Divide and Rule in British India

Bahrain’s Royal Family, the Al Khalifa, has long pursued a strategy of divide and rule in order to prevent the emergence of cross-opposition coalitions, while exacerbating the country’s sectarian divide has become a critical means of ensuring regime survival. This article examines the country’s twentieth century imperial and post-independence history through the framework of divide and rule theory, providing crucial context for current events in Bahrain. It demonstrates how a divide and rule strategy is structurally embedded within the ruling family’s mode of governance, and reveals how it continues to be employed as an effective means of maintaining absolute monarchy in Bahrain.

Keywords: Bahrain, Arab Spring, Gulf Cooperation Council, divide and rule, sectarianism

1857 کی جنگ آزادی میں ہندوؤں-مسلمانوں-سکھوں کی مشترکہ شہادتوں کی حیرت انگیز انکہی داستانیں
1857 की जंग-ए-आज़ादी में हिन्दू-मुसलमान-सिख साझी क़ुर्बानियों की हैरत-अंगेज़ अनकही दास्तानें! (वीडियो)
AMAZING UNTOLD STORIES OF JOINT MARTYRDOM OF HINDUS-MUSLIMS-SIKHS IN 1857 WAR OF INDEPENDENCE!
वीडियो देखें:
:ویڈیو دیکھیں :
For video in Hindustani, please, click:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1DCuFVEgrQ&t=1873s

COMMEMORATING 78TH ANNIVERSARY OF QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE BETRAYAL OF QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT 1942 BY SAVARKAR, SYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE & RSS

On the eve of 78th anniversary of the glorious Quit India Movement [QIM] we must evaluate the role of the Hindutva gang in India's anti-colonial freedom struggle. QIM also known as ‘August Kranti' (August Revolution) was a nation-wide Civil Disobedience Movement for which a call was given on August 7, 1942 by the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee. It was to begin on August 9 as per Gandhi's call to 'Do or Die' in his Quit India speech delivered in Mumbai at the Gowalia Tank Maidan on August 8. Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas.
The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence, many shot by the police and army. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the crime that they were holding Tricolour publically. Even before that a terrible massacre took place in Mysore where the armed forces of Mysore Raja who was very close to Hindu Mahasabha and RSS shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting Tricolour.
It is to be noted that after declaring Congress an anti-national and unlawful organization, the British masters allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function.
Most of us know that the then Communist Party of India opposed the QIM thus betraying a great phase of mass upsurge in the history of the freedom struggle. But it is well documented that despite CPI’s call for keeping aloof from QIM large number of Communist activists participated in it. Moreover, CPI later offered unconditional apology for opposing it. However, what role the then Hindutva camp—consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh —played in the QIM is under wraps for reasons unknown. The Hindutva camp not only opposed QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge. In this connection, shocking documents are available; these should be read to be believed.

"If you inherit your father's bow, buy new arrows (Baluci Proverb).
The book deals with the transformation of power in Baluchistan during the colonial period, focusing in particular on the Khanate of Kalat and his difficult relations both with the British colonial Authorities and the local sardars.

AMAZING UNTOLD STORIES OF INDIA’S FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857
[The first fact we must remember about this great liberation war is that though known as 1857 war of independence but it continued till the end 1859 steadily. This commemorative piece based on the contemporary documents appeared on of the 150th anniversary (2007) of India’s first great war of liberation, in English, Hindi and Urdu. The following revised version is being released on the 164th commemoration [2021] of this great liberation War. The primary sources quoted in this essay are available with the author which were collected from different parts of the world in over a period of more than a decade. Another aspect author wants to highlight is that in this narrative mainly those incidents/individuals have been covered in which revolutionaries laid down their lives.]
(1) Participation of common people in India’s First War of Independence.
(2) Hindu-Muslim-Sikh joint martyrdoms in India’s First War of Independence.
(3) Women in the forefront of India’s First War of Independence.
(4) Conclusion: Shameless betrayal of the sacrifices and joint heritage of India’s First War of Independence by our independent India.
FOR HINDI VERSION: https://www.academia.edu/12557755/%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87_%E0%A4%AA_%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%B8_%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%A4_%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97_%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE_1857_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82_%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%82_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%82_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%96%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%82_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%9F%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%94%E0%A4%B0_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%82_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80_1857_Unity_of_Hindu_Muslim_Sikhs_Participation_of_Women_and_Common_People_Hindi_
FOR URDU VERSION: https://www.academia.edu/48892844/%DB%81%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86_%DA%A9%DB%8C_%D9%BE%DB%81%D9%84%DB%8C_%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF_%D8%A2%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C_1857%DA%A9%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D9%86_%DA%A9%DB%81%DB%8C_%D8%AD%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C%D8%B2_%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C%DA%BA_AMAZING_UNTOLD_STORIES_OF_THE_LIBERATION_WAR_OF_1857_IN_URDU

131st Birth anniversary of Frontier Gandhi
Is Forgetting Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan that Easy?
February 6 is the 131st birth anniversary of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan also popularly known as Frontier Gandhi and Badshah Khan. He was a prominent Indian freedom fighter, a die-hard opponent of the two-nation theory and the idea of Pakistan. He was totally committed to Gandhi's idea of non-violence, enjoyed the same stature in the NWFP also known as Frontier as Gandhi had in India. He opposed with full conviction the inclusion of NWFP in Pakistan but failed. After formation of Pakistan he, his followers and family faced terrible repression at the hands of the consecutive Pakistan governments including the one led by Jinnah and Islam-o-fascists. One of his brothers was assassinated, his supporters butchered by the Islamist fascists, he spent more than a decade in Pakistani jails and was forced to go into exile in Afghanistan. He was declared to be an agent of Hindu India. ML government led by Jinnah did not tolerate the NWFP government led by Badshah Khan's elder brother and it was dismissed on August 22, 1947; exactly 8 days after the formation of Pakistan.
Whatever ruling classes of Pakistan did to Frontier Gandhi is understandable as he stood as a rock against Islamist politics of declaring Muslims as a separate nation. But what treatment he got and is receiving in India is far more abhorring.
The latest denigration of his took place in last December in India. A hospital constructing in his honour in Faridabad (Haryana) with the help of Hindu-Sikhs who migrated from NWFP, inaugurated by the first PM of India, Jawaharlal Nehru as Badshah Khan Hospital was renamed as Atal Bihari Vajpayee hospital! 
Frontier Gandhi founded the Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God) which was at the head of a patriotic and socially progressive movement. The movement was also nicknamed as ‘The Red Shirts’ due to the colour of uniform it used for its cadres. Their presence was first noticed at the Lahore Congress in 1929 which at that time according to police reports numbered 200,000. Quotation from the Quran against slavery served as rallying points for nationalist enthusiasm and the struggle to liberate the country from foreign rule became the Holy War of Khudai Khidmatgars.  A peerless authority on Muslims and Muslim politics in modern India, Wilfred Cantwell Smith was of the opinion that "No section of India has been more thoroughly nationalist.”

