when did first formulation of satyagraha in india as political movement occur
Satyagraha The term originated in a competition in the news-sheet Indian Opinion in South Africa in 1906.[2] Mr. Maganlal Gandhi, grandson of an uncle of Gandhi, came up with the word "Sadagraha" and won the prize. Subsequently, to make it clearer, Gandhi changed it to Satyagraha. "Satyagraha" is a tatpuruṣaya compound of the Sanskrit words satya (meaning "truth") and agraha ("polite insistence", or "holding firmly to"). Satya is derived from the word “sat”, which means “being”. Nothing is or exists in reality except Truth. In the context of satyagraha, Truth therefore includes a) Truth in speech, as opposed to falsehood, b) what is real, as opposed to nonexistent (asat) and c) good as opposed to evil, or bad. This was critical to Gandhi’s understanding of and faith in nonviolence: "The world rests upon the bedrock of satya or truth. Asatya, meaning untruth, also means nonexistent, and satya or truth also means that which is. If untruth does not so much as exist, its victory is out of the question. And truth being that which is, can never be destroyed. This is the doctrine of satyagraha in a nutshell." [5] For Gandhi, satyagraha went far beyond mere "passive resistance" and became strength in practising non-violent methods.[6] In his words:
Indian Rebellion of 1857 Almost from the moment the first sepoys mutinied in Meerut, the nature and the scope of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 has been contested and argued over. Speaking in the House of Commons in July 1857, Benjamin Disraeli labelled it a 'national revolt' while Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, tried to downplay the scope and the significance of the event as a 'mere military mutiny'.[195] Reflecting this debate, an early historian of the rebellion, Charles Ball, used the word mutiny in his title, but labelled it a 'struggle for liberty and independence as a people' in the text.[196] Historians remain divided on whether the rebellion can properly be considered a war of Indian independence or not,[197] although it is popularly considered to be one in India. Arguments against include:
Gitanjali William Butler Yeats wrote the introduction to the first edition of Gitanjali.[4]
Agra Sh훮h Jah훮n later shifted the capital to Delhi during his reign, but his son Aurangzeb moved the capital back to Akbarab훮d, usurping his father and imprisoning him in the Fort there. Akbarab훮d remained the capital of India during the rule of Aurangzeb until he shifted it to Aurangabad in the Deccan in 1653.