINGH AVSM (Retd.)

7. ‘Introduction to the Constitution of India’ by Brij Kishore Sharma

8. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission by Dhananjay Kee

9. “The London Declaration of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, April 28, 1949”. de Smith, S.A. (July 1949). The Modern Law Review 12 (3): pp. 351–4

Another noteworthy site: http://www.henrymakow.com/myth_indian_independence.html
Masonic conspiracy: http://www.masonindia.org/MInfo_59.htm
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/173604-making-india-freemasonry.html

1. The transfer of power:

      Of late people like Baba Ramdev http://divyayoga.com/  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:olEhW-z0fi0J:www.scribd.com/doc/30966876/YogSandesh-May-Eng2010+transfer+of+power+agreement+rajiv+dixit&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in&source=www.google.co.inhave questioned whether India was really awarded freedom or was it just a transfer of power (Dominion status under the crown of UK as per the Indian Independence Act) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Independence_Act_1947#Dominion_of_India

Speech regarding the Congress conspiracy (Rajiv Dixit - one who exposes in this video now stands murdered by the state):

from the British to the British trained colonial minded Congress. The answer is the latter. There was no real “Independence”. Congress and not the people of India were awarded with only a conditional and demeaning transfer of power. Practically speaking, there was no change of guard to decisively state. The legislature, executive, judiciary and all the vestiges remained. The same thing happened with Pakistan also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Cabinet_Mission_to_India#Formation_of_a_government
One of the conditions for the transfer is that the Indian state should forever be a part of the British empire through an organisation called ‘The Commonwealth’ through which all the havoc  would be played sometimes even worse than pre 1947. Independence for the very meaning of the word means self dependence and self dependence cannot be awarded, it can only be assumed. This was not the case. A transfer of power was awarded which was largely masqueraded as ‘Independence’ by the then Anglo media. All this sums up into a state which is under a watchdog called ‘The Commonwealth’ whose premier is the queen of England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth#History
who is advised by the British Parliament which is in turn managed by a bunch of lobbyists under the payroll of the companies who exploit the Indian nation and people with the whole machinery of the above said state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth
For instance, if India were to declare itself free of the transfer of power and declare a different path, it would be gang raped by the Commonwealth and its progeny, the Anglo-Saxon states with sanctions, defamation by the media and all the most infernal ways possible until the aggressors take up the usual Anglo – Judeo Hellenic “responsibility of civilising the native” (read muting the already subservient native). Indian and consequently Pakistani “independence” is just a transfer of power from the ‘Whiteman’ bureaucrats to brown – skinned whitemen bureaucrats and not intended for the layman. This bureaucracy, to silence any further irritations either bribed the freedom seekers (through pensions and perks) and unleashed a Goebbels styled propaganda of the ‘Independence’ to the state of India which was just a conditional transfer of power to a few Anglo styled elite.

2. Alien ‘constitution’:

      This subservient intelligentsia then quickly set itself a task of ‘writing a constitution’ on its own. The ‘constitution’ was then passed by a set of individuals called the constituent assembly who are again from the same bureaucracy. These too were not elected after the ‘independence’. They were just a continuation of the erstwhile British state. The ethos of the constitution is one which is a careful plagiarist compilation of subservient clauses from different constitutions of entirely alien states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_India

3. Unratified outrage:

      The constitution of India still stands non-ratified by the individual Indian. No referendum or plebiscite was held quoting the clauses of the constitution. Not even a simple “Aye/Nay” kind of referendum has been held till date. This is the case in countries which were awarded with independence to a caretaker body. Had the British really intended ‘independence’, the ensuing caretaker body would have immediately conducted a referendum. If this constitution is to be mine, it should have been voted for by my forefathers if not me, at least. I should decide not just who governs me but also on how I should be governed. If not, it is worse than serfdom – I decide the better one of the thieves and this has been going on for the last 64 years.