Under the governance of Viceroy Lord Curzon the harmony of the subcontinent was stirred up vigorously which shook the roots of the British colonial empire in the Indian subcontinent. The first division of Bengal, its background, impact and legacy are all covered under a lot of debates and controversies. However, one critical implication this division had was on the development of nationalistic emotions among the population, which later on propelled the independence movement for India. This development of Indian nationalism is the outcome of the combined effort of a number of factors, and a significant part was played by political stalwarts who rose up against the policies of the British administration in India and incited the common population to agitate against the foreign oppressors.
This paper shall attempt to understand how the political thinkers of the movement used the newspapers to spread and materialise their cause of ‘preaching the new creed of radical nationalism.’ The central focus of the thesis would be on the role played by the English 6 newspapers based out in Calcutta during the Swadeshi period in ensuring that the progression of the movement saw a rise of nationalistic emotions among the local population. The research will seek to analyse the factors that propelled the newspapers to change the focus of their reporting. It will also evaluate the circumstances that led the newspapers to take an active role in the movement. It seeks to understand the extent to which they were successful in influencing the minds of the population the British Indian provinces. Finally, it will look into the role they played in the evolution of the movement.

ہندوستان کی پہلی جنگ آزادی 1857کی ان کہی حیرت انگیز داستانیں
مشترکہ شہادت، مشترکہ وراثت
عوام کی حصہ داری(2)  ہندو- مسلم- سکھ اتحاد:مشترکہ شہادت-مشترکہ وراثت (3) خواتین کی حصہ داری (4)  ہندوستان کی پہلی جنگ آزادی 1857 کے شہیدوں کے تئیں آزاد ہندستان کے حکمرانوں کا شرمناک مجرمانہ رویہِ
FOR ENGLISH VERSION: https://www.academia.edu/4006265/AMAZING_UNTOLD_STORIES_OF_INDIA_S_FIRST_WAR_OF_INDEPENDENCE_1857

Review of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA by renowned author and journalist Rasheed Kidwai
"The Bullies of Partition: How the Muslim League silenced the majority of Indian Muslims strongly opposed to the creation of Pakistan. The Muslim League unleashed a reign of terror that attacked secular leaders such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. In their aggression, they often found support from the British, the Hindu-Right, even sections of Congress
A majority of Muslims in pre-independent India were opposed to the two-nation theory and creation of Pakistan, argues a new book titled, Muslims Against Partition, written by scholar Shamsul Islam."
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/partition-indian-muslims-mohammad-ali-jinnah-shamsul-islam-indian-muslims-muslims-pakistan-iqbal/story/1/29793.html
With thanks to www.dailyo.in
This book is currently available in Hindi, Urdu and Bengali.

It is unfortunate that there is not much literature available on the heroic freedom struggle launched by the people of the princely states in India. The important reason for this lacuna is not mainly due to the indolence of the researchers but factors beyond their reach. Any researcher on the history of freedom struggle in the princely states has to face many hurdles. It is very difficult to get facts of the period, especially post 1857 era. The princely states 562 in number, spread over almost 45 per cent of the land (approximately 9600000 kms) and containing about 24 percent of the people of the country were a scattered lot and so was the struggle. These were without any exception ruled by autocratic individuals and families who were completely subservient to the colonial masters. There was no tradition of transparency, rule of law or sensitivity towards the demands and aspirations of the people of these erstwhile princely states. Importantly, the state apparatus in these princely states was not equipped to record seditious activities, on the contrary, to keep under wrap information of all such activities and the subsequent persecution of the same.
The author has traced the contemporary documents/sources to pen the heroic struggle of the people living under the autocracy of Native Princes who were none other but stooges of the colonial masters. The shocking post-independent reality is that those Native rulers who challenged the might of the British rulers and were suppressed do not figure in the national canvass. On the contrary those princes who helped the British in crushing the 1857 liberation struggle continue to rule a democratic India.
[This essay was written as a chapter for a book titled 'Colonialism and Nationalism in India' edited by Professor Satya M. Rai, University of Delhi, 2009]

NOW WE HAVE 6TH EDITION OF THIS BOOK TITLED 'SAVARKAR UNMASKED'.
HINDUTVA: SAVARKAR UNMASKED
Shamsul Islam

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar today shares national eminence with M. K. Gandhi; their portraits hang side by side on the walls of Indian Parliament. This is despite the fact that Sardar Patel, the first Home Minister of India, held Savarkar responsible for the murder of the Father of the Nation. In a letter, dated February 27, 1948, to Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India, Patel wrote: ‘It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that hatched the conspiracy (to kill Mahatma) and saw it through.’

This book is the outcome of a sincere urge to separate facts from myths and present facts as they unfolded in the history of India’s Freedom Struggle. In order to know the real Savarkar, author has mainly relied on original documents available in the archives of Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS, the Government of India and the memoirs of revolutionaries who were in the Cellular Jail with Savarkar. These documents, astonishingly, show that he not only kept aloof from the Freedom Movement but also openly helped the British war efforts during the World War II at a time when Subhash Chandra Bose was trying to liberate India militarily. Savarkar remained a die-hard believer in Casteism, Racism and Imperialism throughout his life. He called it Hindutva. This book also evaluates the original 1923 edition of 'Hindutva' authored by Savarkar so that all those who cherish a democratic-secular India are able to understand the gravity of ideas which originated to undo India.

Khushwant Singh on this book:
'[Savarkar] in his presidential speech at the Mahasabha conference in Ahmedabad in 1937, said: ‘As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India'...The Hindu Mahasabha had no problem in joining the Muslim League Government in Sind and Bengal. He was also the supporter of the princely order and thought it would not be a bad idea if the King of Nepal became the Hindu emperor of India...If you want to recheck what I have written, take a look at Shamsul Islam's book on Savarkar published by Media House.'
—Khushwant Singh.
The Hindi, Marathi, Punjabi and Kannada editions are also available.
Link for buying:
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/hindutva-savarkar-unmasked/

Educational system in British India was in fact, a plan of control. British government wanted to facilitate Hindus therefore this system was destroying Muslim identity and recognition. Although, one of its prime objectives was to promote Christianity and western culture in Indo-Pak Subcontinent but its other features were covering interests of Hindus. Therefore, Muslims had been forced to give up getting education. This article highlights all the seven educational plans which are called seven terms of British educational system in India, introduced by the British Government according to the need of time. Impacts of every term are also presented here while characteristics of British educational system are covering the whole tenure of British educational policies in Indo-Pak Subcontinent from 1813 to 1947. The socio-political consequences of this system after the formation of Pakistan are also discussed here. HYPOTHESIS British educational system in India was totally against the Muslims benefits and identity. In fact, British East India Company snatched the rule of Indo-Pak Subcontinent from Muslims therefore it considered them as their big enemy. Therefore, all the seven terms of British educational system created fully negative impacts on Indian Muslims and they suffered a lot socially, economically, religiously, culturally, legally, politically and institutionally. But, some of rational thinkers perceived it as a reason of delivering defending thoughts to the Muslims. So, firstly they established their own political party in 1906 and secondly, they got a separate homeland in 1947.

