What is Indian heritage or for that matter heritage of any nation or society? People of India who are my fellow citizens always complain about how our heritage was looted by the British and other European colonial powers! Just moaning about the loss of heritage to the looters would not make anyone patriotic as I saw it. But every baby step in heritage recovery counts and this legal notice to the European Union for the restoration/restitution of Indian heritage they looted is such a humble baby step. The most important thing though is for any visitor to this site to sign the petition in the link below requesting the European Union and their member nations to restore all Indian heritage including the Kohinoor Diamond to the rightful owners who are the people of India. Please click on the link below to support the petition even if you are not an Indian national as it is about humanity, human rights, decency, religious rights, sacred, semi-sacred and secular heritage of another country which is being abused by a group of nations in the EU who are the former colonial masters!
Please See the Full Text of the Legal Notice to the European Union Already Acknowledged by the Office of the President of the European Union as Below;
Address Intentionally Withheld***
The European Union Represented by their Presidency/Parliament/Para-state Entities and/or Member or Partner Nation Governments Where Jurisdiction So Warrants for the Purposes of this Legal Notice
17 November 2012
Re: Notice Before Legal Proceedings and Democratic Action against the European Union due to their Prolonged Hoarding of Indian/African/Asian Sacred/Semi-Sacred/Secular Heritage Expropriated under the Duress of European Colonial Occupation of these former European Colonies Disregarding their Duty to effect Repatriation and Restitution of all Expropriated Heritage to their rightful owners who are the people of these former European colonies
- 1. About the Prospective Litigant and Author of this Notice
a) The author is a former advocate of the Supreme Court of India and an ex solicitor of the Supreme Court of England & Wales and a co-author of a book, “AIDS, SOCIAL WORK AND LAW” and a former trustee of the Naz Foundation of India Trust and is currently authoring a novel with a historic, cultural and civilizational setting.
b) The author has been working for the repatriation of the Indian Heritage expropriated under the duress of the British Colonial occupation of India for the past several years with very little progress despite the hard work, devotion and research he invested for the cause.
c) Although the stress is on the recovery of the Indian Heritage expropriated under the Euro-member nation’s colonial occupation of India it in no way absolves them from taking all necessary steps for the repatriation and restitution (“the Restitution”) of all heritage expropriated from Africa and Asia and South America (“the Former European Colonies”) in a transparent, unbiased and time bound manner as the expropriated heritage in question qualifies as the proceeds of heinous crimes against humanity.
- 2. Introduction
a) The author submits that the hoarding of the Heritage Expropriated under the Duress of European Colonial Occupation of the former European Colonies via genocide, ethnic cleansing and War Crimes is in itself an on-going expropriation under duress both colonial and post-colonial including for the reasons stated as below;
- 3. Criminal Liability of the Former European Colonial Masters
a) The Heritage so expropriated under the duress of crimes against humanity such as colonisation through genocide, racial and ethnic cleansing, desecration of religious places which are also war crimes, biased colonial judiciary and administration of justice, void and voidable contracts, deeds of transfers or colonial contracts (collectively called “the European Colonial Genocide and War Crimes”), all solely for European economic enrichment than any humanitarian reasons qualify as proceeds of the most heinous of crimes against humanity unlike the proceeds of crimes under domestic criminal laws of the European Union (the EU”) member nations. The Iraq Cultural Heritage Protection Act is a very relevant template in this context for the EU to emulate instead of concocted contracts under the duress of European Colonial Genocide and War Crimes.
b) These European Colonial Genocide and War Crimes and their proceeds in the form of looted colonial heritage from the European colonies in Africa, Asia and South America (“the former EU colonies”) make all right minded and decent current day EU institutions such as EU judges, MEPs, commissioners , museums, charities, auction houses or even private individuals who hoard such colonial loot the illegitimate beneficiaries of genocide and war crimes on the basis of this on-going hoarding of heritage from the former EU colonies. Even non-believers, agonists or atheists in the European Union let alone believers can shake of this moral culpability in being the indirect economic beneficiaries if not direct beneficiaries of the European Colonial Genocide and War Crimes.
- 4. The On-Going Violation of Human Rights/Religious Freedoms/Civil Liberties by the EU and the Consequential Civil Liability of the Former European Colonial Masters through the On-Going Expropriation of Heritage
a) The Hindu Sacred Heritage, Religious Freedoms and Human Rights-The author invites the kind attention of the EU to the fact that in addition to the European Colonial Genocide and War Crimes angle cited above there is a concurrent civil law dimension (“the Liabilities of the EU under Civil Laws for the European Colonial Genocide and War Crimes”) The liabilities of the EU under Civil Laws for their expropriation of sacred, semi-sacred and secular heritage from their colonies infringe right to freedom of expression, conscience and belief as in religious rights of majority and minority communities in their former European colonies.
i. It is submitted that colonial Britain even sent researchers to investigate the temple Jewels at Sri Padmanabha Swami temple in Thiruvananthapuram but could not find the vaults and they sought to raid the temple properties as a means to recover a colonial tax of about one and half million kaash which the Maharaja’s duly paid to protect their kingdom’s religious properties. The Maharaja of Thiruvathamcore unlike the European monarchs used to pay for the pilgrimage and religious ceremonies of both the Christians and Muslims in his realm is relevant. The notional valuation of the jewels in this Hindu temple by the Archaeological Survey of India puts it at $22 billion with a projected antique value of $220 billion or roughly the GDP of London.
ii. The Hindu scriptures including Vedic Scriptures of a billion Hindus such as the four Vedas, Itihasas, Puranas, Religious Rites, Shashtras, Sutras, Mantras with the accompanying sacred ceremonies involved in sculpturing religious idols, making of temples jewels including cutting and polishing of diamonds and gems, Yagnas, Yaagas, Homas, Pujas including Kumbhabhishekham and Shudhikalasham governed by the Hindu Almanac and performed by qualified Hindu priests are all protected religious rights which ought not to be usurped by the EU secular laws to evade the restitution of the Hindu sacred heritage in their custody.
iii. Under the interpretation of these Hindu law principles an Ahindu or a non-Hindu is not even allowed to handle Hindu religious properties without violating the Universal Human Rights enjoyed by the Hindu faithful even in the EU even if they were in European museums or auction houses or the Tower of London or in the so called Royal Collection of European Monarchs without infringing the Right to Freedom of Faith and Universal Human Rights and European Convention Rights of Hindus pertinent here in.
iv. Only looted heritage from the former European Colonies can be locked up in the so called Royal Collections of European monarchs who also claim to be religious heads in their respective jurisdictions and not the rights associated with the heritage in question and are relevant for the purposes of this notice. The itinery of the Hindu heritage before they ended up in European Royal Collections is not that relevant for the purposes of this notice but only their origin. Therefore the on-going expropriation of the Hindu heritage from the former European colonies amounts to culpable genocide and war crimes by these present day European monarchs and head of states.
b) Human Rights and Religious Rights Infringed in the Matter of Jainism through the On-going Expropriation of Sacred Indian Heritage of the Jains– The Jain faith in India is one of the minority faiths in in Europe as well as around the world now and is governed including by their scriptures the Kalpa Sutra, Tattvartha Sutra and Naaladiyar which are all protected by the Universal Human Rights besides the European Convention Rights. Therefore all European institutions sacred, semi-sacred or secular or organs of state who have custody of the Indian Heritage relevant to the devotees and followers of the Jain faith is relevant be they Shwedambaras or Digambaras. The Jain rites and rituals even about their temple heritage is a protected religious right and the former European colonisers have no right even to keep or preserve them by declaring themselves as the self-appointed custodians of global heritage which was expropriated through the extortion of genocide and war crimes without being in gross violation of the universal human rights besides the European convention rights.
c) The Human Rights and Religious Rights Violations Applicable to Buddhist Heritage Expropriated From India – The emphasis of this notice is not on the highly debatable dates of origins of Buddhism in the Indian Subcontinent but on the operational legitimacy of the Buddhist scriptures including Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tipitaka sutras and scriptures notwithstanding the modern day versions of Buddhism in Europe to legitimise their on-going expropriation of Indian sacred heritage by placing them surreptitiously in Royal Collections or secular institutions under lock and key or after charging visitors and tourists to these European venues which ought to have been a legitimate source of income for the victims of genocide in the former European colonies and their descendants but unduly collected by the EU and their institutions under duress.
d) The Human Rights and Religious Rights Violations of the EU and Europe Relevant to Jewish Heritage Expropriated from India – The followers of Judaism left India voluntarily and not because of any persecution like was the case in Germany or even Britain as evidenced by the anti-Semitic literature of Shakespeare or Jane Austin but because they chose to leave India for their land of faith like Indians could leave Europe at a future date. The issue relevant to this notice as regarding the Indian origin Jewish heritage either created in India or voluntarily brought to India whether from Galilee or Iraq or Palestine or Armenia is so unlike the expropriated Jewish heritage by the European genocide inside Europe.
i. The New York Times in the wake of the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai and the killing of a Jewish Rabbi and his family had two theories on the arrival of the Jews in India. One of the theories advanced by the New York Times was that the Jews might have gone to India as early as 2000 BC from Galilee or they might have settled in India with Solomon’s ambassadors some time in 900 BC. The object of this notice is not to engage in any deliberations with New York Times or any other entities but it is a fact that India is one of the few countries in the world which can say they persecuted the Jews the least even in an absolute sense of negativity.
ii. It is relevant in this context to state that there were Jewish shingleys or synagogues in Kodungalloor, Kerala, India from first century AD onwards. India could not have in such a tolerant religious eco-system been anti-Semitic like Europe or be irreverent to Jewish Torah, Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, Shulkhan , Aruth or Kabbalah or any other Jewish scriptures or their practices scriptural or set by conventions both of which are protected by the Universal Human Rights besides the European Convention Rights.
iii. India in that sense of religious reverence was conforming to an ideal which even a New York Times’ personality of the year a Jewish Rabbi postulated, “There is no room for religious tolerance but only religious reverence” as according to the Rabbi we only tolerate something we do not like or respect as if under a legislative or other duress. Kodungalloor is referred to as Muziris by the Greeks and is even referred to in the Bible besides Ophir which is present day Beypore, in Kerala, India as in Kings and Chronicles in the Bible.
iv. The moot point for the purposes of this notice is that notwithstanding any allusions about the Pardesi (White), Meghuhuraram (Brown) or Malabari Jews (Black) in India the Jews could establish their right to public worship at the least from first century AD which is even denied to the Hindus in 2012 when their sacred temple jewels are desecrated inside British Crown Jewel collections or British Natural History Museum whilst proclaiming that they protect minority rights under the European Union by citing their vocal defence for the human rights of even those accused of terrorism like Abu Hamsa.
v. It is pertinent to cite here how the Pardesi Synagogue in Kochi, Kerala, India had to be shifted out from Kodungalloor after being demolished thrice over by the Portuguese colonialists of India around 1568 AD and a Hindu Maharaja donating the land unlike the European monarchs who hoard Indian heritage by placing it under their so called Royal/Crown Jewel vaults and then playing “hide and seek” between their constitutional dictum of acting solely under the advice of their cabinet and then shifting goal posts to mislead the international community and their own citizens. The Dutch funding for the reconstruction of a synagogue destroyed by the Portuguese in India ought not to be construed as a defence for expropriation by the EU.
vi. Therefore all Jewish heritage made in India or voluntarily brought by Jews to India without any duress is very much a part of Indian heritage and all Jews from around the world with valid Visas are at liberty to visit India boosting religious tourism creating jobs and right to livelihood in India. Therefore the European colonial masters who lifted any Torah scrolls, oil lamp or bronze pulpit or anything Jewish from India ought to restore it to the relevant Indian synagogues wherever they are located in India.
e) The Human Rights and Religious Rights Violations Relevant to the Syrian Christians of Kerala– It was only after Judaism established herself firmly in India that even St Thomas could have visited India as the trade route then was more or less Hindu-Jewish in nature. St Thomas is believed to have arrived in Kodungalloor, Kerala, India in 52 AD. The converts to Christianity in Kerala were prominent families and not like the new Christian converts in India’s vulnerable, poor, illiterate tribal and fishing belts which the western charities fund whilst they have no such audacity to convert either Lakshmi Mittal right here in Europe or any other prominent Hindus in Europe or even their own white atheists but use the exchange rates of their Dollars/Euros/Pounds/Swiss Francs solely to finance a neo colonial conversion frenzy in the name of Jesus which is causing a lot of religious conflicts in present day India and qualify as an on-going duress of colonial European proselytization or subterranean pogrom . Jesus never condoned anyone expropriating their neighbour’s heritage for the purposes of the Ten Commandments or other Christian scriptural underpinnings in this notice.
i. Similarly the Christian congregations in India especially in Kerala, a federal unit under the Republic of India has many indigenous Christian denominations such as Syrian Christians whose unique religious practices, ceremonies, institutions such as marriage are recognised even by the Vatican. The Roman Catholics in Kerala of the Syrian heritage (“the Syrian Christians of Kerala) tie Manglaya Sutra and a groom gifts a separate bridal wear called Virippav in the course of the wedding ceremony unlike the European “white purdah weddings”. The etymological origins of the English expression tying the knot or Sanskrit’s position as the mother of all Indo-European languages is not the core issue for the purposes of this notice but how even the development of Sanskrit was blockaded through the hoarding of ancient Sanskrit manuscripts in Europe infringing cultural and literary rights besides the freedom of profession, trade and livelihood of all Sanskrit scholars and enthusiasts in India.
