Auromusic | on line books | Light endlesslight | eCentre | flowers |

The partition of India and its consequences - Part 2

-Prof. Kittu Reddy

In the second part of the article, we continue with our study of Pakistan and cast a brief glance on the other nations of the subcontinent. Pakistan today  seems to be going through critical times and all the  recent events in Pakistan, — the  Lal Masjid incident, the Supreme Court decision on the Chief Justice, the civil war in Baluchistan and North West Frontier Province, the apparent rethinking by the United States regarding its policy towards Pakistan, —  are likely to have a tremendous impact on the country.  Consequently, many political commentators and political analysts are wondering and speculating about the future of Pakistan . Is it heading towards becoming a failed State and ultimate disintegration?

In this part of the article, we shall try to show that all these events were inevitable, that they are symptoms of a deep malady and also that what is happening today is only the tip of the iceberg; much more will follow. And all these events are happening just because of one reason: Pakistan is an artificially manufactured State, based on false concepts and furthered by fraudulent and violent methods.
 In the words of Sri Aurobindo:
India was deliberately split on the basis of the two-nation theory into Pakistan and Hindustan with the deadly consequences which we know.

                                                                                    (CWSA, Vol. 36, p.500)

For Pakistan is not a nation in the true sense of the word and therefore will not and cannot last. It will disintegrate and get dissolved by the sheer law of political forces. Nature will see to it that Pakistan as a political unit will disappear. The only thing that has to be taken into account is the speed with which it will occur. It is here that the human agency comes in, more specifically, the attitudes of the governments of India , Pakistan and the Western nations, and particularly the United States .

It must also be clearly understood that this is not to suggest that there is any falsity in the religion of Islam nor even in the people of Pakistan , but that the events will be simply the natural consequence of certain fundamental political principles. We explain this in some detail now.

Political and real units

It is well known to all students of political science that the mere creation of a political State, having a central government is not enough to ensure its permanency and durability. A political unit, in order to be viable and durable must be a real unit — that is to say, it must be a unit with a deep psychological, cultural, spiritual unity and not merely held together by a centralised authority. A centralised power can hold together the different parts and components of a nation for some time but it cannot necessarily ensure durability. To ensure durability it must convert itself into the psychological centre and become the representative of the whole nation.

In the formation of a nation, there are many factors that play an important role; these are geography, race, language, religion, economic interests and interdependence, a common aspiration, common dangers and suffering and even sometimes a common enemy. Depending on the situation, one factor or another could be prominent. In certain cases, race would count and enter in as an element, but only as a subordinate element. In others, the race factor might predominate and be decisive; in still others it could be a historic and national sentiment overriding differences of language and race, partly by economic and other relations created by local contact or geographical oneness. Cultural unity would also count and play an important role, but need not, in all cases, prevail; even the united force of race and culture might not be sufficiently strong so as to be decisive. Religion could be an important factor as in the case of Pakistan . We thus see that there are many powerful factors that play important roles in varying degrees in the formation of a nation and that the nation is a complex amalgam of forces. All these factors have their importance, but the ultimate cementing factor is not any of these but a dominant subtle and psychological element. This deeper psychological element is not easily definable but is definitely perceptible and is often referred to as the inner psyche or the soul of the nation. It is this subtler force that really holds a nation together despite all the differences and centrifugal pulls. All other elements, however restless they may be, must succumb to this force; however much they may seek for free particularistic expression and self-possession within a larger unity, they must subordinate themselves to this more powerful attraction.

In the words of Sri Aurobindo:

Thus the nation is a persistent psychological unit which Nature has been busy developing throughout the world in the most various forms and educating into physical and political unity. Political unity is not the essential factor; it may not yet be realised and yet the nation persists and moves inevitably towards its realisation; it may be destroyed and yet the nation persists and travails and suffers but refuses to be annihilated.