ON 105TH ANNIVERSARY OF JALLIANWALA BAGH MASSACRE
Contemporary documents of the brutal massacre and people's heroic resistance remain hidden in National Archives
Today India has turned into a grazing field for all kinds of religious bigots led by the Hindutva gang. Even PM of the country who took oath to uphold democratic-secular polity is identifying himself as a Hindu nationalist as if he is in office to serve the cause of Hindutva. The RSS/BJP rulers are openly declaring their commitment to turn India into a Hindu state where Brahmanical Codes of Manu which reduce women and Dalits to sub-human status would be the law of the land. For them India is Fatherland and Holyland for Hindus only. It is to be noted that as per the Hindutva definition only those can be considered as Hindus who have Aryan blood, believe in Casteism, are of fair colour and treat Sanskrit as a holy language. These are not Muslims and Christians only who are out of Hindu nation, even faiths as Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism can survive only as sects of Hinduism.
However, it was not the scenario 100 years back when the British rulers perpetrated one of the worst massacres in the modern history; the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. People of India shackled by the most powerful imperialist power of the world, Britain, presented a heroic united resistance. It is not hearsay but proved by the contemporary official, mostly the British documents. These amazing documents were part of the British archives which became National Archives of India after Independence. As a pleasant surprise these documents were made public to mark the 75th commemoration of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as part of an exhibition titled, 'Archives and Jallianwala Bagh: A Saga of Independence'.
The most documents, concerning the most volatile period of the Indian freedom struggle, not only showed the Britishers brazenly flouting democratic norms, indulging in barbarism while suppressing the mass discontent but also brought to light hitherto hidden aspects of Indian people’s united heroic fight-back. The documents exhibited were both saddening and amazing. It was immensely saddening to watch the 'civilized' British indulging in acts of unprecedented violence against Indians and amazing way the people of India, collectively and individually, belonging to different faiths and Castes, rose in revolt.
The saddest part has been that this treasure of visual and written narratives was put back in dark rooms of the National Archives, never exhibited again. It was not taken out even at the centenary commemoration under way currently. It seems the rulers and managers do not want that coming generations should know about the barbarism of the colonial masters as well as united great heroic resistance of the people of India.

In the last 165 years, which followed the nation-wide rebellion of 1857 against the rule of the East India Company in India, many of the misconceptions have been put at rest and a number of myths demolished regarding the nature and course of this great upheaval. For instance much has been written by the historians, both Indian as well as foreign, supplemented with contemporary documents, upholding the fact that it was not a ‘Mutiny’, on the contrary, a rebellion which drew wide support from different sections of the Indian people in most of the affected areas.

Even the then British rulers who initially declared it as a mere ‘Mutiny’ of the ‘Poorbeah’ (people from eastern India, the British used this term in derogatory sense) sepoys, ‘Budmashes’ (Urdu term for rascals which the British often used to describe the rebels) and ‘Pandies’ (followers of the rebel Mangal Pandey), soon realized the hollowness of this claim. Major W. S. R. Hodson (Commander of the British cavalry battalion which was created in his name itself, the ‘Hodson Horse’ and chief of the army’s intelligence wing) who played a major role in capturing Delhi, and was responsible for mass killings of Delhites including Mughal Princes in the most savage manner, in September 1857, in a letter to his wife from Delhi British army camp [July 26, 1857], did admit the fact that it was “an entire army and a whole nation” which was in revolt.

Another official, Thomas Lowe, commander of the medical corps, who accompanied the British army in its campaign to crush rebellion in the Central India in 1857-58, and was present at the battle of Kotah-ki-Sarai (Gwalior, June 18, 1858) in which Rani Laxmi Bai was martyred, in his narrative, underscored the reality that it was not a ‘Mutiny’ but a national revolt organized by the ‘cunning, educated fiends’ with the result that “the infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Musselman [sic], and the luxury-loving, fat-paunched [sic] ambitious Mahrattah [sic]…they all joined together in the cause; the cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater, the crier of ‘Allah is God and Mahomet [sic] his prophet’ and the mumbler of the mysteries of Bram [Brahma].”

However, a terrible myth continues to flourish about the complicity of Sikhs as a community in helping the Firangees in suppressing the 1857 revolt. There is no dearth of otherwise well-meaning historians and commentators who even today argue that the 1857 War of Independence was lost mainly due to the betrayal by Sikhs who either on the orders of Sikh native rulers of Punjab or on their own, recruited in the British army in large numbers, thus playing crucial role in subjugating India, which was then striving hard to liberate itself from the clutches of the British imperialism. Sikh community is thus presented as the main culprit responsible for helping out the British in securing India in the aftermath of 1857 rebellion.
This paper presented in a conference at Punjab University, Patiala IN 2007 was  an attempt to put facts as those happened at that time of the great liberation war.

Ever since its accession in 1849, Punjab had been received explicit attention in the colonial policies on account of its strategic and political importance to the British Empire. The colonial rule had brought a slew of transformations in the diverse fields such as education, agriculture, transport and communication and social institutions. The building of military infrastructure in Punjab was one of them, which got the primary position in the military calculus of British empire. It had played very crucial role in the maintaining, sustaining and escalating the colonial rule at various places. After the 1857 revolt, Punjab had acquired a significant place in the British geostrategic calculus and became a gargantuan recruitment ground for the British Indian Army. Thus, geostrategic importance and impending attack from the Russian Empire, so called the Great Game obligated the British Empire to focus on the military infrastructure with allied institutions in the region. Thus, Punjab had not only been as a major center of recruitment of British Indian Army; rather it became the network hub of several military cantonments and Firozpur is one of them. Firozpur had a pivotal role not only in strengthening the empire; rather it played a foundational role in turning Firozpur into a modern city, transforming its social-economic perspective. The aim of the present work is to investigate the multiple, and complex transformations took place in Firozpur city due to its cantonmentization, particularly during the colonial rule.

