If the other leaders of the freedom struggle of India could think and act like Azad, Indian would have got an undivided country
922195
A factual details about the freedom struggle of India would certainly help people judge the role of the real heroes. Abul Kalam Azad , in true sence of the term, was a real AZAD 9Free in thinking and conceptualizing the demand of the Indian people. If the other leaders of the freedom struggle of India could think and act like Azad, Indian would have got an undivided country and that India would have been a model of the world.
Sharif S Uddin
2899884
I have read this book few years back.
Inspite of the greatness of Nehru's knowledge I have to mention the following contradictions. I would let the readers make their own judgement on these.
He abhored dynastic  politics and vehemently supported democracy.  Its ironic that his  descendants practised dynastic politics, imposed emergency in 1975, created  ripples in Punjab and were known for other notorious activities such as the  one in Naxalbari. Height of irony is that this book, chapters within the  book are letters written to his daughter Indira Gandhi who was primarily  responsible for "institutionalising corruption" and  "corrupting the institutions".
I find it surprising that he  was a secular person based on his utterances in the book. Nehru's family  is known to have strongest dislike for the Sikhs and Hindus. But this book  doesn't portray that.
Nehru's love for socialism is projected in the  first few pages when he talks about the origination of class with the  invention of agriculture.
1053967
Fricker has dealt with a controversial subject which will always suffer from claim and counter claim fairly well - to say the book is unbiased is claiming too much - especially since the author appears to be a regular  guest of the PAF set up.
That the PAF gave the indians a bloody nose as  far as the air war is concerned is undeniable as well as making a sizeable  contribution in scuppering any major advances the indians were planning -  namely to capture Lahore.
However, the PAF has used propaganda to good  effect in placing fear in the hearts of the Indian airmen with nigh  superhuman tales- not entirely unmerited with numerous attacks of sheer  audacity; it has raised the status of the force in the heart of its people  and throughout the world - this is why it is a bit absurd to detail claims  re: MM Alam.
Those with genuine interest in the above conflict should  consult Pushpinder Singh's work(AN INDIAN) on the PAF which helps fill in  some of Fricker's omissions.
The indians should scour the plains of  Panipat and 1000 years of history and learn that numerical superiority is  no guarntor of final victory - though the lioness hath one or two cubs;  those cubs are LIONS.
The success of the PAF has depended entirely on the  training and courage of its personnel; unlike the Israelis the PAF has had  to manage with limited resources and like the Israelis fight in the  knowledge that the survival and aspirations of the state were at stake.
510871
The latest visit by U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama to Israel has demonstrated to the world on which side the Empire stands. Obama promised an occupying power absolute support and eternal loyalty. Behind this background, the reader of "Unfree in Palestine" is befallen from a kind of bitterness when hearing Obama's unrestricted support for a heinous form of total control of a whole population under occupation. A slap in the face for the Palestinians and for some critical Israeli intellectuals was Obama's sentence that he admires Israel's "core values"! Perhaps he did not know what he was talking about. Israel betrays all the "core values" the U. S. American civil rights movement was fighting for, not to speak of many laws that discriminate against non-Jews in Israel proper.

The authors, Nadia Abu-Zahra, Assistant Professor of Globalisation and Development at the University of Ottawa, and Adah Kay, Honorary Visiting Professor at Cass Business School, City University of London, describe the role played by identity documents in Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, from the red passes of the 1950s to the orange, green and blue passes of today. They show how millions of Palestinians have been denationalized through the bureaucratic tools of census, population registration and a highly discriminatory pseudo-legal framework. They show how identity documents are used by Israel as a means of coercion, extortion, humiliation and informant recruitment.

In the book the authors provide a review of identity documentation and movement restrictions in Palestine from the 1800s till today. They focus on population and how it is divided and affected using bureaucratic instruments. In the introduction chapter terms such as "population registration", "identity documentation", and "movement restriction" are defined and explained by examples from other countries in order to demonstrate the power that such tools can have on denationalization, discrimination, displacement, dispossession, coercion, collaboration, and death.

