This work looks back at the role Bihar played in the struggle for India's independence in the first decade after its separation from Bengal as a province in 1912, particularly through the archival material contained in the contemporary confidential government files preserved in the Bihar State Archives, Patna. It uncovers some significant facts and dimensions like rumor-mongering adopted as a mode of struggle by the revolutionaries against British rule during World War I and the establishment of parallel administration at different levels during the Non-Cooperation Movement by its local leaders in Bihar. While it scrutinizes the sorrowful tales of sufferings of the Indian people under British colonial rule, it also raises questions about how the hate politics and hate crimes under BJP's rule, particularly against Minorities and Dalits can be justified as less brutal than the brutalities committed under the tyrannical British rule? Or how the targetted use of draconian laws or law enforcing agencies against those who question its unconstitutional and repressive policies and communal or rather hate politics can be justified as just in independent India under democratic government, and the use of similar laws or law enforcing agencies as repressive and unjust under despotic British rule?

The conventional wisdom in Bihar's political circles was that development did not win votes. Nitish Kumar challenged that assumption and changed the face of the state. Born into a humble family in Bakhtiyarpur, Nitish joined the Lohiaite Socialist Party and built his constituency, literally day by day, forgoing a stable job to travel to distant villages, suffering both financial hardship and ridicule for the eight years it took him to win people's confidence. Veteran journalist Arun Sinha tells the story of Nitish Kumar's rise against the larger canvas of social and political upheaval in Bihar, exploring the emergent desire for equality that drove progressive movements from late 1960s onwards and brought about a regime change by the 1990s. After an initial association with Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nitish Kumar rejected identity politics, recognizing that Bihar had to transcend caste if it was to grow. Nitish Kumar and the Rise of Bihar is a clear-sighted study of Indian electoral politics that unfolds with the pace of a political drama, offering hard facts and an incisive analysis of the state's turbulent trajectory. Sinha steers the narrative deftly through the complex groupings of Bihar's political arena to reveal Nitish Kumar's acumen in bringing law and order, roads, education and health to the fore of governance. From feudal politics to caste identities, and finally to development Bihar could prove to be the model for India's post-Independence journey.

Annually published since 1930, the International bibliography of Historical Sciences (IBOHS) is an international bibliography of the most important historical monographs and periodical articles published throughout the world, which deal with history from the earliest to the most recent times. The works are arranged systematically according to period, region or historical discipline, andwithin this classificationalphabetically. The bibliography contains a geographical index and indexes of persons and authors.

This study on Bihar highlights the fact that nationalism was not a monolithic movement, but was constituted of diverse facets and streams which unleashed a variety of protests. Once people's desires and aspirations were linked to nationalism, the movement developed its own rhythm and dynamics, throwing up its own agenda. Popular Translations of Nationalism: Bihar 1920-1922 revisits the historiography on nationalism by moving beyond the binary of elite and subaltern nationalism and focuses on the complex nature of popular nationalism. It also underscores the protests of the subordinate police, an area which has so far remained unexplored. By foregrounding the police's interface with nationalism and its varied trends, the study problematizes both the accepted view of the state's subordinates as being effectively integrated with the colonial state, and their identity as agents of the state. The study also reveals that nationalism was not merely an attempt to eject the British nor was it simply a political struggle for power. Rather, it was also a hegemonic contestation with colonialism, but one within which the counterhegemonic struggle of nationalism was also intertwined with the contest for hegemony within Indian society