01. GUJARAT COMMUNAL VIOLENCE

02. Rioting and Military Act in Trivandrum

03. A digression to a deeper arena

04. An illustration in Indian repulsiveness to other Indians

05. Finding celebration in dirt

06. Another grudge

07. The fair complexioned devas

08. Continuing on the Jallianwalabagh route

09. A Punjabi ambition

10. Digression

11. Back again to Jallianwalabagh

The British officers also at times did go berserk when the hideous codes of ‘Indian’ feudal languages dawned on them. I can mention one such incident. The so-called Jallianwalabagh incident. It is an incident that is regularly taken up to show the brutality of the British race. The incident is off course, brutal. However, it is only one among hundreds of similar brutalities that has happened in the geographical area currently called Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. After the formation of India, millions have died in violence let loose by mob and Indian government.

DIGRESSSION: GUJARAT COMMUNAL VIOLENCE: Wikipedia

The 2002 Gujarat violence was a series of incidents including the Godhra train burning and Naroda Patiya massacre and the subsequent communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat. On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express train was attacked at Godhra by a Muslim mob as per a pre-planned conspiracy. 58 Hindu pilgrims, including 25 women and 15 children, returning from Ayodhya, were killed in the attack.

This in turn prompted retaliatory attacks against Muslims and general communal riots on a large scale across the state, in which 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were ultimately killed and 223 more people were reported missing.[1][5] 523 places of worship were damaged: 298 dargahs, 205 mosques, 17 temples, and 3 churches. Muslim-owned businesses suffered the bulk of the damage. 61,000 Muslims and 10,000 Hindus fled their homes. Preventive arrests of 17,947 Hindus and 3,616 Muslims were made. In total 27,901 Hindus and 7,651 Muslims were arrested.

The nature of these events remains politically controversial in India. Some commentators have characterised the deaths of Muslims as a genocide in which the state was complicit, while others have countered that the hundreds of Muslim and Hindu dead were all victims of riots or “violent disturbances”.

MY COMMENT: Actually this geographical area known as British-India had a history of terrible communal violence and rioting right from historical times. A minor list of these violence can be seen on this Wikipedia page:

When the British handed over the rule to the local politicians, there was large scale violence that is mentioned in Wikipedia thus: While the British authority was gone, the newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border along communal lines. Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000.

See this photo of a Sikh man being attacked:

If the violence in Amritsar had entered into a mass violence in which Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs pitched against each other, there is no doubt a few 100 hundred thousands would have died. See how many did die in the Mappilla lahala (Mappila rioting) that took place in the Malabar district of Madras Presidency. See this one-sided version of event in the Wikipedia:

QUOTE: Moplah Rebellion was an Anti-Hindu rebellion conducted by the Muslim Mappila community (Moplah is a British spelling) of Kerala in 1921. Inspired by the Khilafat movement and the Karachi resolution; Moplahs murdered, pillaged, and forcibly converted thousands of Hindus. 100,000 Hindus were driven away from their homes forcing to leave their property behind, which were later took (sic) over by Mappilas. This greatly changed the demographics of the area, being the major cause behind today’s Malappuram district being a Muslim majority district in Kerala. END OF QUOTE

On Direct Action Day, 16 August 1946, when the Indian politicians fervently worked to get British-India in their hands, how many died? See this quote from Wikipedia:

Against this backdrop, the protest triggered massive riots in Calcutta. In Calcutta, within 72 hours, more than 4,000 people lost their lives and 100,000 residents in the city of Calcutta were left homeless. Violence in Calcutta sparked off further religious riots in the surrounding regions of Noakhali, Bihar, United Province (modern Uttar Pradesh), Punjab, and the North Western Frontier Province. These events sowed the seeds for the eventual Partition of India.

SEE WHAT HAPPENED:

QUOTE FROM Wikipedia: Hindus and Sikhs were just as fierce as the Muslims in the beginning. Parties of one community would lie in wait, and as soon as they caught one of the other community, they would cut him to pieces. Hindus in Calcutta soon retaliated with attacks on Muslims, any Muslim found in House, road or shop or even Educational institution was pulled out by Hindu Mobs in Calcutta and were cut into pieces. The figures of Muslim casualties were heavier as Hindu retaliation took pace, Muslims started migrating towards East Bengal which was Muslim Majority and the stories of Muslim Massacre in West Bengal fuelled the later Anti-Hindu riots in East Bengal which was Muslim Majority.

Near military installations, static guards, forces specially trained to protect such installation, took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal of Calcutta, did valuable work in the rescue operation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the military areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms.

- - - - - - - - -

Violence in Calcutta, between 1945 and 1946, passed by stages from Indian versus European to Hindu versus Muslim. Indian Christians and Europeans were generally free from molestation as the tempo of Hindu-Muslim violence quickened. The decline of anti-European feelings as communal Hindu-Muslim tensions increased during this period is evident from the casualty numbers. During the riots of November 1945, casualty of Europeans and Christians were 46; in the riots of the 10–14 February 1946, 35; from 15 February to the 15 August, only 3; during the Calcutta riots from 15 August 1946 to 17 September 1946, none.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

After the riots were stopped in Noakhali, the Muslim League claimed that only 500 Hindus were killed in the mayhem, but the survivors opined that more than 50000 Hindus were killed. Some sources also made some extreme claim that the Hindu population in Noakhali was nearly annihilated.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Lord Wavell claimed during his meeting on 27 August 1946 that Gandhi had told him, “If India wants bloodbath she shall have it ... if a bloodbath was necessary, it would come about in spite of non-violence.”