The aim of this paper is to describe the primary changes and development that outlined the history of Colonial Punjab and to narrate grassroots and provincial perspectives on the changes. I examine with a blend of grassroots and provincial perspectives by contextualizing actual historical events in Colonial Punjab. On the basis of major trends in the existing literate, a variety of view on the impact of the British rule will be surveyed. To seek for a clearer insight on the effect and influence of British colonial rule on the Punjab, I have divided them into four themes. Inceptively, political control and socio-economic transformation will be addressed with investigating relevant literatures. Main arguments here will be which policy of British rule led social and economic changes in Colonial Punjab, how it transformed the society, and what elements were involved in putting it into practice in such an effective way. Subsequently, the British rule in aspects from military recruitment in Colonial Punjab will be focused on. Central questions will be what patterns of collaboration were implemented and how the British rule influenced recruitment process in Colonial Punjab, and what were the causes and key drivers that brought them into play possible. In the last place, communalism will be surveyed briefly showing the historical origin of communalism within the Punjab and the impact on societies extracted from some case studies. In every discussion about each theme, as suggested above, Provincial and grassroots perspectives will be drawn.

The martyrdom of Bhagat Sing, Rajgur and Sukhdev on March 23, 1931are great milestones in the glorious history of India's freedom struggle against  the colonial rule. These contemporary documents show how Periyar, Dr. Ambedkar and even Jinnah supported the struggle of these revolutionaries. It is to be noted that the Hindutva gang ruling India today which claims to be the only lovers of Mother India (Bharat Mata) though functional during those times denigrated these sacrifices.

In this Extended Essay, the 1948 ‘hidden’ massacre of Hyderabad State was explored with the research question: Bloodless Revolution or a Bloody Massacre, What really happened in Hyderabad in 1948? Details of the annexation of Hyderabad State to the Union of India had been concealed until 2013 when the Sunderlal Committee Report was released to the public. The report indicated that a vast number of Muslims had been killed during and after the takeover, more than previously believed; tens of thousands more civilians died than troops in the small-scale war that annexed Hyderabad. The most prevalent information available was that during the Indian Army’s assault, Muslim denizens were caught in the crossfire.
The main doubt concerning the research question was: what exactly happened and who was responsible for this undocumented, rumoured mayhem that occurred before, during and after the integration of the Princely State of Hyderabad. Along with the Sunderlal Report the event was investigated by collating a large number of literary sources, from online articles and historians’ books. With perseverance, a primary source was found who was willing to give an interview, providing a personal account. After reviewing over 100 sources including the Sunderlal Report, much was deduced about what actually occurred. All angles were considered and evaluated: political issues, social unrest, communism and the Partition of India-Pakistan.
Thus the conclusion reached, in accordance with the Sunderlal Report, was that Hyderabad’s incorporation into the Union of India was not bloodless at all, not a massacre, but the civil war, which followed saw loss on both sides as power shifted. Actions taken in the judicial system were not as fair as they were necessary, in order to maintain peace in the subcontinent at the time. Furthermore, the concealment of the report was ethically wrong but a necessary evil.

महान शहीद भगत सिंह, राजगुरू, सुखदेव और बेशर्म हिंदुत्व टोली
23 मार्च 2019 को भगत सिंह, राजगुरू और सुखदेव का 88वां शहादत दिवस है।  उन्हें अँगरेज़ सरकार ने लाहौर जेल (अब पाकिस्तान में) इस जुर्म में फांसी दी थी की उन्हों ने अंग्रेज़ी साम्राजयवाद के चुंगुल  से देश को आज़ाद कराने के लिए मुक्ति-युद्ध छेड़ा था।  गोरे शासकों को यक़ीन था की इन इंक़लाबियों को जान  से मरने के बाद मुक्ति-युद्ध समाप्त हो जाएगा और उनके दुवारा प्रसारित किये जा रहे एक आज़ाद भारत जिस में बराबरी,  प्रजातंत्र और धर्मनिरपेक्षता होगी के सपने और विचारों पर विराम लग जाएगा। इतिहास इस बात का साक्षी है कि अँगरेज़ शासक, अन्य शासकों की तरह, पूरे  तौर पर ग़लत साबित हुवे। इन जवान इन्क़िलाबियों की  शहादत ने आज़ादी के विचारों को घर-घर तक पहुंचादिया और आज भी उनकी क़ुर्बानियां लोगों को याद हैं और प्रेरित करती हैं । 
गोरे शासकों ने सूली चढ़ाया और काले अँगरेज़ तमाशा देखते रहे 
लेकिन इन महान शहीदों की क़ुर्बानी की 88वीं  बरसी पर हमें यह क़तई नहीं भूलना चाहिए कि यह गोरे अँगरेज़ थे जिन्हों ने इन इन्क़िलाबियों को फांसी दी थी लेकिन उस समय मुस्लिम लीग, हिंदू-महासभा और आरएसएस से जुड़े काले अँगरेज़ या हिंदुस्तानी भी थे जो गोर शासकों की सेवा में लगे थे।  इन काले अंग्रेज़ों ने न सिर्फ़ इन क्रांतिकारियों के उद्देश्यों और आंदोलनों से दूरी बनाये रखी बल्कि  उनकी शहादत के मौक़े  पर शर्मनाक चुप्पी बनाये रखी। आरएसएस के 2 बड़े विचारक और सर्वसर्वा, के बी हेडगेवार (1889-1940)और एम् एस गोलवलकर (1906-1973) थे लेकिन इन शहीदों के बारे में, उनके संघर्ष को लेकर एक चुप्पी साधे रखी। आजकल हिन्दुत्वादी टोली के सरग़ना, आरएसएस को भी इन शहीदों की याद आ रही है।  इन के फोटो आरएसएस  आयोजनों में देखे जा सकते हैं। 
Please read the whole story..

One of the least researched aspects of the Partition of India has been the role of Muslims who opposed the Partition. We are indeed informed about the strong opposition by Congress stalwart Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and  the leader of the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam, Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madni, to the demand for a separate Muslim state made by the All-India Muslim League, but the general impression in both India and Pakistan is that Indian Muslims as a whole supported the Partition. While in India right-wing Hindus blame Muslims for being traitors to the nation and constantly doubt their loyalty, in Pakistan the national narrative thrives on projecting the demand for Pakistan as rooted organically in the Islamic psyche and ethos – to create the Islamic state as part of religious obligation. Consequently, in Pakistan the creation of Pakistan is considered inevitable.
Dr Shamsul Islam’s path-breaking work is a most welcome corrector of this false perception prevalent in both countries. The book covers a great deal of ground and a very useful chapter entitled, ‘Muslim Patriotic Individuals and Organisations’ provides an inventory which can be very handy for further research on this theme. Another chapter presents poetry written by Muslims who opposed Partition.

