Independence
of Hyderabad: Issues Involved
BY O. S. N. MURTHY, M. A.
(Lecturer, West Godavari College, Bhimavaram)
With the transfer of power to Indian hands and the
division of what was British India into India and Pakistan, the Indo-British
and the Congress-League problem have been solved. Still there is one more
problem awaiting solution and that concerns the Indian States. The States
constitute a stumbling block in the way of a satisfactory political settlement
in India. The difficulty in this matter has partly disappeared with the
decision of most of the States to accede to either of the new Dominions. But
Hyderabad bad, the Premier State, refused to join the Indian Union and declared
its independence. This is an event, which is bound to have serious repercussions
and grave consequences inside the State as well as outside it. Leaving aside
the legal technicalities, some of the practical issues involved in the affair
are outlined here.
The people of Hyderabad are politically awake and
alert. They are fully alive to the political changes taking place outside their
State, and aspire to have the same freedom which their neighbours in the Indian
Union enjoy. The notable political organizations working towards that end are
the following.
The State Congress, comprising the bulk of Hindu
citizens, is the biggest political party. Next to it comes the Progressive
Peoples’ Organization supported by the Hindus and Non-Muslims outside the
Congress. The Communist Party is steadily growing in strength, and under its
banner have rallied not merely Hindu workers and peasants, but in the Muslim
labourers also. Ever since the announcement of the British plan towards India
on June 3, 1947, the State Congress, voicing the opinion of a vast majority of
the State’s citizens, has demanded, inter alia, the accession of the
State to the Dominion of India. And this demand has been supported by the
Communist Party also. But the only party that openly opposed the demand was the
Ittehad-ul-Mussalmin, a militant organization of Muslim feudal lords, whose
influence in the State is undeservedly as great as its numeric strength is
small. This party wants to keep the State aloof,–perhaps keeps it safe for
political and economic exploitation.
In the face of the clear demand of the State Congress
in favour of union with India, and the Civil Disobedience movement started by
it all over the State to press the demand, the Nizam of Hyderabad thought it
fit to declare the independence of his State–relying on the support of the
small coterie his co-religionists in the Ittehad-ul-Mussalmin. His declaration
is for all practical purposes a challenge to the democratic faith of an
overwhelming majority of the people of the State.
Nor is the declaration an event affecting the
political status of the people of that particular State alone. It is a matter
of serious consequence to the citizens of the Indian Union also. How?
The State of Hyderabad is geographically an
integral part of the Indian Union. It forms, as it were, an island in the
territories of the Union. The Ruler of such a State has refused to accede to
the Union, even for such carefully defined and cautiously delimited purposes as
Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communications. Not merely that, he made no secret
of his intention that, as an independent Ruler, he would enter into treaties
and alliances with States other than the Indian Union. This means that there is
a possibility of any foreign State entering into political and military
alliance with Hyderabad and trying to undermine the integrity and independence
of the Indian Union, both from within and without. Is not the independence of
Hyderabad, then, a challenge to the safety and security of the citizens of the
Indian Union? Have they fought against British domination for the last sixty years,
only to submit to domination by others? Are they to surrender their newly won
freedom by submitting to the intransigence of an Indian Prince, not supported
by his people in general?
The popular demand for an autonomous Pathanistan in
the N. W. F. Province was rejected on the ground that it would detract very
much from the strength of the Pakistan State. According to the same logic, the
attempt of an autocratic Ruler to retain his State as an independent entity–in
utter disregard of the wishes of his people–should be opposed as being
inconsistent with the larger interests of the Indian Union. Even big powers
like Britain, U.S.A., and U.S.S.R consider that attempts at control of seas or
territories, lying adjacent to their States or spheres of influence, by others
are inimical to their interests. In that case, must India, which has just
stated her independent career, allow any foreign power to interfere with her
independence under any pretext,–in this particular case, in the name of
alliance with the independent State of Hyderabad?
The threat to the Indian Union from an independent
Hyderabad seems all the more certain and serious, in view of the struggle for
power between the Muslim Ruler and the Hindu population inside the State, and
the longstanding and far-reaching differences between the Hindu and Muslim
communities outside it in the sub-continent of India.