ii. The Syrian Christians of Kerala along with their heritage deserves special protection rights as they are a minority Christian Community within in the majority Christian faith and any heritage of the Syrian Christians warrants an immediate restoration and restitution to Indian churches where the European experts with valid Indian visas could be offered an opportunity to study their real universal human rights or convention rights’ dimensions from 52 AD besides learning about how in 325 AD the Nicene Creed of Constantine had half the number of bishops from Asia instead of Europe even in the opinion of a leftist historian like William Darlymple according to the Sunday Times.
iii. Any attempt either by the European Union or the Vatican to impose monopoly over Christian faith in Kerala and India would be resisted like the way class actions were filed against Catholic dioceses in the USA for child abuse as heritage expropriation is also an abuse of the vulnerable Christians from the former colonies of Europe. The author appeals to the European Union not to deflect liabilities for genocide and war crimes in their former colonies by citing the criticism of the same contained herein. The author firmly believes Genocide, war crimes, human rights violations, expropriation of other nations’ heritage ought to be criticised in the highest order unfettered by niceties often used as a convenient alibi to deny the rights to their rightful owners and beneficiaries.
f) Human Rights and Religious Rights Violations by the European Union Relevant to Islamic Heritage Expropriated from India –Islam established in India initially through peaceful means as is exemplified by the Cheraman Mosque, Kodungalloor, Kerala India built in 629 AD by a Hindu Maharajah called Cheraman Perumal in a Hindu Architectural template even though ancient India had the know how to build domes at the least from 200 AD as even illustrated by The Great Stupa of Sanchi. The Hindu-Arabic numerals from the cultural intercourse between Hindus in India and Arabs from West Asia and North Africa even today stand as a testament to Indian Islamic heritage rightfully belonging to the 140 million Muslims in India.
i. The fact that political Islam conquered India via the invaders from 11 century AD and managed to establish a foreign empire from 1526 AD with Babur and is celebrated in India by British groomed historians like they celebrate the 400 year old occupation by Rome of the British Isles is not relevant for the purposes of this notice as it only focuses on the Islamic Heritage created in India either by Indian Muslims or invading Muslim rulers in India like the British colonial infrastructure from the fruitage of genocide and war crimes. The contemporaneous and selective denigration of Hindus in India whilst embellishing the invading Islamic contributions over India by European historians is at best construed as another post-colonial divide and rule atrocity to withhold Indian Islamic heritage from Indian Muslims.
ii. Richard Attenborough’s acclaimed movie Gandhi gives insights in to the communal card deployed by the British to divide and then rule India besides Harold McMillian’s dairies about post-colonial atrocities in India which qualify as duress for the purposes of this notice. This ought to be appreciated in the context of J B Kripalani’s biography of Gandhi, “Gandhi His Life and Thought” which quotes colonial British military leaders wishing Gandhi to be more violent so that they could put down Gandhi’s rebellion through a concocted legitimacy. Kripalani’s statements about the British giving a daily staple of communist publications to the imprisoned Indian freedom fighters besides Lord Macaulay’s conquest of Indian minds through English education in India still remain a dark chapter in this colonial and post-colonial duress.
iii. The summam bonnum for the purposes of Indian Islamic Heritage expropriated from India and in the custody of the former European colonial masters is that be they an Islamic scroll or a calligraphic panel or a jewel or gemstone dug out from the arches at Taj Mahal a UNESCO heritage they all belong to the descendants of the European genocide and war crimes in India and not the trespassers as in EU penal law against receiving and handling of stolen or looted properties. The legitimacy of the criminal laws in Europe is valid only when the looters effect restitution of the properties they looted and not when the victims of their crimes against humanity suffer and those liable for crimes against humanity profit. Even if the EU were to opt to de-criminalise the receiving and handling of stolen goods in their jurisdictions it makes no difference to criminality associated with the receiving and handling of looted heritage.
g) Universal Human Rights and European Convention Rights Associated with the Sikh Religion and their Heritage Expropriated From India- All Sikh heritage removed or disturbed from any Gurudwara is very much an Indian heritage and the Pakistani connection to Sikhism to delay the restitution of Sikh heritage to India or for that matter any heritage stands discredited as what belongs to Pakistan should be given to them after securing the religious rights of the Sikhs over those heritage as well as that of any minority communities in Pakistan.
i. It is averred that excuses about the exact place of origin of Sikhism in an atmosphere of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha in Afghanistan and the on-going minority persecutions in Pakistan at best would only look as another post-colonial divide and rule tactics by the illegal hoarders of Indian Sikh heritage.
ii. The Sikh heritage for the purposes of this notice is governed including by the Guru Granth Sahib, Adi Granth, Dasam Granth, Sarbloh Granth and Janam Sakhis with all attendant religious rituals, rites, ceremonies and veneration and ought not to be in the on-going custody or preservation of any EU institutions or organs of the state or any EU royal collections as it will be construed as an evidence of EU sponsored on-going infringement of religious freedoms, universal human rights and European Convention Rights akin to state sponsorship of religious terrorism as what the EU is doing is nothing short of state sponsored cultural terrorism through the expropriation of colonial heritage under duress.
Civil and Criminal Liabilities of the Former European Colonial Masters in the Expropriation of Semi-Sacred and Secular Heritage from their Former Colonies
- 5. The European Colonial Expropriation under the duress of European Genocide and War Crimes also resulted in colonies being deprived of their legitimate rights to possess, cherish and prosper from their semi-sacred and secular heritage. This vast array of semi-sacred and secular heritage as an illustration includes priceless palm leaf manuscripts on literature, grammar, classical music and dance, herbal medicine, gemmology and mineralogy, jurisprudence, sculptors, paintings, diamonds, pearls, precious stones, muslin, sahutosh, pashmina, cashmere and other invaluable fabrics, thrones, antique furniture, Gandhian writings and treatises on ancient history and the like which are exhibited in European Museums or are in the possession of European Royal families or collectors, auction houses and were used or are being used by European educational institutions to derive commercial, cultural and educational benefits, intellectual and copy rights besides income through tourism generation and employment creation in Europe to the exclusion and detriment of the rightful owners of this heritage in their former colonies.
a) It is asserted that there cannot be a trade-off between finite European AID to their former colonies and the infinite value of the heritage of their colonies some of which could be protected under the geographical indicators under the World Trade Organisation (“the WTO”) norms. There cannot also be any surreptitious condition legitimised by the EU on the grounds of their self-appointed global custodianship of this expropriated heritage from former European colonies by claiming that it is being preserved by the relevant colonial powers for posterity or for humanity or such “clever” exploitative arguments often peddled by colonial European powers to frustrate the restitution of heritage and recompense for their crimes against humanity as was the case with the Aegean Marbles when Britain refused to hand over Greek heritage to Greece during the last Athens Olympics. The highly suspicious suicide of a Greek heritage champion in this matter from the eighth floor of his hotel room alarms the author too justifying his right to seek protection from the EU.
b) Such unilateral conditions as in paragraph 5(a) about the legitimacy of the EU’s self-appointed or inflicted custodianships over the heritage of former European colonies are wholly unacceptable to the peoples of the former colonies who are the descendants of the victims of the European colonial genocide and war crimes as they are yet to make an informed decision after independent legal advice as they are even deprived of a full inventory of their heritage expropriated from their shores whilst the EU member nations and their organs of state or other European powers assert such flimsy global rights which even a petty shop lifter or burglar is not ceded anywhere in the EU.
c) The author reserves the rights of the descendants of the victims of the European Genocide and War Crimes to seek a comprehensive independent legal advice which ought to be funded by the EU legal AID on the extent of their rights under relevant civil and criminal law provisions including property laws, the sanctity of the lien claimable by looters as regards looted property, international laws besides EU judicial precedents and the like.
d) The operation of Universal Human Rights, European Convention Rights and property rights, cultural rights, right to heritage, right to research and development and the creation of copy rights and intellectual properties associated with heritage, right to derive legitimate commercial benefits through heritage, right to livelihood through heritage promotion as in travel, tourism, hospitality and airline industry all associated with the expropriated heritage from the former European colonies so expropriated through genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes deserve as much right to justice through EU funded independent legal advice/ Legal AID as cited above as the author is limited in his resources to mount such a multimillion Euro legal challenge against the EU and the former European colonialists at this point in time.
e) The author is cognizant of the protracted legal action the Bhosle Royal family from Nagpur, India is pursuing through the British courts for the past 150 years against the British government for the expropriation of truckloads of gold, silver and precious stones to fund the founding of the Lords Bank in Britain after them auctioned in Kolkata. The duty of the EU is to handover all secular, semi-sacred and sacred heritage even expropriated from the palaces of the former Maharajas in India and then allow the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts to settle any dispute between the Government of India or the former Maharajas and not to play another round of state sponsored divide and rule cultural terrorism to stave of the restitution of the expropriated heritage.
f) The accumulated losses for the descendants of the former European colonial victims wherever these rights were violated, breached or frustrated by successor nations of these colonial European powers therefore could run in to hundreds of billions of Euros taking in to account the punitive and compensatory angle under the tortious liability clauses operational in all major rule of law countries and they apply equally to all heritage be they sacred, semi-sacred or secular as religious tourism like secular tourism is very much a part of the whole tourism industry whether they happen in Vatican, Jerusalem, Mecca or Varanasi or Thirupathi unless the European Union insists on discriminating between religious tourism of different faiths on a case by case discretionary basis to stave of restitution of expropriated heritage. The author implores the European Union and the former European colonial powers to respect the concept of “Tortfeasor” pays.
- 6. The On Going Expropriation of Heritage from Former European Colonies Infringing the Concept of National Sovereignty Recognised by the United Nations
a) It is asserted that the concept of national sovereignty recognised under the United Nation’s Charter with her sister organisations (“the UN”) is incomplete without sovereignty over national heritage. It ought to be appreciated by the former European Colonial Masters that there is no meaningful nationhood or mutual respect amongst member nations or the UN objective of promoting peace within member nations if they continue to foment conflict by hoarding heritage belonging to other member nations from their former colonies. It is important that the EU and the former colonial powers in Europe accord equal importance to the fact that without a respect for national and cultural heritage of all member nations there is no meaningful respect for UN member nations as it is the geographical heritage in tandem with civilizational and cultural heritage that distinguishes the nationhood of member nations even for the purposes of the UN.
b) Therefore the on-going illegitimate possession and trespass on Indian heritage as well as heritage from the former colonies expropriated under the duress of European colonial genocide and war crimes constitutes a grave threat to the rights ceded to member states of the UN and their citizens as a whole. The UNESCO guidelines to the former European colonial masters to hand over national heritage belonging to their former colonies ought to be seen by the EU as an extension of this principle for the purposes of this notice.
- 7. The Post-Colonial Duress Impairing the Recovery of the Expropriated Heritage under the Duress of European Colonial Occupation in a UN/WTO/Anti-Terrorism Context
a) The author submits that in addition to the duress of colonial genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing in the course of European colonisation there is a need to raise the post- colonial European duress that was exerted on the former colonies to frustrate any hope of them ever recovering their heritage. The post-colonial chapter of European atrocities over their former colonies is the least documented unlike the colonial European atrocities and the author is devoting a disproportionate amount of space in this notice to sensitise the EU about this facet of European neo-colonialism, cultural and moral imperialism. Notwithstanding the scope for plausible deniability that could be relied on by the European Union and other colonial masters in Europe there is a clear cut pattern in this behaviour which is sort of like a circumstantial DNA for the purposes of this notice. And they include amongst other issues the following patterns of European post-colonial conduct towards their former colonies and peoples as illustrated below;
i. Colonial and Post-Colonial Political Grooming and Placements in the British and French Commonwealth Impairing the Recovery of Expropriated Heritage: The former British and French colonies have dynastic rulers and dictatorships educated, politically groomed and placed in their former colonies who do not care for the recovery of their own looted heritage from the hands of their former colonial masters despite claiming to be independent, sovereign, democratic and republics. Even the basic logic is defied when these independent former colonies joined a club set up by their own former colonial masters in the name of promoting democracy and good relations whilst even being headed by a monarch as in the case of the British Commonwealth.
ii. A concept of democratic organisations being headed by unelected, hereditary monarchs who are also religious heads could even legitimise a situation where Gandhi Peace Foundation could be headed by Bin Laden or Dracula being in charge of a blood bank as democracy and monarchy are diametrically opposite.
iii. It is in this context that the EU ought to appreciate why the British Prime Minister is not the head of the Commonwealth with a rotational presidency or be more like the French Commonwealth which goes by majority decision making instead of a surreptitious consensus seen only in the theocratic Vatican or totalitarian “polite bureau” where Popes or regime chiefs are elected so secretively through fixed matches eulogised as consensus. Secretive Democracy is no democracy for the purposes of this notice as there is no meaningful democracy without transparency or freedom of the press as in the First Amendment Rights under the US Constitution. Therefore it is pertinent for all interested parties in the EU to ask for more transparency and democracy even within the British Commonwealth in context.
