The Story of Hyderabad - by Amogh Manthalkar ( MyIndmaker)

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,709
Likes
146,946
Country flag
India celebrated 75 years of independence from the British Raj on the 15th of August 2022, after more than 150 years of struggle. The liberation of India from the British was not without its price. The political hanky-panky during the final years of the Raj, the communal tensions, the partition of India, and the war in 1948 are testament to that. Some chapters on the history of India around this time are not discussed as often, like the integration of around 560 states in the Union of India, the political developments between 15th August 1947 and 26th January 1950, the negotiations for accession with states, etc. This points to something that we must remember while thinking about the modern history of India. On the 15th of August 1947, India was independent but almost in name only.

We were a Dominion of the British, and we still had a Governor-General overseeing the transfer of administrative power. 3 territories that were a part of British India were not a part of the Indian Dominion, namely Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh. Of these, the story of J&K is well known. Junagadh, now a part of Gujarat, saw a brief struggle before it was integrated into India after a plebiscite. The events leading to the accession of Hyderabad are the subject of this essay.
This essay will first try to describe the history of the Nizams and their rule in Hyderabad. Then, we will see the opportunist, ambitious, feudalistic, and despotic tendencies of the Nizams, especially the 7th Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan. During his reign, India gained independence and he refused to accede to India. We will then try to establish the very real threat to peace both within Hyderabad and out of Hyderabad in India posed by the Nizam and his loyalists, which led to the police action (Operation Polo) and the subsequent accession of Hyderabad State to India in Sept 1948.

The Origin of Nizam-ul-Mulk
Before we dive into the accession of Hyderabad, let us go over its history. Hyderabad was ruled by the Nizams of the Asafiya dynasty from 1724 to 1948, over 7 generations. During the reign of Shah Jahan, the father of Aurangzeb, a man named Khwaja Abid Ali Khan came to India from the Samarkand-Bukhara region on his way to Mecca. Shah Jahan helped him in his pilgrimage. Later, he stayed in Delhi at the request of the emperor. He also called his son, Mir Shahabuddeen Siddiqui, from Bukhara and got him married to the daughter of Aurangzeb's vizier Sadullah Khan, thereby embedding himself into the politics of India.
As Shah Jahan's reign declined, there was a war of succession among his sons, as was the Mughal custom. During this time, the opportunistic Abid Ali sided with Aurangzeb. When Aurangzeb came to power, he made Shahabuddeen the Subhedar of Gujarat. After Shahabuddeen died in 1710, his son, Qamaruddeen, became the Subhedar of Gujarat in 1713. It was a period of political turmoil in Delhi, and the Mughal emperors changed with wind patterns. Qamaruddeen made the best of his situation and took advantage of the political instability to descend to the south and proclaim himself the ruler of the Deccan in 1724.
The Mughal emperor of the time, Farrukhsiyar, bestowed the titles Nizam-ul-Mulk, and Feroz Jung on him. The title Nizam means Governor, under the imperial authority of the Mughal rulers of Delhi. A successive Mughal emperor, Muhammad Shah, gave him the title Asaf Jahan. This is the origin of the dynasty name, the Asafiya dynasty. Despite declaring autonomy, Asaf Jahan and all his successors continued to refer to themselves as the Nizams, the governors, and not emperors.

The Asafiya Dynasty
Asaf Jahan Qamaruddeen urf Chin Qilich Khan, the first Nizam, fought several battles and expanded his territory. He fought against the Marathas under Peshwa Bajirao several times and lost every single one of those battles. The most spectacular face-off was the battle of Palkhed (1728), near Nashik, Maharashtra, where the Peshwa outmaneuvered the artillery-heavy army of the Nizam by his superior use of cavalry tactics. British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery referred to Bajirao's tactics and rapid cavalry movement as "a masterpiece of strategic mobility." The battle of Bhopal (1738) was a similar debacle for the Nizam, handed to him by Peshwa Bajirao.

Asaf Jahan I was the only Nizam who engaged in combat for territorial expansion. Over the 24 years of his reign (1724 to 1748), he managed to create a kingdom for himself in the Deccan peninsula. He had a reputation for being opportunistic. This trait was displayed by almost every subsequent Nizam, although none was as successful in administrating the Nizam territory as the first Asaf Jahan. Even though the kingdom of the Nizam of Hyderabad was autonomous, he was always identified as the Nizam and never as the emperor or the supreme power, even in his kingdom. He was subservient to the Mughal authority and later the British because he was never the most dominant military power in the Deccan.

