Part 2 in an ongoing series. Last week we talked about Chapter 2 of Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi.
This week’s topic is Chapter 3, which deals with the accession of the Princely States. Next week is Chapter 4, on the turmoil surrounding Kashmir in 1947-8
When they think about 1947, most people naturally think about the tragedy of Partition, which left millions of people dead and displaced. Partition resulted in the creation of two states, but what is left out of this story is an alternative history where instead of two new nations, independence might have seen the formation of three, or five, or five hundred independent nations.
For there were more than five hundred Princely States in existence in 1947. Each of these had its own ruler and court, and many had the trappings of fully independent states (such as railroads, currency, and stamps). All the same, they had to pay significant taxes to the British crown, and none were allowed to maintain their own armies. The Princely States were also, one might add, the most backward in India when it came to the situation of ordinary people. While British India had begun to build schools and universities, and develop the foundations of democratic governance (i.e., property owners could vote), the various Maharajahs were perfectly comfortable keeping their subjects in total, feudal subjection.
Very quickly, between the fall of 1946 and the summer of 1947, the vast majority of Princely States signed “Instruments of Accession,” whereby they agreed to hand over their sovereignty to India. The chief architects of this development were Vallabhbhai Patel and his agent, V.P. Menon. While Patel and Mountbatten did much of the formal negotiation from Delhi, it was Menon who went to hundreds of different Maharajahs all over India, and worked out agreements. According to Guha, because of his indefatigability and his remarkable competence, Menon is one of the unsung heroes of this story.
After Kashmir (which we’ll talk about next week), the state that gave the most difficulty in agreeing to Accession was Hyderabad, which was governed by a Muslim Nizam, but with a Hindu majority. At 80,000 square miles, Hyderabad was a huge state, bigger geographically than Great Britain. The Nizam of Hyderabad was one of the wealthiest men in the world, and it’s not hard to see why he resisted turning over his position of power and eminence to what would surely be a diminished role in a united India. Faced with the request that he integrate Hyderabad with India, he preferred independence, but at various points he suggested he might throw in his lot with Pakistan.
There were pro-Congress/Democracy groups in the state under the Nizam, as well as a significant Communist movement. But the most important group was the Nizam’s own Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen, a kind of proto-Islamist movement, led by a radical (fanatic?) named Kasim Razvi (sometimes spelled Qasim Razvi). With the Nizam’s support Kasim Razvi organized thousands of armed “Razakars” to protect the Nizam’s interests and harrass his opponents.
This Kasim Razvi turns out to be quite an interesting character. Guha describes him as follows:
In April 1948, a correspondent of The Times of London visited Hyderabad. He interviewd Kasim Razvi and found him to be a ‘fanatical demagogue with great gifts of organization. As a ‘rabble-rouser’ he is formidable, and even in a tete-a-tete he is compelling.’ Razvi saw himself as a prospective leader of a Muslim state, a sort of Jinnah for the Hyderabadis, albeit a more militant one. He had a portrait of the Pakistani leader prominently displayed in his room. Razvi told an Indian journalist that he greatly admired Jinnah, adding that ‘whenever I am in doubt I go to him for counsel which he never grudges giving me.’
Pictures of Razvi show him with a luxuriant beard. He looked ‘rather like an oriental Mephistopheles.’ His most striking feature was his flashing eyes, ‘from which the fire of fanaticism exudes.’ He had contempt for the Congress, saying, ‘we do not want Brahmin or Bania rule here.’ Asked which side the Razakars would take if Pakistan and India clashed, Razvi answered that Pakistan could take care of itself, but added: ‘Wherever Muslim interests are affected, our interest and sympathy will go out. This applies of course to Palestine as well. Even if Muslim interests are affected in hell, our heart will go out in sympathy.’ (68-69)
I quote this passage about Kasim Razvi because I think it hints at how much worse things could have gone in Hyderabad. By 1948, Razvi’s Razakars were known to be harrassing Hindus in some of Hyderabad’s larger cities (Aurangabad, Bidar, and the city of Hyderabad); some Hindus were beginning to flee to surrounding regions, causing refugee problems in neighboring Madras. There were also rumors that arms were being smuggled into Hyderabad from Pakistan as well as eastern Europe, which was just recovering from the mother of all wars. While the Nizam resisted acceding to India out of self-interest, Kasim Razvi and his Razakars were resisting out of ideology, and they had the numbers — and would eventually have the arms — to pose a threat to a new Indian government with lots of other problems to deal with.
