Was the Fakir a Faker?

Notes on the Gandhi Psy Op

by Josh G

It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor.

—Winston Churchill, 1930

Much has been written in recent years trying to tear down the mythological figure known as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. These anti-hagiographies appear to be aimed mainly at tarnishing his image, trying to show that Gandhi was not the great Mahatma he is made out to be. Some of this work focuses rather salaciously on his sleeping naked with his great-nieces in his later years or his alleged homosexual relationship with a German bodybuilder. Other work focuses attention on the hypocrisy and contradictory things he did or said, pointing to his racist attitudes towards South Africa’s black population; his active support of the British in the Boer War and the violent suppression of the Zulu uprising; his support in recruiting Indian troops for WWI; his belief in Aryan supremacy and letters to Hitler who he called his friend; his involvement in the cover-up of the death of an American who was killed in riots in India that Gandhi helped instigate.1 But my aim here is not to hop on the muckraking bandwagon and drag Gandhi’s name through the mud. Whereas these efforts appear to be aimed at showing that Gandhi was rather less than we thought, my goal here is to discover if Gandhi was rather more than we thought.

My initial suspicions came about after having read much of Miles’s work tearing down our false idols and showing us what a sham our history is. My son was planning to dress up as Gandhi, and I thought: isn’t it awfully convenient for the British that the man who is credited with liberating India preached non-violent resistance? We are told that was the secret of his success, but something just smelled fishy to me. After resisting my hunches for a couple of months, I finally gathered the courage (and the whisky) to take a deep breath and open up his Wikipedia page. When I came to this description of Gandhi’s time as a law student in London, I nearly spit out my whisky:

Influenced by Henry Salt's writing, he joined the Vegetarian Society, was elected to its executive committee, and started a local Bayswater chapter. Some of the vegetarians he met were members of the Theosophical Society, which had been founded in 1875 to further universal brotherhood, and which was devoted to the study of Buddhist and Hindu literature. They encouraged Gandhi to join them in reading the Bhagavad Gita both in translation as well as in the original.

On the Wikipedia page on Theosophy it says: “In November 1889 she [Blavatsky] was visited by the Indian lawyer Mohandas Gandhi, who was studying the Bhagavad Gita with the Keightels [ed: actually Keightleys]. He became an associate member of Blavatsky's Lodge in March 1891, and would emphasize the close connection between Theosophy and Hinduism throughout his life.”

In light of Miles’s research on the Theosophical Society, Gandhi’s connection to these key members of the Theosophical Society was enough to drag me down the rabbit hole, and it has turned out be quite a labyrinth.2 We’ll be tripping over Theosophy quite a bit as we explore this underground maze. I’m going to start this paper with the way I got in, looking at Gandhi’s family and upbringing. Then I’m going to talk about his time in London and his education there, branching out to discuss several intriguing connections. After that, we’ll go back to India to talk about the founding of the Indian National Congress (INC) and explore some more history about several key players and where they come from. Then we’ll take a closer look at the INC and Gandhi’s political campaigns and an even closer look at some photos of Gandhi, where we find some very, um, shall we say, bizarre things. It’s a long, winding paper, but I hope you’ll agree in the end that it was worth hanging in there.

GANDHI’S UPBRINGING AND FAMILY

Gandhi was born in Porbandar, which is a city on the western coast of the Kathiawar peninsula, which is part of the Gujarati region of northwest India. We are told that “On 2 October 1869, Putlibai [his mom] gave birth to her last child, Mohandas, in a dark, windowless ground-floor room of the Gandhi family residence in Porbandar city.” Dark, windowless room sounds like he was born in a hovel. But in fact this is the Gandhi family home:

Oh wait, that top image of the house on Wikipedia is a little misleading. Scroll a ways down and we get this:

Here are some more images from a different website:

You know, just your average 3-story, 17-room mansion. In western India. Dating back to the early 1800s, at least. Here’s a youtube tour.

Of course Gandhi’s Wikipedia page and other accounts of his life have a tendency to skip over or downplay his wealth. For example, the Wikipedia page of this father, Karamchand Gandhi, says that Gandhi’s grandfather “belonged to a humble family of merchants.” And that “In spite of Karamchand's success in his job, he did not find ways to accumulate wealth. The Gandhis had plenty to eat, a respectable number of servants, and a few nice pieces of furniture, but they were by no means wealthy.” Honestly that sounds like it was written by a billionaire talking smack about a millionaire. Looks to me like he had no trouble accumulating wealth. And since when is a 3-story, 17-room palatial mansion “humble?” Elsewhere we learn that the Gandhi family had 3 homes.

And what’s this about merchants? Gandhi’s Wikipedia page informs us that he is from the Hindu merchant caste, and also tells us he is from a “Modh Baniya” family, which taking the link from his Wikipedia page tells us is the “baniya” or “vaishya” caste, composed of “merchants, bankers, money-lenders, dealers in grains or in spices, and in modern times numerous commercial enterprises.” And “Modh” means prosperous. So Gandhi comes from a wealthy banking/business family.

They were not only rich, they were also politically powerful. How powerful? Well, Gandhi’s father served as Prime Minister of Porbandar state, and (later) Dewan of Rajkot and Bikaner. (These are both names of neighboring principalities on the Kathiawar peninsula in the Gujarat region of India.) What is a Dewan? Taking the link, we learn that during this period the Dewan was “the finance — and/or chief minister and leader” of a princely state” or the “highest officer after the king” or in this case, the prince. So basically, they could have just said he was prime minister of Porbander, Rajkot and Bikaner. And from a business family. So that’s who we’re dealing with here. And keep in mind that the Indian elite were working with the British and getting even richer in the process. We are told he had a falling out with the Prince of Porbandar and moved to the “smaller state of Rajkot,” with his brother taking over as Dewan in Porbandar. But although Rajkot may have been smaller, the British regional political agency was located there. So far from being “demoted” to a smaller principality, the move took the Gandhi family closer to the center of colonial power.

Gandhi went to high school at the Rajkot high school, later called the Alfred High School (after prince Alfred) and now the Mohandas Gandhi high school, described as one of the oldest institutions in India. Here’s a pic:

Very posh. And where did Gandhi live when he attended school there? Well if you search for it on Wikipedia and google, these are the pictures you get:

Here’s a similar picture; looks like a dump:

Turns out it was actually pretty nice:

You can find a tour on youtube. Not quite the palace in Porbandar, but definitely wealthy, especially by Indian standards of the late 1800s. Too bad his dad could barely make ends meet. Here, by the way, is where Gandhi lived in Bombay in later years:

An inside tour of the home shows it was quite resplendent.

So Gandhi’s dad was a wealthy merchant and high ranking local politician. What do we know about his mother, Putlibai? Mostly what we hear about his mom is how devout she was and how her faith had such a big influence on Gandhi. But she doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry, and it’s not that easy to get information on her upbringing beyond religious matters. Well, since this is India in the 19th century, we can assume that she married someone within her caste and status. And after a little digging, I found this:

She is descended from a wealthy family belonging to the caste of tradesmen – third privileged after the castes of Brahmins and warriors. She married Karamchand Gandhi, a man of her own caste. He was already in his early forties, had been widowed three times and was left with two daughters from previous marriages. Karamchand was a son of affluent parents. In the course of 28 years he had been holding the post of Chief Minister in the small state of Porbander.

So she is also from a wealthy family. And so was Gandhi’s wife, Kasturba. But they try to hide that, too. Here is Wikipedia: “Born to Gokuladas and Vrajkunwerba Kapadia of Porbandar, little is known of her early life.” According to another site, “Kasturba was born in an ordinary family in Porbandar, Gujarat in April 1869.” But here we hit pay dirt: “Kasturba Kapadia was born to Gokuladas Kapadia, a wealthy merchant, and his wife, Vrajkunwerba, in the city of Porbandar.” They were friends of the Gandhis. So apparently more is known about her early life than Wikipedia lets on.

Now, Gandhi’s dad died shortly before he went off to law school in London, and we are told that his eldest brother had to work really hard to pay for his education and that his family faced a lot of hardship and Gandhi worked hard later to pay back his brother, but then stopped and felt really guilty about it. But I don’t believe any of it. It sounds a lot like the poverty myths surrounding Karl Marx and John Reed’s alleged poverty. Take for example this description:

With regard to the Gandhi family's socio-economic status: the Gandhis were of the Vaisya caste, 'below' the Brahmin and Kshatriya caste and 'above' the Sudra caste. However, Gandhi's grandfather and father had been prime minister of a small state in the Kathiawar peninsula, western India. Authoritative Gandhi biographer Louis Fischer describes Gandhi's home life as cultured and the family as well-to-do by Indian standards. There were books in the house, chiefly about religion and mythology. At one stage Gandhi's father Karamchand owned three houses. Gandhi's elder brother Laxmidas practised law and became a government treasury official. He owned two houses. Gandhi's other brother, Karsandas, was a sub-inspector of police. Before Gandhi became the figure he was to become, he graduated as a barrister-at-law. He studied at the Inner Temple in London. Fischer recounts an opinion that the Inner Temple was considered by Indians the most aristocratic of the four Inns of Court in London.

