Philippines- A Tamil Hindu Colony?

The Pre Spanish history of Philippines was shrouded in mystery. Now the mist around the Philippines is clearing thanks to recent discoveries. The Spaniards, wherever they went, destroyed the local culture, plundered their gold and massacred the people. They spared those people who converted to Christianity.

The Philippines is a country of 7000 islands. Nobody asked or wondered what those places were called before they named it “ Philippines” just 400 years ago. They had their own names, their own culture, but they were ignored as primitive and uncivilized. Fortunately one inscription and one golden statue escaped the wrath of the religious fanatics.

One important Tamil inscription of Rajendra Chola was not properly explained. Half of the place names mentioned in the inscription is not properly identified. The East Indies were known to Kalidasa of 1st century BC. Parasurama was linked with Aparanta.  Kalidasa used to mention Indonesia and the islands beyond as Dwipantara.  Rajendra Cholas inscription mentioned Parasurama.

Hindu music instrument Kadjabi is still played in the Philippines. Hundreds of Sanskrit words are used in the islands even today.

Golden Statue

A  five and a half inch tall golden statue recovered from Mindanao in 1917 is kept in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Vishnu’s vehicle Garuda was found in Palawan. The gold statue is that of a Buddhist goddess known as Tara. It weighs 4 pounds (approximately 2 Kilos). It is dated 1200 to 1300 AD. It was found in Wawa River after heavy rains. Lot of gold was taken back to Spain and melted. Only a few escaped from the invaders.

Laguna Copper Plate inscription

Luzon in the Philippines was ruled by Lakans (local chieftains)  from 900 AD until 1571. An inscription found there known as Laguna copperplate inscription dated 900 AD contains Sanskrit words and place names. The inscription which was found in 1989 contains information about debts cleared by the ruler of Tondo. Namwaran along with his children Lady Angkatana and Buka were cleared of debts. It was written in Kawi script. Lord Minister Jayadewa issued the order. The inscription is kept in the National Museum of the Philippines  in Manila. A lot of Sanskrit words such as Swasti, Visaka,Chathurthi, Suwarna, Krishnapaksha, Somawara, Dewata, Jyotisa  are in the text. Full text and translation is available in Wikipedia.

Language

Wikipedia article says 25 percent of words in Philippines native language are from Sanskrit and Tamil. Look at the list given by Wikipedia:

From Tagalog:

* budhi “conscience” from the Sanskrit bodhi
* dukha “one who suffers” from the Sanskrit dukkha
* guro “teacher” from the Sanskrit guru
* sampalataya “faith” from the Sanskrit sampratyaya
* mukha “face” from the Sanskrit mukha
* laho “eclipse” from the Sanskrit rahu
* maharlika “noble” from Sanskrit mahardikka

From Kapampangan:

* kalma “fate” from the Sanskrit karma
* damla “divine law” from the Sanskrit dharma
* mantala -“magic formulas” from the Sanskrit mantra
* upaya “power” from the Sanskrit upaya
* lupa “face” from the Sanskrit rupa
* sabla “every” from the Sanskrit sarva
* lawu “eclipse” from the Sanskrit rahu
* Galura “giant eagle (a surname)” from the Sanskrit garuda
* Laksina -“south (a surname)” from the Sanskrit dakshin
* Laksamana/Lacsamana “admiral (a surname)” from the Sanskrit lakshmana

From Tausug:

* suarga “heaven”; compare “sorga” in modern Indonesian [1]
* neraka “hell”
* agama “religion”

Sanskrit and Sanskrit-derived words common to most Philippine languages:

* sutla “silk” from the Sanskrit sutra
* kapas “cotton” from the Sanskrit kerpas
* naga “dragon or serpent” from the Sanskrit naga

Ramayana in the islands

Ramayana and Mahabharata are popular in all the South East Asian countries. Philippines also have its own version of Ramayana. The Maranao version is Maharadia lawana ( Maharaja Ravana). Lam- Ang is the version of the Llocanos. Many verses of Hud Hud are from Ramyana and Mahabharata.

Musical Instruments

Several musical instruments of the Philippines are similar to Indian musical instruments and Kutiyapi is a corrupted word of Kadjabi, a Sanskrit word.

Rajendra Chola Inscription

Rajendra Chola, son of the Raja Raja won many countries in South East Asia. The inscription named all the countries and islands he won around 1025 AD. K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, the greatest authority on South Indian History has written about his conquests. But when he wrote about the Cholas 75 years ago Laguna inscription was not discovere. Only Rajendra’s Tamil inscription was known. Now we know Philippine islands were under Hindu rulers even before Rajendra invaded S.E. Asian countries.

Scholars identify the following places in the inscription:

Sri Vijaya= Palembang, Pannai= North Sumatra, Malaiyur= Jambi, Mayirudingam= Thai-Malay peninsula, Ilangasokam= Langkasuka, Mappalam= Pegu, Mavimbangam= Isthumus of Ligor or Thai-Malay peninsula, Valaipanduru= Vietnam?, Talaitakkolam= Takoba, Madamalingam= Tambralinga, Ilamuridesam= Lamri in Aceh, Manakkavaram= Nicobar islands, Kadaram= Kedah.