MY COMMENT: British officials were handicapped by their history of Jallianwalabagh. All that they should have done to save thousands would have been just a minor Jallianwalabagh on the rioters. There was another issue that needs to be mentioned. The Chief Minister of the State was a native Muslim. He had his own concerns, with regard to his loyal followers.

If the British had disregarded him and taken unilateral action, then in later years that would have been the complaint. And also, it would have given fodder for decades to the modern Indian historians to say that the British were brutal rulers. Apart from all this, no one mentions that since 1919, the Indian Presidencies were ruled by ministries formed by native political leaders. Including Congress.

As to Gandhi and others, they would be watching the scene with drooling mouths. For a huge nation with many infrastructures was coming into their hands. Just because a fool had become the Prime Minister in Britain.

Coming to the current-day nation of India, see this news that came recently: TextImage on the right:

However, in the case of the Jallianwalabagh incident, there is this that is not mentioned anywhere. The British officials were on top of several layers of ‘Indian’ officials who would view the ordinary Indians with unconcealed repulsion and distaste. Even though it is generally believed that the British officials took all decisions, they were actually newbie in ‘India’. They had to generally get educated on ‘Indian’ issues from local ‘Indian’ officials.

It is quite possible that General Dyre was influenced by the ways and manners used historically in ‘India’ to control mob violence. Even though it is stated that the meeting was peaceful, there is the un-discussed issue that there had been uncontrollable mob violence in the city. It is mentioned that: QUOTE: Wikipedia: ‘Five Englishmen had been murdered and an Englishwoman left for dead, and banks and public buildings had been looted and burnt’. This is only the worst part of the rioting. The less terrible parts would still be horrible enough. For the banks and public building would be full of other residents of the place. They would have faced the brunt of the violent mood of a ruffian mob.

The civil government abdicated power and military rule was declared. Well, when military rule is declared, actually no one dares to come out in modern-day India. I have seen the eerie silence that can grip a city when the Indian army comes in. There is a sense that if anyone does some mischief he will be shot and no questions can be asked. The very fact that when a military rule was imposed, people took it as a huge joke is relevant for discussion. For it speaks miles about the popular feelings of a very soft governing force.

Rioting and Military Act in Trivandrum

There is this incident that I remember. The year was around 1981 or so. The police personnel in Trivandrum city went on an un-proclaimed strike. The previous year, during a Muslim festival day, there had been some confrontation between the police and some people in a procession. The police vehicle was burnt, and one of the policemen died. No action was taken on the guilty due to political pressure. That was the general talk.

The police strike took place on the anniversary of that day. I think it was on Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Looking back, I can understand that it was a planned stance. A particular section of the people came out rioting. Many shops, especially Muslim-owned were targeted in the initial stage. It is certain that the striking policemen were hand in glove with the looters, for they were the only people who had regular contact with such persons and could control them.

For, there was a specific group of rioters, who aimed specific targets. However, within hours, a lot more rioters entered into the field and targeted anything that had monitory value.

The rioters would come in group, shouting out obscenities, enter the shops, beat up everybody, and ransack the place. They would then loot and scoot. I was witness to some of these attacks. I was witness to some of these actions.

The rioting continued for days. Rumours spread of Hindu houses being attacked, and of Muslims houses being raided. There were stories of one communal group packing sand into small bags, dipping it in petrol, lighting them, and throwing them into the poorer housing colonies of the other community. No one ventured out. Now, this incident could, in history be described as part of some great movement if need be. Yet the fact was that only a minor section of the people in the city actually took part in the rioting. The rest had nothing to do with it.

I remember some of my collage mates living in the University Hostel, coming from the bus stand in the night time. There saw a father, mother and two adolescent female children walking from the bus stand. The time was around 9 in the night. They had just arrived in the city on the first day of the rioting. They moved in a terrified manner. They looked behind and saw the college students behind them, seemingly stalking them. They hurried in a more terrified manner. Street lights had all gone out. One of the college students, a youth with softer features ran in front of them and told them not to worry. And that they would accompany them to a safe area.

The police personnel continued with their strike. They thus managed to give the message that they were indispensible for the life and security of the people of Trivandrum. On the third day, the radio proclaimed that Military Act had been declared. Immediately there was a hush in the city. The next day the military trucks did a flag march. No politician came out asking the people or the rioters to defy the military. For, the message was clear: the military wouldn’t lathi charge, wouldn’t arrest, wouldn’t persuade. It would simply shoot at anyone who they suspect to be doing a mischief.

I really do wonder what the reputation of the British-Indian military at that time, was.

