On September 17, 1948, the princely state of Hyderabad was integrated into India through what was referred to as a "Police Action," executed by the Indian Army. This operation, known as Operation Polo, was led by General Chaudhary. In recognition of this event, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) now celebrates it as Hyderabad Liberation Day, while the Congress-led government of Telangana marks it as Praja Palan Day (Advent of Democracy Day).
BJP leader Kishan Reddy argues that failing to honor it as Hyderabad Liberation Day would disrespect the sacrifices made by those who lost their lives during the integration process. Conversely, some critics argue that the annexation of this Muslim-majority princely state reflects a form of Islamophobia on the part of Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel.
Many discussions surrounding this topic tend to be one-sided or biased. Can a princely state ruled by a Muslim monarch truly be classified as a "Muslim state," given that a majority of its population was Hindu? Similarly, can a Muslim-majority region governed by a Hindu king, like Kashmir, be designated a "Hindu state"?
While certain scholars interpret these events through the lens of religion, the key issues at play were geographical dynamics and the transition from a feudal system to a democratic government. The situation in Kashmir is particularly complicated, influenced by Pakistanโs ambitions to establish a Muslim state, which viewed a Muslim-majority Kashmir as destined to join Pakistan, following Jinnahโs Two-Nation Theoryโoriginally articulated by Savarkar.
Why did Nehru take an interest in Kashmir's accession to India? Was it solely about geographical expansion, or did it also support the democratic movement against feudalism? Sheikh Abdullah, with aspirations for democracy, transformed the Muslim Conference into the National Conference and advocated for secular values, looking up to Gandhi and Nehru as models. The issue was complicated further by Pakistan's aggression, known as the Tribal invasion, which had military backing. Moreover, there was the question of sovereignty.
Many monarchs referred to their kingdoms through the lens of their religion, while Indian nationalists argued that sovereignty resided with the people, not the rulers. This context is crucial to understanding the complex merger of Hyderabad into India.
Upon Indiaโs independence, the princely statesโnumbering over 600โwere given the choice to join either Pakistan or India or to remain independent. Many princely states, enjoying autonomy during British rule, faced a dilemma, with most preferring independence. Lord Mountbatten advised them to align with neighboring countries.
Sardar Patel, overseeing many mergers, promised princes a degree of autonomy in most matters except for defense, communication, and foreign affairs, in return for retaining their substantial wealth and properties.
Most princely states eventually agreed to merge with India, including Travancore, ruled by a Hindu king, while the Raja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, and the Nizam of Hyderabad initially refused to join.
As mentioned earlier, Indian leaders believed that sovereignty should rest with the people rather than monarchs. Many of these kings were loyal to the British and enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. The integration of Junagadh into India was conducted via military action, followed by a plebiscite that confirmed its merger with India.
Nizam of Hyderabad sought to remain independent or merge with Pakistanโnot for religious reasons,
The Nizam of Hyderabad, controlling a rich and expansive state, sought to remain independent or merge with Pakistanโnot for religious reasons, but because Jinnah assured him that his rights would be safeguarded. India's interest in merging Hyderabad stemmed from various practical concerns, with Islamophobia not being one of them.
Geographically, Hyderabadโs location within India posed significant logistical challenges as an independent or Pakistani state, likely leading to ongoing issues. This geographical consideration was central to Nehru and Patel's strategy.
A standstill agreement was signed with the Nizam in November 1947, during which there was hope to democratize Hyderabadโs administration to facilitate negotiations. However, the Nizam used this period to bolster his military force, the Razakars, led by Major General SA El Edroos. In the meantime, the Congress initiated a Satyagraha demanding the democratization of state administration, resulting in the imprisonment of approximately 20,000 participants.
The oppressive actions of the Nizam's forces and Razakar atrocities against Hindus led many to flee. Concurrently, the communists formed dalams (militant groups) to redistribute land and defend people against Razakar violence. As negotiations prolonged, the Razakars became increasingly threatening.
The anti-Nizam movement garnered support from various local groups and a portion of the national Muslim community. Patel expressed satisfaction in a letter to Suhravardy, noting that Indian Union Muslims had openly aligned with the Indian side regarding Hyderabad, positively impacting public sentiment.
Against this backdrop, military action was initiated, which, according to the Sunderlal Report, resulted in approximately 40,000 deaths, primarily among Muslims.
The interpretation of history hinges on the narratives we choose to embrace. While some scholars emphasize religious factors and accuse Indian leaders of Islamophobia, it is vital to consider both geographical realities and the push for democratization and anti-feudal resistance by local communists.
Criticisms directed at Nehru and Patel's leadership tend to be biased, overshadowing their aspirations, which, while not fully realized, aimed at a more democratic society.
---
*Political commentator
Comments