Globalism in India
During the recent cross-border conflict with Pakistan, the Indian government—along with its media allies—displayed a marked eagerness to spotlight Islamic terrorism as the greatest threat to India’s existence. What many failed to notice, or chose to ignore, was the government’s ability—often with the help of Big Tech monopolies like X and Meta—to censor numerous accounts that offered narratives counter to the official line.
Taking a page out of the European playbook, these Big Tech monopolies colluded with the Indian government in censoring voices like that of Praveen Sawhney, journalist and former member of the armed forces, who merely critiqued the operational capabilities of the Indian army. These actions were reminiscent of the COVID era, when dissenting voices—be they doctors, journalists, or politicians—were routinely silenced.
For India, the tyranny of the pandemic years linger like a deeply buried trauma, akin to a painful memory suppressed by an abused child. Out of fear—whether of self-harm or the loss of collective comfort—few dare to speak of that time. This is unfortunate, because when tyranny goes unchallenged, it festers and grows, becoming more entrenched and unassailable.
What India needs now is honest introspection: a clear-eyed examination of who truly poses the greater threat to its people. To begin that process, we must seek out the facts—especially those the ruling establishment would rather see buried beneath jingoistic propaganda and a compliant media apparatus. After all, a sedated or frenzied populace can be just as dangerous as a tyrannical government.
Though tyrannical rulers existed in India long before colonial times, it was the arrival of European powers that truly infused authoritarian governance with a distinctly Malthusian character. A brief look at India’s colonial history reveals the Western attitude toward the native population—an attitude perhaps best encapsulated by Winston Churchill’s infamous remark describing Indians as “a beastly people with a beastly religion.”1 Keep in mind that this is a man who is propped up as a heroic personality by modern-day establishment mouthpieces like Douglas Murray and Piers Morgan.
During the Bengal Famine, when thousands of Indians were starving under British rule, Churchill actively discouraged the distribution of aid, reportedly justifying his stance by saying that Indians bred “like rabbits.”2 It is now estimated that somewhere between 800,000 to 3.8 million had perished in Bengal alone.
This European disdain for India’s population growth did not disappear with British departure. On the contrary, it can be argued that successive Indian governments inherited the Malthusian mindset of their former colonial rulers. Policies targeting impoverished, rural communities—often with the implicit aim of depopulation—suggest a continuation of this ideology. It is as if an unspoken understanding had been reached between Britain’s Fabian Socialists and India’s post-independence leadership at the moment of the power transfer.
Who are Fabian Socialists? Historian Ioan Ratiu writes, “Fabianism was a subversive movement aiming to establish Socialism by systematically infiltrating, manipulating or controlling all the relevant areas of government, business and politics, indeed, all aspects of society.”3
While Malthus himself advocated for restraint in population growth to prevent resource depletion, the Fabians, a British socialist group founded in the late 19th century, adapted some of his concerns into their advocacy for radical societal upheaval. The Fabians considered it their duty to meet the challenges of overpopulation and resource distribution and framed their solutions within the context of state intervention. This ideological connection underscores how Malthus’ theories provided a foundation for later projects on “sustainable development” and “equitable resource allocation”–project most commonly associated with the United Nations (Agenda 2030), the World Health Organization (Pandemic Treaty), and the World Economic Forum (Great Reset).
Among the Fabian-influenced personalities who kept tabs on post-independence India was Margaret Sanger, a prominent birth control activist and founder of what would become Planned Parenthood. Sanger associated with various progressive and socialist thinkers of her time, some of whom were linked to the Fabian Society, and she supported policies like eugenics and state intervention in social welfare, which aligned with the Fabians’ technocratic and reformist vision of social engineering.
Sanger visited India to advocate for contraception, insisting it was something Indian women desperately needed. In a 1936 radio address, she recounted a conversation with a poor woman who had lost five of her six children and pleaded for no more. While Sanger aimed to highlight women’s suffering, her portrayals were often clichéd, describing Indian women as “tired,” “pathetic,” and “childish.”4
In her address in Mumbai, Sanger said the following:
“It should be [health officials’] duty to the State, to the public and to our future civilization to see that those who do not have the individual initiative and intelligence to plan and control the size of their families should be assisted, guided, and directed in every way to eliminate the undesirable offspring, who usually contribute nothing to our civilization but use up the energy and resources of the world.”5
Unlike the Pro-Life movement in the United States, prominent Hindus and Muslims who debated Sanger lacked the philosophical framework to defeat Fabian-influenced depopulists, and as a result, failed to instil any sense of life-affirmation in the larger Indian populace. Sanger and her ideological successors, on the other hand, marched on unhindered whilst gaining more and more access and influence over Indian policies.
