Forgotten Hyderabad Massacre

Forgotten Hyderabad Massacre

Introduction  

When India was partitioned in 1947, about 500,000 people died in communal rioting, mainly along the borders with Pakistan. But a year later another massacre occurred in central India, which until now has remained clouded in secrecy   In September and October 1948, soon after independence from the British Empire, tens of thousands of people were brutally slaughtered in central India. Some were lined up and shot by Indian Army soldiers. Yet a government-commissioned report into what happened was never published and few in India know about the massacre. Critics have accused successive Indian governments of continuing a cover-up. Critics have accused successive Indian governments of continuing a cover-up.

On the 14th of August 1947 Pakistan was formally declared a new independent Dominion with Mohammad Ali Jinnah as it’s first Governor General. On the following day India was declared a new independent Dominion with Lord Louis Mountbatten as it’s first Governor General. Hyderabad declared its independence on the same day and despite its size, being land locked, she asked India for a stand-still agreement to allow time to negotiate a fuller agreement over future relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4oeE1WMFdc

The Massacres

"The massacres took place a year after the violence of partition in what was then Hyderabad state, in the heart of India. It was one of 500 princely states that had enjoyed autonomy under British colonial rule. When independence came in 1947 nearly all of these states agreed to become part of India. But Hyderabad's Muslim Nizam or prince, insisted on remaining independent. This outraged the new country's mainly Hindu leaders in New Delhi. After an acrimonious stand-off between Delhi and Hyderabad, the government finally lost patience. 

In addition, their desire to prevent an independent Muslim-led state-taking root in the heart of pre-dominantly Hindu India was another worry. Members of the powerful Razakar militia, the armed wing of Hyderabad's most powerful Muslim political party, were terrorizing many Hindu villagers (although this claim was a fabrication as the militia was engaged in law and order maintenance). This gave the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the pretext he needed. In September 1948 the Indian Army invaded Hyderabad. In what was rather misleadingly known as a 'police action', the Nizam's forces were defeated after just a few days without any significant loss of civilian lives. But word then reached Delhi that arson, looting and the mass murder and rape of Muslims had followed the invasion.

 Partition of Sub continent and Princely States

When independence came in 1947 nearly all of these states agreed to become part of India. But Hyderabad's Muslim Nizam, or prince, insisted on remaining independent. This refusal to surrender sovereignty to the new democratic India outraged the country's leaders in New Delhi. after an acrimonious stand-off between Delhi and Hyderabad, the government finally lost patience. The State Congress as well as the Arya Samaj and other organizations had launched a propaganda campaign alleging that the Nizam government and the para-military Razakaars are harassing the Hindu majority of Hyderabad and that their lives and property are in great danger. Influenced by such propaganda and emboldened by India’s independence, activists of the above mentioned organizations and criminal elements started attacking border areas of Nizam’s Dominions from within as well as from India.

In Police Action Ki Bhooli Tareekh Ka Aik Janbaaz Shaheed, A.R. Yaf’ai provides an account of his father Muhammad Isa Yafa’I’s activities in defending Hyderabad from the nefarious onslaught of communalists and highway robbers who in the name of independence had unleashed a wave of violence in the Udgir area of modern-day Bidar district.

Trouble started brewing in Udgir in 1938 when the Arya Samajists took out a provocative Dussehra procession and murdered a Muslim resident. Sensing the coming upheaval and the disorganization of Muslims Isa Yaf’ai left his governmental post as sub-inspector in the excise department to lead the Razakaars in his native Udgir. Isa Yaf’ai immediately set to work and started organizing the Razakaars and was conferred with title of Salar.

He faced an uphill task as the Muslim community was rife with opportunists. The local Majlis-e-Ittehad ul Muslimeen, of which the Razakaars were an offshoot, was also not free from such characters. Help from Hyderabad was not forthcoming. Numerous requests to the government and Razakaar and Majlis leadership fell on deaf ears as the situation worsened by the day. Salar Yaf’ai did whatever he could relying on the local resources. Benefiting greatly from this situation was the highway brigand Appa Rao who regularly carried raids on Muslim settlements.
As political deliberations between Hyderabad and New Delhi failed and with an all out military attack looming Yaf’ai moved the town’s Muslim community to one of the interior villages hoping that this will save lives. The military came and assured them that they will not be harmed if they give up their arms. However this was not to be and thousands of unarmed Muslims were killed indiscriminately as the army watched. Not only this but the author presents eye-witness testimony to prove that the army provided arms to the attackers and actively participated in the killings.   as 30,000 people were killed in the Udgir area alone.

The claims that the Razakars looted and killed the Hindus are fabrications,   that they were not at all communal and that they in fact protected Hindu lives and property. This is attested by the fact that there were many Hindus like Lakshayya who actively collaborated with them.  

.

 Sunderlal report

Determined to get to the bottom of what was happening, an alarmed Nehru commissioned a small mixed-faith team to go to Hyderabad to investigate. It was led by a Hindu congressman, Pandit Sunderlal. But the resulting report that bore his name was never published.

