T Vivek
It has now become de rigueur to engage in conversation about the appellation that this day should be assigned. Opinions are sharply divided, and questions galore. Even as we recognize that history is a record of events of the past, one cannot shy away from commentary on carefully chosen facts. After all, if history were to remain a mere record of past events, it might not be different from a chronicle.
The function of a historian is to interrogate the past. However, in doing so, he is not to be swayed by emotion or passion. He is not to get unduly critical or biased, or imbued with ideology. The task of a historian is therefore unenviable. But it is not so for public men who are adept at creating and nurturing a narrative to suit electoral politics. This day, the 17th day of September, is one such instance of a vocal slugfest.
The demand that this day is celebrated as liberation day originates from a section that views the era preceding the event as marked by oppression and unfriendly to the religious infidels. Those who peddle this narrative see the ruler, the Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, as a religious bigot and arraign him as an accused for unleashing atrocities on the infidels. Therefore, dethroning the ruler was nothing short of liberation. History, however, has it that the state was neither theocratic nor was the Sharia law of the land.
The ruler was not merely sanguine to the other faiths but liberal and was not found wanting when he was called upon to contribute. Mir Osman was munificent when it came to matters about the masses, even as he was miserly in private life. Besides, to characterize the day as liberation, one must take into account how the event, intriguingly called Police Action, unfolded and played out. Typically, liberation connotes a qualitative change in the character of the state, its interface with the citizens, and the transformative change it ushers in the lives of people. Post Police Action, not much had changed. Agrarian relations remained unchanged. Monarch was replaced by a military ruler. Landed gentry metamorphosed into messiahs of the masses.
Intriguingly, the Reds too joined the liberation chorus even as the military went berserk and incarcerated many of them. Earlier, the Reds entered a pact with the Prime Minister Laiq Ali on May 4, 1948, and as a trade-off for lifting the ban on the Communist Party, Rajbahadur Gour, a prominent trade union leader, became vocal and canvassed for independent Hyderabad. Post Police Action, the Reds’ call to abort the peasant struggle epitomizes the self-contradiction.
Amidst the cacophony of characterizing the day and polemics surrounding it some take a less controversial stand and strike a moderate note, calling it a day of integration. In very recent times, this has been further refined as National Integration Day by certain political parties. However, facts of history are compelling and unsparing of falsehood. The allegedly dethroned monarch, the Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, was appointed the Rajpramukh and issued firmans till January 25, 1950. So much for liberation and integration!
Further, the Supreme Court of India in criminal miscellaneous petition (71 of 1950 dt. 14-12-1950) held that “the territory of the Govt. of H.E.H.the Nizam was never the territory of India before 26-1-1950 and therefore the judgment and sentence passed by the H.C. of H.E.H.the Nizam on the 12th &13th December 1949 cannot considered as judgments and sentences passed by a court in the territory of India”.
Further corroboration against the day of integration comes from a reply to an RTI application by the Ministry of Defence in letter No. 2191 HQ Dt. 19-10-2004, stating that the Hyderabad state was merged with the Indian Union on 26th January 1950.
History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The decision to make facts speak for themselves rests with us. We must choose what view of the facts we have ascertained. (The author is General Secretary, Telangana Council of Historical Research)