The main part of the book deals with the history of the census, the population registry, denationalization, blacklists, coercion, and collaboration and how movement restrictions of millions of Palestinians became possible. The authors exemplify on the health and education sectors how the above mention policies affect the social life of the people. Both sectors are undermined through restricted access for patients, students and teachers. Despite all odds, the Palestinians resist inducements to leave their homeland.

Although international law declared denationalization illegal, the international community did not care about the forced displacement of Palestinians. Their "right of return" has been ignored by Israel, despite the United Nations have called for it in 1948, and it was a requirement for Israel's entry into the UN.  On the basis of denationalization, the Israeli occupier has striped the Palestinians of any personal security. Israel has been issuing over one hundred permits so far that curb the movement of the people in the occupied territories and abroad. Permits and identity cards can be revoked arbitrarily.  Acquiring an ID card or granting permits became a bargaining chip for the Israeli authorities to recruit informants and collaborators among the Palestinians.

The book gives an excellent overview of a military and bureaucratic Kafkaesque system of control used by Israel to deprive the Palestinians of their rights and freedoms. Perhaps Obama meant, inter alia, these "core values" the U. S. shares with the Israeli occupying regime. The Palestinian people want their rights and not charity from the international community. Despite having made the lives of the Palestinians unbearable, the people resisted and stayed to the chagrin of the Israeli colonizers. The great value of this book is that the authors have brought light into the fate of 1.4 million denationalized Palestinians.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany.
4846398
It is interesting to see the reviews of this book on this site, especially by the Indian from Santa Clara entitled 'Hell on Earth'. People like him must try to understand that to market her book, Mary Anne Weaver has to create as much hype as possible and relate everything in Pakistan to Islamic extremism and militant activities because that is what sells in a post 9/11 world. People are concerned about militant activities by radical muslims, and they want to learn as much as they can about the fundamentalism phenomenon. Take a look at the editorial review on www. Amazon.com and you will understand my point.
This book does deal in detail about Pakistan's militant activities, but it also deals with other issues like democracy, Kashmir, and other domestic issues.
Lastly, the Indian from Santa Clara must understand that anyone can portray any country in a number of different ways. Just like Pakistan can be portrayed as Hell on Earth, India or any other country can be portrayed as Hell. For example, I can portray India as a country that aspires to become a regional bully. India's meddling in Pakistan's affairs,ranging from East Pakistan's secession to anti-Pakistan activities in Sind and Baluchistan, add to that numerous terrorist acts within Pakistan by agents of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's bullying of Bangladesh on the demarcation of the Indo-Bangla border, India's meddling in the civil war of Sri Lanka, for which Rajiv Gandhi paid the price with his life, are all examples of this. India's human rights record is nothing to be proud of. The recent Gujarat riots speak for themselves. It is a well established fact that it was the Hindu Kar Sevaks who started the fight on Godhra, and what followed was a massacre of Indian Muslim citizens by crazed Hindu fanatics led by the Chief Minister Modi. We all know about the much publicized attack in January of 1999 in which an Australian missionary and his children were burnt alive by Hindu radicals. The list can go on and on. But that is not the point. I did not intend this to be an anti-India ranting. My point is that the people of India and Pakistan should learn from each other's experiences and mistakes. Poverty is widespread in both India and Pakistan, and together with Bangladesh, we are home to the poorest of humanity. The poor in both India and Pakistan will favor peace if it guarantees them food and housing. The millions that India and Pakistan waste in the snow-clad peaks of Siachen can be used to do much good in both countries. Finally, the people of both countries must understand that their destinies are inter-twined, and with nuclear weapons now in the equation, there is no way both countries can win a military conflict, a war in the sub-continent will mean a nuclear holocaust. Unfortunately, the hawks in both countries( and there are many of them) hate each other very much, and the voices of reason are stifled by their rants.
Both India and Pakistan can learn from each other. Instead of criticizing each other at all times, we must help each other with our problems and work for the common people in both countries. I favor peace between both countries and realize that painful compromises have to be made by both countries. But for the sake of the poor of our countries, we must make these compromises and have the courage to admit our mistakes. The borders of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are stained with blood. These people who all died for our countries died for something they believed in. They gave their today for our tomorrow. So that we can build a better future for ourselves. They died in the belief that one day, no more Indians and Pakistanis would have to fight each other, they died in the belief that one day, we will realize the futility of war and conflict. We have yet to realize this futility. Indians and Pakistanis have to forgive each other for their mistakes, even though they may not forget them. It is time that we, the people of India and Pakistan stop living in our tragic past and move on to build a better future.
650912
Pakistan has been described as a pivital US ally in the war against terrorism. Most of the major Al-Qaeda figures arrested so far have been arrested in Pakistan. Many wetsren educated Pakistanis impress their colleagues and counterparts around the world. Pakistanis play great cricket and speak wonderful English. But this same pivotal western ally was the chief backer of the Taliban in Afghanistan until 9/11. Its mullahs run rampage at alarming frequency. Cases like that of the rape victim Mukhtaran Bibi are reported in the western media with regularity. How does one square off these contradictions?

