The
UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947
Discovering
The “Divine Destiny” of Pakistan
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
May
11, 2013 | Last Updated Friday, April 10, 2015
Source
Pakistan-Politico Website:
http://pakistan-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/indian-independence-act-1947.html
If
you ask an Israeli Jew (of any nationality actually) who gave them
Palestine to create their state based on religion, the answer
ultimately reduces to “God”. If you ask a Pakistani
Muslim who gave us Pakistan (I being a Pakistani) to create a state
based on religion, the answer ultimately reduces to “God”.
Even when each of these two very different peoples might be very
secular and have little else in common culturally, they have that
sense of divine exceptionalism in common. The blood-partition of
Palestine and the Indian sub-continent also have a great deal of
other things in common as well. Today Pakistan is perched at the
brink of existentialism with “revolutionary times”
visiting its shores once again and there is a resurgence to believe
that God will come save us as Pakistan was brought about by God. The
Israelis routinely experience this sentiment in their conquest of the
Palestinians as well, atheist or not. When the Jewish army had
marched into Jerusalem in 1967 to claim it as theirs by divine
promise, it was surely only the divine promise fulfilled. What are
the actual forces on the ground that do this God's miraculous work on
earth? A glimpse is afforded by The UK Indian Independence Act, 1947,
18th July 1947.
This
charter known as the Indian Independence Act, 1947, is a declaration
by a King to create Pakistan as a separate independent nation-state
by the fiat of royal power:
“An
Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent
Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of
the Government of India Act, 1935, which supply outside those
Dominions, and to provide for other matters consequential on or
connected with the setting up of those Dominions. [18th July 1947.]
Be
it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with
the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows: -
1.
As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and
forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to
be known respectively as India and Pakistan. ...”
It
is not a declaration of independence by the indigenous peoples like
the Declaration of American Independence by “We, the People”.
There is no “We, the People” in the very foundational Act
of the King of England. An imperial decree that carved Pakistan and
India from the Indo-subcontinent along with their arbitrary and
perpetually quarrelsome borders in the blood of both the indigenous
Muslims and the Hindus!
As
the subsequent Pakistan's
Objectives Resolution of 1949
[1] proclaimed, the creation of Pakistan was by divine sanction (by
the divine right of kings it would appear if one reads this Act
carefully, rather than by Will of Muslims' Almighty God). Most
Pakistanis have never been introduced to this foundational document
which carved Pakistan out of India by the royal proclamation of the
British Empire. See the analysis
of Sir Allama Iqbal's role
[2] in serving the British imperial interests for which the poet of
the British Empire was awarded knighthood of its Dominions. No
knighthoods were awarded for the founding of the United States of
America to the signers of its Declaration of Independence. In fact,
many of its founders were hounded to death by the British empire. Why
was the British Empire so agreeable on dividing the
Indo-subcontinent. That land wasn't theirs to divide to begin with!
They were the brute-force occupiers for two hundred years as the
colonial raping and ravaging empire who ruled by deception, by
conniving, by divide and conquer. And they maintained their legacy
even in their reluctant departure.
The
British acted in exactly the same manner in Palestine as well, after
acquiring the temporary mandate on the heels of the Balfour
Declaration. See the deconstruction
of the Balfour Declaration
[3] and the Pamphlet:
How to Return to Palestine.
[4]
Caption
The UK Indian Independence Act 1947, 18th July 1947 – 'Be it
enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows: 1. As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen
hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in
India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.'
Once
again, Palestine was not their land to partition, and in a much
greater travesty that they gratuitously gave it away to European
Jewry. Palestine was a war booty along with the rest of the Middle
East for the victors of World War I, and the British were only its
temporary custodians without any right to play the divine right of
kings. In both cases, what was not theirs to divide, the British
Empire wrecked this cataclysm upon the indigenous peoples of these
lands. Clearly, the British empire during their retrenchment on the
heels of imperial losses in two world wars, foresaw to safeguard
their own economic, military, and security interests, as well as the
interests of the international bankers in whose name the Balfour
Declaration was issued by the British Empire, in both these
partitions. See the uncovering
of historical facts which continue to languish in international
obscurity
[5] and the Pamphlet:
The Invisible House of Rothschild.