                                                            (CWSA, Vol. 25, pp.309-10)

This is evident in the history of India . Here is a nation which has survived for more than two millenniums keeping intact its ancient cultural roots.   In the words of Sri Aurobindo:

But the most striking example in history is the evolution of India . Nowhere else have the centrifugal forces been so strong, numerous, complex, obstinate. The mere time taken by the evolution has been prodigious; the disastrous vicissitudes through which it has had to work itself out have been appalling. And yet through it all the inevitable tendency has worked constantly, pertinaciously, with the dull, obscure, indomitable, relentless obstinacy of Nature when she is opposed in her instinctive purposes by man, and finally, after a struggle enduring through millenniums, has triumphed… The political history of India is the story of a succession of empires, indigenous and foreign, each of them destroyed by centrifugal forces, but each bringing the centripetal tendency nearer to its triumphant emergence. And it is a significant circumstance that the more foreign the rule, the greater has been its force for the unification of the subject people. This is always a sure sign that the essential nation-unit is already there and that there is an indissoluble national vitality necessitating the inevitable emergence of the organised nation. In this instance, we see that the conversion of the psychological unity on which nationhood is based into the external organised unity by which it is perfectly realised, has taken a period of more than two thousand years and is not yet complete. And yet, since the essentiality of the thing was there, not even the most formidable difficulties and delays, not even the most persistent incapacity for union in the people, not even the most disintegrating shocks from outside have prevailed against the obstinate subconscious necessity. And this is only the extreme illustration of a general law.

                                                                        (CWSA, Vol. 25, pp. 307-08)

Even after 1947, when India attained its independence from British rule and was divided on the basis of the two-nation theory, there have been innumerable forecasts of doom stating that India would disintegrate. Political commentators have been churning out regularly the prediction of the dismal fate that awaits India . And yet today India stands out as a stable and progressive nation destined to play an important role in the future of the world.

Pakistan – an artificial unit

Let us now look at the history of Pakistan . The so-called nation of Pakistan , which was created in 1947, claimed to be a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent. The Muslims were supposed to be a different nation with the religion of Islam as the psychological binding factor. All proponents of Pakistan have claimed that Pakistan is bound by Islam and was in fact, created to bring the Muslims of the subcontinent together into a strong and viable Islamic group; in other words, the claim is that Islam was the cementing factor of Pakistan . As a matter of fact, Islam has not been the cementing factor; indeed there does not seem to be any cementing factor at all in Pakistan .

We reproduce here an extract from an article written by Aryn Baker in Time magazine dated Aug. 02, 2007

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the Savile Row-suited lawyer who midwifed Pakistan into existence on Aug 14, 1947, as leader of the Muslim League, was notoriously ambiguous about how he envisioned the country once it became an independent state. Both he and Iqbal, who were friends until the poet's death in 1938, had repeatedly stated their dream for a “modern, moderate and very enlightened Pakistan ,” says Sharifuddin Pirzada, Jinnah’s personal secretary from 1941 to 1944. But mindful of the fragile and fractious consortium of supporters for the new nation, whose plans for independence from both India and Britain were only finalized on July 18, 1947, Jinnah rarely elaborated on his religious views. “He was a very liberal-minded Muslim,” says Pirzada. “He rejected the idea that Pakistan would be ruled according to the righteous caliphs of Islam; he did not want a theocracy. At the same time he was very careful not to make a commitment one way or the other so that Muslims would not be alienated.”

Both religious conservatives and secular liberals have appropriated Jinnah’s words, actions and manners to prove their claims on Pakistan ’s identity. Clerics that once dismissed him as an infidel for his secular leanings before partition now embrace him for his borrowings from the Koran in his talks. Liberal newspaper editorials quote fragmented speeches to bolster claims that he was an avowed secularist. Jinnah’s own wish was that the Pakistani people, as members of a new, modern and democratic nation, would decide the country’s direction. “There is no contradiction,” says Pirzada, who has watched the debate rage for 60 years. “An Islamic state can be a fully modern state, unless you say it should be ruled by a theocracy. Jinnah was against theocracy. That is what matters.”

But rarely in Pakistan 's history have its people lived Jinnah’s vision. The nation was barely a decade old when President Iskander Ali Mirza declared martial law in an attempt to save his presidency from growing unpopularity. “That was the blackest day in our history,” says Senator Khurshid Ahmad, the deputy chief of Pakistan 's largest Islamist party. “Even our elected rulers became despots.” Pakistan has been cursed ever since. Only twice in its 60- year history has Pakistan seen a peaceful, democratic transition of power. Pakistan considers itself a democracy, but its governments have rarely had a mandate from the people. With four disparate provinces, over a dozen languages and dialects, and powerful neighbours, leaders — be they Presidents, Prime Ministers or army chiefs — have been forced to knit the nation together with the only thing Pakistanis have in common: religion.

