logo
The 'Hindu-German conspiracy' that nearly shook the British Raj

The 'Hindu-German conspiracy' that nearly shook the British Raj

Time of India5 days ago
During World War I, Indian revolutionaries and German agents conspired to incite an armed revolt against British rule. The "Hindu-German Conspiracy," originating in the U.S., aimed to exploit Britain's wartime vulnerability. Revolutionaries sought resources from Germany, planning coordinated uprisings in India. However, British intelligence thwarted the plot, leading to arrests and the trial in San Francisco.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Why was the conspiracy hatched?
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
How the plan unfolded
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
A spark for independence
In the chaos of World War I, a secret plot took shape as Indian revolutionaries and German agents joined forces in a daring plan to ignite an armed uprising against the British Raj . It was bold, risky, and spread across continents, with plans for smuggling arms, stirring mutiny, and striking at the heart of the empire.Between 1914 and 1917, the neutral United States served as the springboard for the so-called " Hindu-German Conspiracy ", that's what the trial case was called in the US, while for Indian revolutionaries in the US -- mostly Punjabis and Bengalis -- this was not a conspiracy but an elaborate plan to overthrow British rule in India.The Hindu–German Conspiracy didn't appear out of thin air; it was born out of years of simmering resentment and the right moment to strike. For decades, Indians at home and abroad had watched British Raj tighten its grip, stifling political freedoms and draining resources. By the time World War I broke out, many believed that if a revolt was ever going to succeed, it had to be now.The first spark came from a deep well of nationalist anger. Repressive colonial laws, racial discrimination, and economic exploitation had left a generation disillusioned with petitions and peaceful protests. Among the Indian diaspora, especially in North America, the mood was turning from frustration to action. Revolutionary circles were forming, and they were willing to take the fight far beyond speeches.Then came the war — and with it, an opening. Britain's attention was locked on Europe, its troops and resources pulled to the front. To the revolutionaries, this was more than a distraction for the empire; it was a crack in the armour, and they were determined to force it wide open.Germany's involvement sealed the plan. Locked in battle with Britain, Berlin saw a golden chance to strike at its enemy's colonies. German agents began meeting Indian nationalists abroad, offering arms, funds, and safe passage. For both, it was a marriage of convenience: the revolutionaries needed resources to fuel their rebellion, and Germany needed unrest to rattle the British war effort from the inside.Among the activities sponsored were lectures, a scholarship fund to bring Indian students to America, and a weekly journal, the Ghadar. The first issue of this paper boldly declared: 'Today there begins in foreign lands . . . a war against the British Raj. . . . What is our name? Mutiny. What is our work? Mutiny. Where will mutiny break out? In India. The time will soon come when rifles and blood will take the place of pens and ink.'The Ghadar call to arms travelled faster than the British expected. Across North America, Indian labourers left sawmills, railway yards, and farms, boarding ships bound for Asia. In their pockets were coded messages; in their minds, visions of a mutiny that would set India ablaze.From San Francisco to Tokyo, the plan tightened. German consuls acted as go-betweens, arranging for arms shipments to slip across oceans under false flags. Couriers carried funds through Hong Kong, letters travelled in cypher, and names of sympathetic soldiers inside the British Indian Army were quietly passed along. The aim was clear: spark coordinated revolts in Punjab, Bengal, and beyond — hitting the empire when its troops were bogged down in Europe.But shadows are rarely one-sided. British intelligence had been watching. From informants within the diaspora to intercepted letters, fragments of the plot began to surface. In Canada, the failed Komagata Maru voyage in 1914 had already drawn attention to militant networks. By late 1914, the empire's security web stretched from Singapore to San Francisco, quietly pulling at the conspiracy's threads.The breaking point came in February 1915. A planned mass uprising in Punjab — timed to coincide with troop movements — was betrayed from within. Arrests swept through Lahore and Calcutta. Arms caches were seized before they could be distributed. In Rangoon and Singapore, soldiers suspected of sympathy were disarmed.Meanwhile, in the US, the conspiracy's foreign wing faced a different kind of battle. The 'Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial' in San Francisco became one of the largest and longest trials in American history. For months, prosecutors laid out evidence of arms deals, coded messages, and meetings between Indian nationalists and German officials. The spectacle pulled the plot into the open just as the US was stepping into the war on Britain's side.By 1917, the network lay shattered. Dozens of leaders were imprisoned or executed; others slipped underground or fled abroad. The uprising in India never materialised on the scale its planners had imagined. For Germany, it was another failed tactic in a global war. For the revolutionaries, it was a bitter reminder that courage alone could not overcome the reach of imperial intelligence.Even in failure, the conspiracy left its mark. It showed that the Indian independence movement was no longer bound by geography and its fight could cross oceans, weave through enemy alliances, and strike at Britain when it least expected. The flame may have been smothered, but the embers would glow for decades, waiting for another moment, another crack in the armour.In the years that followed, new leaders and movements would rise, learning from the conspiracy's mistakes and carrying forward its legacy.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Five dangerous fault lines divide Trump and Zelensky
Five dangerous fault lines divide Trump and Zelensky