The Nizams of the Asafiya dynasty, all 7 of them, were always dependent on the assistance of other powers for their territorial integrity, first, the Mughals, then the French, and later, the British. For all their claims of supremacy, they were periodically reminded that they were vassals and not paramount rulers. There is ample evidence for this. For example, when the 4th Asaf Jahan, Naseer-ud-Daula, was to ascend to the throne, he had to get the approval of the Mughal emperor, even though the Mughal empire was only a nominal power in the Subcontinent, for which he paid a Nazrana of 101 gold coins and a necklace of precious pearls to the Mughal emperor. Is it autonomy if the ruler is approved by another authority?
In 1763, Asaf Jahan II sought to take advantage of the political instability in the Maratha empire and raided Pune. Fearing a Maratha revenge campaign, the Nizam allied with the French, who had a growing influence in the south. When the British gained power in the south, the Nizam broke his alliance with the French and allied with the British instead. He did that to safeguard his kingdom from Marathas and Tipu Sultan. In 1778, the British stationed a Resident in Hyderabad as their representative. This was the beginning of the dependence of the Nizam on the British.
The Nizam was the protectorate of the British till 1947. The extent of his subservience can be gauged from the fact that the British had control over the appointment of the Nizam himself, his Prime Minister, his council of ministers, all their salaries, etc. During the last few decades, even trivial aspects of the Nizam's life were dictated by the British, including the pensions of the princes or where they went for their education, just to name a few things.
In 1899, the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, even imposed an upper limit on the pension of the Nizam to Rs 50 lakh per year and restricted the expenditure of the Nizam administration by appointing an officer for the same. Thus, all of the claims of autonomy of the Nizams were just that, claims. He was just as much of a vassal of the British as the other princely states in India. He was reminded of that status several times by the British themselves.
Faithful Ally: His Exalted Highness Mir Osman Ali Khan
Over 7 generations, the Nizams of Hyderabad were able to rule for 224 years over a more or less stable empire. The 6th Nizam, Mahboob Ali Khan, ruled for 42 years, although some of it was under the regency of the British. The 7th Nizam, Osman Ali Khan, was 26 years old when he ascended to the throne in August 1911. Like most of their predecessors, they did not have to fight many battles, and whatever few battles they did fight, they never had active parts in them.
During the reign of Mahboob Ali Khan, he aided the British by giving them financial support in a battle. At that time, he had written them a letter in which he boasted about helping them financially. He also said that the sword of the Nizam is forever unsheathed in the service of the British empire.
This could not be further from the truth since he had never fought any noteworthy battle in the 42 years of his reign. One could say that his sword was always sheathed. But that never kept him or his son from boasting about the greatness and valour of the Nizams. In a Firman issued by Osman Ali Khan, a few lines appear at the beginning where there is a poem to the effect that the Nizami sword is always ready to maintain the prestige and integrity of the British empire. One cannot think of a more direct way to express loyalty to the British than instances like this.
Osman Ali Khan was an extremely ambitious Nizam, as is seen from his insistence that he was on an equal footing with the British. He mentioned it several times in his letters to British officers in India, so much so that the British Resident in 1926, Lord Reading, in a letter addressed to him, repudiated this in the bluntest of terms and reminded the Nizam of his status as a vassal of the Paramount power.
"The Sovereignty of the British Crown is supreme in India, and therefore no ruler of an Indian State can justifiably claim to negotiate with the British Government on an equal footing. Its supremacy is not based only upon treaties and engagements, but exists independently of them and, quite apart from its prerogative in matters relating to foreign powers and policies, it is the right and duty of the British Government, while scrupulously respecting all treaties and engagements with the Indian States to preserve peace and good order throughout India. The consequences that follow are so well known, and so clearly apply no less to Your Exalted Highness than to other rulers, that it seems hardly necessary to point them out. But if illustrations are necessary, I would remind Your Exalted Highness that the ruler of Hyderabad along with other Rulers received in 1862 a Sanad declaratory of the British Government's desire for the perpetuation of his House and Government, subject to continued loyalty to the Crown: that no succession in the Masnad Hyderabad is valid unless it is recognised by His Majesty the King-Emperor: and that the British Government is the only arbiter in cases of a disputed succession."
- Lord Reading's letter to Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, dated 27th March 1926
But the British knew of his ambition from the start. In fact, in 1911, after the death of Mahboob Ali Khan, the British appointed Osman Ali Khan on "probation" for 2 years while periodically reminding him of his status vis-a-vis the British. In 1919, Lord Chelmsford rebuked him by telling him to behave himself and that the British retained the right to intervene if and when they deemed it necessary.
One of the first things Osman Ali Khan did after assuming the throne was to dismiss the Diwan, Maharaja Kishan Prashad, and install Salar Jung III in his place. Salar Jung III was a puppet Diwan. The Nizam was the Nizam and the Diwan. Right up to 1919, Osman Ali Khan enjoyed almost absolute authority. The British themselves put an end to this. The British were preoccupied with the First World War till then. The Nizam had sent some soldiers and large sums of money to the British during that time.
Ironically, the Nizam, who would proclaim Hyderabad State to be an Islamic State and immortalize the Asafiya dynasty, helped the British in their war against Turkey, the symbol of global Islam at the time. The Nizam envisioned an Islamic State in Hyderabad before Muhammad Ali Jinnah latched on to the idea of Pakistan. The Nizam even ordered the Masjids in the State to pray for the safety of the British pilots that were bombing Europe indiscriminately, without caring about the European Muslims affected by it.
King George V bestowed upon the Nizam the title of His Exalted Highness (while other nobles in India were called His/Her Highness) and called the Nizam a "Faithful Ally" of the British for his services during World War I. One could think that Nizam's loyalty to the British crown could not be put in clearer terms than these.
Nizam's Feudalism and Communalism
The Nizam rule in Hyderabad was set up as an Islamic State, as were all Muslim kingdoms and empires. Even as a Protectorate of the British, these political aspirations influenced by religious zeal are evident. During the reign of Osman Ali Khan, the popular movement for Independence of India and the establishment of a responsible govt in Hyderabad gained momentum. The rule of the Nizams was feudalistic and retrogressive.
Hyderabad State was divided into 3 parts. One-third was the personal property of the Nizam. It was referred to as the Sarf-i-Khas. Another third was allotted for the expenses incurred by the State, known as the Diwan's territory or the Paigah. The last third was divided into Jagirs and given to Zamindars, who could collect taxes from their subjects. This whole setup was feudalistic. The Nizam himself lived quite lavishly.
At one point during the 1930s, Osman Ali Khan was the richest person in the world, according to Time Magazine. He had 3 wives, dozens of concubines and more than 100 children. He had a vast network of spies, spread over all aspects of public life.
“Intrigue is in the air at Hyderabad—a vigorous survival from Moghul, and still earlier times. It is with some people almost a pastime. Often the methods are clumsy and easily seen through; on the other hand, there is frequently a delicacy of touch, a finesse worthy of the trained and cultured brain behind it, the whole constituting a drama very interesting to watch at when it unfolds.”
-The Princes of India, Sir William Barton, British Resident in Hyderabad 1925-1930
Simultaneously, in the kingdom out of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, absentee landlordship, rack-renting, serfdom, forced labour, and several such inhuman practices of a pre-industrial agrarian society were rampant. Beyond the major urban centres mentioned above, there was hardly any infrastructure, like roads or buildings. This led to growing feelings of resentment among the people in the State. The movement for independence and a responsible government meant that this system would have to be discarded in favour of a democratic and egalitarian system. This was called the main problem of Hyderabad State in the White Paper on Hyderabad, published by the Dominion of India.
IMG_256

