Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal views of Dr Pankaj K Phadnis and not of any organization/Trust (including Ahinav Bharat) that he is associated with.

 
 
Murder of Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar - Myths and Realities
The Larger Conspiracy Behind The Murder of Mahatma Gandhi
Extracts from forthcoming book of Dr Pankaj K. Phadnis,
“Ending Global Terror – Reviving Gandhian Legacy”
Truth That Kapur Commission Failed to See
 
  Dr Pankaj Phadnis, Ph.D.
Post Doctoral Fellow, ICT for Social Transformation, Affiliate Expert, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Washington D.C and Settlor and Advisory Trustee, Abhinav Bharat,    (E– 19962), Mumbai
 
 
 
 

It is a cherished myth that Kapur Commission Report is the last word on the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. This myth stands demolished by the contemporary newspaper reports (January 31, 1948) giving eye witness accounts of four shots and photo graphic evidence thereof. When The Dawn from Karachi, The Hindu from Madras give the same account of murder - supported by LokSatta from Mumbai, the evidence fatally injurious to the prosecution story stands brutally exposed.

In their anxiety to condemn, Veer Savarkar, the votaries of the Commission have chosen to be blissfully ignorant about the evidence of larger conspiracy behind the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and which was brought before the Commission and ignored by it on spacious grounds. Instead of seeking to fulfil its terms of inquiry, the Commission went go off on tangential inquiry and passed derogatory remarks about revered historical figures including but not limited to Veer Savarkar.

It is time that this derogatory and incomplete report by Kapur Commission, which did not fulfil its terms of inquiry is consigned to dustbin of history. This is the story that we shall seek to understand and which demonstrates the compelling need and necessity of constituting a new Commission of Inquiry to uncover the truth behind the murder of the Mahatma.

I) The five issues that I have with Kapur Commission are as undernoted:

1 Maligning Maratha Army

Mr. Kapur is aware that all Marathi speaking people are referred to as “Marathas” in the northern India. Yet, he goes on to make the following shocking statement under Chapter XXVI – Findings, para 26.112

26.112            'the Commission has pointed out that after the disclosures by Madanlal in his first statement, assumingit to be correctly recorded,no efforts were made to find out anything at the Hindu Mahasabha Bhawan. Although two police officers were sent to Bombayand they had returned without achieving anything at all, no effortswere made to find out why their visit was so unproductive andtelecommunication was significantly avoided. It may be that the alleged statement of Madanlal, Ex. 6, is a controversial matter, butwithout doubt a fuller statemen.t was made on the 24th Januarywhich has been marked Ex. L In that statement, Karkare and Savarkar's names were mentioned and the proprietor of the Marathi newspaper "the Hindu Rashtriya" was mentioned. No effort wasmade to find out who this proprietor was and a copy of this statementwas sent to Bombay through Mr. U. H. Rana, D.I.G., C.1.D.,Poona, who chose to go to Bombay not by air, nor by a direct route,but via Allahabad, showing thereby that after the arrest of Madanlal the police had become somewhat complacentand did not expect  from the escapee conspirators such unusually quick action which was, in the days gone by the characteristic of the Maratha Army. The Delhi Police and even Mr. U. H. Rana, as he himself hasadmitted, did not expect that the conspirators would act with suchswiftness to achieve their nefarious design, a wholly unfortunate misjudgment.

It is shocking to find that the Commission has concluded that three senior police officers did not do their job. The Delhi police, headed by Director IB, could well have ascertained the name of Editor of Hindu Rashtiya from the IB records available in Delhi but did not do so. The Bombay police instead of listening to what the Delhi police had to say simply brushed aside their men who had come to Bombay. And the Pune police where Hindu Rashtriya was located take the cake. The DIG, Pune, who was given this information in Delhi, could well have placed a trunk call to his men in Pune to locate and arrest the Editor of Hindu Rashtiya. He did not do so. He could flown back. He did not do so. He took a train but instead of travelling straight to Pune, he first chose to take a detour to Allahabad and perform the ‘Shardh’ of his father. Even after he reached Bombay on 27th evening, he took no action until after the murder. All this in a matter involving an attempt to murder the Mahatma. The term for this behaviour is “gross negligence of duty bordering on involvement in the conspiracy” not complacency. And for this who does the Commission blame. Not the negligent, complacent police but the long dead Maratha Army!!!