Mr. Husain Haqqani explains how Pakistanis in general are nice but their governments have been terrible. His book is good for Pakistanis because it explains the connection between militarism, Islamic extermism and terrorism. He sets right many myths about Pakistan, both historic and recent. Foreigners will get a better and more balanced understanding of Pakistan -- their pivotal ally in the war against terrorism -- from this book, with every fact duly footnooted.
3756245
Limor Livnat writes in this book that after the Six Day War, someone scribbled "Am Yisrael Chai" (the people of Israel live) on the Arch of Titus in Rome.

You see, the Arch of Titus is there to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem, over 1900 years ago.  The Roman Empire is gone.  And the Jews they went after, by no means as numerous or wealthy as the Romans, are still around.  Livnat says that this means that the Jews have "defied history."

I wouldn't put it quite that way.  But I do think we ought to realize that Big Empires can topple, while a much smaller people can withstand losing some battles and wars.  In particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews, having outlasted the Romans, managed to outlast some of their more recent foes.

Livnat is an Israeli politician.  I think it might be worth comparing her, especially given her role as Education Minister, with Hanan Ashrawi, who once served as Arafat's Education Minister.  Not all people are alike, and I think the contrast between these two people is enormous.  Livnat is a genuine public servant, while Ashrawi has merely been a counterproductive propagandizer.

Livnat, speaking at the Golda Meir center in Haifa, says that women can be leaders.  And that they can be feminists as well.  The Knesset is dominated by men right now.  Livnat feels that there is no reason why it couldn't be half women and half men.  Neither do I.  And she points out that there are some attitude changes that may need to be made to accomplish this.  But she insists that "a woman can be a feminist and religious, a feminist and a capitalist, a feminist and an astronaut, or a feminist and a quilt-maker."  I strongly agree.

As for leadership, maybe that would be a problem if a leader always had to be the person who could lift the heaviest weight.  Luckily, that isn't the case at all.

Livnat states her vision for the future.  She sees an Israel that will defend and protect Jews both in Israel and elsewhere.  One which will continue to absorb immigrants from everywhere and will have stronger bonds with the Jewish diaspora.  A Jewish and democratic Israel (as she explains, that is not a contradiction) that is at peace with its neighbors.  And an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Right now, all this may look preposterous, much as Herzl's vision of a Jewish state must have seemed preposterous a century ago.  But her dream is merely one that has come true for many other small nations.

I recommend this book.
2852108
Although I am giving this book five stars, I do find it wise to state that I do not fully agree with some of the author's statements.

Page 26 and 27, Mohammed Ayoob states, "The outbreak of democracy movements simultaneously in several Arab countries, the consolidation of democracy in Turkey, and the surprising outcome of the 2013 Presidential elections in Iran all testify to the commitment of Middle Eastern people to democratic values and to their efforts to pry out political space even in difficult circumstances, such as in Iran, to express popular will.