Political Map of Hyderabad State in British India​

Image source: The Companion

 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,709
Likes
146,946
Country flag
Another problem in the Hyderabad State was the communal disparities and differential treatment of different communities. Muslims were dominant in the State. Of the total population, 20,97,475 were Muslims, 1,33,09,649 were Hindus, 2,20,464 were Christians, and 7,10,946 were others. Even though Muslims constituted 11% of the total population, they dominated government jobs, whereas only Hindus had 20% of them. This was explained away by arguing that the State was an Islamic state, according to Anant Bhalerao, a journalist from Marathwada, in his book Hyderabadcha Swatantrya Sangram Aani Marathwada. Besides, Hindus had farms and land to till, and Muslims had few other sources of income. So, giving them govt jobs was necessary.

Year
% Hindus
% Muslim
1901
88.6​
10.4​
1911
86.9​
10.3​
1921
85.4​
10.4​
1931
84​
10.6​
1941
81.4​
12.8​
Demography of Hyderabad State​

There were two main reasons for the waning trends of the Hindu population in Hyderabad State. Religious conversions were rampant in the State. The untouchables and lower castes were induced into converting to Islam by offering bribes. The other major factor was that Muslims from all over India were settled in the territory of the Hyderabad State. Even more egregious was the fact that in the 1941 census, the Hyderabad State official documents showed the Hindu population as 63.5%, excluding the untouchables and lower castes and recording them as non-Hindus.

Even in matters like Sahukari (trading), the Hyderabad State had a communal policy to further a feudal hierarchy. Muslims were systematically favoured. Arabs, Rohillas, and Pathans were brought into the State for the same. Earlier, Nizam himself would take loans from such Arabs and Rohillas. These loans climbed up to Rs 2 crores, and Nizam had to put up a few districts of his kingdom as collateral. When Salar Jung I became Diwan in 1853, he somehow repaid these loans and got those districts back. By then, these Arabs and Rohillas had spread all over the State. When Sir Akbar Haidari was the Diwan in 1937, the license requirement for these Sahukars to operate was removed. This was done to curb the growing influence of the Independence movement among the masses.

The situation of government jobs was worse. The Nizam administration would not let any records see the light of day, and any information had to be obtained in other ways. In 1941, the number of Muslims employed by the government was 1,12,737, and Hindus were 23,368.

Departments
Muslims
Hindus
Others
Total
Secretaries
10​
1​
1​
12​
Additional Secretaries
2​
1​
1​
4​
Joint Secretaries
3​
0​
0​
3​
Deputy Secretaries
9​
3​
0​
12​
Assistant Secretaries
55​
8​
0​
63​
Head of Departments
40​
6​
1​
47​
Subedars
4​
0​
0​
4​
Collectors
14​
2​
0​
16​
Revenue Board
2​
0​
0​
2​
Sub-Collectors
50​
19​
2​
71​
Tehsildars
75​
40​
4​
119​
High Court Judges
8​
5​
0​
13​
Magistrates and Munsifs
147​
33​
0​
180​
Police
73​
12​
6​
91​
Education Officers
237​
65​
27​
329​
Supply Officers
25​
7​
1​
33​
Total (%)
754 (75)​
202 (20)​
43 (5)​
999 (100)​
Key government jobs in Hyderabad State​

These statistics, from Anant Bhalerao’s book, give an idea of the dominance of Muslims in government jobs in the State. This was done on purpose by interfering with the recruitment processes to obtain absolute control over the State. The last Nizam claimed himself to be the heir of the Mughal emperors and had ambitions of attaining unrestricted personal sovereignty. Pursuing this, he made all efforts to resist the idea of democracy and centralize all power with himself.

