This archetype of the diabolical public hero exists in all times and nations. The point of studying history is to not continually fall victim to the vulgar machinations of history's actors. Typically, only the names and contents change. The template of Machiavellian machinations, cultivation of public heroes, harvest of fifth columnist, manufacture of diabolical Hegelian Dialectic for directing outcomes to predefined directions, and public stupidity to fall for elitist agendas as the proverbial useful idiots, do not change. Who might be such fifth columnists selling their consciences in the garb of high morality in our own time? Unless these public heroes are preempted before fait accompli, history's blood will repeatedly flow in every modernity.
- “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's unprecedented demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims in the name of religion (an outrageous demand for the separation of a common race of people from their own birthplace not hitherto recorded in history in the thirteen centuries of Islam's existence up to that time),
- the European Zionist Jews' demand for a separate homeland in Palestine (the territories formerly under the newly dismembered Ottoman empire) also in the name of race and religion (again an unprecedented and outrageous demand in the annals of recorded history to be gratuitously awarded land to a people not even born on that land by a third party),
- both demands being so egregiously granted by the receding British empire within less than a year of each other under similar “revolutionary times”,
- The facts on the ground since the partition match the preceding discussion. Specifically the fact that none of these three nations have been able to substantially raise the level of their general public's well-being beyond the pre-partition levels. Each nation has only cultivated new ruling classes while simultaneously increasing the share of poverty. With an ignorant and down-trodden majority public, no nation can ever rise. That was the overarching philosophy behind the partition of the subcontinent, and in the rise of the subsequent national leadership in each nation. Each one was encouraged to spend on defence against the other, encouraged into making opposite alliances with reigning superpowers, and encouraged into holding each other in perpetual check like two scorpions in a bottle. This forcing function of “encouragement” once again transpired by ensuring useful idiots, stooges, mercenaries, or at least manipulatable leaders, always stayed at the helm of national affairs, just as it has been so in the United States of America. Any undesirably patriotic leader is simply assassinated as an example to others to not stray beyond the narrowly permissible guidelines on international affairs, with a bit more leeway to indulge their lusts for leadership and power in domestic affairs. Can the recipients of the partition of the Indian subcontinent deny any of this with a straight face for their respective nations?
- The fact that it was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal who introduced the idea of a Muslim State to the political leadership of the Muslim League, including to Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founding political leader of the state of Pakistan. It was not a demand which organically emerged from the Indian Muslim peoples of the subcontinent themselves. It had a singular, and knighted, prime-mover.Historical records show that it was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal who approached Mr. Jinnah who was initially for a united Indian subcontinent after the withdrawal of the British. It was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal who convinced (the naïve?) Mr. Jinnah of the rationale for a separate nation state for the Muslims based only, and only, on the immediately unfolding “revolutionary times” on the ground. Absent those opinion-making “revolutionary times”, the most outstanding constitutional mind among the Muslims in the Indo-subcontinent which that century had yet produced, wanted a united India like the leaders of the Indian Congress led by Hindu leaders. Mr. Jinnah was arguably never afforded the political opportunity to develop a constitutional framework for helping found a constitutional republic in a united post-colonial India such that even ninety nine percent of the people could not deprive the remaining one percent of their rights. Let alone the majority Hindu legally deprive the huge Muslim minority their constitutional rights in anyway based on race, religion, or creed. Such was the precedent setting constitutional republic upon which the egalitarian United States of America was once founded, which in turn had employed England's own great charter of liberties for its own white peoples, the Magna Carta. All that political capital of the colonizing white man of how to live together in liberty for themselves, was chucked aside by “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal just when liberty was finally beckoning. And by the political stooges he had somehow managed to enlist to lead the political movement for a Muslim State, all of whom instead patterned their call for liberty on the misanthropic Jewish State to seed permanent discord in the land! (See The Search for Historical Truth: Partition of India and Palestine, http://tinyurl.com/India-Palestine-Partition )The brilliant white mind yet prevailing upon the colonized one, just as Lord Macaulay had successfully fashioned a century before, clearly shines through. “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal evidently understood both minds well, having risen from one, to become the other. Which is why “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal was the first to politically propose, in 1930, before anyone else in India even imagined it, or wanted it, the conception of a Muslim State to be carved out of the Indian subcontinent. A singular prime-mover, deftly cultivated and anointed by the British empire, and chosen to give political representation to the Muslims on his “Islamic” credentials previously established as the “hakim-ul-ummat”. Can the recipients of the Muslim State deny any of this with a straight face? The facts are reported officially by the Government of Pakistan. Only their fuller context on the grand chessboard is underscored by this analysis done by a citizen of that same Muslim State (which, the reader might already be aware, is his only citizenship, by choice, despite being a US permanent resident, meaning, bearer of the famous “green card”, for almost three decades).