Re-cession of Seemandhra to the Nizam: A Historical Vignette
It seems evident that history is much used, misused and abused to serve individual, party political and ideological purposes. It is also an incontrovertible fact that history is written by the victors.
On the Liberation / Conquest / Accession / Annexation / Integration (many words can describe the same thing) of Hyderabad, much has been written about what happened and how it happened. Most of it is perception bearing a tenuous relation to reality.
The reality had to wait for a professional historian to consult the archives in Hyderabad, New Delhi and London and other documents and reveal as much of the real picture as was possible.
The book by the Australian historian, Lucien D Benichou, “From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State (1938-1948)” published by Orient Blackswan, is balanced and well-researched. It is required reading for those interested in the last chapter of Hyderabad State.
In the context of the Telangana statehood movement, the attitude of the Majlis -e- Ittihad- ul-Muslimeen (Ittihad) towards Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema emerges from the book.
The Ittihad was formed in 1929. Its objectives were: “(1) to unite and help the various Islamic sects for the solution of their common problems within the principle of Islam, (2) to protect the economic, social, and educational interest of Muslims and (3) to express loyalty to the land and to the Ruler and to respect the prevalent laws of the Realm.” (p.90).
Its young founder, Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, was sophisticated, eloquent, hot-tempered, dynamic and reckless. He dealt with Nizam VII directly, but also negotiated with M Narsing Rao and others of the Andhra Jana Sangh, which represented Congress and Hindu interests.
In the Hyderabad political drama, the only principal actors were Nizam VII and Bahadur Yar Jung: they tried to use or complement each other. This jugalbandhi continued till Bahadur Yar Jung died suddenly on 25th June 1944. He was only 39 years old but had made his decisive presence felt – for good or bad – in the Hyderabad story.
More important things apart, Ittihad advocated a reversal of history, regarding the Nizam’s former possessions. In 1766 and 1778, Nizam II had given the Northern Circars (Coastal Andhra region) to the East India Company for an annual rent of 5 lakhs rupees.
Fifty-five years later, in 1823, when Nizam III needed funds, they were sold outright to the Company for one crore and sixty-six lakh rupees.
Nizam II had also made a deal in 1800 with the Company, giving away the Rayalaseema region (as a result called the Ceded Districts) which he had received as part of his share of Tipu Sultan’s territories in 1792-99.
In exchange, the Company agreed to station “a permanent subsidiary force of eight battalions of sepoys and two regiments of cavalry” in Hyderabad State for its protection.
What Bahadur Yar Jung proposed in September
1940 was to reverse these treaties. Hyderabad would buy back the Circars
and the Ceded Districts for 40 million pounds outright! He also
indicated that the British were agreeable.
He campaigned in South India and spoke in Bandar (Machilipatnam), Madras and Eluru. While local Muslims in the Coastal Andhra and Ralayaseema regions were in favour, Telugu-speaking Hindus were vociferously against this plan.
The whole idea seemed quite plausible since the British Isles were besieged by the Germans and the Luftwaffe (the German air force) was bombing London and other British cities. The German invasion of England was expected any day. The British were also running out of money.
The
States’ Peoples, a Congress mouthpiece, stated in October 1940 that
while this fabulous offer may be tempting to the British in their
distress: “The Andhra Desa is not a football…to be kicked from one goal
to another.
The proposed transfer by gift or purchase concerns
the life and liberties …of eighteen millions of Andhras . You cannot
uproot them in a day and transplant a whole sub-nation on a different
soil that is…. barren of democratic springs” (p.124, footnote 27).
Of course, for Bahadur Yar Jung and the Nizam it was, then as it had been 150-odd years earlier, a simple land transaction, and the people’s wishes did not come into the picture.
Nizam VII had already given massive donations for the British war effort, including the cost of a destroyer (lent by the British to the Royal Australian Navy and called HMAS Nizam).