It is our contention that Pakistan is an artificially manufactured political unit, a unit manufactured and carved out partly by the accident of circumstances and deliberate planning by a section of the Muslim leadership, the British government and the short-sightedness of the Congress leaders.

We thus see that Pakistan is not a real and viable unit; it has no life from within and owes its continuance to two factors. These two factors are:

  1. A force imposed on its constituent elements from inside, by the Army
  2. The political convenience felt by the world outside, namely the United States of America .

The history of Pakistan shows that it has not been to evolve a stable democratic system and that for the greater part of its history it has been under military rule. It is being held together by the Army.

Secondly, the Western world and the United States of America in particular need to keep Pakistan going in their own self-interest and to further their own geo-political strategies, despite the patent fact that it has hardly ever been a democratic state. Pakistan is needed for the convenience of America .

As soon as the constituent elements of  Pakistan reject Army rule and are drawn more powerfully by a centrifugal force, and if at the same time, the world outside — in this case the United States of America — no longer needs or favours the existence of Pakistan, then force alone will remain as the one agent of an artificial unity. It is difficult to see what this force could be.

History of Pakistan

When Pakistan was formed in 1947, it is said that Jinnah wanted to make it a secular state, although in the run up to the formation of Pakistan the most violent methods were used. This is what he said just before the formation of Pakistan on 11 August 1947.

If we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor… you are free — you are free to go to your temples, mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan . You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state… in due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to Muslims — not in a religious sense, for that is the personal faith of an individual — but in a political sense as citizens of one state.

However, Pakistan never became a secular State as Jinnah wished; it is quite probable that if he had lived longer the history of Pakistan might have been different. The reality however is that Pakistan became an Islamic State and has remained so right through its history; neither has it been able to evolve a sound democratic polity. For the major part of its history, it has been under military rule. Whether the military intervened in the affairs of the State to save Pakistan from anarchy as is claimed by them or whether they have a vested interest in seizing power is often debated by political commentators; but that is not the point that we are discussing now. The fact remains that for more than 40 years of its history, Pakistan has been under Army rule without any democracy.

The second point to be noted is that the principle of jihad has been used as an important component of its foreign policy by the Government of Pakistan right from its inception.

Here is an extract from a book written by B. V. Raman, a senior intelligence officer in Research and Analysis Wing, regarding the use of jihad. This is what he writes:

The use of jihad as a weapon against non-Muslims was… the brainchild of the religious leaders and military officers of Pakistan ever since the day Pakistan became independent on August 14, 1947. Pakistan 's jihad against India did not start in 1989. It started in 1947.

Even Jawaharlal Nehru — despite his strong secular credentials — had repeatedly been drawing attention to the jihad based on hatred for India being waged by Pakistan since 1947.

Between 1947 and the 1980s, Pakistan was waging this jihad mainly with the help of its nationals infiltrated into India . It could not find many supporters in the Indian Muslim community. From the 1980s onwards, it started getting the support of some Muslim youth in J&K.

Some Messages from the Mother

It will be quite appropriate to see some of the messages given by the Mother in regard to Pakistan .

In 1965, a war was fought between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. During the war, Mother sent this message to the then Prime Minister of India , Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri. This is what she wrote:


It is for the sake and the triumph of truth that India is fighting and must fight until India and Pakistan have once more become One because that is the truth of their being

                                                            (CWM, Vol. 13, p.367)

It should be evident that this message does not demand any appropriation of land or assets for their own sake, but simply states that the two nations have one soul and therefore they should be united.

Similarly, in June 1971, Mother had written in a letter to a disciple:

hand writing

La disparition du Pakistan est inévitable; elle aurait pu déjà se produire, mais l’ignorance humaine l’a retardée.

The English translation is as follows:

The disappearance of Pakistan is inevitable; it could have already happened, but human ignorance has delayed it.

It is this ignorance that is the cause of the delay in the process of unification and also the root cause of the problems, both in Pakistan and India .