The word Maratha Army in popular conscious refers to the Armies led by

    • ChatrapatiShivaji
    • BajiraoPeshwa
    • RaghojiBhonsle
    • MahadjiScindia
    • Ahilyabai Holker

All of them had been dead at the very least 100 years before Apte and Godse were born. In what way are they in any way connected with misdeeds of Godse and Apte?? To connect military valour of these illustrious Maratha leaders with the misdeeds of Godse and Apte, without a shred of evidence – is an insult to Marathi Asmita. Let me clarify that Marathi Asmita is not divorced from National Asmita. It only means that the first line of defence against insult to Marathi Asmita are Marathi speaking people. If they need help that will be available from all corners of the country. After all Shivaji and all others are national icons and not merely icons of Marathi people.

2 Maligning All Those Who Hold Veer Savarkar in High Esteem

The term Saverkerites has been repeatedly by the Kapur Commission to describe Godse, Apte and other accused in the Gandhi murder trial for instance in para 25.97.

25.97 The bundle of facts which were given to Mr. Nagarvala were destructive of any theory. but the theory of conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi by Savarkarites and if there were any circumstances which lent support to the theory of conspiracy to kidnap,they were far outweighed by the facts which pointed to the conspircy to murder by a set of Poona Savarkarites rather than a mixed group of Savarkarites and General 'Mohan Singh's Punjabi discontents.

Mr Kapur ought to have known that Veer Savarkar was a multi dimensional person. He was a Political Leader, Social Reformer and an accomplished writer and poet. Within his persona as a Political leaders there were strands of Secular Revolutionary, Constitutional Reformer and Unifier of Hindu Society. In each of these dimensions, Veer Savarkar had and continues to enjoy a large following. Even those who are politically opposed to his role as Unifier of Hindu Society acknowledge his contribution in other dimensions of his personality.

Godse, Apte, Karkare were a microscopic minority. From the right time, Veer Savarkar supported formation of a responsible Nationalist Government in 1947, they had been critical of him and whatever loyalties they had towards him no longer bound them. Devoid of his guidance, this microscopic minority - carried opposition to policies of Mahatma Gandhi into the domain of political assassination. Such assassination of one of our own, when freedom had been attained, was very antithesis of political philosophy of  Veer Savarkar expressed at many places including in his book “My Transportation for Life”.

Once they hatched the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, Godse, Apte, Karkare ceased to be Savarkerites as much as those who burned houses of Brahmins post murder of Mahatma lost the right to be considered Gandhians. 

The use of term Savarkerites to describe Godse, Apte, Karkare by Kapur Commission is a great disservice to the overwhelming majority of Savarkar followers, from all corners of country.

3 Derogatory Comments about Veer Savarkar

Mr. Kapur was well aware that issues that had been decided upon in the Trial Court have attained finality and he had no jurisdiction over them. The issue of alleged involvement of Veer Savarkar was the subject matter of controversy in the Gandhi Murder Trial. The Court had acquitted him. The Government of the Day found it fit not to appeal against the verdict.

It had therefore attained finality and the Commission had no jurisdiction to make any comments in respect of alleged involvement of Veer Savarkar in the murder of Mahatma.

Yet shockingly, he did just that in the oft quoted remark in para 25.104 ,which however find no mention in Chapter XXVI -  Findings. 

25.106 All these facts taken .together were destructive of anytheory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and hisgroup and, in the opinion of the Commission. Mr. Nagarvala tripped because perhaps he was badly served by informants and contacts onwhom he had every ril!ht to relv or there was some erroneous conclusion.Of course.he does say that this was merely an informationwhich had vet to be verified: but did it deserve to be so seriously consideredunder the circumstances? . .

This is indeed a strange spectacle of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court converting a duly constituted Commission of Inquiry into a Kangaroo Court by venturing into areas barred by res judicata.

4 Failure to Fulfil Its Terms of Reference

The Commission itself defined its scope of Inquiry under para 5.69

5.69    The first term of reference, (a), was as follows:-

(a) Whether any persons, in particular Shri Gajanan Viswanath Ketkar, of Poona, had prior information of the conspiracy of Nathuram Vinayak Godse and others to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi.

When analysed, this term requires finding out-

(i) whether any persons had prior information of the conspiracy;
(ii) in particular whether Mr. G. V. Ketkar of Poona had this information;
(iii) the conspiracy which is indicated in the terms of reference is the one in which the participants were Nathuram Godse as the principal and also others; and
(iv) the object of the conspiracy mentioned was to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi.

