Anda di halaman 1dari 25



Bloodless Revolution or Bloody Massacre?

What really happened in Hyderabad in 1948?


Dhanish Bachheta

Extended Essay in History

Under the supervision of Dr. Tooher-Hancock

Word Count: 3952

February 2015


Dhanish Bachheta


Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Background ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Causes for Religious Unrest and the Rise of Theocracy .................................................................... 5

Political Standing of Hyderabad State ................................................................................................ 7

Operation Polo ................................................................................................................................... 9

The Sunderlal Report ....................................................................................................................... 10

Evaluation of Sources ....................................................................................................................... 11

References ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 22


Dhanish Bachheta


In this Extended Essay, the 1948 ‘hidden’ massacre of Hyderabad State was explored with the
research question: Bloodless Revolution or a Bloody Massacre, What really happened in Hyderabad
in 1948? Details of the annexation of Hyderabad State to the Union of India had been concealed until
2013 when the Sunderlal Committee Report was released to the public. The report indicated that a
vast number of Muslims had been killed during and after the takeover, more than previously believed;
tens of thousands more civilians died than troops in the small-scale war that annexed Hyderabad. The
most prevalent information available was that during the Indian Army’s assault, Muslim denizens
were caught in the crossfire.

The main doubt concerning the research question was: what exactly happened and who was
responsible for this undocumented, rumoured mayhem that occurred before, during and after the
integration of the Princely State of Hyderabad. Along with the Sunderlal Report the event was
investigated by collating a large number of literary sources, from online articles and historians’ books.
With perseverance, a primary source was found who was willing to give an interview, providing a
personal account. After reviewing over 100 sources including the Sunderlal Report, much was
deduced about what actually occurred. All angles were considered and evaluated: political issues,
social unrest, communism and the Partition of India-Pakistan.

Thus the conclusion reached, in accordance with the Sunderlal Report, was that Hyderabad’s
incorporation into the Union of India was not bloodless at all, not a massacre, but the civil war, which
followed saw loss on both sides as power shifted. Actions taken in the judicial system were not as fair
as they were necessary, in order to maintain peace in the subcontinent at the time. Furthermore, the
concealment of the report was ethically wrong but a necessary evil.

Word Count: 298


Dhanish Bachheta


The three-month period following the incorporation of the Princely State of

Hyderabad into the Union of India is frequently omitted in history. The state was annexed by

the Union of India on the 17 September 1948 after a brief resistance by the Islamic monarch,

the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad. The populace, of which 85% was Hindu (Appendix A),

revelled in the liberation from the Islamic government (Shafeeq, 2007). However, a portion

of Hyderabad’s history has been left brazenly unwritten. Bouts of communal violence are

rumoured to have ensued, with the ordinary Muslims receiving the full vendetta for the

former upper class Muslims’ actions. While there are only whispers of this tale, there was no

acknowledgment of the event by the Indian government. Until now, it has been hidden from

the nation and from the world. Little evidence has been collated neither to make known this

important piece of history nor to make sense of the rumours.

This event is crucial today in understanding the peaceful symbiotic atmosphere in the

former Hyderabadi districts today. This essay is an attempt to recognise this essential

historical event and its fundamentality to the consciousness of a community. As the last

people who were alive during that time are passing, their most painful memories of their

home should be shared so the people who suffered during that period be acknowledged, and

for historical significance for humanity. Furthermore, it is unsure how much of the rumours

are true; there are conflicting stories with seemingly biased reports. There is no real sense in

the chronology of events. This raises the question, Bloodless Revolution or a Bloody

Massacre, What really happened in Hyderabad in 1948?


Dhanish Bachheta


In order to respond to such a question, it is necessary to put the event within historical

context. Since its establishment in 1591 to its downfall and incorporation into the Union of

India on 15 September 1948, Hyderabad State was always coveted; it had resources,

diamonds, wealth, art, culture and advanced systematic industries. It was only natural

throughout the years that this highly regarded kingdom would be under threat (Appendix B).