Additionally, in July 1940 he offered 50,000 pounds from the Hyderabad State exchequer and an unprecedented personal gift of five lakhs of rupees. The Nizam had money and the British needed it!
At the Ittihad’s 13th Annual Conference at Jalna on 1st January 1942, Bahadur Yar Jung repeated before 15,000 delegates the Hyderabad offer for the Northern Circars and Ceded Districts.
The Deccan Times (Madras) on 1st February 1942 reported that the British government was “quite amenable to His Exalted Highness’ demands” and that a notification confirming it would be issued shortly.
The Hindu
(9th February 1942) published the Masulipatnam Journalists Association
resolution that: “ no portion of the territory in and outside the town
of Masulipatnam or forming part of ...the Northern Circars should be
given over to …the Nizam of Hyderabad as he has surrendered his
sovereign rights ..by previous historical treaties and declarations.”
(pp.125-126).
Singapore, Burma and the Andamans had fallen by early 1942 to the Japanese and their aircraft-carriers were roaming unopposed in the Bay of Bengal after Royal Navy suffered heavy losses off Ceylon. In April 1942, Japanese carrier-based bombers attacked Kakinada and Visakhapatnam.
The controversy was finally ended when the British denied the existence of the re-cession plan for Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. The affair illustrates the fact that the desire to unify territories has many motives and much depends on who is making the case for it.
What Bahadur Yar Jung proposed could also be seen as an attempt to unify the Telugu people under one government.
But
in 1939-42 it was unacceptable to the people of Coastal Andhra and
Rayalseema. The same people, once the Nizam was dispossessed, became the
driving force for merger with Telangana 10 years later in 1953-56!
Meanwhile,
Yanam, an enclave within East Godavari, though liberated from the
French in 1954, continued to be a part of the Tamil-speaking Pondicherry
State and forgotten by the Vishalandhra/Seemandhra enthusiasts.
By Goutam Pingle
కేవలం 23,000 జనాభా ఉన్న యానాం పట్టణం మీద సమైక్యవాదులకి ఆశ ఎందుకు ఉంటుంది? వాళ్ళకి కావలసినది హైదరాబాద్ ఒక్కటే కదా.
ReplyDeleteThis article itself is with half-baked truths written by some non-telugu.and being supported by this self styled telangana supproter mr praeen sarma. People will definitely be interested in Hyderabad. Why not? Everyone looks towards it as it is their capital and every telugu has an undeniable right on it
ReplyDeletesreerama, chennai
Praveen Sharma
ReplyDeleteనిజం చెప్పారు. వారికి కావల్సింది స్వలాభం మాత్రమే. తెలుగుజాతి, సమైక్యత అంతా బూటకం తప్ప మరోటి కాదు.
Sreerama,
ReplyDeleteCould you give reasons before branding the article as half baked if you can?
If you are concerned about capital, then why don't you directly mention that instead of coining the deceptive statements like Samaikyata, Telugu Jati?
If you people come sqarely about Hyderabad, then there can be a chance to review the accounts since formation of state as to who are actually benefited by Hyderabad revenue.
Read this link: http://telanganasolidarity.in/74691333
ReplyDeletePraveen Sarma,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link.
కాకినాడ పట్టణంలోని ఒక వీధి కూడా పాండీచెర్రీ రాష్ట్ర పరధిలో ఉంది. ఆ వీధిలో నేరం జరిగితే యానాం పోలీస్ స్టేషన్లో కంపెయింట్ ఇవ్వాలి కానీ కాకినాడలో కంప్లెయింట్ ఇవ్వడానికి అవ్వదు. యానాంని ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్లో విలీనం చెయ్యాలని ధర్నా చెయ్యమంటే ఒక్క సమైక్యవాది కూడా ధర్నా చెయ్యడు. అదే హైదరాబాద్ కోసం సమైక్యవాద ఆందోళనలు చెయ్యమంటే వేల మంది కిరాయి మనుషులని తీసుకొచ్చి వీధుల్లో ఊరేగించి దుకాణాలు బలవంతంగా ముయ్యిస్తారు.