As mentioned earlier as well, in 1914, he took over the administration by dismissing the Diwan, only to later buckle under pressure from the British and constitute an Executive Council to assist him in administration. But even there, he is reported to have interfered in its functioning, inviting interventions from the British Resident to empower the Council against him. The Nizam resented this control and when the British made it clear to withdraw paramountcy over British India, he saw it as an opportunity to assert his autocracy in the State.

Hyderabad had a Legislative Council consisting of 20 members, of which only 4 were elected and the others were nominated or ex-officio, who served in an advisory capacity. The Nizam actively opposed all attempts to introduce a representative element in the Legislature. It was only in 1946 that a Hyderabad Legislative Assembly was constituted upon the recommendations of the Ayyangar committee. According to the system set up by the Nizam, out of the 132 members of the House, 76 were elected members and the rest were nominated and ex-officio members. Among the elected members, the Hindu and Muslim representation was to be equal, thus keeping the Muslims in a perpetual majority in the Council.

The Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen and The Razakars

The Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, also known as the Ittehad, was founded in 1926 by the Director of the State Ecclesiastical Department under the inspiration of Nizam Osman Ali Khan. It was formed to organize aggressive elements in the Muslim community to strengthen Nizam's feudal rule over the State. After the Government of India Act was passed in 1935, the Nizam Subjects' League was founded to establish a responsible government in Hyderabad. To counter this, the Ittehad functioned to maintain the political sovereignty of Muslims and Muslim culture, with the Nizam at its head, according to their creed.

In 1938, Hyderabad State Congress was formed with the same objective of a responsible government by peaceful and legitimate means and with the motive of national unity. It was banned on October 24, 1938. Its members were arrested and sentenced. Around 400 people were jailed for their participation in Satyagraha. This ban was lifted in 1946 when Sir Mirza Ismail became the Diwan. During this time, civil liberties were severely limited and all popular movements towards democracy were brutally suppressed by the Ittehad, which was left free to continue its most aggressive fascist and communal activities.

By 1947, it was clear that the British were going to quit India and that India was to be divided. In a Firman dated 26th June 1947, the Nizam declared that he did not want to join the Union of India. He claimed that the end of British paramountcy entitled him to declare his own. The Ittehad, with Qasim Rizvi as its leader, made its stance on the issues of accession to India and responsible government in Hyderabad known. A quasi-military organization was founded with those objectives was founded and it held demonstrations in favour of Hyderabad's independence, named the Razakar organization. The Nizam even prohibited the flying of the flag of the Indian Union anywhere in the State.

"The Ittehad and the Razakars constitute a serious threat to the peace and tranquillity of India. Their activities threaten to provoke retaliation from those in India, who sympathize with the unhappy lot of the majority population in Hyderabad. By their constant efforts to appeal to the communal instincts of the Muslim minority in India, the Razakars are trying to subvert the loyalty of the Indian Muslims to the Dominion. The political structure of Hyderabad is the very antithesis of democracy; the Razakar ideology, which dominates Hyderabad, is automatically and irrevocably against popular freedom and democratic concepts."

White Paper on Hyderabad, Government Press India, 1948​

The Terrorist Tactics of The Razakars

The stated objectives of the Ittehad and the Razakars have been mentioned previously. They were fanatical and feudal by ideology and medieval and fascistic in their operation in Hyderabad State. Their militarist demonstrations were aimed at influencing Muslims and incentivizing them to join their ranks. They also imparted military training in Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Razakars pledged their lives for the cause of the Ittehad "to fight to the last to maintain the supremacy of the Muslim power in the Deccan." Over 70,000 men, women, and children underwent training, 1,50,000 members had already enrolled, and they were fast approaching the 5,00,000 target just between July 1947 and July-August 1948.

The activities of the Razakars were classified in the White Paper of 1948 as the following:

  • Staging frequent demonstrations all over the State
  • Terrorizing individuals connected with pro-India and pro-democracy movements
  • Inflicting costs, with or without the police or military, on individuals suspected of being pro-India
  • Searching the luggage and belongings of rail and road passengers
  • Preventing unofficial investigations into the internal situation of Hyderabad
  • Terrorizing people through armed marches of uniformed volunteers and firing empty shots into the air
  • Infiltrating the Indian territory with the aims of spying, smuggling arms and ammunition, recruiting volunteers from the Dominion, creating discord among Indian Muslims, and provoking them to carry on a Jihad (religious war against unbelievers).
The Razakars were well-funded, and organized, and had their agents in several important organizations and businesses. They possessed ample means of transport (like jeeps and lorries, back when these vehicles were way more difficult to amass), an unrestricted supply of fuel, arms, and ammunition consisting of not just looted and locally manufactured guns, but also modern weapons obtained from Indian territory despite it being prohibited under various agreements.

The Ittehad ran one English daily, 7 Urdu dailies, 6 Urdu weeklies, and the Nizam Radio and used them to attack the Dominion of India and its leaders. Special training was imparted to Razakars in espionage and propaganda. They even trained certain selected Razakars to masquerade as Brahmins and priests.

The Razakars were unsubtle to the point of brazenness in their actions and statements.

"Hyderabad will shortly recover the ceded districts and the day is not far off when the waves of the Bay of Bengal will be washing the feet of our sovereign who will be called not only the Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar but also of the Northern Circars."

"We are rewriting the map of India by bringing together a union of Jamuna and Musi. We are the grandsons of Muhammad Ghazni and the sons of Babar. When determined we shall fly the Asafjahi flag over the Red Fort in Delhi."