See this quote from Wikipedia on Jallianwalabagh incident: Revolt was in the air, many Army officers believed, and they prepared for the worst. In Amritsar, more than 15,000 people gathered at Jallianwalabagh. This situation deteriorated perceptibly during the next few days. Michael O’Dwyer is said to have believed that these were the early and ill-concealed signs of a conspiracy for a coordinated revolt around May, at a time when British troops would have withdrawn to the hills for the summer.

Is this the truth about British-India? Well, there were a few people who stood on top of the social systems and viewed the geographical area with drooling mouths. Like Nehru and Gandhi, they were persons who had strong foothold in English nations. Standing in those nations, it is easy to visualise the English systems with quite disdain. For, they are able to address and view an Englishman as an equal. However, they forget that back in their native lands, the ordinary man is still unable to even speak to many social beings as an equal.

See a sample of these guys (quoted from Wikipedia):

1. Taraknath Das (or Tarak Nath Das) (15 June 1884 – 22 December 1958) was an anti-British Bengali Indian revolutionary and internationalist scholar. He was a pioneering immigrant in the west coast of North America and discussed his plans with Tolstoy, while organizing the Asian Indian immigrants in favor of the Indian freedom movement. He was a professor of political science at Columbia University and a visiting faculty in several other universities.

2. Lala Har Dayal (October 13, 1884, Delhi, India - March 4, 1939, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) was an Indian nationalist revolutionary who founded the Ghadar Party in America

Well, these guys quietly migrated to English nations and wanted to come on top of the people in their native land. Actually if they really wanted to improve the natives of this land, all they had to do was to remove the use of pejoratives in their speech towards the lower class individuals here. That they can’t do. Instead, they want to take over the nation and be its President or Prime Minister or even King or Emperor!

The general propaganda is that the whole nation of British India is simmering in a rebellious mood. Yet, there is this quote from Wikipedia:

QUOTE: World War I began with an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards the United Kingdom from within the mainstream political leadership, contrary to initial British fears of an Indian revolt. India contributed massively to the British war effort by providing men and resources. About 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while both the Indian government and the princes sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. END OF QUOTE

Well, if Taraknath Das, Lala Har Dayal, Gandhi and Nehru were patriots, then this immensity of soldiers, the ordinary folks of this geographical area, who never had the money to study or immigrate to Great Britain or the US, were stark anti-nationals. Well, that would quite be wishful thinking. A thinking process that might deserve divine retribution. For, it amounts to saying that cunning rich guys who can afford to go to England to study and enjoy life and look with domination over other natives here are patriots.

While the huge majority of people who stood with the British are anti-nationals! If one were to say that they were just doing that for money, well then, it is true of all armies and soldiers in the world. Yet, the historical fact is that the people of this geographical area who stood by the British army showed exemplary loyalty to them. Only a nut like Clement Atlee had couldn’t see that. He had the nerve to hand all of them to a feudal language speaking group of sly crooks.

Once when I was staying a lodge in Trivandrum in the year around 1984, there was a menial worker there. He was quite old. When I spoke to him, he mentioned that he had been a soldier in the British-Indian army and had taken part in some battles. After the British left, he and persons like him were literally left to bear the brunt of a brutal fate, in which they had to serve feudal language speaking native masters. He was of very great opinion of the British. The fact is that most of the soldiery in the British-Indian army would be having a great affection for them. For, they did not face the terrible issue of feudal pejorative words in English. To call them all as anti-nationals, would be the heights of idiotism.

See the British officers of the Indian Army: (Page seen removed)

(The page is seen removed from Wayback Machine also.

See British-Indian soldiers here: http://goo.gl/jRXBc

As to Jallianwalabagh, 15000 people gathered in Amritsar and there was rioting. Well, the military authorities were under pressure to enforce calm and peace. For, they had a duty to the silent mass of people whose life and property had to be protected. The very fact that when a military act is in force, people take it as a trifle is quite baffling. I have seen the deserted streets of Kerala villages, when even a small police force comes into the scene, to rough up people on the street.

A digression to a deeper arena

There are many things that have to be gravely understood about ‘India’; that means current day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. These are places where the indicant word codes have installed a different command route. Toughness is ‘respected’. Politeness, courteous manners, honesty, chivalry etc. have no value in this code route. Modern Indian officials know this and use it.

There is this incident from my own family history. It happened in Tellicherry. In the year around 1969, very violent clashes took place between the Hindus and Muslims in this area. I can’t say what the reason was. Again only a minor group of people would be involved in the initial stages. If this is left uncontrolled, everyone would get affected and involved. Heads were cut on both sides with acute ferocity and frequency. The local police couldn’t control the problem. For, they would be heavily divided by their own local commitments and loyalties. The national police, the CRPF was deployed.

My mother’s brother was in his shop when the news came that a violent fight was taking place nearby. He immediately closed his shop and got on his cycle to move home. When he was quite near to his house, a CRPF truck came that way. He was the only person visible on the deserted streets. They got down with their huge batons and started beating him mercilessly. He fell down. He was severely beaten up everywhere, with least of concern. Then they leaped back into their truck. My mother’s brother couldn’t stand up. He was trembling all over. Many neighbours saw the beating from the safety of their own homes. But none dared to come and help him. For, they might also get the same treatment.