[6]
Caption
The Balfour Declaration November 2nd 1917 – Dear Lord
Rothschild, 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the
establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
and will use their best endeavor to facilitate the achievement of
this object. it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'
This
international cabal of private financiers, who, as owners of European
and Anglo-American private central banks, have controlled the
issuance of national currency in nearly all of Westerndom for over a
hundred years, created the political instruments of The Round Table,
and The United Nations, to orchestrate their global primacy. Their
principal legatees today are the private Council on Foreign Relations
in New York and The Royal Institute of International Affairs in
London, both financed from private tax-exempt foundations controlled
by the same cabal. Their main asset, institutionalized intellectual
capital, is distributed among a thousand Western think-tanks,
universities, and non-governmental organizations which today fashion
key global policies for governments to blindly legislate behind their
carefully maintained facade of electoral politics. [7]
To
think otherwise, that the British as the great benefactors of the
conquered peoples, generously gave in to popular sentiments emanating
from among the natives that led to both partitions of such monumental
cataclysm as to rival the something that was revealed on the
Sinai, is to be most naïve of international power on the
grand chessboard. Ordinary public play minimal if any role in
international politics except as putty to engineer consent in order
to continue the illusion of popular mandate in democratic modernity's
conception of state power. [8]
The
dividing of India along religion lines was the watershed event of the
twentieth century. It lay the international precedent for the
subsequent division of Palestine --- for now the racial Jews-only
Jewish State could easily claim the Muslim precedent of a “religion
only” basis for the separation of a people from their land in
the blood-soaked creation of Pakistan that preceded the partition of
Palestine by exactly 9 months, August 15, 1947 and May 15, 1948.
Uncannily the same duration as the gestation period for the human
race.
Consent
was engineered for this orchestration among the Muslims of India and
to this day, Pakistanis, patricians and plebeians alike, continue to
fool themselves with a distorted view of how they came into being. It
is taboo in Pakistan to question the official version of
state-sanctioned history of the creation of Pakistan --- not much
different from the taboo among the Jews, and indeed the entire
Western world which is even legally enforced in the European Union
and Canada, and only punitively by witch-hunting Ashkenazi Jewry in
the United States of America. To even academically question the
officially sanctioned narrative of the Jewish HolocaustTM
employed for harvesting the Jewish state in Palestine, never mind
politically questioning it to effectively counter the propaganda
warfare inflicted upon the entire world to bring all public into
compliance with the Jewish narrative, is to become persona non-grata
pretty much in every nation on earth that is part of the Western
alliance or member of its economic bloc. The Jews themselves aren't
allowed to question that narrative without being called “Judenrat”
and other derogatory appellations.
The
proud Indian public hasn't fared much better either. They continue to
extol the virtues of their own heroes as
having defeated the British Raj with such great courage and tenacity.
It is virtually a taboo in mainstream India to question their own
sanctioned narrative of history. The facts on the ground however
suggest that the role of the pious intransigence of the Indian
nationalists many of whom were jailed by the British for wanting to
keep India united, was the necessary Hegelian Dialectic: the demand
for United India of the Hindustan to conflict with the demand for a
separate homeland for the Muslims. Otherwise the fire could not be
lighted without two intransigent opposites coming into mortal
conflict with each other, each believing fervently in their mission,
and fervently enough to die for.
Perceptive
understanding of political theories betray that the intransigence on
the nationalist Hindu side was equally necessary, their leadership
equally complicit and equally participant, perhaps unwittingly as
puppets on a string which is what game-theory sets up all pawns to
play, to enable fomenting and fueling the agitation by the Muslims.