After Mountbatten’s departure in June 1948, the Indian union’s patience with Hyderabad ran out, and in September 1948, a military force moved in. Within a few days the Razakars were out of business, and the Nizam publicly agreed to accede to India.
Today, I think, few people could seriously imagine a different outcome. But if the Indian government had been less focused on its objective, or if it had decided that military force wasn’t necessary, or even if it had delayed further in using force, I think it’s a distinct possibility that Hyderabad might have remained free for at least a few years longer, and the story of accession could have been much bloodier. As to whether Hyderabad could have remained independent forever, it seems like a rather remote possibility — though it is interesting to contemplate.
if pakistan and bangladesh could remain independant, why is the possibility of hyderabad remaining independant remote? couldnt it just have been another one of these south asian countries?
Dude Amardeep, I am on with the reading club.
One of the person who is the unsung hero is VP Menon.
VP Menon, started as low clerk, and rose as one of the highest ranking civil servant in India, whom Mountbatten and Patel looked up to as a respected peer. He was a very tough, single minded negotiator…be it Jodhpur, Kashmir, Baroda princely states.
When he was very young, he moved to Delhi, and had all his money stolen during the trip. An elderly Sikh at the railway station loaned him 15 rupees, and asked him to pay it forward always to any honest, needy person rather than paying him back. VP Menon’s daughter recalled that a few days before he died, he asked her to give 15 rupees to a needy man at his gate. He never forgot his gratitude.
if pakistan and bangladesh could remain independant, why is the possibility of hyderabad remaining independant remote? couldnt it just have been another one of these south asian countries?
Well, the biggest reason is probably that it had a substantial Hindu majority. The other might be that it was just unthinkable to the new Indian leadership to have the south cut effectively in half.
Jaswant Singh has an interesting take on this aspect in his autobiography. Btw, not all states were as awful as they are made out to be. People in the erstwhile Mysore state recall the days of the Maharajah quite fondly since it has gone downhill since then. Common people in the old Mysore parts of Karnataka felt that the coming of the Congress govt meant that things would be worse. Btw, the British hardly built as many schools/academic institutions as native Indians did. Quite a few Maharajahs built mighty fine institutions of learning too (Jaipur and Mysore are good examples).
It looks like it would have been entirely contained inside Indian territory. Map. Outside of the Vatican, I can’t think of another such example.
Also, the state of Hyderabad is right in the middle of India.
Same with Junagadh.
Sorry, here is the map.
Puli, I dont understand the logic of what you’re asking? On what basis would “Hyderabad” remain independent. Mana ke you have little grasp of the Indian freedom struggle but apply the same analogy to the post-American Civil war era,should New Mexico and Texas be awarded independent nation status? By the way, Bangladesh created in the 70’s post Non-aligned movement days. Part of me feels that its should have been annexed too! We paid too dear a price to create a future enemy!
It looks like it would have been entirely contained inside Indian territory. Map. Outside of the Vatican, I can’t think of another such example.
lesotho? which is operationally existed as a puppet of south africa for many years.
but yeah, a large minority-dominated state surrounded by a majority-dominated one (muslim & hindu that is) seems untenable. a small tutsi minority elite has ruled rwanda for years, but it is not surrounded by hutu dominated states.
Outside of the Vatican, I can’t think of another such example.
Lesotha inside South Africa. Again, a complicated story.
Also, during apartheid, there were other “homelands” within SA, to contain the African-origin population.
On what basis would “Hyderabad” remain independent.
Maybe on the basis that the people wanted to. I am not suggesting that the entire population of Hyderabad were for independence, but if they were, that would have been a good basis.
btw, i meant burundi. rwanda has been mostly hutu run since independence from what i recall, though though the tutsis are in control again.
that is correct. thats why i ask a lot of questions.
that is correct. thats why i ask a lot of questions.
