Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T09:54:38.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federating the Raj: Hyderabad, sovereign kingship, and partition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

SUNIL PURUSHOTHAM
SUNIL PURUSHOTHAM*
Affiliation:
Fairfield University Email: spurushotham@fairfield.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the idea of federation in late-colonial India. Projects of federation sought to codify the uncodified and fragmented sovereign landscape of the British Raj. They were ambitious projects that raised crucial questions about sovereignty, kingship, territoriality, the potential of constitutional law in transforming the colonial state into a democratic one, and India's political future more broadly. In the years after 1919, federation became a capacious model for imagining a wide array of political futures. An all-India Indian federation was seen as the most plausible means of maintaining India's unity, introducing representative government, and overcoming the Hindu–Muslim majority–minority problem. By bringing together ‘princely’ India and British India, federation made the Indian states central players in late-colonial contestations over sovereignty. This article explores the role of the states in constitutional debates, their place in Indian political imaginaries, and articulations of kingship in late-colonial India. It does so through the example of Hyderabad, the premier princely state, whose ruler made an unsuccessful bid for independence between 1947 and 1948. Hyderabad occupied a curious position in competing visions of India's future. Ultimately, the princely states were a decisive factor in the failure of federation and the turn to partition as a means of overcoming India's constitutional impasse.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 157 - 198
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nizam's firman signed 11 June 1947, All India States Peoples’ Conference (AISPC) Papers, Nehru Museum and Memorial Library (NMML), File No. 68, Part II.

2 Purushotham, Sunil, ‘Internal Violence: The “Police Action” in Hyderabad’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 57:2 (April 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Devji, Faisal, Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea. London: Hurst, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For a United India: Speeches of Sardar Patel, 1947–1950. New Delhi: Government of India, 1967, 126.

5 Beverley, Eric, Hyderabad, British India, and the World: Muslim Networks and Minor Sovereignty, c. 1850–1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cooper, Frederick, Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945–1960. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014Google Scholar; Wilder, Gary, Freedom Time: Negritude, Decolonization, and the Future of the World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015Google Scholar; Collins, Michael, ‘Decolonisation and the “Federal Moment”’, Diplomacy & Statecraft 24:1 (2013): 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Wilder, Gary, ‘Untimely Vision: Aimé Césaire, Decolonization, Utopia’, Public Culture 21:1 (2009): 101–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Arendt, Hannah, ‘The Minority Question’, in Kohn, Jerome and Feldman, Ron H., eds., The Jewish Writings. New York: Shocken Books, 2007, 125–33Google Scholar.

9 Cohn, Bernard, ‘Representing Authority in Victorian India’, in Hobsbawm, E. J. and Ranger, T. O., eds., The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983Google Scholar; and Cohn, Bernard, ‘The Census, Social Structure an Objectification in South Asia’, in Cohn, Bernard, ed., An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988Google Scholar.

10 Moore, R. J., ‘India in 1947: The Limits of Unity’, in Wilson, A. Jeyaratnam and Dalton, Dennis, eds., The States of South Asia: Problems of National Integration. London: C. Hurst & Co, 1982Google Scholar.

11 Pederson, Susan, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mazower, Mark, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013Google Scholar.

12 Jean L. Cohen, ‘Federation’, Political Concepts: A Critical Lexicon, http://www.politicalconcepts.org/issue1/federation/.

13 Fisher, Michael, Indirect Rule in India: Residents and the Residency System, 1764–1858. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991Google Scholar.

14 Cohn, ‘Representing Authority’, 178–9.

15 Queen Victoria's Proclamation, 1 November 1858, in Mukherji, Panchanandas, ed., Indian Constitutional Documents (1772–1915). Calcutta: Thacker Spink & Co., 1915Google Scholar.

16 Mantena, Karuna, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Dirks, Nicholas, The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Price, Pamela, Kingship and Political Practice in Colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996Google Scholar.