iv. Therefore the contradictions in the British Commonwealth which has no rotational presidency and the presidency reserved in perpetuity to the British Monarch right there in front of the EU invites some EU response not only for the purposes of this notice but for the purposes of championing democracy across the world especially when the EU has rotational presidency. It is in this context that the EU is implored to appreciate the fact that most of the so called democracies in the former European colonial masters’ nations are democracies headed by dynastic rulers, cabinet systems so identical to and cloned like “Dolly the Sheep” or European cloned democracies headed by monarchs, which is a contradiction in itself as democracy, dynastic rule with any number of re-branding or name changes. The author relies on an old Malayalam saying in this context which loosely translated means, “A crow cannot become a swan even after a million baths or vice versa”
v. Moreover, the newly groomed leaders of these former colonies do not even object to the blatant celebration of the European colonial past including through social titles such as “Knight, Commander, Officer, Member of the Empire” as in British social titles with similar social title formulations across the successor nations of the European colonial masters. It was obnoxious for Belgium to have awarded their “empire title” to Mrs Sonia Gandhi who according to the Forbes Magazine is the 6th most powerful person on the planet and was challenged in Indian courts which under the post-colonial duress did not find anything wrong in the most powerful person in India being a member of the Belgian empire where even the Israeli President with a jurisdiction over just five million population would have found it offensive. The EU ought to appreciate the fact that if post Holocaust Germany were to have social titles like “Knight, Member or Commander of the Third Reich” the European media, charities and human rights agencies would have been outraged but in the case of the former colonies of Africa, Asia and South America there is no such palpable outrage even by the European media but only a studious silence.
vi. When the member nations of the UN from the British Commonwealth do not object but are made to celebrate Britannia Ruling the Waves whilst Public International Law guarantees rights to member nations and riparian states over territorial waters, exclusive economic zones even in the case of the English Channel it is not only a defiance of the norms of public international law etiquette but also is a primary example of insensitivity towards the millions of freedom fighters and martyrs who perished fighting the British colonial rule like the victims of the Holocaust.
vii. The purpose of the comparisons drawn between Holocaust and the colonial genocide in Africa, Asia and South America in this notice is not to get in to any competitive victim syndrome but to draw the attention of the EU which has not been forthcoming for all these years unlike in the matter of Holocaust Denial which is a criminal offence at least in some EU member nations like Belgium. Indian Genocide and European Colonial Genocide denial in Africa, Asia and South America too deserve the dispassionate attention of the EU as exemplified by the criminal laws of Belgium in this regard. Out of the 4 million Indian soldiers who fought in the world war 35,000 perished in Passchendaele in Belgium was also to fight against Hitler’s fascism and a discriminatory approach to the Indian genocide and holocaust only will exemplify a divide and rule approach by the EU.
viii. It is pertinent for the EU to bear in mind that these former European colonies in Africa, Asia and South America whilst being resource rich are “wallet poor” fledgling democracies plagued by poverty, unemployment, homelessness, disease, flawed elections and institutions which do not keep the descendants of the victims of the European genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes well informed about their rights including their right to seek restitution of their heritage or compensation in lieu of that or even afford Legal AID to mount legal actions against the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity by establishing a viable lien against the proceeds and profits of these crimes against humanity despite many of the leaders of the former European colonies are highly educated Nobel Prize winners, lawyers, economists, authors, sociologists, social workers, human rights activists, film artists, sculptors, business men and professionals educated, groomed or celebrated in Britain and Europe.
ix. The illustrations of European education, political grooming and political placements in the former European colonies and the developing world do not stop with the British educated barristers or economists or doctors or military leaders like Robert Mugabe, Benazir and Bilawal Bhuttos, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia and Rahul Gandhies or Dr.Manmohan Singh or Dr.Azad of Syria or King Hussein of Jordan or their political dynasties but are littered across the former European colonies in Africa and Asia and is not an exception to the rule of political grooming and placements in former colonies but has the DNA foot prints and behaviour patterns as in circumstantial evidence norms recognised by EU laws and remains as a testament to the orchestrated action plan to keep the former colonies and their over two billion strong peoples, democracies, faiths and voluntary organisations in subservience of the neo-European “Brahmanism” to launder the European liabilities for genocide and war crimes from colonial and post-colonial atrocities.
x. These dynastic rulers and dictatorships of the former British colonies cited above for the purposes of this notice are as anti-people and anti-national to them and groomed as Benedict Arnold and his fellow Brigadier in US history or Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge or the Red French! J.B Kripalani’s biography on Gandhi also speaks about how Nehru after Indian independence and particularly after Gandhi’s death chose to seek advice only from the Mountbatten duo. Whether or not both Nehru and Jinnah had a twosome relationship with Lady Mountbatten or not is the moot point for the purposes of this notice but whether there was any blackmail used by her at the behest of colonial Britain to facilitate the partition of India as some You Tube videos suggests is. It is however very ludicrous for a democracy to celebrate and flaunt its leadership under a monarch as Britain is doing and it goes without any challenge in the former colonies who constitute the Commonwealth is very suspicious. However, it cannot be negated as a fact that if the colonies from Africa, Asia and South America ceased to be corrupt and under taxed the trail of money laundering leading up to the British and Swiss tax havens would dry up impairing even their solvency for the purposes of BASEL and WTO norms.
xi. The lack of democracy within the British Commonwealth alone ought to have alarmed the EU in to holding some confabulations with the UK government as the British Commonwealth seeks to represent the will and mandate of 33% of the humanity and 23% of the inhabited territory of planet earth. It is the intention of the author to vehemently defend against any purported violations of the Harassment Act or concocted Health and Safety laws which could be levelled against him for criticising the EU and their organisational heads including monarchs and his intention to avail legal remedies would also have to be assisted by EU legal AID if any draconian sedition charges were to be brought against him either directly or indirectly to insulate the shrinking violets in the EU who do not even have the decency to acknowledge their liabilities or throw open the inventory of the looted heritage from their former colonies to public scrutiny within their own countries or before the international community in a transparent and verifiable manner recognised by the international community.
xii. The author avers that even the grooming of terror suspects like Khalid Sheik Mohammed accused of the planning and execution of the terror attacks on the World Trade Centre or Faisal Islam assisting genocide and torture in Libya both being educated at London School of Economics qualify as additional illustrations of European post-colonial atrocities in the context of Harold McMillian’s admission about the atrocities of Lord and Lady Mountbatten the uncle of the anointed future head of the Commonwealth Prince Charles.
xiii. The British capital of London is even credited with affording a second home to all of the ruling and opposition dynastic families from Pakistan besides several other dictators and dynastic rulers from around the former British colonies and is a threat to national security and peace as enshrined under domestic laws besides under the founding principles of the UN. The author relies on the findings of the US financial regulators that even British banks are a cause for concern for US national security interests whilst being the most powerful military power on the planet which puts the security concerns of the descendants of the victims of European genocide and war crimes in to perspective against Britain which is one of the world’s most powerful nations due to their “Britannia Ruling the Waves”
xiv. The author apprises the EU that even the OECD countries raised serious concerns about the British defence contractors like the BAE bribing even members of the Saudi Royal family to secure over a $40 billion plus defence contract which ipso facto could make the legitimate concerns of the descendants of British genocide and war crimes in India with an estimated toll of one billion and 150 times bigger than the Holocaust a serious cause for concern as the British media and charity Corner House reported that BAE even supplied prostitutes to influential members of the Saudi royal family to secure the multibillion Euro defence deal which distorts even free and fair trade under the World Trade Organisation norms too.
xv. The author’s concerns about the post-colonial conduct of Britain towards their former colonies is not merely about them supplying Nehru and Jinna Lady Mountbatten but extends to the rights of tens of thousands of post-colonial victims of their Divide and Rule atrocities as India alone suffered some 30,000 communal riots under the on-going post-colonial British “AID” diplomacy and the numbers of these religion based Divide & Rule riots could hit six figures if there is an independent international audit of colonial and post-colonial British war crimes in their former colonies in the context of the largest exodus of humanity after the partition of India realistically showcased in Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi. Australia, Canada New Zealand and the USA did not have to go through such a scale of exodus and human tragedy despite being former British colonies is relevant in context.
xvi. The tragedy of the victims of British colonial Divide & Rule is that they have been denied the right to restitution and damages for so long which is now sought to be reversed by the author from the European Union as well as the international community especially when the British tax havens along with the Swiss tax havens are not only distorting the legitimacy of claims against their colonial and post-colonial misdeeds but are also distorting capital generation, investments in bonds, commodities, stocks and shares with their concerted financial strategy distorting international free trade, norms of fair capital raising, funding and investments across a wide spectrum of financial instruments across the world warranting the immediate attention of the EU as well as the World Trade Organisation and a transparent audit and fixation of liabilities in this kind of trans-global anticompetitive and anti-trust practices by Britain and Switzerland. The author avers that a threat to free and fair trade anywhere including from Britain is a threat to free and fair trade everywhere.
xvii. It is conceded that the WTO and the EU has not yet initiated any investigation in to the distortion of trade through tax havens. However, it has to be stated that this cosy European status quo with the African Asian dictatorships and dynastic rulers notwithstanding the European charity bread crumbs is at the expense of their right to dignity and right to heritage impairing their right to compensation, restitution and damages which are all denied to them through colonial and post-colonial European genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing besides their injustices defended through plausible deniability despite the DNA foot prints of their actions point to the responsible EU members or partner nations within the EU as severally discussed in this notice.
xviii. The post-colonial leaders in the newly independent former European colonies even had the benefit of the admissions of former Prime Ministers like Harold McMillian who admitted, “The atrocities our forefathers like Lord and Lady Mountbatten committed in places like India and Pakistan is unforgivable” but the succeeding British governments never acted on it to frustrate the legitimate rights of the descendants of their victims of European genocide and war crimes despite India is deemed to be the world’s largest democracy with a mandate of 1.21 billion people against the mandate of 60 million which Britain claims to have and is only equal to the mandate of the 60 million voters of Gujarat a province in India.
xix. These European educated and groomed leaders of their former colonies also had the benefit of the Judicial Precedents set by the US courts in Class Action suits where the descendants of the victims of the Holocaust were compensated to some degree by post-holocaust Germany and Swiss Banks and managed to recover the Jewish heritage including jewels, paintings, religious artefacts expropriated under the duress of holocaust and yet they mysteriously hesitated from initiating legal action against Britain whilst encouraging the burning of American flags in India as USA all of a sudden was re-branded as the imperialist for India whilst the real imperialist Britain funded the laundering of their own colonial liabilities with the help of their neo-colonial cum post- colonial indigenous emissaries in their former colonies who have no dispute about the covered hands of the British Monarch as a perpetual symbol of un-touchability and bending of the knees which Indian citizens do not have to go through so humiliatingly even before the President of the USA/EU/Russia/France/China or the Chancellor of Germany. The British Royal Protocols thus superseded the legitimacy of the Commonwealth Charter in this post-colonial phase of British cultural and moral imperialism
xx. The author pursuant to paragraphs 1 to 7 (a) (xviii) appeals the EU to disclose to the descendants of the victims of European colonial genocide and war crimes where these post-colonial British emissaries in the British Commonwealth hide their ill-gotten wealth for the purposes of establishing a separate lien over their ill-gotten assets at the expense of the poor and destitute in countries like India.
b) Post-Colonial Assistance to UN Sanctioned Regimes or Outfits by European Financial Institutions/Charities/Institutions: it is with utmost horror and disgust that the author read about the European banks assisting international terrorism funding against the will and mandate of the United Nations not only in disregarding UN sanctions against Iran as was reported by the Daily Mail and other independent dailies in the United Kingdom including on 15 August 2012.
i. The Duplicity of European AID and Charity Whilst Retaining Expropriated Heritage from their Former Colonies: It is a World Bank recognised fact that both India and China two of the most populous countries in the world between them lifted about 700 million people out of poverty over the past three or four decades due to their economic policies and not due to any European AID. The author with serious concerns notes about the secular Oxfam advertising about Christmas presents on Indian portals to support fair trade and charity whilst Asda celebrating Diwali simultaneously on the same Indian portals after Oxfam distributing books on secularism to vulnerable Indian children.
ii. The author reserves a right to institute a lien on all charity funding, collections and distribution across the Commonwealth by invoking the competent jurisdiction of the courts either in Europe or in the USA to secure a redress against this grievance ensuing from patronisation by the EU charities in India which is nothing short of grand standing if not outrageous harassment/bullying after their home nations depriving the heritage of their former colonies for the purposes of this notice.
iii. Therefore it is not beyond the realm of possibility that if the British educated, groomed and strategically placed dictators and dynastic rulers were to implement sound economic and governance reforms in the resource rich countries of Africa, Asia and South America they too could attain a semblance of prosperity, dignity without being subjected to the humiliation of western charity saving the EU billions in AID whilst providing them with a developed market for their products where their former colonies are developed consumers in a “win-win situation” for the whole of humanity and the industrious and the innovative of the world.
iv. It is pertinent in the context of European AID to qualify it as a means to evade restitution of looted heritage. The recent letter of three retired British civil servants to their Prime Minister stating that British AID is doing more harm than good in Africa and Asia probably due to the creation of AID dependency like the welfare dependency is also pertinent. The European post-colonial AID to their former colonies therefore is clearly damaging the interests of their former colonies and qualifies as a state sponsored post-colonial duress for the purposes of this notice.