It clearly means that Mr Kapur was aware that he had to look into acts of any person anywhere in the world who had fore knowledge about murder of Mahatma Gandhi whether or not he was involved in the conspiracy in which Godse was the principle conspirator or other such conspiracies to murder Mahatma Gandhi. In other words he was required to uncover larger conspiracy behind the murder of Mahatma.

Despite coming across evidence clearly indicating a larger conspiracy, he chose to ignore it and went on tangential course of maligning Marathi people in general and Savarkar and his followers in particular.

5 The Failure was Inherent in the Obsolete Approach of Kapur Commission

Mr. Kapur chose to be guided by some Lord Devlin who he quotes in para 1.21.

‘The defect has been referred to by Lord Devlin in his broadcast on the B.B.C. which is reported in the Listener dated 12th December, 1968.Devlin in his broadcast on the B.B.C. which is reported in the Listener dated 12th December, 1968. This is what Lord Devlin hassaid:-

"Under our system it's the responsibility of the advocate oneach side-I use that term to cover both barrister and solicitor to see that all the relevant facts are brought beforethe judge. This is what is known as the adversary systemas opposed to the inquisitorial. When, for example, a governmentinquiry is set up to investigate, let's say, thecauses of a national disaster, there is no opposition of adverseries, and the commission of inquiry has to be armed with powers to ascertain facts for itself. Under the adversary system it's presumed that if each side producesthe evidence in its own favour, the judge will at the endof the day have the whole picture in front of him. Indeed,I think myself that he will get a better picture that waythan if he does the job himself."

In judging the results of an Inquiry this one sidedness has always tobe kept in view. But there is no other method devisable’.

So some Lord in UK makes some observation in a radio broadcast and a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Republic of India – that recognizes no Lord, choses to be guided by him – in a matter of highest national importance, the murder of Mahatma Gandhi.

After the Supreme Court of India pioneered the concept of Public Interest Litigations and Special Investigation Teams, it is clear that the approach adopted by Mr. Kapur is completely unacceptable today, whatever some Lord somewhere may have to say on the subject in a radio broadcast or TV chat show.

II) Evidence of Larger Conspiracy that Kapur Commission Ignored

6 Testimony of Manuben Gandhi,

The Commission records that

12.F.32     The most important part of this witness's statement is her deposition about the visit of Nathuram Godse on January  30, l948. At about noon Nathuram Godse came to Birla House. Nobody stopped him coming because people used to come like that and we did not think that it was anybody special who had come. 'There was nothing special about it because people used to come to see the places where the Mahatma lived, slept or had his meals. Nathuram also came there. He must have come by the back door; quite a number of people used to do so to have darshan, i.e., to pay homage, and nobody stopped them. The Mahatma at the time when Nathuram came was sleeping outside in the sun and if he wanted he could have shot him there. She was certain that it was Nathuram Godse who came because when he fired the fatal shots she was present and she recognised him to be the same person who had come on that day. Her feeling was that when he came at noon he was overawed by the very presence of the Mahatma.

Despite this, the Commission chose to consider her statement in para 12.F.92 as “In the circumstances, it would not be proper to take this piece of evidence into consideration for or against the matters in controversy and treat this episode as “unproven”

7 Alwar Affairs

In Chapter XII – Alwar Affairs, the Commission recorded in para 13.2 that “Ex 96 dated February 7, 1948 to February 10, 1948, contains a case diary of Mr. U.C.Malhotra, who was appointed Chief Police Officer of Alwar State. The case dary No 2 dated February 8, 1948 contains the following information:

(3) A foreigner disguised as a Sadhu came to Alwar and stayed with Giridhar Siddha, the secretary of local Hindu Sabha. He brought a letter containing a printed letter giving the news of assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. This news was out at 3 pm at Alwar whereas the assassination actually took place at 5 P.M. in Delhi.

There seems to be no application of mind by the Commission to this startling piece of information. For one it corroborates the evidence of Manuben Gandhi. For other, Giridhar Siddha and the foreigner Sadhu seem clearly to be the persons who had foreknowledge of the plan to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi. Giridhar Siddha was himself examined by the Commission as Witness 77. His testimony appears in para 13.44 to 13.48. There is no question on record to him in respect of how the Sadhu came to know of the assassination at 3 pm in Alwar when Mahatma Gandhi was hale and hearty at Delhi. 