Some of the above places are confirmed by secondary evidence. My research shows that the place names such as Mayirudingam, Mavimbangam are islands of Philippines. The reason for this is the trade roués to China went through these islands. During 1300 year rule, the countries established trade and political contacts with China which is confirmed by the Chinese writers. A patient decoding of Chinese transliterations may reveal more truths. Sanskrit and Tamil words are corrupted beyond recognition Eg. Liang Shu (Langkasoka).

Kaundinya from South India established the Hindu empire in the First century AD in Funan. Chinese writers have written about the rulers and their relationship with China. Agastya cult was deep rooted in Java, Sumatra and Bali islands. I have already written about it and Mulavarman’s Sanskrit inscription in Borneo.

More From History of Indian Culture by B.M.Luniy

“ Modern researchers have proved that the people of South India had established their colonies in the Philippines and they had considerably influenced all aspects of daily life. Handicrafts, coins, folk songs, traditions and many religious customs exhibit the Hindu influence there. The scripts of the people of Philippines bear striking resemblance with those of South India. In the realm of religious rites, rituals and assigning names, the natives of Philippines followed Indians closely. The names of the places on the Luzon coast and the shores of Manila bay indicate their Sanskrit origin. The discovery of Ganesh statue proves that the people followed Brahmanism. The hill tribes of Luzon worship early Vedic Gods even to this day.

The people of many islands in the Pacific Ocean have physical appearance similar to that of Indo Aryans. Their languages have resemblance with those of the pre Aryan Indians like Santhals. Their religious and social customs and beliefs betray traces of Hindu cultural influences. The Hula dance of Hawai islands and Shiva dance of Samoa are similar to the folk dances of Bengal

Their use of conch shell, nose flute, musical bones, staple food stuffs and animals reveal Indian origin. Many of their decorative designs, crafts, traditions, ideas of phallic symbolism and images are examples of old Polynesian cultural traits derived from the Brahmanical civilization”.

Please read my earlier posts

1.Pandya King who Ruled Vietnam 2.Ancient Sanskrit inscriptions in strange places 3.Sanskrit inscriptions in Mosques and on Coins 4.Sanskrit inscription and Magic Square on Tortoise 5.Ancient Tamil Dress 6.Pallankuzi (mancala) mystery 7.India- Madagascar Link 8.Is Brahmastra a Nuclear Weapon? 9.Great Engineers of Ancient India 10. The Mysterious Link between Karnataka and Cambodia

I have given below part of the text of Rajendra Chola’s inscription for the benefit of Tamil readers:

தொல்பெருங் காவற் பல்பழந் தீவும்

செருவிற் சினவி யிருபத் தொருகால்

அரசுகளை கட்ட பரசு ராமன்

மேவருஞ் சாந்திமத் தீவரண் கருதி

இருத்திய செம்பொற் றிருத்தகு முடியும் (20)

********

அலைகடல் நடுவுட் பலகலஞ் செலுத்திச்

சங்கிராம விசையோத் துங்க வர்ம

னாகிய கடாரத் தரசனை வாகையும்

பொருகடல் கும்பக் கரியொடு மகப்படுத் (50)

துரிமையிற் பிறக்கிய பருநிதிப் பிறக்கமும்

ஆர்த்தவ னகநகர்ப் போர்த்தொழில் வாசலில்

விச்சா திரத்தோ ரணமு மொய்த்தொளிர்

புனைமணிப் புதவமுங் கனமணிக் கதவமும்

நிறைசீர் விசயமுந் துறைநீர்ப் பண்ணையும்

வன்மலை யூரெயிற் றொன்மலை யூரும்

ஆழ்கட லகழ்சூழ் மாயிரு டிங்கமும்

கலங்கா வல்வினை இலங்கா சோகமும்

காப்புறு நிறைபுனல் மாப்பப் பாளமும்

காவலம் புரிசை மேவிலிம் பங்கமும் (60)

விளைப்பந் தூருடை வளைப்பந் தூரும்

கலைத்தக் கோர்புகழ் தலைத்தக் கோலமும்

தீதமர் பல்வினை மாதமா லிங்கமும்

கலாமுதிர் கடந்திற லிலாமுரி தேசமும்

தேனக்க வார்பொழில் மானக்க வாரமும் (65)

தொடுகடற் காவற் கடுமுரட் கடாரமும்

மாப்பொரு தண்டாற் கொண்ட கோப்பரகேசரி வன்மரான

உடையார் ஸ்ரீராசேந்திர சோழதேவர்க்கு யாண்டு…”

Read More

SONIA GANDHI EXPOSED.