However, there is today a realisation that the creation of Pakistan was a mistake. We are giving some extracts from some well-known writers below.

Pakistan – an idea that has failed

Here are some extracts from an article by K. P. S. Gill in The Pioneer. He writes:

Pakistan is an idea that has failed - abysmally and comprehensively…

This failure was evident in the very first years after the birth of the country out of the falsehood of the 'two nation theory' and the bloody slaughters of Partition.

Within six year of Independence, the poet Faiz Ahmed ‘Faiz’ wrote, in his poignant and evocative Subh-e-Azadi (The Dawn of Freedom):

This tainted light, this gloom-smothered dawn

                                    This is not the dawn we had hoped for...

The despondent night still lies heavy upon us

 The moment of deliverance from bondage is yet to come...

 Faiz spent years in Pakistani jails and in exile, reviled, excluded and marginalised by successive regimes, till his death in 1984. The tragic destiny of one of the greatest lights of modern Urdu literature is symbolic of all the good that may have survived the catastrophic creation of Pakistan in the crucible of communal hatred….

The Pakistani identity is based on irreducible opposites, an adversarial ideology that initially saw the Hindu as the enemy, but that has thereafter added a multiplicity of ‘hostile others’ — Ahmedias, Shias, internal regional minorities, the West — in its expanding circle of strife. Much of the violence in the South Asian region — and indeed, a large proportion of Islamist terrorism across the world — finds its roots in this psyche, rather than in any concrete and coherent strategic objectives or interests. Unless the institutional basis of this ideology, the power structure and sections of society that have historically profited from it, are dismantled, Pakistan ’s pathologies will continue to compound themselves, only occasionally tempered by objective external circumstances and a loss of capacities.

The attack on the United States and the Western world

As the natural and logical consequence of this policy not only in Pakistan but in the Islamic world, the attack on the United States took place on 11 September 2001. As a consequence of this attack, Pakistan came under tremendous international pressure to act on the Islamic fundamentalists within Pakistan . Facing intense pressure from the United States , the Pakistan Government took the position of becoming a leading ally of the United States in combating terrorism. However, even after 6 years, terrorism thrives in Pakistan itself and all indications seem to point to the conclusion that terrorism is indeed emanating from that country to different parts of the world.

Today, the Pakistan Government is facing severe criticism and even threats of being attacked by the United States for its policy of non-engagement with militant groups in the tribal areas which is now considered a complete failure. Washington is demanding that the Pakistan Government do more to rein in terrorists, extremists and religious fundamentalists

But if the administration of Pakistan decides to take a firm line against the religious fundamentalists, it is likely to face an internal revolt from within the Army. Here is an extract from a report of an interview by Hamid Gul former head of the Inter Service Intelligence.

In an interview, Hamid Gul, former head of ISI, has warned that if Musharraf does take both gloves off in tribal areas, it would just increase the likelihood of a split in army. “The officer cadres are liberal, secular, they come from the elite classes. But the rank and file of the army were never secular, they were always religious,” Gul said. “If there is a face-off between the army and people, the leadership may lose control of the army. The army does not feel happy. They are from the same streets, the same villages, the same bazaars of the lower and middle classes, and they want the same thing (Islamic law) for their country.”

The latest news says that serious thinking seems to be taking place in the higher administrative circles and in the various think tanks in the United States regarding Pakistan . As a matter of fact, a bill has been put forward in the Congress. Here are some points of the bill:

The bill then enumerates the “problems” that have cropped up in US relations with Pakistan . (1) Curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology; (2) Combating poverty and corruption; (3) Building effective government institutions, especially secular public schools; (4) Promoting democracy and the rule of law, particularly at the national level; (5) Addressing the continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremist forces throughout the country; (6) Maintaining the authority of the government of Pakistan in all parts of its national territory; (7) Securing the borders of Pakistan to prevent the movement of militants and terrorists into other countries and territories; and (8) Effectively dealing with Islamic extremism.