Commemorating the 163rd anniversary of 1857 War of Independence
Let not the Hindutva rulers undo the great heritage of joint sacrifices
Large sections of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs unitedly challenged the greatest imperialist power, Britain, during India’s First War of Independence which began on May 10, 1857; the day being Sunday. This extraordinary unity, naturally, unnerved the Firangees and made them realize that if their rule was to continue in India, it could happen only when Hindus and Muslims, the largest two religious communities were divided on communal lines. Urgent steps were taken to create enmity between these two. This was the reason, that immediately after crushing militarily this liberation war the then minister of Indian Affairs Lord Wood, sitting in London confessed:
"We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all we can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling."
In order to put this strategy in operation, the White rulers in league with their Indian stooges came out with the two-nation theory implying that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two separate nations. The birth of the two-nation theory was no accident, in fact, it was specifically created to help the British rulers in creating communal divide and fragmentize the Indian society on the basis of religions as unity of Hindus and Muslims could prove to be the death knell of their rule.
One truth, never to be missed, about this Struggle is that it was jointly led by leaders like Nana Sahib, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Maulvi Ahmed Shah, Tantya Tope, Khan Bahadur Khan, Rani Laxmibai, Hazrat Mahal, Azimullah Khan and Ferozshah, a galaxy of revolutionaries who belonged to different religions. It was a liberation struggle in which Maulvis, Pandits, granthis, zamindars, peasants, traders, lawyers, servants, women, students and people from different castes, creeds and regions rose in revolt against the dehumanized rule of the East India Company and laid their lives.
On the eve of 163rd anniversary of War of Independence we need to tell the present flag bearers of Hindu-Muslim brands of communal politics that the revolutionary army which declared the Mughal King Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Muslim, India’s Independent ruler on 11th May 1857 comprised of more than seventy percent Hindu soldiers, all armed. These were Nana Sahib, Tantya Tope and Laxmibai, all Hindus, played vital role in making Zafar, Badshah; the King once again.
The contemporary documents of the period which are available even today are replete with instances, not confined to one particular area, in which Hindus and Muslims could be seen making supreme sacrifices unitedly. The War of Independence categorically presented one fundamental truth that Hindu-Muslim separatism or hatred between these two communities was not at all an issue.
LINK FOR HINDI VERSION: https://www.satyahindi.com/opinion/india-first-freedom-struggle-163-anniversary-hindu-muslim-sikh-unity-against-division-109723.html

1857 स्वतंत्रता संग्राम की 167 वीं सालगिरह पर:
साझी विरासत जिसका हिन्दुत्वादी टोली मालियामेट करने में लगी है
10 मई 1857, दिन रविवार को छिड़े भारत के प्रथम स्वतंत्रता संग्राम में देश के हिंदुओं, मुसलमानों और सिखों ने मिलकर विश्व की सबसे बड़ी साम्राज्यवादी ताक़त को चुनौती दी थी।  इस अभूतपर्व एकता ने अंग्रेज़ शासकों को इस बात का अच्छी तरह अहसास करा दिया था कि अगर भारत पर राज करना है तो हर हालत में देश के सब से बड़े दो धार्मिक समुदायों; हिंदू-मुसलमान के बीच सांप्रदायिक बँटवारे को अमल में लाना होगा और देश के इन दो बड़े धार्मिक संप्रदायों के बीच दूरी पैदा कराने के लिए भरसक प्रयास करने होंगे। यही कारण था कि संग्राम की समाप्ति के बाद इंग्लैंड में बैठे भारतीय मामलों के मंत्री (लॉर्ड  वुड) ने भारत में अंग्रेज़ी राज के मुखिया (लॉर्ड एल्गिन) को यह निर्देश दिया कि अगर भारत पर राज करना है तो हिंदुओं और मुसलमानों को लड़वाना होगा और ‘‘हम लोगों को वैसा सब कुछ करना चाहिए, ताकि उन सब में एक साझी भावना का विकास ना हो।’’
इस दर्शन को अमल में लाने के लिए गोरे शासकों और उनके भारतीय चाटुकारों ने यह सिद्धांत पेश किया कि हिंदु और मुसलमान हमेशा से ही दो अलग क़ौमें रही हैं। सच तो यह है कि सांप्रदायिक राजनीति को हवा देना और भारतीय समाज को धर्मों के आधार पर बाँटना अंग्रेज़ो की एक मजबूरी बन गया था। 1857 के स्वतंत्रता संग्राम में, जिसको अंग्रेज़ शासको ने ‘फ़ौजी बग़ावत’ का नाम दिया था, हिंदुओं-मुसलमानों-सिखों के व्यापक हिस्से एकजुट होकर ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी के शासन के खि़लाफ इतनी बहादुरी से लड़े और कुर्बानियां दीं कि फ़िरंगी शासन विनाश के कगार पर पहुंच गया। हालाकि अंग्रेज़ जीत गए लेकिन यह गद्दारों और जासूसो द्वारा रचे गए षड़यंत्रों की वजह से ही संभव हो सका।
इस महान स्वतंत्रता संग्राम की यह सच्चाई किसी से छुपी नहीं हैं कि इसका नेतृत्व नानासाहब, दिल्ली के बहादुरशाह ज़फ़र, मौलवी अहमदशाह, तात्या टोपे, खा़न बहादुरखान, रानी लक्ष्मीबाई, हज़रत महल, अज़ीमुल्लाह खा़न और शहज़ादा फिरोज़शाह ने मिलकर किया। इस संग्राम में मौलवी, पंडित, ग्रंथी, ज़मींदार, किसान, व्यापारी, वकील, नौकर, महिलाएं, छात्र और सभी जातियों-धर्मों के लोग भी शामिल हुए और जानों की कुर्बानियां दीं।
हिंदू-मुस्लिम सांप्रदायिकता के मौजूदा झंडाबरदारों को इस ऐतिहासिक सच्चाई से अवगत कराना ज़रूरी हैं कि, 11 मई, 1857 को जिस क्रांतिकारी सेना ने मुसलमान बहादुर शाह ज़फ़र को भारत का स्वतंत्र शासक घोषित किया था, उसमें 70 प्रतिशत से भी ज्यादा सैनिक हिंदू थे। बहादुरशाह ज़फ़र को बादशाह बनाने में नाना साहब, तात्या टोपे और लक्ष्मीबाई ने महत्तवपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई थी।
1857 के संग्राम से संबंधित समकालीन दस्तावेज़ देश के चप्पे-चप्पे पर घटी ऐसी दास्तानों से भरे पड़ें हैं, जहां मुसलमान, हिंदू और सिख इस बात की परवाह किए बिना, कि कौन नेतृत्व कर रहा है, और कितनी भारी कीमत चुकानी पड़ सकती है, एक होकर लड़े और 1857 की जंगे-आज़ादी में एक साथ प्राणों की आहुति दी। उस समय की सच्चाईयां बहुत स्पष्ट रूप से यह बताती हैं कि हिंदू-मुसलमान पृथकतावाद और दोनों संप्रदायों के बीच विद्वेष का अस्तित्व उस समय एक समस्या के रूप में मौजूद नहीं था।

Hindutva brigade continues to pretend to have great admiration for Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who attempted to organise a military campaign to force the British out of India. But for unknown reasons the world remains oblivious of the terrible betrayal of his cause by Hindu Mahasabha under the leadership of Savarkar who also happened to be a mentor of the RSS. There is a mine of contemporary documents available to show that when Netaji during World War II was trying to secure foreign support for liberation of the country and trying to organise a military attack on the northeast of the country with the help of " Azad Hind Fauj " (Indian National Army), it was Savarkar who offered full military cooperation to the British masters. One needs to access the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS publications and documents of that period to know the shocking reality of the Hindutva gang turning into stooges of the British rulers against Netaji. This article reproduces the shocking facts from the Hindutva archives.