Then, why don’t you read India After Gandhi along with Amardeep, me, and others now.
Maybe on the basis that the people wanted to. I am not suggesting that the entire population of Hyderabad were for independence, but if they were, that would have been a good basis.
if you were to take betting odds what would you bet with what you know that the residents of hyderabad would favor independence vs. becoming part of india? i suspect that any independence oriented sentiment would be highly contingent upon the type of polity that is the objective (e.g., a democratic republic vs. a theocratic muslim monarchy?). i can’t see how a muslim ruled state could be persist with a hindu majority totally surrounded by a hindu majority state an order of magnitude larger and more powerful.
i would ABOSLUTELY love to. over run with work and homework though.
Sorry.Puli…bhaisaab..did’nt mean to hurt your feeling..please do ask your queries..Indian Independence is a fascinating story of human determination..and suffering..with a million angles.
Additional material is at this URL, and in the references cited there.
Nice post and good summary, Amardeep!
Just a small anecdote on how significant the Nizam of Hyderabad’s wealth was, and how strong his sympathies were with Pakistan at the time:
When Pakistan was formed, there was a delay of several months in its receiving its formal share of the ‘sterling balances’ which the British owed to India after the War. The delay was, of course, quite deliberate on the part of the Indian government. As a result, it quite literally was about to go bankrupt. At this time, according to Wolpert’s book on Jinnah (which I recently read – and would recommend to others interested) Pakistan was saved only because the Nizam personally loaned Pakistan Rs. 20 crore, which Jinnah asked him for.
Of course this also illustrates, at the least, the lack of planning on the part of the British, but also the enormous ill-will, bordering on the infanticidal, that the Nehru-Patel government had for Pakistan. I would speculate that if the Indian government, Nehru in particular, had shown greater magnanimity and statesmanship over the matter of the sterling balances, and even just appeared to treat Jinnah and Pakistan with a degree of respect – even simply that owing a fellow Head of State of a Commonwealth country – the history of India and Pakistan could have been very different.
This would also apply to Hyderabad, because, had Jinnah not approached the Nizam for a loan, the Nizam might have been convinced of Nehru-Patel’s bona fides sooner and the Razakars also might not have gotten so riled up.
Reading Wolpert gave me the clear impression that much of Jinnah’s behavior and demands, even till the very last minute when Partition was announced – June 2, 1947 – was motivated by his sense that Nehru was constantly trying to belittle him personally, as well as his sense that his own life was ebbing away. The fact that Nehru and the Mountbattens hit it off very well did nothing to assuage this sentiment. And I do think it is this personal bitterness between Nehru and Jinnah, and the actions that each took at a personal level that spilt over into their national decisions – that is at the root of the bitter antagonism between Pakistan and India.
no worries.
The Majlis, an important regional part of modern-day Hyderabad, can be traced to Kasim Razvi. See here and here
These URLS spell the last name with two i’s—Rizvi instead of Razvi
I agree with Quizman @4: some of the princely states did quite a bit for their subjects. Mysore seemed to have been quite enlightened, had relatively good infrastructure – irrigation and electricity, roads and canals and dams; education, both primary and higher, including for women. The Mysore maharaja apparently also enjoyed a degree of popularity that today’s politicians would highly covet.
But Hyderabad was probably a different story. I do not think the Nizam had any reputation as an enlightened monarch.
I too was surprised on reading about the significantly important role Mr Menon played in the whole process. When growing up and reading Indian history, I remember reading very little about Sardar Patel, and definitely nothing about Mr Menon. Also, the book does mention some interesting things like the Navab of Junagadh’s obsession with dogs (or was it the Hyderabad guy).
All the same, they had to pay significant taxes to the British crown, and none were allowed to maintain their own armies.
Amardeep, I am sure a very few states, like Kashmir and handful of others had armies. Sure, they had severe binding (strict controls) arrangements with the British Indian Army, and even fought both the great wars with (for) them.
Navab of Junagadh’s obsession with dogs (or was it the Hyderabad guy).
It was Junagadh
I agree with Quizman @4: some of the princely states did quite a bit for their subjects. Mysore seemed to have been quite enlightened, had relatively good infrastructure – irrigation and electricity, roads and canals and dams; education, both primary and higher, including for women. The Mysore maharaja apparently also enjoyed a degree of popularity that today’s politicians would highly covet.