The
engineered Hindu-Muslim communal riots was in play for over 50 years,
and at least from the moment Allama Muhammad Iqbal was given
representation of the Muslims in the Round Table, before it was
eventually brought to fruition as a convincing demand for separation
by the Muslims that the two people could no longer live together.
Perhaps it was in play even longer, ever since 1857, when the
Hindu-Muslim united rebellion forced the British conquerors to
recognize the necessity of driving an irrevocable permanent wedge
between the two indigenous peoples to prevent any future united
insurrection against the British Raj in the Indo-subcontinent which
they had come to claim as “British India”. The
persistence of this chauvinism is gleaned even during their
retrenchment from the clause 2. (1) on page one of the Act of 1947,
where the wording refers to the King's dominion being partitioned
into two independent dominions thusly. What better method than using
religion as the divisive factor to foment a believable reason for
partition?
The
fact that the empire has long understood at least the Muslim cracks
and lacunas, understood the weaknesses as well as the strengths of
the ethos of the main people who posed a great impediment to their
unfettered expansion from the seventeenth century onwards, with the
warrior Ottoman Turks ruling virtually all of the Middle East and
North Africa on the one side, and the warrior Mughals, descendants of
the same Mongol race, ruling territories even larger in South Asia on
the other, is easily gleaned from the political novel, “Memoirs
Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East”.
[9] Like Machiavelli's The Prince is a most perceptive treatise on
the methods of deception employed by rulers from time immemorial,
this is an equally perceptive treatise on how to co-opt the infantile
Muslim mind using their religious ethos toward the same purpose. It
is cited here to merely give an indication of the vast arsenal of
Machiavellian understanding of peoples and cultures available to
predators to pick and choose from for the meal du jour being cooked.
This understanding of how the massa class employs all the
cracks and lacunas of a people to control their behavior, is not
available to the public. Indeed, those bringing it to them are often
burned at stake, or forced to drink the hemlock. But the inconvenient
facts, and inconvenient observations linking these inconvenient
facts, continue to speak for themselves even if they takedown the
sacred cows of people.
In
the twentieth century with global visions of world government already
in political play in the Round Table which was also hosting the India
partition plans, without the Hindu leadership’s participation
at the highest levels, perhaps wittingly, perhaps unwittingly, but
nevertheless necessarily, in the Hegelian Dialectic of “United
India” vs. “Partitioned India”, no “revolutionary
times” could have been engineered in the Indian subcontinent.
And as the famous statement by David Ben-Gurion for conquering
Palestine goes:
“What
is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times;
and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible at
such great hours is not carried out – a whole world is lost.”
— David Ben Gurion
The
communal partition of the Indian subcontinent was arguably an
absolute necessity for the British imperial interests during their
retrenchment back to their tiny island — so that their famous
“Jewel in the Crown” is never able to rise to its fullest
potential as a truly independent and sovereign nation-state and thus
come to play havoc with the oligarchy's long range imperial planning.
That en passant abstraction, sovereign nation-state, being
only a temporary staging process before the eventual transition to
global governance, a one-world government of the Anglo-Saxon race led
by its financial elite who controlled the empire. Well before the
partition of India in 1947, that diabolical endgame was already being
pursued by the Round Table interests openly. How could it have been a
secret from either the Muslim or the Hindu leadership all of whom
were educated in England and were eating off of the same English
tables? It is plainly evidenced by the statement of the famous
British historian Arnold Toynbee in 1931:
“We
are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this
mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local
nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips
what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty
of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a
statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake
but certainly be ostracized or discredited.” — Arnold
Toynbee, The Trend of International Affairs Since the War,
International Affairs, November 1931, page 809
Why
were the British carving India into smaller nation-states while they
were simultaneously conniving to “wrest this mysterious
force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation
states of the world.”? Is that not an obvious question
to ponder for the politically savvy mind possessing even a modicum of
intellect that is willing to rise above the sanctioned narrative?
What
is even more shocking is that there is no mention of this conflict,
or whether any shrewd consideration was even given to it by the
prominent leaders on both sides in recognition to their being played,
in the vast treasury of documents and speeches left behind on the
subject of partition in both India and Pakistan national archives. At
least, in the books after books written on the subject that have used
these archives, the silence is notable.