INNER TEMPLE AND THE CITY OF LONDON

Here is where we’re going to take our first twist down the rabbit hole: the Inner Temple. What is “the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple?” The short answer is that it is an “Inn of Court”:

The Inns of Court in London are the professional associations for barristers in England and Wales. All such barristers must belong to one such association. They have supervisory and disciplinary functions over their members. [Ed: including, historically, legal training.] The Inns also provide libraries, dining facilities and professional accommodation.

“Prospective students may choose which Inn to apply to for membership, but can only apply to one Inn for scholarships. An applicant may choose a particular Inn because he or she knows someone already a member, or it has a student association at their university. It makes no long- term difference which Inn a barrister joins.

Well there’s some class-A misdirection right there – how could it possibly not matter which Inn a barrister joins? We know that social networks matter – the people you meet, talk with, befriend, etc open up doors and opportunities in the future. So of course it matters. But they don’t want us paying attention to these social connections. Miles’s work has shown how important it is to focus on personal ties and relationships. And although you choose which Inn to apply to, the Inn ultimately selects who it admits. Also the wiki description implies that all four Inns are equal to each other, although as we saw that in India, the Inner Temple Inn was considered the most aristocratic. But according to the Wikipedia entry on the Inns, they appear to simply be a lawyer’s association, like a bar association. But if we look at the Wikipedia entry on the Inner Temple, we find this:

The history of the Inner Temple begins in the early years of the reign of Henry II (1154–1189), when the contingent of Knights Templar in London moved from the Old Temple in Holborn to a new location on the banks of the River Thames, stretching from Fleet Street to what is now Essex House. The original Temple covered much of what is now the northern part of Chancery Lane (originally New Street), which the Knights created to provide access to their new buildings. The old Temple eventually became the London palace of the Bishop of Lincoln. After the Reformation it became the home of the Earl of Southampton, and the location is now named Southampton Buildings. The first group of lawyers came to live here during the 13th century, although as legal advisers to the Knights rather than as a society. The Knights fell out of favour, and the order was dissolved in 1312, with the land seized by the king and granted to the Knights Hospitalier.

Uh oh. Knights Templar. Conspiracy theorist bait. I can already picture a Gandhi biopic reboot starring Ben Kingsley and Tom Hanks. I’m vaguely familiar with some of the conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar. But as Miles has shown in some of his papers, the occult aspects of intelligence are likely more a means to an end than an end in themselves. The Inner Temple also appears to have been caught up in all the English civil wars and the intrigues Miles touched on in his paper on the Occult and Kabbalah with regard to Cromwell and Charles I (though apparently on the side of the crown according to Wikipedia), and they were also caught up with Queen Elizabeth and Francis Bacon’s father, Nicholas. Maybe Miles or one of his readers will piece this together in another paper. In any case, I’m not going to follow those twists and turns now (though I suggest it may complicate the narrative Miles put forth in that paper). Instead, I’m going to follow the link to the Temple area of London:

The Temple is an area of central London, in the vicinity of Temple Church, It is one of the main legal districts of the capital and a notable centre for English law, both historically and in the present day. The Temple area of the City of London consists of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, which are two of the four Inns of Court and act as local authorities in place of the City of London Corporation within their areas.

The Temple was originally the precinct of the Knights Templar whose Temple Church was named in honour of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. The Knights had two halls, whose modern successors are the Middle Temple Hall and the Inner Temple Hall.

And then later:

Inner Temple and Middle Temple are two of the few remaining liberties, an old name for a geographic division. They are independent extra-parochial areas, historically not governed by the City of London Corporation and are equally outside the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. They are today regarded as local authorities for most purposes, but can delegate functions to the Common Council of the City of London, as provided in the Temples Order 1971. They geographically fall within the boundaries and liberties of the City of London, but can be thought of as independent enclaves.

A “liberty” is “defined as an area in which regalian right was revoked and where the land was held by a mesne lord (i.e., an area in which rights reserved to the king had been devolved into private hands). It later became a unit of local government administration.”

An “extra-parochial” area is “a geographically defined area considered to be outside any eccelesiastical or civil parish. Anomalies in the parochial system, they had no church or clergymen and were therefore exempt from payment of poor or church rates and usually tithes. They were formed for a variety of reasons, often because an area was unpopulated or unsuitable for agriculture, but also around institutions and buildings or natural resources. Extra-parochial areas caused considerable problems when they became inhabited as they did not provide religious facilities, local governance or provide for the relief of the poor. Their status was often ambiguous and there was demand for extra-parochial areas to operate more like parishes. Following the introduction of the New Poor Law, extra-parochial areas were effectively made civil parishes by the Extra-Parochial Places Act 1857 and were eliminated by the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868. This was achieved either by being integrated with a neighbouring or surrounding parish, or by becoming a separate civil parish if the population was high enough.” [But according to Wikipedia, the Temple appears to be an exception because it is still described as an extra-parochial area.]

You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like a tax haven. It’s like the medieval version of the Cayman Islands. And of course a “liberty” or “extra-parochial” area is exactly the kind of thing that would be a bone of contention between the church, the aristocracy and “merchants” (bankers, businessmen, traders and later industrialists and financiers). In Miles’s previous work, we have seen the industrialists/bankers against the aristocracy, and we have seen them fighting the Church. But it would be a mistake, I think, to conclude that the church was necessarily aligned with the aristocracy. It may be that aristocrats tried to establish extra-parochial areas to avoid paying tithes, while merchants fought for liberties to avoid paying both taxes and tithes. I’m not clear on it at this point, but this is about as far as I’m going down this particular tunnel at this time.

Now if “the temple” area was foremost a tax haven, then it hints that the Knights Templar was a religious cover for a quasi-colonial conquest of the Levant to extract resources and dominate trade routes (which at that time mainly came over land across the Arabian peninsula). But on the surface, at least, the Knights appear to have been associated or aligned with the church and with the aristocracy. And despite all of the mystical and occult trappings, it appears to have been a above all a business enterprise and protection racket. Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry says “The Order of the Knights Templar arguably qualifies as the world's first multinational corporation.” It’s not clear why they would have insisted on an exemption from tithes if they were aligned with the Church, as the Wikipedia entry indicates they are. It may have been a banking and business empire that was in competition with the de' Medicis and other wealthy merchants, but we will have to pursue that part of the story another time.

But what all this may suggest is that the idea that the merchants have fought against established religions is not (just) because they stifle trade, but rather that they’re fighting a turf war over extracting rent and profits from the masses. They want a monopoly over the people. Come to think of it, maybe that’s what the vision of a New World Order is – not a one-world government per se but a consolidation of control and profits over the entire world. You don’t necessarily want or need a one world government when you’re the only governor. As the City of London shows us (and Miles’s paper on JFK suggests), you don’t have to stand out in the open to wield the power of sovereignty.

It’s also noteworthy that the Temple area is located in the City of London Corporation, which is another popular meme in conspiracy theory circles. It’s worth noting that the City of London is not the same as London, but is rather a square-mile area located geographically within London but not under London’s political authority. In fact, it’s not entirely clear (to me at least) whether it’s even under British authority:

The City of London Corporation, officially and legally the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, is the municipal governing body of the City of London, the historic centre of London and the location of much of the UK's financial sector….

The Corporation is probably the world's oldest continuously-elected local government authority. Both businesses and residents of the City, or "Square Mile", are entitled to vote in elections, and in addition to its functions as the local authority – analogous to those undertaken by the boroughs that administer the rest of London – it takes responsibility for supporting the financial services industry and representing its interests….

There is no surviving record of a charter first establishing the Corporation as a legal body, but the City is regarded as incorporated by prescription, meaning that the law presumes it to have been incorporated because it has for so long been regarded as such ( e.g., Magna Carta states that "the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties"). The City of London Corporation has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest, and the Corporation's first recorded Royal Charter dates from around 1067, when William the Conqueror granted the citizens of London a charter confirming the rights and privileges that they had enjoyed since the time of Edward the Confessor. Numerous subsequent Royal Charters over the centuries confirmed and extended the citizens' rights.

With growing demands on the Corporation and a corresponding need to raise local taxes from the commoners, the Common Council grew in importance and has been the principal governing body of the City of London since the 18th century.

