17th September – A conundrum

“Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth!” said Artistotle. We are well aware of the fact that the Police Action in September 1948 is a sad incidence not only in the history of erstwhile Hyderabad state but also in the history of independent India. There are certain incidents in any country’s history that need to be glossed over lest those sad happenings should reopen the wounds of certain sections of society and the Police Action is one of those incidents.

More often than not, liberation means liberation from a foreign rule. The Nizam was not a foreigner. Even after the Police Action, he continued to reign the state as the H.E.H. till 26th January 1950. It should be noticed that transition from ‘autocracy’ to ‘democracy’ is not liberation.

Not only the military Governor in 1949 but also the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad and the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not celebrate 17th September as ‘Hyderabad Liberation day.’ Is it prudent, sagacious and becoming of a civilised society to organise demonstrations against a deceased constitutional head? That’s why, no earlier government had celebrated 17th September

Our elders in 1948 viewed this very seriously, and in a bid not to attract international opprobrium, they euphemistically called the military intervention, if not, invasion as ‘Police Action.’ The USA in its war against Communists in South Korea referred to it as ‘Police Action’.

Trueman’s (President of America) administration called its intervention to save South Korea from Communists as a Police Action rather than actual war. Washington wanted to keep Peking (now Beijing) and Moscow out of the fighting and did not want to intensify the battle either rhetorically and militarily. The Government of India followed the same analogy during the military intervention in Hyderabad against the Razakars and the Communists, which was contemporaneous to the Korean war. The same plea has been put forth by the Government of India before the Security Council (UNO).

Even after the Police Action, Mir Osman Ali Khan, the Nizam of Hyderabad, was allowed to rule the dominion as the ‘His Exalted Highness’ till 26th January 1950. If the Police Action was against the Nizam, he should have been relieved of his position, on the contrary, he was allowed to continue to reign. Though, Major General J N Chowdhary was a military governor, but the head of the state was the Nizam. The de facto ruler was Major General J.N. Chowdhary but de jure ruler was HEH the Nizam.

It is a travesty of truth and preposterous to say that Hyderabad state was liberated on 17th September 1948 and it was merged with the Indian Union on the very same day. However, it was on 24th November 1949, the Nizam issued a firman accepting the Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly of India as the

Constitution of Hyderabad, the Government of India interpreted it, though the Nizam had not signed the Instrument of Accession, the acceptance of Indian Constitution by him was regarded as tantamount to accession; and thus became Hyderabad state became integrated state of Indian Union. (Menon V.P. The story of the integration of Indian states, Orient Longman, Calcutta, 1956, p.352)

In addition to that, the author of the article wrote a letter to the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, about the actual day of Hyderabad’s merger with the Indian union vide its Lr.No. 2191/Q/H dated 19-10-2004. It quoted the Nizam’s firmana dated 24th Nov. 1949.

It is pertinent to mention that the Government of India had published a book about Hyderabad Police Action: Operation Polo – The Police Action against Hyderabad, 1948, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. In this book, Pg.No.110 succinctly states: “The accession of Hyderabad state to the Indian union took place several months later.” (APPENDIX - II). The same book in Pg.No. 115 tells about the firmana of the Nizam dated 24-11-1949.

In a Firman dated 24 November 1949, the Nizam declared: “Whereas in the best interests of Hyderabad, which is closely linked with the rest of India……in economic, political and other fields, it is desirable that constitutional relationship should be established between the State and the Union of India…. I declare and direct that the Constitution of India…. Shall be the Constitution for the State of Hyderabad”

Though the Nizam had not signed the Instrument of Accession, the acceptance of the Indian Constitution by him was regarded as tantamount to accession and Hyderabad thus became integrated with the Union. On the same day, 1st December 1949, the Nizam appointed M K Vellodi as Chief Minister and on that date ended the military administration. On 26th January 1950, the date of inauguration of the Republic of India, the Nizam was sworn in a Rajpramukh of Hyderabad state. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its five-member bench judgement in the Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 71 to 73 of 1950 dt. 14-12-1950, categorically mentions:

“In our opinion, therefore, as the judgements were pronounced and sentences were passed in all these matters before us by the High Court of Hyderabad, which was in the territory of H.E.H. the Nizam and which territory was not the territory of India before 26-1-1950, and as those judgements were passed before the Constitution came into force they do not fall within the class of judgments against which special leave to appeal to the S. Ct. can be asked for under Art. 136. It is obvious that such judgements are not covered under Art. 135 Const. Ind.”