He stood up in a very bent pose and limped to his house. Soon his house was full of neighbours. The front courtyard was teeming with people, when another CRPF truck came that way. Seeing the crowd, they stopped and ran inside. Everyone ran helter-skelter. Only one man in the crowd ran inside. He was a rough looking man. The CRPF men stood outside the house and demanded that he come out. He wouldn’t budge.

There were two Malayalam speaking men among the CRPF. They spoke in Malayalam and said that if that man did not come out, the CRPF men would enter the house. The issue as they mentioned very forcefully was that there were women folk inside the house. And if the CRPF men entered, they would be molested for sure. They promised that they wouldn’t hurt the man if he comes out.

Everyone in the house begged the man to go out. Some females cried. They told him that he would not be harmed. They only wanted to ask him some questions.

He was now in a great pickle. He came out after getting an assurance from the two Malayalam speaking CRPF men. The moment he came out, the other CRPF men barged on him, beat him to a pulp, and then caught him by his hands and legs, dragged him and threw him straight inside the truck. Then they also jumped inside to continue the antics.

In the evening hours, the two Malayalam speaking CRPF men came for a social visit and possibly to get some information. When they were asked why the CRPF personnel were acting so brutally, they said that that was the order given to them. To catch and beat up some people mercilessly in full view of the local population, in such a manner that everyone gets terrified. That was the only way to crush a riot and social disorder.

Not only administrators in the various ‘Indian’ nations, but even the people understand that fear is the key to discipline. Politeness, courteous attitude, fair-play, honesty, honourable actions and such things have no value, in a feudal language system.

However, when discussing about the Jallianwalabagh incident, there are a few pertinent issues that stick out. One is this: Quote from Wikipedia:

Dyer was born in Murree, in the Punjab province of British India, which is now in Pakistan. He was the son of an Irish brewer who managed the famed Murree Brewery. He spent his childhood in Simla and received his early education at the Bishop Cotton School in Simla. He attended Midleton College, County Cork, Ireland between 1875 and 1881.

First point is that he was the son of Irish parents. It is my considered view that Irish language has feudal content. Second is that he was born in British-India. So, he could more or less sense the diabolical codes of ennobling versus stinking-dirtification in ‘Indian’ languages. It is a very dangerous combination. At one end, he comes from an ancestry that knows about human stinking-dirtification. Second, he sees, senses and feels its power, for he was brought up in India. His emotional reactions can be quite at variance from what a typical native-English speaker who had just arrived in ‘India’ would have.

The latter would take quite some time to understand the real tantalising power of ‘Indian’ words. Other than that he seems to have quite softer looks. ‘Indian’ feudal language codes are quite ferociously indignant to persons of softer demeanour. Comparatively speaking rough, uncouth, ruffian type persons easily garner higher indicant words. In the absence of powerful props, the softer guys get demeaned. Or at least they are more easily affected by negative indicant codes.

Now the next pertinent point is that Sir Michael Francis O’Dwyer, the civil administrator who abdicated powers for the military to take over was also from Ireland. There is actually much to be understood from this common nativity.

Next point to note is this bit of information. I quote it from Wikipedia. I am not sure if it is historically correct fact, or just the wild imagination of ‘Indian’ historians and other thick-skulled academicians:

Brigadier Dyer designated the spot where Miss Marcella Sherwood was assaulted sacred and daytime pickets were placed at either end of the street. Anyone wishing to proceed in the street between 6am and 8pm was made to crawl the 200 yards (180 m) on all fours, lying flat on their bellies.

The issue with this action is that it is not an English attitude to make people bow, crawl etc. If it had happened, it certainly points to the fact that a great deal of administrative proclamations were done by the ‘Indian’ officials who worked immediately lower to the English officials. This fact is more or less accentuated by this proclamation in Urdu that purportedly came in the name of Dyre:

“You people know well that I am a Sepoy and soldier. Do you want war or peace? If you wish for a war, the Government is prepared for it, and if you want peace, then obey my orders and open all your shops; else I will shoot. For me the battlefield of France or Amritsar is the same. I am a military man and I will go straight. Neither shall I move to the right nor to the left. Speak up, if you want war? In case there is to be peace, my order is to open all shops at once. You people talk against the Government and persons educated in Germany and Bengal talk sedition. I shall report all these.

"Obey my orders. I do not wish to have anything else. I have served in the military for over 30 years. I understand the Indian Sepoy and Sikh people very well. You will have to obey my orders and observe peace. Otherwise the shops will be opened by force and Rifles. You will have to report to me of the Badmash. I will shoot them. Obey my orders and open shops. Speak up if you want war? You have committed a bad act in killing the English. The revenge will be taken upon you and upon your children.”

The tone and the contents are not English, but pure ‘Indian’ feudal language official attitude shown by the ‘Indian’ officialdom for centuries on the lower class persons of this area. What was the indicant word level used for You has to be seen in the original text. That would also give some insight into the attitude of the ‘Indian’ official class in this affair.