[You would think that the common council represents “the commoners” but in fact it is just a council of the ruling guilds – see link to liverymen.]

The Corporation is unique among British local authorities for its continuous legal existence over many centuries, and for having the power to alter its own constitution, which is done by an Act of Common Council.

The Corporation does not have general authority over the Middle Temple and the Inner Temple, two of the Inns of Court adjoining the west of the City which are historic extra-parochial areas….

Of course I had heard of “The City of London” mentioned in conspiracy theories (most frequently it is grouped together with the Vatican and Washington D.C. as some kind of triumvirate of city-states that rule the world). But still much of this information came as a surprise to me. For example I was surprised to learn that businesses in the City get a vote for the City’s elected officials based on how many employees they have. According to Wikipedia, the origins of the City are lost in the mists of time, but it predates John Dee, Cromwell, the de' Medicis, the Rothschilds (under that name), even the crusades and the Norman conquest in 1066. I find that interesting, and I’m curious to find out more about its origins and what it entails. But that will have to wait for a future paper.

What we do know is that the City of London is a notorious tax haven, and much has been written about it in recent years, though it definitely doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Here are two interesting mainstream but critical articles on the contemporary City of London, one in the Guardian and the other in the New Statesman. It’s the Cayman Islands of the British Isles and appears to be a major—if not the major—world center for coordinating offshore tax dodges. But, there’s not much offshore about it. And although it’s true that the City of London businesses do generate tax revenue for Britain, most of it appears to be in the form of payroll taxes on workers and VAT. Below is the breakdown of the taxes by the financial industry in the City of London in 2015, which shows that about 20% of the 66.5 billion pounds paid (or just over 13 billion pounds) was raised through corporate taxes on profits. Since the corporate tax rate stands at 20%, we would have to believe that these companies earned 66.5 billion pounds in profit – or as much as they paid in taxes. Of course we know they made oodles more than that, but how much will likely remain a mystery.

For more on the City of London, I quote at length from Nicholas Shaxson’s book, Treasure

Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens:

London hosts more foreign banks than any other financial center. In 2008 the city accounted for half of all international trade in equities, nearly 45 percent of over-the-counter derivatives turnover, 70 percent of Eurobond turnover, 35 percent of global currency trading, and 55 percent of all international public offerings. New York is bigger in areas like securitization, insurance, mergers and acquisitions, and asset management, but much of its business is domestic, making London easily the world’s biggest international—and offshore—financial hub.

When the Queen visits the City, she stops at the boundary at Temple Bar and waits for the Lord Mayor of the City…. This tourist ceremony, in which the Queen touches the Lord Mayor’s sword, strikingly highlights the political discontinuity between the City and the rest of Britain…

The City’s nine thousand–odd human residents have one vote each in municipal elections here. But businesses in the City vote too, as if they were human, with thirty-two thousand corporate votes. In effect, Goldman Sachs, the Bank of China, Moscow Narodny Bank, and KPMG can vote in a hugely important British election.

The strangeness goes deeper and deeper. In fact the Corporation is so ancient and mystifying that barely any outsiders understand it.

The Corporation has existed since what tour guides and historians call time immemorial, a term taken to mean that its origins extend beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition. There is no direct evidence, Corporation officials note, of it coming into being: They say, only half in jest, that it dates its “modern period” from the year 1067. This is the world’s oldest continuous municipal democracy, predating the British parliament and rooted in what the Corporation calls “the ancient rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens before the Norman Conquest in 1066.” This, notes the City of London expert Maurice Glasman, means that the City is effectively outside the normal legislative remit.

The City’s special privileges stem ultimately from the power of financial capital. Britain’s rulers have needed the City’s money and have given the City what it wants in exchange. Over the centuries the City has used this magic formula to carve out for itself privilege after privilege, exempting itself from laws it dislikes and turning itself into a state within a state: a true offshore island partly separate from Britain and protected from tides of history that have swept the British nation-state over the centuries. Monarchs, firebrands, and demagogues who tried to roll back the City’s special rights and privileges had occasional successes, but most came to a sticky end, and the City vigorously reasserted its rights. It was, one nineteenth-century reformer said, “like some prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world.”

In 1937, Britain’s then prime minister Clement Attlee became one of few politicians to have raised the issue. “Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster [the parliament]. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the Government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people.” In 1957 an official commission, which sparked a big shake-up of local government across Britain, opened with the memorable words: “Logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them.”

The carve-out from Britain’s rules and laws has a truly ancient pedigree. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, the rest of England disarmed and gave up its rights—but the City kept its freehold property, ancient liberties, and its own self-organizing militias: Even the King had to disarm in the City. When William commissioned the Domesday Book, a survey of the kingdom’s assets and revenues that determined taxation, the City was excluded. In the momentous changes that followed—the Protestant Reformation five hundred years later when the English Church became subject to the Crown, the subsequent civil wars that broke the power of the monarchy, and the broadening of suffrage to include almost all adults—the City held on to its privileges and strengths. The Statute of William and Mary from 1690, “confirming the Privileges of the Corporation,” and following a challenge to the City’s authority by the late King Charles II, illustrates the scale of the City’s different status:

All the charters, grants, letters patents, and commissions touching or concerning any of their liberties or franchises, or the liberties, privileges, franchises, immunities, lands, tenements and hereditaments, rights, titles, or estates of the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London, made or granted to any person or persons whatsoever . . . be and are hereby declared and adjudged null and void to all intents.

In other words, those claims that infringe the City’s ancient liberties are worthless….

Today the City has an official named the Remembrancer, the world’s oldest institutional lobbyist, who is the only nonparliamentary person working in the parliamentary chamber…. the Remembrancer is charged “with maintaining and enhancing the City’s status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded,” and he monitors, and lobbies on, anything in parliament that might touch on the City’s rights.…

Some law made in the British parliament does apply to the Corporation, but some Acts of Parliament specifically exempt it, either fully or in part. The City is connected to the British nation- state, but it remains a constitutional elsewhere. In this the City resembles Jersey or the Cayman islands, the offshore jurisdictions that are its satellites—each of which, as I will show, has also been entirely captured by the interests of global finance.

For skittish global capital, the City’s constitutional foundation matters absolutely. Finance knows that any serious challenge to the City would face the mystique of time immemorial and the extravagant skills and powers of the many servants of finance. This globe-encompassing financial services center, whose influence reaches silently into people’s homes from Baltimore to Birmingham to Borneo, is founded upon an ancient constitutional platform that is unique and rather impregnable.

So that’s the City of London for you. Regardless of its origins, it appears to be the locus of power of modern (and even medieval) finance and “effectively outside the normal legislative remit.” It would appear that the fact that “some laws” apply to the Corporation but others “exempt it” means that the City allows itself to be ruled by British law when it wants. Sovereignty is defined as “the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference” or the “supreme authority over some polity.” So the City appears to have sovereignty over itself. And of course political theorist Carl Schmitt famously argued that the sovereign is “he who decides on the exception” to the law (especially in the name of the common good); meaning the person or entity who decides when and where the law does not apply. In this respect, the City could arguably be said to be sovereign over England itself.

OK, we’ve gone down the City of London tunnel quite far enough; now we double back, passing first by the Temple area again. Remember how the Wikipedia page said that the Inner and Middle Temple “are independent extra-parochial areas, historically not governed by the City of London Corporation?” Well that makes them a tax haven within a tax haven; a sovereign enclave within a sovereign enclave. Quite extraordinary, if you ask me. 3 If the City of London is the seat of power of banking, commerce and finance, then the Inner and Middle Temple appears to be the seat of power within the seat of power. And this is where Mohandas Gandhi was sent to study law. Or at least that’s what we’re told he was doing there.

THE INTERLOCKING NETWORKS OF THE INDIAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

Let’s see, who else studied at the Inner Temple? Well, it turns out that all of the principal figures in the Indian independence movement studied there: Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India and longtime Gandhi collaborator; Muhammed Ali Jinna, leader of the Muslim league and founder of Pakistan (curiously his Wiki page says that he studied at Lincoln Inn, and actually spins a yarn about why he chose Lincoln, but on the Inner Temple page and another source, it lists him as a graduate, along with other sources); and another “radical” Indian who was a major player in the “Indian home rule” movement, Shyamji Krishna Varma (that link takes you to his Wiki page, where you can enjoy their ridiculous attempt to whitewash his wealthy background). [Seehere for a more complete list of members of the inner temple, including the first PM of Malaysia.] I would say that’s quite a coincidence.4 Bonnerjee, the first president of the Indian National Congress, studied at the Middle Temple.