Guha also notes the Mysore exception, I think. Perhaps I should have said, the Princely States in general were among the most backward in India. I think some Indians romanticize the Princely States a bit (definitely Bollywood does this… think “Zubeidaa”); I would rather romanticize India’s democratic leaders.
Ardy (#23), Sardar Patel is a very interesting and important figure — someone who sometimes gets overlooked since his colleagues were Gandhi and Nehru. Wikipedia is pretty thorough on him (much less so on some of the other names and events discussed in this post).
And Kush (#24), I stand corrected.
As someone pointed out, the geography was pivotal. India had to act selfishly and it did. If I was in charge of India, I would have done exactly the same. India is having enough problems with Bangladesh with which it was supposed to be friends with. Just imagine how much worse it would have been in Hyderabad – an area where you still have some strife(but managable) and naxalites. It would have been an unacceptable security risk. It was best to act early when things like national identity were still in its infancy. As far as justice? At one time, the Nizam wasn’t native to that region. Now it was his turn to get conquered.
My grandfather and his family were active in the freedom movement. He and my uncles would praise Patel. So I have always admired the man. It is a good thing he was there so Nehru would not mess things up if left all by himself. By the way, people should not confuse V.P. Menon with Krishna Menon who was Nehru’s guy.
Amardeep – over time I have become aware of SPs importance, just that I find it a little messed up that all he got was lip service in the history I read in school. Sure he was glorified as a freedom fighter like many others, but cruciality of the roles he played post Independence was never stressed. And that Mr Menon did not even get that. But then in the introduction Guha does mention that Indian history for all academic purposes just stopped post independence and all the things that are so essential to make what India is today are never talked about.
BTW, I was wondering if maybe we should do this more on a topical basis. For example discussing Kashmir vis a vis Hyderabad would be more interesting and then later would come the incidents related to Sheikh Abdullah. While the Indian constitution would be a stand alone topic.
Sure he was glorified as a freedom fighter like many others, but cruciality of the roles he played post Independence was never stressed
He became a household name after Bardoli, and was known as a very distinguished lawyer, and mass organizer. Or Iron Man of India/ Indian Cesear/ Patron Saint of Indian Civil Servants.
To know of VP Menon’s significance, one has to be a serious student of Indian history, as it is not touched in cursory narrative.
I was always under the impression that much of modern-day Andhra Pradesh’s wealth came from coastal Andhra (in the form of agricultural products), which was part of Madras state at the time of independence. I get the sense that the Nizam’s wealth wouldn’t have lasted very long, especially if he got it through extortion or such means and not by building infrastructure to benefit Hyderabad residents. I do wonder if the Hindu majority would have reacted violently if Hyderabad were to remain independent…
As a child I never understood why my grandparents would not eat meat bought from a Muslim butcher (almost all butchers are Muslims in Hyderabad) and why they fasted on a particular day each month in remembrance of what happened during the independence movement. To me it was just a nuisance that we had to go across the city to a Sikh butcher.
It was only last year that I found out from my grandmothers sister about what they all went through during the Razakar movement. There was large scale looting, rape and killing. She told of one incident one day in their neighboring hamlet where all the men were rounded up and shot dead and all the women were paraded naked. This is why my grandmother fasts in remembrance.
Also, the situation is more complicated than Muslim vs. Hindu. There were many Hindu (sub-rulers/vassals) who worked with the Razakars to maintain the status quo. There was apparently this guy called something Reddy who would round up all people who spoke up against the Nizam or the Razakars and get them on top of grass mounds that were used to feed cattle. They would then set the grass on fire and shoot anyone who tried to jump off. After Operation Polo this guy tried to escape but was captured by the people in railway station and the mob tore him to pieces so bad that they could not find any part of his body afterwards.
Another thing not to forget is that the brutality of Nizam’s government was not limited to just during the period around 1947. This was what had happened on a regular basis to all members of the Congress or the Communist parties for many years not to mention inhuman subjugation of the masses for a long time before. There was no freedom of press, Urdu was made the official language and medium of instruction in schools(all older people in erstwhile Hyderabad state were educated in Urdu), forced conversions to Islam, preferential treatment of Muslims as a matter of state policy, lack of women’s rights, forced purdah etc.
