01. Stance of the English East India Company

02. Where the British Crown erred

Stance of the English East India Company

When the East India Company English persons had to attach themselves to the local societies here, they took a totally different stance. This was a stance that no other group of persons who had come to this geographical land had ever tried. For all the peoples who had come here had consciously or unconsciously become part and parcel of the local social systems, imbibing the terrible feudal communications into their vitals. However the general stance of the East India Company personnel was to stand apart from the devilish social system of this geographical area. For, if they joined, then they would have to learn the local languages and use the same diabolic codes to view the people as existing between stink and gold. A few on one end, and many others on the other end. And a great majority existing in-between.

Beyond that, if they were to become like the natives, they would be disintegrating themselves also into similar positions. This was what they did not do. Due to this, the Englishmen remain unique in the whole history of this geographical area. Now, this was a stance that gave them the power to improve the lot of the suppressed natives here, without themselves being despoiled. For, they stood above and apart from the social diabolism.

There is this thing also to be mentioned. The English communication postures are actually quite weak and feeble when mixed up with the feudal social systems. For, if they speak to any local man here with no aura of a superiority being, in no time, the local man would be inclined to address them with their first name. He has no idea or use of terms like Mr., Mrs, Miss. etc. Even though this may seem a trifling thing in English, the fact is that back in the feudal language ambience, it is equivalent to allowing the other man to grab and pull the English persons to his own lower levels or below. This ‘below’ is also a very dangerous area. For, when one is displayed as ‘below’, the other ‘below’ persons would immediately takeover the pulled-down person for preying. So, the only stance for communicating to the local man, especially of the lower social status would be to robe oneself with an aura of studded superiority.

To use an allegory, it is like a man being surrounded by a pride of lions. They would pounce on him and make him go down, as they prey upon his vitals. Similarly, a man pushed to a lower plank of social existence is in grave danger of being surrounded and pulled down by a mass of lower level people. They would push him down and enjoy the sight of his suppression. This I mean in the sense that they would crush him with lower indicant words. When lower level persons use these words, they acquire a very menacing claw-like sharpness than can pierce into him and make him mentally bleed to worthlessness.

This is a very common thing in India. Many of my classmates who had joined the government service in India have told me that they do put on ‘weight’ when dealing with the local ‘Indians’. That is they display a stony face and a tough demeanour, and pose of discourtesy to the local ‘Indians’. Otherwise they would lose their ‘respect’, for the local ‘Indian’ would become too ‘friendly’ for comfort.

There is this feature also to be mentioned. When one is for a long period in the social area of a different level of people, one may be forced to alter one’s personality, dressing standards and many other innate features to fit the evaluation of the local society. Especially if the society functions in feudal language. If it is English, there is not much of an evaluation, and the force in the evaluation is nil. For, the indicant words do not change. {I have seen this happen in the case of Varuna. This is a very powerful change that the US has and will experience as it moves ahead without setting up adequate firewalls against virus social-software}.

Now, these are things that a native Englishman who has not experienced ‘India’ wouldn’t understand.

So, the personnel of the East India Company opted for the more secure option. That was to remain aloof from the Indian social system. They never became part of the ‘Indian’ society, as did almost all others who had invaded and plundered ‘India’.

Where the British Crown erred

However, when the British Crown took over the power from the East India Company, the policymakers in England were to make a lot of idiotic mistakes. This was basically due to their misunderstanding that the ‘Indian’ kings were similar to the English monarchs. This was a terrible mistake. They gave statutory rights back to the Indian feudal lords, for their assessment of the Sepoy Mutiny was quite wrong.

It is a fact that even at the peak hours of the Sepoy Mutiny, the vast majority of the native ‘Indian’ soldiery stood by their English officers. The policymakers back in England took the understanding that the seeming debacle was due to the disabling of the traditional feudal classes in ‘India’. The actual fact was that the vast majority of the natives stood by the English rule for the simple reason that they had been liberated from their traditional superiors by the English, who gave them access to much new knowledge, and avenues to social improvements there had never been there in their purview for centuries. Beyond all this, the area where the Sepoy mutiny took place was small when the total size of British-India is taken into consideration. For example, the Sikhs stood by the English. See picture:

SEE this comment that came sneering at my comment on HuffingtonPost

kennyfloyd May 13, 2012 at 12:03am

As to the definition of English occupation, the statement can also be redrafted into ‘nations where English brought in liberation to the majority population’. Not counting WW2 were many countries liberated peoples from oppressors, who did England “liberate”? Canada, from the beaver, U.S. from...Spain, i’m guessing. Of course there was South Africa liberated from ahh, slaves, and who could forget India? India was liberated from who I forget. Where else, Palestine? Jamaica was liberated from Jamaicans? I’ll give you the Falklands but I can’t think of a nation that the majority was saved by the English and not occupied by them. You’ll have to explain that one to me. What is a “higher order”? Does that mean your cool with East Europeans, and Pakistani’s immigrating into England? If so I got that one wrong.

MY COMMENT: A person with scarce understanding of anything can write so many words. Each of these nations mentioned would need quite a bit of deep study to know who was liberated from whom. As to Palestine, I think the same idiot who created the mess in colonial areas, Atlee could be held responsible for allowing US based Zionist groups to ravage that place.

In fact, in those times, it would have been quite easy to find a sparsely inhabited place somewhere in the world, where a Jewish independent state could have been setup. However, as is amply evident that US foreign policy is being run by rank outsiders, the cantankerous idea was to drive out the native population of the area currently called Israel, and to create the Jewish state. Any man with some foresight could have seen that this idiotic idea was not to serve the Jews with a peaceful place of residence. It was to plunge generations of Jewish into a state of continuous belligerence and insecurity. Beyond that it has led to a very dangerous form of Islam, totally opposite to the personal disposition of Prophet Muhammad.

The fact is that Great Britain did have the loyalty of the Arabs. SEE Lawrence of Arabia. This loyalty was squandered by this idiot who became the Prime Minister of Britain.

As to US, I think the commenter is mistaking North American continent with the US. US is a nation created by people from Britain in a land ravaged by Spanish and Portuguese Conquistadors. To a limited extend, the native populations were given some respite after some 300 years of Continental European brutality.

END OF DIGRESSION

When this stock idiotism became a statutory policy of the English rule in ‘India’, the English persons here in ‘India’ were in a terrible dilemma. No more could they remain outside the social system. They had to join. And when joining, they had to join at the heights. It was a stance that made them lose their position of spurring a revolutionary change in this geographical area. For, they from now on, had to gain the acceptance of the already entrenched feudal classes of the area.