Situated in the Deccan Plateau, this autonomous Islamic principality, with a majority

Hindu population, was ruled absolutely by the Muslim monarch, the Nizam. Under the rule of

the last Nizam, his Exalted Highness Mir Osman Ali Khan Asif Jah VII (1911-1948), there

was a rise in theocratic ideologies. A radical Hindu group, the Andhra Hindu Mahasabha

sought integration into India due to majority Hindu population. This came as a response to

the militant Islamist movement under the guise of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM Party),

fearfully known as the Razakars who used terrorism to prevent the Hindus from trying to

merge the State with India. This dispute was pivotal to the State’s downfall.

When the British officially withdrew from India in 1947, four of the 565 Princely

States, one of which was Hyderabad, had not integrated with either the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan or the Union of India. These states had one year to decide which nation to accede to.

Hyderabad, located in the south of the subcontinent was the largest and most valuable of the

states. As a result of the Join India movement and the Hyderabad State Congress, the Deputy

Prime Minister of India began launching military coups because political talks were not

making any progress with the Princely States. Following the seizure and incorporation of

coastal Junagadh into India, Hyderabad was quickly annexed before the year was up in a

military coup codenamed Operation Polo.

After a very brief resistance, the Nizam of Hyderabad surrendered his Islamic State to

India and unified the nation on 17 September 1948. During the subsequent month a bout of

Dhanish Bachheta

communal violence occurred between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority religious

groups with the assistance of the Indian Army; news of the alleged atrocities reached the

capital resulting in the Prime Minister sending a committee to investigate the verity of the

rumours. The committee’s report was hidden from the public until 2013 after calls from noted

journalists for its declassification. The report details horrifying events of Hyderabad State,

which involve the deaths of possibly up to 200,000 civilians (Noorani, 2001). Such an

important piece of not only Hyderabadi history, but also Indian, has simply been locked away

as if it never happened for over 60 years.

Causes for Religious Unrest and the Rise of Theocracy

The Nizams’ autonomous rule made the State of Hyderabad totalitarian. Despite the

majority Hindu population, all power and land rights were in the tenure of the Nizam and his

Muslim nobles (The Hindu, 2008) (Appendix C). The oppressed Hindus of the countryside

were indebted to the Muslim nobility: they suffered in poverty and illiteracy, thus powerless.

As the socio-political and cultural consciousness increased in the Telugu community

during the turn of the 20th century, they used the Nizam, perhaps rightfully, as a scapegoat for

their sufferings and the inequality in the State. This led to the formation of the Andhra Hindu

Mahasabha (AHM) (Appendix D). The society-party was a response to the sufferings of the

Hindus who were terrorised by the Muslim Razakars. The Razakars were an affiliation of the

Majlis-e-Ittehadhul Muslimeen and were supposed to function as a resistance. The influx of

volunteers, led to a supremacy faction by whom individuals were terrorised, tortured and

even killed for being either for being Hindu or against the Nizam, reminiscent of the Nazist

genocide of the Second World War.

The AHM was responsible for fostering both the Anti-Nizam and the “Join India”

movements. Essentially communist, it attracted tens of thousands of Hindus, particularly

youth. First seeking equality, it expounded to a communist party seeking the overthrowal of

Dhanish Bachheta

the Nizam, the Paigahs and the Salar Jungs, the nobility and counsel to the royalty. The party

was banned in 1946, once Hyderabad’s government realised the potential risk the

communists posed at the brink of partition. Although the party caused enough ruckus to

receive acknowledgment and encouragement by both Nehru and Sardar Patel (Deputy PM),

the Nizam’s faithful supporters, the Razakars, deterred their action by force. There were

many confrontations, which led to the terrorism of Hindu villages; villagers were not

discouraged even when AHM leader, Anabheri Prabhakar Rao, was killed in battle. The

government of the Nizam put a stop to the movement before it became unstoppable.

Qasim Razvi, the controller of the Razakars, exploited this militia for organised crime,

to spread the notion of Islamic superiority. Instead this spread fear and hate towards the

monarchy. Razvi revelled in his racism, he coerced and manipulated the Nizam when he

became a royal adviser; this way the Razakar movement thrived (Appendix E). Patel and

Nehru ordered disbandment of the Razakars after hearing of their crimes such as rape, murder

and arson, in the Stand-still Agreement of 1947. This arrangement gave Hyderabad one

peaceful year to choose whether to accede to Pakistan or to India.