ReplyDeleteyanam has a historical bacekground and international identity. it has never been part of british india and not ever free india, prior to 1954.
ReplyDeleteit was different from other princely states like hyderabad because of its european roots or rule.
there had been an international agrement regarding cession of yanam to indian union. the violation of this agrement can also be questioned in international court by the subjects of yanam/pondicherry.
for more details see this link
http://yanamgurimchi.blogspot.com/2008/05/blog-post_2177.html
it is interesting to note that the rulers of princely states did not bargain with indian government to safeguard interests of their subjects just like french did. they were either terrified or lured by the "private purse" offered to them.
bollojubaba
This article proves one more point that officially also the proposal for merger came from Nizam ruled state. So the forced merger which T vaadis claiming is once again proved wrong.
ReplyDelete1901 నాటి పట్టణాల జనాభా లెక్కలు ఇవి:
ReplyDeleteఒంగోలు: 12,000
శ్రీకాకుళం: 18,000
విజయవాడ: 24,000
గుంటూరు: 30,000
రాజమండ్రి: 36,000
విజయనగరం: 37,000
విశాఖపట్నం: 40,000
కాకినాడ: 48,000
అప్పట్లో హైదరాబాద్ జనాభా ఎంతో తెలియదు కానీ 1920 నాటి జనాభా లెక్కల ప్రకారం హైదరాబాద్ జనాభా నాలుగు లక్షలు. అప్పట్లో దేశంలోని ఐదవ అతి పెద్ద నగరం హైదరాబాదే. అందుకే 1948 తరువాత హైదరాబాద్ కోసం రాష్ట్రంలో సమైక్యవాద ఉద్యమం పడగ విప్పింది.
బొల్లోజు బాబా,
ReplyDeleteIn spite of similar agreement with France, Chandan Nagar merged in Hubli district of West Bengal. The point is at least there is no demand or wish from the integrationists for a merger. We can't say every movement in india being run to the tune of previous agreements or constitutional spirit.
Above Anon,
Please be aware that the demand for merger is from erstwhile Hyderabad ruler and not from the people of Hyderabad state.
The point is that, even such demand was existed, you people had conveniently nipped it in the bud.
Further to that, you people demanded for separation during 1972. That clearly proves that you only talk about integration when there is your interest in it, else you prefer separation.
Yes, the article also illustrates how the imperialist and feudal powers of the bygone days played with people of one common root, namely the Telugu language - however different it may sound. The T vaadis seem to be keen to reestablish a Nizam type separate state.
ReplyDeleteThe Nizams might have played their part of play similar to all other rulers of those times. But for some reason, they have also wanted to unite Telugus, which was turned down by the same people who proclaim themselves as saviors of Telugu roots.
ReplyDeletedear Srikanth
ReplyDeleteIn spite of similar agreement with France, Chandan Nagar merged in Hubli district of West Bengal.
no no
the chandranagur has a different story. it was merged into indian union through a referendum conducted by the french government in which people of chandra nagur opted to be merged in neighbouring indian union way back in 1949 itself. the french gave it up.
but with regard to remaining french colonies namely pondicherry, mahe karaikal and yanam, here the people wanted to retain french rule.
that is why the french came forward to safeguard the interests of these people and bargained with indian union in favour of thier subjects. the result is treaty of cession signed by french and indian govts in 1956.
i still wonder why princely state heads did not bargain in this manner in favour of their subjects. which would definetly help in avoiding such these problems like telangana and andhra.
any how thanks for giving me space to air my point of view.
with best wishes
bollojubaba
Bolloju Baba garu,
ReplyDeleteIf Yanaam or Pondicherry opted to continue with French rule, why would it become part of India. Are you indicating that India has colonized these places without people's mandate?
please refer the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Puducherry#Cession_of_Yanam which depicts the fight mustered by Yanam public to merge in Indian Union.