In the post-war West, environmental issues became the prime concern of establishment media and government status quo. Paul R. Ehrlich’s bestselling book The Population Bomb drew attention to the issue of overpopulation, and the Fabian Socialists naturally began a coordinated campaign to address this problem. The United States government and its “soft power,” as Carrol Quigley would call it, began to pressure the Indian government on pursuing aggressive policies in combating overpopulation. This was not some secret agenda but direct government policy as was proven in the now declassified National Security Study Memorandum 200, more commonly known as the Kissinger Report, where India is named as one of the countries whose population growth is deemed problematic.6
A few excerpts from this report:
In the face of continued rapid population growth (2.5 percent), the prospects for the populous Indian subregion, which already faces staggering economic problems, are particularly bleak… preoccupation with the growing internal economic and social problems resulting from huge population increases may progressively reduce the ability of the region, especially India, to play an effective regional and world power role.
The U.S. should continue its support of multilateral efforts in the population field by… supporting the coordinating role which UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] plays among donor and recipient countries, and among UN and other organizations in the population field, including the World Bank.
The cooperation of private organizations and groups on a national, regional and world-wide level is essential to the success of a comprehensive population strategy. These groups provide important intellectual contributions and policy support, as well as the delivery of family planning and health services and information. [Note that the term “family planning,” as any pro-choice proponent will tell you, includes access to abortion and contraceptives.]
AID should continue to provide support to those private U.S. and international organizations whose work contributes to reducing rapid population growth, and to develop with them, where appropriate, geographic and functional divisions of labor in population assistance.
The effort to reduce population growth requires a variety of birth control methods which are safe, effective, inexpensive and attractive to both men and women. The developing countries in particular need methods which do not require physicians and which are suitable for use in primitive, remote rural areas or urban slums by people with relatively low motivation.
The ruling Indian National Congress party was more than happy to let US soft power dictate its national policy. During India’s Emergency period in 1976, the government launched an aggressive male sterilization campaign, coercing millions of men into vasectomies through threats and incentives. Officials enforced quotas, and noncompliance could result in fines or job loss. This initiative, influenced by Western population control ideologies and colonial perceptions of Indian masculinity, led to approximately 6.2 million sterilizations in a single year, with many performed under unsafe conditions, resulting in numerous deaths.7
NGOs such as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations were able to rely on politicians like Indira Gandhi, her son Sanjay Gandhi, and other members of the Indian National Congress to implement their harsh policies.8 9 This alliance between foreign NGOs led by so-called “philanthropists” and the Indian government became a recurring theme throughout much of late 20th– and early 21st-century India. One prominent philanthropist who has emerged as an unofficial steward of India’s development is Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose father, Bill Gates Sr., once served on the board of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood.
In a podcast in 2024, Gates remarked, “India is an example of a country where there’s plenty of things that are difficult there—the health, nutrition, education is improving… It’s kind of a laboratory to try things that then when you prove them out in India, you can take to other places.10 Gates’ weapon of choice is, of course, vaccines.
In 2009, the Bill Gates-funded NGO PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health), in collaboration with the ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research), conducted clinical trials of a cervical cancer vaccine on 14,000 tribal schoolgirls aged 9–14 in Telangana and Gujarat. Seven were reported to have died in that experiment, and an investigation revealed a plethora of abuses and adverse events.11 12 Other notable scandals involving Gates and his vaccines can be found here and here.
