Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:14 am

Parliament of the World's Religions
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19



Chicago Meeting, 1893
Status Active
Genre Conference, Exhibits
Inaugurated 11-16 September 1893[1] (Chicago, USA)
Previous event 15-19 October 2015 (Salt Lake, USA)
Next event 1-7 November 2018 (Toronto, Canada)

There have been several meetings referred to as a Parliament of the World's Religions, the first being the World's Parliament of Religions of 1893, which was an attempt to create a global dialogue of faiths. The event was celebrated by another conference on its centenary in 1993. This led to a new series of conferences under the official title Parliament of the World's Religions.


An organization was incorporated in 1988 to carry out the tradition of the Parliament of the World's Religions by marking the centennial of the first Parliament. The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions[2] is headquartered in Chicago. Its board of trustees are elected from various faith communities. Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield serves as its executive director.[3]


1893 Parliament

Swami Vivekananda on the platform of the Parliament of Religions September 1893. On the platform (left to right) Virchand Gandhi, Anagarika Dharmapala, Swami Vivekananda[4] and G. Bonet Maury.

In 1893, the city of Chicago hosted the World Columbian Exposition, an early world's fair. So many people were coming to Chicago from all over the world that many smaller conferences, called Congresses and Parliaments, were scheduled to take advantage of this unprecedented gathering. One of these was the World's Parliament of Religions, an initiative of the Swedenborgian layman (and judge) Charles Carroll Bonney.[5][6] The Parliament of Religions was by far the largest of the congresses held in conjunction with the Exposition.[7] John Henry Barrows, a clergyman, was appointed as the first chairman of the General Committee of the 1893 Parliament by Charles Bonney.[8]

The Parliament of Religions opened on 11 September 1893 at the World's Congress Auxiliary Building which is now The Art Institute of Chicago, and ran from 11 to 27 September, making it the first organized interfaith gathering.[9] Today it is recognized as the occasion of the birth of formal interreligious dialogue worldwide, with representatives of a wide variety of religions and new religious movements, including:

• The Jain preacher Virchand Gandhi was invited as a representative of Jainism.[10]
• The Buddhist preacher Anagarika Dharmapala was invited as a representative of "Southern Buddhism," the term applied at that time to the Theravada.
• Soyen Shaku, the "First American Ancestor" of Zen, made the trip.[11]
• An essay by the Japanese Pure Land master Kiyozawa Manshi, "Skeleton of the philosophy of religion" was read in his absence.
• Swami Vivekananda belongs Bengali Kayastha community represented Hinduism as a delegate, introducing Hinduism at the opening session of the Parliament on 11 September.[12]Though initially nervous, he bowed to Saraswati, then began his speech with salutation, "Sisters and brothers of America!". To these words he got a standing ovation from a crowd of seven thousand, which lasted for two minutes. When silence was restored he began his address. He greeted the youngest of the nations on behalf of "the most ancient order of monks in the world, the Vedic order of sannyasins, a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance!"
• Christianity was represented by G. Bonet Maury who was a protestant historian invited by Swami Vivekananda
• Islam was represented by Mohammed Alexander Russell Webb, an Anglo-American convert to Islam and the former US ambassador to the Philippines.
• Rev. Henry Jessup addressing the World Parliament of Religions was the first to publicly discuss the Bahá'í Faith in the United States (it had previously been known in Europe).[13] Since then Bahá'ís have become active participants.[14]
• Theism or the Brahmo Samaj was represented by Pratap Chandra Majumdar
• The Theosophical Society was represented by the Vice-President of the society, William Quan Judge and by activist Annie Besant.
• New religious movements of the time, such as Spiritualism and Christian Science. The latter was represented by Septimus J. Hanna, who read an address written by its founder Mary Baker Eddy.[15]

Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists; these religions and spiritual traditions were not represented until the 1993 Parliament convened.

1993 Parliament

In 1993, the Parliament convened at the Palmer House hotel in Chicago. Over 8,000 people from all over the world, from many diverse religions, gathered to celebrate, discuss and explore how religious traditions can work together on the critical issues which confront the world.[16] A document, "Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration", mainly drafted by Hans Küng, set the tone for the subsequent ten days of discussion. This global ethic was endorsed by many of the attending religious and spiritual leaders who were part of the parliament assembly.[17]

Also created for the 1993 parliament was a book, A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions, by the late Joel Beversluis, which has become a standard textbook in religion classes. Unlike most textbooks of religion, each entry was written by members of the religion in question.

The keynote address was given by the Dalai Lama on the closing day of the assembly. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin also participated.

1999 Parliament

More than 7,000 individuals from over 80 countries attended 1999 Parliament in Cape Town, South Africa. The Parliament began with a showing of the international AIDS Memorial Quilt to highlight the epidemic of AIDS in South Africa, and of the role that religious and spiritual traditions play in facing the critical issues that face the world. The event continued with hundreds of panels, symposia and workshops, offerings of prayer and meditation, plenaries and performances. The programs emphasized issues of religious, spiritual, and cultural identity, approaches to interreligious dialogue, and the role of religion in response to the critical issues facing the world today.

The Parliament Assembly considered a document called A Call to Our Guiding Institutions, addressed to religion, government, business, education, and media inviting these institutions to reflect on and transform their roles at the threshold of the next century.

In addition to the Call, the Parliament staff had created a book, Gifts of Service to the World, showcasing over 300 projects considered to be making a difference in the world. The Assembly members also deliberated about Gifts of Service which they could offer or could pledge to support among those projects gathered in the Gifts document.

2004 Parliament

It was celebrated in the Universal Forum of Cultures.[18] More than 8,900 individuals attended the 2004 Parliament in Barcelona, Spain. Having created the declaration Towards a Global Ethic[19] at the 1993 Parliament and attempted to engage guiding institutions at the 1999 Parliament, the 2004 Parliament concentrated on four pressing issues: mitigating religiously motivated violence, access to safe water, the fate of refugees worldwide, and the elimination of external debt in developing countries. Those attending were asked to make a commitment to a "simple and profound act" to work on one of these issues.

2009 Parliament

Melbourne, Australia, hosted the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions. The 2009 parliament took place from 3 December to 9 December. Over 6,000 people attended the parliament.[20]

The Melbourne parliament addressed issues of Aboriginal reconciliation. The issues of sustainability and global climate change were explored through the lens of indigenous spiritualities. Environmental issues and the spirituality of youth were also key areas of dialogue.

The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions suggested that the Melbourne parliament would "educate participants for global peace and justice" through exploring religious conflict and globalization, creating community and cross-cultural networks and addressing issues of religious violence. It supported "strengthening religious and spiritual communities" by providing a special focus on indigenous and Aboriginal spiritualities; facilitating cooperation between Pagan, Jewish, Christian, Bahá'í, Jain, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and Hindu communities; crafting new responses to religious extremism and confronting homegrown terrorism and violence.[21]

The Rev. Dirk Ficca served as the executive director at the time of the 2009 Parliament of Religions. Ms. Zabrina Santiago served as deputy director and partner cities director.

2015 Parliament

In 2011, The Parliament of World's Religions announced that the 2014 Parliament would take place in Brussels, Belgium.[22] In November 2012, a joint statement from Brussels and CPWR announced that because of the financial crisis in Europe, Brussels was unable to raise the funds required for a Parliament.[23]

On 15–19 October, the 2015 Parliament took place at the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah.[24] 9,806 attendees, performers, and volunteers from 73 countries, 30 major religions and 548 sub-traditions participated in the Parliament.[25] During the closing ceremony, Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid announced that the Parliament would henceforth be held every two years, with the next gathering scheduled for 2017.[26] This was later changed to 2018.

2018 Parliament

The Board of Trustees of the Parliament organization selected Toronto as the site of the 2018 Parliament of the World's Religions at their April 2017 Board meeting. The event was scheduled for 1-7 November 2018.[27]

Related Events

Great Religious Exposition

From March to May 1930, Kyoto, Japan hosted a Great Religious Exposition (宗教大博覧会 Shūkyō Dai-hakurankai). Religious groups from across Japan and China exhibited at the fair.[28] All of Japan's traditional Buddhist sects had an exhibit, as well as Christianity.[29]

2007 Monterrey Forum of Cultures

Forum Monterrey 2007 was an international event which included Parliament-style events and dialogues.[30] It was held as part of the 2007 Universal Forum of Cultures, which featured international congresses, dialogues, exhibitions, and spectacles on the themes of peace, diversity, sustainability and knowledge. Special emphasis was placed on the eight objectives of the Millennium Development goals for eradicating abject poverty around the world.

2016 Central European Interfaith Forum (CEIF 2016)

On 25 July 2016 the Parliament of the World’s Religions–Slovakia and the Slovak Esperanto Federation in collaboration with other partners organized in Nitra, Slovakia called the Central European Interfaith Forum.[31][32][33]

Besides Elisabeth Ziegler-Duregger, Ambassador of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, there were also more than 150 participants representing 20 nations, three continents, seven world religions as well as other religious, spiritual or humanist traditions convened for interfaith and civic exchanges in the search for solutions to the growing ethnic, cultural and religious tension in Europe and to jointly address some of humanity’s most vexing problems such as the alarming trends of nationalism, extremism and xenophobia in societies.[33][34] The event resulted in a statement (the Nitra statement).[34]

See also

• Interfaith dialogue
• Ecumenism
• Sarva Dharma Sammelan (Meeting of all religions) held every year in India


1. Chicago 1893
2., Official Site
3. "Dr. Larry Greenfield | Parliament of the World's Religions". Retrieved 2015-10-31.
4. "Chicago, September, 1893 on the platform". Retrieved 11 April 2012.
5. Marcus Braybrooke, Charles Bonney and the Idea for a World Parliament of Religions, The Interfaith Observer
6. Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology, World Parliament of Religions (1893)
7. McRae, John R. (1991). "Oriental Verities on the American Frontier: The 1893 World's Parliament of Religions and the Thought of Masao Abe". Buddhist-Christian Studies. University of Hawai'i Press. 11: 7–36. doi:10.2307/1390252. JSTOR 1390252.
8. Michaud, Derek. An Analysis of Culture and 14 April 2012.
9. "Parliament of the World’s Religions", Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, 23 October 2015
10. Jain, Pankaz; Pankaz Hingarh; Bipin Doshi; Smt. Priti Shah. "Virchand Gandhi, A Gandhi before Gandhi". herenow4u. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
11. Ford, James Ishmael (2006). Zen Master Who?. Wisdom Publications. pp. 59–62. ISBN 0-86171-509-8.
12. Dutt 2005, p. 121
13. "First Public Mentions of the Bahá'í Faith". Bahá'í Information Office of the UK. 1998. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
14. "Baha'is participate in interfaith parliament". Bahá'í World News Service. Bahá’í International Community. 12 July 2004. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
15. Peel, Robert (1977). Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston, p. 51.
16. "1993 Chicago: Chicago 1993 |". Retrieved 2017-11-22.
17. "Global Ethic: About the Global Ethic |". Retrieved 2017-11-22.
18. "2004 Parliament of the World's Religions". Retrieved 27 February 2019.
19. "Towards a Global Ethic". 13 September 2014.
20. "Guestview: Faiths meet at Parliament of World Religions". Reuters. 8 December 2009.
22. "Brussels to Host the Parliament". Parliament of the World's Religions. 21 March 2011.
23. "Joint Statement About Brussels 2014". 30 November 2012.
24. "Parliament of World Religions convenes in Mormon country - at last". 14 October 2015. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
25. "Parliament Follow Up Letter | Inter Religious Federation for World Peace". Retrieved 2015-10-31.
26. Parliament of the World's Religions in Salt Lake 'best ever,' chairman says. Deseret News. Retrieved 2016-6-27.
27. "2018 Toronto: Toronto 2018 |". Retrieved 2017-11-22.
28. 村上重良「評伝出口王仁三郎」1978. p. 183.
29. Stalker, Nancy K. (2008). Prophet motive : Deguchi Onisaburō, Oomoto, and the rise of new religions in Imperial Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. pp. 118–130. ISBN 9780824831721.
30. "2007 Universal Forum of Cultures, Monterrey, Mexico". Retrieved 27 February 2019.
31. "Central European Interfaith Formum". CIEF. 4 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
32. "Central European Interfaith Forum". World Esperanto Congress 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
33. "Forum of the World's Religions". Our Forum 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
34. "CEIF Central European Interfaith Forum" (PDF). Nitra Statement. CEIF. Retrieved 4 August 2016.

Further reading

• The World's Congress of Religions – The addresses and papers delivered before the Parliament, and the Abstract of the Congresses, held in Chicago, August 1893 to October 1893, under the Auspices of The World's Columbian Exposition. Chicago, 1894.[1]
• Rev. J. H. Barrows. The World's Parliament of Religions. Chicago,1893.
• Rev. J. L. Jones. A Chorus of faith as heard in Parliament of Religions held in Chicago, 10–27 September 1893. Chicago, 1893.
• Rev. L. P. Mercer. Review of the World's Religions Congresses of the World's Congress Auxiliary of the World's Columbian Exposition. Chicago, 1893.
• Prof. Walter R. Houghton. Neely's History of the Parliament of Religions and Religious Congresses at the World's Columbian Exposition. Chicago, 1893.
• Max Muller. Arens, December 1894. Boston.
• Bonnet Maury. Revue des deux mondes, 15 August 1894.
• R. Rev. Kean. Catholic family annual, 1893.
• Rev. J. H. Barrows. "Results of the Parliament of Religions". The Forum, September 1894.
• G. D. Boardmann. The Parliament of Religions. Philadelphia, 1893.
• M. Zmigrodsky. "Kongres Katolicki i Kongres wszech Religij w Chicago 1893 roku". Kraków, 1894.
• Gen. M. M. Trumbull. "The Parliament of Religions". The Monist, April 1894.
• Dr. Paul Carus. "The dawn of a new religious Era". The Forum, 1893. The Monist, April 1894.
Peel, Robert (1977). Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston, p. 51.

External links

•, Official Site
• Videos: Portal, Official Portal
• Das Weltparlament der Religionen in Chicago 1893 (German)
• Video of Fahad Abualnasr, Director General of KAICID on the occasion of the Central European Interfaith Forum 2016 held in Nitra, Slovakia.


1. "The Worlds Congress of Religions". Conkey Company. Retrieved 2014-09-13.
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:26 am

Charles C. Bonney
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19




Charles Carroll Bonney (1831–1903) was a Chicago lawyer, judge, teacher, author, and orator, best known for serving as President of the World's Congresses at the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893.


Charles C. Bonney was born in Hamilton, New York on September 4, 1831. He was schooled in Hamilton, and attended Colgate University, eventually receiving his LL.D. After a brief stint as a teacher in Hamilton, Bonney moved to Peoria, Illinois, where he founded a school. In 1852, he became a lecturer in education at Peoria College, and in this capacity played a role in setting up the Illinois state school system.

Bonney moved to Chicago in 1860. In 1866, he became a judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois. He participated in the foundation of the International Law and Order League in Toronto in 1880, and later served as that organization's president from 1885 to 1893. Bonney was president of the Illinois State Bar Association in 1882. He was also active in the American Bar Association, serving as Vice President in 1887, and in that capacity gaining notoriety in the press, with many journalists calling for Bonney to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

A member of the New Jerusalem Church, Bonney played an active role in organizing the Parliament of the World's Religions
, held in conjunction with the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893.

The New Church (or Swedenborgianism) is the name for several historically related Christian denominations which developed as a new religious movement, influenced by the writings of scientist and Swedish Lutheran theologian Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772). According to Swedenborg, he received a new revelation from Jesus Christ in visions he experienced over a period of at least twenty-five years. He predicted in his writings that God would replace the traditional Christian Church, establishing a New Church which would worship God as Jesus Christ. According to New Church doctrine, each person must cooperate in repentance, reformation, and regeneration.[1]

The movement was founded on the belief that God explained the spiritual meaning of the Bible to Swedenborg to reveal the truth of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Swedenborg cited divine revelation for his writings,[2] and his followers believe that he witnessed the Last Judgment in the spiritual world with the inauguration of the New Church.

The church is seen by its members as what Jesus is establishing with those who believe that he is the one God of heaven and Earth, with obedience to Jesus' commandments necessary for salvation. It is thought that any Christian holding these beliefs is part of the New Church. New Church organizations acknowledge what they believe to be the universal nature of Jesus' church: all who do good in accordance with the truth of their religion will be accepted by Jesus into heaven (since God is goodness itself), and doing good joins one with God.[3] Adherents believe that New Church doctrine is derived from the Bible and provides enlightenment of the truth; this leads to diminished doubt, a recognition of personal faults and a more-focused, happier life.[4]

Other names for the movement include Swedenborgian, New Christians, Neo-Christians, Church of the New Jerusalem, and The Lord's New Church. Although those outside the church may refer to the movement as Swedenborgianism, some adherents distance themselves from this title (which implies following Swedenborg, rather than Jesus). Swedenborg published some of his theological works anonymously; his writings promoted one church based on love and charity, rather than multiple churches named after their founders and based on belief or doctrine.[5]

-- The New Church (Swedenborgian), by Wikipedia

Over 200 "World's Congresses" or "World's Parliaments" were held in conjunction with the World's Columbian Exposition (besides the Parliament of the World's Religions, there were also congresses of anthropology, labor, medicine, temperance, commerce and finance, literature, history, art, philosophy, and science). Bonney served as president of the combined World Congresses.