The next point that I noted was and severely under-mentioned by ‘Indian’ historians is the fact that the soldiers who did the actual shooting were not English, British or even Europeans. They were from the local areas of this geographical location. The soldiery consisted of a group of sixty-five Ghurkha and twenty-five Baluchi soldiers. What made them do this act? A command to shoot innocent people could have been obeyed with less ferocity. Why was there no such concern? Here again, I need to think of the rabid antipathy that exists between so many populations in ‘India’.

The Ghurkha had and do have deep grudges on the people of south of their native land. Actually, it is a common emotion that runs in the blood of many people here. The north Indians speak with disdain about the South Indians. Many years ago, they used the term ‘Madrasiwala’ for South Indian. The Tamilians are identified as a rag-picking class by many other states. I have heard the term Annachi’ being used about Tamilian, to denote their identification with the menial class.

An illustration in Indian repulsiveness to other Indians

I remember one terrible incident also, which I must remember here. I was travelling by train in Kerala. There were few passengers in the compartment. At one end of the bogey, a family of Tamil-speaking wandering class (annachis) of people were there. The husband and wife were engaged in a verbal fight which was quite loud. However, there was no need to mind them. However, some of the state locals sitting in the compartment spoke in degrading terms (avan, aval, avatattakal etc.) about them. When the train stopped at one of the stations, one of them, who had the demeanour of a government official, got up and spoke them in very demeaning sharp words. These types of words are not there in English. What they replied back I am not sure. For, they were fully focused on their internal issues.

This man suddenly pushed the man and two of the small kids on to the station. Maybe he thought all of them would go down. However, the train moved, and the Tamil man caught the door and pulled inside one of the small kids. The other kid was struck on the platform.

For me it was a terrible scene. The mother was wailing out. The father stood in terror, not knowing what to do. However, the few passengers in the near seat who saw the whole scene were least bothered. There was no feeling that it was a human family that was being distressed. The mood was of some stink being removed from the train. At the next station the family got down. They must have gone back in any train that would have come in the opposite direction. Hopefully that train would stop in the other station. Hopefully that train would come fast, before the small child did something terrible. Hopefully!

Now, from an English citizen’s point of view the parents can go to the Station Master and ask him to call the other railway station and get remedial action. Well, that is in England. In India, these people cannot do any such thing. For, to the government officials, they are just stinking-dirt. Excrement. Even to address a government employee, this man would have to use the golden part of the indicant words. The government employee would invariably use the excrement part of the indicant words to address him.

Now, why didn’t I go to their aid? Well, that is the issue of feudal languages? I am in the same software code as everyone else in the scene. The Tamil family, the Malayalee people, the railway authorities, as well as I are all connected to each other in the feudal language software. There is no need to say that one section is good or bad. Everyone behaves on the dictates and limitations imposed by the language codes.

This is the terrible geographical area that the English tried to improve.

Finding celebration in dirt

In between there is this term Mallu, also to be mentioned, which is just like the term annachi mentioned to denigrate the Tamilians. This word was used to describe a Kerala person (Malayalee) in a degrading sense by non-Keralite Indians, mainly in the Gulf areas. The earlier word was Malabari. However as non-Malabar, south Kerala Malayalees also joined the Gulf workers, this word was changed to Mallu. The exact meaning was similar to that of Annachi, rag picker level. When I visited the Middle East way back in 1999, some non-Keralite Indians did speak to me of bloody Mallus.

This they did, in the understanding that since I struck to English communication, I was seen to stand apart from the Mallus. However, on the other hand there was this funny issue cropping up. Newer Malayalees arriving over to the Gulf areas were understanding the word Mallu as an Anglicanised form of Malayalee. Soon it was seen openly used by the Malayalees themselves as a higher grade word. Within years it spread to the whole of Malayalee Diaspora all around the world.

However, since I get the sense of the annachi meaning encrypted in this word, I find it difficult to associate some names as Vayalar (a gem of a Malayalam poet), Devarajan (a fabulous musicians) etc. with the term Mallu. For example the definition of Vayalar as a Mallu poet could be the heights of rascality.

Actually this type of issues connected to the real sense of popularly used expressions has many times limited my using them. For example there is this word Maadam/Medam used in Malayalam and many other Indian vernaculars. It is understood as female form of Saar, and also as the English word Madam. However, in English the word Madam is not used as a suffix. For example, the expression Sonia Madam is not there in English. It is only used in the sense like ‘Madam, may I come in?’ The expression, ‘Is Madam inside is not Standard English’. It should be ‘Is Mrs. Sonia inside?’

Now, what does Madam as a suffix mean in English? Actually, there is no such expression in English. However, in English slang usage, it is used to in a very bad meaning. It means a female who is a brothel matron or someone connected to prostitution. Now, when I know this is the real meaning that I am alluding to, how can I say, ‘Is Rani Madam inside?’