The Sunderlal team visited dozens of villages throughout the state. At each one they carefully chronicled the accounts of Muslims who had survived the appalling violence: 'We had absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the effect that there were instances in which men belonging to the Indian Army and also to the local police took part in looting and even other crimes. During our tour we gathered, at not a few places, that soldiers encouraged, persuaded and in a few cases even compelled the Hindu mob to loot Muslim shops and houses.

"The team reported that while Muslims villagers were disarmed by the Indian Army, Hindus were often left with their weapons. In some cases, it said, Indian soldiers themselves took an active hand in the butchery: 'At a number of places members of the armed forces brought out Muslim adult males from villages and towns and massacred them in cold blood.' The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims. The backlash was said to have been in response to many years of intimidation and violence against Hindus by the Razakars.

In confidential notes attached to the Sunderlal report, its authors detailed the gruesome nature of the Hindu revenge: 'In many places we were shown wells still full of corpses that were rotting. In one such we counted 11 bodies, which included that of a woman with a small child sticking to her breast.' And it went on: 'We saw remnants of corpses lying in ditches. At several places the bodies had been burnt and we would see the charred bones and skulls still lying there.'

The Sunderlal report estimated that between 27,000 to 40,000 people lost their lives. No official explanation was given for Nehru's decision not to publish the contents of the Sunderlal report, though it is likely that, in the powder-keg years that followed independence, news of what happened might have sparked more Muslim reprisals against Hindus.

It is also unclear why, all these decades later, there is still no reference to what happened in the nation's schoolbooks. Even today few Indians have any idea what happened. The Sunderlal report, although unknown to many, is now open for viewing at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi  Some who survived the massacre contend  'What happens, reaction and counter-reaction and various things will go on and on, but at the academic level, at the research level, at your broadcasting level, let these things come out. I have no problem with that.' 

JINNAH'S VIEW ABOUT HYDERABAD

The Quaid had very definite views in regard to Hyderabad. He felt that the days of autocracy were over and the administration should therefore pass into the hands of the people without much delay. He felt that Hyderabad possessed heritage which should be a source of pride both to Hindus and Muslims of that country. The very fact that despite tense feelings and bloody rioting all over the sub-continent, conditions in Hyderabad had remained peaceful was, he regarded sufficient proof of the truth, that Hyderabad, by virtue of its traditions, culture and inter-communal relations stood in a category apart. He believed that the Muslims and Hindus there should jointly shoulder the responsibility of the government and administration. He was certain that once the Hindus of Hyderabad had their full share in the responsibility of administering the State, it was most unlikely that they would wish to merge with the Indian Union by which they would have nothing to gain but a great deal to lose. He was not unmindful of the fact that in Hyderabad the Muslims were very much behind the Hindus in the field of commerce and other walks of life and at present the mainstay of their subsistence was services in various civil and military departments of the government. He thought that there should be a period of transition in which the Muslim community should be helped to find other avenues of occupation and the Hindus should be given greater share in public services and administration. He felt that parity of representation should immediately be introduced in the legislature, and all other ranks of services, and in due course a more stable and acceptable proportion established. He also felt that Hyderabad should try to maintain and hold its position as a great seat of culture and tradition and continue to give lead to the surrounding areas in every walk of life. He feared that conditions in central and southern provinces of India might force some of the Muslim population to migrate into Hyderabad and he hoped that Hyderabad would give them the shelter and protection that they may need. He believed that the very fact of Muslims in those areas finding themselves free to move into Hyderabad would create in them the confidence and sense of security which was so much needed for their very existence and would eventually help them to stay where they were. The Hindu population in these areas also would take cognizance of this fact and would refrain, from ill-treating the Muslim minorities. Not for a moment did he think it was necessary or advisable for Hyderabad to accede to Pakistan.
"Quaid thought if India would go to the extent of using armed force in making Hyderabad accede to India. He said he did not like making prophesies but thought that was most improbable. Apart from the constitutional position under the Independence of India Act, he felt that the world opinion would go very much against India if she ever went to the extent of armed intervention in the affairs of Hyderabad. He concluded by saying that he would do everything in his power to help Hyderabad in building up honorable and lasting relations with India and securing a dignified political position for itself.
 

Conclusions

The Hyderabad massacre resulted in the gruesome killing of about 40000 people , Muslims at the hands of Indian Army and Hindu extremists elements . The long suppressed Sunderlal Report whose full text is now available   should also be made available to public as it sheds much light on the massacres. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. So goes the saying. For Muslims, 1948 serves as a lesson as to what can happen when they ignore reality and let their passions take over. It is vital that Indians know of the gory events of the attack on and annexation of Hyderabad. No longer can this issue be put on the back burner on the plea that it will instigate violence or threaten national integration. When the Germans and the Americans can objectively study their past and acknowledge their darker aspects why can’t we?