Bonney published several books in his lifetime, the most notable of which were his Handbook of the Law of Railway Carriers, Summary of the Law of Insurance, The World's Parliament of Religions, and The World's Congress Addresses.

Bonney took ill in 1900, and, after three years' sickness, died of paralysis on August 23, 1903 in Chicago. His daughter, Callie Bonney Marble, was an author and lyricist.


• Obituary in The New York Times
• Appletons Encyclopedia

External links

• Works by or about Charles C. Bonney at Internet Archive
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:20 am

Max von Oppenheim
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19



Max (Freiherr) von Oppenheim (15 July 1860 in Cologne – 17 November 1946 in Landshut) was a German lawyer, diplomat, ancient historian, and archaeologist. He was a member of the Oppenheim banking dynasty. Abandoning his career in diplomacy, he discovered the site of Tell Halaf in 1899 and conducted excavations there in 1911-13 and again in 1929. Bringing many of his finds to Berlin, he exhibited them in a private museum. This was destroyed by Allied bombing in World War II. However, most of the findings were recently restored and have been exhibited again at Berlin and Bonn.

Oppenheim was a controversial figure before and during World War I because he was considered a spy by the French and British. He did in fact engage in anti-Allied propaganda, aimed at stirring up the Muslim populations of the Allied-controlled territories against their colonial masters.

Early life

Max Oppenheim was born on 15 July 1860 in Cologne as the son of Albert Oppenheim [de] and Pauline Engels. Albert Oppenheim, a member of the Jewish Oppenheim family of bankers had converted to Catholicism in 1858 to marry Catholic Pauline Engels, from an established Cologne merchant family. In 1867, Max' grandfather, Simon, was awarded the title of Freiherr (Baron) in Austria-Hungary. As the title was also valid in Prussia, the family now styled itself "von Oppenheim".[1]:16,21

Max grew up as one of five siblings and from an early age he was exposed to art, as his father was an avid collector and patron of the arts. Although his father wanted him to work in the banking house of Sal. Oppenheim, Max had other ideas. According to his unpublished memoirs, it was a Christmas gift of The Thousand and One Nights that first gave rise to his interest in the East. Max attended school at Cologne from 1866–79, finishing with the Abitur at the Apostel-Gymnasium. He then followed the wish of his father and began to study law at the University of Strasbourg. However, rather than study, he spent most of time at the Studentenverbindung "Palatia [de]". He then transferred to Berlin University but his lack of academic progress caused his father to recall him to Cologne where he finished his 1. Staatsexamen and the doctoral exam in 1883. During his time as Referendar he learned Arabic and began to collect Oriental art.[1]:16,22 At that time, Max also did his military service in the 15th Uhlan Guards regiment.[2]:17 He finished his Referendariat in 1891 by passing the exam as Assessor.[1]:22

Travel in the East and diplomatic service

Max von Oppenheim in Arab-style dress, c. 1896

In 1892, Oppenheim travelled to Spain, the Maghreb and on to Cairo where he stayed for seven months, studying Arabic and Islam. Unusually, he moved out of a European-style hotel to live in a quarter inhabited by locals. In 1893-94, Oppenheim then travelled from Cairo through the Syrian desert, Mesopotamia to Basra. He passed through areas not visited by any European explorer before him and developed a keen interest in the Bedouins.[1]:16,23 Returning by way of India and Deutsch Ostafrika to Germany, in 1895 Max von Oppenheim wrote his two volume travelogue Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf, which made him famous on publication in 1899/1900.[1]:23 T.E Lawrence, whom Oppenheim later met at Carchemish in 1912, called Oppenheim's work "the best book on the area I know".[2]:20 In 1895, Oppenheim visited Constantinople and was received for an audience by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, discussing Panislamism.[1]:23

Interested in politics and diplomacy, Oppenheim tried to join the diplomatic corps but the Auswärtiges Amt (Foreign Office) rejected him due to the Jewish background of his father.[1]:23 Using well-connected friends — including Paul Graf von Hatzfeldt[2]:21 — Oppenheim succeeded in being accepted as an attaché (which did not bestow diplomatic status) at the German General Consulate in Cairo.[1]:23 In June 1896, he arrived in Cairo which was to be his home for the next thirteen years. Not issued with any specific instructions, he made use of his freedom to engage in freelance activities, sending reports of his impressions to his superiors in Berlin (over the years totaling around 500). However, most of his messages were simply filed without comment, only rarely distributed more widely within the diplomatic service. Oppenheim was more successful in establishing a network of upper class acquaintances in Cairo, both European and local.[1]:23

This activity and his views in support of the German government's colonial ambitions caused considerable mistrust among the British in Egypt, worried about German designs on the country (which had become a de facto protectorate in 1882), the Suez canal and the lifeline to their possessions in India. The British press repeatedly agitated against him, even styling him a "master spy of the Kaiser".[1]:23–24 For example, when tensions were later heightened by the Aqaba border crisis, 1906, British and French papers accused Oppenheim of acting in ways to incite pan-Islamic jihadi massacres of Europeans and of plotting with anti-French Algerian, and anti-Italian Tripolitan, rebels.[2]:26[3]:333–341

On one of several trips he made while stationed at Cairo, in 1899 Oppenheim travelled via Aleppo to Damascus and northern Mesopotamia on behalf of Deutsche Bank, working on establishing a route for the Baghdad Railway. On 19 November, he discovered the archaeological site of Tell Halaf, following up on tales told to him by local villagers of stone idols buried beneath the sand. Within three days, several significant pieces of statuary were uncovered, including the so-called "Sitting Goddess". A test pit uncovered the entrance to the "Western Palace". Since he had no legal permit to excavate, Oppenheim had the statues he found reburied and moved on. Deutsche Bank was not satisfied with his work on the railway and he was subsequently dismissed as an advisor. He continued to work in Cairo as a diplomat until 1910 when he was dismissed from the diplomatic service with the rank of Ministerresident on 1 November.[1]:16,24,63

Excavations at Tell-Halaf

Reconstructed bird statue found at Tell Halaf (184 by 70 by 70 cm)

Statue of a male from the cult room at Tell Halaf, today at the Adana Museum, Turkey

Relief of a six-winged genius from the palace at Tell Halaf, confiscated by the US government in 1943, today at the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore

Scorpion-birdman from the Scorpion Gate at the Western Palace of Tell Halaf, damaged by fire in 1943 and restored

Replica of a gold clothing ornament found at Tell Halaf

According to noted archaeologist Ernst Herzfeld, he had urged Oppenheim in 1907 to excavate Tell Halaf and they made some initial plans towards this goal at that time. In August 1910, Herzfeld wrote a letter calling on Oppenheim to explore the site and had it circulated to several leading archaeologists like Theodor Noldeke or Ignaz Goldziher to sign. Armed with this letter, Max von Oppenheim was now able to ask for his dismissal from the service (which he did on 24 October 1910) while being able to call on financing from his father for the excavation.[1]:48–49

With a team of five archaeologists, Oppenheim planned a digging campaign that began on 5 August 1911. Substantial equipment was imported, including a small steam train. The costs totaled around 750,000 Mark and were covered by von Oppenheim's father. On arrival, the archaeologists discovered that since 1899 locals had uncovered some of the findings and heavily damaged them - in part out of superstition, in part to gain valuable building material.

During the excavations Oppenheim found the ruins of the Aramaean town of Guzana (or Gozan), which flourished at the turn of the 2nd/1st millennium BC. Significant finds included the large statues and reliefs of the so-called "Western Palace" built by King Kapara, as well as a cult room and tombs. After a revolt, the Aramaean palace had been destroyed and Guzana became an Assyrian province. Some of the statuary was found reused in buildings from the Hellenistic period. In addition, they discovered Neolithic pottery from around 6,000 to 5,000 BC of a type which became known as Halaf culture after the site where it was first found. At the time, this was the oldest painted pottery ever found (together with those discovered at Samarra by Herzfeld).[1]:25,48–49,64–66

In 1913, Oppenheim also discovered the reliefs at the Djebelet el-Beda before deciding to return temporarily to Germany.[1]:16 The finds of Tell Halaf were left at the building he and his team had inhabited during the dig. Most of them were securely packaged and stored.[1]:66–67

First World War

The outbreak of World War I prevented him from returning, however. As an expert on the East, the Foreign Office asked him to summarise the many different strategic ideas floating around in the ministry. The result was his Denkschrift betreffend die Revolutionierung der islamischen Gebiete unserer Feinde ("Memorandum on revolutionizing the Islamic territories of our enemies") of October 1914. The memo argued for enlisting the Sultan to call on the world's Muslims to engage in a Holy War against the colonial powers, France and Great Britain. To develop the necessary propaganda, the Nachrichtenstelle für den Orient (Intelligence Bureau for the East) was established in Berlin. Oppenheim became its head.[1]:16,25

In November 1914, Sultan Mehmed V indeed called for a jihad against the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. In 1915, Oppenheim was sent to the German embassy at Constantinople to disseminate propaganda material in the Ottoman empire. On one of several trips he made at the time, he met Prince Faisal in early 1915, trying to win him for the German side, unaware that Faisal's father, Hussein was negotiating with the British almost simultaneously. Whilst their attempt to incite an Arab rebellion was eventually successful, Oppenheim failed.[1]:16,25

In late 1915, British High Commissioner in Cairo Henry McMahon claimed in a report that Oppenheim had been making speeches in mosques approving of the massacre of Armenians initiated by the Young Turk government earlier that year.

Oppenheim was credited with being the one who came up with the dual approach to fighting the British and French: through regular troops and by encouraging uprisings by the masses.[5] Some among the Arabs reportedly referred to Oppenheim as Abu Jihad ("Father of Holy War").[6]

In 1917, Oppenheim returned to Berlin and began to work on the publication of his excavation results.[1]:16

Weimar Republic and second excavation at Tell Halaf

With Germany initially not a member of the League of Nations, there was no way for Oppenheim to resume his excavations. He decided to become a private scholar. In 1922, Oppenheim founded the Orient-Forschungsinstitut in Berlin. At the institute young scholars from various disciplines worked together to advance the study of Middle Eastern culture and history. In the inflation of 1923 Oppenheim lost most of his financial wealth. From then on, he was forced to rely on loans and support from friends and relatives.[1]:25–26

In 1926, Germany joined the League of Nations. Preparing for new excavations, in 1927 Oppenheim again travelled to Tell Halaf. Artillery fire exchanged between Ottoman and French troops in the final days of the war had severely damaged the building and the archaeological findings had to be dug out of the rubble. Once again, it was found that the locals had damaged some of the stone workings. Since he had made plaster casts during the original excavation, Oppenheim was able to repair most of the damage done to the statues and orthostat reliefs. He managed to achieve a generous division of his previous finds with the authorities of the French Mandate. His share (about two-thirds of the total) was transported to Berlin, the rest was brought to Aleppo, where Oppenheim installed a museum that became the nucleus of today's National Museum.[1]:26

In 1929, he resumed excavations and the new findings were divided. That year, Oppenheim also founded the Max-von-Oppenheim-Stiftung to ensure work on his findings continued after his death.[1]:16

Foundation of the Tell Halaf Museum and later life

Attempts to have his findings exhibited at the newly constructed Pergamon Museum failed, as the museum refused to agree to Oppenheim's financial demands. He thus opened his own private "Tell Halaf Museum" in an industrial complex in Berlin-Charlottenburg in July 1930. The museum's concept of presenting the exhibits is considered quite modern even by today's standards. It was subsequently visited and remarked upon by archaeologist Max Mallowan, his wife Agatha Christie and Samuel Beckett. The 1936 Baedeker guidebook on Berlin recommended a visit.[1]:26

Max von Oppenheim grave in Landshut, Landshuter Stadtkreis Bavaria (Bayern), Germany

After the Nazis took power in 1933, Oppenheim's Jewish background became a potential threat. Probably protected by old acquaintances in the scientific community, he was able to continue with his scholarly work.[1]:26 Apparently, this involved some efforts to fit into the intellectual climate of the time. According to historian Sean McMeekin: "In a speech before Nazi dignitaries, he went so far as to flatly ascribe his statues to the 'Aryan' culture, and he even received support from the Nazi government."[2]:18 Oppenheim once again wrote a memorandum on Middle Eastern strategic policies. In 1939, he once more travelled to Syria for excavations, coming within sight of Tell Halaf. However, the French authorities refused to award him a permit to dig and he had to depart. With debts of 2 million Reichsmark, Oppenheim was in dire financial trouble. He unsuccessfully tried to sell some of his finds in New York and again negotiated with the German government about the purchase of the Tell Halaf artefacts. While these negotiations continued, the Museum was hit by a British phosphorus bomb in November 1943. It burnt down completely, all wooden and limestone exhibits were destroyed. Those made from basalt were exposed to a thermal shock during attempts to fight the fire and severely damaged. Many statues and reliefs burst into dozens of pieces. Although the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin took care of the remains, months passed before all of the pieces had been recovered and they were further damaged by frost and summer heat.[1]:26,67

A bombing raid in 1943 also destroyed Oppenheim's apartment in Berlin and with it much of his library and art collection. He then moved to Dresden, where he lived through the firebombing of February 1945. Having lost virtually all his possessions, Oppenheim moved to Schloss Ammerland [de] in Bavaria, where he stayed with his sister. He died on 15 November 1946 in Landshut and is buried there.[1]:16,26


Stored in the cellars of the Pergamon Museum during the period of communist rule under the GDR, the remains were left untouched. After reunification, the Masterplan Museumsinsel of 1999 brought up the idea of having the Western Palace front from Tell Halaf restored. With financial support from Sal. Oppenheim and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft the Vorderasiatisches Museum engaged in its largest-scale restoration project since the reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate. From 2001 to 2010, more than 30 sculptures were reconstructed out of around 27,000 fragments. They were exhibited at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin in 2011 and at the Bundeskunsthalle Bonn in 2014. The latter exhibition focused not just on the archaeological finds but also on the person of Max von Oppenheim, who has been called "the last of the great amateur archaeological explorers of the Near East".[1]:67–68[7][8] When the reconstruction of the Museumsinsel is completed around 2025, the Western Palace façade will be the entrance to the new Vorderasiatisches Museum.[9]


• Vom Mittelmeer zum persischen Golf durch den Haurän, die syrische Wüste und Mesopotamien, 2 vols., 1899/1900
• Rabeh und Tschadseegebiet, 1902
• Der Tell Halaf und die verschleierte Göttin. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1908.
• Die Revolutionierung der islamischen Gebiete unserer Feinde. 1914.
• Der Tell Halaf: Eine neue Kultur im ältesten Mesopotamien. F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig 1931.
• Tell Halaf I, 1943 (with Hubert Schmidt)
• Tell Halaf II, 1950 (with R. Naumann)
See also[edit]
• Syro-Hittite states

Notes and references

1. Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.) (2014). Abenteuer Orient - Max von Oppenheim und seine Entdeckung des Tell Halaf (German). Wasmuth. ISBN 978-3-8030-3365-9.
2. McMeekin, Sean (2010). The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power. Belknap Press.
3. Owen, Roger (2004). Lord Cromer - Victorian Imperialist, Edwardian Proconsul. OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-925338-8.
4. McMahon, Henry (1915). The War: German attempts to fan Islamic feeling. London: British Library.
5. Schwanitz, Wolfgang G. (2003), "Djihad 'made in Germany'. Der Streit um den Heiligen Krieg 1914–1915", Sozial. Geschichte. Zeitschrift für historische Analyse des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts, 18 (H. 2): 7–34
6. Bremm, Klaus Jürgen (2014). Propaganda im Ersten Weltkrieg (German). Theiss. ISBN 978-3806227543.
7. Gary Beckman, reviewing Nadia Cholidis and Lutz Martin, Der Tell Halaf und sein Ausgräber Max Freiherr von Guy Oppenheim: Kopf hoch! Mut hoch! und Humor hoch! (Mainz) 2002, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 123.1 (January 2003), p. 253.
8. Brockschmidt, Rolf (26 January 2011). "Eine Göttin kehrt zurück (German)". Tagesspiegel. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
9. Grimberg, Klaus (27 January 2011). "Ausstellung der "geretteten Götter von Tell Halaf" in Berlin (German)". Westdeutsche Allgemeine. Retrieved 22 July 2014.