SONIA GANDHI EXPOSED:: Five people four scenarios and three events

Cross Posting from http://nishkamya.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/from-blog-of-ex-indian-intelligence/

Playing with a nation's choices

Part 1 : Three funerals and a wedding

Prologue

I was part of various analysis teams of Indian intelligence agencies during the 80's and 90's and now live a anonymous life in a distant land. What I am going to propagate over a 3 part series in the next few days might seem very farfetched and even fantastic to most people and many conspiracy theorists might gleefully accept it as vindication for whatever they have been screaming from rooftops for quite some time now. My attempt though is neither to please any one nor to prove someone else wrong or right; it is just to come out with the truth as we perceived it. Most of the theory that I am going to put forward in part 1 is the work of us 5 people in 1991 while analyzing all the intelligence inputs over the years in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. We in the intelligence parlays termed it as "the Rajiv brief". Most conclusions that we had come up with were unanimous and unequivocal. I must hasten to add that many parts of this so called "the Rajiv brief" were also part of an earlier analysis done in the mid 80's by another team investigating the conspiracy angle to Mrs Indira Gandhi's death. Theoretic overlapping in terms of evidences, intelligence briefings and logical conclusions between these two analysis reports might be common, but there are also significant points of divergence in both of these reports and since I have been privy to both I would suggest that the number of points of convergence between both sets of analysis far outnumber the differences. Sometime in the middle of 1992 we were suddenly asked to debunk the whole theory and change our line of thinking by powers that be, and we had to let go of a "very strong" case that we were building then. Of the core group of 5 analysts who were working on that case, 3 are no more (all died of normal causes) and 2 of us are still living anonymously without being in touch with each other. This is my attempt (after almost 2 decades) to complete "the Rajiv brief" and take it to its logical conclusion with the benefit of hindsight. I must warn though, that this is at the end of the day, just a theory based on intelligence inputs and field analysis built on a very plausible premise. It is an attempt to fill in the blanks between the "if's" and "buts" of history with the luxury of retrospective intelligence.

The Theory: Five people four scenarios and three events

Mrs Sonia Gandhi is today the most powerful person in India and probably one of the most powerful women on earth. Elections 2009 have only reinforced her power. How did she end up becoming the most powerful person in India? This is the story of that ascendancy. Five people, four scenarios and three events stood between Mrs Sonia Gandhi and her destiny. Over the next few pages I am going to explain those scenarios through the eyes of a former intelligence analyst.

Scenario 1: The Rajiv-Sonia marriage
At the outset there is nothing more than just another love story to Mr Rajiv Gandhi's romance with Miss Antonia Albina Maino in the mid 1960's. Any suggestion that there were characters in the Cambridge university campus that not only hooked them up but also nurtured the famous romance is too farfetched. But having said that, let us consider some of the London tabloid reports of that time which variously suggested Rajiv was "constantly influenced" by a couple of students of European origin (I would not take names and let researchers do some hard work) and that at least one of those students was later absorbed by the Vatican's intelligence wing. It would also be farfetched to speculate on Indian intelligence requesting the help of MI5 to analyze the Rajiv-Sonia romance, at least am not aware of any such report ever being filed. All these rumours and theories have done their rounds in the intelligence quarters of Delhi, especially during 1991-1992, but then we are rushing ahead of time so we shall deal with that later. I would now present as to what intelligence agencies actually did, which was very little, and let people draw their own conclusion.

Background

Post World War 1, Turin was a hub of political activity. Communism was at its peak in Europe and many left leaning socialist organizations were dabbling with the Marxist ideology and as a counter balance to that the fascist forces were emerging as an attractive alternative to many Catholics of Italy, and Turin was no exception. The small village of Orbassano near Turin mainly composed of orthodox Roman Catholic families and they all dreaded the arrival of communists on their shores and decided to join hands with the fascists lead by Mussolini. Paolo Maino was one of them. Indian intelligence gathering techniques are never given their due credit, but we have done some first rate jobs which have never been acknowledged and Mrs Sonia Gandhi's background check was one of them. It was found that after the end of Second World War when many fascists were purged, Paolo Maino was protected by the church and no less than the Vatican itself intervened in his case and all papers pertaining to him were there by transferred to the Vatican! It was furthermore established that one of the more mysterious uncles of Paolo Maino worked for the super secret intelligence organization of the Vatican, the Opus Dei. Paolo was a construction contractor and had little savings; he could not entirely afford the educational and other expenses of his children. This mysterious uncle; who was working for the Opus Dei and whose name had been deleted from all the intelligence files; sponsored Antonio Albina Maino's education in Cambridge in the 1960's.

During her stay in Cambridge Miss Antonio took an "unusually high degree" of interest in the activities of groups concerning students of Indian Diaspora much before she met Rajiv. In fact, their first meeting took place in the presence of other Indian origin students and not in a Greek cafe as widely reported later. But throughout all of this she continued her association with the church and its activities and was in constant touch with "certain sections of the Vatican" which were previously also associated with the fascists. When Indian intelligence officials later questioned one of Miss Antonio's close associates during her stay in the Cambridge, he described her relationship with the Vatican as akin to "umbilical cord". All of these titbits were filed by many field officers of various intelligence agencies over a period of years but most analysts in the intelligence parlays of India termed them as "innocent" at worst and "needs evaluation" at best. Of course one can always concede that the analysts of that era lack the luxury of retrospective analysis as we do have now, there was definitely some lax attitude shown by these analysts in trying to decipher these events. Thus one day in 1968, after 3 odd years of courtship Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and Miss Antonio Maino; the daughter of former Fascist soldier, Paolo Maino; were married in Delhi. Miss Maino then became Mrs Sonia Gandhi for all intentions and purposes and the stepping stone to her destiny was covered with roses.