These steps are supported by many think tanks in the United States which have been advocating a very strict policy towards Pakistan . Here is an summary of the ideas from one of the  think-tanks in the United States :

In a report on Pakistan by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a clear case has been made for a distinct change in policy by the United States towards Pakistan . This report makes the case that the Pakistani state bears responsibility for the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi ideology and capabilities internationally. At the core of the problem is the Pakistani military, which has dominated Pakistan ’s politics since 1958 and has developed over the years nationalism based more on its own delusions of grandeur rather than on any rational analysis of the country’s national interest. Inheriting a highly divided polity, the Pakistan Army has tried to muster solidarity by stoking religiosity, sectarianism, and the promotion of jihad outside its borders, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir….

This report shows that … Pakistani priorities reflect the specific institutional interests of the military and therefore cannot be fundamentally changed unless the army gradually cedes its political role to representative civilian leaders and limits itself to defending borders. …

The report concludes:

Many analysts concur that Pakistan ’s situation is not sustainable. Islamabad will not be able to play double games eternally without creating at some point a major problem for itself, the region and the world. Even if it is accepted that Pakistan plays an indispensable role in the war on terror, it can be seen that policies toward Islamabad have consisted of a mix of bribery in the form of financial, military, and technical assistance and pressure at the margin. Islamabad’s preference that its local activities be kept separate from its effect on global security has been accepted by most countries.

This report proposes a middle way.

It addresses some of the challenges that the Pakistani military regime’s regional policies create for the international community, arguing that none can be resolved in isolation from the others. Arguing that the nature of the regime is the main source of trouble for the region, it urges a return to a civilian government according to Pakistan ’s own constitution.

The Government of Pakistan is thus caught on the horns of a dilemma. Should it give up the policy of terrorism and jihad to toe the line demanded by the US administration or should it continue the policy of jihad which has been the backbone of its existence? Either way, it is a catch-22 situation. If they support the American plan, the resistance to this will come not only from within Pakistan itself — from the fundamentalists, and also from sections of the Pakistan army — but also from many parts of the Islamic world. On the other hand, if they continue the policy of jihad and terrorism, the United States will come down heavily on Pakistan . The question that arises: What is the way out?

We have quoted all these extracts from different sources, only to show that Pakistan as a State is not viable. It is also evident that Pakistan is facing a serous crisis, a crisis of its very existence. The root of the problem lies as one might put it, “in the original sin”, that is to say in the two-nation theory and the violent methods used for that purpose. This is the ignorance that Mother referred in her message of 1971.

 Unfortunately, it is the same mentality and psychology and ignorance that is driving Pakistan to this day. Also it is the same ignorance that is blinding many other governments in the world and thus making them incapable to see the real truth.

All the problems of Pakistan whether it be poverty, terrorism, the absence of democracy or civil war, are due to this original cause. The direction needs to be reversed and the sooner it is done, the better it is for Pakistan , the subcontinent and the world. The question is whether Pakistan will do it of its own accord or whether circumstances and external intervention will be needed. It is our sincere hope that Pakistan will take the right steps on its own, for otherwise there will be huge problems not only for Pakistan but for the whole subcontinent and even the world.

In 1971, immediately after the war in Bangladesh , on 18 December, the Mother said:

Again it won’t be for this time.

It won’t be done that way. I’ve seen how. It won’t be done through a battle: the different parts of Pakistan will demand separation. There are five of them. And by separating, they will join India — to form a sort of confederation. That’s how it will be done.

And She added:

One of the things in the offing is the conversion of America , the United States , but it will take time.

… So the things in the offing are a federation of all the states of India , and another one in the offing is the conversion of the United States . A federation of the states of India along the lines of The Ideal of Human Unity, as conceived and explained by Sri Aurobindo.

Later, She said:

                   We are plainly heading for the disintegration of Pakistan .

Pakistan 's Existence: A need or a burden?

Syed Jamaluddin is from Pakistan and is now living in Europe.  He has written a book Divide Pakistan to eliminate Terrorism dealing with his personal views on the subject of Pakistan .  He was asked, “What made you write the book?” We reproduce here some passages from his response. These illustrate the thought process that is now taking place.