Further reading

• Nadja Cholidis, Lutz Martin: Kopf hoch! Mut hoch! und Humor hoch! Der Tell Halaf und sein Ausgräber Max Freiherr von Oppenheim. (German) Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2002, ISBN 3-8053-2853-2.
• Nadja Cholidis, Lutz Martin: Tell Halaf. Im Krieg zerstörte Denkmäler und ihre Restaurierung. (German)De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-11-022935-6.
• Nadja Cholidis, Lutz Martin (ed.): Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast von Tell Halaf. (German) Catalogue, Verlag Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg 2011, ISBN 978-3-7954-2449-7
• Winfried Orthmann: Die aramäisch-assyrische Stadt Guzana. Ein Rückblick auf die Ausgrabungen Max von Oppenheims in Tell Halaf. (German) Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung. H. 15. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2005, ISBN 3-447-05106-X.

External links

• The Max von Oppenheim photo collection
• Bibliothek der Max Freiherr von Guy Oppenheim Stiftung at
• Lionel Gossman: The Passion of Max von Oppenheim: Archaeology and Intrigue in the Middle East from Wilhelm II to Hitler
• Max von Oppenheim in the German National Library catalogue
• Biography at NDB (German)
• Exhibition at Bundeskunsthalle
• Past exhibition in 2011 at the Pergamon Museum
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:25 am

Arthur Zimmermann
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19



Arthur Zimmermann

Arthur Zimmermann (5 October 1864 – 6 June 1940) was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the German Empire from 22 November 1916 until his resignation on 6 August 1917. His name is associated with the Zimmermann Telegram during World War I. However, he was also closely involved in plans to support rebellions in Ireland and in India, and to assist the Bolsheviks to undermine Tsarist Russia.


He was born in Marggrabowa, East Prussia, then in the Kingdom of Prussia (present-day Olecko, Mazury, Poland). He studied law from 1884-87 in Königsberg, East Prussia, and Leipzig. A period as a junior lawyer followed and later he received his doctorate of law. In 1893, he took up a career in diplomacy and entered the consular service in Berlin. He arrived in China in 1896 (Canton in 1898), and rose to the rank of consul in 1900. While stationed in the Far East, he witnessed the Boxer Rebellion in China. As part of his transfer to the Foreign Office, he returned to Germany in 1902. A portion of this trip was via railroad across the Continental United States, a fact he would later use to inflate his supposed expertise on the nation.[1]

Later he was called to the Foreign Office, became Under Secretary of State in 1911, and on 24 November 1916, he accepted his confirmation as Secretary of State, succeeding Gottlieb von Jagow in this position. Actually, he had assumed a large share of his superior's negotiations with foreign envoys for several years prior to his appointment because of von Jagow's reservedness in office. He was the first non-aristocrat to serve as foreign secretary.


As acting secretary Zimmermann took part in the so-called Kronrat, the deliberations in 1914, with Kaiser Wilhelm II and Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, in which the decision was taken to support Austria-Hungary after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria at Sarajevo, which ultimately was to lead to the outbreak of war. He later disavowed the name Kronrat since it was the Kaiser's opinion that was decisive in the discussion, but with which Bethmann-Hollweg and Zimmermann concurred.

Irish rebellion

In late 1914, Zimmermann was visited by Roger Casement, the Irish revolutionary. A plan was laid to land 25,000 soldiers in the west of Ireland with 75,000 rifles. However, the German general staff did not agree. In April 1916, Casement returned to Ireland in a U-boat and was captured and executed. A German ship (the Libau) renamed the Aud, flying Norwegian colours, shipped 20,000 rifles to the south Irish coast, but it failed to link up with the rebels and was scuttled. Planning on this support, the Irish Volunteers launched the Easter Rising in Dublin. Though the Rising failed, its political effect led on to the Irish War of Independence in 1919–22 and the formation of the Irish Free State.

Resignation and Death

On 6 August 1917, Zimmermann resigned as foreign secretary and was succeeded by Richard von Kühlmann. One of the causes of his resignation was the famous Zimmermann Telegram he sent on 16 January 1917. He died in Berlin in 1940 of pneumonia.[2]

Zimmermann telegram and resignation


Two and a half years into World War I, the United States had maintained a status of neutrality while the Allied armies had been fighting those of the Central Powers in the trenches of northern France and Belgium. Although President Woodrow Wilson had been re-elected – winning the election on the slogan, "He kept us out of the war" – it became increasingly difficult to maintain that position.[3]

After the Royal Navy had been engaged in a successful naval blockade against all German shipping for some time, the German Supreme High Command concluded that only a total submarine offensive would break the stranglehold. Although the decision was made on 9 January 1917, the Americans were uninformed of the operation until 31 January.[4]

The Germans abrogated their Sussex pledge (not to sink merchant ships without due warning and to save human lives wherever possible) and began an unrestricted U-boat campaign on 1 February 1917. Since it was obvious that US shipping would also come under attack in the course of this operation, it became just a matter of time before the USA was drawn into the conflict.

Germany had been pursuing various interests in Mexico since the beginning of the 20th century. Although a latecomer in the area, with Spain, Britain, and France having established themselves there centuries earlier, the Kaiser's Germany attempted to secure a continuing presence. This entailed many different approaches to the Mexican Republic and its changing, often revolutionary, governments as well as assuring the United States (most of the time) of Germany's peaceful intentions. German diplomacy in the area depended on sympathetic relations with the Mexican government of the day. Among the options discussed during Arthur Zimmermann's period in office was a German offer to improve communications between the two nations and a suggestion that Mexico purchase German submarines for its navy. After Francisco Villa's cross-border raids into New Mexico President Wilson sent a punitive expedition into Mexico to pursue the raiders.[5]

This encouraged the Germans to believe (mistakenly) that this and other US concerns in the area would tie up US resources and military operations for some time to come, sufficiently to justify the overtures made by Arthur Zimmermann in his telegram to the Venustiano Carranza government. His proposals included an agreement for a German alliance with Mexico, while Germany would still try to maintain a state of neutrality with the United States. If this policy were to fail, the note suggested, the Mexican government should make common cause with Germany, try to persuade the Japanese government to join the new alliance, and attack the US. Germany for its part would promise financial assistance and the restoration of its former territories of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico.[6]



On 24 February, the telegram was finally delivered to the US ambassador in Britain, Walter Hines Page, who two days later retransmitted it to President Wilson. On 1 March, the United States Government passed the text of the telegram to the press. At first, some sectors of the US papers, especially those of the Hearst press empire, questioned whether the telegram was a forgery made by British intelligence in an attempt to persuade the US government to enter the war on Britain's side. This opinion was reinforced by German and Mexican diplomats, as well as pro-German and pacifist opinion-formers in the United States. However, on 29 March 1917, Zimmermann gave a speech to the Reichstag confirming the text of the telegram and so put an end to all speculation as to its authenticity. By that time a number of US ships had been torpedoed with heavy loss of life.

On 2 April, President Wilson asked Congress to agree to declare war on Germany, citing, among other grievances, that Germany "means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors".[7] On 6 April, Congress approved the resolution for war by a wide margin, with the Senate voting 82 to 6 in favor.[8] The United States had entered World War I on the side of the Allies.

Arthur Zimmermann's speech

On 29 March 1917, Zimmerman delivered a speech intended to explain his side of the situation. He began that he had not written a letter to Carranza but had given instructions to the German ambassador via a "route that had appeared to him to be a safe one".[9]

He also said that despite the submarine offensive, he had hoped that the USA would remain neutral. His instructions (to the Mexican government) were only to be carried out after the US declared war, and he believed his instructions to be "absolutely loyal as regards the US". In fact, he blamed President Wilson for breaking off relations with Germany "with extraordinary roughness" after the telegram was received, and that therefore the German ambassador "no longer had the opportunity to explain the German attitude, and that the US government had declined to negotiate".[9]

Mexico's reply

Later, a general assigned by Carranza to assess the realities of a Mexican takeover of their former provinces came to the conclusion that it would not work. Taking over the three states would almost certainly cause future problems and possibly war with the US; Mexico would also be unable to accommodate a large Anglo population within its borders; and Germany would not be able to supply the arms needed in the hostilities that would surely arise. Carranza declined Zimmermann's proposals on 14 April.

The fact-finding mission of Nuncio Pacelli

At the end of June 1917, Zimmermann found the first real opportunity for paving the way to peace negotiations during his period of administration. At several meetings with the Bavarian Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) and Uditore Schioppa, who were on a fact-finding mission, Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and Zimmermann outlined their plans. There would be no annexations of territories, no border adjustments with Russia, Poland was to remain an independent state, all occupied areas of France and Belgium were to be evacuated, and Alsace-Lorraine would be ceded to France. The only exception in return was to be the restitution of all former German colonies to Germany. None of these plans came to fruition because neither of the two German participants would be very much longer in office. As an afterthought, it was Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg's belief – unlike that of the General Staff's – that once the United States entered the war, the prospects for Germany would indeed be bleak.

Peace in the East

In March 1917, with the imminent collapse of the Russian front, Zimmermann took steps to promote Peace in the East with the Russians, a proposal that was of immense importance to Germany at the time. The foreign secretary set forth the following: regulations for frontline contacts with the opposite side; reciprocal withdrawal of the occupied areas; an amicable agreement about Poland, Lithuania, and Kurland; and a promise to aid Russia in its reconstruction and rehabilitation. Last but not least, Lenin and the émigré revolutionaries would be allowed to pass through Germany to Russia by train. These proposals once carried out, would free Germany's armies in the east and allow them to be concentrated in the west, a master-stroke that would reinforce the German western front vastly. Zimmermann thus contributed to the outcome of the October Revolution.


1. Tucker, Spencer C. (2014) World War I: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, ABC-CLIO, pg. 1704
2. "Arthur Zimmermann" Germany State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, WWI". Retrieved 28 March 2016.
3. "Woodrow Wilson: Speech of Acceptance"., 2 September 1916; retrieved 11 September 2010.
4. Schmidt, Donald E. (2005). The Folly of War: American foreign policy, 1898–2005. Algora Publishing. pg. 83; ISBN 0-87586-383-3.
5. Pershing report, October 1916, p. 4 (General Orders, No. 1).
6. "Arthur Zimmermann profile". Retrieved 28 March 2016.
7. "Wilson's War Message to Congress - World War I Document Archive". Retrieved 28 March 2016.
8. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 21 January 2015. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
9. "Primary Documents - Arthur Zimmermann on the Zimmermann Telegram". First World 29 March 1917. Retrieved 28 March2016.

External links

• The Zimmermann speech
• Japanese Prime Minister Count Terauchi on the Zimmermann Telegram
• Works by or about Arthur Zimmermann in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:58 am

India House
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/19



Clockwise from top left: Dhingra, Aiyar, Savarkar, Bapat, Gonne, Acharya, Kanhere and Pillai.
Centre: The Indian Sociologist, September 1908 issue.

India House was a student residence that existed between 1905 and 1910 at Cromwell Avenue in Highgate, North London. With the patronage of lawyer Shyamji Krishna Varma, it was opened to promote nationalist views among Indian students in Britain. This institute used to grant scholarships to Indian youths for higher studies in England. The building rapidly became a hub for political activism, one of the most prominent for overseas revolutionary Indian nationalism. "India House" came to informally refer to the nationalist organisations that used the building at various times.

Patrons of India House published an anti-colonialist newspaper, The Indian Sociologist, which the British Raj banned as "seditious".[1] A number of prominent Indian revolutionaries and nationalists were associated with India House, including Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Bhikaji Cama, V.N. Chatterjee, Lala Har Dayal, V.V.S. Aiyar, M.P.T. Acharya and P.M. Bapat. In 1909, a member of India House, Madan Lal Dhingra, assassinated Sir W.H. Curzon Wyllie, political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India.

The investigations by Scotland Yard and the Indian Political Intelligence Office that followed the assassination sent the organisation into decline. A crackdown on India House activities by the Metropolitan Police prompted a number of its members to leave Britain for France, Germany and the United States. Many members of the house were involved in revolutionary conspiracies in India. The network created by India House played a key part in the Hindu–German Conspiracy for nationalist revolution in India during World War I. In the coming decades, India House alumni went on to playing a leading role in the founding of Indian communism and Hindu nationalism.


The consolidation of the British East India Company's rule in the Indian subcontinent during the 18th century brought about socio-economic changes which led to the rise of an Indian middle class and steadily eroded pre-colonial socio-religious institutions and barriers.[2] The emerging economic and financial power of Indian business-owners and merchants and the professional class brought them increasingly into conflict with the British Raj. A rising political consciousness among the native Indian social elite (including lawyers, doctors, university graduates, government officials and similar groups) spawned an Indian identity[3][4] and fed a growing nationalist sentiment in India in the last decades of the nineteenth century.[5]

The creation in 1885 of the Indian National Congress in India by the political reformer A.O. Hume intensified the process by providing an important platform from which demands could be made for political liberalisation, increased autonomy, and social reform.[6]

Allan Octavian Hume, CB ICS (4 June 1829 – 31 July 1912[1]) was a member of the Imperial Civil Service (later the Indian Civil Service), a political reformer, ornithologist and botanist who worked in British India. He was one of the founders of the Indian National Congress. A notable ornithologist, Hume has been called "the Father of Indian Ornithology" and, by those who found him dogmatic, "the Pope of Indian ornithology".[2]

As an administrator of Etawah, he saw the Indian Rebellion of 1857 as a result of misgovernance and made great efforts to improve the lives of the common people. The district of Etawah was among the first to be returned to normality and over the next few years Hume's reforms led to the district being considered a model of development. Hume rose in the ranks of the Indian Civil Service but like his father Joseph Hume, the radical MP, he was bold and outspoken in questioning British policies in India. He rose in 1871 to the position of secretary to the Department of Revenue, Agriculture, and Commerce under Lord Mayo. His criticism of Lord Lytton however led to his removal from the Secretariat in 1879....

He was briefly a follower of the theosophical movement founded by Madame Blavatsky. He left India in 1894 to live in London from where he continued to take an interest in the Indian National Congress, apart from taking an interest in botany and founding the South London Botanical Institute towards the end of his life.

-- Allan Octavian Hume, by Wikipedia

The leaders of the Congress advocated dialogue and debate with the Raj administration to achieve their political goals. Distinct from these moderate voices (or loyalists) who did not preach or support violence was the nationalist movement, which grew particularly strong, radical and violent in Bengal and in Punjab. Notable, if smaller, movements also appeared in Maharashtra, Madras and other areas across the south.[6] The controversial 1905 partition of Bengal escalated the growing unrest, stimulating radical nationalist sentiments and becoming a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[7]

From its inception, the Congress had also sought to shape public opinion in Britain in favour of Indian political autonomy.[6][8] The Congress's British Committee, established in 1889, published a periodical called India which featured moderate, loyalist opinion and provided information about India tailored to a British readership.[9] The committee was successful in calling the British public's attention to issues of civil liberties in India, but it largely failed to bring about political change, prompting socialists such as Henry Hyndman to advocate a more radical approach.[10] In 1893 an "Indian committee" was established in the British Parliament as a pressure group to influence policy directly,[10][11][12] but it grew increasingly distant from an emerging movement which advocated absolute Indian self-governance. Nationalist leaders in India (such as Bipin Chandra Pal, who led the agitation against the Bengal partition) and Indian students in Britain criticised the committee for what they perceived as its overcautious approach.[8][11] Against this background, coincident with the political upheaval caused by the 1905 partition of Bengal, a nationalist lawyer named Shyamji Krishna Varma founded India House in London.[13]

India House

India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London. It was inaugurated on 1 July 1905 by Henry Hyndman in a ceremony attended by, among others, Dadabhai Naoroji, Charlotte Despard and Bhikaji Cama[14] When opened as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students.[15] In addition to being a student-hostel, the mansion also served as the headquarters for several organisations, the first of which was the Indian Home Rule Society (IHRS).

Indian Home Rule Society

Bhikaji Cama with the Stuttgart flag, 1907. A number of India House members attended the socialist conference that year, and Cama herself worked closely with Krishna Varma.

