Student Resignation Withdrawal Form Last Name First M: Fill & Download for Free

To understand why Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency on India, we have a begin at least a decade earlier in 1964. But before I continue, here are my sources.Emergency Retold by Kuldip NayarThe Emergency by Coomi KapoorIndia after Gandhi by Ramachandra GuhaIndira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi by Katherine FrankThe Dramatic Decade: The Indira Gandhi years by Pranab MukherjeeEach of these books provide various pieces of the puzzle in understanding emergency. Most parts of my answer derives from these works. I would have loved to read Indira Gandhi, the Emergency and Indian democracy by P. N. Dhar (Indira Gandhi’s principal secretary), but a copy was hard to come by. Now, to the answer itself.Nehru’s Passing - 19641964 was an eventful year for both India as well as Indira Gandhi (IG). After suffering a defeat at the hands of Chinese in the Sino-Indian war in 1962, Jawaharlal Nehru was a broken man. He has been suffering from kidney ailments since 1959. He suffered two heart attacks in quick successions in late 1963 and early 1964. He must have suspected his end was near. The press were also debating on who would succeed him and “After Nehru?” dominated the headlines for a while.The extreme left wanted Indira Gandhi to succeed him (Indira Gandhi had been Nehru’s unofficial secretary for several years and had also served as a congress president for about 10 months in 1959–60). But both Nehru and his daughter rejected these advances. In fact, only a few months before Nehru’s passing, IG wrote to her American friend Dorothy Norman about retiring from politics. This was not the first time Indira Gandhi expressed her desire to retire, it had been going on for a about two years.In January 1964, Nehru met with K. Kamaraj (then Congress President) and on the very next day, Lal Bahadur Shastri who had left Nehru’s cabinet only a few months ago to return to party work (based on the Kamaraj plan) was inducted back. He was not given any portfolio. This to some hinted at a succession plan.On May 27, 1964, after suffering a third heart attack Nehru passed.Indira Gandhi was devastated. The only person she trusted any more was no more. Her estranged husband (Feroze Gandhi, not related to Mahatma Gandhi) had passed four years earlier in 1960. Her children were still in their adolescence and were far away in England. The rest of Nehru’s family also were not too close.When her father passed, Indira Gandhi felt lonelier than ever. She had no job, no source of income and not even a house to stay in.Three days later, on May 30, the congress met to decide on Nehru’s successor. Morarji Desai threw his hat in the ring, but Shastri had the backing of K. Kamaraj and the other leaders of the Congress party. The decision was ideological - Shastri was a moderate, while Moraji was an extreme right-winger. Two weeks after Nehru’s passing, Shastri became India’s second prime minister.Indira Gandhi was inducted into Shastri’s cabinet as Information and broadcasting minister, an insignificant cabinet position. If rumours are to be believed, Shastri offered the positions of PM and/or foreign minister to Indira Gandhi, but she apparently declined. Indira Gandhi’s biographer’s wonder if the offer was made in earnest or was merely symbolic.The only man in a cabinet of old women, 1965Soon after she was inducted into Shastri’s ministry, Indira Gandhi began to establish herself as an independent leader. She (along with finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari) represented the PM in the Commonwealth PMs conference held in London in 1964. She also travelled extensively in Europe and Asia that year. During her absence from the country, Swaran Singh was sworn in as the External Affairs minister. That seems to have been the prime cause of the friction that was to develop between her and Shastri. Her biographers argue that she(egged on by her coterie) might have been slightly angry at Shastri because he had not consulted her before the appointment (IG felt that she had better knowledge on foreign relationships having travelled around the globe since her childhood).In late 1965, Indira Gandhi would go on to critize Shastri for “veering off from Nehru’s Socialist tendencies.” However, long before that she would go onto upstage him and became a leader in her own right. The skirmishes that began in April 1964 between India and Pakistan would go onto peak in the month of August. Indira Gandhi did not only holiday in Kashmir at this time, but she would go to the battlefront and visit the soldiers.She would return to the battlefield once again in September. And this time, she would arrive to a warm welcome from Kashmiris. She would establish a devoted following and even the press would go on to call her - the only man in a cabinet of old women. After the war was won in September 1964, Shastri was hailed a hero, but Indira had to some extent, endeared herself to the masses.Soon, she had better things coming.The ascension - mid 1960’sAfter Shastri unexpectedly passed in 1966, the question of succession arose once again. This time around, there were more than two names. Moraji Desai who had lost in 1964, wanted the post again. Gulzarilal Nanda (acting PM after both Nehru’s and Shastri’s death) entered the contest. Soon, YB Chavan (Desai’s man from Maharastra), SK Patil, Sanjiva Reddy and Indira Gandhi were all in the race.Once again the responsibility fell on Kamaraj and his group of leaders (referred to as “syndicate”). They felt that Indira Gandhi was the right choice. They convinced Nanda, Chavan, Patil and Reddy to withdraw, but could not persuade Desai a second time.An internal election was held. Indira carried it easily with 355 votes against Desai’s 169. Desai was only able to garner support in Gujarat (his home states) and parts of right-leaning Bihar and UP. And on 24 January, 1966, Indira Gandhi became India’s first woman PM.Some biographers have theorized that the syndicate backed Indira Gandhi only because she was a weak leader and a woman at that. They argue that the syndicate hated Moraji and they felt they could control Indira Gandhi. I think they are projecting the view of the right-wing opposition and some INC members like Ram Manohar Lohia to the entire syndicate (Through 1966 and 1967, the opposition and media ran a smear campaign calling Indira “Goongi goodiya” or “the puppet”). I personally think Indira Gandhi was chosen because in party full of right-leaning upper caste conservatives, she was the closest to being moderate and slightly left-of-center (to continue Nehru’s socialist policies).Either way, Indira Gandhi felt a need to assert herself as an independent leader and her actions in the next couple of years can be explained by that.The rise of RSS and Jana SanghFounded in 1951 as RSS’ political arm, the Jana Sangh (BJS) performed quite poorly in the 1952 and 1957 general elections. It did not fair well in any of the state assembly elections either. This is when they decided to go back to their roots - militant activism.After Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, India did not witness any large scale communal riots for a decade. However, one erupted in Jamshedpur, Bihar in 1959 after RSS and BJS activists turned a petty dispute into large scale fighting. Two years later, in 1961, another large scale communal riot broke out in Madhya Pradesh and this was spearheaded by ABVP. In the same year, another riot broke out in Uttar Pradesh. In UP, both BJS and ABVP played a role. Jamaat-e-Islami-hind’s also seems to have played a role in the last one.On the back of these riots, BJS did well in Bihar and UP in both the state and the Indian general election held in 1962 . Outside these states, another conservative party - the Swatantara party - did well in the 1962 election (the party’s first election since inception).In 1964, violence erupted in Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal. In 1967, riots broke out in Ranchi (then in Bihar). RSS and BJS had a hand in these riots. In the 1967, Indian general election, BJS did better in UP and Bihar than it had done the previous time. With no party gaining a strong majority in UP, the Congress government folded in just 19 days. BJS also made inroads in Gujarat and Rajasthan where Swatantara had done better in 1962. In the UP state assembly election in 1967, BJS won 99 seats and became the main opposition.So, flaring up communal tensions before an election became BJS’ election strategy.After the 1967 elections, RSS and BJP expanded into the western states. In 1969, clashes claimed over 650 lives in Gujarat. In 1970, about 100 people, majority of them muslims were killed in clashes in Bhinwandi, Maharastra. However, the BJS could not capitalize on either. By passing some populist bills, Indira Gandhi appealed to the masses. Congress swept the 1971 general election and BJS lost significant amount of ground they had gained in the last decade.They began to wait for an opportunity to gain back the lost ground.Antagonizing the INC leaders - late 1960’sIndira Gandhi faced her first election as PM of India in 1967 on the back of failed monsoons, economic stagnation, rising unemployment, food crisis, and communal violence. It was the first election since Nehru’s passing and then there was the stigma of “goongi goodiya”. Though, Indira came back to power at the centre with a slim majority, INC was thrown out of power in nine states. People, both within