Beyond the Temples, it appears that many key players in Indian independence like Nehru, Jinnah, Krishna Menon, and even the recent prime minister Manmohan Singh were groomed in the atmosphere of the notorious Fabian Society and the London School of Economics, and were influenced by Harold Laski, a professor at LSE.5 From the Wikipedia entry on the Fabian Society:

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.

The Fabians established the British labour party and, according to Wikipedia, “In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilisation.” Oh my, how progressive of them.

Later members of the Fabian Society included Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders of new nations created out of the former British Empire, who used Fabian principles to create socialist democracies in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and elsewhere as Britain decolonised after World War II.

LSE was founded in 1895 by members of the Fabian Society ostensibly with the goal of promoting greater equality and the “betterment of society,” though presumably via gradualist and reformist efforts without asking for too many concessions from “high society.” It’s also located within spitting distance from the Temple district. As for Laski, you may read this excerpt and then go check out the full bio just to see all the red flags on this guy:

According to John Kenneth Galbraith, ‘the center of Nehru's thinking was Laski’ and ‘India is the country most influenced by Laski's ideas.’ It is mainly due to his influence that the LSE has a semi-mythological status in India. He was steady in his unremitting advocacy of the independence of India. He was a revered figure to Indian students at the LSE. One Indian Prime Minister of India said ‘in every meeting of the Indian Cabinet there is a chair reserved for the ghost of Professor Harold Laski.’

While we’re on the subject of key players in the Indian independence movement, did you know that one of them was an Englishman? I didn’t. His name is AllanOctavianHume. He was a senior member of the British civil service in India. In other words, he was a high ranking member of the British colonial authority in India. I don’t know about you, but I found it rather odd that a senior colonial official was a co-founder of the Indian National Congress, which is the political party/organization that was later to lead the Indian independence movement with Gandhi at its head. His Wikipedia entry portrays him as a benign or even enlightened colonial administrator who supported the natives and criticized the brutality and “narrow-mindedness” of the colonial administration (of which he was a part).

One could see his establishment of free primary education schools as a good thing. His creation of a Hindu-language magazine could also be seen as benevolent: “Noting that there was very little reading material with educational content, he started, along with Koour Lutchman Singh, a Hindi language periodical, Lokmitra (The People's Friend) in 1859.” But to me, “The People’s Friend” sounds like a propaganda rag; and as for public primary schools, they have been a favored way of the plutocrats to brainwash the populace from the beginning. One could also look at his agriculture projects benignly, or look at them as ways of increasing the productivity of the natives so more wealth could be extracted. Remember that the colonial project was really just the strong arm of the East India Company.

Be that as it may, “in 1879 Hume went against the authorities. The Government of Lord Lytton dismissed him from his position in the Secretariat. No clear reason was given except that it ‘was based entirely on the consideration of what was most desirable in the interests of the public service.’” Shortly after in 1882 he resigned from the civil service and almost immediately after started forming the Indian congress, which first met in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1885.

In my view, his highly publicized demotion was likely a type of sheep-dipping, where he could gain more legitimacy among the natives before beginning the intelligence project controlling the Indian opposition and independence movement, embodied in the Indian National Congress (INC) and personalities such as Gandhi, Nehru, Jinna and Varma. What makes me think the INC is an intelligence project? This sentence from his Wiki page: “It has been suggested that the idea [for the INC] was originally conceived in a private meeting of seventeen men after a Theosophical Convention held at Madras in December 1884. Hume took the initiative, and it was in March 1885, when the first notice was issued convening the first Indian National Union to meet at Poona the following December.” (Note that elsewhere in his wiki page, it says he quit Theosophy in 1883.)

But it actually gets a fair bit weirder. Here is a quotation from a paper by Mark Bevir in the International Journal of Hindu Studies on “Theosophy and the Origins of the Indian National Congress:”

Hume was probably the single most important individual for the formation of the Indian National Congress. He said that he read various documents that convinced him large sections of the Indian population violently opposed British rule and some even plotted rebellion… These documents were communications he had received supposedly from the Mahatmas, Koot Hoomi and Morya. In one of the letters the Mahatmas supposedly sent Sinnett, they explained how the Great White Brotherhood successfully had controlled the Indian masses in the Rebellion of 1857 so as to preserve Imperial rule, which apparently was necessary to bring India to its allotted place in a new world order (Barker 1923: 324). Now the Mahatmas seemed to be directing Hume to maintain the correct balance between East and West.

Whoa. Let’s back this baby up. You see, Blavatsky claimed she had learned what she knew about Theosophy during her time in Tibet when she met Koot Hoomi, who she called a

‘Mahatma’ (it means ‘great soul’). This is the term that the Theosophists used to refer to

enlightened spiritual adepts who supposedly worked together in what they called the “Great

White Brotherhood” as “guardians of the spiritual evolution of mankind.”6 Nobody besides Blavatsky had ever seen these Mahatmas, and they only communicated through letters. So that is who and what Hume is referring to. Of course for Theosophist true believers, which we are led to believe included AO Hume (though I don’t tend to believe it), this means that establishing the INC as an escape valve is in the best interest of the spiritual evolution of mankind and the new world order. My guess is the letters were written by either Blavatsky or Olcott or someone at MI6—or whatever they called it back then. And to me, saying the INC is part of the ‘Great White Brotherhood’s’ plan of working towards a ‘new world order’ just sounds like they’re pulling a gag by hiding their intentions in plain sight. I bet they’re still laughing about that one.

We know from Miles’s previouswork that the Theosophical movement was an intelligence project, and—along with other occult movements—a cover for Intelligence.

Here is more on Hume's connection to Theosophy:

Hume's interest in theosophy took root around 1879. An 1880 newspaper reports the initiation of his daughter and wife into the movement. Hume did not have great regard for institutional Christianity, but believed in the immortality of the soul and in the idea of a supreme ultimate. Hume wanted to become a chela (student) of the Tibetan spiritual gurus.

Am I the only one who thinks ‘initiation’ is an odd way to put it?

Hume’s “only daughter Maria Jane Burnley… had married Mr. Ross Scott at Simla on 28 December 1881. Maria became a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, another occult movement, after moving to England. Ross Scott was the founding secretary of the Simla Eclectic Theosophical Society…

But Hume and Gandhi were not the only players in this story who were touched by Theosophy: “Nehru described his childhood as a "sheltered and uneventful one." He grew up in an atmosphere of privilege at wealthy homes including a large palatial estate called the Anand Bhawan. His father had him educated at home by private governesses and tutors. Under the influence of a tutor, Ferdinand T. Brooks, he became interested in science and theosophy. He was subsequently initiated into the Theosophical Society at age thirteen by family friend Annie Besant.” Yes, Nehru was wealthy. All of the key players were.

Although the Theosophy Society was founded in New York in 1875, “Blavatsky and Olcott (the first President of the Society) moved from New York to Bombay, India in 1878. The International Headquarters of the Society was eventually established in Adyar, a suburb of

Madras.”7 And under the sub-entry on the society’s “influence” we find this:

The Theosophical Society Adyar was closely linked to the Indian independence movement: the Indian National Congress was founded across the street in 1885 during a Theosophical conference, and many of its leaders, including M. K. Gandhi were associated with Theosophy… Some early members of the Theosophical Society were closely linked to the Indian independence movement, including Allan Octavian Hume, Annie Besant8 and others. Hume was particularly involved in the founding of the Indian National Congress.

So in addition to trying to introduce a watered-down version of Buddhism and Eastern religions to the West, it appears the Theosophical society was a major intelligence tool for organizing the INC and also acted as a cover for intelligence in the East, as well as the West. In fact, this may have been one of the primary motivations for its founding. I don’t believe it is any coincidence that Gandhi set off for the Inner Temple in 1888, a few years after the INC founding (though I doubt his arrival was connected to the Jack the Ripper project, which was then in full swing).