My 12 years in Mubarak's Egypt, two years in Qaddafi's Libya, and two jaunts into Palestine during Arafat's tenure (2002), combined with two years back in Egypt (2011 - 2013) convinces me that Ayoob is only partly correct. The younger people were fed up with being the conservative style of governance, much as American baby boomers demanded changes in the late 1960s. My point is that, in the Middle East, as well as in America, it was that they demanded less control over their lifestyle and freedom to speak out and to not conform. What I observed in Egypt was a gravitation towards anarchy, not democracy. That is, I suspect, what led to, permitted, no, demanded the military to take control.

To some the above may seem difficult to grasp - but understanding that distinction is critically important to getting a feel for the political currents and cross-currents in Egypt, if not the Arab Spring.

Bear in mind, throughout the Arabic nations, the demographics are much younger than in the West. Therefore, the economic crisis assailing these countries was hitting the younger people much harder than it was hitting the youth in Western countries.

In Chapter 3 Deadlock Over Palestine, Ayoob makes some good points regarding Arab's in Israel and regarding Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Other than a few key points, I found Will the Middle East Implode to be an extremely useful book in regards to understanding the present-day Middle East. I agree with his conclusion that the Middle East seems poised on the cusp of conflict and war similar to that of Europe as the Europeans in their run-up to World War I.

Of course, my take would be that the region is not unlike a whirlpool or a black hole, in that all the forces are trying like the devil to escape, and are scrambling every which way to no avail, as the collide with one another and get sucked ever further into the abyss.

Just as Ayoob points out two key developments (Syria, regarding chemical weapons & the possible de-escalation in Iran-America relations) one also must take note of Putin's stalwart support of Bashar Assad; Putin's warming relations with the Egyptian military-led government; and Putin's invasion of sovereign Ukraine-Crimea). All of these factors pose a dilemma which Western leaders, and so-called Think Tanks need to heed.

Again, although I loved, and highly recommend Will the Middle East Implode by Mohammed Ayoob, I wish the author could have gone deeper into his discussions, for his writing is crisp, yet easy-flowing, much as though he and I were discussing some of the more important topics confronting today's world leaders.
507287
Here is a critical (but not flawless) book.  In it, Fareed Zakaria reminds Americans of an idea that was obvious and fundamental to the founders of our nation, but is now anathema to most: That Democracy and freedom are not one and the same, and that too much Democracy can quickly become the enemy of freedom.

That probably sounds strange to most Americans, which is why Zakaria wrote this book.  We've been raised to believe that Democracy is unquestionably good and that more of it is always better.  In reality, that's a pretty new attitude.  At the time of this country's founding, Democracy was viewed very skeptically.  The Founders knew that left unchecked, the majority could be an even worse tyrant than an individual because it would have the illusion of morality on its side.  For that reason, our nation's government was set up as Republic, not a Democracy (think of the Pledge of Allegiance).  A Republic allows the people to choose from pre-screened applicants for leadership roles and then delegates leadership to them.

Zakaria argues that the gradual breakdown of the protections against the Tyranny of the Majority as we've moved further and further towards democratization has had a vast negative effect.  Politicians most focus increasingly on the short-term approval of voters in order to get re-elected and are kept from using their judgment and long-term outlook.

The book is filled with eye-opening insights and makes you aware of problems you may never have considered before.  It is one of those books that has the power to change your outlook on major issues.  That said, it isn't perfect.  Zakaria needs to fully form his ideas just a little more.  He obviously is a fan of the free market in most cases, but then says that too much of the free market can act in the same way as too much democratization (he uses the downfall as the Book of the Month Club as an a example of cultural diminution brought about by too much free market.)  It's an interesting point, but the reader is left wondering where Zakaria thinks the free market is good, and where he thinks it should be cut back.  He needs a clear rule to say, "Use more until "X", then stop."  There are a couple cases where Zakaria seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, and that rarely works out.

None of that stops this book from being a very important read for modern Americans.  I believe Zakaria is striking at the central issue that will determine whether America can retain (or maybe even reclaim) its current and former glory, or whether it will slip off into history.  Zakaria doesn't sound an optimistic note, but at least he's done his part to sound the alarm.  I applaud his efforts.  Read this book and give it to your friends as well.
1252618
I found this first-hand account of a punitive campaign against Islamic tribesmen on a far edge of British India fascinating in two ways.