Hindustan Times

time11 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Five dangerous fault lines divide Trump and Zelensky

On August 18th Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, will enter the White House to meet Donald Trump and discuss ending the war in Ukraine . For Mr Zelensky it is a perilous moment. Since Mr Trump met Vladimir Putin , Russia's president, in Alaska on August 15th, the American president has put intense pressure on Mr Zelensky, stating that he could 'end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to'. The leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and the European Union fear the White House will sell out Ukraine and Europe, and are rushing to Washington to support Mr Zelensky. 'Never had so many European leaders at one time,' wrote Mr Trump. 'My great honour to host them!' What are the contours of the negotiations? In the past 48 hours there has been a swirl of speculation and public comments by Team Trump. It is hard to know what the president is thinking. But five critical issues for any peace deal are likely to be discussed: sequencing, territory, security guarantees, sanctions and recognition. In each case, America will struggle to bridge the demands of Mr Putin with those of Ukraine and Europe. Map Start with sequencing, where Mr Trump has already all but folded to Mr Putin, dropping his demand that Russia should agree to a ceasefire ahead of formal peace talks. The Kremlin is keen to negotiate while the fighting still rages. On Sunday Mr Zelensky insisted that Ukraine would not begin talks with Russia 'under the pressure of weapons'. But that position—already undercut by Mr Trump's cosy bilateral meeting with Mr Putin—can probably not withstand for long American pressure to force Ukraine to the table. If the discussion moves straight to 'final' peace talks, the second issue is terrain, or what Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy, calls 'land swaps'. Russia controls all of Crimea, which it seized and annexed in 2014. Mr Trump says that the peninsula will remain in Russian hands. But Russia also claims and has formally annexed four provinces in southern and eastern Ukraine which its troops do not entirely control (see map). One proposal, which Mr Witkoff hinted at on Sunday, is reportedly for Ukraine to cede Donetsk and Luhansk entirely to Russia, including the areas that it does not presently control—and which British defence intelligence suggests could require four-plus years and more than 1.9m casualties to take on present trends. In exchange Russia would freeze the front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhia. It would also withdraw from the pockets of territory that it controls in Sumy and Kharkhiv, two northern provinces. Much of this would be anathema to Ukraine. 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr Zelensky has said. The terrain in question in Donetsk and to an extent in Luhansk, is especially important because it is heavily fortified by Ukraine's army. Without it Ukraine would find it harder to defend the rest of the country against future Russian attacks. How to make any agreement on borders binding leads to the third issue: security guarantees. America has suggested that Ukraine's membership of NATO (an aspiration the alliance promised in 2008 to fulfil and which is enshrined in the country's constitution) is off the table. Forswearing NATO membership for Ukraine has long been a key Russian demand. Yet on Sunday Mr Witkoff claimed that America could offer some kind of guarantee, modelled on NATO's Article 5, a mutual-defence clause. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, put more emphasis on guarantees from Europe. 'It would be a very big move by the President if he were to offer a US commitment to a security guarantee. That will be his decision to make.' But the detail matters: in earlier talks, in 2022, Russia appeared to agree to international guarantees, but demanded a clause that would have given it a veto on any assistance to Ukraine. Closely related to that is the question of boots on the ground. Britain has said it could send troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force. But whether a European-only force is really credible is open to question. Very few troops have been promised for such a force, despite months of discussion. If America does not take part in a credible security guarantee European countries will push hard to at least secure promises about the supply of weapons from America. Mr Putin may try to push for limits on the flow of arms to Ukraine from the West. A priority for Russia is sanctions relief, the fourth issue. Mr Trump has used both threats of more financial warfare and the promise of future business deals as negotiating tools. On the one hand, he has threatened big importers of Russian oil, such as India, with swingeing tariffs. On the other, he and his team have dangled energy co-operation in the Arctic and other business partnerships. Russia's economy, which has weathered the impact of harsh Western sanctions since 2022, is beginning to feel the strain. Officials, who warn of a recession later this year, badly want the restrictions lifted. Here, Europe has some leverage. America would struggle to ease the economic strain on Russia without the full co-operation of Europe, which has a critical role in global banking, insurance, energy and shipping markets. Furthermore roughly two-thirds of the Russian central bank's foreign reserves that the West froze in 2022— thought to be worth more than $300bn—are are held in Brussels. Europe may be reluctant to release them if Mr Trump's deal weakens Ukraine. The final critical issue is recognition of any deal. Ukraine's constitution would require any 'land swap' to be put to a referendum, in which voters would almost certainly reject it. European leaders would be reluctant to endorse any deal that permanently recognises borders that have been altered by force. Whether America would do so for the sake of a peace deal is unclear. It is possible that America could recognise Russia's claim to Crimea, but not to other areas. Another fudge is for Europe to recognise the ceasefire line as a de-facto border without renouncing its view that Ukraine's pre-invasion border is the legitimate one. Mr Trump's meeting with Mr Zelensky and Ukraine's European allies will be a high-wire act of diplomacy. The brief, separate statements that Mr Trump and Mr Putin gave on August 15th, without taking questions from journalists, suggest that their plans are fragile. Mr Trump says he wants to bring the war to an end. For Ukraine and Europe the fear is that Mr Trump tries to force them to accept bad terms on the five key issues, and then threatens to abandon or punish Ukraine and Europe if they refuse. If this is how the talks turn out, Mr Putin will be the clear winner.