Before we get too far off the topic of key players in the INC and the Indian liberation movement, let’s take a detour and go out on a limb to talk about where they come from. In 2007, India had been ruled for 40 of its 60 years as a “democracy” by members of the so-called Gandhi-Nehru family. If you’re like me and thought that the “Gandhi” name meant descendants of Mohandas Gandhi, you’re mistaken. The Gandhis of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty are not related to the other Gandhis. Or at least that’s what they tell us. In fact the mainstream sites immediately point it out as soon as they bring up the name Gandhi. So where does the name come from? Indira Gandhi, who was the PM of India for about 15 years, was the only child of Jawaharlal Nehru, who himself was India’s first prime minister, a position he held for some 17 years. She married a man named Feroze (or Feroj) Gandhi. In fact, all the mainstream sites almost immediately point out that there is no relation. Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about him:

Feroze Jehangir Ghandy was born … in Bombay… His father Jehangir Ghandy was a Marine Engineer in Killick Nixon and was later promoted as a Warrant Engineer…. The family had migrated to Bombay from Bharuch in South Gujarat.9

So his last name was Ghandy, as Wikipedia notes, but then they changed the spelling to Gandhi. Actually, it’s not at all clear that Gandhi or Ghandy was the family’s last name. There are many different, conflicting stories about their last name. Wikipedia says he changed his name from Ghandy to Gandhi after he joined the independence movement in 1930. Some say that his mother’s family name was Ghandy, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense, since the family takes the father’s name, and why would he need to change the spelling from Ghandy to Gandhi anyway? Their last name is pretty well scrubbed on many sites. As I was digging into this, I came across several claims that Feroze’s family name was actually Khan, and that his father was Muslim, if not his mother, who is said to be Farsi (Zooroastran). Khan had to change his name, because the daughter (and future PM) of India marrying a Muslim was too much for the Hindu population to take. One story I came across said that Mohandas Gandhi adopted Khan so that he could take his name. It seems clear that they chose the Gandhi name to capitalize on the brand they had spent 50 years building. From this geneology site, it seems clear that Feroze’s father’s family name was Khan, but his mother’s maiden name is not clear (and appears to have been scrubbed). Mainstream sites say her maiden name is Commissariat (a shortening of a common Parsi last name, Commissariatwala). But if you do a google search for Ratimay Ghandy, many hits come up with people saying that is her maiden name. The Parsis, especially the wealthy Bombay Parsis, were neck deep in the opium trade.

But there’s more: where does Feroze’s family come from? They are said to come from Bharuch, Gujarat, near the Kathiawar peninsula. But there are many, many sites that say his family came from the Junagadh area, which is on the peninsula, situated between Porbandar and Rajkot (which you’ll recall were the cities of Gandhi’s birthplace and high school, respectively). And wouldn’t you know it – according to Wikipedia, Gandhi’s family originated from the Junagadh state, too! And while we’re at it, many sites say that Feroze’s father’s name was Nawab Khan. But this must be some kind of inside joke, because Nawab doesn’t appear to be a first name. It’s anhonorifictitle, referring to the ruler of a princely state under the Mughal empire, with the title remaining for rulers of principalities under the British. And guess what the family name of the Nawab’sofJunagadh was under the British? Khan. (The –ji on the names at the link is just an honorific suffix.) What this suggests, and I admit it’s a stretch, is that Feroze is descended from the royal family of the Junagadh state. Furthermore, if his mother’s maiden name was Ghandy and Mohandas Gandhi’s family hails from Junagadh, then it might very well be that they are related (remember that the Ghandy and Gandhi spellings are simply transliterations into English so the spelling is arbitrary). Another fun fact: who built the posh high school where Gandhi went? The Nawab of Junagardh. Small world.

Actually, it’s even smaller than that. Turns out Muhammad Jinna hails from Gondal, a town that is also on the Kathiawar peninsula, situated between Porbandar and Rajkot. It appears the only key player not from Kathiawar is Nehru. But Nehru’s family’s history is also curious. It is said that his grandfather, Gangadhar Nehru, was the last kotwal (like chief of police) of Delhi under the last Moghul emperor, before the Moghul empire was crushed following the 1857 uprising. The Moghul empire was Muslim, but Nehru’s family is supposed to be Hindu. Except the Kotwal at that time was not Hindu, and it makes no sense that the Muslim Moghul emperor would appoint a Hindu chief of police. Anyway, the story goes that the Kotwal, named Ghiyasuddin Ghazi, changed his name to Gangadhar Nehru (Nehru is taken from the word for canal, Nahar, where he is said to have lived) in order to escape Delhi and the British who were mercilessly killing Moghuls to beat down the 1857 uprising.

But that’s not all, on a few sites, such as this one, it is said that he was appointed Kotwal of Delhi just before the 1857 rebellion. On the basis of this curious timing (which could be false or just a total coincidence), I am going to offer this wild speculation: he was working as an agent for the British or otherwise double-crossed the Moghul emperor and fled and changed his name, not to avoid the British, but to avoid the Moghuls. (I guess the Theosophy Mahatmas weren’t joking when they said the ‘Great White Brotherhood’ got involved to stop the 1857 rebellion.) That would also help explain how the Nehru family was so wealthy.

That part is pure speculation, but somewhat less speculative is the notion that both the Nehru and Feroze families could be considered crypto-Muslim. Just as we have seen Jews pretending to be Christians in Miles’s other work, here we (apparently) have Muslims pretending to be Hindus. In other words, the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty is a Muslim dynasty. Ironic, don’t you think?

As for the Mohandas Gandhi’s family there is no indication they were Muslim, and even the sites that link Feroze’s mom (as a Gandhy) to the Khan family say that she converted to Islam. In short, there is a world of intrigue here, which in many ways resembles the kinds of hidden identities and connections through marriage and geography that Miles has revealed in his research on the West. Of course, it doesn’t really matter what their religious background is. But it is interesting.

But why the Kathiawar peninsula? What’s so special about it? Here I only have speculation to go on, based on this statement from Jinna’s Wiki bio: “Karachi was then enjoying an economic boom: the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 meant it was 200 nautical miles closer to Europe for shipping than Bombay.” Well Kathiawar (esp. Porbandar) is about halfway between Karachi and Mumbai. So I surmise that after 1869 (the year of Gandhi’s birth, incidentally), this area of India suddenly became much more open to and central to trading routes.

Furthermore, it seems that Kathiawar was an important part of the illicit opium trade. I say illicit, because there was a legal trade in opium managed first through the East India Company and then the colonial administration. But that went mainly through Bombay and was most closely associated with the Parsi community (who apparently funded many of the nationalist organizations with their opium profits). In fact, if you google Kathiawar opium trade, one of the first hits you get isthis: “opium was, without question, the country’s single most profitable commodity of the nineteenth century.” There was also an enormous illicit trade (smuggling), and the Gujarat region—and Kathiawar especially—apparently played a big role, which was likely enlarged after the Suez canal opened.

This book, Smuggling as Subversion, has a map of opium smuggling routes in this region showing Porbandar, and the text indicates that it was part of the opium trading network. The book also says that the domestic opium trade was dominated by Gosains and the export trade was dominated by the Gujarati Banias (the merchant caste that Gandhi belonged to), being controlled in particular by the sahukars (which translates as money lenders, i.e., bankers). Muslims (presumably like Feroze Khan’s family) were major players in the Kathiawar opium trade. Here is a discussion of some correspondence regarding problems the Gosains were having with shipments: “The Gosains had activated a system for gathering intelligence from the west coast ports…. Information was eagerly awaited from Porbandar in particular. It was hoped that the messenger sent out to this Kathiawar port would have returned and the Ahmadabad Gosains were asked to ‘send his intelligence.’ Apparently Porbandar was the eventual destination of some of the opium bought by the Gosains.” I find it interesting that they keep using the word, “intelligence.” This is a good reminder of how essential intelligence has been historically to the merchant class and drug trafficking. But Kathiawar was not just a lucrative conduit for opium smuggling; it was also a critical location for the British to try to tamp down on the smuggling. Here from the first link:

Kathiawar in particular emerged as a breeding ground for smuggling… In Kathiawar, the extent of home production was so great that the government depots had trouble selling their own product…. Major General Sir John Malcolm remarked at one stage that he deemed the region to be “of much political importance” in large part due to its “flourishing seaport…and an alliance with it has enabled us to check in a very considerable degree the smuggling of Malwa Opium.” [The black market price was undercutting the government-grown (Malwa) price and cutting into their profits. But there was only so much they could do. They decided:] “we should content ourselves with discouraging the growth of opium in this Province by reducing the price of the Malwa Opium supplied from the Rajkot Warehouse.

One has to imagine that Gandhi’s father, as Dewan of Porbandar and later Rajkot, had his fingers in the opium pie and played this ‘war on drugs’ from both ends. The elites always do, and probably nobody has benefitted more from the War on Drugs than the CIA and its masters. British Intelligence may have forged ties with the Kathiawar elite through the illicit opium trade and found them to be reliable partners.

[Note from the editor, i.e. Miles: John Jacob Astor, one of the richest Americans in history, made much of his money from this same opium trade, most of it illegal. Although this was about a century earlier than what Josh is looking at here, everything is tied to everything else. Astor was a main driver of the privatization of banks in the US, basically hiring Andrew Jackson to shut down the Bank of the US so that his own “National Bank” could take its place. We will look at that in an upcoming paper.]