Scenario 2: Event 1, June 23rd 1980

The first player in the political theatre to have been eliminated and also the most important first link to the series of events that led to the present dispensation in the corridors of Delhi. Circumstantial evidence in the June 23rd 1980 Sanjay Gandhi air crash near Safdarjung airport points to foul play but let's not get sucked into those futile arguments that have been raging ever since. Just suffice it to say that the single-member enquiry commission headed by Mr M L Jain which was formed to study the circumstances that lead to the plane crash has never submitted any report what so ever to the government in 3 decades. Now isn't that fishy?

Background
Anybody who is aware of the 70's brand of politics in India would know that Sanjay was the most important political centre, around whom most of the power was concentrated and dispensed with. Many even believed that Sanjay wielded more power than Indira Gandhi herself. It thus became pertinent for most intelligence agencies concerned with India's affairs to have a thick case file about Sanjay Gandhi and his activities. There were some widely debunked theories of the junior Gandhi leaning towards CIA and Mrs Gandhi not being in agreement with his ideas, I do not know the origin or the veracities of these hypotheses so I would not make any comment either to encourage or discourage them. The 1960's and 70's Delhi was a hub of international espionage (like any other capital of any other country) because most intelligence agencies (including CIA & KGB) of that era depended on HUMINT or human intelligence officers to gather intelligence rather than satellites and drones of today. Every other day there would be speculation in the media circles of a certain politician or a certain bureaucrat working in tandem with a certain foreign intelligence agency; I would be lying if I claimed that all these speculations were wrong, in fact there were quite a few surprises in the "official" list that the Indian intelligence agencies maintained, but that is a completely different subject altogether. Coming back to Sanjay Gandhi and the interest that he generated in foreign as well as Indian intelligence circles, one thing is clear, he never worked or had any relationship with any of the foreign intelligence agencies and that much I can vouch for, but the same cannot be said about his continuous indulgence and interference with the local intelligence agencies. He always used and had his men in various wings of Indian intelligence agencies. Amidst all of this originated the "Russian hypothesis".

There is no agreement as to when the real "Russian hypothesis" came into being, some argue that just prior to emergency in 1975 the Soviets sponsored this study because they had prior intelligence that emergency would be imposed on India, while still others argue that its origin was sometime during the Morarji Desai regime. I for one tend to agree with the former because it is a known fact that Soviets were consulted by Mrs Gandhi about emergency. Another reason to support the 1975 theory is that a secret meeting of the dreaded VKR had taken place in Delhi in the summer of 1975 (VKR = Voennaya Kontra Razvedka) and it had baffled many Indian intelligence officials as to why VKR (Russian counter intelligence wing) would meet in India. After the imposition of emergency and the awareness about Mrs Gandhi's soviet consultation, intelligence circles widely accepted the theory of VKR meeting in Delhi as a part of that Indo-Soviet collaboration on emergency until the emergence of the "Russian hypothesis" and the eventual demise of Mr. Sanjay Gandhi. KGB had strong presence in Delhi and across India in the 70's and many left-leaning analysts openly and covertly co-operated with KGB and other Russian intelligence agencies. One such "analyst" was part of the team that had produced the "Russian hypothesis" and he later (in 1979) leaked parts of that document to Indian intelligence and that is how the jigsaw puzzle was cracked. In the hypothesis it was concluded that Mr Sanjay Gandhi was west leaning and a capitalist and would eventually side with the CIA, although there was no universal agreement about these conclusions amongst the team that had produced the "Russian hypothesis" most of them did agree to some extent of those conclusions. It was our belief that the Soviets had decided not to take any action, mainly because of the fact that it was unlikely of KGB and even more unlikely in the case of VKR to remain quiet for more than a few months after having reached a conclusion. This is when Opus Dei comes into picture. It is a well known fact that Opus Dei and parts of Russian intelligence had always collaborated on certain matters. Exactly how or when did Opus Dei come into the possession of "Russian hypothesis" is merely in the realm of speculation but what is incontrovertible is that the Vatican intelligence did have enormous influence on Josef Stavinoha, the man who was heading VKR at that time and thus KGB in active collaboration with Opus Dei decided to act on the "Russian hypothesis" sometime in March 1980. As a direct result of that, June 23rd 1980 happened as an accident.

Continuum

After the sudden demise of Mr Sanjay Gandhi, there was the question of two other people, the very political wife Mrs Maneka Gandhi and son Mr Varun Gandhi which had to be dealt with by the Gandhi family. While there is no denying the fact that Mrs Indira Gandhi and her daughter in law Mrs Maneka Gandhi had a less than cordial relationship (which was more accentuated after the arrival of Rajiv's family, as per some household sources of the family) and usually had typical "saas-bahu" war of turfs, but what is also irrefutable is the fact that Mr Varun Gandhi was Mrs Gandhi's favourite grandson and she simply doted on him. What exactly transpired and who facilitated the events are all debates of speculation for the tabloid media, but one thing is certain, both the widowed mother and son were completely sidelined and almost ceased to exist as far as the Gandhi family is concerned after ceremoniously being thrown out of the Prime Minister's residence.

Scenario 3: 1984, the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi
It was one of those events in the young life of a nation that can be termed as a defining moment in history. At the outset it was a clear case of Khalistani fundamentalists avenging operation blue-star, but there were many characters at the periphery and many events preceding it which raised many an eyebrow in the intelligence communities of the world. This was also that one colossal event that catapulted the young Mr Rajiv Gandhi, a novice in politics, to the highest seat of power in South Asia and Mrs Sonia Gandhi was now the next in the line of succession by the virtue of being his wife.