v. Even more importantly an AID giver’s legitimacy is based on giving AID and charity from their own lawfully earned money and not from the proceeds of crimes against humanity as in the case of the expropriated heritage or whilst withholding the expropriated sacred, semi-sacred and secular heritage from their rightful owners who are the descendants of the victims of these crimes against humanity. It is submitted that even among the informed villagers of Africa, Asia and South America a looters’ magnanimity has no credibility after hoarding the loot.
vi. The author notes with serious concerns about European AID leaking out to insurgents as was reported by the Sunday Times of the UK a few years ago which resulted in the arming of violent anti-national and terrorist insurgent groups (“the Insurgent and Terror Groups”) in UN member nations whose only misfortune was they were left poor and developing after their indigenous industries/culture/heritage/sustainability were either expropriated or destroyed by the European colonial occupation through genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes whilst being resource rich but wallet poor. This AID leakage to the insurgent and terror groups is on top of the fund collections staged in Britain in the last few decades for the terrorist activities in Kashmir and Punjab with a conservative death toll of over 100,000 people in India and Pakistan! There are also British born jihadies fighting against the NATO in Afghanistan than Indian Muslims although India has about 140 million strong Muslim population against Britain’s 3 to 4 million.
vii. It is asserted that negligent handling of money meant for AID to arm the insurgent and terror groups in former European colonies creates a tortious liability in favour of the victims of the insurgent and terror groups due to negligent handling of European AID. It goes without saying that all European AID collected from unsuspecting European donors in the name of the poor, destitute, homeless, illiterate, jobless, blind, diseased and incarcerated belongs to the intended beneficiaries and are not to be hoarded or handled negligently or to pay for a bloated EU AID bureaucracy. In all EU Probate and Trust matters the beneficiary’s interests are respected under their domestic laws and the EU ought not to discriminate between their domestic beneficiaries and the beneficiaries of the AID donations in their former colonies.
viii. It is therefore important in this context to mention that many European charities advocate the legitimacy of human rights only in favour of the perpetrators of terrorist and insurgent atrocities whilst ignoring the human rights of the victims through selective promotion or censorship as the case may be often for ideological reasons and is a post-colonial duress inflicted on the former European colonies.
c) Indo-Pakistan and Israeli-Palestine Conflicts as a Legacy of European Colonial Divide and Rule
i. It is averred for the purposes of this notice that the Indo-Pakistan and Israeli-Palestine conflicts which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people with the accompanying damage/destruction/disruption to properties, monuments, livelihood as the case may be over the post-colonial phase of European colonisation warrants compensation and damages as the credit for Divide & Rule Machiavellianism has already been cashed in by some so called brilliant political strategists and historians in Europe.
The Tortfeasor pays is relevant in this context too besides in the context of all Divide & Rule crimes against humanity by colonial and post-colonial Europe across Africa, Asia and South America. In Attenborough’s Gandhi the lead character speaks about how the British have kept all the nationalist leaders of the Indian freedom struggle behind the bars whilst letting Jinna have a free run spewing venom amongst the Muslims to accomplish their Divide and Rule strategy which led to the partition of India with colossal human tragedy.
ii. It was very insensitive for post-colonial Europe whilst she herself was benefitting from the US AID through the Marshall Plan after the Second World War to indulge in such “clever” machinations in their former colonies while the author was not even old enough to be a beneficiary of US AID through CARE/US wheat and cooking oil supplies at his lower primary; Little Flower L.P School in Kozhikode, Kerala, India.
iii. It is an reiterated that the European Human Rights’ charities have special concerns only for the human rights of the perpetrators of violence and terror whilst it is denied to the victims of terror and violence thus establishing a new chapter of post-colonial European Divide and Rule in the dispensing of even human rights which are called universal human rights without any room for pan European or global selectivity.
iv. The descendants of European colonial genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes as well as the new victims of post-colonial European Divide & Rule have an interest in knowing about the special interest of the 40 European Nobel Prize winners as a team requesting the British educated and groomed Prime Minister of India to release Dr Binayak Sen even when a judicial process was under way and the EU sending their special observers to the Indian Supreme Court whilst they do not even allow international verification of the Indian Heritage expropriated in their custody through their government institutions or those in the private or charitable sectors. The author seeks from the EU his right to be heard in this matter even from the point of selection of international observers for the preparation of an inventory of all expropriated heritage by colonial and postcolonial EU which has not so far been disclosed to the international community under one pretext or another by the EU, their member nations, institutions, Para-state entities or the voluntary sector.
v. One of the pioneers of this selective interpretation of the human rights outside the pale of Indian Constitutional architecture was another British groomed Nobel Prize winner Dr Amartya Sen. Dr Amartya Sen is indebted to the international community and the poor in the developing world why he is so oblivious about the destruction of grain and food supplies in India which ought to have been feeding the poor besides the impact of corruption on the inequitable distribution of wealth or the trade distorting flight of capital from the developing countries especially because he was awarded a Nobel for his so called contributions to famine or poverty alleviation.
vi. Dr Binayak Sen in paragraph 7(c) (v) above was accused of sedition and assisting terrorism in India by a UN sanctioned organisation called Naxals or Maoists in India a bit like the FARC or Kurdish insurgents attacking Turkey or Real IRA in Northern Ireland or LTTE in Sri Lanka or any other such terror and insurgent outfits deemed to be opposed even by the European Union unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is relevant to state here that the EU was a negotiator via the UN both in the Indo-Pak, Israeli-Palestine and the Sri Lankan-Tamil conflicts directly or indirectly through their European partner nations such as Britain or Denmark or Norway.
vii. What is even more relevant for the purpose of the sub paragraph above is the total silence of these EU observers and 40 European Nobel Prize winners about the human rights of the victims of the Naxals or Maoists or Kashmiri militants in India even after the 9/11 terror attacks in New York, the Bali bombings thereafter or the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008 or the almost daily terror attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan or for that matter that of the victims of other terror or insurgent outfits in Africa, Asia or South America establishing a clearly identifiable ideological behaviour pattern or the DNA foot prints of their conduct whilst selectively championing only the human rights of Dr Binayak Sen. The conduct of the EU through the EU observers qualifies as an EU state sponsored conduct and therefore has huge evidential value for the purposes of this notice as no plausible deniability can apply here.
viii. The context of Paragraph 7(c) (vii) above ought to be appreciated by the EU in the context of the admitted origins of Communism from the Communist Republic of Battersea, London in Britain now that both Russia and China being UN Veto wielding powers of the Security Council have dumped it being so anti-growth, anti-people, corrupt and totalitarian where bureaucrats wield a monopoly over resources, means of production, capital, human rights without any judicial accountability.
ix. Therefore it is pertinent for the EU and the Nobel Committee to fully appreciate the negative contributions of the predecessors of these 40 Nobel winners in the matter of Dr Binayak Sen for facilitating the export of Communism to fledgling democracies and newly independent nation states in Africa, Asia and South America besides Russia and China in the context of J B Kripalani’s Gandhian biography and the admissions there in about the force feeding of Indian freedom fighters in British colonial custody with a daily staple of communist liturgy cited earlier besides the laundering of European colonial and post-colonial liabilities by installing for India an artificial imperialist called the USA which never colonised Africa, Asia or South America despite all the US flag burning rituals funded or dogmatically encouraged from Europe.
x. The author avers that had post-colonial Europe often with the help of politically groomed and placed agents from their former colonies had refrained from their dogmatic intellectual blitzkrieg through Nobel, Booker and other prizes the world could have escaped the Cold War. The Cold War seasoned in Europe via Communism impacted not only the peoples of Russia and China but the peoples of the developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America too emboldened by vandals claiming to be championing the interests of the oppressed solely by donning a Chegvhera “T” shirt/Arafat scarf or a Nobel Prize or a Booker Prize or some sort of European awardee to legitimise the laundering of the colonial and post-colonial liabilities of the EU via communism.
xi. The ripple effects of the European state sponsored export of communism or socialism after fomenting the Cold War between NATO and WARSAW pact countries created a European post-colonial aftershocks in the so called “Third World” African, Asian and South American countries too. Indira Gandhi the British educated and groomed Indian Prime Minister in 1970s amended the Constitution of India and inserted Socialism and Secularism in to the Indian Constitution without even bothering to define it in the Indian Constitution leaving the ground open for European handled or ennobled Indians to legitimise something which is not even defined under the Indian Constitution or the official gazettes of the Government of India even to this day.
xii. The author therefore implores the EU to reflect on the context of their contributory role in fomenting the Cold War and consider “saying sorry without any admission of liability” considering the fact that the humanity has been trading through the Silk Route for the past 4500 years tempered by value systems instead of the WTO, EU competition commissions or Nobel winning economists or Berlin Wall like EU opaque self-righteousness now so evident in the matter of expropriated heritage from their former colonies; the subject matter of this notice.
xiii. The author believes that there is a lot of merit in preventing diseases as well as in preventing cold wars as prevention any day is better than cure and is the reason why he invokes the good will of the EU even in to the destructive angle of this EU export of communism. Economics like all sciences must be free from prejudices including political or ideological for it to serve its purpose like any other branch of study. The EU being the largest trading block on the planet ought to appreciate that it is an accepted economic principle that trade and patronisation cannot go hand in hand for long as even ordinary customers will boycott shopkeepers who patronise them too much. The EU also ought to appreciate that professionals should not be slaves of their own prejudices exemplified by their ideologies whilst hiding behind their stated objectives to conceal their unstated motives.
xiv. Therefore the EU sponsored conduct of the EU observers in the Supreme Court of India cited in paragraph 7 (c) (vii) above with the support of their army of 40 European Nobel Prize winners advocating the interference of the Indian Prime Minister in a matter which was pending before the Indian courts only exposes their scant regard for Rule of Law, Equality Before Law, Equal Protection of the Laws, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers under the Constitution of India barring the Executive from interfering with a judicial process as well as the sanctions against perverting the course of justice which are all accepted legal norms even amongst the European Union member nations. The author’s concern is not merely on the conduct of the 40 Nobel Prize winners who have no solution for the recession in Europe but about the presence of the EU observers backed by legal advice. It is also a disgrace to the reputation of the Nobel Committee who denied Mahatma Gandhi a Nobel Prize five times over under colonial British influence.
xv. The author hopes the EU can be inspired even by Margaret Hodge a former British Minister who talked against the excesses of British cultural and moral imperialism over the rest of the UN not too long ago and it applies equally to all former European colonial powers who indulge in such clever machinations. The author has full respect for the leftist economic policy choices the EU, their institutions, peoples and charities make although he is not too enamoured by the creation of a welfare state by lumbering unborn future generations with Himalayan debts to spin doctor the welfare credentials of a few politicians and biased economists as it amounts to cruelty to the unborn who could not have tendered an informed consent. The author’s economic belief is pretty basic as he can see only good economists or bad economists and not right or left-wing just like his belief only in good doctors, scientists, writers, Nobel Prize winners, actors, singers as the purpose of economics is not to spread an ideology but to create wealth like a doctors job is to heal the poorly.
xvi. The author appeals to the European charities who hoard their European donors’ wealth after luring them to part with their monies through the emotional blackmail of floods, disasters, famines, cyclones, open drains, the plight of humans, plants, animals and children in the developing world and in the process destroying the goodwill of the former European colonies in Africa, Asia and South America “to cease and desist” and they distribute their ill-gotten donations for the benefit of their intended beneficiaries in their former colonies through a transparent global tendering process as they cannot indulge in sub-contracting without such a transparent mechanism or effect restitution of the donations to their European donors in a time bound manner instead of hoarding it like their EU governments who hoard the colonial heritage the subject matter of this notice. However the European charities like Oxfam who distribute books on secularism to vulnerable Indian children ought to appreciate that secularism and socialism were inserted in to the Indian Constitution by the British educated and groomed Indira Gandhi who conveniently left these concepts undefined for fomenting political mischief in the days of the Cold War as cited earlier.
xvii. It is an accepted fact in all rule of law countries and constitutional democracies that constitutional principles are solely subjected to the interpretation of the competent judiciary and not some European inspired left wing academics/Nobel /Booker Prize winners or European or Indian celebrities or EU Observers who have the cheek to impose themselves as observers in the Supreme Court of the world’s largest democracy whilst they will not dare impose their observer status in this fashion in the Supreme Court of the United States of America other than as mere visitors. The EU observers are not competent authorities to ensure justice or rule of law in the former colonies of Africa or Asia or South America after denying justice to the millions if not over a billion of victims and descendants of their genocide in these former colonies. The presence of the EU observers was a duress on the functioning of the Supreme Court of India as well as the High Court of Chhattisgarh where the Dr Sen’s matter was heard. Dr Sen whilst being convicted remains a member of the British groomed Indian Prime Minister’s cabinet controlled by the sixth most powerful person on the planet another British groomed personality.
xviii. It is relevant in context to enquire why Oxfam did not want to distribute books on socialism in India especially when they are acting as the AID distributor for the fourteen million Euro AID in Assam as an EU partner organisation in India recently which was ravaged by illegal incursions from Bangladesh and caused the homelessness of half a million Indian citizens. Oxfam the British charity so busy distributing books on secularism to Indian children ought to have been mindful about the untenable position of the British Head of State whose coronation is presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury and she being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England who has placed the priceless diamonds in her so called Royal Collections or purse to evade the operation her duty to the 2.3 billion peoples of the Commonwealth besides to flummox the operation of the British criminal laws of receiving and handling of stolen heritage and goods.