Not
perceptively understanding the diabolical and sophisticated methods
of empire has been the greatest failing of the simplistic-minded
spiritually inclined peoples of the subcontinent both pre and post
partition, continuing to today. A perceptive understanding of
Machiavelli in history helps one perceptively understand Machiavelli
in the present. See for instance: Operation
Gladio Yesterday and Worldwide Terrorism Today – Identifying
the Enemy.
[10]
But
in colonies and slave nation-states where the tradition of studying
social sciences and political theories was never permitted to take
root, the mind remains enslaved to the narratives of the massa
designed for engineering the public's consent for what's happening to
them. The role of house
niggers [11] in cementing that engineered consent
in massa's dominions is still most poorly understood in both
India and Pakistan. These psychological assets of empire who are
cunningly brought into national prominence have kept both nations
victims of Occidentosis
[12] in their national policy prescriptions even today, just as Lord
Macaulay [13] had masterfully envisaged in the
nineteenth century for its most precious jewel in the crown:
“We
must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters
between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons
Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in
morals and in intellect.” — Lord
Thomas Babington Macaulay, Minute on Education, 2nd February 1835
The
legacy continues:
“Today's
Uncle Tom doesn't wear a handkerchief on his head. This modern,
twentieth-century Uncle Thomas now often wears a top hat. He's
usually well-dressed and well-educated. He's often the
personification of culture and refinement. The twentieth-century
Uncle Thomas sometimes speaks with a Yale or Harvard accent.
Sometimes he is known as Professor, Doctor, Judge, and Reverend, even
Right Reverend Doctor. This twentieth-century Uncle Thomas is a
professional Negro ... by that I mean his profession is being a Negro
for the white man.” — Malcolm X, The Autobiography of
Malcolm X, 1964, 1999 hardcover edition, Chapter Black Muslims, page
265
“The
white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging
leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation
of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption
develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man’s
contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the
middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language
changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he
changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into
the white man’s representative to the Negro. The tragedy is
that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.”
— Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope, page 307
Not
in the slave colonies bestowed “freedom” by the King's
benevolence, but in the singular colony that forcibly extracted her
liberation from the King's tyranny, that such wisdom and perceptive
understanding born! Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., each
assassinated, were made in the US of A, not India, and not Pakistan.
Why not? Her peoples have all the riches of the world underneath
their soil. They have all the brainy peoples of the world who come to
America to create its Technetronic revolution. All that
remains is some manly courage to face the facts of history and why it
has been so easy to colonize vast nations of earth. Now accelerating
towards world government!
If
“imperial mobilization” was so simplistic
and reductionist as its publicly advertised banner of Divide et
Imperia, which even elementary school
children in fifth grade history class first learn about in both India
and Pakistan, the Indian subcontinent would have long been free of
the yolk of colonialism. What most Indians and Pakistanis never
learn, even when they get a foreign education, is the Hegelian
Dialectic. For their higher education is primarily to become part of
the Western economic system, to maintain its status quo by being
indoctrinated into its virtues, and finding suitable rewards in its
whole hearted participation. This is by design, and not just
happenstance. For otherwise, no empire can flourish. Were that not
the case, the conquered people would have shrewdly protected
themselves from both the blood partition, and the subsequent faux
freedom flags hoisted upon their nations by Western trained Hindu and
Muslim lawyers on foundations which were entirely foreign to the
genius of the indigenous peoples. To this day even the main body of
laws in the partitioned states is almost entirely based on the
pioneering British Penal Code, written in the nineteenth century for
governing the remote and altogether alien colonies of the British
empire!