Background
It is a historically well known fact that the Khalistan movement was nurtured by ISI and certain elements in Pakistan. Also well recorded are the initial reactions of some western countries like Canada who almost directly hobnobbed with the Sikh separatist leaders only to abandon them when the movement became increasingly violent. Tacit support of US and British intelligence agencies to the Khalistan intelligentsia was also much speculated upon those days. But what was a lesser known fact in the media and a matter of puzzling debates in the intelligence circles was the interest shown by the Vatican in the Khalistan movement. In 1980-81 Vatican had an open channel of discussions with certain groups of the so called "intellectuals" who were known sympathisers of the Sikh separatist movements. This interest and interactions continued well into the early 80's and were explained as the "right of Vatican to have an interest in other religious organizations". At the height of Khalistan movement just after operation Blue Star, many reliable Indian intelligence sources had given "definitive" information about Opus Dei funding parts of operations of Sikh separatists outside India!
After operation Blue Star there were many intelligence inputs about the threat to Mrs Gandhi's life including some specific inputs about people in the core inner circle of Mrs Gandhi's security system being vulnerable. Yet no action was taken, why? The assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi was a massive intelligence failure to say the least and yet no major enquiry was ordered to decipher the conspiracy theory, why? Sections of KGB and other Russian intelligence agencies had given a specific timeframe regarding "action" and yet their advice went unheeded, why? Soviet sources, in informal briefings had warned about certain western intelligence agencies being in cahoots with Sikh separatists and yet those warnings were disregarded, why?
A part of the answer to those questions can be explained as plain incompetence as usual. May be one can also argue that we now have the power of hindsight which we lacked then. But definitely there is a part of the answer to that question which is more complex and only takes my theory forward to its logical conclusion. It is not as if we did nothing, security experts and Intelligence aficionados gave at least 2 formal specific presentations to Mrs Gandhi on 2 different occasions about the need to re-haul the entire security apparatus around her. But on both these occasions apart from Mrs Gandhi's nonchalance we met with the biggest resistance from one particular member of her core team. He was a very powerful member of what was then known to the media as "kitchen cabinet" and had also been described as a "power broker of the highest degree" by many media houses and visiting dignitaries. There was no reason to suspect any mal-intentions in him, as he was also known to be very close to Mr Rajiv Gandhi (unlike some members of the "kitchen cabinet" who had a turf war with the junior Gandhi). Post assassination there was a bit of a stir in the media about the same gentleman followed by hush-hush events. We in the intelligence were also surprised to know about his strong linkages with certain Western intelligence agencies. Nothing really happened after that for quite some time and Mr Rajiv Gandhi only restored the same gentleman back in his team with full honours and the whole episode was laid to rest. But the biggest revelation to the intelligence wings came a little later (and was not accorded much importance at that time). Unlike media perceptions that the said gentleman belonged to the Rajiv Gandhi coterie and to the "kitchen cabinet", he actually owed both his positions and his re-instatement into the inner circles of power after the assassination of Mrs Gandhi to a certain Mrs Sonia Gandhi!

Scenario 4: 1991, the assassination of Mr Rajiv GandhiWhen Mr Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in Sriperumbudur on 21st May 1991, it did come as a shock to the intelligence community in India but it would be false to suggest that we had absolutely no clue about it. Tamil Tigers animosity towards Mr Rajiv Gandhi was by no means a universally accepted fact in the intelligence circles and yet there were "elements" in the establishment who had assessed the risk factors from time to time. Many analysts had pointed out way back in 1985 (when Rajiv first tried to establish channels to tigers) the unpredictable nature of the leadership of LTTE and their perceived closeness to "certain" European and Western intelligence agencies. Mr Rajiv Gandhi was more influenced by a section of foreign policy analysts and he paid little heed to whatever little reservations the Indian intelligence agencies had vis-à-vis Tamil Tigers. I must confess that intelligence community in India did not really cover themselves in glory in this whole episode, because it might come as a surprise to most readers to know that we had threat perception for Mr Rajiv Gandhi from many other quarters like Sikh separatists, Islamic (Pakistani funded) militant groups, Chinese sponsored mercenaries and even rogue KGB agents, but had very few inputs and analysis about Tamil Tigers! That was a grave error to say the least. Due to myriad intelligence inputs and even more complex analysis the enquiry following the assassination was mired in many ideas and was muddled in too many complexities.

Background
The Rajiv Gandhi era was defined by two major geo-political changes in India and South Asia;
· Pakistan's involvement with separatist groups in Kashmir and the birth of Islamic terrorism in the valley
· India's direct mediation in Sri Lanka vis-à-vis Tamil issue

