The UK Indian Independence Act 1947


The UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947
Discovering The “Divine Destiny” of Pakistan
May 11, 2013 | Last Updated Friday, April 10, 2015
Abstract
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]
UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page1
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
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, “MemoirsOf 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 LordMacaulay [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 was 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]
All pages from The UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947, are reproduced below.
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


First Published May 11, 2013
Updated July 11, 2013
Links fixed March 22, 2014
Updated Friday, April 10, 2015 09:00 pm 5247









UK Indian Independence Act, 1947
18th July 1947
UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 pagei

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 01

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 02

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 03

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 04

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 05

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 06

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 07

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 08

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 09

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 10

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 11

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 12

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 13

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 14

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 15

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 16

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 17

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 18

UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 page 19



– ### –



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


The Plebeian antidote to Hectoring Hegemons

Home is Humanbeingsfirst.org

INDEX here.

Okay to copy, print, or post this document; verbatim reproduction only.
Comment
here. Full Copyright Notice
here.


Reprint License

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity, provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this restricted Reprint License, along with any embedded links within its main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images, quotations and excerpts, are used without permission based on non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research use only in the greater public interest, documenting crimes against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair use" laws at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”.