DENIGRATION OF LENIN SYMBOLIZES HINDUTVA GANG’S HATRED FOR INDIA’S FREEDOM STRUGGLE
The reprehensible acts in Tripura by the Hindutva goons of razing statues of Lenin (1870-1924) who led the greatest October Socialist Revolution in 1917 and was the only head of a state (USSR) who supported the Indian freedom struggle, should not surprise anybody.
We must know why a great liberator and unwavering supporter of India’s independence, Lenin is being targetted by the Hindutva goons. It is being done because Hindutva goons are genetically opposed to democratic-secular India which came into being after a long glorious anti-colonial freedom struggle. Those who razed the Lenin statues (Tripura Governor, an old RSS cadre and perennial Muslim basher justified these criminal acts) are the children of those pre-Independence RSS/Hindu Mahasabha [HMS] leaders who brazenly opposed the Indian freedom struggle. These criminals aligned with the Muslim League [ML] against the Quit India Movement of 1942. When whole of the Congress leadership was in jails, Indian masses were being massacred for carrying Tricolour and India had been turned into a jail by the British masters, HMS led by Hindutva icon, Savarkar ran coalition governments with ML in Bengal, Sind and NWFP.
Shamelessly, another Hindutva icon, Syama Prasad Mookerjee was the deputy CM in the Bengal ML ministry. When Netaji attempted to liberate India militarily HMS in league with the RSS organized 'Military recruitment camps for the British armed forces'. It is not known by many that Indians lost 1857 War of Independence mainly due to the support of Gurkha army sent by the Hindu rulers of the Hindu State Nepal. For this support Terai region of India was gifted to Nepal by the British government.
What else can we expect from the children of such anti-national goons?
The Hindutva goons while razing Lenin’s statues in Tripura and abusing him in shameless words were also chanting BHARAT MATA KI JAI (Hail Mother India). Mother India whose liberation struggle their Hindutva icons of the time of the freedom struggle betrayed continuously. The denigration of Lenin by the Hindutva goons is not an insult of Lenin only but India’s great anti-colonial struggle with which Lenin not only sympathized but actively helped as we will see in the following...

It is a peerless description and analysis of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919, rightly penned on the occasion of centenary commemoration of this massacre. The victims came from all religions, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Jains thus underlining the reality that anti-colonial  struggle was a united struggle of all Indians. This massacre also produced one of the greatest martyrs of India, Udham Singh (who was present at the site of the carnage) who decided to avenge this massacre. He waited for 21 years to kill one of the main perpetrators, Sir Miachael O'Dwyer at Caxton Hall, London on March 13, 1940. When arrested and asked for his identification, Udham Singh told the interrogators that his name was MOHAMMED SINGH AZAD, underlining the unity of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Sad that the protagonists of two-nation theory destroyed this great heritage, shamelessly.
https://nayadaur.tv/2019/04/13-april-1919-13-april-2019-100-years-of-jallianwala-bagh-slaughter/?unapproved=1045&moderation-hash=c7fbd8efb4b6c0413b39b82f95bf2a16#comment-1045
Reproduced with thanks to NAYA DAUR, Islamabad. It is an exclusive work of Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University.

When I was growing up in Assam, in the northeast corner of India, in the 1980s, I was vaguely aware that a question of crucial significance for the generation of my grandparents was this: 'Was the British Empire in India for good or evil?' I would sometimes hear about elderly gentlemen expressing a nostalgic yearning for the good ole days of the English, and lamenting that with the waning of the Raj, the country had irreparably suffered an inevitable decline. Occasionally I would also find pieces of writing which set up the Pax Britannica as the gold standard in administration, democracy, and the rule of law, a zenith from which postindependence Indians had regrettably slipped. All these are, of course, incidents from my age of innocence before I became socialised into the academic vocabularies of postcolonial theory, which attributes such nostalgias to the 'hegemonic' power of Empire that persists long after imperial bonds have been officially severed on paper. At the same time, as I look back at the high school curriculum, what strikes me as quite remarkable is the largely matterof-fact fashion in which the history of British India was presented. This was, of course, a history curriculum shaped by the narratives of the 'founding fathers' of independent India, and there was no idyllic romanticization or fanciful idealization of the British. We were taught that over several decades of heroic self-sacrifice and untold suffering, the vast masses engaged in the Indian 'freedom struggle' (a term I often slip into during my lectures at Cambridge, before hastily shifting to 'anti-colonial resistance') ousted the forces of British imperialism. Yet, there was no flagrant demonization of the British either: the British were presented as what they were, warts and all. If they set up the railways and the telegraph, prided themselves inordinately on the famous rule of law, and initiated diverse forms of European modernity, their peace was also repeatedly shattered by massacres at Cawnpore and Jallianwala Bagh, and recurrent famines which decimated entire swathes of colonial Bengal.

The booklet is only a glimpse of the exemplary contributions and heroic struggle of Muslim Ulama in the freedom movement of India. It is simply an attempt at removing the cobweb from the valuable parts of Indian history - specially those parts that have suffered due to the prejudice, hatred and hypocrisy of our so-called intellectuals and historians.

            I had to go through various history books, to quote from reliable and authentic sources, in order to answer emails with questions pertaining to a book entitled ’World of Fatwas’, written by an Indian journalist, casting aspersions on patriotic spirits of Darul Uloom Deoband. Here on, the article is given the shape of a booklet, hoping this would benefit the serious students of history.
(M. Burhanuddin Qasmi)

On 86th Martyrdom Day Of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru & Sukhdev: British Rulers Hanged Them Once, Indian Rulers Hang Them Everyday!
Bhagat Singh iss baar naa lenaa kayaa bharat-vaasee kee/Desh-bhakti ke liye aaj bhee sazaa milegee phansi kee.
Bhagat Singh don't take birth as Indian next time, You will be again hanged for the crime of patriotism.
[From Shankar Shailendra's long Hindi poem of 1948]
On March 23, 2017, we will be commemorating 86th year of the great martyrdom of the three revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev. However, with every passing year sadness keeps on growing that so far as mainstream political set-up is concerned their sacrifices attract only ceremonial attention that too occasionally. Indian democracy despite being seven decades mature has brazenly missed two important aspects of these sacrifices.
Firstly, the colonial masters did not hang them only because that the former were trouble-makers like other ordinary convicts but put them on gallows because the British rulers were scared of spreading of ideas of justice, changes and independence championed by the martyrs. The then rulers erroneously believed that by killing individuals, ideas too could be killed. Secondly, these revolutionaries did not appear in isolation, nor their sacrifices were individual actions. These sacrifices on march 23, 1931 were part of chain of sacrifices of those revolutionaries who discarding the tag of ‘terrorists’ had become the protagonists of revolution with mass participation. Starting with the Kakori Martyrs (1927) they had declared that they were fighting and sacrificing for a new India where Socialism will prevail.