Speaking of deep connections between England and India, did you know that India’s oldest and largest intelligence agency was founded by the British? I didn’t. It’s called theIntelligence Bureau and according to Wikipedia it is “reputedly” the world’s oldest intelligence agency. People think of a different agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) as India’s CIA, but it was only founded in 1968. I surmise that the Intelligence Bureau is the key locus of intelligence in India. Here are some interesting tidbits:

The reason for the perception” [that it’s the oldest agency] “may be because, in 1885, Major General Sir Charles MacGregor was appointed Quartermaster General and head of the Intelligence Department for the British Indian Army at Simla….

Understanding of the shadowy workings of the IB is largely speculative. Many a times even their own family members are unaware of their whereabouts… The IB also passes on intelligence between other Indian intelligence agencies and the police…. The IB is also rumoured to intercept and open around 6,000 letters daily. It also has an email spying system similar to FBI's Carnivore system. The Bureau is also authorised to conduct wiretapping without a warrant….IB was created on 23 December 1887, by the British Secretary of State as a sub-sect of the Central Special Branch but there is no act of the Indian parliament nor executive order relating to the functioning of the IB. In 2012, a PIL was filed challenging the legality of IB.

The Intelligence Bureau reportedly has a lot of successes to its credit, but operations conducted by the IB are rarely declassified. Due to the extreme secrecy surrounding the agency, there is little concrete information available about it or its activities. The IB was trained by the Soviet KGB from the 1950s onward until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Say what? It has been operating as an offshoot of British intelligence all this time, with no basis in Indian legislation? Trained by the KGB through the cold war? And they just admit that in public? I realize India aligned itself with the USSR during the latter stages of the Cold War, but still…

GANDHI AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AS CONTROLLED OPPOSITION

Now here’s a question that’s just begging to be answered: why would Intelligence want to liberate India? Well, it should be clear by now that that’s what the INC was really about. The INC was, at least initially, about controlling the opposition. In Hume’s Wiki page, it’s written:

After retiring from the civil services and toward the end of Lord Lytton's rule, Hume observed that the people of India had a sense of hopelessness and wanted to do something, noting "a sudden violent outbreak of sporadic crime, murders of obnoxious persons, robbery of bankers and looting of bazaars, acts really of lawlessness which by a due coalescence of forces might any day develop into a National Revolt... There were agrarian riots in the Deccan and Bombay, and Hume suggested that an Indian Union would be a good safety valve and outlet to avoid further unrest.

I mean, it kind of spells it out right there. Sounds like they were worried about another major revolt (the previous one having been in 1857, a few years after Hume started his career in the civil service), and they wanted to co-opt the opposition. We also saw an indication of that earlier in the Hume’s statement about the Great White Brotherhood. Of course, we have to remember that wealthy, upper-caste Hindus, Muslims and Parsis worked hand-in-glove with the British and benefitted in many ways from British rule and trade with the East India Company, and so they were the ones who were called upon to get involved in the INC. We also saw they were involved in things like the Fabian society, which was not exactly the most radical reform movement ever, to say the least.10 And, like Gandhi, they were also the ones called upon to lend a direct hand to Intelligence. But in order to make sure the “unwashed masses” went along with and gave their support to the INC and these wealthy upper-caste Indians, they created a figure that the masses would idolize and follow unwaveringly: Mahatma Gandhi. Bapu.

Thus, whereas I originally surmised that Gandhi was created to stand as a model for non-violent opposition and protest—which as I said seemed awfully convenient for those in power—I now see that while this was true, the main audience for Gandhi were the Indians themselves. Gandhi was created to propagandize them, to act as controlled opposition, to lead them in non-violent protest (or violent protest and riots when it suited the Brits). They created a character the Indian masses would idolize and follow blindly. Not only that, but Gandhi lived an ascetic lifestyle and celebrated simplicity and poverty. Well, the vast majority of Indians were dirt poor. Many if not most still are. And he promoted a value system that valorized that. If that’s not making a virtue of necessity, I don’t know what is. Just look at this from his Wiki bio:

He lived modestly in a self-sufficient residential community and wore the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl, woven with yarn hand-spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian food, and also undertook long fasts as a means of both self-purification and social protest.

Yes, he had an ashram, and we assume he lived there some of the time. But he also had a grand home in Mumbai, as we saw earlier. They don’t mention that, do they? I wonder how much time he spent living there? I’m willing to bet he was there most of the time.

Furthermore, the idea that Gandhi liberated India from the British through non-violent civil disobedience is a lie, a big one. But it was one that needed to be told in order to hold up non- violent protest as an effective (if not the most effective) form of protest. But it was all just Kabuki theater. Many people will tell you that the British would have quit India in any event because they could no longer afford the colonial project after WWII. I myself am a bit doubtful that that is the real reason. They may have quit India publicly, but they had already installed their agents as heads of state, both in India and Pakistan, and it was time for the next phase of the plan to get moving (it was 1947 after all…). Anyway they left their agents in charge (using the Gandhi brand to bolster their legitimacy) to ensure the profits would keep flowing up the chain of command, probably in exchange for a slightly larger piece of the pie and a bit more day-to- day autonomy. At least, that was basically Hume’s pitch to India’s indigenous ruling class for starting the INC (as you can read at his Wiki page), although he dressed up his pitch in fancier language to make it seem like he was doing them a favor.

Convenient that just before they left they created two states who are mortal enemies of each other. That’s some good divide and conquer strategy right there. Of course, I don’t know that they had a hand in the split between Pakistan and India and the resulting massacres, and I haven’t read up on the details of the partition. But given that Gandhi, Nehru and Jinna appear to have been agents working on the project (just as they had been agents and collaborators of the British colonial regime), it’s safe to assume that partition was part of the plan. Seems like they even did a test run with the partition of Bengal in 1905. I’m sure the plutocrats have made lots of money selling arms to these two states who have been at each other’s throats for so long. Plus, as Hermann Goering articulated so well, it’s easier to quash dissent when the people believe they’re under threat of attack.11 And here I should add that as much as dividing people against each other (like the sexes) makes them unhappy and unhappy people buy more stuff, as Miles frequently points out, it also makes them much more fearful, docile and easier to control.

Also, if you go back to look at Gandhi’s history of leading the opposition, it looks awfully similar to what we saw with Marx and Reed, in terms of lots of hemming and hawing and contradictory statements and positions, etc. Many people think that India would have gained independence earlier without Gandhi, who, for example, called off the non-cooperation movement just as it seemed it might be effective, ostensibly due to the violence of the Chauri Chauriincident. His early campaign in Champaran has been criticized for accomplishing very little, besides bringing him fame and recognition. Many of his actions look like publicity stunts, like the great salt march. We are told it was an enormous accomplishment, but we aren’t told what it actually accomplished. At one point he was sentenced to 6 years in prison, but released after 2 for an appendectomy. I didn’t realize they just released prisoners to have surgery. Surely he could have returned to prison after his operation? Assuming he spent even a day behind bars.

Some contemporaries said Gandhi was very good at self-promotion, and was reported to insist on having editorial control over what journalists printed about him and what he said. I don’t have it in me to go through all of it now, but here is something that stands out as a good example, again straight from Wiki:

In 1932, through the campaigning of the Dalit [untouchable] leader B. R. Ambedkar, the government granted untouchables separate electorates under the new constitution, known as the Communal Award. In protest, Gandhi embarked on a six-day fast on 20 September 1932, while he was imprisoned at the Yerwada Jail, Pune. The resulting public outcry successfully forced the government to adopt an equitable arrangement (Poona Pact) through negotiations mediated by Palwankar Baloo. This was the start of a new campaign by Gandhi to improve the lives of the untouchables, whom he named Harijans, the children of God.

Say what? Fasting in protest against the untouchables’ right to vote was how he kicked off his campaign to improve their lives? Here’s what the (apparently) genuine leader of the untouchables thought of him:

On 8 May 1933, Gandhi began a 21-day fast of self-purification and launched a one-year campaign to help the Harijan movement. This new campaign was not universally embraced within the Dalit community, as Ambedkar condemned Gandhi's use of the term Harijans as saying that Dalits were socially immature, and that privileged caste Indians played a paternalistic role. Ambedkar and his allies also felt Gandhi was undermining Dalit political rights. Gandhi had also refused to support the untouchables in 1924–25 when they were campaigning for the right to pray in temples. Because of Gandhi's actions, Ambedkar described him as ‘devious and untrustworthy.’