Ratification of American constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Ratification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Iraqi! ratification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_constitutional_referendum,_2005

4. Digression:

The usual reason given for not holding such a referendum is ‘the Indian is uneducated’; ‘there was chaos’ and all such blah blah. Who the hell are there people to tailor make an alien constitution and force subservience. Is this ‘Democracy’? First of all let us go to the “uneducated” claim. The “uneducated”, in reality means the non subservient. They had their own governing systems from time immemorial, their own practical constitution. They would definitely not have agreed upon disposing their native elders, systems and time tested ideals. So they were purposefully ignored. Not even a plebiscite was held among the freedom fighter pensioners. Were there uneducated too? Sounds contradictory!  The next claim, of chaos, is even filthier. The Indian army which could fight the just separated Pakistani twin sharing a common head, Lord Mountbatten and not control a few goons; this is sheer humbug. The rioters were instigated by the lack of any control from the states which were still screaming of brotherhood. Moreover the rioters, for example the Razakars were clandestinely stage managed by the state itself. The state needs chaos whenever there is a possibility or awakening of the native.

5. Destruction of India’s spirit:

      The local governments and systems which survived in various degrees throughout India were gradually, through the years wiped out by false promises, propaganda and sometimes through direct cut throat measures. For example, in Tamilnadu, the last surviving native head, the post of the village treasurer, the Grama manyakarar (Monigar) was abolished by force (i.e. by the rule of the gun) in the 1970s.

6. Creation of more ‘alien’ Indians:

       The state nearly always decries Indian ethos, Indian systems, Indian values and everything characteristically Indian. Through such continuous rootwork, the state has to some extent made the Indians forget or at least disrespect the Indianess in them. Thereby it produces millions of neurotic serfs every year who themselves are ready to sell their own soul, body and resources. This all adds up to a sustained flow of power to the otherwise poor west, though fatally injurious to India.

7. Indian ‘democratic’ elections:

       The concept of election itself is Judaic. Those of wisdom eventually rise to power. To stop this ‘pagan’ resurgence, the Judaic clergy devised the system of elections. The human is not a solitary being. He/she is a social entity. India runs on the natural - pagan philosophy of social responsibility of the individual, family, the clan, the community and the head. In the natural system, everything is inherited and cannot be traded. Property, power and responsibility are all one and the same. Why should I need a representative when I myself am responsible? The representative is in reality a five year dictator who can do anything as he pleases. He has to make the most in these five years. For this he acts as an agent to various companies who also swindle as usual.

This all sums up to: There has been no ‘Independence’. The constitution of India itself is illegitimate. Electoral ‘democracy’ is alien to the Indian ethos.

      A few individuals called the ‘power group’ who are mostly grandsons of colonialists stage manage all that happens in India ultimately for plunder, even worse than 1947 through clerical minded west trained ‘Indians’.

India is not a democracy in the real sense of the word. It could only be democratic with its native systems.

Finally a word - I love nation but hate the alien state. The Indian state is the only problem the Indian nation has. I am neither a naxalite nor a seperatist right winger. I  am just another Indian worth his salt.

Black Money

Now, we do not really care about fiat "money" printed by this illegitimate government but we do want to expose on how this nation is looted by the Iluminati  - Freemason controlled state just on one issue at random - the money issue.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/black-money-in-swiss-banks-mainly-from-india-julian-assange/articleshow/8095591.cms

NEW DELHI: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday said there was more Indian money in Swiss banks than any other nationality, sparking off renewed demands from the Opposition for disclosure of the names of account holders and bringing back black money. 
"Yes, there are Indian names in the list," Assange told a television channel. Assange disclosed that he was being offered a swap deal for handing over the details of Swiss banks and their secret account holders list. He said WikiLeaks had an offer through a third party that if it returned the data, then whistleblower Judith Elmer would be set free. He revealed this when asked when the information will come out as peopple across India have been waiting to know. "Well, let me tell you what has happened in relation to that. Normally, we only deal with anonymous sources. Mr Elmer and his legal team for reasons of their own, which I do not understand, decided to have a public press conference. He then returned to Switzerland and was immediately imprisoned. While an investigation is taking place he is still in prison at this moment. 
"He has not as far as I am aware been charged with anything. He is still simply in prison during the period of investigation. And we have had an indirect offer through a third party that if we return what they believe to be the data then they will work to acquit Mr. Elmer to be free. So my ability to talk about this subject is of course limited by the fact that the Swiss bank has a hostage," Assange said. He also expressed concern about Indians depositing billions of black money in foreign locations having a cascading impact on the economy. "The Indian government needs to be more aggressive in tracking the black money stashed in foreign banks since Indians depositing money in foreign banks is debasing the rupee," he said. The BJP immediately trained its guns at the government saying its efforts to address the black money issue were found wanting. 


Yet again Congress II (BJP)  is let loose to coerce the masses!