Regardless of the fact that the advocates of the two-nation theory have finally realised after half a century that the division of United India was not a good idea for international peace, there is a need to correct mistakes. India ’s democratic strength for the last 59 years has proved that its existence was fully justified. On the contrary, Pakistan emerged as a failed state for one single reason — that a country which was founded by assembling almost eight different nations in the name of Islam was unable to justify its existence. Since its formation, Pakistan has been a country full of conspiracies, discrepancies, controversies and corruption. Pakistan could not prove its worth as a state and remained just a piece of land occupied by certain opportunists who turned the entire country into their personal property. …

Today's Pakistan has turned into a typical Fascist regime without any ideology. …

The whole world has become vulnerable to terrorism. The question is who is masterminding such terrorism? Who is providing all possible support to terrorism? Who is creating terrorist minds? Who is a threat to international peace? The answer is very simple............ Pakistan ….

 A country which is possessed by forces which are not answerable to any one and which is beyond any legal system is indeed a great threat to the entire world. Pakistan has, therefore, become a burden. This burden needs to be off-loaded by way of its disintegration. Pakistan should be divided into 5 parts or more to crush the terrorist network which has gained its deep roots in present geographic form of Pakistan . My book titled Divide Pakistan to Eliminate Terrorism advocates the necessity of Pakistan 's disintegration. An Independent Pakhtoonistan, Baluchistan, Sindhudesh, Jinnahpur and Punjabistan will prevent the current nourishment and spread of terrorism from the soil of Pakistan .


Let Pakistan give up this double game that it is playing and befriend India .

They will get a tremendous response of good will

That is the ultimate solution. Give up the two nation theory and work with the Indian people in the subcontinent.

We paraphrase here a passage taken from an article written by M. V.  Kamath in Samachar.  This will give a clue to the possible solution to the problems of Pakistan and the subcontinent.

He says:

An Indo-Pakistani confederation is the only answer to Pakistan ’s present woes. It is pleasant to hear that a three-member team of archaeological experts from Pakistan had come to India in search of Hindu idols to be restored in temples in Pakistan, that Islamabad has budgeted Rs.100 million to complete the Katasraj Temple Project and that last November Musharraf had even visited a Shiva Temple in Karachi and declared that “historical places of all religions including that of Hinduism are integral part of Pakistan’s cultural and geographic history”.

All that is in the right spirit. India and Pakistan must undo partition, not territory wise but emotion wise….. Learn from India ’s past history. Together India and Pakistan can make South Asia great.

The Subcontinent

As a consequence of the partition of India , the nations in the subcontinent of India are also facing serious problems. We shall briefly touch upon some of the problems facing these States — Bangladesh , Nepal and Sri Lanka — in the subcontinent.

We have already seen in the first part of this article that all these States rank high in the list of Failed States. All are facing demographic, social, economic and political problems in varying proportions.

In Bangladesh , in addition to the problem of poverty, unemployment, chronic floods, Islamic fundamentalism, and a poor human rights record, the democratic system has collapsed and military rule has been imposed.

In Sri Lanka , there is a civil war going on for the last two decades and there seems to be no solution in sight. This has created refugee problems for India and great tension in the country.

In Nepal the monarchy has been overthrown and there is great disorder with the government not having full control over the different parts. In addition, there is acute poverty, unemployment and a serious threat from the Maoists.

Inevitably, all these problems in the neighbouring States of India are affecting her in different ways. India will have to face up to these challenges.

However, it is our firm belief that if India and Pakistan come together, the problems of the subcontinent too will get solved. We can then move gradually towards creating a confederation of South Asia.

In the words of Sri Aurobindo:

The partition of the country must go, — it is to be hoped by a slackening of tension, by a progressive understanding of the need of peace and concord, by the constant necessity of common and concerted action, even of an instrument of union for that purpose. In this way unity may come about under whatever form — the exact form may have a pragmatic but not a fundamental importance.

                                                            (CWSA, Vol. 36, p.476)

In the next article, we shall discuss the physical and psychological conditions that are needed to be fulfilled to create an atmosphere of peace and concord in the subcontinent leading ultimately to the formation of a confederation of South Asia.

                                                                                                Kittu Reddy

Books by Kittu Reddy :


History of India - a new approach

Standard Publishers of Inda,

Rs 850/-

A Vision of United India - Problems and Solutions

Standard Publishers of India ,

Rs 850/-

Rs 550/-

Bharat ke itihaas - ek naya drishti kon

Gyan Books Private limited, 5 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi

Rs 890/-

Bravest of the Brave

Ocean Publishers, New Delhi