The academic discourse on nationality in India had a colonial hang over even after Independence which often prompted us to analyse ‘Indian nationalism’ predominantly as an imported or induced or derived construct from Europe. However, the Nationalism of Asia and Africa was not one of derivative in nature. In difference with the European conditions, Indian nationalism in twentieth century needed a form of identity and ideology that was to be based on inclusivism and universal unifying principles, instead of the segmentation of traditional society. Tagore was one of the key foundational thinkers behind the ideological construct of the modern nation of India in this context. However, political process in the Independent India has ignored Tagore. Within this perspective, the paper has attempted to appropriate Tagore through construction of a selective narrative of his some of the activities and thought to connect certain objective facts and praxis of Tagore with his dialogical discourse to obtain the dynamics of Tagorian paradigm of politics. Seeking political freedom for Tagore was based on self-empowerment for self-reliance and economic freedom; freedom flowing out of one’s own capabilities. Instead of the electoral politics of provincial government – his choice was to bring forth bottom up self-governing institutions which will start from self-reliance and economic freedom and extend their activities to full-fledged self-governance including judiciary and law and order. His political project for the rural India was that cooperation to be forged through a bottom-up process and exploitation had to be abolished through that mechanism. Tagore’s opinion was that once exploitation and coercion is taken care of through enhancing capability from within in a bottom up process, freedom would automatically reign. He had held this politics as dearer than any other project of so called ‘nationalism’ and ‘struggle for freedom’. Thus the praxis of politics of Tagore were completely devoid of any focus on power of dominance and coercion; and therefore, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for it to be practiced or imbibed within the domain of a parliamentary politics, which evolves around the basic idea of domination.

It was the British Government who has always controlled and umpired the politics of education motivated by ‘separate and reign' law, and the Indian National Congress was the player of this power game. The Congress always demanded the expansion of scientific and technical education, which was not urgently needed and readily accepted by traditional Indian. The selfish middle-class, educated people were much wanted of jobs because they have paid high fees for their education. But these demands remain claims only. But why the INC adopted a politics of satisfaction or liberal policy for the diffusion of knowledge in India? Since it had emerged in the colonial background, it lacked administrative power and experience, material resources and freedom of thought and action. The greatest obstacle was the clash of contrary interests of this national party and colonial government in India. At the same time, the following party was not homogenous and its operations not extended mostly to rural India – poor, illiterate and superstitious. At least, the INC created an environment for the development and extension of education in contemporary India.

Friends I am glad to share with you the news of the publication of Punjabi edition of my book on Partition of India. It has been translated by veer Boota Singh ji.
This book is available in English, Hindi, Urdu, and Bengali too.
Publishers: Baba Bujua Singh Parkashan, Mehmoodpur, Dist. SBS Nagar. Phone 9463474342
Distributors: Tarkbharti Parkashan Barnala, Phone 9357512244.

SHAMELESS HYPOCRISY OF OUR HINDU NATIONALIST PM
Modi as a Hindu Nationalist
PM Modi is the only occupier of a constitutional post in the history of Independent India who declared himself to be a Hindu nationalist. He made this declaration in 2013 in an interview to two Reuters journalists, Ross Colvin and Sruthi Gottipati, on July 12 as CM of Gujarat.  Modi glorified his Hindu nationalist identity hiding the fact that the term ‘Hindu Nationalist’ originated in a specific historical context during India’s freedom struggle against the British colonial masters. This freedom struggle was mainly led by the Congress, which stood for an all-inclusive democratic-secular free India. The ‘Muslim Nationalists’, under the banner of the Muslim League, and the 'Hindu Nationalists', under the banners of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, opposed it, claiming that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations. These Hindu and Muslim ‘Nationalists’ joined hands with the colonial masters in order to thwart the freedom struggle so that they could have theocratic states of their choice, ‘Hindusthan’ or Hindu Rashtra and Pakistan or Islamic state, respectively. Moreover, those Hindutva fanatics who assassinated MK Gandhi on January 30, 1948 also called themselves as Hindu nationalist.
Hindu Nationalist PM's Visit to Andamans & Nicobar Islands
Modi's commitment to Hindu nationalism keeps on motivating him to acts crossing all limits of hypocrisy; an integral part of the Hindutva politics. In the last week of 2018 he was on tour of Andaman & Nicobar Islands where the infamous Cellular Jail is also situated.
PM's Love for Savarkar & Netaji
According to press reports immediately after reaching there he visited the Cellular Jail, sat in the cell where VD Savarkar was incarcerated.
Sadly, PM chose to sit in the cell of 'Veer' Savarkar who wrote not one but FIVE MERCY PETITIONS to the British rulers in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920 begging forgiveness for his anti-British activities. These bore positive results; his sentence for 50 years was reduced to 13 years out of which he spent only 10 years in the Cellular Jail. Thus he belittled the sacrifices of real heroes of Cellular Jail like, Dharma Veer Ramraksha, Indu Bhushan Roy, Ullaskar Dutta, Jyotish Chander Paul, Chatter Singh, Nani Gopal (16 year old), to name few who did not submit to the repression at Cellular Jail, instead laid down their lives fighting it.

Later during the trip PM Narendra Modi renamed three islands in Andaman & Nicobar. Donning the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army) cap, PM declared that it was done in deference to the wishes of Netaji who in 1943, had suggested that Andaman and Nicobar Islands be renamed as Shahid and Swaraj Dweep respectively. PM said:
“The country draws inspiration from Andaman. That is why the government has issued a notification and I am proudly announcing that henceforth, Ross Island will be known as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Dweep. The Neil Island will be known as Shahid Dweep and Havelock Island as Swaraj Dweep”. 
PM also hoisted a 150-feet-high national flag; the Tricolour in Marina Park, South Point, in Port Blair and said the government is committed to creating an India, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose once dreamt of.
There cannot be a greater crime then putting Savarkar and Subhash Chandra Bose on the same pedestal. Modi as a seasoned RSS cadre while worshipping Savarkar maintains criminal silence about anti-national ideas and activities of the latter. Or the fact may be that RSS loves Savarkar for this kind of heritage of his only.