There are many anecdotes that I have heard over time like how my grandfather used to be beaten up and bullied by Muslim students on the way to school everyday. Maybe I will post more as I recollect them later.
Sorry to all of you if I am spoiling the pleasant intellectual discourse with gruesome details, but I just had to make it clear that while what happened might seem like some geo political game with a small death count compared to the partition, the history of Hyderabad states accession to India was still bloody and was more about over throwing a cruel tyrant than a Hindu/Muslim India/Pakistan issue.
Re 8:
Speaking as a DBD Bangladeshi and a Bengali here (from the generation in which almost every family one knew had lost someone in the war), we appreciated the Indian support during 1971; but I think it might be considered a tad overreaching to suggest that you created us, or that a people’s aspiration for independence and sovereignty could so very easily be stifled under the iron heel of annexation.
Seriously though, why do you consider us a future enemy and why do you feel we should have been annexed? We might not be overly keen on replacing one hegemon with another, and our respective governments (I am assuming you are Indian here, and not Indian-American) might not see eye to eye on every issue (e.g. water-sharing from our common rivers), but we certainly don’t view India as a future foe. This wouldn’t be something as infantile as us having a largely Muslim population now, would it?
I am afraid I find your comments rather ironic, particularly since it has been suggested on this forum that the first stirrings of a pan-subcontinental identity, one that was felt during the Sepoy Mutiny, probably began with the Bengalis.
Not very surprising – Indian history is a hagiography of the Gandhi – Nehru Dynasty (guess who wrote the checks for the Indian History professors for 40+ years). Here’s a good biography on Patel. (Note who the biographer is.)
A bit on Patels’s role and a description of the liberation can be found here
Beige Siege: I am grateful to you for sharing this intensely private part of your family history. I think that at the end of the day, the inside view you gave us would have provided us far more insight into those traumatic days than anything else in the thread — and I suspect I am not the only one on the thread who feels this way.
As is Rajaji. Not to take away from Nehru’s stature, but its a shame that Gandhi’s head (Rajaji) and hands (Patel) don’t get as much attention as his heart (Nehru)
As a child I never understood why my grandparents would not eat meat bought from a Muslim butcher (almost all butchers are Muslims in Hyderabad) and why they fasted on a particular day each month in remembrance of what happened during the independence movement. To me it was just a nuisance that we had to go across the city to a Sikh butcher.
Good thing they were punishing the sob for what his co-religionists did 60 years back.
these experiences can be traumatic. i wouldnt be that harsh on them if i saw such messed up things.
i actually agree with al_chutiya (apropos, #36. #37). three of my mom’s uncles were killed by muslim rioters during the partition (the bengal part), so i have seen this attitude among some member’s of my mom’s family too; but the riots had a very different effect on my mom,my uncle and my grandparents (among others). it turned them off organized religion forever (to this day my mom cannot stand religious piety, any religion). maybe it was because my grandfather was a leftist freedom fighter, but i think this latter reaction is more sensible (i prefer it anyhow over unmitigated hatred based on religions group identity).
typo, i meant “religious group identity” above.
these experiences can be traumatic. i wouldnt be that harsh on them if i saw such messed up things.
I am not going to condone their behavior not that they do/should care. Taking out revenge on people they perceive to be Muslims in 07 for what their co-religionists did in 47 makes no sense.
There is nothing wrong with direct victims of a riot to boycott a certain butcher because of bad memories even if the butcher had nothing to do with it as long as the victims do not incite an entire community into continuing a war with another community forever. After a couple of generations, we need to move on because one can keep tracing slights down the line. If we have no problem listening to British rock or read certain British literature, despite differences among our ancestor, I don’t see why we need to carry grudges past the generations impacted directly by this.
AL Chutiya, these family members who boycotted the butcher did not attack him or organize others into boycotting him. They merely shut themselves off from a certain section of society which is not healthy. But at the same time they are dealing with it in a way that is at least not harming the muslim segment of the society.
