LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Unsettled Hyderabad
SIR,—Having recently visited Hyde/abad I read with interest the first letter of Mr. Horace Alexander, the reply of " Observer," and the second iener from the former in which he reiterates the truth and accuracy of the statements in that first letter. Having had an opportunity of speak- ing to many residents in Hyderabad, and having studied the " complaint of Hyderabad " and the proceedings before the Security Council of the United Nations at Lake Success, I should like to support entirely the observations of " Observer " and to challenge many of the statements 'Wade by Mr. Alexander and the inferences which he seeks to draw from She facts as alleged by him. For some one hundred and fifty years the United Kingdom and the State of Hyderabad were allied by treaties under which the former exer- cised a benevolent protection over the latter: it exercised paramountcy ;or suzerainty. In 1947 our Government, with indecent haste, divested itself of all our obligations and responsibilities to this State and other .States, and scrambled out of the sub-continent of ' India, leaving liyderabad free to accede either to the Union of India or to Pakistan or to remain independent. As Lord Listowel, then Secretary of State for India, said in the House of Lords on July 16th, 1947: " . . . the States will be masters of their own fate. They will be entirely free to choose ..." bnc of the alternatives stated above.
Hyderabad was thus left alone, isolated, entirely surrounded by the new Union of India, and with no outlet to the sea. The Union of India at once demanded accession. The Government of Hyderabad desired to retain independence, while ready to agree to some control over her com- munications, her defence against the outside world and her foreign policy, all these being made necessary by her geographical isolation. A " stand- still agreement " on these terms was entered into in November, 1947, to be in force for twelve months.
The Union of India clearly, however, would be content with nothing ?ess than complete annexation ; and as the Government of Hyderabad would not agree, there started a succession of frontier " incidents," so Irgestive of Hitler's technique. A further and more sinister step was he " blockade " imposed, which starved Hyderabad of commodities necessary for defence, i.e., arms and munitions, and for the health and :very life of the community, such as salt and essential medical supplies pnd drugs. The inhabitants of Hyderabad have a painfully vivid recol- lection of this blockade ; it is astonishing that Mr. Alexander never even m:ntions it in either of his letters--no doubt he would desire that it should be forgotten. It was in these circumstances that the Razak .t movement was born, an organisation created to deal with the nighil raids from the territory of the Indian Union and the fifth column clement within the State itself.
In August, 1948, the Government of Hyderabad made a complaint to the United Nations under article 35(2) of the Charter. That complaint was considered by the Security Council ; but this body moves at a slow and dignified pace, regardless of the inexorable march of events outside its august Council Chamber. Then, on September 11th, 1948, the inva- sion—the so-called " police action "—of Hyderabad by the armed forces of the Indian Union commenced. As was to be expected the resistance of Hyderabad—deprived almost entirely of the means of defence and incapable of receiving outside aid—collapsed within a few days.
So the annexation of Hyderabad was achiev:d, and a military govern- ment was set up, taking its orders from Delhi and really constituting a part of the Indian Union. As Mr. Alexander says, the Prime Minister, Mir Laik Ali, and seven ex-Minister colleages of his, were placed under house-arrest and are still so detained, more than twelve months later. No charges have been brought against them (or had not when I was there last month). They are not allowed to communicate with the out- side world. Instructed by a firm of solicitors on behalf of these detainees by their relatives, I went to Hyderabad in July, 1949. I applied to sec Mir Laik Ali and the other detainees to discuss what steps could be taken, either to secure their release or to press for proceedings to be instituted against them within a reasonable time. Both these applications were refused by the Government. Mr. Alexander appears to approve of this indefinite arrest without trial—surely the sure sign of the police and the totalitarian State.
Mr. Alexander, from his letters, appears to regard the case against the ex-Ministers as already proved, although he does not know with what they arc to be charged. He says: "The reason for bringing the Ministers to trial obviously is that, in allowing this [i.e., the alleged excesses of the Razakarsi they failed in their duty to protect the public from lawlessness." This is a strange charge. Even if it was sound in law it would require proof on the part of the Ministers of knowledge and abetment of acts which went further than mere defence against aggression by an invader. Anyone who studies the evidence and documents produced before the Security Council at Lake Success in May, 1949, will see that there is abundant material to show that the Union of India and not Hyderabad was the aggressor. In my submission, Sir, the circumstances surrounding the rape of Hyderabad and the continued detention of the ex-Ministers are such as to cause grave disquiet to all who believe in the principles of
Previous page