Qasim Razvi allegedly violated this and the Razakars continued their prohibited

terroristic activities. This is one of the reasons the Indian Government gave to justify

Operation Polo although there is little evidence to prove either that the Razakars continued or

that they ceased.

One fact is known: many people suffered at the hands of the Razakars. Tens of

thousands is a rough estimate although there is no official value due to the corruption in the

State Government and in the Palace. Lasting effects of their wrongdoings are still seen today

in the senior citizens (Reddy, 2014) (Appendix F). It was not just Hindus targeted; patriotic


Dhanish Bachheta

Muslims to the Nizam who were in favour of the unification with India were also annihilated

such as Shoebullah Khan (Rao, 1995).

Resentment towards the Razakars is one of the factors causing the Hindu retaliation.

However, contrary to the belief that the Razakars were authorised by the Nizam, he

relinquished any association from them in his surrender radio speech on 23 September 1948,

in which he accused Qasim Razvi and the Razakar movement of acting like Nazis in his State

unbeknownst to him until Operation Polo (Benichou, 2000; Luther, 2000) (Appendix G).

The Nizam’s disassociation led to less Hindu animosity towards the Crown and more

towards this rebellious faction. Therefore, many Razakars and their families were targeted

during the aftermath of Police Action. The change in the perception of the groups of society

grouped the Muslim minority as a ‘Nazi-esque’ organisation that ought to be punished for

their crimes. The Hindu uprising is unlikely to have occurred without the destruction of the

tyranny of Hyderabad; indicating it was less bloodless than a bloodbath. (Munshi, 1957)

suggested, the Nizam’s disownment of the Razakar Movement was most likely an effort to

save his own skin.

Political Standing of Hyderabad State

Politically, the Nizam had complete control and appointed his government including

the Prime Minister, Mir Laik Ali. The Kingdom had its own governmental system,

functioning as a country of sorts. The Nizam was unlike the rest of the “Nawabs” (state

rulers). He was given three choices by his ‘allies’, the British: 1) Accede to the Union of

India, 2) Accede to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or 3) Remain independent.

The Nizam had accepted one of Lord Mountbatten’s requests by Britain. He chose to

remain independent, thinking this perfectly fair as Sikkim stayed autonomous. The difference

with Hyderabad State is the size and geographical location. Many times referred to as the


Dhanish Bachheta

heart of India, it would be rather inconvenient, impractical and hostile to remain independent

although the Nizam was self-convinced in his fantasies. The Prime Minister of India,

Jawaharlal Nehru, however, did not like the idea of an Islamic stronghold in the heart of India,

"India could live if its Moslem limbs in North-West and North-East were amputated, but

could it live without its heart?" (Coupland, 1944)

The main anti-Hyderabad driving force was amongst the top of the hierarchy: Sardar

Patel. Patel famously “hated Hyderabadi culture” due to its Islamic autonomy, monarchy and

status, and his personal “quintessential Hindu nationalist” ideals (Noorani, 2013). Against the

idea of Pakistan in the first place, he helped liberate India from the British along with

Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru, but he would not let Hyderabad slip and become South Pakistan.

The Nizam of Hyderabad made the decision on 11 June 1947 to remain independent as he

was unsure whether to join India or Pakistan, with further request for independence from the

British Crown almost a month later on 9 July 1947.

With the partition of India set for 15 August, the news from the State of Hyderabad

came as a disappointment to not only the Union of India, but also the proposed Republic of

Pakistan who had cordiality with the Nizam as support for the Islamic movement, and Great

Britain whose two-state theory would now become obsolete. The idea of a landlocked nation

within a nation, with a majority Hindu population under a Muslim administration and

absolute monarchy was not coherent with any of the Indian independence ideals (particularly

that of the Swaraj Movement), nor of the Pakistan Movement (and the All-India Muslim


Although Lord Mountbatten had promised the Nizam that independence was on

option, it was not a serious offer for a state of Hyderabad’s proportions. The British Crown

wanted a smooth withdrawal and the new Conservative government did not have any affairs

with Hyderabad. India’s constant pressuring by which the Indian National Congress

Dhanish Bachheta

supported the Hyderabad State Congress to cause tensions in Hyderabad and disruption in the

allegiance of the Hindus to the Nizam, led to the Stand-still Agreement on the 29 November

1947 in which Hyderabad had one year to decide before hostilities could commence. Even

Jinnah (PM of Pakistan), was losing hope in this tri-nation possibility. There was frustration

directed towards the Nizam for not joining its Muslim counterpart in some sort of disservice.

