Manik Bagh, an avant-garde masterpiece by Yeshwant Rao Holkar II and architect Eckart Muthesius, fused Art Deco with Indian tradition. Now, a KNMA exhibition is revisiting it.
The weekly ‘British Ane Hindi Vikram’ was the only Gujarati, if not Indian, publication dedicated solely to the World War I effort and ran regularly for more than four years.
SC upheld Punjab & Haryana HC's verdict that the will of Maharaja Harinder Singh Brar, the last ruler of Faridkot, was 'forged, fictitious and shrouded in suspicious circumstances'.
While no casualties were reported, the ‘Colonnade Bar’, billiards room, a ballroom, main reception and a staircase of the 144-year-old British-era establishment were damaged.
In ‘False Allies’, Manu Pillai writes about the Maharajas of India and the problems their newly appointed East India Company Residents brought into their lives.
In ‘Sikkim’, former diplomat Preet Mohan Singh Malik writes about the Namgyal dynasty that ruled the Himalayan kingdom until it became India’s 22nd state.
The financialisation of Indian household savings is one of the most important economic shifts of the past decade. But financialisation without international diversification creates fragile balance sheets.
The Nirouyeh Vijeh Pasdaran Velayat, or NOPO, was the only force Ali Khamenei trusted.It was founded in 1991 and is more feared than the Revolutionary Guards.
Rating democracies is a tricky business. I am only using the simple metric of who in the Indian subcontinent has had the most peaceful, stable, normal political transitions and continuity.
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.