Both these geo-political affairs in South Asia had linkages to Western intelligence agencies at some point or other. It is a well known fact that CIA did help Kashmiri terror outfits in the initial years ostensibly to decrease Soviet influence in the region and also because US intelligence establishments were day dreaming about controlling all forms of Islamic extremist organisations from Afghanistan and Central Asia to the Middle-East and Western Africa. The results of those ill-fated forays have been disastrous as we have seen today, but that is a different story for some other time. Lesser known fact is the support to LTTE by many European intelligence agencies including MI5 & NIS (Norwegian Intelligence Service). Thus, although Mr Rajiv Gandhi considered Mr Vellupali Prabhakaran as a personal friend, the LTTE leader was more under the influence of many other intelligence organisations than India which should have been his natural ally. If the Western intelligence agencies wanted to eliminate Mr Rajiv Gandhi (for whatever myriad reasons) they had 2 very plausible ways to achieve their hit; Islamic Terror outfits in Kashmir and LTTE; apart from many other difficult options. LTTE having assassinated Mr Rajiv Gandhi unilaterally can be ruled out for all practical purposes as it was too much under the influence and control of many agencies and also it would have needed a thorough assurance that its own organization would not be eliminated following the assassination. Mr Prabhakaran, whatever else he was, was a practical man with very sensible ideas to survive for a long term struggle for Tamil Elam. He would have realized at the very outset that eliminating Mr Rajiv Gandhi could become an existential threat to LTTE itself. He had the precedence of the Khalistan movement being crushed following Mrs Indira Gandhi's assassination and the might of IPKF, which had almost managed to destroy about 80% of LTTE.

Mr Prabhakaran apart from being Tamil was also a catholic and there is a theory that the Vatican had helped LTTE in the initial phases to establish a "catholic" land in the Northern parts of Sri Lanka independent of the "Buddhist" Sinhalese regime. I have many intelligence inputs to confirm these linkages between the Vatican and the LTTE. Norway which had always played a role in the Sri Lankan peace process had a commanding influence over LTTE, especially over the northern faction of LTTE comprising Prabhakaran and co. Norwegian intelligence or NIS had not only given financial assistance but also had provided military training and logistical support to many northern LTTE command groups. I must state here that the western part of LTTE led by Karuna and co was less under the influence of these organisations and was more open to collaboration with India. There was also an unconfirmed report that Karuna was against the whole plot to assassinate Mr Rajiv Gandhi and had even tried in vain to contact Indian intelligence agencies about the impending attack. NIS and other Scandinavian intelligence agencies in the 80's and early 90's were also heavily under the influence of Opus Dei and other intelligence establishments of the Vatican. There were many reasons for this, primary being the fact Norway's borders with Soviet Russia and the Opus Dei's final plans to liberate the orthodox Russian church from the communists. Finally, we have very strong intelligence inputs about NIS having given the final order of a "hit" on Mr Rajiv Gandhi and also the requisite assurance of "no-attack" from India on LTTE in any eventuality. Thus Prabhakaran decided to assassinate Mr Rajiv Gandhi despite internal opposition and many apprehensions. What is even more curious was the timing of attack (which was also a pre-condition by the Norwegian controllers of LTTE as per many intercepts of Russian intelligence revealed to India much later). It was as if someone wanted to influence the ensuing general elections in India by assassinating a tall leader (they had the precedent of 1985 elections following Mrs Gandhi's killing). But, they only partly succeeded in that as congress could not get a majority on its own which was partially due to the fact that a part of those elections were held before the event and partially due to the changed political scenario of India in the beginning of the 90's.

The Analysis

After the assassination many intelligence teams were working on many number of theories and officially SIT (special investigation team) was formed to fast track the whole process and at least theoretically all these intelligence teams were supposed to be working under the aegis of the SIT. We were a group of 5 analysts working on the conspiracy angle (there were other groups of people also working on many conspiracy theories) leading up to the assassination. This is when we first stumbled upon the theory of the Vatican's interest in India's 1st family (the Gandhi family), which was earlier researched by a team previously working on the killing of senior Mrs Gandhi. Layer by layer we were gathering all the previous inputs and seemingly farfetched hypothesises put forward by many people in the past. Most of the inputs that I have talked about till now throughout this paper (part 1) were discovered and analysed during those 6 months when we worked together in that team. Mr P. V. Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister of India then and he had made it a point to get all the reports on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case delivered to him directly (with no intermediaries) at regular intervals. I remember it correctly, when we had sent our detailed analysis report with all the relevant intelligence inputs to the PMO on a Thursday afternoon. The report contained all the various theories that we had suggested but we had not reached any conclusions.

The first time it's a chance, the second time it's a coincidence and the third time it's a pattern. I guess it was just a matter of time before we would reach the conclusion that the sole beneficiary of all these scenarios and events was the one and only Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the widow of Mr Rajiv Gandhi. How 3 events (assassination & "unnatural" deaths of the three Gandhis) and the 4 scenarios involving 5 people who were either eliminated or completely sidelined leading to the final destiny of Mrs Sonia Gandhi is really a fascinating story. On Monday morning our team was dismantled, we were asked to work on another theory of CIA's involvement with the LTTE and about understanding the financial structuring of the Tamil Tigers and we were told in no uncertain terms to abandon our "farfetched" theories and to work on more "realistic" aspects that would provide more tangible results.

After that we never mentioned about "the Rajiv brief" or about what had happened in those 6 months. But I have been keeping track of events since then. One important loophole about the theory as explained till now would be the reluctance of Mrs Sonia Gandhi to accept the position of power after the 1991 elections. I would like to deal with the post Rajiv era in part 2 when I will hopefully explain all of those issues. I have formulated my own set of theories and have reached my own conclusions, but they will be elaborated upon in the next 2 parts of this treatise.