Mountbatten wanted to avoid war so the Stand-still agreement was made but the Nizam

constantly rejected deals and changed positions in a fluctuating manner (Gandhi, 1994). The

amalgamation of “Anti-India” thinking in the State came as a provocation. Hyderabad had

run out of allies.

Operation Polo

Operation Polo was the ‘miniature’ war which involved the capture of Hyderabad. To

what extent was there carnage and destruction, and to what extent was this liberating and

necessary? Politically led by Patel, the invasion was militarily fronted by Major General

Chaudhuri. After the 5-day war, Hyderabad fell, and the Nizam surrendered. He made his

speech on the radio and from thereon, it is believed that the violence ensued.

The invasion of the State by the Union of India, “the military coup, codenamed

“Operation Polo” which “was disingenuously called ‘Police Action’” (Noorani, 2013) is

barely acknowledged in comparison with the atrocities in Punjab. Unofficially taboo, the fall

of Hyderabad State and the aftermath of its incorporation into the Union of India took down

200,000 civilians with it, with the official (previously unreleased) estimate from the Indian

government at 27,000 - 40,000 (Aiyar, 2012).

The moral standing of the groups involved needs to be assessed due to the fact that the

majority of the offenders during the Razakar regime and of the Hindu uprising after the

Police Action were left unpunished. This is rather concerning that the ruinousest incident in

the State’s past has been essentially hidden from history. Why was it concealed? Only in

Dhanish Bachheta

2013, did news of the incident reach the populace (Thomson, 2013). The Pandit Sunderlal

Committee Report was released to the public after journalisitic outcries to declassify the

report to share the wrongfully concealed knowledge. In light of the report, the rumours of the

three-month communal violence shortly after the annexation of Hyderabad into India were

officially confirmed.

The Sunderlal Report

The Sunderlal Report details the atrocities of Hyderabad State after the Police Action.

Pandit Sunderlal, along with Qazi Abdul Ghaffar and Maulana Abdulla Misri, arrived in

Hyderabad on a “goodwill mission” by Nehru on 29 November 1948, spending the best part

of a month detailing the tragedies on a tour of all the districts of the State. According to the

report, all the rumours that had reached Delhi were true; a Hindu uprising had occurred in the

State and particularly the Indian Army had been abusing their power and in some cases

inciting religious violence. The committee “toured 9 out of the 16 Districts of the State” and

had many meetings with people of all statuses. The Problem of the Communal Violence was

discussed with these officials: the creation and maintenance of cordial relations between the

communities, establishment of peace and harmony (Sunderlal, 1948 ).

As Hyderabad became a zone of the newly-founded nation, Nehru entrusted the

Committee to help the Nizam to agree to India’s terms. The Nizam and his nobles received

freedom and untouchability; in exchange they had to accept Aims and Policies of the Indian

Union, as well as the objectives to render Hyderabad safe once more. The objectives were: 1)

to provide for the people of Hyderabad a secular government in which all of them,

irrespective of religion, faith or creed will enjoy equal freedom and civil rights and will have

the same opportunities for development and progress, and 2) to dispel the atmosphere of

mutual hostility and distrust.


Dhanish Bachheta

The report detailed the “very conservative estimates” of the havoc. 27-40,000

civilians are said to have lost their lives during and after the Police Action, in which the worst

affected areas were the four Razakar strongholds: Osmanabad, Nander, Bidar and Gulburga.

This appeared to be a direct retaliation after the exchange of power and freedom from

religious oppression (Appendix H).

However, the deeds performed by Hyderabadis were far more tolerable than the other

revelations. It was found that sections of the Indian Army were responsible for both inciting

violence and partaking in it themselves. The committee had “absolutely unimpeachable

evidence” in which the local police and the Indian Army “took part in looting and other

crimes”. The soldiers are said to have taken gold and silver, and compelled the Hindu citizens

to commit crimes on their Islamic brothers. The Report further explained that these soldiers

took their angst and anguish against Pakistanis out on many of the innocent Muslims of


Evaluation of Sources

Of all the sources reviewed undoubtedly, an interview (primary source) was carried

out with a genuine survivor of the aftermath of Operation Polo: Anjum Begum was the most

significant. The interviewee confirmed many of the same claims made in the Sunderlal

Report, such as girls being thrown into wells to save their honour, despite the decades that

had passed. It is unlikely that Ms. Begum could have been dishonest in her account as she

was proficient only in Urdu and the Report was written in English and has been difficult to

obtain. However, some bias may be present due to the fact she is a Muslim and the Hindus

were considered the offenders (Appendix I).

The other most significant source was the Sunderlal Report, which is the main piece

of evidence in this investigation was carried out by a committee consisting of just a few

people. Like all reports of this nature, its verityhas to be questioned. However, following the

Dhanish Bachheta

investigation, this source proved to be reliable in that other souces concurred with the

informaiton available. What is significanlty questionable was its concealment, exact reasons

unknown. The sudden reappearance of the report is rather unusual but spurred the

researchBloodless Revolution or a Bloody Massacre?

Operation Polo was a 5-day siege, resulting in the loss of 490 Hyderabadi soldiers and

1373 Razakars (Guruswamy, 2008). The total is 1863 male fighters against India, which lost

32 soldiers in the coup. This is a moderate loss in terms of the size of the state and the

strength of both sides: 35,000 Indian Armed Forces against 22,000 Hyderabad State Forces

and an estimated 200,000 Razakars. After looking at an extensive plethora of sources, the

integration itself of Hyderabad State was largely bloodless.

The “Police Action” as it was so called, was simply a military coup. The aftermath of

the attack was said to be communal violence. This is not strictly true. The evidence against

the Indian Army was more than satisfactory to show that the event was not as communal as it

was religiously discriminatory. It was not such a community in conflict, nor was it

spontaneous. Due to the actions of certain regiments, it is very debatable to comprehend the

nature of the violence in the aftermath of the annexation.

Particularly, the involvement of the Indian Army in the event leads to greater

suspicions; the fact that the report was not released at the time gives the impression that there

may have possibly been more to the acts. The unusual behaviour of the Patel when the Report

had been submitted, in that he dismissed that the Committee had ever visited Hyderabad State

and denying its verity, does insinuate that there may have been an upper government hand in

the affair. Patel complained fervently that the report did not remark any of the Razakar

atrocities and only highlighted rumours.


Dhanish Bachheta

Perhaps the topic has been avoided all these years because no-one wants to pay for

their crimes, using Police Action as an alibi. Sardar Patel could have conspired against the

Nizam behind Nehru’s back in his well-known racism and hatred of Hyderabad. He was very

happy to lead the military coup but is reluctant to acknowledge Pandit Sunderlal and his

committee’s findings. He was portrayed as such a saviour.

While the victory of conquering Hyderabad was spread all over India, the hard truth

of life in the State which was of ‘civil war proportions’, was hidden from the Nation’s eyes,

ears, minds and hearts. The Indian government found out about the attacks by the Razakars

and punished them; somehow they were clueless to the atrocities just a month after

integration of the princely state and left all the Hindus and soldiers, particularly the Sikhs,

unpunished (Thomson, 2013).

The reasoning for why much of this information has been hidden is lost (Khaitan,

2012); Nehru never left a reason to why the report was not released. It seems fitting that there

are many conspiracy theories: the Indian Government wanted to shatter the Muslim

Hyderabadi identity, so the violence was used to deter the State from resuming its Islamic

values. The attack was also to make vulnerable the Razakars so that both their atrocities

would not continue but also that there would be no Muslim retaliation to the invasion of the

State. These conspiracy theories have all been incited by Hyderabadis, both Muslim and

Hindu journalists. Sources from Hyderabadi authors must have some bias as it directly

affected their ancestors. However, many of these theories are to draw attention away from the

Razakars’ crimes. It is rumoured that there were a total of up to one million Razakars, not all

of them are guilty of the crimes accused but those who are cannot all have been prosecuted

due to the unmanageable number. These people had to live on the run, many fled to Pakistan.

It is only natural that they would try and highlight the Indian Army’s wrongdoings as worse

than their own.


Dhanish Bachheta

Moreover, pro-concealment conclusions are also very rational. It is apt that the report

was hidden for two possible reasons. Had the rest of India found out, tensions between

Muslim, Hindu and Sikh groups would be reignited stronger hardly a year after the flame had

started to flicker. Similarly, Pakistan would have found this as a moment of weakness for

India, as the world would see how chaotic its heart was, and an exposé to its methods and

misconducts. The peace would have been permanently broken, before the two nations even

had a real chance at independence.

Understanding the event of the communal violence and also the cover-up of the report

is not easy. All sides affected were betrayed by some measure at its concealment; they were

also saved from another full-scale war, which would surely have reversed all the progress

made. To come to an absolute conclusion in this case is not possible due to the fact that much

of the evidence is heavily biased as this is a religious circumstance, and much of what has

been reported is subjective to the witness and their experiences, the communities and

religions involved.

Furthermore, much repetition of the same ‘facts’ often de-value the sources’ worth;

the same evidence seems to be reproduced implying there aren’t many records to go by. The

use of a primary source does involve a certain amount of unreliability; the time gap between

the event and the interview will most likely affect the facts obtained, as the memory could

have changed over time in accordance with the interviewee’s emotions resulting in an

incomplete account. In addition, the friendliness or hostility of a witness requires assessment.

In this case it was rather friendly, but that does not mean ill-feelings are not harboured, and

such feelings could be for personal reasons more than the event itself. There is equilibrium in

the accusations from both sides, giving a researcher a less secure outlook on the piece of



Dhanish Bachheta


In conclusion Hyderabad’s incorporation into the Union of India was not bloodless at

all; not a massacre, but a civil war in which both sides lost many as power shifted. In line

with the Sunderlal Report, many more probably died contrary to the estimate. The Hindu

supremacy of the Indian Government at the time resulted in many of the guilty soldiers of the

Army not being punished. Realistically, their prosecutions would have resulted in the

aforementioned civil unrest throughout the Indian subcontinent and its neighbours. Overall,

the fact that the events were left unconfirmed by the government officially with

documentation until 60 years later is highly suspicious and unjust for the people who suffered

in that period; however the benefits of not releasing the Report and hiding the event far

outbalance the immoral ethics, leaving questions unanswered. Indeed a significant question

would be did the Indian subcontinent, learn anything from these events in Hyderabad in



Dhanish Bachheta

18th September 1948: Operation Polo is terminated after the Indian Army Accepts the

Surrender of the Nizam of Hyderabad's Army. (2013, September 18). Retrieved

August 2014, from MapsOfIndia:



(1947-1948). Hyderabad Stand-still Agreement (1947). The National Archives, Kew. doi:DO

142/297, POL 1452/48

A flashback: How Hyderabad became part of India. (2013, August 13). Deccan Chronicle.

Retrieved from


Aiyar, S. (2012, November 25). Declassify report on the 1948 Hyderabad massacre.

Swaminomics. Retrieved May 2014, from


Ali, S. A. (2014, September 17). September 17: The Story Of 'Police Action' And Its

Aftermath - Part 3. Retrieved November 2014, from Inn Live News:


Alikhan, R. (1990). Hyderabad 400 Years (1591-1991). Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (Now

Telanagana), India: Zenith Services. Retrieved August 2014

Benichou, L. D. (2000). Autocracy to Integration. Orient Longman. Retrieved November



Dhanish Bachheta

Coupland, R. (1944). The Indian Problem: Report on the Constitutuional problem in India.

Retrieved November 2014

Exclusive Sundarlal Report Police Action. (2013, November 30). Retrieved August 2014,

from Deccan Chronicle:


Fathima, K. (2011, September 17). Fall of Hyderabad: 17th September a black day in human

history. Retrieved August 2014, from TwoCircles:


Freedom struggle in Hyderabad. (2008, August 15). Retrieved November 2014, from The



Gandhi, R. (1994). Patel: A Life.

Guruswamy, M. (2008). There once was a Hyderabad! Retrieved December 2014, from India


Indian Army. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2014, from Indian Army:

Khaitan, T. (2012, April 20). Operation Polo: The Forgotten Massacre in Hyderabad?

Retrieved August 2014, from Law and Other Things:


Khan, M. A. (2005, March 31). Hyderabad 1948: Remembering the Forgotten Genocide.

Retrieved August 2014, from The Milli Gazette Online:


Dhanish Bachheta


Khan, M. A. (2013, September 29). Ghosts of Police Action Resurface. Retrieved August

2014, from Times of India:


Luther, N. (2000, September 1). Nizam and the Radio . Retrieved August 2014, from

Narendra Luther Archives:


Mujtaba, S. A. (2013, September 29). Hyderabad’s Fall And Sunderlal Report. Retrieved

August 2014, from Countercurrents:

Munshi, K. (1957). The End of an Era.

Noorani, A. G. (2001, March 3). Of A Massacre Untold. (N. Ram, Ed.) Frontline, 18(5).

Noorani, A. G. (2013). The Destruction of Hyderabad (1st ed.). New Dehli, Dehli, India:

Tulika Books. Retrieved July 2014

Rao, P. R. (1995). History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh (From the Earliest Times to 1991).

New Dehli, Dehli , India: Sterling Publishers Private Ltd. Retrieved November 2014

Rāya, L. (n.d.). The Asaf Jahi Kings. In L. Rāya, Legacy of the Nizams (pp. 18-24).

Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Retrieved August 2014

Reddy, T. K. (2014, June 16). Over 90 and still going strong. The Hindu.


Dhanish Bachheta

Sardar Patel hated Hyderabadi culture: A.G. Noorani. (2013, November 29). Retrieved

August 2014, from Siasat:


Shafeeq, M. (2007, August 2). Painful memories for erstwhile Hyderabad State. TwoCircles.

Retrieved from


Sherman, D. T. (2001). The Integration of the Princely State of Hyderabad and the Making of

the Postcolonial State in India, 1948-56. The London School of Economics And

Political Science, International History. London: Sage Publications.


Sherman, D. T. (2010). Moral Economies of Violence in Hyderabad State, 1948. The London

School of Economics And Political Science, International History. Retrieved August


Simeon, D. (2012, November 24). S.A. Aiyar: Declassify report on the 1948 Hyderabad

massacre. Retrieved August 2014, from Dilip Simeon's Blog:

Singh, R. (2013, November 14). The Cancer in India's Belly. Retrieved August 2014, from

The Pioneer:


Subramanian, L. N. (n.d.). 100 Hour War - Hyderabad Police Action. Retrieved August 2014,

from Bharat-Rakshak:



Dhanish Bachheta

Sudhir, T. S. (2013, September 10). Exclusive: The real story of how Hyderabad became a

part of India in 1948. (T. S. Sudhir, Ed.) Headlines Today. Retrieved August 2014,



Sunderlal, P. (1948 ). The Pandit Sunderlal Committee Report.

Surya, T. (2013, November 6). The Myth Of Hyderabad’s “Hidden Massacre”. Retrieved

August 2014, from IndiaFacts:


(n.d.). The National Movement in Telangana. In Modern History of Karimnagar. Retrieved

November 2014, from Scribd:

Thomson, M. (2013, September 24). Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre. BBC Radio 4.

Hyderabad, Telangana, India: BBC. Retrieved May 2014, from BBC Radio 4:

Uma, T. (2011). Chapter VII: Police Action and the Surrender of Hyderabad. In Police Action

Days in Hyderabad (pp. 200-232). Retrieved August 2014

Venkateshwarlu, K. (2004, September 17). Momentous day for lovers of freedom, democracy.

The Hindu. Retrieved from

Venkateshwarlu, K. (2012, August 14). How the Nizam lost Hyderabad in 1948. Retrieved

August 2014, from The Hindu:


Wallach, B. (1984, January 28). In the Nizam's Dominions. Landscape, 1-6. Retrieved

August 2014

Dhanish Bachheta

Was the movement against Nizam a "liberation movement"? (2005, March 31). Retrieved

August 2014, from The Milli Gazette Online:



Dhanish Bachheta


Appendix A (A flashback: How Hyderabad became part of India, 2013)

“There has been a proper head count that during the height of the Razakar ethnic cleansing

carnage, over 32,000 Hindu civilians had taken shelter in the Secunderabad Military

cantonment alone to escape certain death at the hands of the marauding Razakars.”

Appendix B Deccan Heritage Page 142

“[Hyderabad State was] the envy of many, resulting in the invasion of the fort1 twice, in 1656

and 1687, by Aurangzeb of the Moghul dynasty”

Appendix C The Hindu (Freedom struggle in Hyderabad, 2008)

Hyderabad was ruled by the Asaf Jah Dynasty, although the fief had been under complete

Islamic control since 1321 CE by various dynasties including the Tughlags, the Bahmanis

and the founders of Hyderabad, the Qutb Shahis. “The land was concentrated in the hands of

Nawabs, Jagirdars, Deshmukhs, and Landlords while the general public was under constant


Appendix D (The National Movement in Telangana)

Andhra Jana Sangham on the 19 November 1921, a Telugu language conservation society,

which developed into the Andhra Hindu Mahasabha (AHM) in 1930 first seeking equality

compulsory schooling with Telugu as the medium of instruction and dissolution of the

“Untouchable” class.


Dhanish Bachheta

Appendix E

The Nizam even declared Hyderabad a nation as a result of Qasim Razvi’s senseless

philosophies. He had convinced the Nizam that it was the right of Muslims to enslave Hindus

and that the Asafia2 flag will flutter on the Red Fort in Delhi and make the waves of the Bay

of Bengal wash the feet of Nizam. Razvi pressed the Nizam to hold out against India awhile

organising attacks on people on Indian soil.

Appendix F

Mallaiah Kompelli, a tree-tapper, “recalled an incident in which Razakars had killed seven

youths from his village” when he was asked about “his most unforgettable incident in life”.

Appendix G Nizam and the Radio (Luther, 2000) (Benichou, 2000)

“In November last [1947], a small group which had organized a quasi-military organization

surrounded the homes of my Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatari, in whose wisdom I had

complete confidence, and of Sir Walter Monkton, my constitutional Adviser, by duress

compelled the Nawab and other trusted ministers to resign and forced the Laik Ali Ministry

on me. This group headed by Kasim Razvi had no stake in the country or any record of

service behind it. By methods reminiscent of Hitlerite Germany it took possession of the

State, spread terror ... and rendered me completely helpless”

Appendix H - (Sunderlal, 1948 )

“Hyderabad state: 16 Districts|22000 villages, 3 districts fairly okay, 4 serious, 8 havoc and

chaotic proportions.”


Dhanish Bachheta

Appendix I

Accounts of the 1948 Police Action in Hyderabad: Anjum Begum (The Aunt of the

Grandmother of Tanzeel Mariam)

- The whole family got separated, her mother and father died

- The was no medical care at the time; all the hospitals were destroyed so they

could not get their family treated and as a result they succumbed to their wounds

- They used to hide in their houses because the police used to warn them that if they

came out, they would kill them

- Huge chaos on a grand scale including no water, no electricity, desecration of

Islamic edifices and Muslim property,

- They caught her older brother and the police sent him away

- She feels that there is no justice even until this day

- They used to completely rob houses and ransacked them of all their belongings so

that they were literally left with nothing

- All of their property was taken; forced, unlawful and illegal change of ownership

of the property possessions and assets

- She has some bad feelings but believes what happened, happened because of God

- She thought that there was no hope; she didn’t expect anything to get better

- Her mother hid her so she would not get hurt

- She had to discontinue her school; the police had destroyed all the Muslim schools

- Urdu, Persian, Arabic etc. was banned

- They used to throw their daughters into the wells so that that the Hindus did not

get them