d) Additional Illustrations of Post-Colonial European Political Grooming and Placements in the Indian Subcontinent and Indo-Pakistan Settings– The author implores the competent departments of the EU and their personnel to watch the highly acclaimed movie by Richard Attenborough called Gandhi and then watch Ben-Hur and then get themselves sensitised about their insensitivity about the subject matter of this notice and the criticisms herein so that their minds and vision also see reason. The EU ought to appreciate that the victims and descendants of their war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing in Africa, Asia and South America unlike the victims and descendants of the holocaust have so far not got any closure judicial, compensatory or restitution or even basic counselling as there were never a Nuremburg Trial unlike for the Holocaust to serve any justice to the victims for whom this notice is proffered. Young children in Indian schools as they reflect on the atrocities of the colonial British be they in the Churchill made Bengal Famine with 3 million casualties or the decimation of 1 million farmers of Champaran or the 3000 peaceful protestors gunned down in cold blood at Jalianwallabag and the author too was not spared from undergoing that trauma and vicarious suffering which is on-going even as he prepare this legal notice to the EU with all its inherent shortcomings that the EU may choose to allege against him to deflect their liabilities.
i. The author also appeals to all independent and unbiased journalists, historians, diplomats to appreciate how they would have felt if they were at the receiving end of both the colonial and post-colonial atrocities cited in this notice. It is high time the British government acknowledged their liability in causing the Divide and Rule in India besides for causing the death of over 5 million Indian and Pakistani citizens as well as causing the biggest exodus in human history when 17 million people from the Indian Subcontinent were uprooted from their homes and had to live as refugees or un-equals in both these countries due to this exodus alone be they Sindhies in India or the Muhajirs in Pakistan.
ii. The Divide and Rule in the North American continent involving the United States of America and Canada whose head of state is the British Monarch did not involve this much human toll and neither did the Holocaust of six million Jews in Europe although the author feels like an American or a Jew as he reads about those enormous human tragedies perpetrated by European colonisers in those countries too. The British role in causing the civil war in the United States of America is not the subject matter of this notice as the author is not a citizen of the United States of America although war crimes and genocide and their prosecutions under civil and criminal laws ought not to be selectively subjected to the operation of the Limitation Acts in Europe or elsewhere so that humanity can achieve a closure in all these genocides and war crimes without any discrimination or selectivity.
iii. The descendants of the European colonial victims such as the author did not see any such orchestrated campaigns by the 40 Nobel Prize winners or the EU observers as in the matter of Dr Sen a protector solely for the UN banned Naxals in the matter of the human rights protection or rehabilitation of the Romani Gypsies who trace their origins to the state of Rajasthan in India. This enthusiasm Oxfam and their EU charity team players in concert with the EU show for the illegal economic migrants from Bangladesh to India has no credibility whilst Europe practises zero tolerance towards the poor economic migrants whilst laying a red carpet for the tax evaders, dynasties and dictatorships from their former colonies who sustain the EU and Swiss tax havens in negation of free and fair trade as in the WTO and is highly discriminatory. Bangladesh for the purposes of this notice as well as for the operation of the UN is a distinct and separate member of the UN differentiable from the Republic of India. The EU ipso facto is estopped from denying the fact that their charities are not regulated by the Charity laws operational in the EU and have a case to answer before the international community in the totality of the circumstances and in the context of their conduct so far illustrated in this notice whether patronising after looting and hoarding and whether acting alone or in concert with the EU regulated charities or Nobel Winners under the EU jurisdiction.
iv. For the purposes of paragraph 7 of this notice whilst the author acknowledging the European championing of their prerogative for socialism and secularism the EU has to bear in mind that it has a series of concomitant economic consequences for the uncompensated descendants of the victims of European colonial and post-colonial genocide and war crimes. A case in point is the conduct of the British educated and groomed Jawaharlal Nehru who ceded even a veto wielding UN Security council membership offered to India to Taiwan which later went to China, besides not allowing Indian Air Force to defend Chinese aggression on India along with his fellow British educated V.K Krishna Menon so that his handlers in Britain would not feel slighted in the UN Security Council or in the Commonwealth. The author appeals the EU to consider why the world’s largest democracy is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council when the UN claims to be the largest democratic organisation whilst those guilty of colonial genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing besides being guilty of not facilitating the restitution of expropriated heritage from their former colonies have such a disproportionate say in the UN Security Council calling for the UN Security Council reforms which the EU ought to champion in context.
v. The author firmly believes that there are clear cut trails left by the British educated, groomed and politically placed Nehru’s role in fomenting post-colonial British duress over India even on the You Tube for the EU to look at if their legal departments were to disown liability for political grooming and placements in their former colonies to the detriment of the victims and descendants of their colonial crimes against humanity to frustrate their liabilities.
vi. This British groomed Nehru’s sexual relationship with the personalities cited by Harold MacMillan above is not the moot issue for the purposes of this notice but his denial of investment in India by a ready and willing investors’ group from the USA including the bosses of Caterpillar, GE and AT & T is.
vii. These US companies were ready to invest $100 billion in post-colonial India according to a media supplement issued by the US embassy in India around 1991 and published in the Times of India. It is in this context the EU ought to appreciate the presence of European observers exclusively in the meetings of the Communist parties of India alone who advocated the re-branding of the USA as the imperialist for Indians to watch out for instead of the real imperialists from Europe a view so in tune with the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who is very much a part of the British state as his appointment is ratified by the British Cabinet and his appointment is made by the British Monarch whose authorities are derived from the British Parliament with 30 Church Commissioners and a wholly un-elected chamber called the House of Lords which makes even the Lord in Our Lord’s Prayer in the Bible look a bit ridiculous.
viii. It ought to be appreciated by the EU that the Indian members of parliament do not visit Britain to influence cabinet formation like Britain using Lord Desai a member of their House of Lords and a professor of London School of Economics where Khalid Sheik Mohammed the architect of 9/11 was groomed right in front of his tutelage prior to him boarding the flight to New Delhi in 2009 to influence the democratic process and cabinet formation in India.
ix. It ought to be appreciated by the European sponsors and groomers of post-colonial leadership in their former colonies that even in 2012 $100 billion of investment could have built so many roads, railway lines, factories, schools, hospitals besides erecting water pumps or buying self-sufficiency through rearing goats, cows or engaging in farming the EU charities like the Oxfam, Green Peace, Sea Shepherds, the Amnesty International bleat about so much without any shame after their country is liable for genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and the hoarding of the heritage rightfully belonging to the poor in their former colonies. The enormity of this $100 billion investment voluntarily committed by the hundred American CEO investors to Nehru could be appreciated by the EU only once they appreciate that just a year or so ago countries like India, China, Japan between themselves could only come up with $100 billion investment in the IMF and the World Bank to stave off a currency meltdown of the EU with a much deficient capital investment in relative terms due to the inflation running unabated on this $100 billion US investment frustrated by the British educated and groomed Nehru imposed on a fragile and newly independent India since 1947 after the blackmailing by Lady and Lord Mountbatten that Harold McMillan talked about in his diaries as cited earlier.
x. The fact that the British investments in anti-national politicians in their former colonies in Africa and Asia have gone so disastrously wrong by 2012 is a an economic case study in its own right with them covering after Arab, Chinese, Indian, Brazilian investments in addition to the US and Japanese investments which should have long ago alerted EU policy makers, diplomats, economists.
xi. It is therefore clear for the purposes of this notice and on the strength of paragraph 7 (a) to (d) (x) that Nehru was acting as an ideological emissary and ambassador for post-colonial Britain instead of serving the best interests of his electorate who were kept ill-informed to frustrate their informed consent in all the expropriation of their heritage through colonial and post-colonial European machinations. The author believes that pimping and soliciting are still criminal offences in much of Europe and ought to apply for political pimping and grooming in the former colonies.
xii. The author reiterates that there is a clear cut and distinct pattern of post-colonial European misconduct in a geo-political and UN setting notwithstanding any contrary views as the DNA of this pattern of behaviour is so repetitive and frequent establishing a verifiable foot print of conduct for the purposes of this notice as if they were in a snowed down terrain.
xiii. The author appeals to the EU not to hide behind any plausible deniability to legitimise this colonial and post-colonial crimes against humanity as a whole to evade liabilities they created without any duress in their colonies but solely for greed and no perceptible humanitarian objective as could be attributed to the recent invasions in Iraq or Afghanistan or the drone attacks in terrorist strongholds of Pakistan where the EU via NATO is a participant of some degree.
xiv. The author appreciates the conduct of the EU governments and their charities in their passionate espousal of the women’s rights which ought to be extended to the victims and survivors of their colonial genocide and war crimes so that they also have a restitution of their dignity especially when India is credited with the Kama Sutra, temple dancers and theories of wages for even slaves, women, prostitutes even as early as from 3rd century BC centuries before these fake human rights zealots from Europe were ever born.
xv. It ought to be appreciated by the EU that only about four years ago that the British state sponsored media mouth piece the BBC funded under the duress of prosecution by the TV license fee payers of Britain sought to promote Nehru their agent as far nobler than Gandhi just like the Communists in India do. The 140 pound annual TV licence fee extorted per TV every year from the TV viewers and owners of Britain clearly is in restraint of freedom of speech and expression, dissemination of information, broadcasting rights, TV sales whilst distorting trade in all these industries to sustain a government department controlled as opposed to regulated media mouth piece where the author believes the EU Competition Commission has certain jurisdiction.
xvi. The author submits that it is perceptible to the victims and descendants of the European colonial and post-colonial atrocities including genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes that there are no such US educated dynastic rulers or dictatorships around the world like those educated and groomed in Europe notwithstanding the manifold failures of the USA which is not the subject matter of this notice as it is solely on the liabilities and responsibilities of the EU and their partners like the United Kingdom which has the audacity to re-brand herself “great” as in their name “Great Britain” whilst not even been decent enough to admit their atrocious colonial past, recompense the victims and descendants of their genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing and while hoarding the heritage from their former colonies besides laundered capital through their tax havens all when they lecture, patronise and sermonise other nations and peoples about morality, decency, charity and what not?
xvii. The author believes that he would not be conducting himself inappropriately if he were to appeal to all officers of the EU both men and women to appreciate that all colonial genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes simply because they happened in faraway Africa, Asia and South America and in the former colonies of the EU member nations instead of under Hitler in Germany would not disenfranchise their right to deserve a just, fair and equitable closure and right to legitimate expectations of the same especially when even the International Court of Justice do not selectively apply the Limitation Act to bar a legal action against crimes against humanity as was the case in the trial of those accused of perpetrating genocide/ethnic cleansing from Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Africa unless the EU wants to create a geographical limitation in war crimes for Western Europe minus Germany.
xviii. The author invokes Mahatma Gandhi notwithstanding his shortcomings and states that Mahatma Gandhi’s “Quit India Movement” decades after the “First War of Indian Independence” which the British historians derogatively call “Sepoy Mutiny” and taught in India as such by the British ennobled Indian historians under their master’s voice was an order to the European colonial powers on the strength of his humanism and morality which no weapons can ever destroy. There is an opportunity for the European Union minus Germany to emulate at least Germany’s conduct in compensating the victims of the holocaust to a degree although no amount of compensation could compensate fully the victims or the descendants of genocide, ethnic cleansing or war crimes as was perpetrated by colonial Europe or post- colonial Europe.
xix. It is up to the EU to draw the attention of the British government about the contradictions in the leadership of the French Commonwealth led by an elected President and the British Commonwealth headed by an un-elected, hereditary, religious head whilst according supremacy to the British Royal Protocols when the stated objective is the promotion of the values under the Commonwealth Charter. The author whilst lauding the engineering marvel of the Anglo-French Channel Tunnel rail is very apprehensive of a new arms race that could be created by the merger of the British controlled BAE systems and the French influenced EADS and leaves this matter of defence mergers for the attention of all anti-war peacenik charities in Europe who are vociferous in their condemnation of all arms build ups around the world except in their own backyard seriously exposing their real motives whilst their state sponsors’ liabilities for un-liquidated damages for crimes against humanity, colonial and post-colonial expropriation of other nations’ heritage under Tort is still outstanding in the context of this notice.
xx. The author states that it was wholly in poor taste for the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to have invited the French President Sarkozy to the British Commonwealth meeting in the Caribbean even when the United States of America and Israel are not members of the British Commonwealth and he appeals to Britain to invite the United States of America as a special invitee to the British Commonwealth meetings in the future especially when the USA is a partner organisation in other UN organisations like ASEAN, APEC, IOR, SAARC to name a few considering the atrocious legacy of the British Commonwealth founded in 1935 which is twelve years earlier than Indian independence with the sole objective of inflicting the post-colonial British duress over India notwithstanding any plausible deniability the British state might advance to wriggle out of their post-colonial liabilities or culpabilities in this matter.
xxi. The author does not believe that the EU cannot discuss these issues with their partner the United Kingdom as the British Commonwealth comprises of 21% of the earth’s habitable geographical area and 33% of the population of our planet and once the French Commonwealth is also added in to the equation it would theoretically encompass 30% of the geographical area of planet earth and 45% of the world’s population if not more whose rights against European colonial genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes are stifled through the post-colonial duress under discussion this paragraph 7 (a) to (d) (xxi) of this notice.