Also, as you go through Gandhi’s story, you see these weird things like in some of Miles’s previous investigation of John Reed or Lyndon Larouche, where he is the leader of the opposition but being hosted and treated like an honored guest by the British Viceroy and royal family. For example take a look at this old newspaper article (which, as a bonus, if you scroll down you’ll see a ridiculous story about Charles Lindbergh teaching an Eskimo girl to do a headstand). Also, if you google Nehru Mountbatten, you’ll find all kinds of pictures of Nehru laughing and smoking with the Viceroy and his wife (it is rumored he was Lady Mountbatten’s lover). But they never bring up the fact that it’s awfully strange for a leader of the opposition to be chums with the Viceroy and his wife. And when I read some of the things Gandhi did and said, especially as he got older, it seemed like he was trolling people to see just how much he could get away with.

There is a lot of stuff I haven’t covered here, including Gandhi’s time in South Africa. The story we are told is that he couldn’t find work as a Barrister in India but got a job opportunity in South Africa. Even if he couldn’t find work in Bombay, he could have gone back to Rajkot or Porbandar to get work. Actually they say he did try to find work there, but failed. Not plausible. His family was too well connected. And he had become an English barrister through the Inner Temple for crying out loud! Another odd story about his time in South Africa is when his childhood friend, Sheikh Mehta, came to join him at some point, and nobody seems to know why or what he was doing there, since he had allegedly fallen out with Gandhi. And then of course there is his apparently homosexual relationship with a German bodybuilder (who he referred to as his ‘lower house’ while Gandhi was the ‘upper house’ – I’ll leave it to your imagination what that refers to), and his friendship with a Jewish man and his reportedly Christian wife. In any case, I believe he was sent to South Africa to act as controlled opposition among the Indian population there as well. One of the first things he did was establish the Natal Indian Congress. But also he was sent there to build up his reputation in anticipation of his arrival in India. There may have been another reason, which I’ll touch on towards the end.

Now, am I the first person to suggest that Gandhi was controlled opposition? Of course not. As I was midway through this investigation, I googled “Gandhi controlled opposition” to see what came up. There isn’t much. Actually the only one that makes some similar types of claims is in this video. He spends a lot of time using Gematria to “analyze” Gandhi’s story, which I don’t find very compelling, but he also makes similar comments on the limitations of non-violent opposition. (Don’t misunderstand – I am not promoting or endorsing violence. I am a pacifist who is the son of a conscientious objector during Vietnam and grandson of a conscientious objector during WWII, and until writing this paper held Gandhi and his teachings in very high esteem. And I still think that many of the teachings and philosophy attached to Gandhi has merit.) Another hit I came across, to my chagrin, was Stephan Molyneux (who I abhor and consider to be controlled opposition). He did a hit piece on Gandhi and recited many of the muck-raking criticisms of Gandhi that point out his internal contradictions and hypocrisies. I won’t link to that video, but I will link to this interesting interview with Arundhati Roy (I do not vouch for the source, but still some interesting info.) But neither Molyneux nor any of the other people seeking to tear down the Gandhi mythos have linked him to Intelligence as I have here.

If you google ‘was Gandhi a spy,’ you get a lot of articles linking to thisblogpost by a senior member of the Indian judiciary, which details many of the ways that Gandhi seems to have acted to promote the British divide and conquer strategy. It covers many details I don’t have the patience to go into here, but misses many that I do. Suffice it to say that many people will tell you that throughout his time in India, Gandhi often derailed reform and that India would have gained independence earlier without him.

BIZARRO GANDHI

However, I believe I am the first person to drop the final bombshell, which will also bring us back full circle to the beginning of this paper. Not to the text, 12 but to the pictures of Gandhi at the top. Did you notice anything … odd about them? I started going through pictures of Gandhi, and I found some interesting things. Let’s start things off nice and easy before kicking into high gear:

Here are two early pictures of Gandhi:

The one on the left is a picture of Gandhi from the Wikipedia entry on Rajkot (the city where he went to high school), which according to Wikipedia is dated 1883, when he would have been about 14. On that page, Gandhi is said to be on the right, and a school friend of his is on the left, but [thissitesaysGandhiisontheleft], which makes sense because the kid on the left in the left picture looks a lot more like the kid on the right in the right picture The picture on the right is a picture of Gandhi (seated right) with his older broth Laximadas in 1886, when Gandhi would have been 19 years old.

A slightly better copy of the picture on the right can be found here along with another one that the website notes is “touchedimage” (the higher res copy cannot be downloaded or copied for free, which is why I link to it.) Though why people are retouching these images is not explained. In fact, all these images appear to have been “touched,” whether they admit it or not. I encourage you to follow the links, because they allow you to zoom in on parts of the pictures.

In the left picture, his friend’s turban looks like it was pasted up on top of his head: it’s nearly covering his eye but is not covering up his hair. Odd. Notice also that the chairs and tables in these images are the same, and the background appears to be the same, too. Of course, I guess it’s possible that they take the annual school photos in the same place or something, but Gandhi’s older brothers were already out of school by 1888. His friend in the left picture, Sheikh Mehtab, was actually a friend of his middle brother and therefore also older than him. Also, in the picture on the left, Gandhi’s left leg (to our right) looks like it’s coming out of his body at a really weird angle. At first it looked like he had three legs, but then I realized his middle ‘leg’ appears to just be a sash hanging down from the middle of his waist. But the more I study his left leg (our right), the weirder it looks: it’s as if it’s coming out of a place that is to the left of his hip, leaving him with an enormously wide groin area. Look how his arm just hangs down to the side, and yet his hand is resting on the top inside of his thigh. If you try that sitting down, you might pull your groin. I think this is a paste up and there was someone else’s leg there, and they ‘erased’ or ‘smudged’ some of it out. Notice the fuzzy dark shadow just above Gandhi’s left leg (our right) in the picture on the right. It’s almost the same color as his coat.

But here’s what I think is really interesting: look at Gandhi’s hands in the picture on the left, then look at Gandhi’s hands in the picture on the right. You can go to the links above to zoom in. It looks to me like a near perfect match, with the only exception being on the tip of the index finger on the left hand can’t be seen in the right-side picture due to the heavy contrasts. Also, the shirt collars around their necks looks like an exact match, too. If you go to the ‘touched photo’ link above, you can get a feel for the most heavily edited parts of the picture, which includes the sleeves, which were more heavily altered to make them look like different pictures.

So these photos show that somebody, for some reason, was messing around with photos of Gandhi when he was younger. But that’s not the end of the funny business: turns out there’s more than one Gandhi!

I’m going to repost the pictures from the top of the paper, so you don’t have to scroll back and forth:

The picture on the left is supposed to be Gandhi in 1900. The one in the middle is dated 1906. I don’t think the Gandhi on the left is the same as the other two, and definitely not the same as the middle one, who I like to call Bizarro Gandhi. After studying a bunch of pictures (some of which were obviously doctored in some way, usually with cutouts), I have noticed four key differences to help distinguish between Original Gandhi (OG) and Bizarro Gandhi (BG):

1. OG has fairly straight/flat, narrow, dark eyebrows. You can see this in the high school photos above. BG has thicker, lighter, rounded/arched eyebrows.

2. OG has a longer, thinner face/head, with high cheek bones and strongly angled cheeks. BG has rounder/squarer/squatter face. He also seems to have a shorter forehead.

3. OG’s lips are shaped more like a football, more elliptical, whereas BG’s lips are flatter along the bottom. Actually the BG’s lips often have a kind of football shape, but that is because in most of his pictures his lips are pursed or smiling, which gives them that appearance—and it’s often hard to tell that he’s pursing his lips. But if you look at enough of his pictures, you see that indeed his lips have that kind of wide, flat, thick appearance that OG’s lips do not. This can be hard to distinguish also due to the mustache.

4. Although both Gandhis’ ears stick out, OG’s ears are not very symmetrical. One ear sticks way out, actually it juts out at a sharp angle on the top, but his other ear is much closer in. Because some of his pictures have been reversed, the ear that juts out is sometimes on the left and sometimes on the right, but they’re very asymmetrical. BG’s ears on the other hand are much more symmetrical – they both stick out more or less equally – and they’re more rounded. This feature of OG’s ears can be seen in his childhoodphoto dated 1876. They admit this photo is touched, but again don’t tell us why. In fact it is so butchered it’s almost worthless as evidence. I mean, just look at his eyebrows and the hand on his lap.