Krishna Varma admired Swami Dayananda Saraswati's cultural nationalism and believed in Herbert Spencer's dictum that "Resistance to aggression is not simply justified, but imperative".[16] A graduate of Balliol College, Oxford, he returned to India in the 1880s and served as divan (administrator) of a number of princely states, including Ratlam and Junagadh. He preferred this position to working under what he considered the alien rule of Britain.[16] However, a supposed conspiracy of local British officials at Junagadh, compounded by differences between Crown authority and British Political Residents regarding the states, led to Varma's dismissal.[17] He returned to England, where he found freedom of expression more favourable. Varma's views were staunchly anti-colonial, extending even to support for the Boers during the Second Boer War in 1899.[16]

Krishna Varma co-founded the IHRS in February 1905,[18] with Bhikaji Cama, S.R. Rana, Lala Lajpat Rai and others,
[11][19][20] as a rival organisation to the British Committee of the Congress.[21] Subsequently, Krishna Varma used his considerable financial resources to offer scholarships to Indian students in memory of leaders of the 1857 uprising, on the condition that the recipients would not accept any paid post or honorary office from the British Raj upon their return home.[16] These scholarships were complemented by three endowments of 2000 Rupees courtesy S.R. Rana, in memory of Rana Pratap Singh.[22] Open to "Indians only", the IHRS garnered significant support from Indians – especially students – living in Britain. Funds received by Indian students as scholarships and bursaries from universities also found their way to the organisation. Following the model of Victorian public institutions,[23] the IHRS adopted a constitution. The aim of the IHRS, clearly articulated in this constitution, was to "secure Home Rule for India, and to carry on a genuine Indian propaganda in this country by all practicable means".[24] It recruited young Indian activists, raised funds, and possibly collected arms and maintained contact with revolutionary movements in India.[8][25] The group professed support for causes in sympathy with its own, such as Turkish, Egyptian and Irish republican nationalism.[19]

The Paris Indian Society, a branch of the IHRS, was launched in 1905 under the patronage of Bhikaji Cama, Sardar Singh Rana and B.H. Godrej.[26] A number of India House members who later rose to prominence – including V.N. Chatterjee, Har Dayal and Acharya and others – first encountered the IHRS through this Paris Indian Society.[27] Cama herself was at this time deeply involved with the Indian revolutionary cause, and she nurtured close links with both French and exiled Russian socialists.[28][29] Lenin's views are thought to have influenced Cama's works at this time, and Lenin is believed to have visited India House during one of his stays in London.[30][31] In 1907, Cama, along with V.N. Chatterjee and S.R. Rana, attended the Socialist Congress of the Second International in Stuttgart. There, supported by Henry Hyndman, she demanded recognition of self-rule for India and in a famous gesture unfurled one of the first Flags of India.[32]

The Indian Sociologist

August 1909 issue of The Indian Sociologist. Guy Aldred was prosecuted for his comments in this issue purportedly supporting Dhingra and supporting anti-colonial anarchism.

In 1904, Krishna Varma founded The Indian Sociologist (TIS), a penny monthly (with Spencer's dictum as its motto),[16] as a challenge to the British Committee's Indian.[8] The title of the publication was intended to convey Krishna Varma's conviction that the ideological basis of Indian independence from Britain was to the discipline of sociology.[33] TIS was critical of the moderate loyalist approach and its appeal to British liberalism, exemplified by the work of Indian leader G.K. Ghokale; instead, TIS advocated Indian self-rule. It was critical of the British Committee, whose members – being mostly from the Indian Civil Service – were in Krishna Varma's view complicit in exploitation of India.[8] TIS quoted extensively from the works of British writers, which Krishna Varma interpreted to explain his views that the Raj was colonial exploitation, and that the Indians had a right to oppose it, by violence if necessary.[8] It advocated confrontation and demands rather than petition and accommodation.[34] However, Krishna Varma's views and justifications of political violence in nationalist struggle were still cautious, considering violence as a last resort. His support was initially intellectual, and he was not actively involved in planning revolutionary violence.[35] Freedom of the press and the liberal approach of the British establishment meant Krishna Varma could air views that would have been rapidly suppressed in India.[8]

The views expressed in TIS drew criticisms from ex-Indian civil servants in the British press and Parliament. Highlighting Krishna Varma's citation of British writers and lack of reference to Indian tradition or values, they argued that he was disconnected from the Indian situation and Indian feelings, and was intellectually dependent on Britain.[36] Valentine Chirol, foreign editor of The Times, who had close associations with the Raj, accused Krishna Varma of preaching "disloyal sentiments" to Indian students, and demanded he be prosecuted.[37][38] Chirol later described India House as "the most dangerous organisation outside India".[10][39] Krishna Varma and TIS also drew the attention of King Edward VII. Greatly concerned, the King asked John Morley, the Secretary of State for India, to stop the publication of such messages.[40] Morley refused to take any action contrary to his liberal political principles, but Chirol's tirade against TIS and Krishna Varma forced the Government to investigate.[35] Detectives visited India House and interviewed the printers of its publication. Krishna Varma saw these actions as the start of a crackdown on his work and, fearing arrest, moved to Paris in 1907; he never returned to Britain.[37][17]


See also: V.N. Chatterjee, V.V.S. Aiyar, and Hind Swaraj

After Krishna Varma's departure, the organisation found a new leader in Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a law student who had first arrived in London in 1906 on scholarship from Krishna Varma. Savarkar was an admirer of the Italian nationalist philosopher Giuseppe Mazzini and a protégé of the Indian Congress leader, Bal Gangadhar Tilak.[36][41][42] He was associated with the nationalist movement in India, having founded the Abhinav Bharat Society (Young India Society) in 1906 while studying at Fergusson College in Pune (these links put him in contact with the still largely unknown Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.[36][43][44]) In London, Savarkar's fiery nationalist views had at first alienated the residents of India House, most significantly V.V.S. Aiyar. Over time, however, he became a central figure in the organisation.[45] He devoted his efforts to writing nationalist material, organising public meetings and demonstrations,[19] and establishing branches of Abhinav Bharat in the country.[46] [b]He kept in touch with B.G. Tilak in India, to whom he passed on manuals on bomb-making.[47]

Impressed and influenced by the Italian wars of Independence, Savarkar believed in an armed revolution in India and was prepared to seek assistance from Germany toward this end. He proposed the indoctrination of Indian soldiery in the British army, just as the Young Italy movement had indoctrinated Italians serving in the Austrian forces.
[48] In London, Savarkar founded the Free India Society (FIS), and in December 1906 he opened a branch of Abhinav Bharat.[49][50] This organisation drew a number of radical Indian students, including P.M. Bapat, V.V.S. Aiyar, Madanlal Dhingra, and V.N. Chatterjee.[51] Savarkar had lived in Paris for some time, and frequently visited the city after moving to London.[42] By 1908, he had recruited to the organisation a number of Indian businessmen residing in Paris. During one visit, Savarkar met Gandhi again when the latter visited India House in 1906 and 1909, and his hardline views may have influenced Gandhi's opinion on nationalist violence.[52]


See also: M. P. T. Acharya

India House, which now housed the Abhinav Bharat Society and its relatively peaceful front the Free India Society, rapidly developed into a radical meeting ground quite different from the IHRS. Unlike the latter, it became wholly self-reliant with regard to finances and organisation, and it developed independent nationalist ideologies that moved away from European philosophies. Under Savarkar's influence, it drew inspiration from past Indian revolutionary movements, religious scriptures (including the Bhagavad Gita), and Savarkar's own studies in Indian history, including The Indian War of Independence.[23] Savarkar translated Giuseppe Mazzini's autobiography into Marathi and extolled the virtues of secret societies.[38]

India House today. A blue plaque commemorates Savarkar's stay during its turbulent history.

India House was soon transformed into the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement in Britain.[15] Its newest members were young men and women in London who came from all over India.[53] A large number, each comprising about a quarter of the total membership, were from Bengal and Punjab, while a significant but smaller group came from Bombay and Maharashtra.[53] The Free India Society had a semi-religious oath of initiation, and served as a cover for the Abhinav Bharat Society's meetings.[51] The members were predominantly Hindus. Most were students in their mid-twenties, and usually belonged to the Indian social elite, from families of millionaires, mill owners, lawyers and doctors. Nearly seventy people, including several women, regularly attended the Sunday evening meetings at which Savarkar gave lectures on topics ranging from the philosophy of revolution to bomb-making and assassination techniques.[15] Only a small proportion of these recruits to the society were known to have previously engaged in political activity or the Swadeshi movement in India.[53]

]b]Abhinav Bharat Society had two goals: to create through propaganda in Europe and North America an Indian public opinion in favour of nationalist revolution, and to raise funds, knowledge and supplies to carry out such a revolution.[/b][54] It emphasised actions of self-sacrifice by its members for the Indian cause. These were revolutionary activities which the masses could emulate, but which did not require a mass movement.[53] The outbuilding of India House was converted to a "war workshop" where chemistry students attempted to produce explosives and manufacture bombs, while the printing press turned out "seditious" literature, including bomb-making manuals and pamphlets promoting violence toward Europeans in India. In the house was an arsenal of small arms that were intermittently dispatched to India through different avenues.[15] Savarkar was at the heart of these, spending a great deal of time in the explosives workshop and emerging on some evenings, according to a fellow revolutionary, "with telltale yellow stains of picric acid on his hands".[55] The residents of India House and members of Abhinav Bharat practiced shooting at a range in Tottenham Court Road in central London, and rehearsed assassinations they planned to carry out.[55]

The deliveries of weapons to India included, among others, a number of Browning pistols smuggled by Chaturbhuj Amin, Chanjeri Rao, and V. V. S. Aiyar when they returned to India.[56] Revolutionary literature was shipped under false covers and from different addresses to prevent detection by Indian postal authorities.[55] Savarkar's The Indian War of Independence was published (in 1909) and was considered inflammatory enough to be removed from the catalogue of the British Library to prevent Indian students from accessing it.[57] Sometime in 1908, India House acquired a manual for making bombs. Some suggest Savarkar acquired this in the French capital from a bomb manual given to Hemchandra Das – a Bengali revolutionary of the Anushilan Samiti – by a Russian revolutionary in Paris by the name of Nicholas Safranski.[58] Others opine that it was acquired through Russian revolutionaries in Paris by Bapat.[59] Bapat was declared absconder (a fugitive) in the Alipore bomb case of 1909, which followed the attempt to bomb a district magistrate's carriage in Bengal by Khudiram Bose.[60]

By 1908, the popularity of the India House group had overtaken the London Indian Society (LIS), established in 1865 by Dadabhai Naoroji and until then the largest association of Indians in London. Subsequently, India House took over the control of LIS when, at the annual general meeting that year, members of India House packed the gathering and ousted the old guard of the society.[61]


See also: Madan Lal Dhingra

Cover of the Paris Bande Mataram following Madanlal Dhingra's execution in August 1909. The Paris Indian Society replaced India House as the hotbed of seditious activities in the continent after 1909.

The activities of India House did not go unnoticed. In addition to questions raised in official Indian and British circles, Savarkar's unrestrained views had been published in English newspapers including the Daily Mail, Manchester Guardian and Dispatch. By 1909, India House was under surveillance from Scotland Yard and Indian intelligence, and its activities were considerably curtailed.[62] Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh was arrested in India in June of that year, and was tried and exiled to the penal colony in the Andamans for publication of seditionist literature.[63] Savarkar's speeches grew increasingly strident and called for revolution, widespread violence, and murder of all Englishmen in India.[63] The culmination of these events was the assassination of Sir William H. Curzon Wyllie, the political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India, by Madanlal Dhingra on the evening of 1 July 1909, at a meeting of Indian students in the Imperial Institute in London.[63] Dhingra was arrested and later tried and executed.

In the aftermath of the assassination, India House was rapidly shut down.
Investigations into the killing were expanded to look for broader conspiracies originating from India House; although Scotland Yard stated that none existed, Indian intelligence sources suggested otherwise.[64] These sources further suggested that Dhingra's intended target was John Morley, the Secretary of State for India himself. Savarkar possessed a copy of a written political statement by Dhingra which was confiscated at the latter's arrest. Its existence was denied by police, but through Irish sympathiser David Garnett Savarkar had this published in the Daily News on the day Dhingra was sentenced to death.[65] A number of sources suggested the assassination was in fact Savarkar's idea, and that he planned further action in Britain as well as India.[64] In March 1910, Savarkar was arrested upon his return to London from Paris and later deported to India.[66] While he was held at Brixton Prison during the deportation hearing, an attempt was made in May 1910 by the remnant of India House to storm his prison van and free him. This plot was coordinated with help from Irish republicans led by Maud Gonne. However, the plan failed when the ambush stormed an empty decoy van while Savarkar was transported along a different route.[67] In the following year, police and political sources brought pressure on the residents of India House to leave England. While some of its leaders like Krishna Varma had already fled to Europe, others like Chattopadhyaya moved to Germany. Many others moved to Paris.[68] With the influence and work of a large number of nationalist students moving to the city, the Paris Indian Society gradually took India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism on the continent.[69]


Although India House had stated its goals in The Indian Sociologist, the threat arising from the organisation was initially not considered serious by either Indian intelligence or British Special Branch.[57][70] This was compounded by a lack of clarity and communication from the Department of Criminal Intelligence operating in India under Charles Cleveland, and Scotland Yard's Special Branch.[57] Lack of direction and information from Indian political intelligence, compounded by Lord Morley's reluctance to engage in postal censorship,[71] led to Special Branch underestimating the threat.[71]

Scotland Yard

In spite of these problems, and although Special Branch was wholly inexperienced in dealing with political crime,[70] the first observations of India House by Scotland Yard began as early as 1905. Detectives attended Sunday meetings at India House in May 1907, where they gained access to seditious literature.[71] The appearance of one agent, disguised as an Irish-American by the name of O'Brien, convinced Krishna Varma of the need to decamp to Paris.[71] In June 1908, concrete plans for cooperation between Indian and British police were arranged between India Office and Scotland Yard; the decision was made to place an ex-Indian policeman in charge of surveillance of India House.[72]

The arrival of B.C. Pal and G.S. Khaparde in London in 1908 further stirred the matter, since both were known to have been radical nationalist politicians in India. By September 1908, an agent had been installed within India House who was able to invite detectives to the Sunday night meetings of the Free India Society (attendance for Europeans was by invitation only).[72] The agent passed on some additional information, but was not able to infiltrate Savarkar's inner circle. Savarkar himself did not come under special scrutiny as a dangerous suspect until November 1909, when the agent delivered information about discussions of assassinations at Indian House. The agent may have been a young Maharashtrian by the name of Kirtikar, who had arrived at India House as an acquaintance of V.V.S. Aiyar, ostensibly to study dentistry in London. Kirtikar was discovered after Aiyar made enquiries at the London Hospital where he was supposed to be training, and was one night forced by Savarkar to confess at gun-point.[73]

After this incident, Kirtikar's reports were probably screened by Savarkar before they were passed on to Scotland Yard. M.P.T. Acharya was at this time instructed by Aiyar and Savarkar to set himself up as an informer to Scotland Yard; they believed this would provide information to the police and help corroborate the reports sent by Kirtikar.[45] Although it pursued Indian students and shadowed them closely, Scotland Yard was severely criticised for its inability to penetrate the organisation. The Viceroy's secretary, William Lee-Warner, was assaulted twice in London: he was slapped in the face in his office by a young Bengali student named Kunjalal Bhattacharji and assaulted in a London park by another Indian student. The Yard's inefficiency was blamed for these events.[72]

Department of Criminal Intelligence

Unknown to Scotland Yard,[74] by the beginning of 1909 the Indian Department of Criminal Intelligence (DCI) had made covert efforts of its own to infiltrate India House, with more success. An agent named "C" had been residing in India House for nearly a year; after convincing the residents that he was a genuine patriot, he began reporting back to India.[74][75] Possible reasons why DCI did not inform the Yard include a wish not to interfere with London investigations, a desire to maintain control over "C", and a fear of being accused of "deviousness" by the Yard.[74]

However, the DCI agent's first reports in early 1909 were of little value. Only in the months immediately preceding the Curzon Wyllie assassination did they prove useful. In June, the agent described the shooting practice at Tottenham Court range and rifle practice in the back of India House. This was followed by reports of Savarkar and V.V.S. Aiyar (who was considered his lieutenant) advising M.P.T. Acharya on acts of martyrdom.[74] Following the arrest and subsequent transportation of Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh in India on 9 June 1909,[63] C reported increasing ferocity and calls for vengeance in Savarkar's speeches.[63][74] In the following weeks, Savarkar was barred from joining the bar due to his political activity.[64] These were the events leading up to the assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie. Although it was believed that Savarkar may have personally instructed or trained Dhingra, Metropolitan police were unable to bring a prosecution against the former since he had an alibi for the night.[76]

Indian Special Branch

In the aftermath of Curzon Wyllie's assassination, Metropolitan Police Special Branch was reorganised in July 1909 following a meeting between India Office and the Commissioner of Police Sir Edward Henry. This led to the opening of an Indian Special Branch with a staff of 38 officers by the end of July.[77] It received considerable resources during the investigation of Curzon Wyllie's assassination, and satisfied the demands of Indian Criminal Intelligence with regard to monitoring the Indian seditionist movement in Britain.[77]