18 Sen, Sudipta, ‘Unfinished Conquest: Residual Sovereignty and the Legal Foundations of the British Empire in India’, Law, Culture and the Humanities 9:2 (2012): 227–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Lumby, E. W. R., ‘British Policy toward the Indian States, 1940–7’, in Philips, C. H. and Wainwright, Mary Doreen, eds., The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935–1947. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970, 95–103Google Scholar.

20 Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1918, 242.

21 Ramusack, Barbara, The Indian Princes and Their States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 51–2, 255Google Scholar.

22 Singh, Gurmukh Nihal, Indian States & British India: Their Future Relations. Benares: Nand Kishore & Bros, 1930, 347Google Scholar.

23 Sen, ‘Unfinished Conquest’, 228.

24 Benton, Lauren, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 258Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., 250.

26 Mitra, S. M., Indian Problems. London: John Murray, 1908, 340–2Google Scholar.

27 Leonard, Karen, ‘Palmer and Company: An Indian Banking Firm in Hyderabad State’, Modern Asian Studies 47:4 (2013): 1159–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Keer, Dhananjay, Mahatma Jotirao Phooley: Father of Indian Social Revolution. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 2002, 78Google Scholar.

29 Datla, Kavita, ‘The Origins of Indirect Rule in India: Hyderabad and the British Imperial Order’, Law and History Review, 33:2 (2015), 321–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Tupper, Charles Lewis, Our Indian Protectorate: An Introduction to the Study of the Relations Between the British Government and Its Indian Feudatories. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1893, 18Google Scholar.

31 Sastry, K. R. R., Indian States. Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1941, 49–50Google Scholar.

32 Tupper, Our Indian Protectorate, 2.

33 Legg, Stephen, ‘An International Anomaly? Sovereignty, the League of Nations and India's Princely Geographies’, Journal of Historical Geography 43 (2014), 96–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Speeches and Writings of Sarojini Naidu. Madras: G.A. Natesan & Co., 1919, 64, 234.

35 Copland, Ian, The Princes of India and the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fn. 12, 77.

36 Nehru, et al. , The Nehru Report: An Anti-separatist Manifesto. New Delhi: Michiko & Panjathan, 1975 [1928], 72Google Scholar.

37 Bell, Duncan, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future World Order, 1860–1900. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Ged, ‘‘Empire Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union, 1820–1870’, Historical Journal 16 (1973): 65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Morrison, David McLaren, India and Imperial Federation. London: Sampson Low, 1900Google Scholar.

39 Mazower, No Enchanted Palace.

40 Jennings, Ivor, A Federation for Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940Google Scholar; Streit, Clarence, Union Now: A Proposal for a Federal Union of the Democracies of the North Atlantic. New York: Harper & Bros., 1939Google Scholar; Curry, W. B., The Case for Federal Union: A New International Order. London: Penguin, 1939Google Scholar.

41 Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 5.

42 Ibid., 240, 244.

43 Ibid., 243.

44 Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I. Calcutta: Government of India, 1930, 89.

45 Frederick Whyte, India, a Federation? Simla: Government of India, 1926.

46 J. P. Thompson, ‘Constitutional Reform in India’, India Office Records [IOR] F137/34.

47 Report of the Indian States Committee, 1928–1929. London: HM Stationery Office, 1929, 23–32.

48 Ibid.

49 Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. II, 13.

50 Ibid., 12.

51 Copland, Princes of India, 87.

52 Ibid., Chapter 3.

53 Haksar, K. N. and Panikkar, K. M., Federal India. London: M. Hopkinson, 1930, ix, 18Google Scholar, emphasis in original; see also Ramusack, The Indian Princes and Their States, 249–51.

54 Haksar and Panikkar, Federal India, 3, 17–18.

55 Bridge, Carl, Holding India to the Empire: the British Conservative Party and the 1935 Constitution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1986Google Scholar; Moore, R. J., The Crisis of Indian Unity, 1917–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974Google Scholar; Muldoon, Andrew, Empire, Politics and the Creation of the 1935 India Act: Last Act of the Raj. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009Google Scholar.