the party and outside, began to question her leadership. Indira Gandhi, more than ever, felt the need to assert herself individually and as a leader.To quash opposition’s cry that she was a mere puppet, Indira Gandhi began to distance herself from the syndicate and centralize power within PM’s secretariat. She brought in P.N. Haksar (who had been a friend of her and her husband when she was attending college in London) as her secretary in 1967 and within the next couple of years, her secretariat had four more men including P.N. Dhar (The other three were D.P. Dhar, T. N. Kaul and R.N. Kao). Incidentally, all the five men were Kashmiri Brahmins and so was Indira Gandhi. Over the years, the group earned monikers like Kashmiri mafia and pancha pandava. Soon, all policy decisions were being made in the prime ministers secretariat and not the PMO. Indira’s cabinet (including Finance minister Moraji) was mostly in the dark. This began to irk the congress leadership.During this period, Indira Gandhi also ensured that her supporters rose to prominence in the various state units of Congress. Soon, she had support of various chief ministers and their state units.Things worsened in July 1969 when Indira Gandhi removed Moraji Desai from her cabinet and issued an ordinance to nationalize bank. A right-winger, Moraji Desai, was opposed to this move. Only a month later, in August 1969, she chose not to support Sanjiva Reddy, Congress’ official candidate in the presidential election and backed V.V. Giri to take the role. V.V. Giri won the election comfortably and became the fourth president of India. This further irked the congress leadership.In November 1969, the congress syndicate expelled her from INC. With the support of CPI and DMK, Indira Gandhi managed to stay in power even after the Congress split.Indira’s tussle with Judiciary - late 1960’s and early 1970’sIn a bid to differentiate herself from her opposition (who were mostly right-wing conservatives) and in an effort to appeal to the masses, Indira Gandhi began moving further left (according to some biographers, after a nudge from P.N. Haksar and other secretaries) in terms of economic policies in the late 60’s. This involved implementing some populist schemes.Bank Nationalization - In 1969, Indira Gandhi passed an ordinance to nationalize 14 banks. However, a share holder of one of the banks and a couple of other Jana Sangh members approached the Supreme court to repeal the ordinance. A bench of 11 judges heard the case and struck down the ordinance based on a legality with a majority of 10 against 1. The lone dissenter was justice A.N. Ray. Four days later, Indira issued another ordinance to prevent further judicial intervention in the matter.Abolition of privy purses - In 1947, when India became independent, princely states were asked to secede to India in return for some privileges. One of them was monthly allowance known as privy purse. In the early 60’s, Kamaraj and Atulya Ghosh had wanted to abolish the privy purses, but Nehru vetoed it. In September 1970, Indira Gandhi introduced a bill in parliament to abolish the privy purses. The bill passed in the Lok Sabha, but was defeated in the Rajya Sabha. Under these circumstances, Indira approached the president to issue an order to abolish the privy purses. V.V. Giri dutifully obliged. However, Madhavrao Scindia, then prince of Gwalior, appealed to the SC to de-recognize the order. An eleven judge bench did just that in early 1971 with the majority of 9–2. A.N. Ray was one of the dissenters again. Without the required support for her in the parliament, Indira Gandhi chose to dissolve the parliament.The Golak Nath inheritance case - Earlier in 1967, the SC ruled against the parliament and held that the parliament had no power to abridge the fundamental rights (in this case, the right to property that had been denied by a 1953 land reform act). Indira Gandhi attempted to introduce a bill, giving the parliament to amend any part of the constitution, however, she did not table it fearing failure.The Keshavananda Bharathi Case - Ruling in another land reform case in 1973, SC held that the parliament cannot change the basic structure of the constitution. This reaffirmed that the constitution and not legislature was supreme. This was also a blow to Indira’s ego.Elevation of A.N. Ray as chief justice of India - In 1973, Indira Gandhi decided to appoint A.N. Ray (who had been pro-government all along) over three senior judges. One of those senior judges was K.S. Hegde (who in the Allahabad high court) had allowed some evidences in the election malpractices of Indira Gandhi (during her 1971 election) which she wanted quashed. Indira Gandhi apparently wanted the judiciary and government to work together for the betterment of the people, but not many saw it that way.Indira hatao and Indira wave, 1971When Indira announced fresh elections in 1971 after dissolving the parliament, the opposition parties including INC(O), BJS, Swatantara, CPI (M), a couple of socialist parties and various other regional parties formed a “Grand Alliance”. With far-right and far-left parties (along with other moderates) in the same mix, the uniting factor was not ideological, many have observed. On the contrary, the opposition united against Indira. They wanted to oust her and it reflected in their campaign slogan - “Indira hatao” or “oust Indira”. Indira Gandhi used it to her advantage by rephrasing the slogan as “Gharibi hatao” or “oust poverty” and used it as her own campaign slogan.In the years prior to the election, Indira Gandhi has positioned herself as the leader of the poor by enacting land reforms and other populist schemes. She was also an eloquent speaker and had a lot of charisma. She was able to connect with people wherever she went and she did travel through the country, addressing 20 meetings a day. More importantly, the green revolution began to bear fruit, the monsoons arrived on time that year, inflation stabilized and economy showed signs of improvement. Riding on the back of these, Indira Gandhi won by a landslide. The grand alliance was a complete disaster.Soon after the election, Raj Narain who competed for the Rae Bareilly seat against Indira in 1971 (and who along with Ram Manohar Lohia had been instrumental in toppling the UP congress government in 1967 and had also phrased the “Indira hatao” slogan) and lost, filed a petition with the Allahabad high court alleging malpractices by Indira Gandhi during the 1971 election (charges included bribery, illegal vote solicitation, use of religious symbols, etc among other minor offences).That did not hamper Indira Gandhi. India played a vital role in the liberation of Bangladesh later in the year and in the process, defeated Pakistan in a war. Indira Gandhi was hailed as hero by even her fiercest opponents in the media. People rallied against Pakistan and communal tensions were at a low. An external emergency was imposed and that seemed to calm down things too.Well and truly, an Indira wave swept the country.The doting mother - 1972–73The early 70’s were a relatively calmer periods for Indira. After India’s victory over Pakistan, she had the backing of the masses. Her election malpractices case was progressing at a snails pace. The opposition was still reeling from their losses the previous year. Some parties became altogether irrelevant. During this period, Indira Gandhi went about centralizing power even further. Her loyalists were given important posts in the state units of congress. Anyone who failed to fall in line were removed and replaced. Opposition parties in congress ruled states began levying charges of corruption against the state units.However, another storm was also brewing.In June 1971, Sanjay Gandhi (second son of Indira and Feroze Gandhi), after having interned at Rolls Royce London for three years, established the Maruti Udyog limited to manufacture affordable small cars indigenously. The licenses required to set up the industry were granted so quickly, the press complained of nepotism. Both Indira and Sanjay brushed these off.Soon, many congressmen began to believe that Sanjay was the future and began to line up behind him. One of those men was Haryana’s chief minister Bansilal, who sold a large tract of land (questionably very close to defence land) for a pittance. Bansilal also managed to arrange a loan for purchase of the land and setting up the plant. The press tore into Bansilal and both Sanjay and Indira Gandhi.Maruti was set to fail from the start. It’s founder had no prior experience manufacturing a car or running a company, the company did not own any technology and it did not even attempt to establish relationship with companies selling technology. Despite these problems, the government placed an order with Maruti to manufacture 50,000 cars, even before a single car had been produced.P.N. Haksar was critical about Sanjay, Maruti and Indira’s unwavering support of both. That caused a rift in his relationship with her and the latter began to gradually sideline him over a couple of years. Finally, he was forced into a retirement in 1973. After he left the secretariat, Sanjay became the unofficial policy maker and principal secretary of Indira Gandhi. Henceforth, all policy decisions were being taken by Sanjay and his henchmen, to name some, Siddhartha Shankar Ray (chief minister of WB), Bansilal (chief minister of Haryana), R.K. Dhawan(Indira’s additional secretary), V.C. Shukla(IB minister), Om Mehta(Home minister) and D.K. Barooah (the then Congress