The police brought strong pressure on India House and began gathering intelligence on Indian students in London. These, along with threats to their careers, robbed India House of its student support base. It slowly began to disassemble as a centre of radical Indian Nationalism. As Thirumal Acharya described bitterly, the residence was treated akin to a "leper's home" by the Indian students in the city.[78] In addition, although student political activism could not be curtailed too heavily for fear of accusations of repression, the British Government successfully implemented laws to curtail the publication and distribution of nationalist or seditious material from Britain. Among these was Bipin Pal's Swaraj, which was forced to close, an event which ultimately drove Pal to penury and mental collapse in London.[78] India House ceased to be an influence in Britain.[79]


Political activities at India House were chiefly aimed at young Indians, especially students, in Britain. Political discontent was at the time growing steadily among this group, especially those in touch with the professional class in India and those studying in depth the philosophies of European liberalism.[80] Their discontent was noted among British academic and political circles quite early on, with some voicing fear that these students would take refuge in extremist politics.[80]

Nationalist movement

See also: A.M.T. Jackson, Anant Kanhere, Anushilan Samiti, and Hind Swaraj

A committee set up in 1907 under Sir William Lee-Warner to investigate political unrest among Indian students in Britain noted the strong influence that India House had on this group.[81][82] This was while India House was under the stewardship of Shyamji Krishna Varma.[83] Indian students who discussed the community at the time described the growing influence of India House – especially in the context of the 1905 partition of Bengal – and attributed to this influence the decrease in the number of Indian applicants for Government posts and the Indian Civil Service. The Indian Sociologist attracted considerable attention in London newspapers.[84] Others, however, disagreed with these views and described India House's appeal as limited. S.D. Bhaba, president of the Indian Christian Union, once described Krishna Varma as a man "whose bark was worse than his bite".[84]

Under Savarkar, the organisation became the focus of the Indian revolutionary movement abroad and one of the most important links between revolutionary violence in India and Britain.[63][66][76] Although the organisation welcomed both moderates and those with extremist views, the former outnumbered the latter.[84] Significantly, a number of the residents, especially those who agreed with Savarkar's views, did not have any history of participation in nationalist movements in India, suggesting they were indoctrinated during their stay at India House.[53]

More significantly, India House was a source of arms and seditious literature that was rapidly distributed in India. In addition to The Indian Sociologist, pamphlets like Bande Mataram and Oh Martyrs! by Savarkar extolled revolutionary violence. Direct influences and incitement from India House were noted in several incidents of political violence, including assassinations, in India at the time.[49][57][85] One of the two charges against Savarkar during his trial in Bombay was for abetting the murder of the District Magistrate of Nasik, A.M.T. Jackson, by Anant Kanhere in December 1909. The arms used were directly traced through an Italian courier to India House. Ex-India House residents M.P.T. Acharya and V.V.S. Aiyar were noted in the Rowlatt report to have aided and influenced political assassinations, including the murder of Robert D'Escourt Ashe at the hands of Vanchi Iyer.[49] The Paris-Safranski link was strongly suggested by French police to be involved in the 1907 attempt in Bengal to derail the train carrying the Lieutenant-Governor Sir Andrew Fraser.[86] The activities of nationalists abroad is believed to have shaken the loyalty of a number of native regiments of the British Indian Army.[87] The assassination of Curzon Wyllie was highly publcised.[88] The symbolic impact of Dhingra's actions on the colonial authorities and on the Indian revolutionary movement was profound at the time.[89] The British empire had never been targeted in its own metropolis.[88] Dhingra's last statement is said to have earned the admiration of Winston Churchill, who described it as the finest ever made in the name of Patriotism.[88]

India House and its activities had some influence on the subsequent nonviolent philosophy adopted by Gandhi.[52] He had met some members of India House, including Savarkar, in London as well as in India, and disagreed with the adoption of nationalist and political philosophies from the west. Gandhi dismissively labelled this revolutionary violence as anarchist and its practitioners as "The Modernists".[52] Some of his subsequent writings, including Hind Swaraj, were opposed to the activities of Savarkar and Dhingra, and disputed the argument that violence was innocent if perpetrated under a nationalist identity or while under Colonial victimhood.[52] It was against this strategy of revolutionary violence – and in recognition of its consequences – that the formative background of Gandhian nonviolence was framed.[52]

India Houses abroad

See also: Har Dayal, Mohammed Barkatullah, Taraknath Das, and Ghadar party

Following the example laid by the original India House, India Houses were opened in the United States and in Japan.[90] Krishna Varma had built close contacts with the Irish Republican movement. As a result, articles from The Indian Sociologist were reprinted in the United States in the Gaelic American. In addition, with the efforts of the growing Indian student population, other organisations mirroring India House emerged. The first of these was the Pan-Aryan Association, modelled after the Indian Home Rule Society, opened in 1906 through the joint Indo-Irish efforts of Mohammed Barkatullah, S.L. Joshi and George Freeman.[1] Barkatullah himself had been closely associated with Krishna Varma during his earlier stay in London, and his subsequent career in Japan put Barkatullah at the heart of Indian political activities there.[1]

The American branch also invited Bhikaji Cama – who at the time was close to the works of Krishna Varma – to give a series of lectures in the United States. An India House, though not officially allied to the London organisation, was founded in Manhattan in New York in January 1908 with funds from a wealthy lawyer of Irish descent named Myron Phelps. Phelps admired Swami Vivekananda, and the Vedanta Society (established by the Swami) in New York was at the time under Swami Abhedananda, who was considered "seditionist" by the British.[90] In New York, Indian students and ex-residents of London India House took advantage of liberal press laws to circulate The Indian Sociologist and other nationalist literature.[90] New York increasingly became an important centre for the global Indian movement; Free Hindustan, a political revolutionary journal published by Taraknath Das, closely mirroring The Indian Sociologist, moved from Vancouver and Seattle to New York in 1908. Das collaborated extensively with the Gaelic American with help from George Freeman before Free Hindustan was proscribed in 1910 under British diplomatic pressure.[91] After 1910, the American east coast activities began to decline and gradually shifted to San Francisco. The arrival of Har Dayal around this time bridged the gap between the intellectual agitators and the predominantly Punjabi labour workers and migrants, laying the foundations of the Ghadar movement.[91]

An India House was opened in Tokyo in 1907.[92] The city – like London and New York – had by the end of the 19th century a steadily growing Indian student population, with whom Krishna Varma kept in close contact. However, Krishna Varma was initially concerned about spreading his resources too thin, especially since the Japanese centre lacked a strong leadership. He further feared interference from Japan, which was on friendly terms with Britain.[92] Nonetheless, the presence of revolutionaries from Bengal and close correspondence between the London and Tokyo houses allowed the latter to gain prominence in The Indian Sociologist. The India House in Tokyo was a residence for sixteen Indian students in 1908; it accepted students from other Asian countries including Ceylon, aiming to build a broad foundation for Indian nationalism based on pan-Asiatic values. The movement gained new momentum after Barkatullah, on the advice of Krishna Varma and George Freeman, moved from New York to Tokyo in 1909.[92] Taking up the post of Professor of Urdu at Tokyo University, Barkatullah was responsible for East Asian distribution of The Indian Sociologist and other nationalist literature from London. His work at the time also included the publication of Islamic Fraternity, which was financed by the Ottoman Empire. Barkatullah transformed it into an anti-British mouthpiece, invited contributions from Krishna Varma, and advocated Hindu–Muslim unity in India.[93] He published other nationalist pamphlets which found their way to the Pacific coast and East Asian settlements. Further, Barkatullah established links with prominent Japanese politicians including Okawa Shumei, whom he won over to the Indian cause.[93] British CID, concerned about the threat that Barkatullah's work posed to the empire, exerted diplomatic pressure to have Islamic Fraternity closed down in 1912. Barkatullah was denied tenure and was forced to leave Japan in 1914.[93]

World War I

See also: Intelligence Bureau for the East

Ghadar di gunj, an early Ghadarite compilation of nationalist and socialist literature, was banned in India in 1913. The Ghadrite movement was involved in the Hindu–German Conspiracy during WWI.

Following the liquidation of India House in 1909 and 1910, its members gradually dispersed to different countries in Europe, including France and Germany, as well as the United States. The network founded at India House was to be key in the efforts by the Indian revolutionary movement against the British Raj through World War I. During the war, the Berlin Committee in Germany, the Ghadar Party in North America, and the Indian revolutionary underground attempted to transport men and arms from United States and East Asia into India, intended for a revolution and mutiny in the British Indian Army. During the conspiracy, the revolutionaries collaborated extensively with the Irish Republican Brotherhood, Sinn Féin, Japanese patriotic societies, Ottoman Turkey and, most prominently, the German Foreign Office. The conspiracy has since been called The Hindu–German Conspiracy.[94][95] Among other efforts, the alliance attempted to rally Afghanistan against British India.[96][/b]

A number of failed mutinies erupted in India in 1914 and 1915, of which the Ghadar Conspiracy, the Singapore Mutiny, and the Christmas Day Plot were the most notable. The threat posed by the conspiracy was key in the passage of the Defence of India Act 1915, and suppression of the movement necessitated an international counter-intelligence operation on the part of the British empire lasting nearly ten years.[97] Among the more famous recruits of this intelligence operation was W. Somerset Maugham, tasked to assassinate V. N. Chatterjee, who worked with the Berlin committee.[98]

Indian political intelligence

At this time, the foundation was laid for British counter-intelligence operations against the Indian revolutionary movement. In January 1910, John Arnold Wallinger, the Superintendent of Police at Bombay, was reassigned to the India Office in London, where he established the Indian Political Intelligence Office. Wallinger used his considerable skills to establish contacts with police officials in London, Paris and throughout continental Europe, creating a network of informants and spies.[99] During World War I, this organisation, working with the French Political Police, called the Sûreté,[100] was key in tracing the Indo-German conspiracy and attempted to assassinate ex-members of India House who were at the time planning a nationalist mutiny in British India.[98] Somerset Maugham, who was among Wallinger's recruits, later based some of his characters and stories on his experiences during the war.[101] Wallinger's organisation was renamed Indian Political Intelligence in 1921, and later expanded to form the Intelligence Bureau in independent India.[102]

Indian Communism

From the time it was founded, India House cultivated a close relationship with socialist movements in Europe. Prominent Socialists of the time like Henry Hyndman were closely linked to the house. Cama cultivated a close relationship with French Socilaists and Russian communists. The IHRS delegation to Stuttgart in 1907 is known to have met with Hyndman, Karl Liebknecht, Jean Jaurès, Rosa Luxemburg and Ramsay MacDonald. Chatterjee moved to Paris in 1909 and joined the French Socialist Party.[103] M.P.T. Acharya was introduced to the socialist circle in Paris in 1910.[104] With the help of the socialists in Paris, notably Jean Longuet, the Paris Indian Society brought pressure on the French Government when Savarkar was rearrested at Marseille after escaping from a ship that was deporting him to India.[105] Acharya utillused press freedom in France and the socialist platform to press for Savarkar's re-extradition to France and built French public opinion in support of such moves. Under public pressure at home, the French Government conceded and made a request to Britain, which was ultimately settled in Britain's favour at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.[105] The Paris Indian Society became one of the most powerful Indian organisations outside India at the time,[69] and grew to initiate contacts with not only French Socialists, but also those in continental Europe.[69] It sent delegates to the International Socialist Congress in August 1910, where Krishna Varma and Iyer succeeded in having a resolution passed demanding Savarkar's release and his extradition to France.[105]

[size=110;After World War I, ex-members of India House and erstwhile members of the Berlin Committee and the Indian revolutionary movement increasingly turned to the young Soviet Union, becoming closely associated with communism. The Berlin India Committee moved to Stockholm after the war. Led by V. N. Chatterjee, the committee wrote to Leon Trotsky to secure Bolshevik aid for the accused at the Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial.[106] Many involved in the conspiracy subsequently moved to Soviet Russia. When the Communist Party of India was founded in Tashkent in October 1920, a number of its founding members, including M. P. T. Acharya, Virendranath Chatterjee, Champakaraman Pillai and Abdul Rab, had been associated with India House or the Paris Indian Society.[107][108][109] Individuals like Acharya attended the second congress of the Communist International. Chatterjee and Acharya later worked with the League against Imperialism. Moving to Weimar Germany after the war, Chatterjee's program of revolutionary nationalism developed into the Indian Independence Party in 1922 which won Chicherin's approval and Comintern funding.[110] Chatto later joined the German Communist party. In 1927, Chatto accompanied Jawaharlal Nehru to the Brussels Conference of the League against Imperialism. However support from Soviet Russia for Chatterjee's program waned as M. N. Roy, a Bengali revolutionary in Moscow previously of the Anushilan Samiti was considered more close to ideology of Marxism than Chatterjee's aims of nationalist revolution. Roy steadily developed the Indian Communist Party with Stalin's encouragement and support. Chatterjee and Pillai later moved to Soviet Russia where they are believed to have been shot in Stalin's purges.

Hindu nationalism

A branch of the nationalist and revolutionary philosophy that arose from India House, especially from the works of V.D. Savarkar, was consolidated in India in the 1920s as an explicit ideology of Hindu nationalism. Exemplified by the Hindu Mahasabha, it was distinct from Gandhian devotionalism,[52] and acquired the support of a mass movement that has been described by some as chauvinist.[52] The Indian War of Independence is considered one of Savarkar's most influential works in developing and framing ideas of masculine Hinduism.[111] Amongst Savarkar's work during his stay at India House was a history of the Maratha Confederacy which he described as an exemplary Hindu empire (Hindu Padpadshahi).[52] Further, the Spencerian theories of evolutionism and functionalism that Savarkar examined at India House strongly influenced his social and political philosophy, and helped lay the foundations of early Hindu nationalism.[54] It charted the latter's approach to state, society and colonialism, and Spencer's doctrines led Savarkar to stress a "rationalist" and "scientific" approach to national evolution, as well as military aggression for national survival. A number of his ideas featured prominently in Savarkar's works well into his political writings and works with the Hindu Mahasabha.[54][112]


Kranti Tirth, Shyamji Krishna Varma Memorial, Mandvi, Kutch. Replica of India House is visible in background.

Krishna Varma's ashes along with those of his wife Bhanuben were repatriated to India in 2003 from Switzerland. Kachchh University, established by Gujarat government, is named in his honour. In 2010, a memorial named Kranti Teerth (Lit: Warrior's rest) was unveiled in his home town of Mandavi in Gujarat by (then) chief minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi.[113] Spread over 52 acres, the memorial complex houses a replica of India House building at Highgate along with statues of Krishna Varma and his wife. Urns containing Krishna Verma's ashes, those of his wife, and a gallery dedicated to earlier activists of Indian independence movement is housed within the memorial. Krishna Verma was disbarred from the Inner Temple in 1909. This decision was revisited in 2015, and a unanimous decision taken to posthumously re-instate him.[31] Savarkar's stay at India House is today commemorted with a blue plaque by English Heritage. Members of India House have been commemorated at various times independent India. Bhikaji Cama, Krishna Varma, Savarkar, among others have had commemorative postage stamps released by India Post. V. N. Chatterjee is commemorated at the Nehru Memorial Museum in New Delhi, where his name and photo is exhibited in a room for Indian revolutionaries. Dimitrov Museum in Leipzig housed a section on Chatterjee before it closed in 1989.[114]


1. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 334
2. Mitra 2006, p. 63
3. Croitt & Mjøset 2001, p. 158
4. Desai 2005, p. xxxiii
5. Desai 2005, p. 30
6. Yadav 1992, p. 6
7. Bose & Jalal 1998, p. 117
8. Owen 2007, p. 63
9. Owen 2007, p. 37
10. Yadav 1992, p. 7
11. Owen 2007, p. 62
12. Pasricha 2008, p. 32
13. Abel 2005, p. 110
14. "India House". Open University. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
15. Hopkirk 1997, p. 44
16. Qur 2005, p. 123
17. b Johnson 1994, p. 119
18. Majumdar 1971, p. 299
19. Innes 2002, p. 171
20. Joseph 2003, p. 59
21. Joseph 2003, p. 58
22. Bose 2002, p. 4
23. Owen 2007, p. 67
24. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 330
25. Parekh 1999, p. 158
26. Sareen 1979, p. 38
27. Baruwa 2004, p. 24
28. Mahmud 1994, p. 67
29. Bose 2002, p. xix
30. Adhikari et al. 1970, p. 136
31. Bowcott, Owen. "Indian lawyer disbarred from Inner Temple a century ago is reinstated". The Guardian. Retrieved 2015-11-12.
32. Mahmud 1994, p. 47
33. Parekh 1999, p. 159
34. Israel 2002, p. 246
35. Owen 2007, p. 64
36. Owen 2007, p. 66
37. Owen 2007, p. 65
38. Yadav 1992, p. 8
39. Chirol 1910, p. 148
40. Lee 2004, p. 379
41. Bhatt 2001, p. 80
42. Joseph 2003, p. 61
43. Jaffrelot 1996, p. 26
44. Puniyani 2005, p. 212
45. Yadav 1992, p. 12
46. Parel 2000, p. 123
47. Wolpert 1962, p. 169
48. Ghodke 1990, p. 123
49. Yadav 1992, p. 4
50. Yadav 1992, p. 82
51. Yadav 1992, p. 9
52. Bhatt 2001, p. 83
53. Owen 2007, p. 70
54. Bhatt 2001, p. 81
55. Hopkirk 2001, p. 45
56. Popplewell 1995, p. 133
57. Hopkirk 2001, p. 46
58. Yadav 1992, p. 300
59. Heehs 1993, p. 90,91
60. Popplewell 1995, p. 98
61. Owen 2007, p. 72
62. Owen 2007, p. 71
63. Yadav 1992, p. 15
64. Popplewell 1995, p. 131
65. Fryer 1984, p. 269
66. Hopkirk 2001, p. 49
67. McMinn 1992, p. 299
68. Yadav 1992, p. 22
69. Yadav 1992, p. 26
70. Popplewell 1995, p. 127
71. Popplewell 1995, p. 128
72. Popplewell 1995, p. 129
73. Popplewell 1995, p. 130
74. Popplewell 1995, p. 130
75. Andreas & Nadelmann 2006, p. 74
76. Hopkirk 2001, p. 50
77. Popplewell 1995, p. 132
78. Owen 2007, p. 73
79. Popplewell 1995, pp. 138–140,142
80. Lahiri 2000, p. 125
81. Chambers 2015, p. in; References, chapter 2
82. Lahiri 2000, pp. 124–126
83. Lahiri 2000, pp. 124–128
84. Lahiri 2000, p. 126
85. Majumdar 1966, p. 121,147
86. Popplewell 1995, p. 135
87. Lahiri 2000, p. 129
88. "Dhingra, Madan Lal. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 29 October2015.
89. Tickell 2013, p. 137
90. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 333
91. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 335
92. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 337
93. Fischer-Tinē 2007, p. 338
94. Hoover 1985, p. 252
95. Brown 1948, p. 300
96. Strachan 2001, p. 788
97. Hopkirk 2001, p. 41
98. Popplewell 1995, p. 234
99. Andreas & Nadelmann 2006, p. 75
100. Popplewell 1995, p. 216,217
101. Popplewell 1995, p. 230
102. Dover, Goodman & Hilleband 2013, p. 183
103. Sinha 2014, p. 48
104. Yadav 1992, p. 24
105. Yadav 1992, p. 25
106. Price 2005, p. 68
107. Radhan 2002, p. 120
108. Yadav 1992, p. 53
109. Strachan 2001, p. 815
110. Price 2005, p. 109
111. Bannerjee 2005, p. 50
112. Bhatt 2001, p. 82
113. TNN. "Modi dedicates 'Kranti Teerth' memorial to Shyamji Krishna Verma". The Times of India. Retrieved 2015-11-12.
114. Kara 1986, p. 17


• Adhikari, G; Rao, MB; Sen, Mohit (1970), Lenin and India, Jhansi, India: People's Publishing House.
• Abel, M (2005), Glimpses of Indian National Movement, Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University press, ISBN 81-7881-420-X.
• Andreas, Peter; Nadelmann, Avram (2006), Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press US, ISBN 0-19-508948-0.
• Bannerjee, Sikata (2005), Make Me a Man! Masculinity, Hinduism, and Nationalism in India, Albany, New York: SUNY press, ISBN 0-7914-6367-2.
• Baruwa, Niroda Kumara (2004), Chatto, the Life and Times of an Indian Anti-imperialist in Europe., Oxford University Press India, ISBN 978-0-19-566547-5.
• Bhatt, Chetan (2001), Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths, Oxford: Berg Publishers, ISBN 1-85973-348-4.
• Bose, Arun (2002), Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905–1927: Select Documents, Volume 1, New Delhi: ICHR, ISBN 81-7211-123-1.
• Chambers, Claire (2015), Britain Through Muslim Eyes: Literary Representations, 1780–1988, New Delhi: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-230-25259-2.
• Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (1998), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-16952-6.
• Brown, Giles (1948), "The Hindu Conspiracy, 1914–1917", The Pacific Historical Review, University of California Press, 17 (3): 299–310, doi:10.2307/3634258, ISSN 0030-8684.
• Chirol, Valentine (1910), Indian Unrest, London: MacMillan and Co., ISBN 0-543-94122-1.
• Croitt, Raymond D; Mjøset, Lars (2001), When Histories Collide, Oxford, UK: AltaMira, ISBN 0-7591-0158-2.
• Desai, A.R (2005), Social Background of Indian Nationalism, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, ISBN 81-7154-667-6.
• Dover, Robert; Goodman, Michael; Hilleband, Claudia (2013), Routledge Companion to Intelligence Studies, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-50752-3.
• Fryer, Peter (1984), Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain, University of Alberta, ISBN 978-0-86104-749-9
• Ghodke, H.M. (1990), Revolutionary nationalism in western India:On the contribution of Maharashtra to the Indian freedom struggle., Classical Publishing Company, ISBN 81-7054-112-3
• Heehs, Peter (1993), The Bomb in Bengal: The Rise of Revolutionary Terrorism in India, 1900–1910, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563350-4
• Hopkirk, Peter (1997), Like Hidden Fire: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire, Kodansha Globe, ISBN 1-56836-127-0
• Fischer-Tinē, Harald (2007), "Indian Nationalism and the 'world forces': Transnational and diasporic dimensions of the Indian freedom movement on the eve of the First World War", Journal of Global History, Cambridge University Press, 2 (3): 325–344, doi:10.1017/S1740022807002318, ISSN 1740-0228.
• Hoover, Karl (1985), "The Hindu Conspiracy in California, 1913–1918", German Studies Review, German Studies Association, 8 (2): 245–261, doi:10.2307/1428642, ISSN 0149-7952, JSTOR 1428642.
• Hopkirk, Peter (2001), On Secret Service East of Constantinople, Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, ISBN 0-19-280230-5.
• Innes, Catherine Lynnette (2002), A History of Black and Asian Writing in Britain, 1700–2000, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-64327-9.
• Israel, Milton (2002), Communications and Power: Propaganda and the Press in the Indian National Struggle, 1920–1947, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-46763-6.
• Jaffrelot, Christofer (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, ISBN 1-85065-301-1.
• Johnson, K. Paul (1994), The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge, Albany, New York: SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-2063-9.
• Joseph, George Verghese (2003), George Joseph, the Life and Times of a Kerala Christian Nationalist, Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman, ISBN 81-250-2495-6.
• Lahiri, Shompa (2000), Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indian Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880–1930, London: Frank Cass publishers, ISBN 0-7146-8049-4.
• Kara, Maniben (Ed) (1986), The Radical Humanist, Vol 50, Bombay: Indian Renaissance Institute.
• Lee, Sidney (2004), King Edward VII: A Biography Part II, Oxford, UK: Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1-4179-3235-X.
• Mahmud, Syed Jafar (1994), Pillars of Modern India, New Delhi: Ashis Publishing House, ISBN 81-7024-586-9.
• Majumdar, Ramesh C (1971), History of the Freedom Movement in India (Vol I), Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, ISBN 81-7102-099-2.
• Majumdar, Bemanbehari (1966), Militant Nationalism in India and Its Socio-religious Background, 1897–1917, Calcutta: General Printers and Publishers
• McMinn, Joseph (1992), The Internationalism of Irish Literature and Drama, Savage, Maryland: Barnes & Noble, ISBN 0-389-20962-7.
• Mitra, Subrata K (2006), The Puzzle of India's Governance: Culture, Context and Comparative Theory, New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-34861-7.
• Owen, Nicholas (2007), The British Left and India, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-923301-2.
• Parekh, Bhiku C. (1999), Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysis of Gandhi's Political Discourse, New Delhi: Sage Publications, ISBN 0-7619-9383-5.
• Pasricha, Ashu (2008), The Encyclopaedia Eminent Thinkers, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co, ISBN 978-81-8069-491-2.
• Parel, Antony (2000), Gandhi, Freedom, and Self-rule, Oxford: Lexington Books, ISBN 0-7391-0137-4.
• Popplewell, Richard J (1995), Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904–1924, London: Frank Cass, ISBN 0-7146-4580-X.
• Price, Ruth (2005), The Lives of Agnes Smedley, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-534386-1.
• Puniyani, Ram (2005), Religion, power & violence, New Delhi: Sage Publications, ISBN 0-7619-3338-7.
• Qur, Moniruddin (2005), History of Journalism, New Delhi: Anmol Publications, ISBN 81-261-2355-9.
• Radhan, O.P (2002), Encyclopaedia of Political Parties, New Delhi: Anmol, ISBN 81-7488-865-9.
• Sareen, Tilak Raj (1979), Indian Revolutionary Movement Abroad, 1905–1921., New Delhi: Sterling.
• Sinha, Babli (2014), South Asian Transnationalisms: Cultural Exchange in the Twentieth Century., Oxford: Routledge, ISBN 9780415556187.
• Strachan, Hew (2001), The First World War. Volume I: To Arms, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-926191-1.
• Tickell, Alex (2013), Terrorism, Insurgency and Indian-English Literature, 1830-1947, Routledge, ISBN 0-19-926191-1.
• von Pochhammer, Wilhelm (2005), India's Road to Nationhood. (2nd edition), Mumbai: Allied Publishers, ISBN 81-7764-715-6.
• Wolpert, Stanley (1962), Tilak and Gokhale: Revolution and Reform in the Making of Modern India, University of California Press.
• Yadav, B.D (1992), M.P.T. Acharya, Reminiscences of an Indian Revolutionary, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt ltd, ISBN 81-7041-470-9.

Further reading

• Bose, Arun. Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905–1922. 1971. Bharati Bhawan.

External links

• Shyamji Krishna Verma and India House. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai.
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:06 am

Edward C. Hegeler
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/27/19



Edward C. Hegeler
Born 13 September 1835
Bremen, German Confederation
Died 4 June 1910 (aged 74)
La Salle, Illinois
CAB 1918 Hegeler Edward C signature.png

Edward C. Hegeler (13 September 1835 – 4 June 1910) was a United States zinc manufacturer and publisher.


He was the son of Herman Dietrich and Anna Catharine (von Tungeln) Hegeler. His father, originally of Oldenburg, had traveled in the United States and wished one of his sons to settle there. He selected for this his youngest son, Edward, and had his education mapped out with this purpose in view. Edward was educated in the academy of Schnepfenthal and then attended the Polytechnic Institute at Hanover (1851–53), and later the School of Mines at Freiberg, Saxony (1853–1856). In Freiberg, Hegeler met Frederick William Matthiessen, a fellow student, who became later his partner in the zinc business. Having traveled together on the European continent, and in England, they embarked for America and landed in Boston in March 1857.

While looking over the country for a suitable place to settle, they learned of Friedensville, Pennsylvania, where a zinc factory had been built, but it stood idle because the owners had not been able to manufacture the metal. Matthiessen and Hegeler, then 21 and 22 years old, respectively, stepped in, and with the same furnace succeeded in producing spelter, which at that time was pioneer work in America, for hitherto this metal had been imported from Europe. On account of the financial stringency of 1856, which still persisted in 1857, the owners of the Friedensville works refused to put more money into the enterprise, while neither Hegeler nor Matthiessen felt justified in risking their own capital, mainly because they had no confidence in the mines, which actually gave out eight years later.

Having investigated conditions in Pittsburgh and Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and also in southeastern Missouri, Hegeler and Matthiessen finally settled in La Salle, Illinois, because its coal fields were nearest to the ore supply at Mineral Point, Wisconsin. Here they started the Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc Works on a small scale. The few employees of the original works grew in a comparatively short time, to upward of one thousand men, and the modest smelting plant developed into one of the most modernly equipped smelters in the Middle West. His success in life has been attributed to a combination of two qualities in his character: first, the thoroughness with which he investigated from all sides the minutest details of a case when he had to take a stand; and second, the insuperable persistence with which he stuck to it until he had achieved the desired result.

In February 1887, Hegeler founded the Open Court Publishing Company, intended to serve the purpose of discussing religious and psychological problems on the principle that the scientific world-conception should be applied to religion. Hegeler believed in science, but he wanted to preserve the religious spirit with all its seriousness of endeavor, and in this sense he pleaded for the establishment of a religion of science. He recognized, for instance, that man with all his complicated psychical activity was a mechanism, but to him this truth was not derogatory to man, but an evidence of the great significance of machines. The mechanism of thinking is language, and so the speaking animal becomes the rational being. He maintained that through investigation and scientific criticism, religion must be purified, and the result would be a closer approach to truth on the path of progress. Hegeler rejected dualism as an unscientific and untenable view and accepted monism upon the basis of exact science, and for the discussion of the more recondite and heavier problems of science and religion he founded a quarterly, The Monist, in October 1890.

Hegeler was a member of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, the Press Club, and the Art Institute of Chicago.


He visited Germany in 1860 where, on 5 April, he married Camilla Weisbach (died 28 May 1908), the daughter of his admired teacher, Professor Julius Weisbach, of Freiberg, Germany. In July of the same year they settled in La Salle, Illinois, where they resided until the end of their lives. They had ten children. Hegeler was survived by Marie Hegeler Carus of La Salle; Camilla Bucherer of Bonn, Germany; Julius W. Hegeler of Danville, Illinois; Annie Cole of New York City; Herman Hegeler of Danville (died August 1913); Baroness Zuleikha Vietinghoff of Berlin; and Olga Lihme of Chicago.

See also

• Hegeler Carus Mansion


• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Homans, James E., ed. (1918). "Hegeler, Edward C." . The Cyclopædia of American Biography. New York: The Press Association Compilers, Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:52 am

Henry Hyndman
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/27/19



Henry Hyndman

Henry Mayers Hyndman (/ˈhaɪndmən/; 7 March 1842 – 20 November 1921) was an English writer and politician. Originally a conservative, he was converted to socialism by Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and launched Britain’s first left-wing political party, the Democratic Federation, later known as the Social Democratic Federation, in 1881. Although this attracted notable radicals such as William Morris and George Lansbury, Hyndman was generally disliked as an authoritarian who could not unite his party. He was the first author to popularise Marx’s works in English.

Early years

The son of a wealthy businessman, Hyndman was born 7 March 1842 in London. After being educated at home, he entered Trinity College, Cambridge.[1] Hyndman later recalled:

"I had the ordinary education of a well-to-do boy and young man. I read mathematics hard until I went to Cambridge, where I ought, of course, to have read them harder, and then I gave them up altogether and devoted myself to amusement and general literature.... Trinity or, for that matter, any other college, is practically a hot-bed of reaction from the social point of view. The young men regard all who are not technically 'gentlemen' as 'cads,' just as the Athenians counted all who were not Greeks as barbarians."

"I was a thorough-going Radical and Republican in those days — theoretically ... with a great admiration for John Stuart Mill, and later, I remember, I regarded John Morley as the coming man."[2]

After achieving his degree in 1865 he studied law for two years before deciding to become a journalist.

As a first-class cricketer, he represented Cambridge University, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and Sussex in thirteen matches as a right-handed batsman between 1864 and 1865.

In 1866 Hyndman reported on the Italian war with Austria for the Pall Mall Gazette. Hyndman was horrified by the reality of war and became violently ill after visiting the front line. Hyndman met the leaders of the Italian nationalist movement and was generally sympathetic to their cause.

In 1869 Hyndman toured the world, visiting the United States, Australia and several European countries. He continued to write for the Pall Mall Gazette, where he praised the merits of British imperialism and criticised those advocating Home Rule for Ireland. Hyndman was also very hostile to the experiments in democracy that were taking place in the United States.

Political career

ca. 1895

Hyndman decided on a career in politics, but, unable to find a party that he could fully support, he decided to stand as an Independent for the constituency of Marylebone in the 1880 General Election. Denounced as a Tory by William Ewart Gladstone, Hyndman got very little support from the electorate and, facing certain defeat, withdrew from the contest.

Soon after the election, Hyndman read a novel based on the life of Ferdinand Lassalle. He became fascinated with Lassalle and decided to research this romantic hero who had been killed in a duel in 1864. Discovering that Lassalle had been a socialist, sometimes a friend and sometimes an adversary of Karl Marx, Hyndman read The Communist Manifesto and, although he had doubts about some of Marx's ideas, was greatly impressed by his analysis of capitalism.

Hyndman was also greatly influenced by the book Progress and Poverty and the ideology of Henry George known today as Georgism.[3]

Hyndman then decided to form Britain's first socialist political party. The Democratic Federation had its first meeting on 7 June 1881. Many socialists were concerned that in the past Hyndman had been opposed to socialist ideas, but Hyndman persuaded many that he had genuinely changed his views, and those who eventually joined the SDF included William Morris and Karl Marx's daughter, Eleanor Marx. However, Friedrich Engels, Marx's long-term collaborator, refused to support Hyndman's venture.