Quotes from the Razakars' public statements mentioned in the White Paper on Hyderabad of 1948​

As mentioned earlier, the Razakars were inducing Muslims from all over India to settle into Hyderabad State with the express aim to flip the demography of the State and Jihad against the Dominion of India. They called Muslims from other provinces of India refugees, but that was a subterfuge to fool outside observers. Elaborate arrangements were made for these so-called refugees, finances were arranged and training was imparted to these people. These invitees were responsible for a large chunk of the law and order problems that ensued, which included but were not limited to harassing people, looting, extortion, breaking into houses, illegally occupying houses, robberies, and cross-border raids into the Indian Dominion districts.

Several instances of law and order problems were reported by various investigating organizations and individuals. There was sheer panic and terror among people throughout the State. In villages all over the State, the lives of villagers had become so insecure that people fled to other territories of India fearing for their lives. Members of my own family had fled for their lives during this time. Hundreds of people were beaten, wounded, tortured, and even killed. Razakars were seen in trucks openly shouting anti-India slogans and returning with loot from villages. The Hindu population was systematically disarmed so that they could not retaliate with force.

The Nizam's government prevented any investigation into these acts of violence and loot in the State. Yet, these atrocities were attested by many independent observers. Ministers toured villages and testified to the conditions described by the villagers. Photographs of burning houses and villages were obtained. J V Joshi, a minister in the Hyderabad government, toured extensively over the State, surveying the condition of the villages. He resigned upon completing this survey and in his letter of resignation, gave a detailed account of what he observed. He described scenes of devastation, murder, torture, rape, and arson. This is one of the bluntest and clearest indictments of the Nizam and the last 5 years of his reign.

It will suffice by giving only a few examples to show the brutality with which the Razakars perpetrated atrocities against Hindus of the State, which the State police and military observed silently and did nothing to prevent.

  • In Bidar district, Razakars devastated 129 villages, burned about 1000 houses, looted property worth crores of rupees, killed around 100 people, and committed rape on about 50 women.
  • The village Gorta was burned to the ground with all its residents, human and animal, on May 10, 1948. When a committee reached the village to survey the damage, only one man and 3 old women were found alive. No trace of life apart from them was found. It was estimated that about 200 persons had been killed.
  • Warangal district was another centre of Razakar atrocities. An exodus of lakhs of its residents took place, who fled to the neighbouring State of Madras. 4 separate investigations into this exodus match most findings.
  • In the villages of Babhalgaon and Limbagaon in the Parbhani district, several women were abducted, and lands and property were grabbed and looted. The local police demanded large sums of money to protect Hindus from these atrocities.
  • In Usod (taluka Jintoor), the entire property of Hiralal Somani was looted and his house was burned down. He was burned alive and his family, including all women and children, was murdered.
  • In the temple town of Aundha Nagnath, a bomb was thrown at the people assembled for the Jatra and 5 people were killed in the blast and the subsequent firing.
  • The entire villages of Gunda, Falni, Pangra, Vakodi (Kalamnuri), Dhaiphal, and Bamni (Jintoor) were looted and burned to the ground for resisting the Razakar raids.
  • In the Nanded district alone, in several separate incidents, more than 100 people were killed. The most egregious attack took place in a village where 72 people were killed after the house of the village Deshmukh was besieged for more than 84 hours.
  • In Loha, the local authorities did nothing to prevent an attack on the village that lasted for 3 days. Chamanrao was tied to a wooden pillar, tortured, his eyes pierced, and then shot dead. Panditrao was also murdered. The whole village was looted and burned down. A married woman was raped by 7 persons in the presence of her relatives.
https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/the-story-of-hyderabad-part-2/
 

Varoon2

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,189
Likes
4,240
Country flag
What was the economic relationship between the princely state of Hyderabad, and the UK? Did Hyderabad loan money to the Brits, and was this one of the reasons they lamented India's liberation of the state? Apart from losing a staunch ally right in the middle of India. Call out the Brits and their perfidy. The Times of London correspondent at the time, Ian Morrison, criticised India for using too much force against the Razakars. Can you believe it? Expose that as well, to make a point of the Brits and their media supporting autocrats and feudal type rule for their economic and geo-strategic motives.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,709
Likes
146,946
Country flag
The Story of Hyderabad Part 3

The Standstill Agreement


Nizam's eyes were firmly set on establishing his autocratic rule in Hyderabad for a long time. The opportunity to do that presented itself to him when the British decided to end their paramountcy in India. He claimed that since the British paramountcy was ending, he would be the paramount power in Hyderabad State. In his Firman dating June 11, 1947, he declared his intention not to participate in the Constituent Assembly of India and not to join the Union of India. Under pressure from the religious fundamentalist elements within the Ittehad, he dismissed Sir Mirza Ismail from the position of Diwan and appointed Nawab of Chhattar in his place.

Soon, negotiations with India started to finalize the relationship of Hyderabad State with the (eventual) Union of India. A delegation consisting of the Diwan Nawab of Chhattari, Sir Walter Monckton, Sir Sultan Ahmed, and Nawab Ali Yavar Jung came to Delhi, representing the Nizam. By 15th August 1947, no agreement had been reached. The negotiations soon resumed between the Chhattari delegation and the Governor-General Lord Mountbatten. In the course of these discussions, the Chhattari delegation let it be known that the association of the Hyderabad State with the Dominion of India should be different from that of the other Indian States and that there should be a Standstill Agreement for one year so that a more permanent association could be negotiated.

