In 1995 I became a member of the Society of Military History of the USA. In 1996 I specially travelled to the US to attend the Annual meeting of the SMH at Marriot Hotel Rosslyn, Arlington Virginia. It was a great experience attending the meeting co hosted by CIA history staff. However in 1999 I was disappointed to note that the SMH like any society had deep biases. I had sent them a very painstakingly researched article on the British reverse at Chillianwallah.However they refused to publish it over flimsy reasons. The article was published by Defence Journal in mid 2000. The article with maps will now be a part of a book beinng published in the US this year dealing with Sikh Wars. My second experience of biases of JMH and SMH was when I critiqued Professor . Letter to JMH-Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab-Intellectual Dishonesty-JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY USA-NOT PUBLISHING CRITICISM Views on Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab Letter to JMH August 2000-**Tan Tai-Yong, 'An imperial home front: Punjab and the F irst World War', Journal of Military History, vol. 64 (2000). The Journal declined to publish the letter over excuses that it was lengthy.Not even a summary was accepted. In 2001 however the journal published my letter in almost full so I thought the biases were over But that was wishful thinking. The Journal of Military History published an article in its 2001 issue which implied that Muslims were in significant number in Bengal Army that rebelled in 1857.I sent them a letter challenging the assertions but the letter that the JMH published omitted my major criticism thus robbing my letter of its essence. Coercion through Leniency: British Manipulation of the Courts- Martial System in the Post-Mutiny Indian Army, 1859-1913, Journal of Military History, 65, 937-64 After this incident I decided that it was a waste to write any letter to the JMH although I subscribed In 2005-6 an American friend of mine decided to write a review of my book for the JMH .Initially they agreed but later what happened was an eye opener in human biases of the worst type E Mail text from US writer friend who corresponded wit Journal of Military history, USA: -- Re: Greetings Tuesday, 4 March, 2008 17:39 From: --abcdefgh@tds.net To: --"Military and Security Review Agha Sahib I am in deed fine and hope you are too. I am sorry that Vandervort did not publish my review of your book, even though he promised that he would. I tried talking to him but he seemed reluctant to talk, just promised the review would come out in the Spring edition of the Journal. What are you doing these days and are you still in Kabul? From what I can gather the US preence in Afghanistan is wearing very thin, just hope whomever is elected this Fall will have enough intelligence to get us out of there and Iraq since we have no business in either country. If it comes up, please let people there know that not all In regards to JMH, it is most unfortunate, even tragic, that people who profess a strong and open academic agenda are, in reality, as close-minded as the most intractable provincial official whose only true concern is in how best maintain their own and their groups status quo. But what riles me the most is that in my phone conversations and e-mail exchanges with Vandervort, he presents himself as liking you and respecting your knowledge, plus his concern for accuracy in order to protect the reputation of his journal. And yet, even though you cite sources and present cogent arguments concerning Tan Tai-Yong's 2000 article, which clarifies parts of his analysis, Vandervort refused to publish your letter. That certainly doesn't sound like a man concerned with facts and truth, but rather a man concerned with some other agenda. As to what that agenda is I am unclear, it well might be a paranoia about criticism, but that doesn't completely address why Vandervort never