president).Trouble in Gujarat, 1973–74After the monsoons failed in 1972–73, India faced an acute food shortage in 1973. Strained relationship with USA (who were themselves in a quagmire in Vietnam) meant that food imports were not smooth. To ensure that there was proper distribution of food grains (and to keep the food prices down in UP where an election was to be held), the central government took control of wholesale grain trade in 1973. Gujarat was one of the states hit by this decision. Its allotment quota was cut down by 30,000 tonnes from 105,000 tonnes to 75,000 tonnes. Price of essential commodities like wheat, jowar, etc. that were already high soared even further.Amidst this predicament, internal rivalry within Gujarat congress saw power change from the hands of Ghanshyam Oza (an Indira Gandhi loyalist) to Chimanbhai Patel (an Indira Gandhi dissident). Chimanbhai Patel had influence in many educational institutions in the state and he was seen as someone who meddled with the internal affairs of these institutions. As a result, he began antagonizing the state student unions.In October 1973, crude oil prices shot up due to the oil crisis in the middle east. This in turn contributed to increase in prices of commodities.In December 1973, Jana Sangh organized multiple bandhs through out the state to cripple congress. Serious riots broke out in Rajkot, Porbandar and Jetpur. On December 20, 1973, students of LE college at Morbi went on a strike to protest the increase in food fees at the hostel. A fortnight later, on January 4, 1974, students of LD college of Engineering at Ahmedabad went on a rampage burning down the canteen and attacking the rector’s residence. The State Reserve Police (SRP) )were brought in to control the situation, but they only ended adding fuel to fire by beating up the students and jailed over 300 of them. This provoked the students across the state to call for a strike on January 7. Sensing an opportunity, Moraji Desai and Jana Sangh encouraged the students to form Nav Nirman Yuvak Samiti(NYS).On January 6, 1974, the Jana Sangh organized a state-wide “anti-police day”. The very same day violence broke out in Ahmedabad. Buses were stoned and ration shops were looted.Various trade unions called for an Ahmedabad bandh on January 10, 1974. Large scale riots broke out. Clashes between protestors and the SRP led to shootings in over 20 locations. On the same daய், NYS was formed and trade unions began demanding Chimanbhai Patel’s resignation (once Chimanbhai became the main target, the Jana Sangh withdrew from the agitation because they sympathized with him). Agitations spread to nearby towns and continued for a further two days. Most of them were spontaneous and led by common people.The NYS called for fresh strikes on January 17, 1974. Soon, riots became an everyday occurrence in almost every major city/town. Buses were burnt, government offices were attacked and ration shops were raided. Police were brought every single day to crush these riots.Trade unions called for a state-wide bandh on January 25, 1974. Fearing more violence, Chimanbhai imposed curfew in over 100 cities and town. That did not prevent the protestors from taking to the streets. Riots continued for three more days until the army was brought in on January 28.Another round of riots erupted on February 4. Curfew was imposed, but the riots continued undeterred. The students, the teachers and trade unions wanted Chimanbhai Chor’s (used to refer to his corrupt ways) head. While Chimanbhai tried to resist, he was forced to quit. He did so on February 9, 1974. The Gujarat assembly was suspended and president’s rule was imposed.However, just a week later, agitations broke out again, demanding dissolution of the Gujarat assembly. Moraji and Jana Sangh openly offered their support to these agitations. Over the next months, clashes between agitators and police would claim over 50 lives and over 95 MLAs resigned.On March 12, 1974, Moraji Desai announced an indefinite fast till the Gujarat assembly was dissolved. Just 4 days later, the Gujarat assembly was dissolved and the four-month long agitations came to an end.More trouble in Bihar, 1974Even before the situation was resolved in Gujarat, another arose in Bihar. In February 1974, students wings of political outfits like Jana Sangh (ABVP), CPIM (SFI) and Samyukta Socialist party (SYJS) formed an organisation Bihar Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti (BCSS). Unlike in Gujarat, where agitations broke out against food prices and then turned political, the one in Bihar was outright politically motivated.The first agitation the BCSS called for gherao (surround or encircle) movement to prevent the functioning of the Bihar assembly during the budget session on March 18, 1974. The CM of Bihar promised to look into their demands, but the students did not believe in him. Riots broke on March 18 when the student began to gather. There was looting and arson. Government offices were set on fire. The police retaliated harshly killing at least 3 students.In response, the BCSS called for a statewide strike on March 23. Within that week, 30 more students were killed in clashes between the student organisations and the police. Around this time the BCSS reached out to Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) to lead their movement. A freedom fighter and a Gandhian, JP was hesitant at first to join the violent movement. However, prevailing poverty in the country ,the success of the Gujarat movement and his own criticism of Indira Gandhi motivated him to join the movement. He came out of political retirement to lead the students on two conditions - 1. the protests should be non-violent and 2. the protests should not be restricted to Bihar.Through April and May 1974, both violent and non-violent protests took part in various parts of Bihar, demanding the dissolution of the Bihar assembly. The government retorted to these demands by brutally suppressing them. People were killed in police firing at Patna and Gaya among other cities. As the protests intensified, Indira Gandhi was unrelenting. Her biographers argue that she feared other states would also make such demands if she were to dissolve the Bihar assembly.Railway strike, 1974As protests raged in Bihar, another erupted in May 1974. Demanding eight-hour workdays and an increase in pay, railways workers throughout the country went on a strike on 8 May 1974. Led by George Fernandes, then president of All India Railwaymen’s Federation, over 70% of permanent employees refused to return to work. No trains ran. Travelers were stranded and essential commodities did not reach their destination.Though George Fernandes himself was arrested on May 2, 1974, the railwaymen decided to go ahead with the strike. Writers have argued that entire India was shutdown the entire duration of the strike.Indira Gandhi responded to this with brutality. She suppressed the strike without mercy. Thousands of agitators were jailed under the draconian MISA and DIR acts. They were beaten up in jail. Thousands more lost their jobs. Many more were injured in clashes with the police.The strike continued for 20 days. During this period, some trains were operated with the help of the army. Fearing more repercussions, the strike was called off on May 27, 1974 with no immediate gains. However, it reestablished the solidarity of the railway labour force.JP movement, 1974In late April, JP and Indira Gandhi began exchanging a series letters. The exchange began cordially, but did not end so well six weeks later. Each accused the other and the misunderstanding was growing.With Indira adamant, JP decided to take the Bihar movement to the next level. On June 5, 1974, he led a massive procession through the streets of Patna. The rally culminated in a meeting at Gandhi maidan where JP called for a ‘Total revolution’ to realize the unfulfilled promises of freedom. He spoke of hunger and poverty, soaring prices and corruption. He spoke of the authoritarian ways of the government under Indira Gandhi. He spoke of a achieving a ‘a real people’s government’ in one year. He asked the students to boycott colleges and examinations for a year to rebuild Bihar and the country.In August, JP toured the Bihar countryside extensively. Everywhere he went, he received a warm welcome. People gathered in thousands to hear him speak. They waited for hours on the sides of the road to have a glimpse of him. Soon, he was turning in something Indira Gandhi had hoped he would not - the moral conscience of the nation.JP called for all the opposition parties(except CPI) through the country to unite against the Congress. Jana Sangh was already involved through ABVP. In fact, the leadership of the movement at local levels had passed into its hands. An associate of JP reported this alarming development to JP, also indication that people were attracted to the movement for the wrong and negative reasons. Another man who was openly critical of the JP movement was R.K. Patil who had toured Bihar with JP on his invitation. He does not question JP on his integrity, but only the movement direction and final goal - “What after the Bihar assembly was dissolved ?” and also extra-constitutional nature of setting up parallel governments and demanding the elected one be dismissed. He also indicated that the behaviour of the mob with and without JP was different, the latter leaning towards ruckus.On November 1, Indira Gandhi and JP met (arranged by D.P. Dhar) at New Delhi to find a resolution. Indira Gandhi offered to dismiss the Bihar government provided JP withdrew his demands to dismiss other state governments too. JP rejected the compromise. Three days later, on his way to a rally at Patna, he was manhandled by the police. Trying to avoid a baton, he stumbled to the ground. Police’s behaviour towards an old man suffering ill health sparked to outrage through the country.By the end of 1974, India had organised itself into two opposing camps. The first group (including non right-wing, non Jana-Sangh Indians) hailed the JP movement, sometimes labeling it the ‘second freedom struggle.’ They were critical of Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian ways and corrupt Congress government. The other camp (including non Congress Indians and hindus) were pained by JP’s decision to collude with Jana Sangh to oust a democratically elected government.The dance of the Ananda Margis, 1975The Ananda-marga is a bizarre organisation founded by equally bizarre man called Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar in 1955. Founded as a socio-spiritual organisation, the Ananda-marga soon turned political and were in direct opposition to the communist parties in West Bengal. Through the 1960’s, the organisation employment violent methods to achieve its political ambitions. In 1969, the Ananda margis held a conference in Cooch Behar. When the communists intervened, it turned into a blood bath. Intelligence reports revealed a plot by margis to assassinate senior leaders in the government.Known for their bizarre rituals in burial grounds and crematories, bizarre dances using skulls and daggers, bizarre rallies in red robes wielding swords, lathis and skulls, Ananda marga gained great notoriety when Sarkar was charged with the murder of six of his former disciples in 1971.Demanding Sarkar’s release, the organisation undertook several violent protests between 1971 and 1978. They raided Indian embassies in various countries, kidnapped and assassinated officials, bombed buildings and even, threatened self-immolation. During his incarceration, Sarkar’s wife left him for his personal secretary, citing his violent behaviour and other heinous crimes going on within the marga. She also accused Sarkar of sexually assaulting young boys.Suspicion fell on the organisation when Lalit Narayan Mishra (an Indira Gandhi man, who had been involved in a corruption scandal that had troubled her through 1974) was assassinated on January 2, 1975 in Bihar. The police first suspected a railway worker who they thought had retaliated at Mishra, the then railway minister, for brutally suppressing the railway strikes, leaving many railway employees unemployed.Two more men were arrested days later and they implicated a man close to Indira Gandhi, alleging her involvement. Indira, for her part blamed the CIA (Mishra had been very close to Soviet leaders) and the JP movement for creating an environment of violence. For a while, the Jana Sangh and RSS were also suspected. However, the CBI alleged that the Ananda margis had done it to pressurize the government to release Sarkar.In 2014, four Ananda margis were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for assassinating Mishra.Three of those Ananda margis had already been convicted on charges of attempted assassination of A.N. Ray (Indira Gandhi’s man in the judiciary) on March 20, 1975. A.N. was then the chief justice of India.JP movement 2.0, 1975In January and February, 1975, JP toured the country seeking support. In speeches he gave in front of huge crowds, JP (albeit implicitly) began comparing himself to Gandhi and the Indira Gandhi regime to colonial rule in India. He urged his supported to remain non-violent and warned them about the effects of violent protests like Indira Gandhi assuming dictatorial powers.Indira Gandhi, on the other hand, considered the JP movement to be against her personally.JP planned for a march on the parliament on March 6, 1975. As the date approached, people (mostly from UP and Bihar) started pouring into the capital. To dissuade more people from joining them, the government forbade the entry of buses and trucks into capital. 15,000 policemen were brought into the capital. Despite all these efforts, over 750,000 people gathered at Delhi and walked towards the parliament in procession, demanding Indira Gandhi to “vacate the throne.” JP compared the rally to Gandhi’s Dandi march.For Indira Gandhi, the noose around her neck began to tighten. So far, the epicenter of JP’s movement have been elsewhere, but now it was at her doorsteps.On March 18, JP led another march at Patna to commemorate the anniversary of the Bihar movement. In the following months, he toured the southern parts of India to gain support there.The final blow - March to June, 1975Amidst the protests that had been raging through the country for over 18 months, Indira Gandhi testified in court in her election malpractices case on March 19, 1975 (in the process, becoming the first PM to testify in court).In April, Moraji Desai went on a fast, demanding fresh elections in Gujarat. Indra Gandhi agreed to hold one in June and the opposition began to unite. Campaigns polarized the state even further and L.K, Advani, a Jana Singh leader, said that his party would continue to do the same.June 12, 1975 was an eventful day for Indira Gandhi. Early in the morning, she learnt that her long time associate D.P. Dhar had passed on. A few hours later, she found that Congress lagging behind the Janata front in Gujarat (The Janata front formed the government with the help of Chimanbhai Patel, who they had help overthrow in 1974 and who had defected from Congress to form a new party). However, the most devastating news came from Allahabad. Though she was acquitted on twelve of the fourteen counts, she was convicted for the other two - 1. She used UP government resources to construct rostrums to address her election meetings, 2. Her election agent was sill in government employment when he began campaigning. Her election was overturned and she no longer was an MP. Furthermore, she cannot contest another election for 6 years.Justice Sinha who delivered the verdict stayed his order for 20 days so that the Congress can decide on its new leader and ensure that the functioning of the government is not hampered. It was also to give Indira Gandhi time to appeal in the Supreme court.The charges on which Indira had been convicted were so trivial NY Times opined that India had unseated its PM for a minor traffic offence. Decision to appeal the verdict was soon made. For the time being, Indira would continue as the PM.On June 13, the opposition parties gathered at the Rastrapathi bhavan and demanded the president to dismiss the prime minister. JP opined that it would be shameful and cynical if Indira Gandhi were to stay in office. However, Indira Gandhi still had the support of her MPs and congress men. CPI also supported her questioning, the motives of the right-wing opposition. To show that Indira also had the people’s backing, Sanjay’s man Bansilal began ferrying people to the capital. Everyday, a crowd gathered in front of the prime minister’s residence and shouted out their support. And everyday, Indira Gandhi would speak to them. However, in the background, congress men who had PM ambitions (like Jagjivan Ram and Swaran Singh) began making their moves. Another camp within Congress dubbed Young Turk were also contemplating revolt.In the meantime, Sanjay was planning on gagging to press. He thought it was a necessary action to stop rumours and muster support for his mother from the lowest echelons of society.The opposition parties wanted to organise rallies against Indira. JP, on the other hand, wanted to wait for the Supreme court verdict.Meanwhile, Indira Gandhi was busy mustering support. On June 20, Indira Gandhi addressed a huge crowd (allegedly of about a million people), claiming the opposition wanted to liquidate her physically. In the same rally, DK Barooah declared that “Indira is India and India is Indira”.Two days later, on June 22, the opposition parties led by Moraji called for a “do or die” movement to overthrow Indira Gandhi.On June 23, Supreme court began hearing Indira Gandhi’s appeal. After two days of arguments, the SC vacation judge V. Krishna Iyer concluded that “Indira had not committed any of the grave electoral vices” and could continue as the prime minister. She could also participate in discussions in the parliament, but can not vote on any of the issues.After the conditional stay was granted, Indira Gandhi wanted to resign, but was persuaded against it by Sanjay and SS Ray, argues Katherine Frank. Others however argue that this was not an earnest offer. Either way, the PM and her confidants decided that she would stay. Sanjay and SS Ray began insisting that drastic actions were necessary in case the opposition continue to protest.The opposition considered the supreme court verdict a victory and wanted Indira Gandhi to resign. They called for a massive rally at Delhi on June 25 to be held under the leadership of JP.When the opposition was preparing for the rally, Indira and team began toying with an idea of an internal emergency. On June 25, a draft ordinance was prepared by SS Ray and was being discussed at the PM’s residence. A decision to impose the emergency that midnight was made. Later that evening, the president was advised of the developments almost around the same time JP was addressing a rally at Ram leela maidan at Delhi.Oblivious to the developments, JP, in his rally, demanded Indira