56 The states were awarded 104 out of 260 seats in the upper house and 125 out of 375 in the lower house.

57 R. J. Moore, The Making of India's Paper Federation, 1927–35’, in Philips and Wainwright, eds., The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935–1947.

58 Jalal, Ayesha, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, 1999, 20Google Scholar.

59 Bhagavan, Manu, ‘Princely States and the Hindu Imaginary’, The Journal of Asian Studies, 67:3 (August 2008), 881–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Ibid., 52.

61 Iqbal to Edward Thompson, 4 March 1933, in Devji, Muslim Zion, 151.

62 Ibid., 152.

63 Beverley, Hyderabad, British India, and the World.

64 ul-Mulk, Sarvar, My Life: Being the Autobiography of Nawab Server-ul-Mulk Bahadur, translated by Bahadur, Nawab Jiwan Yar Jung. London: Arthur H. Stockwell, 1903, 230Google Scholar. Amir al Mu'minin can be translated as ‘Commander of the Faithful’ or ‘Leader of the Faithful’.

65 Beverley, Hyderabad, British India, and the World, 133.

66 Address by Moulvi Badruddin Haider Khan Bahadur, 3 March 1912. Pirzada, S. S., ed., Foundations of Pakistan: All-India Muslim League Documents, Volume I, 1906–1924. Dacca: National Publishing House, 1969, 223Google Scholar.

67 Nasr, Syed Vali Reza, Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution: The Jama'at-I Islami of Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, 225Google Scholar.

68 Ramnath, Maia, Haj to Utopia: How the Ghadar Movement Charted Global Radicalism and Attempted to Overthrow the British Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011Google Scholar; Kramer, Martin, Islam Assembled: The Advent of the Muslim Congresses. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986Google Scholar; Hartung, Jan-Peter, ‘Who Speaks of What Caliphate? The Indian Khilafat Movement and Its Aftermath’, in Al-Rasheed, Madawi, Kersten, Carool, and Shterin, Marat, eds., Demystifying the Caliphate. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013, 81–94Google Scholar.

69 Pernau-Reifeld, Margrit, ‘Reaping the Whirlwind: Nizam and the Khilafat Movement’, Economic and Political Weekly 34:38 (18–24 September 1999), 2746–7Google Scholar.

70 Ibid.

71 Beverley, Hyderabad, British India, and the World.

72 J. P. Slight, The British Empire and the Hajj, 1865–1956. PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2011, 98–107.

73 Lelyveld, David, Aligarh's First Generation: Muslim Solidarity in British India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, 141, 184Google Scholar.

74 Datla, Kavita, The Language of Secular Islam: Urdu Nationalism and Colonial India. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2013Google Scholar.

75 Green, Nile, ‘The Trans-border Traffic of Afghan Modernism: Afghanistan and the Indian “Urdusphere”’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 53:3 (2011): 479–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Datla, Kavita, ‘Worldly Vernacular: Urdu at Osmania University’, Modern Asian Studies 43:5 (2009): 1117–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Beverley, Muslim Modern, 92.

77 Sastry, Indian States, 176–7.

78 IOR MSS EUR F137/35.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

81 Copland, Princes of India, 131–2.

82 Gangulee, N., The Making of Federal India. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1936, 258Google Scholar.

83 Khan, Shafa'at Ahmad, The Indian Federation: An Exposition and Critical Review. London: Macmillan, 1937, 183Google Scholar.

84 The Government of India Act, 1935, Part III, Chapter 1. New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1936.

85 Copland, Princes of India, Chapters 4 and 5.

86 Leonard, Karen, ‘Hyderabad: The Mulki–Non-Mulki Conflict’, in Jeffrey, Robin, ed., People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978, 65–106Google Scholar.

87 Ibid., 87–8.

88 Mantena, Rama, ‘Publicity, Civil Liberties and Political Life in Princely Hyderabad’, Modern Asian Studies (2019), 1–30Google Scholar.