The abolition of Asaf Jahi dynasty immediately in the wake of military operation would have an unsettling effect on the Muslims. He had a position not only in Hyderabad state and amongst his co-religionists in the rest of the country but also a certain prestige abroad. After the abolition of Caliphate in Turkey, Muslims looked to him as the Calipha. In addition to this, India was accused of military aggression.

Most of the British newspapers roundly condemned India. Questions were asked in the British House of Commons and even the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin went to the extent of accusing India of developing war-like mentality over the Hyderabad question. V.P. Menon, the Secretary of the state, unequivocally said the Nizam’s firman provided the base for the authority the Government of India could exercise in Hyderabad until the new Indian constitution came into vogue.

In a bid to assuage the feelings of comity of nations, the Government of India requested the Nizam to broadcast on radio to the Islamic world about the Hyderabad States’ relations to the world. It was done on 23rd September 1948.

“I have no fear from the Indian Union. I know, and have always known that the Indian Union is a secular state. In the very nature of things, Hyderabad State of whose people are Hindus, cannot possibly become an Islamic State.

As in the past centuries, I have no doubt that my Government, true to its age long traditions, will be able to adjust matters amicably”

It is not out of place to mention that late K M Munshi, Agent-General of India at Hyderabad, was not only chided but also recalled by the Government of India for his overaction after the Police Action, as it was a sensitive issue. That being the nature, according permission to hold rallies and meetings about the Police Action as a Liberation Day would disturb communal harmony and jeopardise emotional integration of the country.

After the Police Action, there was a great upheaval. It was a communal outbreak on a whole-scale. The demonstration of private and public revenge and the fissiparous tendencies gave a helping hand and collected much as they could. It was like a cloud bursting of pent-up emotions, suppressed hatred, the reaction of the poison preached and practised for the earlier 20 years.

The communal outbreak was more in the 5 districts of Marathi speaking areas such as Aurangabad, Beed, Parbhani, Nanded and Osmanabad and 3 Kannada speaking districts such as Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur witnessed many troubles coming from the neighbouring province of Bombay.

The only detailed report on the large-scale killing, rape and loot and destruction of property was compiled by Pandit Sunderlal, Moulana Abdullah Misr and Quazi Mohammed Abdul Gaffar. For many years, this report was not brought to the public, however, after long persuasion, the report came to light.

Even Ramananda Tirth, the then Congress President of Hyderabad State Congress, lamented that Muslim losses in life and property outdo Hindu sufferings before the military intervention. It is true, invading troops also committed atrocities.

Precisely, for these reasons, not only the military Governor in 1949 but also the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad and Government of Andhra Pradesh did not celebrate 17th September as ‘Hyderabad Liberation day.’ More often than not, liberation means liberation from a foreign rule. The Nizam was not a foreigner.

Even after the Police Action, he continued to reign the state as the H.E.H. till 26th January 1950. It should be noticed that transition from ‘autocracy’ to ‘democracy’ is not liberation. Is it prudent, sagacious and becoming of a civilised society to organise demonstrations against a deceased constitutional head? That’s why, no earlier government had celebrated 17th September.

As the Indian Army advanced to Hyderabad city on 17th September, 1948, disorder broke out in the villages and towns en route and spread to other areas. There was a great upheaval. It was a communal outbreak on a wider scale. There was a holocaust. The only report on the large-scale killings, rape, plunder and loot was compiled by Pt Sunderlal, Moulvi Abdulla Misri and Abdul Gaffar.

With a view to taking the process to its logical and legal end, a Writ Petition (WPMP No. 38258/2016 in WP No. 30908/2016 in the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and A.P.) was also filed in the Hon’ble High Court of AP & Telangana and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to admit and issue notices to the respondents, namely the Chief Secretary and others. Thus, in our view the matter is sub-judice and fraught with legal consequences that flow from the legal process which is in motion.

True, initially both Government of India and the Nizam were not on the same page. However, having realised the gravity of the situation, they carried gravitas with them. This paved the way for smooth merger of Hyderabad with Indian union on 26th January, 1950, unlike Jammu and Kashmir which is still in turmoil, for which we all should be beholden to them rather than reopening the old wounds.

By Capt L Pandu Ranga Reddy