Read More

Jesus Wasn't Crucified on Friday or Resurrected on Sunday

Jesus Wasn't Crucified on Friday or Resurrected on Sunday - How long was Jesus in the tomb?

How can we fit three days and three nights between a Friday afternoon crucifixion and an Easter Sunday sunrise? The fact is, we can't. So what is the truth about when Jesus was crucified and resurrected? How long was Jesus Christ in the tomb?

UCG.org

Jesus Wasn't Crucified on Friday or Resurrected on Sunday - How long was Jesus in the tomb?

About one billion Protestants and another billion Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and entombed on a Friday afternoon—”Good Friday”—and raised to life again at daybreak on Easter Sunday morning, a day and a half later.

Yet when we compare this to what Jesus Himself said about how long He would be entombed, we find a major contradiction. How long did Jesus say He would be in the grave? “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40).

The context in which Jesus Christ said these words is important. The scribes and Pharisees were demanding a miraculous sign from Him to prove that He was indeed the long-awaited Messiah. “But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah’ ” (verse 39).

This was the only sign Jesus gave that He was the promised Messiah: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (emphasis added throughout).

Traditional timing doesn’t add up

The Gospels are clear that Jesus died and His body was hurriedly placed in the tomb late in the afternoon, just before sundown when a Sabbath began (John 19:30-42).

By the traditional “ Good Friday–Easter Sunday ” timing, from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is one night and one day. Saturday night to Sunday daybreak is another night, giving us two nights and one day.

So where do we get another night and two days to equal the three days and three nights Jesus said He would be in the tomb?

This is definitely a problem. Most theologians and religious scholars try to work around it by arguing that any part of a day or night counts as a day or night. Thus, they say, the final few minutes of that Friday afternoon were the first day, all day Saturday was the second day, and the first few minutes of Sunday morning were the third day.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

The trouble is, it doesn’t work. This only adds up to three days and two nights, not three days and three  nights.

Also, John 20:1 tells us that “on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.”

Did you catch the problem here? John tells us it was still dark when Mary went to the tomb on Sunday morning and found it empty. Jesus was already resurrected well before daybreak. Thus He wasn’t in the tombany of the daylight portion of Sunday, so none of that can be counted as a day.

That leaves us with, at most, part of a day on Friday, all of Friday night, a whole daylight portion on Saturday, and most of Saturday night. That totals one full day and part of another, and one full night and most of another—still at least a full day and a full night short of the time Jesus said He would be in the tomb.

Clearly something doesn’t add up. Either Jesus misspoke about the length of time He would be in the tomb, or the “Good Friday–Easter Sunday” timing is not biblical or accurate.

Obviously both cannot be true. So which one is right?

Understanding God’s time is the key

The key to understanding the timing of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection lies in understanding God’s timetable for counting when days begin and end, as well as the timing of His biblical festivals during the spring of the year when these events took place.

We first need to realize that God doesn’t begin and end days at midnight as we do—that is a humanly devised method of counting time. Genesis 1:5 tells us quite plainly that God counts a day as beginning with the evening (the night portion) and ending at the next evening—”So the evening [nighttime] and the morning [daylight] were the first day.” God repeats this formula for the entire six days of creation.

In Leviticus 23, where God lists all of His holy Sabbaths and festivals, He makes it clear that they are to be observed “from evening to evening” (Leviticus 23:32)—in other words, from sunset to sunset, when the sun went down and evening began.

This is why Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, followers of Jesus, hurriedly placed His body in Joseph’s nearby tomb just before sundown (John 19:39-42). A Sabbath was beginning at sundown (John 19:31), when work would have to cease.

Two kinds of “Sabbaths” lead to confusion

As John tells us in John 19:31: “Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies [of those crucified] should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken [to hasten death], and that they might be taken away.”

In the Jewish culture of that time, the chores of cooking and housecleaning were done on the day before a Sabbath to avoid working on God’s designated day of rest. Thus the day before the Sabbath was commonly called “the preparation day.” Clearly the day on which Christ was crucified and His body placed in the tomb was the day immediately preceding a Sabbath.

The question is, which  Sabbath?

Most people assume John is speaking of the regular weekly Sabbath day, observed from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. From John’s clear statement here, most people assume Jesus died and was buried on a Friday—thus the traditional belief that Jesus was crucified and died on “Good Friday.”

Most people have no idea that the Bible talks about two kinds of Sabbath days—the normal weekly Sabbath day that falls on the seventh day of the week (not to be confused with Sunday, which is the first day of the week), and seven annual Sabbath days, listed in Leviticus 23 and mentioned in various passages throughout the Bible, that could fall on any day of the week.

Because traditional Christianity long ago abandoned these biblical annual Sabbath days (as well as the weekly Sabbath), for many centuries people have failed to recognize what the Gospels plainly tell us about when Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected—and why “Good Friday–Easter Sunday” never happened that way.

Most people fail to note that John explicitly tells us that the Sabbath that began at sundown immediately after Jesus was entombed was one of these annual Sabbath days. Notice in John 19:31 his explanation that “that Sabbath was a high day” —” high day” being a term used to differentiate the seven annual Sabbaths from the regular weekly Sabbath days.

So what was this “high day” that immediately followed Jesus Christ’s hurried entombment?