A
careful read of this imperial document divining the partition of the
Indo-subcontinent leaves no room for speculation that the British
engineered the policy of partition independent of the indigenous
Muslim public's demand in accordance with their own imperial
calculus. The popular sentiment among the Muslims was an exercise in
demand creation using the British empire trained assets. It was a
top-down demand sown by the patricians and not an organic demand
which was seeded naturally among the plebeian people. The demand was
fertilized with riots and bloodshed to engineer consent for the
imperial project. And the King was all too willing to comply with the
“demand” presented to him in the name of the Muslims by
the British empire's own trained minds. It is perhaps only a
remarkable coincidence that it is difficult to identify a single key
founder of Pakistan among the Muslim League leadership in the
ten-twenty years preceding the creation of Pakistan, who spent any
time in a British jail for actively opposing the British empire.
Unlike those Indian nationalist leaders who were principally engaged
in the Quit India Movement and as far as they were concerned, most
fearlessly gave up their freedom to the British jailers to get rid of
the colonial masters in a united India. It is of course only
attributed to the genius of the Muslim League leadership that they
did not forsake their freedom, as the famous American biographer
Stanley Wolpert of UCLA asserts in his book: Jinnah of Pakistan
(1984). (This fact is noted from memory as I read this work
decades ago.)
It
is also difficult to identity any prominent Muslim separatist
leadership who at any time loudly condemned the Jallianwala Bagh
massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), which took place in
the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the northern Indian city of
Amritsar on 13 April 1919, unlike among the Hindu nationalists. Their
most famous poet laureate, Rabindranath Tagore, immediately
repudiated his knighthood in protest after that episode, while the
most famous poet laureate who is called the intellectual father of
Pakistan for calling for a separate nation for Muslims, Sir Allama
Muhammad Iqbal, evidently did not bat an eyelid, steadfastly holding
on to the British knighthood until his death.
These
same British trained assets who never actively or publicly opposed
any British cruelty wrecked upon the Muslims beginning with the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, became the first Government of
Pakistan after the partition. It is also just a coincidence of course
that from the very inception of the Government of Pakistan on August
15, 1947, the pre-partition feudal power class in the Indian
subcontinent which was cultivated and coddled by the British Empire,
was retained in Pakistan by these British assets – unlike by
the Indian nationalists who came to power in post-partition India!
That feudal power class created by the British empire to serve their
imperial interests still flourishes in Pakistan, even into its 65th
year of existence. It has continually been augmented by other feudals
arising, spanning the gamut from the military praetorian guard class
which has come to own most of Pakistan's economy and its real-estate
to the industrialist class many of whom have British titles. This
includes Mr. Syed Babar Ali, head of Nestle Corporation Pakistan
supplying water to the foreign occupation troops in Afghanistan, who has appointment to the Order of the British Empire, OBE.
Finally,
the mind disturbed by reading this Act and the preceding
deconstruction of imperial history might begin to ponder whether
these separatist Muslim leaders were mere mercenaries for hire, or
Nietzsche's superman exercising “will to power”, or were
they merely dupes and stooges flattered, cajoled, cultivated and
knighted by empire to serve its interests. It is now hard to tell
which is which, but it also doesn't really matter ex post facto,
because their behavior and the favors that were granted them by
empire is what speaks loudly on their behalf through the events of
history once we change the lens focus from narrow to wide, from local
to global. The worrisome dilemma for those living in the present
should instead be the uncomfortable recognition that these sacred
leaders were used by empire for primacy on the grand chessboard of
their time, wittingly or unwittingly, and that indeed little has
changed in the modus operandi of primacy on the grand chessboard of
our time.
The
UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, Dated 18th July 1947, is reproduced
below.