While I was not a resident of Hyderabad during 1948 (by virtue of not being born), I was eventually born and raised in Hyderabad before I came to the US and I am glad India took it when it could. For those with an interest in the military perspective: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE2-3/lns.html
But at the same time they are dealing with it in a way that is at least not harming the muslim segment of the society.
They are harming them by engaging in economic boycotts. They were apparently boycotting all butchers they perceived to be Muslims. All these butchers were not involved 60 years back in persecuting their family. This sort of collective punishment is not a good way to move forward.
I agree with Al Chutiya–boycotting a Mohammedan butcher because of Mohammedan atrocities sixty years in the past is nonsensical.
I would suggest that this is not entirely a coincidence. Patel and Nehru did clash on many occasions, including on how to deal with Kashmir and Muslims in India. Rajaji had suggested various compromises between Nehru and Jinnah both during and after WW-II, which would lead to meeting many of the Muslim League demands including separate electorates, but would have lead to the dropping of the demand for Partition. Of course, Nehru didn’t want any acknowledgement of Jinnah’s demands at all.
Another person similarly forgotten is Bhulabhai Desai, chief of the Bombay Presidency Congress party, who wisely began negotiations with Liaquat Ali Khan in 1944-45, to form a joint Congress-League coalition government for a united India after the war. He did so without Nehru knowing (both Nehru and Gandhi and other ‘Congressmen’ were then in jail), as did Liaquat without Jinnah’s knowledge. But the news leaked out and unfortunately, the League both denied the deal and that any agreements were even possible or conceivable at all. So Bhulabhai, whose health was already failing (which is why he was out of jail), paid the price, was ‘disciplined’ by Congress, denied a ticket for the 1946 elections, and slowly forgotten by history. He died the same year.
In each case, the person forgotten is someone who did something that, while it may have been good for the country, did not meet Nehru’s own sense of what was to be done. So whether Gandhi was responsible for raising Nehru’s prestige sky-high above these individuals, or whether Nehru himself so totally dominated independent India that these people were forgotten by default, it remains more than possible that these individuals paid the price for crossing him. Although, let it be said that Rajaji was Governor-General during 1948-49 after Mountbatten left and before Prasad became President in 1950.
with a name like that, what did he expect?
The differences between Nehru and Sardar Patel are overblown, usually by people who want to claim Patel to justify their own interpretations of a “strong realist” India versus a “weak/idealist” India. Both Nehru and Patel were colleagues, bound together by their common acceptance of Mahatma Gandhi as the moral guide of the freedom movement (Patel implemented Gandhi’s ideals in the Kheda satyagraha, 1918-1919). Nehru and Patel might have had their differences but they always respected and trusted each other and, very importantly, never broke with each other publicly on policies and administrative direction.
Like I said, I do not think it is the logical thing or the best option. But I can understand it as long as the affected family keeps it to themselves and not organize a boycott with other people. It is like some raped women who have had multiple bad experiences with men and choose to avoid men for most of their lives. It is not necessarily the best option, but it is understandable. Hopefully time will heal and the next generation doesnt get affect permanently.
Why wouldn’t they boycott the Muslim butchers? If they believed their grievance was not addressed, no apology offered, from a time 60 years in the past, this is a nonviolent means to address that grievance today.
Economic Boycott? Collective Punishment?
Get some perspective instead of posting knee jerk reactions. How can you imply that somehow the behavior of my grandparents is equivalent to the Razakars by choosing that one line from the entire post? You make it sound like the livelihood of the butchers is somehow being affected by what my grandparents choose to do. Like I mentioned in my post, their choice to not buy meat from Muslim butchers and fasting was just a way to remember what they experienced. Also, they never forced their beliefs on their children or grand children.
Perhaps you are a perfect individual who buys produce on an equal opportunity basis with no principles being involved?
Dude, Are you a 60 year old schooled in the colonialist tradition? Perhaps you dint realize Mohammedan is not a term people have used in the last 40 years or so.
If behaving in an illogical way based on what happened in the past qualifies as nonsensical, I am sure you find religion and religious traditions nonsensical as well. I do. Unless ofcourse you are selective about what makes sense and what doesn’t.