8 Testimony of Sarla Barve

The testimony of Mrs Sarla Barve, whose husband was Collector Pune in 1948 and who later became Finance Minister of Government of Maharashtra, after resignation from ICS, gave an important testimony which is recorded in para 15.225 to 15.228:

Mrs. Sarla Barve Witness  39

15.225     Mrs. Barve, witness No. 39, in her written statement, Ex. 72, said that her husband who was the District Magistrate of Poona did come to know about the illegal activities of the Hindu Mahasabha members and that is why a watch was kept on their activities.She accused the authorities of not taking any proper notice. The throwing of the bomb on the 20th January 1948 was. According her, a precursor of something very serious, e.g. murder. She also stated therein that her husband did know something about the impending trouble at Delhi and for that reason he telephoned Mr. Moraraji Desai and informed him about it.

15.226    She stated that two or three days before the murder of Mahatma Gandhi a man called  Sathe came to their house but as her husband was not present he told her that some Poona people had gone to Delhi to take the life of Mahatma Gandhi and that she repeated that story to her husband and that Baburao Sanas and Vasantrao Deshmukh, other Maratha.. goondas. had made preparations to burn down houses of Brahmins who were vitally afraid of Maratha goondas. She asked Sathe where he lived and he said, "Sadashiv Peth" and that he was a retired school teacher.

15.227      On the 27th January 1948, she found her husband rather restless. He telephoned to Mr. Kamte, Inspector General of Police, after asking her to go out of the room. A little while later  while later she told her husband what Sathe had told her which made her husband -more restless, worried and serious and thereafter he was telephoning most of the time. After the murder, her husband arranged for military to come into the town and curfew was ordered and her husband slept for an hour or so and she accompanied her husband on two or three occasions. The curfew order continued for about a fortnight. She then deposed as to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins disturbances. She said that there was a definite plot to kill Mahatma Gandhi.

15.228      She was examined as a witness (No. 89) and she again stated about Sathe and that she gave the information to Mr. Barve. She had no personal knowledge about the persons who were going to create trouble.

The Commission has further statements to offer about this witness:

21.114      Unfortunately. Mr. Barve. the Collector, being dead, the Commission could' not have the advantage of his testimony or his assessment of the situation. His widow Mrs. Sarla Barve, appeared before the Commission as witness No. 39 but naturally she cannot throw much lig:ht on the conditions, events and happenings in Poona. But she- has given one piece of information which is of the greatest importance if one could gel corroboration of that mutter and that is that two or three days before the murder of Mahatma Gandhi a man called Sathe who was a retired school master came to see her husband, but as he was not there he saw this lady  and told her that people of Poona had gone to Delhi to take the life of Mahatma Gandhi and she repeated the story to her husband who was very restless and had been so since the 27th January 1948. After she had given the information to her husband.he became more restless and was telephoning all the time but she does not seem to know anything more excepting that Sathe was a retired school master.

21.115      Commission wanted to examine Sathe but unfortunately he could not be traced. So this story remains uncorroborated. Commission finds no reason to disbelieve this lady but as it is a matter of great importance, it would not like to base its conclusions on this evidence. As the wife of the Collector , she could not have had the same interest in the affairs of the district as her husband would have had. It would be safer to hold this evidence not sufficient to prove pre knowledge.

9 Analysis of the Testimony of Manuben Gandhi and Sarla Barve

  • Para 21.115 reveals a strange attitude on part of the Commission. It could have made (but did not) enquiries from Mr Kamate, who had deposed before the Commission, about the evidence of Mrs Sarla Barve since she had reported that her husband had spoken to Kamate.
  • The Commission says it wanted to examine Sathe but he could not be traced. It can not be understood as to why the Commission did not think of examining . Baburao Sanas and Vasantrao Deshmukh, who were reported to be hatching a conspiracy to burn the houses of Brahmins. It may be noted that one Baburao Sanas was first Mayor of Pune and hence it was important that the Commission ought to have examined Mr. Kamate on this issue.
  • It is clear that the Terms of Reference as the Commission understood it,  required it to cover “any person” who had pre knowledge of the plan to murder Mahatma Gandhi.
  • From account of Alwar State which also corroborated the evidence given by Manuben Gandhi, Giridhar Siddha and his foreigner Sadhu visitor had pre knowledge of the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, since they distributed letters that gave the information of death of Mahatma Gandhi two hours before it actually happened.
  • From evidence of Mrs Barve, the people who had prior knowledge of the plan to murder Mahatma Gandhi were Sathe and the two Marathas, Baburao Sanas and Vasantrao Deshmukh, who had even prepared plans to burn the houses of Brahmins in anticipation of the murder of Gandhi to be committed by the Brahmins. This is indeed what happened. Thus not only the murder of Mahatma Gandhi was premediated but even the retaliation was pre-planned.  People who could have corroborated Mrs Barve’s story included Mr. Kamte who was available to the Commission but was never questioned on this aspect.