The Gospels tell us that on the evening before Jesus was condemned and crucified, He kept the Passover with His disciples (Matthew 26:19-20; Mark 14:16-17; Luke 22:13-15). This means He was crucified on the Passover day.

Leviticus 23, which lists God’s festivals, tells us that on the day after the Passover a separate festival, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, begins (Leviticus 23:5-6). The first day of this Feast is “a holy convocation” on which “no customary work” is to be done (Leviticus 23:7).

This day is the first of God’s annual Sabbaths. This is the “high day” of which John wrote. Several Bible commentaries, encyclopedias and dictionaries note that John is referring to an annual Sabbath here rather than the regular weekly Sabbath day.

Passover began at sundown and ended the following day at sundown, when this annual Sabbath began. Jesus kept the Passover with His disciples, then was arrested later that night. After daybreak the next day He was questioned before Pontius Pilate, crucified, then hurriedly entombed just before the next sunset when the “high day,” the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, began.

Leviticus 23 tells us the order and timing of these days, and the Gospels confirm the order of events as they unfolded.

Jesus crucified on Wednesday, not Friday

Several computer software programs exist that enable us to calculate when the Passover and God’s other festivals fall in any given year. Those programs show that in A.D. 31, the year of these events, the Passover meal was eaten on Tuesday night and Wednesday sundown marked the beginning of the “high day,” the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Jesus, then, was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday afternoon, not on  Friday.

Can we find further proof of this in the Gospels? Yes, indeed we can!

Let’s turn to a seldom-noticed detail in Mark 16:1: “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.”

In that time, if the body of a loved one was placed in a tomb rather than being buried directly in the ground, friends and family would commonly place aromatic spices in the tomb alongside the body to reduce the smell as the remains decayed.

Since Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb just before that high-day Sabbath began, the women had no time to buy those spices before the Sabbath. Also, they could not have purchased them on the Sabbath day, as shops were closed. Thus, Mark says, they bought the spices after the Sabbath— “when the Sabbath was past.”

But notice another revealing detail in Luke 23:55-56: “And the women who had come with [Christ] from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.”

Do you see a problem here? Mark clearly states that the women bought the spicesafter the Sabbath—”when the Sabbath was past.” Luke tells us that the women prepared the spices and fragrant oils, after which “they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.”

So they bought the spices after the Sabbath, and then they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath. This is a clear contradiction between these two Gospel accounts—unless two Sabbaths were involved!

Indeed when we understand that two different Sabbaths are mentioned, the problem goes away.

Mark tells us that after the “high day” Sabbath, which began Wednesday evening at sundown and ended Thursday evening at sundown, the women bought the spices to anoint Jesus’ body. Luke then tells us that the women prepared the spices—activity which would have taken place on Friday—and that afterward “they rested on the Sabbath [the normal weekly Sabbath day, observed Friday sunset to Saturday sunset]according to the commandment.”

By comparing details in both accounts, we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are mentioned along with a workday in between. The first Sabbath was a “high day”—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath.

The original Greek in which the Gospels were written also plainly tells us that two Sabbath days were involved in these accounts. In Matthew 28:1, where Matthew writes that the women went to the tomb “after the Sabbath,” the word Sabbath here is actually plural and should be translated“Sabbaths.” Bible versions such as Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Green’s Literal Translation Young’s Literal Translation and Ferrar Fenton’s Translation make this clear.

When was Jesus resurrected?

We have seen, then, that Jesus Christ was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday, just before an annual Sabbath began—not the weekly Sabbath. So when was He resurrected?

John 20:1, as noted earlier, tells us that “on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” The sun had not yet risen— “it was still dark,” John tells us—when Mary found the tomb empty.

Obviously, then, Jesus was not resurrected at sunrise on Sunday morning. So when did this take place? The answer is plain if we simply read the Gospels—and Jesus Christ’s own words—and accept them for what they say.

“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,” said Jesus (Matthew 12:40).

As we have proven, Jesus was entombed —placed “in the heart of the earth”—just before sundown on a Wednesday. All we have to do is count forward. One day and one night brings us to Thursday at sundown. Another day and night brings us to Friday at sundown. A third day and night brings us to Saturday at sundown.

According to Jesus Christ’s own words He would have been resurrected three days and nights after He was entombed, at around the same time—near sunset. Does this fit with the Scriptures? Yes—as we have seen, He was already risen and the tomb empty when Mary arrived “while it was still dark” on Sunday morning.

While no one was around to witness His resurrection (which took place inside a sealed tomb watched over by armed guards), Jesus Christ’s own words and the details recorded in the Gospels show that it had to have happened three days and three nights after His burial, near sunset at the end of the weekly Sabbath.

Try as you might, it is impossible to fit three days and three nights between a late Friday burial and a Sunday morning resurrection. The Good Friday–Easter Sunday tradition simply isn’t true or biblical. But when we look at all the details recorded in the Gospels and compare them with Jesus’ own words, we can see the truth—and it matches perfectly.

The words of the angel of God, who so startled the women at the empty tomb, are proven true: “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said” (Matthew 28:5-6, New International Version).

Let’s not cling to religious traditions and ideas that aren’t supported by Scripture. Be sure that your own beliefs and practices are firmly rooted in the Bible. Are you willing to make a commitment to worship God according to biblical truth rather than human tradition? 

Read More