Partitions, Economics, Colonialism & it continuation

 

Partitions, Economics, Colonialism & it continuation 

Partitions & Oil economy encompassed the 20th century from its early decades yet court historians, clever intellectuals & Western media often misguided it due to obvious reasons. What happened during last three decades of 19th century set the agenda yet it was largely implemented during two European conflicts, infamously popularized by media & court historians as WW1 & WW2. Its high time to revisit history of 20th century so that we can easily understand power of  electronic commerce, Climate Change & porous border games well. 

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British Government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

When Was Oil Discovered? 1901

The McMahon Line is the boundary between China , Burma with British India imposed by UK. 1914

Durand Line The western end runs to the border with Iran and the eastern end to the border with China. 1895

Just imagine, how both lines disturbed old silk route & destroy the land trade links. These bloody lines were further strengthened in 1947 when the divided Bengal & the Punjab. 

Creation of Jewish land in Palestine was designed to control not only Sea trade route but also to control Oil rich lands but it was projected as Jew vs Muslim conflict. In his book (written 1940) PAKISTAN: OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar relate it with Palestine issue. Just readit 

[Will Punjabis and Bengalis agree to redraw their boundaries?]

    One last question and this discussion of Pakistan in relation to communal peace may be brought to a close. Will the Hindus and the Muslims of the Punjab and Bengal agree to redraw the boundaries of their provinces to make the scheme of Pakistan as flawless as it can be made?

    As for the Muslims, they ought to have no objection to redrawing the boundaries. If they do object, it must be said that they do not understand the nature of theirown demand. This is quite possible, since the talk that is going on among Muslim protagonists of Pakistan, is of a very loose character. Some speak of Pakistan as a Muslim National State, others speak of it as a Muslim National Home. Neither care to know whether there is any difference between a National State and a National Home. But there can be no doubt that there is a vital difference between the two. What that difference is was discussed at great length at the time of constituting in Palestine a Jewish National Home. It seems that a clear conception of what this difference is, is necessary, if the likely Muslim opposition to the redrawing of the boundaries is to be overcome.

    According to a leading authority :—

"A National Home connotes a territory in which a people, without receiving the rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognised legal position and receives the opportunity of developing its moral, social and intellectual ideals."

    The British Government itself, in its statement on Palestine policy issued in 1922, defined its conception of the National Home in the following terms :—

"When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish Community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should be known that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. This is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."

https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/index.html#contents 

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Britain was given administrative control over the area then known as Palestine. Britain’s foreign secretary at the time, Arthur James Balfour — who was previously Britain’s chief secretary for Ireland, and known for his sometimes brutal suppression of Irish demands for independence — had laid out his country’s support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. A few years later, Britain granted independence to much of the island of Ireland but held on to the six counties that still make up Northern Ireland and remain part of the United Kingdom. That legislation provided the template for partitions in other former British colonies, including India and Pakistan in 1947, “and Israel and Palestine” the following year, said Dr. Ohlmeyer.......British officials have drawn their own parallels between the Irish and the Palestinians. Ronald Storrs, who was governor of Jerusalem from 1917 to 1926, wrote in his memoir that if enough Jewish people moved to Palestine, it could “form for England a ‘little loyal Jewish Ulster

in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism” — a reference to English settlers who were sent to Northern Ireland in what became known as the “plantation of Ulster.” #Newyorktimes