The practice of colonization has existed in all times and frames of history. It can be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks setting up colonies in the south of Italy, France, Sicily and the Black Sea, as well as the Romans setting up Latin colonies in early second century BC. However, the course of history changed dramatically as the world saw a boom in the sixteenth century colonialism. This paper will discuss the formation of old colonial states; Spanish exploration and colonization of the New World (the Americas) and the conquest of Indian subcontinent by the British in the 18th century. It will also discuss how these post colonial areas have taken their individual route to freedom and their advent into neo colonial and capitalistic societies.

Existing cross-national research on inter-communal violence has demonstrated that ex-British colonies are more prone to inter-communal violence than ex-colonies of other European powers. This finding has been attributed to the greater prevalence of divide-and-rule policies in ex-British colonies. This explanation is, however, incomplete since it implicitly assumes that British imperial policy profoundly transformed pre-colonial political realities.  This article argues, instead, that the impact of British divide and rule strategies on subsequent inter-communal violence is crucially contingent on the level of political centralization attained by communal groups in the pre-colonial era. Drawing on a novel dataset tracking ethnic group dyads in 21 ex-British colonies across the period 1940-2006, I provide robust evidence indicating that the pathway from the experience of British colonial rule to contemporary inter-communal violence is more complex than hitherto appreciated.

This article argues that the political system established by the United Kingdom in British India and Mandate Palestine contributed to their partition in 1947. This is not to suggest that other factors – nationalism, anticolonialism, the Second World War, and the early Cold War, did not also play a part in strategic calculations. It is merely to suggest that the formation of national identity in British India and Mandate Palestine were both linked to British policies and the political system Britain established in those territories that contributed to the failure to come up with a scheme that would satisfy their political aspirations when Britain left. The problem was systemic, and was not merely due to British calculations in the final hours although these calculations undoubtedly shaped the final borders. The roots of partition in both cases can be traced to the failure of the Government of India Act of 1935 and Parliament's refusal to grant self-government to the Palestinian Arabs when this was proposed in 1936. The tragic human costs of partition in India and the United Nations' failure to enforce partition in Palestine contributed to the emergence of the principle of self-determination in the Third World when the newly independent states articulated a claim to self-determination that was applied to the population of the colonial unit as an integral whole. This was a claim to self-determination that had parallels with Republican – as opposed to Parliamentary – models of government.

भारत के प्रथम स्वतंत्रता संग्राम 1857 की अनकही हैरतअंगेज़ दास्तानें [VIDEO]
AMAZING UNTOLD STORIES OF INDIA’S
FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857
ہندوستان کی پہلی جنگ آزادی 1857کی ان کہی حیرت انگیز داستانیں

1857 फ़ौजी बग़ावत या मुक्ति संग्राम।
1857 MUTINY OR LIBERATION WAR.
1857 فوجی بغاوت یا جنگ آزادی
https://youtu.be/0dpWPoUZHeM

86th MARTYRDOM ANNIVERSARY: HINDUTVA GANG’S DOCUMENTED HATRED FOR MARTYRS, BHAGAT SINGH, RAJGURU, SUKHDEV
This 23rd March (2018) is the 86th anniversary of the martyrdom of three great revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev. They were hanged for the crime to overthrow the alien British rule in India. The colonial rulers like elsewhere thought that with the physical elimination of these freedom fighters their ideas and dreams of a democratic-secular and egalitarian independent India would also die. The rulers were patently wrong as these revolutionaries and heir ideals continued to be an integral part of the Indian people’s collective memory. 
However, on 86th anniversary of their martyrdom we should not overlook the fact, that though these were the British, who hanged them but there were organizations like Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and Muslim League in pre-1947 India which not only remained alien to the ideals of these revolutionaries but also maintained a criminal silence on their hanging. Shockingly, RSS which claims to be the sole repository of Indian nationalism and patriotism, kept aloof consciously from the anti-colonial struggle, has lately been making all out efforts to own Bhagat Singh as its hero too. It displays his photos in its public meetings but also twists facts as per its polarizing agenda. For instance, when Valentine’s Day is celebrated in India on February 14, it comes out every year with sensational messages on social media that this day should be mourned as black day instead as it was on this day that Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged. It is atrocious and shows not only disregard of facts but also farcical love for revolutionaries by the RSS. They were hanged on March 23, 1931.
Two years back Hindi organ of the RSS, Panchjanya came out with a special issue on Bhagat Singh while its English organ Organizer kept itself out of it. It has also has been churning out literature making astonishing claim that Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the RSS met Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1925 and continued attending meetings with these revolutionaries and even provided shelter to Rajguru in 1927 when he was underground after killing Sanders.  We need to compare these claims of the RSS with its own contemporary documents.
READ THE SHOCKING RSS DOCUMENTS....

Very little is known about the Revolt of 1857 from the point of view of the rebels as there is not a single detailed account of the events telling their version of the rebellion. But there is a large body of documents from the time: British official documents, records, diaries and personal narratives of the British officials and others who witnessed the ‘Mutiny’. Even though these mainly contain the subjective British version of the uprising and are heavily biased towards the British imperial project in India, they also contain significant details about the rebels and their cause. Surprisingly, this material has been left almost unexplored in the research work done on the Revolt even 150 years after the events and more than 60 years of Indian independence from the British.
In the last several years of searching for these documents the author found a goldmine, wondering why no one has as yet examined these sources. To give just one example, the author came across the original letters of spies from Delhi who were employed by the British during their siege of Delhi in May-September 1857. The letters presented here tell a startling story. Despite being outnumbered and out maneuvered by the rebels in Delhi, the British army was able to capture Delhi on September 20, 1857. This was made possible only with the help of spies and British stooges present in Delhi. These letters not only throw light on the intrigues of the British rulers but also on rebel opposition and their strategies. The rebels appear as victors even though they lost Delhi.
It is hoped that this book will help in understanding the true nature of the British rule in India.
More Info: Edition in Hindi also available.
Publisher: Vani Prakashan, 21A, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002. Phone: 0091-11-23273167 Email: [email protected]

Muslim rulers did not build Tajmahal, Lal Qila, Kutub Minar, Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, and hundreds of other historical sites. While serving in India as A.D.C. to the Governor-General (1836 to 1840) Lord Auckland, young lieutenant Alexander Cunningham conceived an ingenious scheme of misusing archaeological studies far long- term political ends.

Later in pursuit of that plot, Cunningham addressed a letter dated September 15, l942(When he was 28 years old) to Col. Sykes, a Director of the British East India Company in London.

In those days, the British were busy consolidating their newly won empire in India. Consequently, there was a keen, inborn, patriotic desire in the heart of every Britisher then serving in India to suggest to his Superior ways in which India could be kept under British rule to serve as a permanent milch cow.