Over breakfast and a book launch at Delhi’s Indica, journalist Priyadarshini Chatterjee mapped cities by looking at who wakes up first, who cooks, who eats, and who is left out.
‘I felt very disgusted and embarrassed because ministry officials commented on my clothes in front of everyone,' said 19-year-old Saarah Sharma, a participant of the Women Youth Parliament.
Using images of Aravalli Biodiversity Park, ecologist CR Babu showed what restoration can achieve in 20 years. He was speaking at an event titled Aravalli-Sentinel of Delhi NCR Ecosystem.
At the discussion, Amarjeet Sinha, former adviser to PM Modi, explained how the district administration played a crucial role in establishing a new independent India.
The Khada Parsi was a showcase of emerging urban infrastructure. By the 1860s, Bombay had begun to modernise with piped water and gas lighting. The fountain incorporated both.
Rumi: Unveil the Sun, which returned to Delhi after 19 years, is a meditation on love, spiritual transformation, and the search for unity in a divided world.
Pakistan would be itching to do an Iran on us and China would be planning to execute an air campaign without allowing us asymmetrical escalation. India has no choice but to transform.
Increase in employment subsidy, Rs 500 crore for estate revamp, new townships in pipeline—but land cost, power breakdowns and inspector raj top among key worries for industry leaders.
CDS Anil Chauhan says future space capability will not be built by government agencies alone. ‘It will be co-developed with industry, start-ups, and technology innovators’.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
The Quite India movement, the Civil Disobedience movement, and the Non-cooperation movement weren’t mass movements? It was for no reason that Viceroy Linlithgow called the Quit India movement the “most serious rebellion” since 1857 (‘India’s Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat’ by Devendra Panigrahi)? Why did the prominent historian Will Durant use the term “revolution” to describe the movement being led by Mahatma Gandhi in ‘The Case for India’? What about the fact that the Civil Disobedience movement saw the large-scale participation of women in any movement of this kind for the first time? Wealthy lawyers left this jobs for these movements, and we are supposed to believe that they weren’t deeply rooted in the public consciousness? I am sorry, but this is just disappointing. Others have already done an excellent job responding to what was said about the partition.
Mischivous & Childish article. The real culprit were religious fanatics ( both Hindu & Muslims) who made co-existance it nearly impossible. Jinnah & Ambedkar too too became a victim of this situation. Gandhi was the last to give up.
Its been hours since the article has been uploaded and theprint is yet to add any facts, context, differing views or even a basic historical narrative cross examination that counters these malicious utterances. Udit Hinduja has written the article without the bare minimum counter examination and with an utter and abject dereliction of even the most minimal veracity that passes off as journalism these days. This article should be have had comments from historians holding alternative views than Anil Seal and atleast one small paragraph of narrative history detailing the obvious factual mendacities in Anil Seal’s argument. Cambridge school is notorious for its denial of nationalistic aspirations of Indians and known to parrot British point of views like the mission to civilise us, how the empire stayed back only because we couldn’t agree amongst ourselves about post brexit future and how partition is a result of nationalistic leaderships’ failure to accommodate other legitimate aspirations. The intellectual hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of this school has been painstakingly exposed by Indian historiographers for last 7 decades. To allow these pernicious views uncontested space is an act of criminal idiocy or vested maleficence. Please do better and update the article appropriately.
Why are such blatant baseless fictions passed off as historical works? Yes the Congress high command wanted partition of Bengal and Punjab, but that was to save the nearly 44 and 48% of the population from the tyranny of the barely numerical majority. If Jinnah couldn’t abide by the rule of all India Hindu majority, why should non-muslims in those provinces be consigned to the whins of the Muslim majority?
From Lahore declaration onwards, verbally atleast Jinnah had declared his endgame was a separate country with whole of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Bengal (with Assam) along with the princely principalities. It could have been a very dark joke, a cynical bargaining tool, it could have been the whole truth. Since we are not mind readers and Jinnah kept no honest journals, there is no way either we not this fake historian can claim to divine Jinnah’s thought process. To say that we should not treat his pronounced words as his true stand shows you the kind of duplicitous person he was.