It is the grotesque testimony in plain-sight of the precedent-setting
engineered partition of a land, and the precedent-setting engineered
forced separation of a people who had hitherto lived together for a
thousand years on that land, in the name of religion! Apart from the
engineered American “War on Terror” in the name of
perpetually fighting “militant Islam” which has now been
legislated in nearly all nations of the world as the inevitable
harbinger of one-world government, the UK Indian Independence Act,
1947, is the most humiliating example of the devilish hijacking of
the religion of Islam willingly bought into by Muslims – a
people who have remained malleable putty in the hands of successive
empires since the very inception of Islam! Not only has “Islam”
become the opiate of the plebeians, but history now bears
incontrovertible testimony that the abuse, distortion, and
mis-representation of the religion of Islam before the public mind
for self-serving political agendas of the patricians, has been an
effective instrument for extracting voluntary servitude from the
masses. [14]
Footnotes
[7]
For those poorly read of Western hegemonic literature and unfamiliar
with its extensive bibliography, this perspective can be quite alien.
See for instance Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope - A History of
the World in Our Time, 1966. PDF link to copy on Archive.org:
http://tinyurl.com/Tragedy-and-Hope-Archive-org
[8]
Research for instance the openly stated purpose and openly visible
institutional power of The Council on Foreign Relations in New York,
The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, both
offshoots of the Round Table that was set up by Cecil Rhodes under
Alfred Milner; and who funds and controls these privately funded
tax-exempt organizations today along with the myriad think-tanks and
supra-national organizations like the United Nations, World Bank,
IMF, WTO, that define the global policies of not just the superpower
state and many other Western nations, but of all nations, friendly
and unfriendly, developed and undeveloped. The famed electorate as
well as the celebrated elected representatives play minimal role in
it apart from the former lending legitimacy to the notion of
“democracy”, and the latter lending their signature to
enact the private interests of the ruling oligarchy into the
“legalism” of the state. Partition of India and Palestine
are examples of that fiat of power exercised through the ruling-state
by the forces that control it from behind the facade of public will.
That will is at times synthetically manufactured, at other times is
organically present by the nature of prevailing human conditions
where the response is predictable when properly cultivated. In all
cases the conditions are continually fertilized until ripe for
harvesting. This is why think tanks like the Rand Corporation exist.
Set up by the United States government, the new ruling state after
World War II, it is predominantly staffed with mathematicians and
other political and military experts in game theory who divine war
and peace games during all hours of the day and night, for that
purpose. None of this information is state secret. Only the public
awareness is lacking. And for good reason. The bread and circuses
of the Roman empire have also been upgraded for modernity. More one
is invested in one's success, career, business, the “American
Dream”, more there is motivation to remain ignorant of the real
forces of social engineering governing one's society lest one is
deprived of the spoils of the good life. See The Art and Science
of Co-option,
http://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-art-and-science-of-co-option.html
[14]
http://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/02/islam-why-is-quran-easy-to-hijack-prefac.html
Print
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-uk-indian-independence-act-1947.html
First
Published May 11, 2013
Updated
July 11, 2013
Links
fixed March 22, 2014
Updated
Friday, April 10, 2015
09:00 pm
5247
18th July 1947
- ### -
Source
of images:
http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
Alternate
URL:
http://pakistan-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2015/12/uk-indian-independence-act-1947.html
Print
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-uk-indian-independence-act-1947.html
First
Published May 11, 2013 | Updated Friday, April 10, 2015
09:00 pm
5247 | Links fixed April 04, 2016
About
The Author
The
author, an ordinary justice activist, formerly an ordinary engineer
in Silicon Valley, California (see engineering patents at
http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents
), founded Project Humanbeingsfirst.org in the aftermath of 9/11. He
was, mercifully, most imperfectly educated in the United States of
America despite attending its elite schools on both coasts. This
might perhaps explain how he could escape the fate of
“likkha-parrha-jahils” (educated morons) mass produced in
its technetronic
society with all his neurons still intact and still firing on all
cylinders. He is inspired by plain ordinary people rising to
extraordinary challenges of their time more than by privileged and
gifted people achieving extraordinary things. He chose his byline to
reflect that motivation: The Plebeian Antidote to Hectoring
Hegemons. Bio at
http://zahirebrahim.org.
Email: humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com.
Verbatim reproduction license for all his work at
http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright.
The
Search for Historical Truth: Partition of India and Palestine –
The UK Indian Independence Act, 1947 15