Hyderabad 1948: India's hidden massacre
By Mike Thomson
Presenter, Document, Radio 4
Published24 September 2013
Share
The Jewel of The Nizams 'Falaknuma Palace' which was the former residence of Nizam Mehaboob Ali Khan in the old city area of Hyderabad
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.
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.
Old map 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.
Historians say their desire to prevent an independent Muslim-led state taking root in the heart of predominantly Hindu India was another worry.
Members of the powerful Razakar militia, the armed wing of Hyderabad's most powerful Muslim political party, were terrorising many Hindu villagers.
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.
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.
Historian Sunil Purushotham from the University of Cambridge has now obtained a copy of the report as part of his research in this field.
A copy of the Sunderlal report
image captionPandit Sunderlal's team concluded that between 27,000 and 40,000 died
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 Muslim villagers were disarmed by the Indian Army, Hindus were often left with their weapons. The mob violence that ensued was often led by Hindu paramilitary groups.
In other 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 Nizam Mahbub Ali Khan and Party Posed with Tiger Skins at Shikar Camp, April–May 1899
image captionThe Nizam of Hyderabad was a powerful prince. In this picture taken in 1899, the Nizam, Mahbub Ali Khan, and his party pose with tiger skins
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.
Indian Shiite Muslims take part in religious prayers at 'Ashoorkhana' in the Aza Khana Zehara in Hyderabad, on January 5, 2009. The structure, built by the seventh Nizam Mir Osman Ali Kahan to perpetuate the memory of his mother Amtul Zehra Begum
image captionA Shiite shrine built by the seventh Nizam to perpetuate his mother's memory
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.
There has been a call recently in the Indian press for it to be made more widely available, so the entire nation can learn what happened.
It could be argued this might risk igniting continuing tensions between Muslims and Hindus.
"Living as we are in this country with all our conflicts and problems, I wouldn't make a big fuss over it," says Burgula Narasingh Rao, a Hindu who lived through those times in Hyderabad and is now in his 80s.
"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."
Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan’s great-granddaughter claims share
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | ATHER MOIN
PublishedNov 8, 2019, 1:56 am ISTUpdatedNov 8, 2019, 2:03 am IST
Granddaughter says Moazzam Jah was deprived of rightful inheritance, mulls legal action.
Princess Shafia Sakina along with her family members addresses a press conference in city on Thursday.
Princess Shafia Sakina along with her family members addresses a press conference in city on Thursday.
HYDERABAD: Princess Shafiya Sakina, great-granddaughter of last Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, has urged Govern-ment of India to provide her and her sister their legitimate share in properties of the last Nizam.
She is the daughter of princess Fatima Fauzia who is the daughter of Prince Moazzam Jah Bahadur, the younger son of the Nizam VII, Mir Osman Ali Khan.
Addressing the media, the titular princess said she was contemplating filing a partition suit seeking her legitimate share in all the properties mentioned in the blue book. She urged the Centre represented by the Union finance secretary, who is ex-officio chairman of the H.E.H.
The Nizam’s Trust and other related trusts, to take action to protect her rights on the $335 million fund, which belonged to the late Nizam in NatWest Bank London.
Princess Shafiya challenged the action of the last Nizam assigning the London Fund to President of India during pendency of the case and the action of princes Mukarram Jah Bahadur (Mir Barkat Ali Khan) and Muffakham Jah Bahadur (Mir Karamat Ali Khan), grandsons of Mir Osman Ali Khan claiming 50:50 share of Hillview and Shannon respectively. She maintained that this action is illegal and void under rule lis pendens (pending suit).
The Nizam’s great granddaughter claimed that the princes who are the sons of Prince Azam Jah, the eldest son of the last Nizam, had misled the Royal Court of London by concealing the name of Prince Moazzam Jah, the second son of Mir Osman Ali Khan and the father of princess Fatima.
They also concealed the names of other named beneficiaries.
The princess said she as the eldest daughter of princess Fatima Fauzia, who was the eldest daughter of Prince Moazzam Jah, had rights on the amount.
She pointed out that under Nizam Trust Deeds (Validation) Act 1950, 28 Trust Deeds have been validated and they have the force of law. Under them, only the named beneficiaries in the deeds would get income though the corpus funds belonging to the issues of the named beneficiaries. She said earlier, Nizam’s jewellery was acquired by the Govern-ment of India for Rs 218 crore.
In this, the shares of her grandfather Prince Moazzam Jah, Princess Ahmedunnisa Begum, aka Shahzadi Pasha, the daughter of last Nizam, and Prince Basalath Jah (half share holder), the step brother of last Nizam, were cumulatively Rs 95 crore.