10        Larger Conspiracy Behind the Murder of Mahatma            

The testimony of Manuben Gandhi and Sarla Barve on oath before the Commission is highly significant. Both the witnesses were considered reliable and trustworthy by the Commission. Their evidence points to a larger conspiracy behind the murder of Mahatma Gandhi being that

  • People had gone from Poona to murder Mahatma Gandhi
  • At least two people -  BaburaoSanas and Vasantrao Deshmukh, were named as planning to burn the houses of Brahmins. It is a recorded fact that houses of Brahmins were burnt all over Maharashtra in retaliation to murder of Mahatma Gandhi by Godse, a Brahmin. Thus not only the murder of Mahatma Gandhi was pre-mediated but even the retaliatory violence that followed was planned in advance with prior knowledge of the murder itself.
  • The news of murder of Mahatma Gandhi was known in Alwar at 3 pm whereas the murder itself took place at 5 pm.
  • The murder seems to have been planned for afternoon of January 30, 1948, when Godse visited Birla House  but lost his nerve to do so.

The Commission ought to have recommended that Government make further investigation in respect of testimony of Manuben Gandhi and SarlaBarve. Instead, we have the strange spectacle of a retired Supreme Court Judge refusing to take cognizance of these vital facts that strongly indicate a Larger Conspiracy Behind the Murder of Mahatma.

III) Non Application of Mind to Available Contemporary Evidence Contradicting Facts Reported in Trial Court

It seems that Godse did visit Birla House in the afternoon of January 30, 1948 but lost his nerve to do so. This necessitated that his handlers provide a back up assassin to ensure that the second attempt of January 1948 – in the evening – would not fail. They seem to have done so. The second assassin was indeed required to fire bullets at the Mahatma and he did do so.

Gandhiji as per the prosecution story was shot three times by Godse using 9 mm Beretta Pistol which has seven bullet chamber.The remaining four bullets were recovered by the Police after apprehension of Godse by Police at the murder site. As per Police Diary, the ASI has recorded that “Automatic no 606824 maker P Berretta Cal 9 (illegible two words). Four cartridges bear inscription S.B.P., G.F.£.1941, G.F.£.1941G  and C.A.B. 1942. Thus after accounting for all the seven bullets that could be fired from the Beretta Pistol that Godse was caught carrying, it was highly injurious to the case of the Prosecution to taken into account the fourth shot. It therefore took no notice of the same despite the reports of four shots that appeared in the following newspapers on January 31, 1948 in the Dawn, Karachi, LokSatta Mumbai backed by photographic evidence published in the Hindu, Madras.
           
As if this is not enough, there are three eye witness records, K.C. Roy of Reuters, Vincent Sheen and an API correspondent who were present at the murder site and reported hearing four shots.

The cover up of fourth shot indicating presence of a second assassin, by Prosecution represents the biggest cover up of the Century. Who was this second man and why was he protected by the Prosecution? This ought to be investigated

IV Who was Narayan DattatrayaApte

N.D. Apte was convicted and hanged alongwith Godse for being the brain behind the murder. We are told he was an Air Force officer. As per Kapur Commission – Report para 6.10 “In 1943 he (meaning Apte) returned to Ahmednagar and was selected for I.A.F but he obtained his discharge after about four months”.

I sought the Service records of Apte from the Hon’ble RakshaMantri vide my letter dated May 30, 2015. I was informed by his OSD vide letter dated October 27, 2015 that Air Force has no records of this man. So I wrote once again, requesting the RakshaMantri that Air Force ought to have the records of a man who murdered none less than Mahatma Gandhi himself.