One would expect that the Indian government, after seeing firsthand the destructive results of projects funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would stop Gates from ever entering the country. After all, this is a man who was closely connected to the notorious Jeffrey Epstein (a factor that led to his divorce, by his own admission) and is responsible for numerous deaths and vaccine-related injuries among the destitute of India. This is a man who said in a TED talk that he wants to reduce the world’s population by 10-15%.13 All this doesn’t matter to the Indian government that has rolled out the red carpet for Gates on multiple occasions.14
The truth is that whenever tyranny overwhelms India, the tyrant could always rely on the locals’ willingness to carry water; this has been the case in colonial times, and it is still the case today. A good example of this is in my article on Rishi Sunak, Infosys, and Digital IDs. In that article, I detail how prominent Indians, in league with the Indian government, collaborate with the WEF in their effort to gradually sweep away the private and medical rights of Indian citizens under the veneer of medical safety.
The same sort of invasion is occurring in India’s farms, where farmers’ traditional rights are being undermined and organic crops are being replaced by GMOs.15 This is all being done by a government supposedly run by Hindu nationalists. What could be more pro-Hindu than allowing eugenicists to carry out dangerous experiments on Hindus?
At the height of the pandemic, India approved the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine under the brand “Covishield.” Many countries throughout the world banned the vaccine because of the serious adverse effects it was causing. 16 17 18 Given the vaccine’s low cost, it was inevitable that developing countries would seek to purchase it. But what many at that time conveniently overlooked is the vaccine’s lead developers’ ties to the UK’s eugenics movement.19 This fact was alarming as the AstraZeneca vaccine was promoted by scientists and the media to the Global South.
In India, the Covishield vaccine was being manufactured and tested by the Serum Institute of India, a grantee of the Gates Foundation.20 After numerous reports of adverse effects from India and elsewhere, the Serum Institute’s CEO, Adar Poonawala, fled the country. Soon after, it was said that Poonawala had bought the most expensive mansion in London.20
By the time sudden death reports were beginning to be acknowledged in the mainstream media, the damage had already been done.21 One researcher by the name of Denis Rancourt estimates that 3.7 million Indians had died due to the shot.22 No action had been taken against the funders, manufacturers, and distributors of these supposedly miraculous products. Likewise, none had been taken against the eugenicists, NGOs, and government officials behind the casualties of mass sterilization.
As this brief account of India’s depopulation policies suggests (a comprehensive treatment would require volumes), there is no single scapegoat. In fact, the ongoing search for one—whether it’s Pakistan, Muslims, or China—has done little to address the deeper issue: India’s recurring susceptibility to sacrificial ideologies that demand the exclusion or elimination of the “untouchables,” the undesirable, the unvaccinated, and others deemed expendable.
There are two ways to confront this reality. One is to acknowledge the sickness outlined in this essay. The other is to ignore it entirely and instead prepare for yet another war with Pakistan—a country often blamed for all our problems, yet one that has also endured its own encounters with eugenicists and social engineers.
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/winston-churchill-from-accusations-of-antisemitism-to-the-blunt-refusal-that-led-to-the-deaths-of-millions-9999181.html
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53405121
3. The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu
4. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/legacy-indias-quest-sterilize-millions-men
5. Ibid.
6. https://web.archive.org/web/20061011042246/http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf
7. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/legacy-indias-quest-sterilize-millions-men
8. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18629801/emergency-in-india-1975-indira-gandhi-sterilization-ford-foundation
9. https://www.indiatoday.in/history-of-it/story/india-population-control-forced-sterilisation-sanjay-gandhi-history-nasbandi-camps-deaths-chandrababu-naidu-2623054-2024-10-25
10. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bill-gates-laboratory-remark-on-india-revives-2009-vaccine-trials-7159785
11. Ibid.
12. https://x.com/theskindoctor13/status/1863626106173067394
13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I#t=4m33s
14. https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1903554522141569186
15. https://off-guardian.org/2025/05/12/mutant-rice-and-bill-gatess-lab-rats-grand-experiments-in-indias-fields/
16. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/brazil-suspends-astrazeneca-vaccine-after-pregnant-woman-dies/
17. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/italy-halts-astrazeneca-vaccine-under-60s-after-teenager-dies/
18. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/germany-indefinitely-suspends-astrazeneca-vaccine/
19. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/12/investigative-series/developers-of-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-tied-to-uk-eugenics-movement/
20. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/10/inv021423
21. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/covid-mrna-vaccines-contributing-to-deaths-doctors-call-for-suspension-7216293/amp/1
22. https://correlation-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-12-06-Correlation-India-excess-mortality-vaccine-rollout.pdf
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!