Gandhi to resign. He called countrywide agitations on June 29 and urged students, trade unionists and farmers to take part in it. He asked the police and army not to obey illegal orders. Indira Gandhi latched on to this and would offer this as her reason to impose the emergency in the coming days.On June 25, 1975 at 11.45 PM, based on the recommendation of the prime minister, the president of India, Fakruddin Ahmed, imposed the emergency. Within the next few hours,all the opposition leaders including JP and Moraji Desai were arrested. Power supply was cut to most newspapers.The next morning, Indira Gandhi made a nationwide broadcast on AIR and told the country that an emergency had been imposed due to internal disturbances.ConclusionAfter Nehru’s death, there was no clear successor to take his position. After Shastri passed unexpectedly, Indira was chosen. Some thought she would be an ideological successor to Nehru and Shastri, while other considered her a weak woman who could be controlled. Right from the start, she had to deal with multiple violent groups. First it was the naxals, then it was fundamentalist organisation like the RSS, the Ananda Marga and the Jamaat-e-Islami-hind. To assert herself as an independent leader, she centralized power and antagonized senior congressmen (some of them with PM aspirations who would come back to haunt her). After getting her men into key positions in the center and various state governments, she failed to keep a check on them and prevent corruption. She then sidelined her ideological secretary in favour of her son who wanted to get things done, no matter the means. She shied from criticism and when the opposition demanded answers, she took it personally. She was constantly fighting the judiciary and the press too.By 1975, Indira Gandhi had antagonized almost everyone. She thought they wanted her head. The Allahabad verdict fed her fears. Feeling cornered, she retaliated back with vengeance.The blame certainly lies on Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi and his coterie. But I don’t they are the only ones to be blames. The RSS and Jana Sangh were playing a dangerous games through late 60’s and early 70’s. To achieve their political motives, they instigated agitations. Moraji Desai played alongside them. They tricked JP into their movement to lend it credibility. And that is why emergency was declared in India.

Real name: Mustafa RizogluFather’s name: Ali Rıza EfendiMother’s name: Zübeyde HanımSelf Declared name: Kemal AtatürkSelf Declared Nationality: Father of ALL Turks------------------------------------------------------------According to Andrew Mango, his family was Albanian Muslim, Turkish-speaking and precariously middle-class. His father Ali Rıza is thought to have been of Albanian origin.His mother Zübeyde is thought to have been of Turkish origin, and according to Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, she was of Yörük ancestry.According to other sources, he was Jewish (Scholem, 2007) or Bulgarian (Tončeva, 2009). Due to the large Jewish community of Thessaloniki in the Ottoman period, many of the Islamist opponents who are disturbed by his reforms claimed that Atatürk had Dönmeh ancestors, that is Jews converted to Islam.He was born Mustafa, and his second name Kemal (meaning Perfection or Maturity) was given to him by his mathematics teacher, Captain Üsküplü Mustafa Efendi, "in admiration of his capability and maturity" according to Afet İnan, and, according to Ali Fuat Cebesoy, because his teacher wanted to distinguish his student who had the same name as him,Atatürk dressed in Yeni Charchi uniformAtatürk took the entrance exam for the Salonica Military School (Selanik Askeri Rüştiyesi) in 1893. In 1896, he enrolled in the Monastir Military High School. On 14 March 1899, he enrolled at the Ottoman Military Academy in the neighbourhood of Pangaltı within the Şişli district of the Ottoman capital city Constantinople (now Istanbul) and graduated in 1902. He later graduated from the Ottoman Military College in Constantinople on 11 January 1905.The reconstructed house of Atatürk's paternal grandparents, in the Ottoman village of Kocacık (Kodžadžik in present-day North Macedonia)Atatürk was assigned to the Fifth Army based in Damascus as a Staff Captain in the company of Ali Fuat (Cebesoy) and Lütfi Müfit (Özdeş). He joined a small secret revolutionary society of reformist officers led by a merchant Mustafa Elvan (Cantekin) called Vatan ve Hürriyet ("Motherland and Liberty"). On 20 June 1907, he was promoted to the rank of Senior Captain (Kolağası) and on 13 October 1907, assigned to the headquarters of the Third Army in Manastır. He joined the Committee of Union and Progress, with membership number 322, although in later years he became known for his opposition to, and frequent criticism of, the policies pursued by the CUP leadership. On 22 June 1908, he was appointed the Inspector of the Ottoman Railways in Eastern Rumelia (Doğu Rumeli Bölgesi Demiryolları Müfettişi). In July 1908, he played a role in the Young Turk Revolution which seized power from Sultan Abdülhamid II and restored the constitutional monarchy.Atatürk marshal in sultan’s marshal uniformWhen Mehmed VI became the new Sultan of the Ottoman Empire in July 1918, he called Atatürk to Constantinople, and in August 1918 assigned him to the command of the Seventh Army in Palestine. Atatürk arrived in Aleppo on 26 August 1918, then continued south to his headquarters in Nablus. The Seventh Army was holding the central sector of the front lines. On 19 September, at the beginning of the Battle of Megiddo, the Eighth Army was holding the coastal flank but fell apart and Liman Pasha ordered the Seventh Army to withdraw to the north in order to prevent the British from conducting a short envelopment to the Jordan River. The Seventh Army retired towards the Jordan River but was destroyed by British aerial bombardment during its retreat from Nablus on 21 September 1918. Nevertheless, Atatürk managed to form a defense line to the north of Aleppo. According to Lord Kinross, Atatürk was the only Turkish general in the war who never suffered a defeat.Atatürk as rebel in SivasAlong the established lines of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the Allies (British, Italian, French and Greek forces) occupied Anatolia. The occupation of Constantinople, which was followed by the occupation of İzmir (the two largest Ottoman cities in that period) sparked the establishment of the Turkish National Movement and the Turkish War of Independence.On 19 May 1919, he reached Samsun. His first goal was the establishment of an organized national movement against the occupying forces. In June 1919, he issued the Amasya Circular, declaring the independence of the country was in danger. He resigned from the Ottoman Army on 8 July, and the Ottoman government issued a warrant for his arrest. Later, he was condemned to death.On 4 September 1919, he assembled a congress in Sivas. Those who opposed the Allies in various provinces in Turkey issued a declaration named Misak-ı Millî ("National Pact"). Atatürk was appointed as the head of the executive committee of the Congress. This gave him the legitimacy he needed for his future politics.The last election to the Ottoman parliament held in December 1919 gave a sweeping majority to candidates of the "Association for Defense of Rights for Anatolia and Roumelia (Anadolu ve Rumeli Müdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti)", headed by Atatürk, who himself remained in Ankara. The fourth (and last) term of the parliament opened in Constantinople on 12 January 1920. It was dissolved by British forces on 18 March 1920, shortly after it adopted the Misak-ı Millî ("National Pact"). Atatürk called for a national election to establish a new Turkish Parliament seated in Ankara – the "Grand National Assembly" (GNA). On 23 April 1920, the GNA opened with Atatürk as the speaker; this act effectively created the situation of diarchy in the country.On 10 August 1920, the Ottoman Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha signed the Treaty of Sèvres, finalizing plans for the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, including the regions that Turkish nationals viewed as their heartland. Atatürk insisted on the country's complete independence and the safeguarding of interests of the Turkish majority on "Turkish soil". He persuaded the GNA to gather a National Army. The GNA Army faced the Caliphate army propped up by the Allied occupation forces and had the immediate task of fighting the Armenian forces in the Eastern Front and the Greek forces advancing eastward from Smyrna (modern-day İzmir) that they had occupied in May 1919, on the Western Front. In January 1920, Atatürk advanced his troops into Marash where the Battle of Marash ensued against the French Armenian Legion. The battle resulted in a Turkish victory alongside the massacres of 5,000–12,000 Armenians spelling the end of the remaining Armenian population in the region.The Conference of Lausanne began on 21 November 1922. Turkey, represented by İsmet İnönü of the GNA, refused any proposal that would compromise Turkish sovereignty, such as the control of Turkish finances, the Capitulations, the Straits and other issues. Although the conference halted on 4 February, it continued after 23 April mainly on the economic issues. On 24 July 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed by the Powers with the GNA, thus recognising the latter as the government