Another grudge

Now coming back to the issue of rank discourtesy and repulsion for different peoples of India among themselves, there is the issue of the people of the North-Eastern parts of the nation carrying on a mental grudge against the rest of India. To a limited extent, it is connected to the forced incorporation of those areas into India, in the aftermath of the departure of the English. For, the British did not care to see if the people of those areas really liked to be part of a new India run by Hindi speaking, majority illiterate populations’ leaders.

Once when I was in a north Indian city, one north-eastern state man told me that when he went to a government office there, the personnel treated him as if he was an outsider from some other Asian nation. Treatment was with discourtesy. He claimed that ‘Indians’ were treating them as some kind of lower class citizens.

I should say that his experience might be true, but his interpretation could be untrue. For, when I was in Delhi, I went to take a Bank account in a Public Sector Bank (SBI). I showed them the Kerala Ration Card as my identification. Naturally the Ration Card was in Malayalam. The Hindi man in the office simply treated the Ration Card as some abominable substance. His attitude was that Kerala was some dirt. These things are slightly connected to fact that third rate menial class individuals, most of them fit to be only toilet cleaners are donning the positions of officials and ‘officers’ of the Indian government. I could have taken the experience as a North Indian man’s repulsion for South Indians. However since I was used to standard government employee attitude to the layman, I did not think like that.

The fair complexioned devas (divinities) versus the dark complexioned asuras (demons)

However, there is this thing to be mentioned. I do not usually watch Indian TV channels. However, at times, I have seen some of them for brief periods. I noticed that in earlier times almost all TV programmes on Indian epics, legends and purana stories, the good and godly personages are of fair complexion. The evil, the bad, the asura characters are all dark and black in skin features. Well, what should one suppose about this? Some Nigger codes in India?

Since I have mentioned TV channels, I think I must mention this item also. Ashwina used to watch such English channels as Disney, Cartoon and such other children’s channels when she was around less than four. However, right in the middle of the viewing, the channel would switch into Hindi. There are many terrible things in this action. For one thing Hindi is a terrible feudal language, that stinking-dirtifies a majority section of the population. Second it is an imposition of a language of mainly illiterate people when India was formed, on the rest of the nation. Third, giving this prominence to one particular language lends a powerful opportunity to the economic players in that language to gain national leadership.

For example, the nation spends a huge amount to teach everyone Hindi. This is supported by a huge lobby of Hindi film producers, who stand to gain from the very grand market for their films and TV serials. Well, I sense a great cheating in this affair. Beyond all this, why should international English TV Channels take up the cause of spreading Hindi as a part of their activities?

Continuing on the Jallianwalabagh route

I know that I have digressed a lot. Now coming back to the Jallianwalabagh incident:

There is this very great missing on the part of the ‘Indian’ historians. That there was a civil rioting in the city and many persons had been assaulted. Even though the some of the initial targets would have been the White races, in a matter of hours, every person in the city would be in danger. Civil administration failed, abdicated powers and the Military took over. What is that supposed to mean?

Well, the British led British-Indian army killed people who showed no concern for a Military Act that was proclaimed. Who could be held responsible? Well, the exact responsibility should be placed on the leadership who wanted martyrs. Well, getting martyrs garners political mileage. Everyone in India knows that, and every political party yearns for martyrs. Actually when such a thing happens, wherein the common folk are misled to their death to gain political mileage for political leaders, it is only correct that the political leaders should be hanged. That would put a leash on such ambitions of political leaders.

It is a political strategy in India. Get the people to assemble. Prearrange some elements to indulge in some violence. The police will have to react. Sometimes, there would even be certain policemen with loyalty towards to the other side specifically instructed to target certain specifically selected people for killing.

In this video, the reader may also take note of the difference in the looks and demeanour of the common man from that of the senior police official. The actual reason for this difference is the different layer of indicant codes that both of them exist in.

However, if Jallianwalabagh has to be discussed, then another very vibrant historical issue also should be discussed. Clement Atlee simply handed over the whole of the geographical area of British India to rank cheap politicians here, and handed over all the fantastic administrative and statutory setups and organisations, for them to make a mess of.

However, there were so many nationalities here in ‘India’ which couldn’t be simply joined together. Being under the British is one thing, but then being cloistered to other local ‘Indian’ entities would be totally another proposition. For, ‘Indians’ define each other in various indicant code levels with scant concern for whether it is demeaning or ennobling of others.

A Punjabi ambition

There was a very vibrant group in Punjab which stood against the idea of integrating with India. I do not know much about its origin or its long term aims. However, during my schooldays, I used to regularly see news items mentioning that so many weapons were found here and there in connection to this group. Looking back, from a retrospective position, it is possible that some of these news items could have been planted by the Indian government. For this is how, they go in for the kill. First plant stories and then enter.

However, it is possible that they were intent on some kind of armed struggle to escape Indian occupation of Punjab, or at least that would be their perspective. For, it is sort of certain that they were armed.

[Well, it must be admitted that Sikhs carry a marital tradition. Arms are part of their social consciousness. Moreover, one of the grave grievances of the Indian historians was that the British tried to remove arms from the natives here, by the Arms Act].