xxii. The author also believes that when the EU takes charge of the resolution of their colonial legacy on a “win- win” basis after duly accommodating the rights of the victims of the European colonial genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Africa, Asia and South America in the context of their post-colonial misconduct it could only generate unprecedented goodwill across the world benefitting their companies and institutions as goodwill is an invaluable property like intellectual properties and copy rights which unfortunately was destroyed by the over enthusiastic European charities by denigrating the former colonies by placing them under their servitude of donations and AID. The EU ought to appreciate in this context that if the former European Colonies were a European Company they would have had the means to engage powerful lawyers to put the entities who destroy their goodwill, global standing, credit rating through such media denigrations for causing massive unemployment through lost tourism revenues. The author is reminded of the patent suit between Kodak and Polaroid in a legal context to emphasise the value of intellectual property rights such as goodwill, copyrights, patents and the like.
xxiii. The author from the premises of paragraphs 1 to 7(d) (xxii) above invokes all the humanism, decency, impartiality, legal acumen of the legal departments of the EU besides their legislative and executive departments and that of their member nations and partners and proffer the following links in support of this notice as named Exhibits as below;
- 8. Exhibits in Support of Paragraphs 1 to 7(d) (xxv) Above
a) The following exhibits are collectively adduced for the purposes of this notice and if the EU were to insist that they have to be re-adduced to pin point their relevancy exactly to a particular paragraph or sentence the author undertakes to do that after due notice. Until then the author seeks to stick with this format of the legal notice as below;
i. Exhibit 1- soft copy link on G20 concerns about European Tax Havens causing brain drain through capital drain.
ii. Exhibit 2- Post Colonial Reports of Global Financial Integrity (GFI) Quantification of Illegal Capital Flight from Former EU Colonies which was not Disclosed by the EU Revealing their Conflict of Interests
iii. Exhibit 3- In Support of Capital Drain from former EU Colonies to Swiss Banks and Tax Havens where the EU silence of this Swiss UN member’s activities is a Case of Collusion in the Context of the Reach of the EU activities from pole to the pole of the planet besides in Assam.
iv. Exhibit4- The Premises of this Notice Supported by the Collective Research of the Global Financial Integrity and Transparency International Which elsewhere the EU Charities Like Oxfam/Amnesty International/Green Peace Selectively Rely on Except for the Purposes of the Looted Heritage
v. Exhibit 5- Illustrating the High Taxed Socialistic Economies in the Former EU Colonies Assisted by Political Grooming Generating Tax Evasion to Cause the Flight of Capital to EU Tax Havens
vi. Exhibit6- Demonstrating the Evasive Stand of the Swiss Bankers’ Association to Evade their Tortious Liabilities in Facilitating the Pre and Post-Colonial Flight of Capital or Capital Drain from the Former EU Colonies
b) It is on the strength of paragraphs 1 to 8 (a) (vi) above that the author submits an illustration of the extent of Indian Heritage expropriated under the duress of European Colonial and Post-Colonial genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes which are all proceeds of crimes against humanity as cited earlier and reiterated below;
- 9. The Definitions of Expropriated Indian Heritage, Colonial Duress, Classifications of Heritage Expropriated, Loss of Proprietorial Rights under Domestic and International Laws.
a) The author passed on to his lawyers Wills & Wills an Indian law firm a detailed set of instructions (“the Instructions”) of about the locus standi for commencing legal proceedings not only in India but also in the United Kingdom and internationally. It was intimated to Wills & Wills the following issues inter alia as below;
i. Indian Heritage could be classified as sacred, semi-sacred and secular. There are domestic as well as international legal provisions which are relevant to the dispossession of the rightful owners of the Indian Heritage due to the duress of genocide and war crimes applied by the former European colonial powers. India and Indian Heritage are definable also with the assistance of the UN and WTO their sister organisations besides the supremacy of the Indian Constitution for the purposes of this notice. The fact that Republic of India still pays a pension allowance to the freedom fighters and their widows and descendants is also relevant for the purposes of this notice.
ii. The colonial contracts, consents, deeds, agreements, treaties secured by the European Colonial Masters were the result of the duress of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes besides occupation and were void in relation to the descendants of the victims of the genocide and war crimes and the Limitation Act could not be introduced to frustrate proceeds of crimes against humanity which the European Colonial Masters perpetrated in their former colonies as no such limitations apply in criminal matters or international criminal matters under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (“the ICC”).
iii. That the European Colonial Masters have been withholding information and a transparent examination and verification of the inventory appertaining to the Indian heritage as well as those from their former colonies to frustrate the legitimate rights of the descendants of their colonial genocide and war crimes over the said heritage in blatant violation of the right to know of the victims and the descendants of their atrocities.
iv. It was also instructed before Wills & Wills; the author’s Indian lawyers that the details of the sacred, semi-sacred and secular, cultural, economic, commercial angles of the Indian Heritage expropriated encapsulated the basic human and fundamental rights’ angles such as right to freedom of expression, right to the protection of copyrights and other Intellectual property rights, right to livelihood, right to derive further rights from heritage tourism, right to political independence, right against exploitation through expropriation, right to restitution of looted heritage, right to education and research, right to further cultural promotion along with a right to establish a lien against all relevant colonial European companies under international laws, the precedents set by the US courts in class action suits brought about by the descendants of the victims of the Holocaust, UNESCO guidelines to the former colonies, rights amenable to the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against governments and companies who profited or assisted in such expropriation and are still profiting in restraint of free trade. All these rights were qualified as birth rights of the victims and descendants of European colonialism.
v. The instructions were illustrative despite it being frustrated from being authoritative due to the non-disclosure of the inventory of the looted heritage which to this day remains in the sole custody of the European Colonial Masters who have not allowed any international agencies to verify their claims or denials about the possession of the colonial heritage and that his illustrations to Wills & Wills were not exhaustive as he reserved and still reserves every right to modify the premise in case there is a dispute.
vi. The instructions to Wills & Wills also touched upon the jurisdiction of the UNESCO, WTO, ICC and the competent courts in the United States of America under the jurisdiction of their Supreme Court where precedents (“the US Judicial Precedents” were set against the exploitation of slave labour under Hitler’s Germany and their companies who exploited such slave labour.
vii. The instructions also relied on the US Judicial Precedents where the culpability and liability of the indirect beneficiaries of the German Holocaust such as Swiss Banks who profited by melting the gold fillings of the Holocaust victims as successor organisations or entities.
viii. The instructions meanwhile alluded to a fervent hope where the victims of genocide and war crimes were not discriminated against be they Holocaust Victims in Europe or victims of genocide and war crimes in Africa, Asia or South America on discriminatory grounds such as race, geography, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or atheism or any such extraneous grounds although the emphasis was on the recovery of the Indian Heritage as the author believes that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere as Martin Luther King advocated.
ix. The author on the strength of paragraphs 1 to 9 (a) (viii) therefore adduces the following internet links as Exhibits 7 and 8. The author undertakes to provide hard copies of these Exhibits if the European Union insists on such a course of action as early as he can.
Exhibit 7- Demonstrating the Scale of the Expropriated Indian Heritage under the Illegal Custody of the Former European Colonial Powers of Africa, Asia and South America Whilst the Victims and Descendants of their Crimes Against Humanity Are Deprived of Restitution and Recompense
Exhibit 8 – Contrasting the Discriminatory Standards in the Restitution and Recompense to the Victims of European Genocide Inside Europe as in Hitler’s Germany and the European Genocide, War Crimes and Ethnic Cleansing in Africa, Asia and South America
- 10. Synopsis of the Legal Action So far Taken Out by the Author Before Invoking the Jurisdiction of the EU – The author is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the EU for the purposes of this notice without invoking the jurisdiction of any other entity including the jurisdiction of the entities under the Constitution of India but is outlined only for the purposes of information only as below;
a) On or Around 18 January 2008– Served a notice on the Government of India including the President, Prime Minister, Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Archaeology whether they had taken any steps to recover the looted Indian Heritage including the Kohinoor Diamond from the European Colonial Powers as their failure would infringe right to heritage, restitution, right to lien, right to class action amongst other things enjoyed by the citizenry in India. The Government of India did not provide a satisfactory explanation to the author despite his notices were prosecuted under the Right to Information Act which was similar in tenor to the British Queen’s and her Government’s as below.
b) On or Around 18 March 2008– A legal notice was issued to the British Queen along with notices to the British Prime Minister enquiring about the delay and reasons for not handing over the Kohinoor Diamond amongst other Indian Heritage the subject matter of this notice.
c) On or Around 9 April 2008- A reply from the President of India who herself was embroiled in abusing her office for her and her family’s foreign jaunts confirming the political grooming and placements in the former European colonies the author alluded to in the early paragraphs. The reply was just like the reply of the British Queen by claiming to have passed the author’s notice to the department for culture and archaeology in India who later claimed that they did not take any action to recover the looted Indian Heritage from the British government.
d) On or Around 9 April 2008- A reply from the Director of the British Natural History Museum confirming that the Kohinoor Diamond is held at the Tower of London although the date of the reply is the same as the letter of the impugned President of India as in paragraph 10 (c ) above.
e) On or Around 15 April 2008- A letter from the British Prime Minister’s office stating that the author’s notice through Wills & Wills had been forwarded to their Department of Culture, Media and Sport. It is pertinent to state here that there are no Congressional Oversight in the appointment of British Ministers as under the US Constitution where the British PM could appoint anyone he likes as his minister in the name of the British Queen a bit like Vatican’s “In God’s Name” David Yallop alluded to his book under the same name.
f) On or Around 23 May 2008- A letter from the British Department of Culture confirming that the Kohinoor Diamond- which qualifies as proceeds of crimes against humanity and expropriated under colonial duress- was part of the Royal Collection and that they could not intervene in the matter which raises the question why then the British Prime Minister’s office delegated the matter to the Department of Media, Sport and Culture on or around 15 April 2008 as cited in paragraph (e) immediately above. In any case the British Monarch is bound to act solely on the advice of the British Cabinet and not otherwise.
g) On or Around 30 June 2008- Wills & Wills issues a legal notice on behalf of the author requesting the authorities at the Tower of London not to tamper with or alienate in anyway the Kohinoor Diamond as it was property expropriated under the duress of the crimes against humanity through British colonialism reiterating the lien the people of India enjoyed over it through the government of India which is barred from ceding Indian heritage to any foreign country without the informed consent of the people of India considering the enormity of the post-colonial duress of Britain grooming post-colonial dictatorship and dynastic rulers in their former colonies until India becomes a British colony once again.
h) On or Around 1 July 2008- The British Queen’s private secretary in their letter to Wills & Wills admitting the matter was passed to the British Department of Media, Culture and Sport who had already ceded jurisdiction to the British Queen in this matter as per their letter of 23 May 2008 cited in paragraph (f) above exposing the constitutional hide and seek played against the victims and descendants of Britain’s crimes against humanity in their former colony India whilst the British Queen is also the Head of the Commonwealth and therefore this hide and seek before the citizens of the Commonwealth makes her position untenable especially when she is barred from volunteering false testimony in contravention of the Ten Commandments as she is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
i) On or Around 9 July 2008- In their letter to Wills & Wills The Tower of London disowned actual custody over the Kohinoor Diamond by reiterating that they were guarding the Historic Palaces for the Monarch and other than that they had no powers to handover the palace properties such as the Kohinoor Diamond which again raises serious questions about the motive of the Queen in delegating the matter to her Department of Culture whilst she herself has absolute authority over the Crown Jewels which is presumably under her lock and key.
j) On or Around 2 August 2008- Wills & Wills serves a notice on the Queen drawing her attention to the contradictions involved in all their letters which was causing undue delays in the restitution of the expropriated heritage from colonial India under duress and not under the course of any humanitarian intervention in India citing the issues already raised in paragraphs 10 (e), (f) and (h) above further making the issue of all expropriated heritage from the former European colonies in Africa, Asia and South America a fit case for EU intervention especially when Britain is a veto wielding member of the EU in many EU affairs.
k) On or Around 7 August 2008- The British Department for culture, media and sports again disowns jurisdiction over the handover of the Kohinoor Diamond in yet another new twist to the contradictions already stated in paragraph 10 (j) above and the author felt pained as he recalled the Biblical verse in the Gospel according to Luke, “And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and Peter recalled the utterance of the Lord when he said to him: “Before a cock crows today you will disown me three times” which is relevant to the British Queen as she is wielding a position no less than St. Peter or the Pope in the context of the Anglican Church on the strength of the Kings James’ version of the Bible duly copyrighted and recognised in the whole of the English speaking world where she is the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church a privilege she does not accord to the Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh scriptures originating from India as illustrated in this notice.
l) Between August 2008 and Up until To date- The author’s actions in his personal capacity as well as through his lawyers Wills & Wills are too rarefied for the purposes of denoting exact dating patterns and are summarised as below;
i. The author instructs Wills & Wills to issue a writ against the Government of India, the ministries of foreign affairs, archaeology, human resources, foreign trade and the British High Commission in India to prod them to initiate steps to recover the Indian Heritage expropriated under the duress of the British colonial occupation of India as they are proceeds of crimes against humanity but his writ was dismissed on the grounds that the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi and their Chief Justice, Justices Mr Sharma and Mr Muralidhar could not issue a notice against the British High Commission and under no other basis exposing the post-colonial duress suffered by the Indian judiciary.