Nonetheless, the Hon’ble Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar has informed me vide DO No 22017/1/PO 2(C)/8018/VIP /RM/16 of 7th January 2016 in response to my letter of October 28, 2015, that a very thorough examination of records reveals that there is no information about Apte with  the Air Force.  

This is strange to say the least.

Kapur Commission itself has expressed unhappiness over the manner in which a case filed against him for throwing a bomb in Pune was hastily withdrawn by the Police despite the Premier of Bombay asking for progress about this serious matter.

We are told that he was a Hindu Fundamentalist but available records indicate that in addition to a Hindu wife, he was married to a devout Christian girl and even had a child from this marriage.

An Air Force officer of whom Defence Ministry has no records, a bomb thrower who was let off despite instructions of the Premier of Bombay, a Hindu fundamentalist who was married to a devout Christian girl, a man who did not want to die for his role in murder of Mahatma Gandhi– Apte seems to be a very mysterious man indeed.

V New Facts – Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit - page 43

There is a letter number 77/9/48 dated 19th February 1948 from British Embassy Moscow to P.F.Grey Foreign Office London. The letter quotes a discussion with Mrs Pandit the Indian Ambassador at Moscow, where she is said to have complained against the behaviour of USSR Government in not sending any messages of condolences to her on death of Mahatma Gandhi. She further recounts that when the Ambassadors of the Communist Block came to offer her condolences on death of Mahatma –one and all- commiserated with her on the wickedness of the British in organizing this dastardly murder. Mrs Pandit dismissed this contemptuously.

She ought to have reported the matter to the External Affairs Minister, who ought to have informed the Investigating Officer through the Home Ministry. No such information is on record. At the very least, Mrs Pandit should have volunteered this information to the Commission. She appears to not have done so.

All these facts and more were submitted to a former Chief Justice who has also held high constitutional position of Governor. He was categorical that the whole affair is murky and the Truth behind the murder of Mahatma Gandhi seems very different from what has been told to us so far.

Conclusion

I hope you are convinced that the Kapur Commission Report stands indicted on five counts

a Makes derogatory reference to Maratha Army in its Findings which are written as if from the pen of a fiction writer rather than by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

b Wrongly uses the term “Savarkerites” to describe convicted criminals and thereby does a great disservice to a large number of admirers of Veer Savarkar from all corners of the country, who were horrified by the murder of Mahatma.

c Without any jurisdiction whatsoever, seeks to give the impression of having indicted Veer Savarkar for murder of Mahatma Gandhi.

d Failed to fulfil the terms of inquiry of uncovering the larger conspiracy behind murder of Mahatma by ignoring the vital evidence provided by Manuben Gandhi and SarlaBarve.

e It did not care to even read the contemporary newspapers which carried reports of four shots and which was highly prejudicial to the Prosecution story.

In addition to these five fatal faults in the Report, several new facts have emerged such as the mystery surrounding Apte’s identity, Report to Vijaya Lakshmi Panditabout British involvement in the murder of Mahatma and much more.

All these facts taken together are destructive of any course of action other than to discard the fatally flawed and incomplete report of the Kapur Commission and appoint a new Commission of Inquiry to unearth the truth behind murder of the Mahatma.

To start with, social media a social media campaign #Truthbehindmurderofmahatma has been launched. Support of media in highlighting this would help us reach out to people on this important national matter.

Dr Phadnis is Trustee of Abhinav Bharat, Mumbai. He is a Visiting Professor (ICT for Social Transformation) at the Southern University, Louisiana USA and an Affiliate Expert of Information Technology and Innovation Fund, Washington DC. He has written several books, Freedom Struggle, The Unfinished Story (2002), War for Truth (2007), The British Mutiny of 1857 (2008), Moving Away from Gandhian Monopoly (2010), Abhimanyu Betrayed (2012). Based on  his doctoral work (2008-2012) “Designing and Implementing IT enabled Strategic Management Systems for Universalizing Primary Education” and Post Doctoral work (2012-2014) in USA on “Using ICTs to Facilitate Peaceful Indo-Pak Relations to Promote Global Prosperity”, he wrote ‘Sparking a Million Mutinies – Road to Sindhutva’ (2015). Presently he is working on “Ending Global Terror – Reviving Gandhian Legacy

Dr Pankaj Phadnis, Ph.D.
pankaj@abhinavbharat.org / + 91 94 239 93 201
Twitter Handle: Dr Pankaj Phadnis@PankajPhadnis