of Turkey.On 29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey was proclaimed. Since then Republic Day has been celebrated as a national holiday on this date.Atatürk's basic tenet was the complete independence of the country. He clarified his position:...by complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence.Atatürk as Leader recognised by all Western worldHe led wide-ranging reforms in social, cultural, and economic aspects, establishing the new Republic's backbone of legislative, judicial, and economic structures. Though he was later idealized by some as an originator of sweeping reforms, many of his reformist ideas were already common in Ottoman intellectual circles at the turn of the 20th century and were expressed more openly after the Young Turk Revolution.Atatürk created a banner to mark the changes between the old Ottoman and the new republican rule. Each change was symbolized as an arrow in this banner. This defining ideology of the Republic of Turkey is referred to as the "Six Arrows", or Kemalist ideology. Kemalist ideology is based on Atatürk's conception of realism and pragmatism. The fundamentals of nationalism, populism, and etatism were all defined under the Six Arrows. These fundamentals were not new in world politics or, indeed, among the elite of Turkey. What made them unique was that these interrelated fundamentals were explicitly formulated for Turkey's needs. A good example is the definition and application of secularism; the Kemalist secular state significantly differed from predominantly Christian states.BibliographyAndrew Mango Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, Overlook Press, 2002Jackh, Ernest, The Rising Crescent, (Goemaere Press, 2007)Isaac Frederick Marcosson, Turbulent Years, Ayer Publishing, 1969Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, Tek Adam: Mustafa Kemal, Birinci Cilt (1st vol.): 1881–1919, 14th ed., Remzi Kitabevi, 1997Anna Zadrożna (2017): Reconstructing the past in a post-Ottoman village: Turkishness in a transnational context, Nationalities Papers,Gershom Scholem, "Doenmeh", Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed.; Volume 5: Coh-Doz, Macmillan Reference USA, Thomson Gale, 2007Afet İnan, Atatürk hakkında hâtıralar ve belgeler, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1959"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk". Turkish Embassy website. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007Ali Fuat Cebesoy, Sınıf arkadaşım Atatürk: okul ve genç subaylık hâtıraları, İnkılâp ve Aka Kitabevleri, 1967T. C. Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı Yayınları, Türk İstiklâl Harbine Katılan Tümen ve Daha Üst Kademlerdeki Komutanların Biyografileri, Ankara: Genkurmay Başkanlığı Basımevi, 1972Falih Rıfkı Atay, Çankaya: Atatürk'ün doğumundan ölümüne kadar, İstanbul: Betaş, 1984Ana Britannica (1987) Vol. 2 (Ami – Avr): Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal."RAF History – Bomber Command 60th Anniversary". Royal Air Force. Archived from the original on 12 October 2012Patrick Kinross, Rebirth of a Nation (translation Ayhan Tezel), Sander yayınları, İstanbul,1972Mustafa Kemal Pasha's speech on his arrival in Ankara in November 1919Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey"Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal". Information about the Armenian Genocide. Armenian National Institute.Documents on British Foreign Policy, vol. vii, p. 303Kerr. The Lions of MarashKinross, Patrick (1992). Atatürk: a biography of Mustafa Kemal, father of modern Turkey (1st Quill ed.). New York: Quill/MorrowAlayarian, Aida (2008). Consequences of Denial: The Armenian Genocide. Karnac Books.Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern TurkeyGerd Nonneman, Analyzing Middle East foreign policies and the relationship with Europe, Published 2005 RoutledgeM. Şükrü Hanioğlu (9 May 2011). Atatürk: An Intellectual Biography. Princeton University Press.Webster, The Turkey of Atatürk: social process in the Turkish reformationConclusionKemal Atatürk, represents a distinguished personality. Although he was born in a Hellenic city, from parents derived from Albanian and Guruk ancestry, under the name Mustafa Risoglu, he made his choice of Nationality as Turk, while he refused to turn in Albanian or Vardarskan or Jewdean or Greek, he is Turk to me. As long as he made possible to gain trust and love of the people in modern Turkey, it makes no difference to me if they continue to call him Father of All Turks or just Turk.

The three cousinsFrom left: King George V of Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Czar Nicholas II of RussiaDid you know that at the time of the First World War, the rulers of the world’s three greatest nations – King George V of Great Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia on the one hand, and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany on the other – were first cousins?Their grandmother was Queen Victoria. The German Kaiser said that if she were alive, she would never have allowed them to go to war with each other.The three cousins grew up under great pressure from the past, and the political leanings of their predecessors molded their opinions and ideas as they rose to power. Though tension existed among the three nations in the decades preceding World War I, the young cousins remained in contact with each other, partially driven by the expectation of courtesy from their common relations, yet also due to a genuine interest in the lives of their social counterparts. However, through the first decade of the 20th century, the bonds among George, Wilhelm, and Nicholas began to be strained.Queen Victoria acted as one of the strongest influences on two of the young boys, as she grandmothered both George and Wilhelm. Victoria ruled in Great Britain for 64 years from 1837-1901, and acquired the name “The Mother of Europe” due to the number of thrones occupied by her descendants. A special bond quickly developed between the Queen and her first-born grandchild, Wilhelm, in whom Victoria keenly inculcated the appeal and successes of British culture and policy. Wilhelm would acquire great power in adulthood, and Victoria intended to capitalize on the mutual affection with her German grandson to influence German political policy in a direction favorable to Great Britain. However, although the Queen guided Wilhelm towards British influence, she did not encourage the friendship between Wilhelm and the one person who could have cemented the Kaiser’s positive relationship with her island nation, her younger grandson, George, the future king. Victoria disliked the idea of her grandchildren mingling together and kept a general policy to “avoid having more than one set of grandchildren staying at any one time,”according to historian Miranda Carter. Consequently, Wilhelm and George did not form any real relationship as children, which might have induced a stronger bond between the two rulers as they rose to power.1-George V, roi de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande, empereur des Indes 1865-19362-Guillaume (Wilhelm) II, empereur allemand et roi de Prusse 1859-19413-Alphonse (Alfonso) XIII, roi d'Espagne 1886-19414- Frédéric (Frederik) VIII, roi de Danemark et d'Islande 1843-19125-Albert I, roi des Belges 1875-19346-George(s) I, roi des Hellènes 1845-19137- Manuel II, roi de Portugal et des Algarves 1889-19328-Ferdinand I, tsar des Bulgares 1861-19489-Haakon VII, roi de Norvège 1872-1957Victoria was not the only one to discourage this friendship. George’s mother, the Danish Princess Alexandra, still harbored resentment towards Germany stemming from the brutality of the Prussians towards her kingdom in the Dane-Prussian War of 1864. Otto Von Bismarck, the German chancellor, had orchestrated this conflict to aid in the unification of the German state and to cement a political alliance with Austria, who offered military support in the struggle. Alexandra also fostered the bond between George and her sister’s son, Nicholas II. Nicholas made the long trip across the continent with his Danish mother, Dagmar, to visit his British cousin, and the two quickly developed a strong bond that would persevere through the hostility between Russia and Great Britain in the final decades of the 19th century.While Nicholas and Wilhelm had obtained their thrones as young adults, George’s father, Edward VII, remained king until almost the eve of the War, meaning that the friendship between George and Nicholas did not factor into the politics of these rival powers. But when George ascended the throne, this bond became crucial in the arrangement of pre-war alliances. And as George and Nicholas forged a bond between Russia and Great Britain, Germany became more isolated.Through the Danish sisters and Queen Victoria, a social dynamic quickly formed among the three cousins, in which Wilhelm constantly found himself on the outside, isolated on both sides by anti-Prussian feelings.From the early years of their reigns, a game of influence and power quickly developed among George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm, each looking to seize the political advantage over the other. Wilhelm grew to favor Russia over Great Britain, deeming it a necessity to form an alliance with one of these countries in order to prevent an alliance between Great Britain and Russia that would leave Germany flanked to the east and west by two of the strongest military forces in Europe.The Empires’ turmoilThe democratic impulse generated by The Treaty of Versailles by decomposing the two Central European Empires, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires and two Eastern European Empires, the Russian and the Ottoman Empire under the auspices of the Big Four transformed Europe, both economically and structurally, into a continent of nations.Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial "Germany to accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the damage and damage" during the war. This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt Clause. The Treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921, the total cost of these reparations was estimated at 132 billion marks (then $ 31.4 billion or £ 6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $ 442 billion or UK £ 284 billion in 2018).The experiences of the war in the west are commonly assumed to have led to a sort of collective national trauma afterward for all of the participating countries. The optimism of 1900 was entirely gone and those who fought became what is known as "the Lost Generation" because they never fully recovered from their suffering. For the next few years, much of Europe mourned privately and publicly; memorials were erected in thousands of villages and towns.So many British men of marriageable age died or were injured that the students of one girls' school were warned that only 10% would marry. The 1921 United Kingdom Census found 19,803,022 women and 18,082,220 men in England and Wales, a difference of 1.72 million which newspapers called the "Surplus Two Million". In the 1921 census there were 1,209 single women aged 25 to 29 for every 1,000 men. In 1931 50% were still single, and 35% of them did not marry while still able to bear children.This social trauma made itself manifest in many different ways. Some people were revolted by nationalism and what they believed it had caused, so they began to work toward a more internationalist world through organizations such as the League of Nations. Pacifism became increasingly popular. Others had the opposite reaction, feeling that only military strength could be relied upon for protection in a chaotic and inhumane world that did not respect hypothetical notions of civilization. Certainly a sense of disillusionment and cynicism became pronounced. Nihilism grew in popularity. Many people believed that the war heralded the end of the world as they had known it, including the collapse of capitalism and imperialism. Communist and socialist movements around the world drew strength from this theory, enjoying a level of popularity they had never known before. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or particularly harshly affected by the war, such as central Europe, Russia and France.On 8 January 1918, United States President Woodrow Wilson issued a statement that became known as the Fourteen Points. This speech outlined a policy of free trade, open agreements, democracy, and self-determination. It also called for a diplomatic end to the war, international disarmament, the withdrawal of the Central Powers from occupied territories, the creation of a Polish state, the redrawing of Europe's borders along ethnic lines, and the formation of a League of Nations to guarantee the political independence and territorial integrity of all states. Wilson's speech also responded to Vladimir Lenin's Decree on Peace of November 1917, which proposed an immediate withdrawal of Russia from the war and called for a just and democratic peace uncompromised by territorial annexations. The Fourteen Points were based on the research of the Inquiry, a team of about 150 advisors led by foreign-policy advisor Edward M. House, into the topics likely to arise in the anticipated peace conference.Talks between the Allies to establish a common negotiating position started on 18 January 1919, in the Salle de l'Horloge at the French Foreign Ministry on the Quai d'Orsay in Paris. Initially, 70 delegates from 27 nations participated in the negotiations. Russiawas excluded due to their signing of a separate peace (the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) and early withdrawal from the war. Furthermore, German negotiators were excluded to deny them an opportunity to divide the Allies diplomatically.Big FourInitially, a "Council of Ten" (comprising two delegates each from Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan) met officially to decide the peace terms. This council was replaced by the "Council of Five", formed from each countries foreign ministers, to discuss minor matters. Prime Minister of France Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of ItalyVittorio Emanuele Orlando, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Lloyd George, and President of the United States Woodrow Wilson formed the "Big Four" (at one point becoming the "Big Three" following the temporally withdrawal of Vittorio Emanuele Orlando). These four men met in 145 closed sessions to make all the major decisions, which were later ratified by the entire assembly. The minor powers attended a weekly "Plenary Conference" that discussed issues in a general forum but made no decisions. These members formed over 50 commissions that made various recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the final text of the treaty.Wilson brought along top intellectuals as advisors to the American peace delegation, and the overall American position echoed the Fourteen Points. Wilson firmly opposed harsh treatment on Germany. While the British and French wanted to largely annex the German colonial empire, Wilson saw that as a violation of the fundamental principles of justice and human rights of the native populations, and favored them having the right of self-determination via the creation of mandates. The promoted idea called for the major powers to act as disinterested trustees over a region, aiding the native populations until they could govern themselves. In spite of this position and in order to ensure that Japan did not refuse to join the League of Nations, Wilson favored turning over the former German colony of Shandong, in Eastern China, to Japan rather than return the area to Chinese control.After the Versailles conference, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson claimed that "at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!"The mix of eventsHistorians continue to argue about the impact the 1918 flu pandemic had on the outcome of the war. It has been posited that the Central Powers may have been exposed to the viral wave before the Allies. The resulting casualties having greater effect, having been incurred during the war, as opposed to the allies who suffered the brunt of the pandemic after the Armistice. When the extent of the epidemic was realized, the respective censorship programs of the Allies and Central Powers limited the public's knowledge regarding the true extent of the disease. Because Spain was neutral, their media was free to report on the Flu, giving the impression that it began there. This misunderstanding led to contemporary reports naming it the "Spanish flu." Investigative work by a British team led by virologist John Oxford of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital, identified a major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples, France as almost certainly being the center of the 1918 flu pandemic. A significant precursor virus was harbored in birds, and mutated to pigs that were kept near the front. The exact number of deaths is unknown but about 50 million people are estimated to have died from the influenza outbreak worldwide. In 2005, a study found that, "The 1918 virus strain developed in birds and was similar to the 'bird flu' that in the 21st century spurred fears of another worldwide pandemic, yet proved to be a normal treatable virus that did not produce a heavy impact on the world's health."The economic disruption of the war and the end of the Austro-Hungarian customs union created great hardship in many areas. Although many states were set up as democracies after the war, one by one, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, they reverted to some form of authoritarian rule. Many quarreled amongst themselves but were too weak to compete effectively. Later, when Germany rearmed, the nation states of south-central Europe were unable to resist its attacks, and fell under German domination to a much greater extent than had ever existed in Austria-Hungary.A far-left and often explicitly Communist revolutionary waveoccurred in several European countries in 1917-1920, notably in Germany and Hungary. The single most important event precipitated by the privations of World War I was the Russian Revolution of 1917.German and Austrian forces in 1918 defeated the Russian armies, and the new communist government in Moscow signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918. In that treaty, Russia renounced all claims to Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the territory of Congress Poland, and it was left to Germany and Austria-Hungary "to determine the future status of these territories in agreement with their population." Later on, Vladimir Lenin's government also renounced the Partition of Poland treaty, making it possible for Poland to claim its 1772 borders. However, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was rendered obsolete when Germany was defeated later in 1918, leaving the status of much of eastern Europe in an uncertain position.The aftermath of World War I saw drastic