But for what it’s worth, it shows a kind of lopsidedness to his ears, though that might just be the bad paste-up job. Here, let’s do some more comparisons:

Original Gandhis:

Bizarro Gandhis:

I concede I might be wrong about this, but in that case I need to have my eyes checked. Maybe OG is actually the later Gandhi, and BG is the original Gandhi. I’m not sure, since older Gandhi’s nose looks more like OG’s nose, as do his lips in some pictures (though I think that’s because he’s pursing them). But his eyebrows and ears look more like BG’s. I encourage you to go through pictures of Gandhi here and here. You’ll see a lot of other weird things, including lots of paste-ups. And then there’s the whole question of his assassination – was it faked like so many others? I can’t say I’d be surprised. Honestly, it sometimes looks to me like there were more than two Gandhis. For example, the Gandhi in the picture in London with the Vegetarian society doesn’t resemble either of these two very much, to me. But if either of them, then he’s closer to OG. And I’m not even sure about this Gandhi. Or this one. A multitude of Gandhis— will wonders never cease! (Note that these pictures cannot be due to some kind of mix-up or confusion—this site is the official keepers of Gandhi media, which draws on pictures collected by one of Gandhi’s sons.) For that matter, maybe there never was an actual person named Mohandas Gandhi, and they just had different people over the years playing the Gandhi character they invented. At this point, I wouldn’t put it past them.

It does seem that whichever Gandhi “returned” to India in 1915 remained the same. It would have been too difficult and risky to switch them after he was famous in his homeland. I think there may have been only two Gandhis, and that they switched sometime between 1900 and 1910—assuming it was ever the original Gandhi who arrived in South Africa in the first place. Sure we have pictures, but dates and locations can be made up, photos can be (and were) altered. And given all the different Gandhi’s, who knows if OG was even really the original Gandhi? Remember that nobody could figure out why his friend from high school, Sheikh Mehta, joined him in South Africa. I wouldn’t be surprised if this Mehta was sent to be his stand-in (though the older picture of Mehta doesn’t seem to match the later lawyer Gandhis). If the switch was made in South Africa, it was likely done in 1903 when he moved from Natal to Johannesburg. He would have been known to too many people in Natal to make a switch, but could have made a fresh start, more or less, in Johannesburg.

Again, mostly just speculation here, but to me it is undeniable based on the photographic evidence that there was more than one Gandhi. I think that might have also been one of the

reasons they had him go to South African first, so they could make that switch. They couldn’t have switched him in the middle of his campaign in India. But in South Africa it may have been easier (again, assuming they didn’t send BG to South African in the first place). I don’t know how far ahead they planned to have him start walking around half naked in his underwear, going on long marches in the hot sun, fasting and spending hours weaving thread, but I have to imagine that the wealthy scion of the Gandhi family balked at the idea of spending the rest of his life doing that. So they had to bring in someone to continue the project: Bizarro Gandhi.

[Note from Miles: Since my specialty is photo analysis, many readers will be wondering what I think of this last part. For now, I will simply say I confirm there are major anomalies and lots of red flags. Someone needs to do the full monte on the photos, figuring out how many versions of Gandhi we have and where they were at various dates. I may do it myself at some point. For the record, I have widened the first Gandhi image Josh uses here in all places it appears, since it is clear to me it has been squashed horizontally in some transfer. I don't think Josh squashed it, I just mean it was squashed at some point in its history. But even with this widening, I agree with him it does not match the second image. The eyes are completely different, among many other things. Also, it is clear to me large parts of the image have been repainted. That is especially easy to see on his white tie, which was drawn in. ]

[Folks, this paper took an awfully long time to put together, and it has given me a much deeper appreciation for how much work Miles has put into tearing down the MATRIX for us. So show him your appreciation and feed the web kitty! If you want to get in touch with me you can e- mail me at josh-g1@live.com or PM me on Reddit at u/daddie_o.]

1 Many of these revelations come, as far as I can tell, from two books: Levyveld’s Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India and Rao’s The Nehru Dynasty – although his later sexual exploits were known even at the time among his entourage, many of whom abandoned him as a result.

2 It’s probably worth making a distinction between small ‘t’ theosophy as a theological tradition and big ‘T’ Theosophy as the Theosophical Society established by Blavatsky and Olcott—although older theosophical tradition may very well have historical links to the occult and Intelligence, as the Wikipedia write-up seems to indicate. In his paper I am only referring to Theosophy with a big T.

3 I will also note, in passing, that a major think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is located in the Temple area. We can put a red flag on it in the future. I imagine there are other institutes located in the temple area, but one can’t go down every tunnel.

4 This doesn’t seem to be of direct relevance, but I couldn’t just let it go unremarked: While Gandhi was studying at Inner Temple, he is said to have lived (for a time) with Dr. Josiah Oldfield. Oldfield was a vegetarian, and so was Gandhi. They were both members of the Vegetarian Society, and Oldfield later was a founder of the Fruitarian society, established a fruitarian hospital, established the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, and was a member of the Order of the Golden Age (not Golden Dawn) where he served as editor and frequent contributor of its publication Herald of the Golden Age. According to Wikipedia, the “The Order of the Golden Age was an international animal rights society with a religious and theosophical emphasis which existed between 1896 and 1959.” There appears to have been a fairly vigorous vegetarian movement in the Victorian era, and it appears to have been linked to Theosophy (or at least many members of these societies who were Theosophists). I haven’t been able to figure out why Intelligence would be pushing vegetarianism or fruitarianism, if indeed they did, but I will end this aside with four observations: (1) Steve Jobs was an advocate of fruitarianism, and in fact according to his official bio he could have been cured of his cancer but decided to try to cure himself with a fruitarian diet (which is why he allegedly died); (2) Paul McCartney is a member of this society, which takes on more significance in light of Miles’s paper on McCartney and also on Lennon and The Beatles; (3) the founder of the Vegetarian Society was an American named Amos Brown Alcott, who I believe is related to Henry Steel Olcott as both appear to be descendants of Thomas Olcott/Alcock of Hartford, Connecticut, although it is not clear how closely related they are. [Fun fact: Henry Olcott’s grandfather was Nathaniel Olcott, Jr, and his sister married into the Cheney family – yes that Cheney family, which traces its ancestry back to Henry II, William I and Charlemagne]; (3) Josiah Oldfield is said to have commanded an Ambulance corps during WWI in England, where he had the rank of (…wait for it…) Lt. Colonel! [For readers unfamiliar with the significance of this, Miles has found in previous research that Col. and especially Lt. Col. seem to be the preferred ranks for intelligence operatives.]

5 Here I’ll take a moment to thank an Indian friend of Miles who offered these and a few other insights.

6 Of course, Mohandas Gandhi was also called Mahatma, and it may have come from this Theosophical tradition of calling enlightened adepts ‘Mahatmas.’ But Gandhi was not considered a Mahatma by Theosophists, and the title appears to have been first ‘given’ to Gandhi by Rabindranath Tagore, a famous Indian poet, artist and Nobel laureate. Tagore is from an extraordinarily wealthy and well- connected family. If the mainstream story here is true, then I would definitely suspect that Tagore dubbed Gandhi the ‘Mahatma’ as part of Gandhi’s carefully crafted PR strategy. More evidence comes from the fact that his grandfather, Dwarkanath Tagore and other members of the Tagore family helped found and played a major role in the Indian National Association, the forerunner of the INC.

7 The mainstream account says that Theosophy was floundering in America, and they moved to India to work in concert with the Arya Samaj, a religious movement/organization, after Olcott’s “chance meeting”

on a cross-Atlantic steamer with Moolji Thackersey, who was an important figure in the Arya Samaj. Moolji Thackersey, as you might have guessed, was a very wealthy businessman whose company, Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills, is still thriving, along with Thackersey & Co and the Thackersey group of companies.

8 A full paper could be devoted to Besant’s colorful intelligence career. Also I assume it’s likely that AO Hume was related in some way to David Hume, but I did not follow up on this connection.

9 For some reason, many sites tell us that Feroze’s dad was the Nehru’s grocer, which is how Feroze and Indira got to know each other.

10 Both Gandhi and Nehru are said to have been mentored and influenced by Gopal Krishna Ghokale, who was about the most milquetoast colonial toady you could imagine. According to Wikipedia: “though an earlier leader of the Indian nationalist movement, [Ghokale] was not primarily concerned with independence but rather with social reform; he believed such reform would be best achieved by working within existing British government institutions, a position which earned him the enmity of more aggressive nationalists … Gokhale would work directly with the British throughout his political career to further his reform goals.” This is not surprising, since over the same period that he was active in the INC, even winning its presidency in 1905 (which event, according to Wikipedia, led to the INC being ‘robbed of its effectiveness for a decade.’), he served the colonial administration in the Council of India and later the Imperial Legislative Council, being appointed in 1904 as a Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1904 as “a formal recognition by the Empire of his service.” So that’s the man credited as being a major influence on and mentor to Gandhi and Nehru.

11 Interviewed during the Nuremberg trials, he said: “Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are

being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

12 Though it’s worth pointing out that Churchill was apparently mistaken in calling him a Middle Temple lawyer.