89 M. A. Moid and A. Suneetha, ‘Rethinking “Majlis” Politics: Pre-1948 Muslim Concerns in Hyderabad State’, unpublished manuscript, emphasis added.

90 This could be translated as ‘I am king’ or ‘We are rulers’.

91 Benichou, Lucien, From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State, 1938–48. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2000, 108–9Google Scholar.

92 Aiyangar, et al., Report of the Reforms Committee 1938 1347F. Hyderabad: Government Central Press, 1938, 8.

93 Hardy, Peter, The Muslims of British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, 222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Devji, Muslim Zion; Mufti, Aamir, Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007, 137lCrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Prasad, Beni, India's Hindu-Muslim Questions. Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1941Google Scholar.

95 Jalal, Ayesha, Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850. London: Routledge, 2000, 400Google Scholar.

96 Devji, Muslim Zion.

97 Ali, Rahmat, The Millat & the Mission. Cambridge: Pakistan National Movement, 1944, 5Google Scholar; and Ali, Rahmat, Osmanistan: The Fatherland of the Osman Nation. Cambridge: Pakistan National Movement, 1946Google Scholar.

98 Syed Abdul Latif, The Muslim Problem in India: Together with an Alternative Constitution for India. Bombay: Times of India, 1939; see also Jung, Nawab Dr Nazir Yar, ed., The Pakistan Issue. Lahore: Sh. M. Ashraf, 1943Google Scholar.

99 Afzal, M. Rafique, ed., The Case for Pakistan. Islamabad: National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research, 1979, xviiGoogle Scholar.

100 Prasad, Rajendra, India Divided. Bombay: Hind Kitabs, 1947, 194–9Google Scholar.

101 ‘A Punjabi’, Confederacy of India. Lahore: Nawab Sir Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan, 1939.

102 Ibid., 14.

103 Afzal, ed., The Case for Pakistan, p. xvii.

104 Hasan, Syed Zafarul and Qadri, Muhammad Afzal Husain, The Problem of Indian Muslims and Its Solution. Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University Press, 1939Google Scholar.

105 Prasad, India Divided, 183.

106 Dhulipala, Venkat, Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Ibid., 203.

108 Jalal, Self and Sovereignty, 412.

109 Gandhi, M. K., The Indian States’ Problem. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Press, 1941, 673Google Scholar.

110 Haroon to President, AIML, 11 February 1941; Yar Jung, The Pakistan Issue, 73–80.

111 Ibid., emphasis in original.

112 Ibid.

113 Devji, Muslim Zion.

114 Copland, Ian, ‘The Princely States, the Muslim League, and the Partition of India in 1947’, The International History Review 13:1 (February 1991): 38–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Interview between Mountbatten and Jinnah, 12 July 1947; Mansergh, Nicholas, ed., The Transfer of Power, Volume XII. London: HMSO, 1983, 121Google Scholar.

116 Chopra, P. N. and Chopra, Prabha, eds., The Inside Story of Sardar Patel, the Diary of Maniben Patel: 1936–50. Delhi: Vision Books, 2001, 210Google Scholar.

117 Banga, Indu, ‘The Crisis of Sikh Politics (1940–1947)’, in O'Connell, Joseph T., Israel, Milton, and Oxtoby, Willard G., eds., Sikh History and Religion in the Twentieth Century. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1988, 233–55Google Scholar; Hamdard, Sadhu Singh, Azad Punjab. Amritsar: Ajeet Book Agency, 1943Google Scholar; Singh, Gurbachan and Gyani, Lal Singh, The Idea of a Sikh State. Lahore: Lahore Book Shop, 1946Google Scholar; Singh, Sadhu Swarup, The Sikhs Demand Their Homeland. Lahore: Lahore Book Shop, 1946Google Scholar.

118 Adhikari, G. M., Pakistan and National Unity. Bombay: People's Publishing House, 1942, 8Google Scholar; see also Adhikari, G. M., Sikh Homeland. Bombay: People's Publishing House, 1945Google Scholar.