Yeah that is one side of the coin.
ReplyDeleteThe other side is
There were many a number of French sympathizers in Pondicherry between 1947-1954.
After departure of britishers Indian union looked into other European settlements
It encouraged nationalist movement in Pondicherry through some local leaders like subbiah, gubaurt , dadala etc.
What Indian govt dare not do as in the case of Hyderabad is “military action” the reasons are very clear. (there were rumours in 1950s in Pondicherry claiming there would be a war between france and india then)
The Pondicherry was cut off from rest of its neighbourhood. No electricity, no water , no transport , no postal services.
one has to apply for passport to move out of pondicherry or into it. which was a great ordeal for common men
It went on for 7 years gradually people of Pondicherry lost hope in French, because of such torture. But people had love for French.
They agitated for the surrender of Pondicherry to france after its cession – but failed
A profrench party sweeped elections in 1955 – that also did not help
There had been a demand for autonomy of Pondicherry with in Indian union in 1956 – not accepted
There had been demand for dual citizenship to pondicherrians -- not accepted
In yanam too some profrench people made some agitations and meetings. They made many pleas to Nehru and French president. One named mr. samatam krishnayya who was leader of pro French camp, was shot dead by the armed soldiers (in mufti dress) of indian union on the day of liberation of yanam. Nehru wrote letter to Kakinada district collector to provide security to the agitators /liberators of yanam on the day of 13th july, 1954.
The French had then to leave though some of their subjects donot like it.
Hence they gave option to their subjects the French nationality. Nearly 50 thousand people from Pondicherry opted French nationality and were taken to france and provided equal jobs there.
Those who did not opt remained as Indians. But French also bargained with india to retain French culture in Pondicherry, a French school, French as official language , special administrative status etc etc. though a international treaty in 1956.
These are all unsung stories of history.
Without knowing all these people now wonder why Pondicherry has colonial smells still? Nehru did wrong in regard to Pondicherry making it a ut. bla.bla.bla.
the uniqueness of yanam is due to the fact that the people of yanam had sacrificed French to india. Now every body questions why it is not merged into ap or so.
If you kindly mail your address I will send my book namely “Frenchi paalanalo yanam” and “yanam vimochanodyamam”, if you are interested. The first book has a chapter dealing all these issues with relevant references and evidences.
With love
bollojubaba
Thanks for the info and the book. It is so kind of you. But I would prefer to buy the book in the shop and read if you provide the source.
ReplyDeleteబొల్లోజు బాబా గారు, లెగసీ పేరుతో యానాంని పాండీచెర్రీలో కొనసాగించడం అవసరమా? కాకినాడ పట్టణంలోని ఒక వీధి కూడా యానాం జిల్లాలోనే ఉందని రాజోలుకి చెందిన ఒక కార్ డ్రైవర్ నాకు చెప్పాడు. ఆ వీధిలో నేరం జరిగితే యానాం పోలీస్ స్టేషన్లో కంప్లెయింట్ ఇవ్వాలి కానీ కాకినాడలో కంప్లెయింట్ ఇవ్వడానికి అవ్వదు. యానాం పట్టణంలో బైపాస్ రోడ్ కాకుండా అన్ని రోడ్లు ఇరుకుగానే ఉంటాయి. యానాం మెయిన్ రోడ్లో ఆంధ్రా బస్సులు ఎక్కువగా తిరుగుతున్నా ఆ రోడ్ని వెడల్పు చెయ్యాలంటే ఆ పని పాండీచెర్రీ ప్రభుత్వం చెయ్యాలి. పరిపాలన ఇంత కష్టంగా ఉన్నప్పుడు యానాంకి ప్రత్యేక జిల్లా హోదా అవసరమా? దాన్ని తూర్పు గోదావరి జిల్లాలో కలిపేస్తే పోలేదా?
ReplyDelete