ii. The EU for the purposes of paragraph 10 (l) (i) above ought to appreciate the fact that the Indian Judiciary is still administering, legitimising and validating the draconian British colonial laws left behind by India’s colonial masters the British which was not amended or repealed even after 65 years’ of Indian independence whilst India claims to be the world’s largest democracy and an independent nation. No nation can claim to be independent if they perpetually legitimise the laws of their colonial tormentors be it in Afghanistan or Iraq where the NATO and the EU were involved as the post-British post-Taliban, post-Saddam, post-Mubarak, post-Gadhafi- USA, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libyan judiciaries as the case may be do not administer their tormentors’ draconian laws anymore in 2012 is pari materia for the EU to appreciate the extent of the post-colonial duress even the so called independent institutions in India such as the Indian judiciary suffer from. In short no nation can be colonised without colonial laws enforced by a tyrannical executive or administered by an insensitive colonial judiciary. The author is convinced that the highly compromised Indian judiciary is incapable of even protecting the Indian citizens from the massive corruption over there as every incidence of corruption is a breach of one or more laws, rules, norms and best practices besides an infringement of the human rights as well as fundamental rights under the Constitution of India be they to do with right to equality before law, right to equal protection of the laws, rights against discrimination, bullying, harassment and extortion which are all hall marks of the corruption in India including corruption in the Indian judiciary.
iii. The author having had sufficient reasons to infer that there was indeed abject post-colonial duress even in her so called independent institutions like the judiciary and the legislatures instructed Wills & Wills to move an application under the Right to Information Act (“the RTI”) to locate the Indian judges who sent their family, friends or siblings to Britain or to the territories of their former colonial masters like Motilal Nehru sent his son Jawaharlal or his grand-daughter Indira or great grandson Rajeev or great-great grandson Rahul to Britain to assist their grooming in Britain on a “win-win” basis like Hosni Mubarak’s $80 billion assets stashed away in Britain, Swiss and other EU tax havens only to the benefit of the dynasty and Britain and not the real victims or descendants of the colonial rule whose heritage is now being held to ransom by the European colonial powers to the detriment of the peoples of Africa, Asia and South America.
iv. The author’s RTI applications about the Indian judges who sent their children or family to the UK for education was summarily defeated by the Indian authorities who did not disclose the details of the judges as if they wanted to protect this cosy arrangement between the Indian judiciary and the post-colonial Britain where the Indians are still under the post-colonial tyranny of the colonial laws left behind by Britain and administered in English which is not the language of the majority of Indians whilst the Indian courts do not afford translation services like the European courts as the right to plead and argue cases in the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India is still in an alien language boosting revenues only for the law departments and legal publishers in Britain whose judgements are still routinely relied on by the so called independent Indian judges without any self- respect or dignity as they speak “bad English” as their official language.
v. It is unthinkable for the author if the US/British/EU courts were to have Latin, Greek or English let alone Sanskrit or Hindi as their official court languages to befool the citizenry. The departure of the Indian students from British universities who pay three times the tuition fees compared to the native British students in Britain could very well make their leading universities go bankrupt unlike the fifth century AD Nalanda University in India which funded education for over 5000 foreign students with 9 million manuscripts until the Turkish invader Bhaktiar Khalji looted and destroyed Nalanda in 1199 when Magna Carta was only just being under its birth pangs in Britain. The author leaves the relevant competition authorities under the EU to examine whether depriving native British students education whilst admitting disproportionate number of foreign students to avail 300% fee income as practised by the British universities breach free trade norms or rules meant for educational providers under the EU
vi. The actual and on-going British expropriation of Indian Heritage for the purposes of this notice is akin to the denigration, desecration and destruction of the Indian heritage in those 9 million manuscripts at Nalanda by the Turkish invader Bhaktiar Khalji cited earlier. The EU ought to appreciate how many of their libraries have even 9 million books at one site to fully empathise with the barbarity involved. The EU may not be able to fully appreciate the size and scale of sacred Indian scriptures unless it appreciates that the Mahabharat; one of the Hindu scriptures is about eight times the size of Illiad and Odyssey combined.
vii. The author as a citizen of India was alarmed when Kuldip Nayyar a former High Commissioner of India to Britain reported a few years ago on Indian television channel NDTV that upon his visit to the British Natural History Museum he found undocumented Indian heritage items left gathering dust away from public eye on the inner corridors of the British Natural History Museum or their store rooms many of which very well could have been Indian Heritage associated with the inviolable religious rights cited at paragraph 4(a) to (g) above which the EU ought to take note of.
viii. The author sees no other reason other than European closet racism in holding on to Indian and colonial heritage to the detriment of its rightful owners and in the process making the EU an international heritage manipulator, profiteer and a state sponsored facilitator of intellectual piracy inherent in the colonial heritage which is the subject matter of this notice.
ix. The British enforced English education and subtly encouraged during the post-colonial days in India which is both a colonial and post-colonial duress in the context of the economic growth in Japan, Germany, China or Brazil which just a few months ago overtook Britain as the sixth biggest economy in GDP terms. It is high time the EU intellectuals, policy makers and academics took notice that the British enforced or induced English education has caused a faster brain drain from India than otherwise possible besides causing the destruction of native Indian languages causing subterranean job losses across the Indian villages.
x. It is a fact that several British historians and spin doctors even try to create a trade-off between their donation of English language to India besides a few rusty bridges and some “idols” in India to brush over their crimes against humanity in the Indian subcontinent to accomplish an image makeover or rebranding exercise. The author do not deny the fact that English education might have contributed to some jobs for cyber and judicial coolies of India to borrow the British derogatory expression for the ordinary working class in India.
xi. However, it is submitted before the EU that the ground reality of this British largesse of English education to India is just like the finite British AID to India and the infinite value of the Indian Heritage where an equitable, fair and just trade-off is impossible even under the English Common Law principles or under the Napoleanic Code.
xii. The reality on the ground as regards the so called British largesse of English education to India is that despite high education amongst the English educated in India they are yet to have a decent company with a decent intellectual property right other than through take-overs unlike the Korean speaking South Korea’s Samsung, Japanese speaking Japan’s Toyota, German speaking Germany’s BMW, French speaking France’s EADS, English speaking Britain’s BAE, Dutch speaking Netherland’s Philips, Spanish speaking Spain’s Iberdola, Finnish speaking Finland’s Nokia, Danish speaking Denmark’s Maersk, Hebrew speaking Israel’s Teva let alone USA’s Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter or their world beating engineering giants which proves the case that even the midwifery of Britain in promoting the English language education in India through her Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the department for international AID did not lift the Indian vernacular speaking Indians out of poverty and is a fit and proper ground for establishing a lien even on that front for misleading the peoples of their former colonies. The author appeals to the EU not to legitimise Britain’s depriving of Indian heritage to the people of India by claiming that they donated the English language and their rusty red railway lines as if it were a charity in lieu of their expropriation of the priceless Indian Heritage.
xiii. As the author reflects on Emerson’s sagely words about the Bhagavad Gita, “It was as if an empire spake to us, nothing small or unworthy but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age & climate hand pondered & thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us” he understands that the European economic crisis or the Euro meltdown is not because the EU is expending money on hoarding the heritage rightfully belonging to the victims and descendants of their colonial genocide in Africa, Asia and South America by being the self-appointed custodians of these heritage which belongs to someone else in the UN but despite that. Even the bragging rights associated with the creation of the welfare state in Europe is an adequate ground to deprive the rightful owners of the heritage from having and enjoying their own heritage whis is under the lock and key of the European colonial powers without any international scrutiny or verification.
xiv. The author is not intimidated by the European welfare state which has its funding assured through the contributions of a future generation of unborn European children and is a crime against the economic rights of the unborn like the dodgy economic theories of the Nobel Prize winners like Amartya Sen is a crime against the living who sponge on poverty economics like the British charities which create poverty barons as was recently reported in the British media. The victims and descendants of the British and European colonial genocide would never be assuaged by this kind of flimsy explanations to frustrate their myriad rights over their own heritage which has to be granted by the EU for the purposes of this notice.
xv. The British platitudes in depriving 1.21 billion of their rightful heritage is ruinous to the victims and descendants of their genocide , war crimes and ethnic cleansing and is a glowing example of “lose-lose” economic, political, sociological philosophy besides on legal grounds as this notice seeks to articulate. Even almost two millinia before copy-cat Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” Chanakya in India had Artha Shashtra and both Hinduism and Judaism through their scriptures had division of labour through a spiritual class system as illustrated by the 12 tribes of Israel in Deutronomy and the Chaturvarnya under Hinduism the faintest reflections of these theories are there in Plato’s “the Republic” which advocates the citizenry have to be segregated on the basis of their skills and aptitude to make the republic viable. In the Hindu scriptures it was “Janmana Jayede Shudra and Karmana Jayede Brahmnya” which roughly translated in English is, “By birth everyone is un-initiated, impure, crass, uncivilised but through deeds or karma one can be one with God the ultimate template of perfection”
xvi. The author in the context of paragraphs 1 to 10 (a) (l) (xvi) above with the backing of his extensive research in the matter of the expropriated heritage rang the British Prime Minister’s office between 2008 August and up until recently imploring him to advise the British Queen to abdicate her office on the strength of his legal notices issued by Wills & Wills on his behalf due to the operation of the UNESCO guidelines/the British penal provisions against receiving and handling of stolen goods or goods likely to have been stolen or looted, the operation of the Ten Commandments applicable to the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, the Iraq Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the right to livelihood, freedom of profession and trade under the WTO relevant to the expropriated Indian heritage.
xvii. The author told the British Prime Minister’s office at 10 Downing Street that the British Prime Minister ought to advise the British Queen to resign from all her official duties as the British Queen acts solely on the advice of the British Cabinet as she had already forfeited her right either to be a Monarch or the Head of the Commonwealth or the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church due to her role in volunteering false testimony, hoarding of other nations’ heritage and playing hide and seek as was exposed by synopsis of his communications with the British authorities cited at paragraphs 10 (a) to (k) above. The British Prime Minister’s office instead of exercising their constitutional obligations in regard to advising the British Queen offered to connect him to the Buckingham Palace instead which he refused on the grounds that the British Monarch is solely reliant on the advice of the British Cabinet and not vice versa under the British Constitutional Law principles despite being unwritten in a country where even the utility bills are written.
xviii. The author thereafter was thus compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of the common policing authorities in Britain and he complained to the Thames Valley Police who duly registered a criminal complaint against the British Queen on or around 23 April 2011 and as there was no action by the Thames Valley Police thereafter by the British Thames Valley Police. The author thus being frustrated by the inaction of the Thames Valley Police then took up the matter of the criminal complaint against the British Queen with the London Metropolitan Police as the accused; the British Queen was under their jurisdiction living at world famous address with no problems in identifying the whereabouts of the person accused of receiving and hoarding the Indian Heritage. The author also rang Amnesty International imploring them to advance democracy right here in Britain whilst they are so busy with improving democracy and human rights elsewhere on this planet except in their own country. The author thus had grounds to form reasonable suspicions that the British authorities are insulating their Queen from investigation and prosecution whilst lecturing everyone else about the virtues of the “equality before law” and the need to prosecute the beneficiaries of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing elsewhere in Bosnia, Africa, Cambodia, India and any number of dictators now before the jurisdiction of the ICC. The author believes he has a right to hear from the EU’s stand on this selective and obnoxious interpretation of the beneficiaries of war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing and heritage hoarding which Britain is now seeking to legitimise.
xix. The author apprises the EU the references of his criminal complaint against the British Queen through an independent police constabulary such as the Thames Valley Police in Britain as below;
Name of the Complainant Johnson Thomas Karingozhakal
Name of the Police Constabulary Thames Valley Police
Date of the Police Complaint 23 April 2011
Reasons for the Police Complaint Receiving & Handling of looted/stolen Indian Heritage including those in the royal palaces besides on the person of HM the British Queen.