Since the advent of limited self rule in India, Muslims have received “communal awards” Far greater than their population representation in the central government as well as the provincial governments like in UP. While they had statutory majorities in Bengal and Punjab, they protested against the same formula being applied to central government. At nearly every step of the way, the Congress always took a lesser bite of the pie in the hope of joint mobilisation with the Muslim league to accelerate British handover of power (or their own eventual gain of power) and at every step the Muslim league took their share and immediately asked for more. Even after Cripps mission Jinnah never unequivocally acquiesced to the federal structure. There was no guarantee that even granting a loose federal Constitution with only 3 central power (defence, finance and external affairs) would have satisfied his urge.
The factors were myriad and the context was nuanced. But ultimately it was an unmitigated avarice for power by the upper class Muslim landed gentry of gangetic India under their mendacious, nominally shia and actually atheist leader that cynically flamed Muslim irredentism and eventually inflamed fellow Muslims and non-muslims in the fanatacism that resulted in partition of India.
Half truth is dangerous than lies. Mr Seal proves that line very well. Congress high command wanted a federal state but it was not mutually exclusive from Mr Jinnah’s demands in the Shimla Conference. In fact it drove it. Nehru along with then Viceroy General Wavell wanted to give some degree of autonomy . He even discussed it with Liaquat Ali Khan to convince Jinnah about it. Little did he know that Mr Francis Muddie had a mind of his own to convince Jinnah that it was Nehru’s trap. Nehru still did not accept Pakistan even after that fallout and Jinnah pushed for it. Nehru did not plan Direction Action day. Jinnah and his coteries did with some bad faith English civil servants. The mental gymnastics to deliver this level of nonsense is mind blowing.
The first plan that almost got passed was the Balkan plan which nearly got approved if not for VP Menon’s last minute maneuver to inform Nehru about it. It was pushed by the imperialists using Mountbatten as the sheep for their wolfish intentions.
So to absolve the British is irrational but not surprising from people like him. it is a new method to ensure revisionism to undermine the legacy of the nationalist movement by the established gentry and the elite of the so called liberal West. And it was not just Pakistan. The head of the political agents in Internal Affairs kept on instigating the princely states to seceded until he was unceremoniously fired by Patel after it came under the Home Ministry.
How spineless and ignorant our people are! Years of politicised history (with the current dispensation included) have led to this. And the Print is reporting as if this is the holy grail of truth without an iota of fact checking. It is certainly disappointing. Willingly spreading propaganda by people who want to muddle the very existence of our country.
The Quite India movement, the Civil Disobedience movement, and the Non-cooperation movement weren’t mass movements? It was for no reason that Viceroy Linlithgow called the Quit India movement the “most serious rebellion” since 1857 (‘India’s Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat’ by Devendra Panigrahi)? Why did the prominent historian Will Durant use the term “revolution” to describe the movement being led by Mahatma Gandhi in ‘The Case for India’? What about the fact that the Civil Disobedience movement saw the large-scale participation of women in any movement of this kind for the first time? Wealthy lawyers left this jobs for these movements, and we are supposed to believe that they weren’t deeply rooted in the public consciousness? I am sorry, but this is just disappointing. Others have already done an excellent job responding to what was said about the partition.
Mischivous & Childish article. The real culprit were religious fanatics ( both Hindu & Muslims) who made co-existance it nearly impossible. Jinnah & Ambedkar too too became a victim of this situation. Gandhi was the last to give up.