1) Churchill takes for granted near the dawn of the 20th century that technologically and militarily advanced European nations have an evident right to rule people in distant lands who lack effective means to resist the Empire. In one passage, he laments the fact that British conscripts are young men in their early 20s, not yet at their peak in his estimation, who serve next to Indian troops who are considerably older and therefore at their peak of physical power and courage. He worries about what would happen should the Indians ever arrive at the idea that they are the equals of Europeans.

He defends the practice of burning villages and destroying their crops in their fields, reasoning that the threat of starvation during the subsequent winter is a useful tool in securing the peace.

2) This must have been one of the last non-mechanized wars fought by a world power on our planet. The troops relied on mule and camel trains for transit. The only wheeled traffic, made possible only with great exertion, were artillery batteries. Cavalry in this account still appear to rely on lances and sabers more often than their carbines. Efficient communications were made with heliographs from one mountaintop to the next, and the nearest telegraph station was days away back in India proper.

It is astonishing to imagine the same military organization making the leap into World War I less than 20 years after this account, and learning under pressure to employ motorized transport, aircraft, wireless sets, chemical warfare, and even primitive tanks. The image of horse cavalry trotting across Belgium and France in 1914 makes a little more sense to me considering it had been a decisive arm in open ground in living memory.

I appreciate Churchill's writing style for the most part. He is generally clear-headed and unsentimental, and unafraid of writing what is on his mind. He presents a vivid account of the campaign from the campaigners' point of view, and even as a young officer turned correspondent he analyzes the effort and the wider implications for the Empire.

I read the Kindle version, which did not include a single map. For this reason, and because the book does not consider the opposing point of view, I give it 4 stars. If one had an atlas in hand, and was only interested in the military campaign divorced from its political roots and long-term outcomes, it would be a 5-star book in my opinion.
518244
This is an old a/c of the working system of one particular community of India known as Sindhis(now in w. Pakistan).They definitely brought name,fame,money to country. This community helped all freedom fighters in those foreign countries before WWII,during war and after. This community was praised by practically all great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi,Subhash Chander Bose and others. Unfortunetly they lost their Janam Bhoomi(Birth place),Sind was sacrificed at time of partition and this valuable and productive community was driven out and became home-less. But because of this system they work hard came up and flourished them selves and now have become theThe World Citizens.
Book does not give a details of working but complaints about the Bosses,no doubt they were like that but they had some limitations too. This is the translation of book which was written 20's. I wish translator should have added some post thirties,pre-partition and post partition. This would have been knowledgeable for younger generation of Sindhworkies and a tribute to their ancestors sacrifice. Any way it's good historical account preservation. Prem Sharma.
2485251
Interesting  view of a competitive country's government that desires power, adulation and their all consuming focus on illusion
74399
Nehru was a great blend of idealism and 'courage to act' on that idealism. This book provides various examples of Nehru's courage including:
1) When Nehru physically fights a Hindu attacking a Muslim during the riots (shortly after India's independence). When the attacker realizes who it is - he backs away - the story spreads - leading most Muslims to start trusting Nehru over their own communal leaders.
2) Nehru openly and fiercely attacked Mussolini, Nazis and every form of fascism in Europe. He predicted that if the fascists were not stopped - it would lead to a 2nd world war. He also blamed England (Churchill) for having the power to stop these madmen but not doing enough before the start of the war. There are specific examples in this book about the 'its business as usual' attitude of Britain towards the ongoing Nazi brutalities prior to 1939.
3) It seems Nehru was truly blind to any form of discrimination. He adamantly refused to accept any communal division in India - claiming that there was no 'Hindu Indian' or 'Muslim India' -  just one united India - regardless of how much ever the British tried to create communal divide.
 Talk about ungraceful exits - the British ensured that they made the task of managing a free India (after their departure) a nightmare. They did everything they could to fuel communal tensions (including providing legislature seats based specifically on 'religion'. Granted - Jinnah's contribution to requesting these type of seats was part of the equation - however - the British leadership had the power to not buy into any communal divide.)