Hyndman wrote the first popularisation of the ideas of Karl Marx in the English language, England for All in 1881. The book was extremely successful, a fact that stoked Marx's antipathy given the fact that he had failed to credit Marx by name in the introduction. The work was followed in 1883 by Socialism Made Plain, which expounded the policies of what by then had been renamed as the Social Democratic Federation (SDF). They included a demand for universal suffrage and the nationalisation of the means of production and distribution. The SDF also published Justice, edited by the talented journalist Henry Hyde Champion.

Although Hyndman was a talented writer and public speaker, many members of the SDF questioned his leadership qualities. He was extremely authoritarian and tried to restrict internal debate about party policy. At an SDF meeting on 27 December 1884, the executive voted, by a majority of two (10–8), that it had no confidence in Hyndman. When he refused to resign, some members, including William Morris and Eleanor Marx, left the party, forming the Socialist League.

In the 1885 general election, Hyndman and Henry Hyde Champion, without consulting their colleagues, accepted £340 from the Tories to run parliamentary candidates in Hampstead and Kensington, the objective being to split the Liberal vote and therefore enable the Conservative candidate to win. This ploy failed, and the two SDF's candidates won only a total of 59 votes. The story leaked out, and the political reputation of both men suffered because they had accepted "Tory gold".

During the 1880s, he was a prominent member of the Irish National Land League and the Land League of Great Britain. He took part in the unemployed demonstrations of 1887 and was put on trial for his share in the West End Riots of 1886, but was acquitted.[4][5]

He was chairman at the International Socialist Congress held in London in 1896. He was pro-Boer during the second Boer War.[6]

Hyndman continued to lead the SDF and took part in the negotiations to establish the Labour Representation Committee in 1900. However, the SDF left the LRC when it became clear that it was deviating from the objectives he had set out, and in 1911 he set up the British Socialist Party (BSP) when the SDF fused with a number of branches of the Independent Labour Party.


Hyndman was an antisemite, voicing antisemitic opinions with regards to the Boer War, and blaming ‘Jewish bankers’ and ‘imperialist Judaism’ as the cause of the conflict.[7] Hyndman charged ‘Beit, Barnato and their fellow-Jews’ as aiming to create "an Anglo-Hebraic Empire in Africa stretching from Egypt to Cape Colony".[8]

Hyndman believed Jews were central to ‘a sinister “gold international” opposed to the “red international” of socialism’.[9] Hyndman supported the anti-semitic Viennese riots of 1885, arguing that they represented a blow against Jewish finance capital.[9] Hyndman repeatedly denounced what he saw as the overwhelming power of "capitalist Jews on the London Press", believing that the "Semitic lords of the press" had created war in South Africa.[10] Hyndman remained committed to conspiracies regarding Jewish power, remarking that "unless you said that they [Jews] were the most capable and brilliant people of the earth, you had the whole of their international agencies against you".[10]

Such antisemitism disillusioned erstwhile supporters: Eleanor Marx wrote privately to Wilhelm Liebknecht that “Mr Hyndman whenever he could do with impunity has endeavoured to set English workmen against foreigners.”[11] Hyndman had previously attacked Eleanor Marx in antisemitic terms, noting that she had "inherited in her nose and mouth the Jewish type from Marx himself".[11]

After the war

Hyndman by Sydney Prior Hall

Hyndman upset members of the BSP by supporting the United Kingdom's involvement in World War I. The party split in two with Hyndman forming a new National Socialist Party. Hyndman remained leader of the small party until his death on 20 November 1921.


• A Commune for London (1888)
• Commercial Crisis of the Nineteenth Century (1892)
• Economics of Socialism (1890)
• The Awakening of Asia (1919)
• The Evolution of Revolution (1921)


1. "Hyndman, Henry Mayers (HNDN861HM)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
2. H. Quelch, "H.M. Hyndman: An Interview," The Comrade, (New York), February 1902, pg. 114.
3. Kohl, Norbert (2011). Oscar Wilde : the works of a conformist rebel. 1st pbk. ed.Cambridge England New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521176530.
4. The Record of an Adventurous Life. 1911. p. 367.
5. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Hyndman, Henry Mayers" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York.
6. Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). "Hyndman, Henry Mayers" . New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead.
7. Mcgeever, Brendan, and Satnam Virdee. "Antisemitism and Socialist Strategy in Europe, 1880–1917: An Introduction." Patterns of Prejudice 51.3-4 (2017): 229
8. Hirshfield. Claire. ‘The Anglo-Boer War and the issue of Jewish culpability’, Journal of Contemporary History 15.4 (1980):621
9. Virdee, Satnam. "Socialist Antisemitism and Its Discontents in England, 1884–98." Patterns of Prejudice 51.3-4 (2017):362
10. Hirshfield. Claire. ‘The Anglo-Boer War and the issue of Jewish culpability’, Journal of Contemporary History 15.4 (1980):622
11. Virdee, Satnam. "Socialist Antisemitism and Its Discontents in England, 1884–98." Patterns of Prejudice 51.3-4 (2017):363

External links

• Works by Henry Mayers Hyndman at Faded Page (Canada)
• Cricket Archive
• Henry Hyndman Internet Archive, Marxists Internet Archive.
• H. M. Hyndman, Commercial Crises of the Nineteenth Century (1892)
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:52 pm

Irish National Land League
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/27/19



The Irish painter Henry Jones Thaddeus enlisted the conscience of the propertied classes with the sentimental realism of Le retour du braconnier (The Wounded Poacher), exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1881, at the height of the Irish Land War

The Irish National Land League (Irish: Conradh na Talún) was an Irish political organisation of the late 19th century which sought to help poor tenant farmers. Its primary aim was to abolish landlordism in Ireland and enable tenant farmers to own the land they worked on. The period of the Land League's agitation is known as the Land War. Historian R. F. Foster argues that in the countryside the Land League "reinforced the politicization of rural Catholic nationalist Ireland, partly by defining that identity against urbanization, landlordism, Englishness and—implicitly—Protestantism."[1] Foster adds that about a third of the activists were Catholic priests, and Archbishop Thomas Croke was one of its most influential champions.[2]


Following the founding meeting of the Mayo Tenants Defence Association in Castlebar, County Mayo on 26 October 1878 the demand for The Land of Ireland for the people of Ireland was reported in the Connaught Telegraph 2 November 1878.

The first of many "monster meetings" of tenant farmers was held in Irishtown near Claremorris on 20 April 1879, with an estimated turnout of 15,000 to 20,000 people. This meeting was addressed by James Daly (who presided), John O'Connor Power, John Ferguson, Thomas Brennan, and J. J. Louden.

The Connaught Telegraph's report of the meeting in its edition of 26 April 1879 began:

Since the days of O'Connell a larger public demonstration has not been witnessed than that of Sunday last. About 1 o'clock the monster procession started from Claremorris, headed by several thousand men on foot – the men of each district wearing a laural leaf or green ribbon in hat or coat to distinguish the several contingents. At 11 o'clock a monster contingent of tenant-farmers on horseback drew up in front of Hughes's hotel, showing discipline and order that a cavalry regiment might feel proud of. They were led on in sections, each having a marshal who kept his troops well in hand. Messrs. P.W. Nally, J.W. Nally, H. French, and M. Griffin, wearing green and gold sashes, led on their different sections, who rode two deep, occupying, at least, over an Irish mile of the road. Next followed a train of carriages, brakes, cares, etc. led on by Mr. Martin Hughes, the spirited hotel proprietor, driving a pair of rare black ponies to a phæton, taking Messrs. J.J. Louden and J. Daly. Next came Messrs. O'Connor, J. Ferguson, and Thomas Brennan in a covered carriage, followed by at least 500 vehicles from the neighbouring towns. On passing through Ballindine the sight was truly imposing, the endless train directing its course to Irishtown – a neat little hamlet on the boundaries of Mayo, Roscommon, and Galway.

Evolving out of this a number of local land league organisations were set up to work against the excessive rents being demanded by landlords throughout Ireland, but especially in Mayo and surrounding counties.

From 1874 agricultural prices in Europe had dropped, followed by some bad harvests due to wet weather during the Long Depression. The effect by 1878 was that many Irish farmers were unable to pay the rents that they had agreed, particularly in the poorer and wetter parts of Connacht. The localised 1879 Famine added to the misery. Unlike many other parts of Europe, the Irish land tenure system was inflexible in times of economic hardship.

League founded

National Land League plaque Imperial Hotel in Castlebar

The Irish National Land League was founded at the Imperial Hotel in Castlebar, the County town of Mayo, on 21 October 1879. At that meeting Charles Stewart Parnell was elected president of the league. Andrew Kettle, Michael Davitt, and Thomas Brennan were appointed as honorary secretaries. This united practically all the different strands of land agitation and tenant rights movements under a single organisation.

The two aims of the Land League, as stated in the resolutions adopted in the meeting, were:

..."first, to bring about a reduction of rack-rents; second, to facilitate the obtaining of the ownership of the soil by the occupiers".

That the object of the League can be best attained by promoting organisation among the tenant-farmers; by defending those who may be threatened with eviction for refusing to pay unjust rents; by facilitating the working of the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act during the winter; and by obtaining such reforms in the laws relating to land as will enable every tenant to become owner of his holding by paying a fair rent for a limited number of years".

Charles Stewart Parnell, John Dillon, Michael Davitt, and others then went to the United States to raise funds for the League with spectacular results. Branches were also set up in Scotland, where the Crofters Party imitated the League and secured a reforming Act in 1886.

The government had introduced the first Land Act in 1870, which proved largely ineffective. It was followed by the marginally more effective Land Acts of 1880 and 1881. These established a Land Commission that started to reduce some rents. Parnell together with all of his party lieutenants, including Father Eugene Sheehy known as "the Land League priest", went into a bitter verbal offensive and were imprisoned in October 1881 under the Irish Coercion Act in Kilmainham Jail for "sabotaging the Land Act", from where the No-Rent Manifesto was issued, calling for a national tenant farmer rent strike until "constitutional liberties" were restored and the prisoners freed. It had a modest success In Ireland, and mobilized financial and political support from the Irish Diaspora.[3]

Although the League discouraged violence, agrarian crimes increased widely. Typically a rent strike would be followed by eviction by the police and the bailiffs. Tenants who continued to pay the rent would be subject to a boycott, or as it was contemporaneously described in the US press, an "excommunication" by local League members.[4] Where cases went to court, witnesses would change their stories, resulting in an unworkable legal system. This in turn led on to stronger criminal laws being passed that were described by the League as "Coercion Acts".

The bitterness that developed helped Parnell later in his Home Rule campaign. Davitt's views as seen in his famous slogan: "The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland" was aimed at strengthening the hold on the land by the peasant Irish at the expense of the alien landowners.[5] Parnell aimed to harness the emotive element, but he and his party were strictly constitutional. He envisioned tenant farmers as potential freeholders of the land they had rented.

In encyclopedia Britannica the League is considered part of the progressive "rise of fenianism".[6]

Land war

William Gladstone under pressure of Land League. Caricature circa 1880s.

From 1879 to 1882, the "Land War" in pursuance of the "Three Fs" (Fair Rent, Fixity of Tenure and Free Sale) first demanded by the Tenant Right League in 1850, was fought in earnest. The League organised resistance to evictions, reductions in rents and aided the work of relief agencies. Landlords' attempts to evict tenants led to violence, but the Land League denounced excessive violence and destruction.

Irish land League poster dating from the 1880s

Withholding of rent led on to evictions until "Ashbourne's Act" in 1885 made it unprofitable for most landlords to evict.[7] By then agricultural prices had made a recovery, and rents had been fixed and could be reviewed downwards, but tenants found that holding out communally was the best option. Critics noted that the poorer sub-tenants were still expected to pay their rents to tenant farmers.

The widespread upheavals and extensive evictions were accompanied by several years of bad weather and poor harvests, when the tenant farmers who were unable to pay the full arrears of rents resorted to a rent strike. A renewed Land War was waged under the Plan of Campaign from 1886 up until 1892 during which the League decided on a fair rent and then encouraged its members to offer this rent to the landlords. If this was refused, then the rent would be paid by tenants to the League and the landlord would not receive any money until he accepted a discount.

The first target, ironically, was a member of the Catholic clergy, Canon Ulick Burke of Knock, who was eventually induced to reduce his rents by 25%. Many landlords resisted these tactics, often violently and there were deaths on either side of the dispute. The Royal Irish Constabulary, the national police force, largely made up of Irishmen, were charged with upholding the law and protecting both landlord and tenant against violence. Originally, the movement cut across some sectarian boundaries, with some meetings held in Orange halls in Ulster, but the tenancy system in effect there Ulster Custom was quite different and fairer to tenants and support drifted away.

As a result of the Land War, the Irish National Land League was suppressed by the authorities. In October 1882, as its successor Parnell founded the Irish National League to campaign on broader issues including Home Rule.[8] Many of the Scottish members formed the Scottish Land Restoration League. In 1881, the League started publishing United Ireland a weekly newspaper edited by William O'Brien, which continued until 1898.


Within decades of the league's foundation, through the efforts of William O'Brien and George Wyndham (a descendant of Lord Edward FitzGerald), the 1902 Land Conference produced the Land (Purchase) Act 1903 which allowed Irish tenant farmers to buy out their freeholds with UK government loans over 68 years through the Land Commission (an arrangement that has never been possible in Britain itself). For agricultural labourers, D.D. Sheehan and the Irish Land and Labour Association secured their demands from the Liberal government elected in 1905 to pass the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1906, and the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1911, which paid County Councils to build over 40,000 new rural cottages, each on an acre of land. By 1914, 75% of occupiers were buying out their landlords, mostly under the two Acts. In all, under the pre-UK Land Acts over 316,000 tenants purchased their holdings amounting to 15 million acres (61,000 km2) out of a total of 20 million acres (81,000 km2) in the country.[9] Sometimes the holdings were described as "uneconomic", but the overall sense of social justice was manifest.

The major land reforms came when Parliament passed laws in 1870, 1881, 1903 and 1909 that enabled most tenant farmers to purchase their lands, and lowered the rents of the others.[10] From 1870 and as a result of the Land War agitations and the Plan of Campaign of the 1880s, various British governments introduced a series of Irish Land Acts. William O'Brien played a leading role in the 1902 Land Conference to pave the way for the most advanced social legislation in Ireland since the Union, the Wyndham Land Purchase Act of 1903. This Act set the conditions for the break-up of large estates and gradually devolved to rural landholders, and tenants' ownership of the lands. It effectively ended the era of the absentee landlord, finally resolving the Irish Land Question.

See also

• Highland Land League


1. R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 (1988) p 415.
2. Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 (1988) p 417-18.
3. Richard Schneirov (1998). Labor and Urban Politics: Class Conflict and the Origins of Modern Liberalism in Chicago, 1864-97. p. 131.
4. The sun., December 29, 1880, Image 3 About The sun. (New York N.Y.) 1833-1916
5. Sidney Webb (1908). The Basis and Policy of Socialism. p. 72.
6. The rise of Fenianism ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA
7. Ireland as it is and as it Would be Under Home Rule. 1893. p. 400.
8. Michael Davitt (1904). The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland: Or, The Story of the Land League Revolution. p. 372.
9. Ferriter, Diarmaid: "The Transformation of Ireland, 1900–2000", Profile Books, London (2004), pp. 62–63, 159 (ISBN 1 86197 443-4)
10. Timothy W. Guinnane and Ronald I. Miller. "The Limits to Land Reform: The Land Acts in Ireland, 1870–1909*." Economic Development and Cultural Change 45#3 (1997): 591-612. online

Further reading

• Bull, Philip. Land, politics and nationalism: A study of the Irish Land Question (Gill & Macmillan, 1996).
• Cashman, D.B. & Davitt, Michael The Life of Michael Davitt and the Secret History of The Land League (1881)
• Clark, Sam. "The social composition of the Land League." Irish Historical Studies (1971): 447-469. in JSTOR
• Clark, Samuel, and James S. Donnelly. Irish peasants: violence & political unrest, 1780-1914 (Manchester University Press, 1983)
• Davitt, Michael The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland ISBN 1-59107-031-7
• Gross, David (ed.) We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader ISBN 1-4348-9825-3 pp. 263–266
• Green, James J. "American Catholics and the Irish Land League, 1879-1882." Catholic Historical Review (1949): 19-42. in JSTOR
• Jordan, Donald. "The Irish National League and the'Unwritten Law': Rural Protest and Nation-Building in Ireland 1882-1890." Past and Present (1998): 146-171. in JSTOR
• William Henry Hurlbert, "Ireland under Coercion" 1888 Vol.1 Vol. 2 (Analysis by a Catholic Irish-American).
• Linton, E. Lynn "About Ireland" 1890 (Anti-League analysis by an English journalist).
• Stanford, Jane, 'That Irishman The Life and Times of John O'Connor Power, History Press Ireland (2011) ISBN 978-1-84588-698-1
• TeBrake, Janet K. "Irish Peasant Women in Revolt: The Land League Years." Irish Historical Studies (1992): 63-80. in JSTOR

External links

• Michael Davitt and his legacy today.
• Hurlbert W. 'Ireland under Coercion' 1888
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:48 am

William Sloane Coffin
by World Council of Churches
13 April 2006



Clergy and Laity Concerned is a nationwide network within the religious community which was founded to mobilize opposition to U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia. In late 1965, John C. Bennett, William Sloane Coffin, Jr., Rabbi Abraham Heschel and others organized the National Emergency Committee of Clergy Concerned About Vietnam.