119 Speech at Patiala, 22 October 1947; For a United India, 58.

120 Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India. London: Meridian Books, 1960, 464Google Scholar.

121 Prasad, India Divided, 29.

122 Nehru, Discovery of India, 464.

123 The League resolved on 11 April 1942 that ‘With regard to the Indian States, it is the considered opinion of the Committee that it is a matter for them to decide whether to join or not to join or form a Union’; Sherwani, Latif Syed, ed., Pakistan Resolution to Pakistan, 1940–1947: A Selection of Documents Presenting the Case for Pakistan. New Delhi: Daya Publishing House, 1985, 60Google Scholar.

124 Nehru, Discovery of India, 465–6, emphasis added.

125 Ibid., 467.

126 Bangash, Yaqoob Khan, ‘Betrayal of Trust: Princely States of India and the Transfer of Power’, South Asia Research, 26:2 (2006): 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 Copland, Princes of India, 222–3.

128 Gadgil, D. R., The Federal Problem in India. Poona: Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, 1947, 178–9Google Scholar.

129 Tahmankar, D. V., Sardar Patel. London: Allen & Unwin, 1970, 209Google Scholar.

130 Moore, R. J., Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian Problem. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983, 295–6Google Scholar.

131 Nehru to Mountbatten, 11 May 1947; IOR: L/P&J/10/79 ff.234–40.

132 Ibid.

133 Menon, V. P., The Story of the Integration of the Indian States. New York: Macmillan, 1956, 490Google Scholar.

134 Copland, Princes of India, 255.

135 Bakshi, S. R., ed., The Making of India and Pakistan, Select Documents: Vol. 6, Partition of India. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1997, 90Google Scholar.

136 Ibid., 97.

137 Speech at Calcutta, 3 January 1948; For a United India, 132.

138 11 August 1947; For a United India, 126.

139 The six states were Hyderabad, Mysore, Bhopal, Tripura, Manipur, and Cooch-Behar; Copland, Princes of India, 262–3.

140 Ibid., 264–5.

141 Statement in Constituent Assembly, 5 March 1948; Jawaharlal Nehru's Speeches, Volume One: September 1946–May 1949, New Delhi, 1963[1949], 71–2.

142 Ambedkar statement, 17 June 1947, cited in Sever, Adrian, ed., Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely States, Vol. II. New Delhi: B.R. Publishers, 1985, 628–34Google Scholar.

143 B. R. Ambedkar, Federation versus Freedom, 1939, http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/08.%20Federation%20vs%20Freedom.htm; and Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan, or the Partition of India. Bombay: Thacker and Company, 1945Google Scholar.

144 Ambedkar, Federation versus Freedom.

145 Varshney, Ashutosh, ‘How Has Indian Federalism Done?’, in Varshney, Ashutosh, ed., Battles Half Won: India's Improbable Democracy. New Delhi: Penguin, 2013, 169–203Google Scholar; Kumarasingham, Harshan, A Political Legacy of the British Empire: Power and the Parliamentary System in Post-colonial India and Sri Lanka. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially Chapter 4; Dasgupta, Jyotirindra, ‘India's Federal Design and Multicultural National Construction’, in Kohli, Atul, ed., The Success of India's Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001Google Scholar.

146 Ambedkar, Pakistan, 238.

147 Uday S. Mehta, ‘The Social Question and the Absolutism of Politics’, Seminar 615 (November 2010), http://www.india-seminar.com/2010/615/615_uday_s_mehta.htm.

148 Kapila, Shruti, ‘Global Intellectual History and the Indian Political’, in McMahon, Darrin M. and Moyn, Samuel, eds., Rethinking Modern European Intellectual History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014Google Scholar.

149 ‘Aims and Objects of the Constituent Assembly’, 13 December 1946; Gopal, S., ed., Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume One (Second Series). New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1973Google Scholar.

150 Statement of Policy Governing the Princely States, New Delhi, 5 July 1947; For a United India, 4.

151 Purushotham, ‘Internal Violence’.