Their headquarters was said to be in the Golden Temple, at Amritsar. All journalists and all outsiders were removed from the particular district where the Golden Temple was situated. {There is a striking similarity in the way the Sri Lankan forces killed the Tamil population}. When everyone was thus removed, the Indian Army surrounded the place and a siege and attack that went on for days took place. One army officer in his youthful days did inform some of my college mates that their leader and his followers negotiated surrender and came out. They were all tied up and then bayoneted to death by Indian lower-ranked soldiers.

Well, along with action, there is another more terrible thing. Their revered leader would be addressed by the lower indicant words of Thoo and such things, by the lower level Indian soldiers, who are just like Indian domestic servants to their officers. It was mentioned that the order came from the top, not to take anyone alive.

For, Indian leaders know that if the leader is taken alive, he has the potential of becoming another Gandhi. His speeches, words and verses can become folklore and part of legends. Only the British colonial officials would do the mistake of taking him into custody and give him a trial. Then he would make one or two slogan like word, like, “Freedom is my birthright’ and that would remain in the people’s mind and textbooks. However a bayoneting and secret burial of his body parts would erase that possibility.

Incidentally, ‘Freedom is my birthright’ is a slogan attributed to Balgangadhar Tilak. It is taught in Indian history that he was an extremist leader who advocated violence against the British rule. Actually, the fact is that in later years, he was a British supporter. These things cannot be mentioned. For it would go deeply against governmental indoctrination.

See this minor hint in the words in Wikipedia: [When World War I started in August, Tilak cabled the King-Emperor in Britain of his support and turned his oratory to find new recruits for war efforts. He welcomed The Indian Councils Act, popularly known as Minto-Morley Reforms, which had been passed by British Parliament in May 1909, terming it as “a marked increase of confidence between the Rulers and the Ruled”].

See the conflict in these dialogues: 1. While in the prison he wrote the most-famous Gita Rahasya. 2. Tilak had mellowed after his release in June 1914, more because of the diabetes and hardship in Mandalay prison. [MY COMMENT: What kind of a hardship is there in a prison where he could read and write books? I do not think any prisoner in India (not British-India) can do these things]

There is this statement in another website: QUOTE: By the time Tilak completed his six year prison term, he was the unquestioned leader of the Indians - the uncrowned king. He was known as the Tilak Maharaj. END OF QUOTE

MY COMMENT: These types of claims are simply baseless imaginations. He was definitely not an uncrowned king of British-India. At best, a small number of his political followers would feel like that. Moreover, Muslims would have reason to view him with consternation. For, his act of reviving Ganesh Puja in Maharashtra is seen by some as having deep communal implications. If one were to go through his later life, it is possible that he would be seen to have developed admiration for British rule. But it is not possible to say anything like this, for the ferocity of antipathy that can rise up. These ideas go directly against the indoctrination given out through school and college textbooks. Beyond all this, it is quite doubtful if the majority population of other states like Madras, Bengal, Kashmir etc. were aware of him]

Incidentally, Tilak’s most prominent political activity was to defeat British-Indian government’s aim to increase the Age of Consent of females from ten years to twelve years. This was the main item that led him to direct confrontation with Gopal Krishna Gokale who even went to England to help various British-Indian legislations. Ultimately the British-Indian government could pass the Act to increase the age of consent in the Bombay Presidency assembly.

{Well, it is quite curious. English nations used to use the method of arresting, and then putting the person on a lengthy trial. However as the US slowly started shedding its English image with many outsiders getting into policymaking, I was sure that this stance would change. When Bin Laden’s place was attacked, he was killed and not taken into custody. It is a sure sign that English nations are reacting to Asian and African social codes, as they increasingly engage with them in various activities. Killing without a proper trial used to be anathema from English nations, once. In Asian nations, it is the standard norm}.

I have no connection with Sikh nationalism. And I feel that they are also just like other Indians, seeing other Indians as repulsive. It would be in their feudal language. However, if Jallianwalabagh has to be discussed, then this more terrible suppression should also be discussed.

Digression

During the British rule time also, there was this issue connected to different ‘Indians’. When the Indian Civil Service was opened to the Indian, it slowly started being dominated by the English educated or England returned ‘Indians’. Most of them were not from the people of Punjab and other north-western areas. When people from south and east India were given powerful administrative posts in the north-western areas, it was resented by the people there. They found it hard to be subservient to people who they regarded as inferior. And in Indian languages, communication is definitely graded and they are compelled to show servitude to an ‘Indian’ official.

The British government had been aware of this issue, and there were a talk of introducing a reservation for people from these areas into the Indian Civil Service. For, they considered themselves as martial races and were not willing to be under the other people who they considered as sissies. However, before more discussions in this regard could be done, the 2nd world war came. After that, labour party won in England, and colonial areas were given up.

A feeble English understanding of this phenomenon can be seen in the story by Rudyard Kipling: The Head of the District END OF DIGRESSION

The argument would be that the people who were shot in Jallianwalabagh were not indulging in any violence. Well, if that be the case, the people in Golden Temple, who were surrounded by the Indian army, were also not indulging in any violence at that time. Actually, the day of attack was the day of an annual celebration of the birthday of Guru Arjun Singh. The Sikh nationals were only keeping themselves entrenched in their base area. However, there was the possibility that they would soon go in for violence.