This committee soon developed a national organization of Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant clergymen and laymen which was known as Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam (CALCAV). Richard R. Fernandez was hired as Executive Secretary in 1966, continuing in that capacity or as Co-Director until 1973. Others who have served as Director or Co-Director include Richard M. Boardman, John Collins, Robert S. Lecky, Barbara Lupo, Don Luce, Richard Van Voorhis, and Trudi Schutz Young.

-- Clergy and Laity Concerned Records, 1965-1983, Swarthmore College Peace Collection


"One of the 20th century's great Christian pastors and activists for peace and justice" is how World Council of Churches (WCC) general secretary Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia describes US clergyman Rev. Dr William Sloane Coffin, Jr., who died on 12 April 2006, in a tribute issued on Maundy Thursday, April 13, 2006.

The full text of Kobia tribute follows:

I write to express my sympathy at the loss of William Sloane Coffin, who will be profoundly missed by many of us throughout the world.

The Rev. Dr William Sloane Coffin, Jr., who died yesterday in the United States, was one of the 20th century's great Christian pastors and activists for peace and justice. His life reflected an understanding of ministry that he once described in these words: "Every minister is given two roles, the prophetic and the priestly." And so he sought racial reconciliation through civil rights legislation, saw himself during the cold war years as "very anti-Soviet, but very pro-Russian", conducted a "lover's quarrel" with his own country's foreign and nuclear policies, opened the eyes of students, parishioners and readers to the demands of the gospel on every aspect of life. So, too, he taught that "the greatest danger each of us faces comes not from our enemies, but from our enmity".

Dr Coffin was aware of the World Council of Churches from before its inception in 1948. His uncle Henry Sloane Coffin, then president of Union Theological Seminary in New York City, was one of the founding intellects behind the Council and a guiding influence in the establishment of its Ecumenical Institute for graduate study in Bossey, Switzerland. His theological mentors, Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr, led him to view God's calling in a framework that transcended national, cultural and denominational boundaries. William Sloane Coffin would continue these traditions in ecumenical circles through his years as chaplain of Yale University, pastor of Riverside Church in New York and leader of movements including the civil rights struggle, anti-war protest and the lobby for a nuclear freeze. His voice was one that we heard clearly, and heeded.

He was arrested several times in the pursuit of social righteousness. On one of these occasions, while demonstrating for the desegregation of an amusement park in Baltimore on July 4, 1963, he was one of nine US religious leaders taken into custody. Arrested in company with Coffin that day was Eugene Carson Blake, another minister of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. Less than three years later, Gene Blake would become the second general secretary of the World Council of Churches. They remained friends and confidants to the end of Blake's life. In fact, William Sloane Coffin has been greatly admired by every one of the WCC's general secretaries.

Upon graduating in 1949, Coffin entered the Union Theological Seminary, where he remained for a year, until the outbreak of the Korean War reignited his interest in fighting against communism. He joined the CIA as a case officer in 1950 (his brother-in-law Franklin Lindsay had been head of the Office of Policy Coordination at the OSS, one of the predecessors of the CIA) spending three years in West Germany recruiting anti-Soviet Russian refugees and training them how to undermine Stalin's regime.

-- William Sloane Coffin, by Wikipedia

Dear Mr. Lavergne:

This letter is to appeal the response of 15 April neither confirming nor denying the existence of records of CIA contact with or briefing of the members of a delegation from the National Council of the Churches of Christ which visited Moscow in March 1956.

The 1949 CIA Act, as amended, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, provide for the protection of intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. Invoking these protections is moot, and the existence of the records, along with the records themselves, should be declassified and released, as:

1) The intelligence sources are all deceased. No active CIA operation could be endangered through the release of information about these men:

Decatur Ward Nichols, died January 24, 2005.
Henry Knox Sherrill, died May 11, 1980.
Eugene Carson Blake, died July 31, 1985.
Charles Parlin, died November 15, 1981.
Walter Van Kirk, died July 6, 1956.
Herbert Gezork, died October 1984.
Roswell Barnes, died December 21, 1990.
Franklin Clark Fry, died June 6, 1968.
Paul B. Anderson, died June 26, 1985.

2) The chief targets of the intelligence collection in question are deceased. No active CIA operation could be endangered through the release of information about these men:

Metropolitan Nikolai, died December 13, 1961.
Patriarch Alexei, died April 17, 1970....

3) The method in question -– contacting and cultivating religious figures as sources of foreign intelligence -– has been acknowledged by the CIA for the past 40 years....

In 1996, Rodney I Page, deputy secretary general of the NCCC, testified before Congress that even suspected CIA use of religious workers as intelligence assets undermined the workers’ credibility, and placed their lives in danger. He added that it was widely known that the CIA operated under a general ban on such use of religious workers and clergy, but could authorize exceptions to the ban. The substance of CIA methodology is known. []


Dear Mr. Staniunas:

The Agency Release Panel considered your petition and fully denied your administrative appeal in accordance with Agency regulations set forth in Part 1900 of Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

-- CIA FOIA for 1956 Eugene Carson Blake briefing (f2015-01266), by David Staniunas

Dear Mr. Dulles:

As I retire from active service in the World Council of Churches at the end of this month, I find myself thinking gratefully of you and the other friends who year after year have given their loyal support in prayer and thought and money. Looking back over the forty years during which I have been associated with the movement for a greater Christian unity, I am grateful to God for the encouraging developments that have taken place both in this country and around the world. As I look ahead I have no doubt that the coming years will see a much greater advance toward a truly united Church. On the human side, it is such help as faithful friends like yourself have given that has made all this possible....

I can wish nothing happier and better than that he should have the same kind of friendly interest and support which you have shown during my years of service.

-- Letter to Allen W. Dulles, Director Central Intelligence Agency, from Samuel McCrea Cavert, The United States Conference for the WORLD COUNCIL of CHURCHES

It is near impossible to follow church money in any precise way. When Pastor Lusseau and his parishoners tried to, they found that it was being absorbed into the coffers, committees and ad hoc committees of the United Methodist Church, National Council of Churches and the World Council, and then surfacing in some surprising places. They found some of it was being spent on causes that seemed more political than religious, on causes that seemed closer to the Soviet-Cuban view of the world than Logansport, Indiana's, and they didn't like it.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The World Council, in particular, has become a political organization and not, as they set out, to be a fellowship of Christian organizations who accept Jesus Christ as our God and savior....

SAFER: The bureaucracy they're concerned about, indeed what many American Protestants are concerned about, is largely headquartered, 475 Riverside Drive in New York City. This building is officially known as the Inter-Church Center. The people who work in it call it the God Box. It's the home of the National Council of Churches. It's also the national headquarters for dozens of agencies attached to the United Methodists, the United Presbyterians and other Protestant churches. It's also the U.S. headquarters of the World Council of Churches, which is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland....

Critics feel that the National and the World Council lean toward Karl Marx when it comes to giving certain financial support.

Among the things they object to: money to NACLA, the North American Congress on Latin America, based in New York. Money from the Presbyterian Hunger Program helped NACLA publish this book, Agribusiness in the Americas, an indictment of capitalism and American agricultural corporations.

Two million dollars from the World Council went to buy heavy equipment and materials for new economic zones in Vietnam. Critics claim new economic zones are little more than forced labor camps.

After the Cuban supported revolution in Grenada, the National Council contributed money to publish a primer on the island. What was produced was a tribute to the revolution.

Another item. For a center in Nicaragua that would, quote, "serve the revolutionary reality in Latin America," unquote, $60,000 from the United Methodists.

The Cuba Resource Center received heavy financial support from the National Council member churches. It produced blatantly pro-Castro publications. And a continuing theme was to redefine Christianity in Marxist revolutionary terms.

Another item. To the Nicaraguan literacy program, $1-1/2 million from the World Council. The purpose was to raise political awareness while teaching reading. The teachers were Cuban; American teachers were not welcome.

Another item. The Conference in Solidarity with the Liberation Struggles of Southern Africa in New York was funded and organized by the United Methodists. But when it took place, according to FBI documents, it was run by the U.S. Communist Party and was entirely manipulated by the Soviet Union. The only Methodist official on the platform was the one who gave the invocation.

-- The Gospel According to Whom?: A Look at the National and World Councils of Churches, by 60 Minutes

On behalf of the ecumenical fellowship represented by the World Council of Churches, I offer thanks to God for the life, faith and courage of William Sloane Coffin. Many of us who knew him only slightly, or through his writings, or by report, join in prayer with those close friends and family members who are experiencing sorrow at his death. May the hope of the resurrection to eternal life, found at the heart of this Easter season, be with us and reassure us of God's abiding love.

Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia

General secretary, World Council of Churches
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:41 am

CIA FOIA for 1956 Eugene Carson Blake briefing (f2015-01266)
by David Staniunas
March 16, 2015



This is the complete correspondence surrounding my FOIA request for records of the CIA's briefing of Eugene Carson Blake before his trip to Moscow in March of 1956. ARP's response is that the initial "neither confirm nor deny" was appropriate. Have made a request for review with NARA OGIS.


David Staniunas

From: David Staniunas

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:14 AM

To: David Staniunas

Subject: Blake Moscow FOIA

Information and Privacy Coordinator
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505

Dear Coordinator:

Under the freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. subsection 552, I am requesting records of CIA contact with or briefing of the members of a delegation from the National Council of the Churches of Christ which visited Moscow in March 1956, including correspondence, reports, minutes, and transcripts of interviews.

The delegation initiated contact with the State Department in September 1955 regarding its trip to Moscow, and left for Moscow on March 9, 1956. They were most likely briefed by Agency staff in New York City during the first week of March, 1956. The nine men in the delegation were: Paul B. Anderson, Roswell P. Barnes, Eugene Carson Blake, Franklin Clark Fry, Herbert Gezork, D. Ward Nichols, Charles C. Parlin, Henry Knox Sherrill, and Walter W. Van Kirk.

If there are any fees for searching for, reviewing, or copying the records, please notify me before processing if the amount exceeds $100.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.

Please contact me directly with any further questions, by phone at 215-928-3864, or by email at dstaniunas[at]history[dot]pcusa[doct]org.


David Staniunas, Records Archivist
Presbyterian Historical Society
425 Lombard Street, Philadelphia PA 19147


Central Intelligence Agency
Washington D.C. 20505

15 April 2015

Mr. David Staniunas
Presbyterian Historical Society
425 Lombard Street
Philadelphia, PA 19147

Reference: F-2015-01266

Dear Mr. Staniunas:

This is a final response to your 16 March 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received in the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator on 16 March 2015, for "records of CIA contact with or briefing of the members of a delegation from the National Council of the Churches of Christ which visited Moscow in March 1956, including correspondence, reports, minutes, and transcripts of interviews." You stated that "they were most likely briefed by Agency staff in New York City."

In accordance with section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request. The fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended, and section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. Therefore, your request is denied pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3). I have enclosed an explanation of these exemptions for your reference and retention, As the CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator, I am the CIA official responsible for this determination. You have the right to appeal this response to the Agency Release Panel, in my care, within 45 days from the date of this letter. Please include the basis of your appeal.


Michael Lavergne
Information and Privacy Coordinator


Agency Release Panel, c/o
Michael Lavergne
Information and Privacy Coordinator
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington DC 20505

Reference: F-2015-01266

27 May 2015

Dear Mr. Lavergne:

This letter is to appeal the response of 15 April neither confirming nor denying the existence of records of CIA contact with or briefing of the members of a delegation from the National Council of the Churches of Christ which visited Moscow in March 1956.

The 1949 CIA Act, as amended, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, provide for the protection of intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. Invoking these protections is moot, and the existence of the records, along with the records themselves, should be declassified and released, as:

1) The intelligence sources are all deceased. No active CIA operation could be endangered through the release of information about these men:

Decatur Ward Nichols, died January 24, 2005.
Henry Knox Sherrill, died May 11, 1980.
Eugene Carson Blake, died July 31, 1985.
Charles Parlin, died November 15, 1981.
Walter Van Kirk, died July 6, 1956.
Herbert Gezork, died October 1984.
Roswell Barnes, died December 21, 1990.
Franklin Clark Fry, died June 6, 1968.
Paul B. Anderson, died June 26, 1985.

2) The chief targets of the intelligence collection in question are deceased. No active CIA operation could be endangered through the release of information about these men:

Metropolitan Nikolai, died December 13, 1961.
Patriarch Alexei, died April 17, 1970.

3) An unclassified 2013 report of an evaluation required by the 2010 Reducing Over-Classification Act indicates that Agency staff routinely misapply derivative classifications:“

Seventy-five percent of the sampled reports had inaccuracies in the declassification instructions in the classification block. Discrepancies included: use of a 50-year declassification date when there was no sensitive human source information to justify the extended period of classification;”

This statement suggests that a routine 50-year classification of records to protect sensitive human sources is common practice. Given that 59 years have elapsed since March 1956, prior administrative practice suggests that records pertinent to my request should be declassified and released.

3) The method in question -– contacting and cultivating religious figures as sources of foreign intelligence -– has been acknowledged by the CIA for the past 40 years.

The final report of the Church Committee in 1975 described CIA contact with clergy: “The number of American clergy or misionaries [sic] used by the CIA has been small. The CIA has informed the Committee of a total of 14 covert arrangements which involved direct operational use of 21 individuals.” [ p.202]

In 1996, Rodney I Page, deputy secretary general of the NCCC, testified before Congress that even suspected CIA use of religious workers as intelligence assets undermined the workers’ credibility, and placed their lives in danger. He added that it was widely known that the CIA operated under a general ban on such use of religious workers and clergy, but could authorize exceptions to the ban. The substance of CIA methodology is known. []

Thank you for your attention, and please contact me directly with any further questions.


David Staniunas


Central Intelligence Agency
Washington D.C. 20505

9 June 2015

Mr. David Staniunas
Presbyterian Historical Society
425 Lombard Street
Philadelphia, PA 19147

Reference: F-2015-01266

Dear Mr. Staniunas:

On 2 June 2015, the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator received your 27 May 2015 administrative appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for records on "CIA contact with or briefing of the members of a delegation from the National Council of the Churches of Christ which visited Moscow in March 1956, including correspondence, reports, minutes, and transcripts of interviews." Please continue to use this case reference number so that we can more easily identify your FOIA administrative appeal.

You are appealing our initial-level determination to neither confirm nor deny you material responsive to your request. Your appeal has been accepted and arrangements are being made for its consideration by the Agency Release Panel.

You will be advised of the panel's determination. In order to afford requesters the most equitable treatment possible, we have adopted the policy of handling appeals on a first-received, first-out basis. Despite our best efforts, however, the large number of public access requests CIA receives creates processing delays making it unlikely that we can respond to you within 20 working days. In view of this, some delay in our reply must be expected, but every reasonable effort will be made to respond as soon as possible.


Michael Lavergne
Information and Privacy Coordinator


Central Intelligence Agency
Washington D.C. 20505

29 September 2015

Mr. David Staniunas
Presbyterian Historical Society
425 Lombard Street
Philadelphia, PA 19147

Reference: F-2015-01266

Dear Mr. Staniunas:

This is a final response to your 27 May 2015 administrative appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which was processed under the referenced case identification number by the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator. As a reminder, you appealed our initial-level determination to that we could neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of material responsive to your request.

The Agency Release Panel considered your petition and fully denied your administrative appeal in accordance with Agency regulations set forth in Part 1900 of Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In reaching this determination to reaffirm CIA's initial-level processing of this request, the Agency Release Panel concluded that, in accordance with Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request. The fact of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself currently and properly classified and relates to intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended, and section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. As the panel's Executive Secretary, I am the CIA official responsible for informing you of the appellate determination.

In accordance with the provisions of the FOIA, you have the right to seek judicial review of this determination in a United States district court. Alternatively, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and federal agencies. Using services offered by OGIS does not affect your right to pursue litigation. For more information, including how to contact OGIS, please consult its website, http://ogis/


Michael Lavergne
Executive Secretary
Agency Release Panel
Site Admin
Posts: 33727
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests