September 17 Should Be Celebrated As Integration Day       

By Ramachandra Murthy Kondubhatla

September 17, no doubt is a historic day, a milestone in the history of Telangana. However, as history is prone to be interpreted or misinterpreted according to the interests of the person who is doing it, the history of Hyderabad becoming part of the Indian Union also is seen in differently, sometimes in diametrically opposite ways. The BJP and its supporters call it a ‘Liberation Day.’ Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) terms it as a ‘Betrayal Day.’ There are others, including the Congressmen and those who fought for a separate State of Telangana, who describe it as an ‘Integration Day.’ What can one really call it?

Political parties, too, tend to view and interpret history in a way that suits their interests. The Congress Party has been saying that the path-breaking economic reforms were introduced by Dr Manmohan Singh in 1991, refusing to give even an iota of credit to the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao since Sonia Gandhi, the supreme leader of the party, had only contempt for him. It is true that Dr Singh was the finance minister picked up by PV within hours of his swearing-in as prime minister and there is no denying the fact that it was Singh who implemented the bulk of reforms. But the policy decision was taken by the prime minister, who gave unstinted political support to the finance minister. Stung by the uncharitable and wild criticism from the opposition, Singh submitted his resignation twice but was persuaded by Rao to continue the good work, saying that the opposition was attacking the FM in order to hurt the PM. It was Rao who kept the industries portfolio with him and introduced bold industrial reforms in one stroke getting the announcement made by Minister of State Pulla Joseph (PJ) Kurien, who is presently the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha.

In the same way, the BJP seeks to apportion all the credit of creating a unified India to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who was the Deputy Prime Minister handling the Home portfolio since independence till his demise. The saffron party wishes to dismiss Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru as inconsequential as far as the integration of princely states with the Indian Union is concerned. It blamed Nehru for the mess in Jammu and Kashmir but gives credit to Patel for ‘liberation of Hyderabad.’ The saffron leaders hate Nehru from the bottom of their hearts since he opposed their pet theory of cultural nationalism and Hindu nationalism which is different from Indian nationalism. The intellectuals subscribing to the Congress and the Left parties affirm that while Hindu nationalism is based on Veer Savarkar’s book, Hindutva, the basis for Indian nationalism is the Indian Constitution. It was, no doubt, Patel who was instrumental in merging the recalcitrant princely states of Hyderabad, Junagarh and Jammu and Kashmir in India. But, the BJP leaders conveniently forget that as prime minister Nehru had to take the policy decisions. Nehru and Patel were in complete agreement on the tactics to be used for the merger of the princely states with the Indian Union.

In the case of merger of the princely state of Hyderabad with the Indian Union, Nehru warned Nizam of Hyderabad Mir Osman Ali Khan that if the merger cannot happen through negotiations, force will have to be used. It was Nehru, who entrusted the job of merging both Junagarh and Hyderabad with the Indian Union to Patel. The BJP wants to claim the high pedestal as the champion in the ‘liberation’ of Hyderabad although it was the efforts of the Communists, who waged a armed peasant struggle, and the Congress leaders, headed by Ramanand Tirth, besides the Indian Army, that helped the merger. It can be argued that Hyderabad was liberated from the clutches of the Nawab, who was not prepared to merge the Hindu majority princely state with the Union. He was using his private army, Razakars, to defy India. For reasons best known to Nehru and Patel, they did not order celebration of the successful completion of ‘Operation Polo’ or ‘Operation Caterpillar’ or the ‘Police Action.’ The term ‘Police Action’ was coined although it was purely a military action in order to avoid the hassles from the UN, which might have termed it as invasion on an independent country. The report submitted by the Sunderlal Committee appointed by Nehru to go into the massive violence in the wake of police action may have been responsible for the subdued stand of the government. Nehru appointed a three-member committee comprising Pandit Sunderalal, Kazi Abdul Gaffar and Maulana Misri. The report disturbed Nehru and angered Patel who was understood to have chided the members of the committees saying, “Who asked you to go to Hyderabad and submit a report to the Central Government?” The report was declassified only four years ago when Historian Sunil Purushotham from the University of Cambridge filed a petition in the court seeking the Sunderlal Committee Report. The report, which was a classified document till as recently as 2013, said that more than 27,000 persons were killed by way of avenging the injustice done earlier. Majority of those who were killed were Muslims, according to the report. The worst affected towns were Nanded and Sholapur. Indian soldiers reportedly encouraged the unruly mob to attack and loot. This was the best kept secret of the Central government.

Against this background, the Union Government wanted to soft-pedal the issues and in its wisdom chose to make the Nizam a Raj Pramukh, with purse and pelf, on his surrender. He remained Raj Pramukh during 1952 general elections and till the merger of Hyderabad with Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Mir Osman Ali Khan defied the Union Government, declared independence and complained to the UNO. The Nizam did speak to Mohammad Ali Jinnah of Pakistan seeking his support to his fight against the Union Government of India. In fact, the reason cited by Indira Gandhi in 1969 to reject the demand of a separate Telangana State and to convince Dr Marri Channa Reddy was that the case was still pending with the UN. Creating Telangana, which is almost similar to the geographical area of the erstwhile Hyderabad state, would have created problems from the UN. Nehru and Patel gave such a kind treatment to a Nawab, who questioned their authority keeping in view the relationship between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The BJP leaders should remember that Patel offered to give reservations to Muslims. The offer was not accepted by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other Muslim leaders saying that the measure would create division in the society. Maulana said before partition, “If Muslims feel insecure in a large country like India, they will feel more unsafe after Pakistan is carved out since the Hindus may ask the Muslims, who chose to remain in India, to go to Pakistan since it was created for them.” Patel did not call the merger of Junagarh a liberation. Nor did he say that Hyderabad was liberated.

Communists had a lot of complaints against the Army and the Union Government. The Communist guerrillas had to fight the Army in order to protect the lands they confiscated from zamindars and distributed among the landless poor. The Telangana peasants’ armed struggle had the twin objectives of liberating the poor and exploited masses from the yoke of zagirdar system and get rid of the feudal rule of Nizam. They believed that Nizam would have abdicated the throne due the pressure brought about by the peasants’ struggle. But it was the 36,000-men strong Army ably led by Major Gen. JN Chowdhury that dethroned the Nizam and facilitated the merger of Hyderabad with the Union. The MIM calls September 17, the Day of Betrayal. The party treats Syed Kasim Razvi, the chief of Razakars, who led the rebellion against the Union Government and fought against the Communist guerillas, favourably. He was allowed to escape from India.

Neither the Congress nor the TDP governments observed September 17 as a day of significance for the fear of antagonizing the Muslims treating them as a vote bank, as alleged by the BJP. By not celebrating the day in any manner, the Congress has given a handle to the BJP to use the occasion to perpetuate their theory of patriotism calling the Congress’ bluff of appeasement of Muslims. Had the successive Congress and TDP governments and the present TRS dispensation celebrated the day as an Integration Day, the BJP as well as the MIM would have fallen in line by joining the celebrations. The celebrations could have included various elements including acknowledgment of Patel’s role in subduing the Nizam. In the absence of any celebrations and the recognition of Patel by the Congress, TDP and the TRS, the BJP found it easy to own up Patel, essentially a Congress leader till he breathed his last, and the Day. TRS chief K Chandrasekhara Rao had, during the separate Telangana movement, attacked the Congress and the TDP governments for not celebrating September 17 while the people in Maharashtra and Karnataka observe it as Liberation Day and organize festivities on a large scale. TRS government should not only celebrate the day as the ‘Integration Day,’ but also persuade the Congress and the MIM to take part in the celebrations.