Or at least that was the government of India version. As per Indian government account only a few people died. However, the people’s version is that hundreds died. Would I believe what the government officials in India say? I wouldn’t. Indian officials will tell lies to the citizens who are theoretically their masters. However such a claim that the people are their masters would only provoke uncontrollable bouts of boisterous laughter from them.

Indira Gandhi gave the order for the attack. But then, so many others in the higher echelons of power would have advised her. For, she has to hold on to power. After all she was a mere person of ‘straw’. All administrative infrastructures she was in command of, were the creation of the English colonial officials. She was merely to stand on top and use them. Yet, for just doing that her party men would define her as great.

Quote from Wikipedia: Indira Gandhi first asked Lt. Gen. S. K. Sinha, then Vice-Chief of Indian Army and who was to succeed as the Army chief, to prepare a position paper for assault on the Golden Temple. Lt. Gen. Sinha advised against any such move, given its sacrilegious nature according to Sikh tradition. He suggested the government adopt an alternative solution. A controversial decision was made to replace him with General Arun Shridhar Vaidya as the Chief of the Indian army. General Vaidya, assisted by Lt. Gen. K Sundarji as Vice-Chief, planned and coordinated Operation Blue Star.

Quote from Wikipedia: On 3 June, a 36-hour curfew was imposed on the state of Punjab with all methods of communication and public travel suspended. Electricity supplies were also interrupted, creating a total blackout and cutting off the state from the rest of India and the world. Complete censorship was enforced on the news media.

The Indian Army stormed the Golden Temple on the night of 5 June under the command of Kuldip Singh Brar. The forces had full control of the Golden Temple by the morning of 7 June

Quote from Wikipedia: Before the attack by army a media blackout was imposed in Punjab. The Times reporter Michael Hamlyn reported that journalists were picked up from their hotels at 5 am in a military bus, taken to the adjoining border of the state of Haryana and “were abandoned there”. The main towns in Punjab were put under curfew, transportation was banned, news blackout was imposed and Punjab was “cut off from the outside world”. A group of journalists who later tried to drive into Punjab were stopped at the road block at Punjab border and were threatened to be shot if they proceeded.

The Indian nationals who worked with the foreign media were also banned. The press criticized these actions by Government as an “obvious attempt to attack the temple without the eyes of foreign press on them.” Associated Press reporter Brahma Chellaney, who managed to report on the operation, later faced police intimidation. ..................Mr. Chellaney reported that “several” suspected Sikh militants had been shot with their hands tied.

Back again to Jallianwalabagh

All these things go in the case of Jallianwalabagh also. But not the removal of media, and tying up and shooting. The people in Jallianwalabagh were not violent. However, there was rioting in the city, and hooligans could have a field day. There was the duty of the government to enforce law and order. A military rule was proclaimed. The leaders of the people gave them a feeling that a military rule by the British was nothing, a mere child’s play. That feeling was corrected by the Ghurkha and Baluchi soldiers. They shot with a vengeance, with all the repulsion and grudge they bore on the people who lived south of their own native areas. The British were just mere pawns in the game of antipathies that existed in this geographical area for a long time.

Now, here one comes upon the question of why General Dyre is seen taking up the full responsibility for what happened. It is one of the follies of the English race. Naturally being a British though not English, he also would be deeply affected by English mental standards. There is honour is accepting responsibility for one’s action. Well, that could be good and true in English systems. However, over here in feudal language systems, one naturally does go beyond one’s brief. Even British colonial officials did go beyond their brief many times. The indicant word codes do urge one to step beyond. For, there is the tug of ‘respect’ versus pejorative issue in everything that one does.

However, in the case of the ‘Indian’ soldiers of those times, even though they seemingly are under British command, they are all fully connected to their own native language codes and routes of command. For them the people who they are facing with the gun would be ‘avan’ and ‘aval’. That naturally removes any qualms for shooting and also spurs them to shoot as if they are killing a mean being.

Beyond all this, it is seen from retrospect that the Jallianwalabagh shooting was not directed against the exact perpetuators of violence in the city. It was not the persons who indulged in violence, rioting, murder and looting that really got shot. But more or less innocent persons who did not fully understand the exact meaning of what proclamation of a Military Act meant. There are a few things that can be discussed in this regard. As to why the people took it as a very silly thing. Second, why the local leaders did not bother to inform them that it was against the law to assemble in large numbers when such an Act was in proclamation. Third, why the Military leadership was duped to act against a non-violent gathering of people.

That is who in the various arrays of ‘native’ officials gave dangerous and criminally wrong information and advices to the Military to go in for the offensive. For, it is quite clear that the British officials had to depend on local officials for all information, advices, policymaking as well as execution. It would be very intelligent to understand that the mutual animosities of the local social and official leadership also could be the greatest guilty factor. The page seen removed from Wayback Machine