Name of the Police Agent
Who Registered the Complaint Agent Lisa C1534
The Reference Number of the
Reported Crime 601230411
The author being cognizant of the Paul Burrell prosecutions and the British Queen’s role in facilitating his acquittal for the illegal hoarding of Prince’s Diana’s belongings brought about by the London Metropolitan Police under Paul Yates was therefore seriously concerned and alarmed about the rule of law in Britain which is very selective.
xx. After 23 April 2011- The author had in his telephonic complaints to the British Metropolitan Police had even offered them the reference details cited at paragraph 10 (l) (xix) above but they did not want to investigate it whilst they have no qualms in sending Metropolitan Officers serving and retired to far-away places like India and Pakistan to investigate match fixing in cricket.
xxi. Therefore the author’s attempts to enable his fellow citizens in India to enjoy the benefits of their heritage which they alone created over several millinea over which they alone have justifiable rights and lien to enjoy copyrights, intellectual property rights, rights derivable through geographical indicators, rights protected against the trespassing colonisers who receive and handle looted heritage from European colonies which are the fruitage of crimes against humanity as a whole were all summarily frustrated despite the best of his articulations and research from as early as 2008 affording him legitimacy now to approaches the EU’s jurisdiction.
xxii. The author like his informed fellow citizens in India is not prepared to accede to any selective interpretation of the liabilities for genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, violations of religious and heritage rights other than those accorded to the victims and descendants of the holocaust for the purposes of this notice especially when Britain rejoices in celebrating her crimes against humanity, colonial genocide, expropriation of heritage from the colonies to this day by eulogising their “Knights, Commanders, Officers, Members of the Empire” as in KBE, CBE, OBE, MBE the recipients of which are not merely politicians but also the heads of British charities who pedal charity whilst their monarch is hoarding looted colonial heritage as was illustrated by the criminal complaint for handling and receiving of looted stolen heritage with the Thames Valley Police of 23 April 2011 cited in paragraphs 10 (l) (xix) above.
xxiii. The British Queen and her government ought to have appreciated that the 54 member nation Commonwealth which has 33% of the world population and 23% of the habitable world is not under the privy purse of Her Majesty or the 60 million British population on whose behalf she claims her legitimacy to the British Throne.
xxiv. The author believes that notwithstanding all European AID to India and the developing countries in the Commonwealth of United Kingdom and France besides other EU member nations the net receipt of European AID is negligible in comparison to the value of the net outflow of capital and brain drain from these former European colonies which does not even equal the interest payments of this flight of the much needed capital to build homes, hospitals, schools, dispensaries, sanitation, sewage and other basic infrastructure in the victimised former European colonies besides roads, rails, airports, harbours, infrastructure including judicial and regulatory which would have all facilitated a fairer distribution of wealth and social security in the affected countries without middlemen including European poverty barons, AID facilitators and their bloated and pampered bureaucracy and celebrity publicists sponging on the actual AID.
xxv. The author furthermore believes that AID is distorting the imbalances of brain drain and capital flight from the developing countries in Africa and Asia many of whom are the uncompensated victims of European genocide, atrocities, oppression, subjugation, racial and ethnic discrimination and are punished over and over again when the heritage expropriated under the duress of the European colonisation is not restored to them right under the jurisdiction of the EU.
xxvi. The author believes that the European Charity Industry like the exploitative beggars industry in many developing countries is a major European employer after the public and private sectors and is creating poverty barons who launder their colonial liability like money launderers do in commercial activities.
xxvii. The author undertakes to submit hard copies of all documents relevant to this notice instead of soft copies exemplified by the internet links above if such a procedure is insisted on by the European Union after due notice from the competent legal department of the European Union.
xxviii. The author believes that it is his right to seek protection to the person and property of himself and his two little daughters in the EU besides in all territories where there is a jurisdiction for the EU via diplomatic missions as he is a single parent and do not want to be a victim of any accidental and inexplicable deaths under any so called mysterious and suspicious circumstances as he has no immediate plans to indulge in any suicide or deadly exercises under suspicious circumstances.
xxix. The author expects the EU government, the governments and relevant departments of their member nations not to defend the indefensible by alluding to the length of his notice or any such ploys to legitimise their colonial and post-colonial expropriation of Indian heritage or for that matter any heritage from any of their former colonies in their custody with all the associated rights discussed herein through paragraphs 1 to 10 (l) (xxviii) above.
- 11. The author on the strength of paragraphs 1 to 10 (l) (xxix) above submits before the EU that the that the 1.21 billion peoples of India notwithstanding their so called racial profiling as Aryans and Dravidians are not governed by the WTO if they were to voluntarily boycott European goods and services marketed in India as it would not be at the behest of the Indian government but through a grass root level protest which European charities fund in India anyway. The author fervently hopes that the EU would not kick the can down the long grass to lumber the future generations of the EU to deal with an issue which they could deal with and reap the international goodwill they are entitled to if they were to pause for a second and consider if the shoe were in the other foot where India were the beneficiary of European heritage expropriated under a catalogue of duress including colonial and post-colonial atrocities, genocide, racial profiling, ethnic cleansing, religious discrimination through divide and rule, myriad human rights violations including through the desecration of sacred and semi-sacred heritage, heritage racism and state sponsored intellectual piracy associated with heritage expropriation, political grooming of dictatorships and dynastic rulers, incitement to capital flight and brain drain from their former colonial master, victim of the rape of their sovereignty through heritage denial and denial of dignity and pride through the most insensitive celebration of colonialism through European social titles would they not then be justifiably outraged?
- 12. The author too is outraged and appeals to the EU to show some leadership and compassion if his English language skills do not meet with their norms of politeness or decency as this matter has taken over the best part of his life, resources, livelihood and everything he holds dear and he is left with no energy to pander to any linguistic niceties anymore as he is at the end of his tether so to speak although his intention was not to provoke anger but only outrage and remains the same to this day. And he introduces the following specific relief from the EU in addition to the relief severally sought throughout this notice on the strength of paragraphs 1 to 11 above.
- 13. The Relief Sought From the European Union As the Successor of Colonial European Aggression Through the Restoration, Restitution and Compensation for the Expropriation of Sacred, Semi-Sacred and Secular Heritage from their Former Colonies
THE EUROPEAN UNION MAY PLEASE GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF TO THE VICTIMS OF THEIR GENOCIDE, WAR CRIMES, ETHNIC CLEANSING AND EXPROPRIATION OF THEIR PRICELESS HERITAGE AS REQUESTED BELOW;
i. The EU may instruct their government and the governments of their member nations, institutions, organs of state, charities, semi-state entities and publically listed or private companies, trusts and the like in their jurisdiction to disclose the full inventory of expropriated heritage from their former colonies in Africa, Asia and South America besides from pre-colonial undivided India and post-colonial divided India so that the victims and descendants of their crimes against humanity can have full protection of their right to know about their own heritage and seek an informed and independent legal advice in pursuit of their right to justice.
ii. The EU may declare their intentions for the purposes of paragraph 13 (i) above through their independent media so that the victims and descendants of their crimes against humanity in their former colonies of Africa, Asia and South America besides the Indian sub-continent are made aware of the issues involved just like they publicise other crimes against humanity through their media in the past.
iii. The EU may institute, arrange and pay for any sacred ceremonies to cleanse the sacred heritage in their custody based on the relevant scriptural sanctions of the religions cited at paragraph 4 above so that the EU truly honours and respects universal human rights under the UN, the European convention rights and the religious rights of the victims and descendants of their former colonies so subjected to the crimes against humanity.
iv. The EU may take appropriate steps to respect the right to restitution, recompense, legal remedies by affording legal AID to the author in pursuit of this notice including for the purposes of enforcing the UNESCO guidelines against the former European colonial masters in the matter of heritage expropriated under duress besides WTO norms and class action provisions under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States of America or for that matter under any competent court including under the International Criminal Court or the ICC where the right to choose the jurisdiction of the author is not in any way disturbed in view of his right to seek alternate remedies.
v. The EU may account to the author and the international community if any intellectual piracy including copyrights and patent piracy were derived by entities under the jurisdiction of the EU or the EU itself through the expropriation of colonial heritage and the on-going hoarding of such heritage so that the aggrieved victims and descendants of their crimes against humanity have a recourse to right to justice to bring about a satisfactory closure in this saga of untold human tragedy.
vi. The EU may not impose double standards in the treatment of the victims of the Holocaust in Germany and the victims of their genocide and ethnic cleansing in Africa, Asia and South America and indeed in the Indian Subcontinent so that they are not made victims of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religious affiliations, gender, geographies and such other criteria in the matter of crimes against humanity.
vii. The EU may pass laws criminalising colonial holocaust denial in Africa, Asia and South America on the same lines as the holocaust denial in the context of Hitler’s Germany with specific penal provisions and procedures for prosecuting such offences.
viii. The EU may instruct their onshore and offshore tax havens to disclose the full list of account holders from their former colonies in Africa, Asia and South America so that the capital flight both colonial and post-colonial do not distort free trade, capital generation, investments in the foreign exchange and stock markets, commodities, bonds, gilts and such other commercially traded instruments in tune with the letter and spirit of the WTO so that they do not become illegal beneficiaries of money laundering recognised by the UN, the WTO and the USA in the context of the anti-bribing protocols under the OECD.
ix. The EU may duly advise the auction houses to cease and desist from the trade of sacred, semi-sacred and secular heritage from their former colonies on the lines of a trade ban on ivory, sahutosh and Jewish heritage which was expropriated under duress.
x. The EU may advise the charities they regulate or partner with in their jurisdiction or elsewhere who have collected donations presumably at the behest of the poor, destitute, homeless, illiterate, diseased, fragile, animals, eco-system to pass on their donations to their stated beneficiaries as under the EU Wills, Trust and Probate laws and the attendant fiduciary duties instead of hoarding donations meant for the developing world like their governments do with the expropriated heritage from the former European colonies.
xi. The EU may advise their charities to seek independent legal advice about the right of their intended beneficiaries to establish a lien over their funding and even over their electronic fundraising campaigns if it could be established that their fund collections breached any infraction of national goodwill which is more valuable than the goodwill of a charity or a company in their respective jurisdictions by causing tourism flight and job losses associated with the heritage tourism, hospitality, airline, transport, catering industries whether or not such donations are sought or collected via the international money transaction gateways like VISA/MASTER CARD OR MAESTRO or any such other means.
xii. The EU may in view of the admissions of the British Charity Commission claiming that the British charities alone hoard some 80 billion pounds disclose the money hoarded by the European Charities in their relevant jurisdictions sought to be for the benefit of the peoples of the resource rich but wallet poor developing countries so that they allow the donations at their disposal to be used for the stated objective they held out before their donors and the beneficiaries besides the international community and adopt a more efficient contracting structure through global tenders for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries instead of funds and capital being hoarded like religious charities which the European secular charities denounce so much. Once the charities in the EU duly discharge these obligations to their donors and the beneficiaries it would seriously alleviate a lot of poverty, disease, homelessness, joblessness whilst improving health, education, literacy, self-sustainability, human rights protection, environmental and animal protection all of which the EU charities champion around the world creating jobs in the EU as well as in their former colonies especially in view of their aspiration to make poverty history as a millennium goal from 2000 AD.
xiii. The EU may supply to the author a full list of European human rights charities with true integrity so that he could seek their help in the prosecution of this notice to its fullest possible extent so that his right to life, dignity, liberty, profession, livelihood, reputation, property, sense of security are also as protected as the same rights he is seeking to protect for the benefit of the victims and descendants of the European genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes both colonial and post-colonial.
xiv. The EU may compile a full list of surviving war criminals associated with their colonial genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes currently in their jurisdiction for perpetrating crimes against humanity in their former colonies in Africa, Asia and South America so that such criminals liable for crimes against humanity are prosecuted not merely if they were from Germany, Africa or Eastern Europe but across the world unfettered by geographies or gender or racial considerations so that they EU does not become liable for racial and geographical discrimination for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the ICC.
xv. The EU may accord the same respect to the soldiers from their African, Asian and South American colonies for their contributions in the First, Second and Cold Wars which all have their epicentre in Europe whilst the EU goes around the world trumpeting her peaceful legacy to launder their colonial and post-colonial atrocities like money launderers do insulting the basic intelligence and dignity of the victims and descendants of their colonial genocide and war crimes in Africa, Asia and South America so that they also enjoy some dignity like the white soldiers from Europe exemplified through their history channels and other mouthpieces.
xvi. The EU may advise their charities, political parties and diplomats to cease and desist from interfering in the free and democratic political processes wherever in their former colonies where they have a viable democracy, free press, judiciary, election commissions so that they do not have a monopoly over the right to patronise which is so offensive to the victims and descendants of their genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, heritage deprivation and expropriation under duress.
xvii. The EU may advise their member nations who claim to have their own “Commonwealth” after all their colonial genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes to initiate steps to democratise their commonwealths which covers almost half of the geographical area of planet earth and almost half of the human population whilst they are prevaricating on the restitution of looted heritage from their member nations without any sensitivity, humane or legal considerations for the victims and descendants of their crimes against humanity.
xviii. The EU may pass this notice for the purposes of having independent legal advice to their respective legal departments considering the variety of legal issues discussed under this notice ranging from money laundering to heritage laundering to financial markets to international law to UN and UNESCO regulations to receiving and handling of stolen heritage to the jurisdiction of the ICC and WTO to universal human rights as well as European convention rights to right to property, heritage, livelihood to constitutional rights so that the author can rely on the fact that the EU’s actions henceforth are after seeking a full and comprehensive legal advice and the could be estopped from approbating and reprobating at the same time for the purposes of their myriad tortious liabilities when the author or other interested parties prosecute this notice in any jurisdiction under any or all of the legal issues articulated through this notice whether they are part of the relief specifically sought under paragraphs 1 to 13 (xvii) above.
xix. The EU may implement a time-bound, systematic, internationally verifiable, transparent action plan for honouring the right to heritage with all associated rights concerning the expropriated heritage from their former colonies in Africa, Asia and South America besides the Indian subcontinent and may disclose the same through their myriad state organised or controlled media outlets such as the BBC, the AFP and the like.
xx. The author invokes the decency, humanism, empathy, independence, sensitivity, compassion and the unbiased nature of the legal departments of the European Union besides their member nations and partner countries like the United Kingdom and all their officers for the resolution of the issues raised in this notice. The author apologises if any of the issues raised herein were to cause offence as his sole objective was to criticise the European colonial atrocities against humanity in the highest degree possible whilst retaining some sanity.
Awaiting the much awaited leadership of the EU in this matter without wishing it away and their earliest possible response and thanking them in anticipation of the EU granting his right to be heard in its fullest possible extent warranted by the issues raised through this legal notice,
Johnson Thomas Karingozhakal