Princess Shafiya explai-ned that after the death of Shahzadi Pasha in 1985, her share had gone to her only blood brother Moaz-zam Jah, who was alive at that time, while Azam Jah Bahadur, another blood brother, had expired in 1970. Basalath Jah was issueless. Thus, the Rs 95 crore corpus fund should have been divided among all his issues including her. Instead, Mukarram Jah, Prince Moazzam Jah, Mufakkham Jah, Princess Esra (divorced wife of Mukarram Jah), Asif Pasha and various other beneficiaries, who are not issues of Moazzam Jah, distributed the fund among themselves by compromise deed done on 25th June 2002 and she had been deprived of her genuine share. She claimed that she was also deprived of her share in two Grand Daughter’s Wedding Gift Trust Deed done on September 4, 1951, when she was minor.
She alleged that though other legal heirs of Mir Osman Ali Khan were getting their share from the properties of her great grandfather and funds deposited under various trusts, she has not got a single penny. Being one of the shareholders of all the palaces of her great grandfather and grandfather Moazzam Jah Bahadur, the second son of Mir Osman Ali Khan, she should reside in the palace. But Prince Mukarram Jah Bahadur, Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur, Princess Esra, Asif Pasha and other trustees deprived her also of her housing rights, the Princess stated, seeking the intervention of the Government of India.
Media5zone
tSrlMays apo1h0n,mr n2slc0doSre17di ·
*BIG BREAKING NEWS*
*THE SULTAN UL ULOOM EDUCATION SOCIETY IS IN ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF THE ‘MOUNT PLEASANT’ A FIR IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE TRUSTEES OF MJ TRUST AND THE SOCIETY*
*Panjagutta PS* registered a FIR 357/2017 against trustees of Muazzam Jah trust and trustees of Sultan-ul-uloom Education society i.e. Asif Pasha S/o Abdul Hannan, and Zafar Javed S/o Amjad Ali Khan and others.on the complaint of Ameena Marzia one of the daughters of Late Waleshan Prince Muazzam Jah Bahadur, and grand doughter of H.E.H. the Nizam VII Nawab Mir Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur.
It is said by Ameena Marzia that The Sultan-ul-uloom Education society (SUES) is in illegal occupation of the Mount Pleasant 8-2-249 to 267, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and running educational institutions under the names of : Muffakham Jah College of Engineering , Sulthan-Ul-Uloom Collage of Pharmacy, Amjad Ali khan College of Business administration etc at the said premises with ownership and title.
The Ameena Marzia declared that the ‘Mount pleasant’ palace along with land admeasuring Ac.24-10 gts, in Survey No. 359, Shaikpet village Road No.3, Banjara Hills is the property of ‘Muzam Jah trust’, The H.E.H. the Nizam VII Nawab Mir Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur created theTrust for the benefit of his son Waleshah Prince Muazam Jah on 8-10-1949 called as “ Prince Muazzam Jah Trust” which Trust was validated under the Validation Act No. XXIV 1950 along with other Trusts.
The ‘Mount pleasant’ palace along with land admeasuring Ac.24-10 gts, in Survey No. 359, Shaikpet village Road No.3, Banjara Hills was purchased by the trust for the residence of the Prince Muazzam Jah Bahadur and according to the trust deed it is mandatory on the part of the trustees to divide and transfer the property amongst and to all the issues of the said Prince after the demise of the said prince in accordance with the provisions of the law of succession governing Sunni Muslims.
The Trustees i.e. i.e. Asif Pasha S/o Abdul Hannan and others acted in clear violation and the directions contained in the Trust Deed, the Trustees have colluded with the Sultan-ul-uloom Education Society (SUES) and its trustees Zafar Javed S/o Amjad Ali Khan and others inducted the Society into possession initially as a tenant only for the Building and appurtenant land of 1000 sq. mtrs. and thereafter, as Agreement Holder in utter disregard of the very intent of the Trust, in gross violation of their responsibilities with malafide criminal intentions in clear violation of their authority vested in them having entered into criminal conspiracy of cheating, thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant and had wrongful gain for themselves.
The complainant Ameena Marzia said that, there is ample evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It is pertinent to mention here that The society falsely misrepresented the AICTE also, posing themselves as the owner of the said property and obtained the affiliation which itself is a criminal act, the vigilance of the AICTE also investigated the matter, a two-man justice committee was appointed by AICTE vigilance cell and asked the society to submit the ownership / land title documents of the land in favor of the society but the society failed to submit the same, the society also failed to submit the copies of the approved building plan by the competent authority and completion certificate to the committee. Now It is likely that AICTE will also cancel its approval to the society soon.
*MEDIA5ZONE CRIME CHIEF*