On 18th October 1947, a draft agreement was finalized between the Chhattari delegation and the Indian Dominion. However, on the 27th, when the delegation was to fly back to Delhi from Hyderabad after obtaining the signature of the Nizam, the house where the members of the delegation were residing was surrounded by the Razakars with the full cooperation of the police and were prevented from leaving the house.

As a result, the Nizam called upon Qasim Rizvi, who is briefly mentioned as the leader of the Ittehad and the chief of the Razakars, to solve this deadlock. This Qasim Rizvi was later imprisoned by the Indian police and migrated to Pakistan as negotiated as a condition of his release in 1957. The Chhattari delegation was dissolved under pressure from the Ittehad and a new one was constituted, which included Nawab Moin Nawaz Jung and Mr Abdul Rahim, along with 2 members of the old Executive Council who had voted against the Standstill agreement. This new delegation tried to secure a new agreement with a few changes but failed. It is amply clear from these developments that the Nizam and the ruling group around him wanted to accept a Standstill agreement as it stood with no intention of fulfilling it. The Standstill agreement negotiated by the Chhattari delegation was finally signed on 29th Nov 1947.

It was now upon the Ittehad Ministry to implement the agreement in the State, which they were determined not to, while the Government of India had started to do so. They began to withdraw the Indian Army stationed in Hyderabad State as a part of the agreement, which was the strongest sanction they had to secure the implementation of the Standstill agreement by the Nizam

A Brief Timeline of Negotiations During the Standstill

Once the Standstill agreement was signed, it was understood that its implementation would have to start immediately and discussions for a permanent solution would take place between the Nizam and the Indian Dominion. The government of India started to withdraw the army stationed in Hyderabad State, knowing full well that it was the strongest deterrent against a threat to law and order in the State. This showed that the Indian side wanted to honour the agreement in letter and spirit in good faith and expected the Nizam to do the same. Meanwhile, the Nizam only wanted to seek this opportunity to let the Army withdraw from the State, after which he could carry out his plans to declare independence from India. This would be proven by the subsequent developments in the State.

  • 22 January 1948: Negotiations started between Mir Laik Ali, the Diwan of the Nizam, and Mr K M Munshi, India's Agent-General at Hyderabad, for implementing the Standstill agreement. Laik Ali sought early implementation of a few steps by the government of India so that they could ensure the:
    • removal of the Indian Army stationed in Bolarum
    • allowing free flow into Hyderabad of goods, including military equipment purchased in India by the Nizam's government
    • supplying arms and ammunition for its (the State's) army
    • transferring the control of postal, telephone, and telegraph communications passing through Hyderabad that connected South India with North India.
Several of these steps were against the conditions of the Standstill agreement, like the total disregard of the obligations placed upon the Nizam's government under the State Forces Scheme of 1939, which put limits on the size of the standing army and amount of arms and ammunition that the State could obtain. The reason cited for this was that the whole scheme lapsed with the end of the British paramountcy. They also breached the Standstill agreement by negotiating an agreement with the Pakistan government for advancing a loan of Rs 20 crores and by trying to bring in an ordinance banning Indian currency in the State.

  • 4 March 1948: The Governor-General suggested to a delegation of the Nizam that his government ban the Razakar organization as it was a danger to security. The delegation gave no assurances regarding this. Laik Ali, who was a part of the delegation, however, assured the Governor-General that a more representative Ministry would be set up in Hyderabad to negotiate a permanent solution, which he formally announced on coming back to Hyderabad. Qasim Rizvi, the president of the Ittehad, who had always been working with him announced that he would not be participating in any conferences where it would be discussed. The leader of the Hyderabad State Congress, Swami Ramanand Teertha, then in jail was not released. So, even though the Nizam gave all sorts of assurances to India, they had no intention of implementing them.
    Laik Ali resumed the negotiation with K M Munshi. It was observed that Laik Ali's only anxiety was to secure an immediate supply of 25,000 soldiers and 35,000 police, modern arms and equipment, and a free flow of military stores, into the State that the Nizam's government had purchased in large quantities all over India (in breach of various agreements and acts). He was adamant that the negotiations could not proceed without settling these demands by the Indian Dominion.
  • 23 March 1948: The Razakars ran amok in the entire State unleashing a reign of terror, not just within the borders of the State, but also across the borders. The government of India insisted that the Razakars had to be stopped. In a letter addressed to Laik Ali, the government of India pointed out the breaches of the Standstill agreement committed by Nizam's government and the atrocities perpetrated by the Ittehad and the Razakars demanding action against them.
  • 5 April 1948: Laik Ali addressed a letter to Mr Jawaharlal Nehru justifying the charges made against the State. In particular, he refused to be bound by the Indian State Forces Scheme of 1939 and to disband the Razakar organization. Then, he travelled to Delhi and met with the Prime Minister, who made it clear to him that the Razakars had to be brought under control and the State Congress leaders must be released as a prerogative to a new and representative government to be formed in the State. Laik Ali accepted these conditions but no action was taken to fulfil them.
  • 15 May 1948: The government of India called upon the Nizam to disband and ban the Razakar organization owing to their terrorist tactics and actions. The Nizam refused to do that. Troops of the Indian Army were stationed on the borders of the State to prevent incursions or cross-border raids by Razakars.
  • 26 May 1948: Laik Ali agreed to the principle that the legislation passed by the government of India regarding 3 subjects, Defence, External Affairs, and Communications, should automatically apply to Hyderabad, should the Nizam fail to pass corresponding legislation. He later denied agreeing to it.
  • 6 June 1948: Laik Ali and Sir Walter Monckton return to Delhi to continue negotiations. Draft heads of agreement and a draft Firman were prepared. There were disagreements about whether the representative government in Hyderabad would have equal representation for Hindus and Muslims (84% and 12.4% of the population, for reference).
  • 14 June 1948: Laik Ali arrives in Delhi with his delegation. They demand the following:
    • permission for Hyderabad to maintain a regular army of 20,000 and 8,000 irregulars
    • a period of 3 months to disband the Razakars
These demands were accepted by the government of India without exception in the interest of peace and in their anxiety to settle. The next day, another trivial point was raised by Laik Ali, which was not accepted. The government of India made it clear that no further amendments would be entertained.

  • 16 June 1948: Laik Ali returned to Hyderabad with the draft agreement and the draft Firman. The Nizam sent a telegram refusing to accept the agreements unless a few new points were accepted. He also alleged that the government of India had made changes to the draft and the Firman without the knowledge of Laik Ali, which he discovered only after returning to Hyderabad. Sir Walter Monckton proved these allegations false and the Nizam then withdrew these allegations.
  • 18 June 1948: Lord Mountbatten, 3 days before he left India, sent a long, unofficial, and private telegram to the Nizam, appealing to him to accept the draft agreement in the interest of peace in the whole of South India. The Nizam refused his appeal, citing trivial reasons which made no material difference to the draft agreement.
The government of India could draw no other conclusion but that the Nizam was delaying and being disingenuous to avoid admitting that he was unwilling to accept any of the provisions in the agreement.

Betrayal and Mayhem


Meanwhile, the Razakars continued their reign of terror all over the State. There exists a catalogue of all border incidents which were reported to the Hyderabad government, along all 3 borders, Bombay, Central Provinces, and Madras. One can find 151 detailed instances of loot, forceful possession, murder, torture, molestation, theft, and other forms of violence reported between January and July of 1948, just in the White Paper on Hyderabad of 1948 itself. One must keep in mind that these are the reported cases of Razakar atrocities. There may have been many more that were never reported.

The detail is so minute that there are dates and complaint numbers assigned to each of the available ones. They also mention that the perpetrators of these atrocities were not the Razakars alone. They were often assisted by the State police, military, and even commoners who felt the call for Jihad deep inside themselves. One of the main conditions for the Standstill agreement and eventually a permanent solution was the disbandment of Razakars and the crushing of these terror activities.

These are all cases of cross-border raids, instances of violence and plundering into the Indian Dominion territory. These are quite similar to cross-border incursions and terrorism we see along the modern India-Pakistan border. There are allegations that the annexation of Hyderabad was forced by the Indian Dominion side, that the Indian Dominion was the aggressor and expansionist. That it deprived the Hyderabad State of its right over its territory and people. The facts point to the opposite.

In his letter of resignation to the Diwan of the State, Mr J V Joshi, a minister in the State, alleges breach of the Standstill agreement by the Razakars and gives a detailed account of the atrocities they had perpetrated in the districts toured, namely Jalna, Aurangabad, Parbhani, and Nanded. The State police had joined the Razakars in their atrocities of loot, arson, murder, rape, and molestation of women. The lives of Hindus in the State had become hell, to the point that many Hindus migrated out of the State.

“I joined the Government in the hope that I would be able to do some service to bring about communal harmony and progress in the State. On account of my great respect for Qasim Rizvi, I continued to believe you and him that the complaints against Razakars were all fake, but I have seen things for myself. A complete reign of terror prevails in Parbhani and Nanded districts. I have seen in Loha. a scene of devastation, which brought tears to my eyes—Brahmins were killed, and their eyes were taken out. Women had been raped, houses had been burnt down in large numbers. My heart wrung in anguish.”

Mr J V Joshi’s letter of resignation from the Nizam’s Cabinet, 23rd July 1948​

Nizam and his administration didn't give assurances to disband the Razakars, and when they did, they had no intention of implementing them. This meant the betrayal of not only the agreement between the Nizam and the Indian Dominion but also that of the people of Hyderabad State. When a government betrays its people or fails to protect them, it creates a situation of terror. Fear of the Razakars caused a mass exodus of Hindus from Hyderabad State to the neighbouring states.

The borders of Hyderabad State with its neighbours are not marked by geographical features. That meant that the borders were ambiguous. Several Dominion villages were within the State territory. Residents of such villages lived under constant fear of Razakar raids. Many left their homes, farms, and livestock behind to migrate to other states. Several requests were made to the Nizam to ensure that these people were settled back and the property that the Razakars illegally grabbed and handed over to Muslims from the State would be given back to them. It should not come as a surprise that the Nizam never agreed to it.

The leader of the Razakars, Qasim Rizvi, was imprisoned after the police action of September 1948. He was in jail till 1957, when he agreed to migrate to Pakistan upon release, which he did. The Ittehad, or the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, was banned in 1948. In 1957, Rizvi, before leaving for Pakistan, handed over the responsibility of whatever was remaining of the MIM to a lawyer from Hyderabad, Abdul Wahed Owaisi, who rebranded it as the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, or AIMIM, which is still a political party in Hyderabad. The leader of that party is Asaduddin Owaisi, who is the grandson of Abdul Wahed Owaisi.

In Conclusion

It is not my case that the present AIMIM is the same as the MIM or that its workers are the same as the Razakars. But it must be understood that the rebranding of the party is not as comprehensive as it is made out to be. The name that the party uses is the same, MIM. If one were to venture a guess, one could say that Abdul Wahed Owaisi wanted to change the ideology to suit the changed narrative in an independent India of which Hyderabad State was now a part. But he did not want to change the name too much to capitalize on the popularity of the pre-liberation Hyderabad Ittehad. And that is a topic for another day, the popularity of the Ittehad, the sudden integration of the State in India, and its effect on the supporters of the Ittehad.

In several documents and letters, even during the British Raj, it has been mentioned that the destiny of Hyderabad was inextricably linked with that of India.

"Flung completely across the Indian peninsula, the great State of Hyderabad holds a strategic position of the first importance both from the political and from the military point of view. In an emergency, it could practically isolate the South from the North."

The Princes of India, by Sir William Barton​

The White Paper on Hyderabad of 1948, states that the State has never been an independent entity, but has always been an integral part of India. It also explains in detail how there is complete unity between Hyderabad and the rest of India, of geography, culture, economy, politics, currency, foreign exchange, and banking. Any pretensions that either the Nizam or the Ittehad may have had about its independence from India were based on shaky grounds. And it would be impossible to imagine a stable India that contained an independent Hyderabad, which would be on the side of Pakistan, politically, since the Ittehad and the Muslim League could be understood as the same side of 2 coins.

Earlier this year, the movie Kashmir Files shot to popularity, owing to its honest subject matter about a very real ethnic cleansing in Kashmir. The stories told in the movie were passed down by the few people who managed to survive and settle elsewhere. The tragedy was recent and yet a large section of our society was not aware of the brutality that was unleashed by terrorists backed by Pakistan and aided and abetted by regular Muslims in the state, under fear or otherwise.

The incessant harassment of Hindus by the Razakars, aided by the State police, military and civilians alike, caused massive exodus of people from the State to the Indian Dominion territories. The Razakars took over people’s homes and farms and handed them over to Muslims. People from across the border of the State were abducted and held for ransom. Cows, goats, food grains, and goods of all kinds were stolen or grabbed by force and carried off. These are not even army-like acts. These are acts of looters and criminal elements, motivated by the desire not just to militarily subjugate an enemy, but also humiliate them. As is evident from several instances, people were not just kidnapped and killed, but they were tortured, their eyes gouged out or their bodies beaten till they died.

A tragedy was perpetrated in the heart of India, in Hyderabad, 75 years ago. Who knows how many similar stories of tragedy, violence, and mayhem were lost? Very few people who are old enough to have seen the year 1947 are alive, fewer still who were of an age to understand what was going on around them. Whatever history of the time is available is only available as book records. Hardly any new stories can be uncovered.

I am not asking the reader to get lost in history and try to correct the wrongs of the time by taking retributive action today. I only seek to make the point that the freedom that we enjoy as people who come from the erstwhile Hyderabad State was hard-earned and that it took more than a year from 15th August 1947 to win it. The State of Hyderabad and its accession (annexation, as some call it) is a chapter of Indian history that does not get brought up as often as it ought to.

The least that can be done is to honour the victims of the tragedy by building monuments, similar to the Holocaust Museums we see to remember what the Jews went through. The university in Nanded is named after the president of the Hyderabad State Congress, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University. This is a small tribute to the sacrifices made by him and his associates, who struggled against the last Nizam at such a time when there were severe restrictions on fundamental rights of people in the State. Basics liberties like freedom of association were suppressed. Hundreds of people, with a zeal for nothing other than liberation of the Hyderabad State, stood against such oppression and earned the freedom that we enjoy today. State governments of the 4 states in modern India that were directly affected by the Nizam’s State must have details of the history of the years between 1919 and 1948, at the very least, so that there is some background of the events that shaped their states in the way that they did, lest we forget the sacrifices of the heroes of this struggle, the Swatantrya Sangram of Hyderabad, that liberated more than 1 crore people more than a year after 15th August, 1947.

 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,709
Likes
146,946
Country flag
What was the economic relationship between the princely state of Hyderabad, and the UK? Did Hyderabad loan money to the Brits, and was this one of the reasons they lamented India's liberation of the state? Apart from losing a staunch ally right in the middle of India. Call out the Brits and their perfidy. The Times of London correspondent at the time, Ian Morrison, criticised India for using too much force against the Razakars. Can you believe it? Expose that as well, to make a point of the Brits and their media supporting autocrats and feudal type rule for their economic and geo-strategic motives.
In several documents and letters, even during the British Raj, it has been mentioned that the destiny of Hyderabad was inextricably linked with that of India.

"Flung completely across the Indian peninsula, the great State of Hyderabad holds a strategic position of the first importance both from the political and from the military point of view. In an emergency, it could practically isolate the South from the North."

The Princes of India, by Sir William Barton​
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top