With guests dressed to their nines, the opening ceremony at Rambagh Palace featured artists from India and abroad, adapting and adhering to Indian attire.
At the first panel discussion of the festival, titled Morality and Sexuality, writer and sexuality educator Jaya Sharma addressed the conflict between ‘good’ queers and ‘bad’ queers.
The discussion at the third edition of the Crime Literature Festival revolved around how men are struggling for justice and the way laws are biased in favour of women.
Historian Anirudh Kanisetti brought up idea of Indian subcontinent as a land without borders, a region where cultures, ideas, people could move in free circulation.
Most people associated with the festival—whether it’s the hospitality partners, travel coordinators, and volunteers—share a family history of over 100 years in Nainital.
The ninth edition of the Valley of Words (VoW) Festival concluded on Sunday after two days of sessions on literature, culture, sustainability, and public policy.
In a session at the Delhi Lit Fest, panellists, including author Harsh V Pant and economist Sanjeev Sanyal, discussed the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan.
The Brahmaputra Literature Festival brought together artists, illustrators, poets, from Sikkim, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, among other northeastern states.
DMK govt accuses Centre of withholding funds, tightening borrowing, unilateral deductions from state accounts. Says Centre's accounting & funding decisions have 'artificially inflated' debt burden.
This is the game every nation is now learning to play. Some are finding new allies or seeing value among nations where they’d seen marginal interest. The starkest example is India & Europe.
This entire article is built on “what ifs” with zero proof. The author complains that the Nizams stayed out of politics and dreams about how great things could have been if they hadn’t. Really? Based on what evidence?
Here’s what the author conveniently forgets: AIMIM didn’t appear out of nowhere. It grew directly from the same people who supported the Nizam—specifically Kasim Rizvi and his Razakar thugs who terrorized Hindus trying to join India. The Razakars worked for the Nizam, doing his dirty work. So complaining about AIMIM’s communal politics while praising the Nizams? That’s rich. Owaisi’s party is basically carrying forward the Nizam’s own playbook.
The author is living in a fantasy World. This entire article is built on “what ifs” with zero proof. The author complains that the Nizams stayed out of politics and dreams about how great things could have been if they hadn’t. Really? Based on what evidence?
Here’s what the author conveniently forgets: AIMIM didn’t appear out of nowhere. It grew directly from the same people who supported the Nizam—specifically Kasim Rizvi and his Razakar thugs who terrorized Hindus trying to join India. The Razakars worked for the Nizam, doing his dirty work. So complaining about AIMIM’s communal politics while praising the Nizams? That’s pretty rich. Owaisi’s party is basically carrying forward the Nizam’s own playbook.
And calling Hyderabad “annexed”? Really!! Calling that “annexation” is either ignorance or dishonesty—pick one. This area was ruled by Hindu kings like the Kakatiyas, Chalukyas and Satavahanas, for centuries, before the Nizams even showed up in 1724. The Nizams refused to join India even though most people living there were Hindus. Treating Hyderabad like it was the Nizam’s personal property that got stolen is just bad history.
The author is nostalgic for rulers who would have played the same divisive, backward, regressive politics that we see today. He’s not writing analysis—he’s writing fan fiction about a family that doesn’t deserve it
This has much to do with the victor and the vanquished state of mind. the vengeance with which the govt of the day grabbed the Nizam’s properties on one pretext or the other and thus humiliated both the deposed King Osman Ali Khan and after his death, his successor Prince Mukarram Jah – that treatment forced Mukarram Jah to leave Hyderabad and stay far away from the humiliation that was being heaped upon him by the victorious Indian govt. The Mysore Maharaja was not treated this way, neither all the rest of the Rajas – only the Nizams were especially given the treatment of an enemy, as the Indian army had invaded Hyderabad to capture it – the Nizam was not allowed to merge with the Indian Union in a politically-settled peaceful manner – Patel ordered the army action when Nehruji was not present in the country, else Nehruji would have allowed for a peaceful merger.
I write to applaud your courageous article and its striking subheading. Your measured candour and historical clarity illuminate an uncomfortable truth with dignity and restraint. Such writing enriches public discourse and commands respect. It reflects intellectual honesty and rare moral confidence in our times today.
This entire article is built on “what ifs” with zero proof. The author complains that the Nizams stayed out of politics and dreams about how great things could have been if they hadn’t. Really? Based on what evidence?
Here’s what the author conveniently forgets: AIMIM didn’t appear out of nowhere. It grew directly from the same people who supported the Nizam—specifically Kasim Rizvi and his Razakar thugs who terrorized Hindus trying to join India. The Razakars worked for the Nizam, doing his dirty work. So complaining about AIMIM’s communal politics while praising the Nizams? That’s rich. Owaisi’s party is basically carrying forward the Nizam’s own playbook.
The author is living in a fantasy World. This entire article is built on “what ifs” with zero proof. The author complains that the Nizams stayed out of politics and dreams about how great things could have been if they hadn’t. Really? Based on what evidence?
Here’s what the author conveniently forgets: AIMIM didn’t appear out of nowhere. It grew directly from the same people who supported the Nizam—specifically Kasim Rizvi and his Razakar thugs who terrorized Hindus trying to join India. The Razakars worked for the Nizam, doing his dirty work. So complaining about AIMIM’s communal politics while praising the Nizams? That’s pretty rich. Owaisi’s party is basically carrying forward the Nizam’s own playbook.
And calling Hyderabad “annexed”? Really!! Calling that “annexation” is either ignorance or dishonesty—pick one. This area was ruled by Hindu kings like the Kakatiyas, Chalukyas and Satavahanas, for centuries, before the Nizams even showed up in 1724. The Nizams refused to join India even though most people living there were Hindus. Treating Hyderabad like it was the Nizam’s personal property that got stolen is just bad history.
The author is nostalgic for rulers who would have played the same divisive, backward, regressive politics that we see today. He’s not writing analysis—he’s writing fan fiction about a family that doesn’t deserve it
This has much to do with the victor and the vanquished state of mind. the vengeance with which the govt of the day grabbed the Nizam’s properties on one pretext or the other and thus humiliated both the deposed King Osman Ali Khan and after his death, his successor Prince Mukarram Jah – that treatment forced Mukarram Jah to leave Hyderabad and stay far away from the humiliation that was being heaped upon him by the victorious Indian govt. The Mysore Maharaja was not treated this way, neither all the rest of the Rajas – only the Nizams were especially given the treatment of an enemy, as the Indian army had invaded Hyderabad to capture it – the Nizam was not allowed to merge with the Indian Union in a politically-settled peaceful manner – Patel ordered the army action when Nehruji was not present in the country, else Nehruji would have allowed for a peaceful merger.
I write to applaud your courageous article and its striking subheading. Your measured candour and historical clarity illuminate an uncomfortable truth with dignity and restraint. Such writing enriches public discourse and commands respect. It reflects intellectual honesty and rare moral confidence in our times today.