political, cultural, economic, and social change across Eurasia (Europe and Asia), Africa, and even in areas outside those that were directly involved. Four empires collapsed due to the war, old countries were abolished, new ones were formed, boundaries were redrawn, international organizations were established, and many new and old ideologies took a firm hold in people's minds.World War I also had the effect of bringing political transformation to most of the principal parties involved in the conflict, transforming them into electoral democracies by bringing near-universal suffrage for the first time in history, as in Germany (German federal election, 1919), Great Britain (United Kingdom general election, 1918), and Turkey (Turkish general election, 1923).Territorial changesThe dissolution of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires created a number of new countries in eastern Europe and the Middle East. Some of them, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, had substantial ethnic minorities who were sometimes not fully satisfied with the new boundaries that cut them off from fellow ethnics. For example, Czechoslovakia had Germans, Poles, Ruthenians and Ukrainians, Slovaks and Hungarians. The League of Nationssponsored various Minority Treaties in an attempt to deal with the problem, but with the decline of the League in the 1930s, these treaties became increasingly unenforceable. One consequence of the massive redrawing of borders and the political changes in the aftermath of the war was the large number of European refugees. These and the refugees of the Russian Civil War led to the creation of the Nansen passport.Ethnic minorities made the location of the frontiers generally unstable. Where the frontiers have remained unchanged since 1918, there has often been the expulsion of an ethnic group, such as the Sudeten Germans.German and Austrian forces in 1918 defeated the Russian armies, and the new communist government in Moscow signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918. In that treaty, Russia renounced all claims to Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the territory of Congress Poland, and it was left to Germany and Austria-Hungary "to determine the future status of these territories in agreement with their population." Later on, Vladimir Lenin's government also renounced the Partition of Poland treaty, making it possible for Poland to claim its 1772 borders. However, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was rendered obsolete when Germany was defeated later in 1918, leaving the status of much of eastern Europe in an uncertain position.The Soviet Union benefited from Germany's loss, as one of the first terms of the armistice was the abrogation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. At the time of the armistice Russia was in the grips of a civil war which left more than seven million people dead and large areas of the country devastated. The nation as a whole suffered socially and economically. As to her border territories, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia gained independence. They were occupied again by the Soviet Union in 1940. Finland gained a lasting independence, though she repeatedly had to fight the Soviet Union for her borders. Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan were established as independent states in the Caucasus region. These countries were proclaimed as Soviet Republics in 1922 and over time were absorbed into the Soviet Union. During the war, however, Turkey captured the Armenian territory around Artvin, Kars, and Igdir, and these territorial losses became permanent. Romania gained Bessarabia from Russia. The Russian concession in Tianjin was occupied by the Chinese in 1920; in 1924 the Soviet Union renounced its claims to the district.Consequences outside EuropeAt the end of the war, the Allies occupied Constantinople (İstanbul) and the Ottoman government collapsed. The Treaty of Sèvres, a plan designed by the Allies to dismember the remaining Ottoman territories, was signed on 10 August 1920, although it was never ratified by the Sultan.The occupation of Smyrna by Greece on 18 May 1919 triggered a nationalist movement to rescind the terms of the treaty. Turkish revolutionaries led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a successful Ottoman commander, rejected the terms enforced at Sèvres and under the guise of General Inspector of the Ottoman Army, left Istanbul for Samsun to organize the remaining Ottoman forces to resist the terms of the treaty. On the eastern front, the Turkish–Armenian War and signing of the Treaty of Kars with the Russian S.F.S.R. took over territory lost to Armenia and post-Imperial Russia.On the western front, the growing strength of the Turkish nationalist forces led Greece, with the backing of Britain, to invade deep into Anatolia in an attempt to deal a blow to the revolutionaries. At the Battle of Dumlupınar, the Greek army was defeated and forced into retreat, leading to the burning of Smyrna and the withdrawal of Greece from Asia Minor. With the nationalists empowered, the army marched on to reclaim Istanbul, resulting in the Chanak Crisis in which the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, was forced to resign. After Turkish resistance gained control over Anatolia and Istanbul, the Sèvres treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne which formally ended all hostilities and led to the creation of the modern Turkish Republic. As a result, Turkey became the only power of World War I to overturn the terms of its defeat, and negotiate with the Allies as an equal.Lausanne Treaty formally acknowledged the new League of Nations mandates in the Middle East, the cession of their territories on the Arabian Peninsula, and British sovereignty over Cyprus. The League of Nations granted Class A mandates for the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and British Mandate of Mesopotamia and Palestine, the latter comprising two autonomous regions: Mandate Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan. Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became part of what is today Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire became a pivotal milestone in the creation of the modern Middle East, the result of which bore witness to the creation of new conflicts and hostilities in the region.The Republic of China had been one of the Allies; during the war, it had sent thousands of labourers to France. At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the Chinese delegation called for an end to Western imperialistic institutions in China, but was rebuffed. China requested at least the formal restoration of its territory of Jiaozhou Bay, under German colonial control since 1898. But the western Allies rejected China's request, instead granting transfer to Japan of all of Germany's pre-war territory and rights in China. Subsequently, China did not sign the Treaty of Versailles, instead signing a separate peace treaty with Germany in 1921.The Austro-Hungarian and German concessions in Tianjin were placed under the administration of the Chinese government; in 1920 they occupied the Russian area as well.The western Allies' substantial accession to Japan's territorial ambitions at China's expense led to the May Fourth Movementin China, a social and political movement that had profound influence over subsequent Chinese history. The May Fourth Movement is often cited as the birth of Chinese nationalism, and both the Kuomintang and Chinese Communist Partyconsider the Movement to be an important period in their own histories.Because of the treaty that Japan had signed with Great Britain in 1902, Japan was one of the Allies during the war. With British assistance, Japanese forces attacked Germany's territories in Shandong province in China, including the East Asian coaling base of the Imperial German navy. The German forces were defeated and surrendered to Japan in November 1914. The Japanese navy also succeeded in seizing several of Germany's island possessions in the Western Pacific: the Marianas, Carolines, and Marshall Islands.Revolutions of 1917–1923The Revolutions of 1917–1923 were a period of political unrest and revolts around the world inspired by the success of the Russian Revolution and the disorder created by the aftermath of World War I. The uprisings were mainly socialist or anti-colonial in nature and were mostly short-lived, failing to have a long-term impact. Out of all the revolutionary activity of the era, the revolutionary waveof 1917–1923 mainly refers to the unrest caused by World War I in Europe.Russian Revolution 1917–1924Russian Civil War - Counter-revolutions against USSR that started 1917-1921 and Soviet counter-counter-revolutions that started 1918–1919World communismWorld revolution - Non-Communist revolutions : Ireland; Mexico; Malta; EgyptNational liberationConstitutionalismIrredentismGerman Revolution of 1918-19Mongolian Revolution of 1921For the global image of the momentum, complimentary on this subject, you can read from Andriescuus Lucian the answer to question:What are the biggest differences in Europe between pre-WW1 and post-WW1?Read more ideas “out of box” in Andriescuus LucianThanksSources:Revolutions of 1917–1923 - WikipediaAftermath of World War I - WikipediaTreaty of Versailles - Wikipediahttp://www.eastsussexww1.org.uk/three-cousins/Family Feud: The Three Cousins Who Led Europe Into the First World WarRéunion impériale et royale à Londres (mai 1910)