Its been hours since the article has been uploaded and theprint is yet to add any facts, context, differing views or even a basic historical narrative cross examination that counters these malicious utterances. Udit Hinduja has written the article without the bare minimum counter examination and with an utter and abject dereliction of even the most minimal veracity that passes off as journalism these days. This article should be have had comments from historians holding alternative views than Anil Seal and atleast one small paragraph of narrative history detailing the obvious factual mendacities in Anil Seal’s argument. Cambridge school is notorious for its denial of nationalistic aspirations of Indians and known to parrot British point of views like the mission to civilise us, how the empire stayed back only because we couldn’t agree amongst ourselves about post brexit future and how partition is a result of nationalistic leaderships’ failure to accommodate other legitimate aspirations. The intellectual hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of this school has been painstakingly exposed by Indian historiographers for last 7 decades. To allow these pernicious views uncontested space is an act of criminal idiocy or vested maleficence. Please do better and update the article appropriately.
Why are such blatant baseless fictions passed off as historical works? Yes the Congress high command wanted partition of Bengal and Punjab, but that was to save the nearly 44 and 48% of the population from the tyranny of the barely numerical majority. If Jinnah couldn’t abide by the rule of all India Hindu majority, why should non-muslims in those provinces be consigned to the whins of the Muslim majority?
From Lahore declaration onwards, verbally atleast Jinnah had declared his endgame was a separate country with whole of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Bengal (with Assam) along with the princely principalities. It could have been a very dark joke, a cynical bargaining tool, it could have been the whole truth. Since we are not mind readers and Jinnah kept no honest journals, there is no way either we not this fake historian can claim to divine Jinnah’s thought process. To say that we should not treat his pronounced words as his true stand shows you the kind of duplicitous person he was.
Since the advent of limited self rule in India, Muslims have received “communal awards” Far greater than their population representation in the central government as well as the provincial governments like in UP. While they had statutory majorities in Bengal and Punjab, they protested against the same formula being applied to central government. At nearly every step of the way, the Congress always took a lesser bite of the pie in the hope of joint mobilisation with the Muslim league to accelerate British handover of power (or their own eventual gain of power) and at every step the Muslim league took their share and immediately asked for more. Even after Cripps mission Jinnah never unequivocally acquiesced to the federal structure. There was no guarantee that even granting a loose federal Constitution with only 3 central power (defence, finance and external affairs) would have satisfied his urge.
The factors were myriad and the context was nuanced. But ultimately it was an unmitigated avarice for power by the upper class Muslim landed gentry of gangetic India under their mendacious, nominally shia and actually atheist leader that cynically flamed Muslim irredentism and eventually inflamed fellow Muslims and non-muslims in the fanatacism that resulted in partition of India.
Half truth is dangerous than lies. Mr Seal proves that line very well. Congress high command wanted a federal state but it was not mutually exclusive from Mr Jinnah’s demands in the Shimla Conference. In fact it drove it. Nehru along with then Viceroy General Wavell wanted to give some degree of autonomy . He even discussed it with Liaquat Ali Khan to convince Jinnah about it. Little did he know that Mr Francis Muddie had a mind of his own to convince Jinnah that it was Nehru’s trap. Nehru still did not accept Pakistan even after that fallout and Jinnah pushed for it. Nehru did not plan Direction Action day. Jinnah and his coteries did with some bad faith English civil servants. The mental gymnastics to deliver this level of nonsense is mind blowing.
The first plan that almost got passed was the Balkan plan which nearly got approved if not for VP Menon’s last minute maneuver to inform Nehru about it. It was pushed by the imperialists using Mountbatten as the sheep for their wolfish intentions.
So to absolve the British is irrational but not surprising from people like him. it is a new method to ensure revisionism to undermine the legacy of the nationalist movement by the established gentry and the elite of the so called liberal West. And it was not just Pakistan. The head of the political agents in Internal Affairs kept on instigating the princely states to seceded until he was unceremoniously fired by Patel after it came under the Home Ministry.
How spineless and ignorant our people are! Years of politicised history (with the current dispensation included) have led to this. And the Print is reporting as if this is the holy grail of truth without an iota of fact checking. It is certainly disappointing. Willingly spreading propaganda by people who want to muddle the very existence of our country.