Guilty Men of India's Partition

1. THIS IN THE FORM OF LONG ESSAY IS THE LAMENT OF RAM MANOHAR LOHIA EXPRESSING HIS PAIN ON PARTITION OF INDIA2. HE EXPOSES THE REAL CULPRITS RESPONSIBLE FOR PARTITION OF INDIA WHICH INCLUDES JAWAHARLAL NEHRU , SARDAR PATEL & THEIR CAMP FOLLOWERS3. IT SHOWS EXCEPT MAULANA AZAD , HASRAT MOHANI , RAM MANOHAR LOHIA & JAYPRAKASH NARAIN WHO VOTED AGAINST PARTITION RESOLUTION IN CONGRESS WORKING COMMITTEE MEETING EVERY ONE ELSE VOTED IN FAVOUR WITH NOTABLE ABSTENTION OF MAHATMA GANDHI4. ITS AN INTERESTING REVEAL THAT WHEN MOUNTBATTEN PROPOSED PARTITION WITH MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH HE REFUSED SIGNING & AGREED WITH RELUCTANCE TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF MUSLIM LEAGUE ONLY AFTER A DOCUMENT SIGNED BY JAWAHARLAL NEHRU & SARDAR PATEL ACCEPTING PARTITION ALONG WITH CWC RESOLUTION SIGNED BY ALL MEMBERS FAVOURING IT & AUTHORISING JAWAHARLAL NEHRU & SARDAR PATEL TO SIGN PARTITION AGREEMENT IS HANDED OVER TO HIM5. EVERY GENUINE INDIAN PATRIOT SHOULD READ

Lohia ji was intellect of the highest order.

Concise book. Good quality printing. The book came packed so wonderfully. It had no damages and no dog ears or broken spine. The publishers have truly regarded the book Nd it's good condition

For historical purpose

To me it sounds like the grapes are sour. It is an account or perceptions of a man, who is highly regarded in some circles, who did not like certain leaders of the Congress, such as Nehru, Azad, Patel, and even Gandhi. He was not privy to many deliberations, though he earnestly wanted to be. I did not even find a Socialist in his expressions of himself which he is regarded enormously as such. He is even aligned with the fascist forces of Hitler and Mussolini as against the Allied forces. At least from this book, I failed to understand this man about whom I had heard a lot before reading this book. To me he sounds like a frustrated man who believes that he did not get what deserved.

A very good book which every indian must read

A very revealing book of the other side of popular politicians who are projected to be iconic by the exploiters of their popularity.Listen from the stern but humble voice that stood out and saw all of it in the thick of the battles

The author states at the beginning that this work started as an answer to Maulana Azad''s book (memior), but later got extended to include his own views on the partition.The 'book' is essentially one long essay, (with section numbers appearing intermittently), though it is not actually organized as per the section numbers! It is more like a stream of thought, taking detours & following up stray points, but basically includes a critique of Azad''s work, the author's own (idealistic) ideas about how India could have remained (and may yet be) reunited, and also contains a number of interesting tidbits (generally uncomplimentary) involving our 'great' leaders.

I wish the content truly reflected the content of the book. His difficulty with the Congress Party and Mr. Nehru is clear but he does not make a definitive statement about culpability in the Partition. Also, he has not shared his knowledge of the Moslem extremism that destroyed the subcontinent. The foolishness of the Congress Party and Mahatma Gandhi was in not sending all the Moslems from India to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. But Pakistan sent all the Hindus to India. This was an unfair bargain. The author should have reflected on this point.