 While younger generations in India blame Nehru somewhat for his socialist tendencies - and not doing enough - anyone who reads this biography will be convinced that Nehru did more than one man's fair share (he spent over 9 years of his life in jail - and continually courted arrest rather than back down on his stance or withdraw his anti-British statements).

 Shashi Tharoor's writing style makes this book flow well - and his touches of humor are brilliant.
3738855
It is unfortunate he has not dwelt on the key issues that brought down one of the best governed states in the world. From total bankruptcy to becoming the richest state and himself, Nizam VII as the richest man in the world could not have come without greatness of vision and action. All people of Hyderabad regardless of religion loved him for what he was - fair and loving to all, very forward looking and a patron of education and development. Every brick in the state bears testimony to this.

He was truly secular and was not at all autocratic, (read Panduranga Reddy and others), which the invaders want to paint him as. Hyderabad was in its legal right as per Independence of India Act to press for independence. Hyderabad had an option to either join India or Pakistan or remain independent. Just because the ruler was Muslim did not mean the state must be invaded and dismembered. It was not a legal invasion nor was it as per the wishes of the people which were never ascertained. But it was clear no one wanted a military invasion on themselves.

The communal divide was in The North India and never in the State of Hyderabad. So who was someone in the North to decide on the fate of the citizens of a neighboring state? Barring a few Maharashtrians that could be counted on finger tips nobody was against the Nizam or the state of Hyderabad. Why did John Zubrzycki not go into the details of how people suffered? It was not a small invasion and not few people died. People died in huge numbers, thousands and most of them were Muslims.

Why he did not go into the details why in 1956 the state was trifurcated? Why were we transfered all over the country with children losing the grass roots contacts with their own people. The sufferings were enormous. Why were citizens thrown out of job? Why was legislation done to take their properties away. Why? What wrong had they done? John did not go into any substantive issues. Why was Nizam's property and money taken away under one pretext or the other?

All and all a useless book, a money making venture, that lost the opportunity of addressing the issue. In Hyderabad no body was allowed to write the truth of what happened in 1948. Couldn't you have done it man? I am disappointed even you were afraid to speak the truth. A few generations are dead and gone who knew a lot. You can still find a some information though, of what really happened. Don't read the non-Hyderabadi's aggressor's PoV books and write a book like A.G.'s trash. I am sure you can do better and that will be a best seller.
4706578
For this outsider this is a Very eye opening discussion  and describing what seems to be central fault line in todays INdian culture between two conceptions of the nation-state: one is centralized emphasizing unity  and led by corporate sector (Savarkar) and the other decentralized emphasizing. Diversity led by local civil society. I was surprised by the clarity of the testimony of Gandhis assassin.
642258
The founders were not so enamored of limited government as we've been led to believe.
323287
The book is a complicated read, which is a fair reflection on the man who's story it is. It does not convey a good sense of timeline of events as well as assumes knowledge of some of the historic events specific to Indian freedom struggle or Gandhi-ji's time in South Africa. This of course leaves the non-informed reader puzzled.

I suppose many would come to this book inspired by Gandhi-ji's ideals and in these pages they are sure to find the great culmination of acute stubbornness coupled with a desire to serve, bondage to faith, an inner world inhabited by mountains of conflict, resolve, and introspection directed at investigating what may be the right thing to do.

Gandhi-ji was a dangerously stubborn man who was not afraid to challenge any person or institution that stood in way of how he saw things. Fortunately for this world, he was a man of peace, service, and of dedication to uplifting humanity. It is a scary thought to wonder where he may have led the world were his direction of action and thinking were of reversed order.

This book gives deep insight into Gandhi-ji's psyche. However, for readers seeking to understand the times that made Gandhi as much as the man himself, it is best to supplement this reading with other books that provide more vivid details of the historic events of the era along with the associated chronology, content, and an analysis on the possible implications of these events.