From The Hindu, August 19, 1925: China's coastal traffic
From The Hindu, August 19, 1925: China's coastal traffic

The Hindu

time11 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

From The Hindu, August 19, 1925: China's coastal traffic

Canton, Aug 18: The Chinese authorities have drawn up rules with regard to the coastal navigation, providing that steamers of any nationality except British and Japanese shall be allowed to run to and from any ports provided that they omit Hong Kong. All steamers entering that port must be inspected by a picket of Anti Imperialist Union. The export of foodstuffs or any other raw material from island will not be allowed.

Zelensky, Trump keen on trilateral talks with Putin to bring end to war
Zelensky, Trump keen on trilateral talks with Putin to bring end to war

Hindustan Times

time41 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Zelensky, Trump keen on trilateral talks with Putin to bring end to war

WASHINGTON: President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump expressed hope that Monday's critical talks with Ukrainian and European leaders at the White House could lead to trilateral talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to Russia's war on Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Finland's President Alexander Stubb walk during a meeting, amid negotiations to end the Russian war in Ukraine, at the White House in Washington, D.C., on August 18 (REUTERS) Monday's hastily assembled meeting comes after Trump met on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and has said that the onus is now on Zelensky to agree to concessions that he said could end the war. 'If everything works out today, we'll have a trilat,' Trump said at the White House, referring to possible trilateral talks among Zelensky, Putin and Trump. 'We're going to work with Russia, we're going to work with Ukraine.' Zelensky also expressed openness to trilateral talks. 'We are ready for trilateral as president said,' Zelensky said. 'It's a good signal about trilateral. I think this is very good.' Ahead of the meeting, however, Trump suggested that Ukraine could not regain Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, setting off an armed conflict that led to its broader 2022 invasion. Trump first held one-on-one talks with Zelensky. The two were then scheduled to gather with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte. The European leaders were left out of Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday, and they want to safeguard Ukraine and the continent from any widening aggression from Moscow. Many arrived at the White House with the explicit goal of protecting Ukraine's interests — a rare show of diplomatic force. By coming as a group, they hope to avoid debacles like Zelensky's February meeting in the Oval Office, where Trump chastised him for not showing enough gratitude for US military aid. Trump said on Monday that his country will be involved in providing security guarantees as part of a peace agreement on ending Russia's war. Trump said that while European countries are 'the first line of defence because they are there, they are Europe, we're going to help them out also. We'll be involved.' Meanwhile, Trump repeated his view that a ceasefire was not necessary to end the Russia-Ukraine war, echoing earlier comments that brought his position more in line with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he met last week. 'I don't think you need a ceasefire,' Trump said, sitting alongside Zelensky at the White House. 'I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically why one country or the other wouldn't want it. You have a ceasefire and they rebuild and rebuild and rebuild and you know maybe they don't want that.' Russian attacks, including on an apartment block in Kharkiv city, killed 14 people across Ukraine, authorities said on Monday. The early-morning drone attack on Kharkiv reduced part of a five-storey residential building to rubble and sparked fires on at least three floors, governor Oleg Synegubov said on Telegram.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store