'Ayodhya' and History

‘Ayodhy’ and History[i]

Y Sudershan Rao[ii]

M Sambaiah[iii]

            During the Muslim incursions, many Hindu temples, Jain and Buddhist monasteries and other allied structures including their university libraries were destroyed in the medieval times. Though north India was first affected in the first two centuries of the past millennium, the rage had spread subsequently to south India due to the expansion of Muslim power into the south. The present Muslim theologians and priests profess that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ and that Islam does not sanction building of mosques on the destruction sites of other religious institutions. But, there are ample literary evidences in their own chronicles and the mosques built on the sites replacing the temples during their rule, where prayers are still being held even today stand testimony. There has always been a wide gap between the precepts and practice. Among number of such instances of destruction of temples, Ayodhya, Varanasi and Mathura sites are more conspicuous because they are holy places of great significance for Hindus. Ayodhya and Mathura are the birth places of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna who are worshipped as incarnations of Lord Vishnu. Varanasi is the abode of Lord Viswanatha (Siva) and Mother (Goddess) Annapurna. There is no doubt that the temples are destroyed deliberately by the Muslim rulers and got the mosques constructed on most of such sites.

           India has lost considerable territory in the formation of Muslim Pakistan on its east and west as a heavy price to gain independence from the British-yoke. What remained after is a secular India where all religions are treated equally. In the heat of transfer of power into the hands of natives, Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel took initiative to rebuild Somanath temple in Gujarat. On this analogy, the Hindu activists demanded for handing over of the site of Ramajanmabhumi where they proposed to build a Hindu temple replacing Babri mosque. But, it was argued that the new Somanath temple did not replace any mosque. The Government thought that the claim on Ayodhya, if accepted, might open a ‘Pandora’s Box’. In the wake of the communal catastrophe caused by the division of India, the Government was not prepared to take any decision immediately. Communal riots also have taken place on this count in Ayodhya in 1948-49.  The Government, headed by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, opted to buy time by deferring the decision indefinitely as long as it was possible. Indian Government tried to play safe in continuing the   colonial policy of the British. For over a century, the matter was lying unsolved in the lower courts of the then British Oudh and later scaling up and down in the present UP courts. Finally, the matter is, now, in the Apex Court. Since the matter is sub-judice, the Government has a justification to delay its decision.

          Ayodhya might be a very prominent city as the founding capital of the Iksvaku dynasty upto the Ramayana times and continued to be ruled by the Iksvakus as the capital of a part of the divided kingdom after King Rama left for his heavenly abode. It continued under the splinter groups of Iksvakus of north and south Kosalas upto Magadh predominance in about 4^th cen BC. Later, it lost its political importance and remained an important religious and cultural centre as evidenced by the Chinese travelers and Jain and Buddhist texts. The last millennium was heralded by the Muslim invasions from the north-west region of Indian sub-continent. Ayodhya, being strategically situated in the Gangetic doab, assumed great importance during the entire Muslim rule. The Muslim contingents were stationing at Ayodhya for maintaining link between Delhi, the capital of the Muslim Sultanat and later the Mughal empire, and their eastward possessions. During the Muslim rule, the Muslims settled in the town in great number and made it their home. Obviously, many mosques or tombs of their ‘peers’ have come up in various localities of the town. A grand mosque was constructed in Ayodhya by  Mir Baqui, a military commander of Babur’s army stationed at Ayodhya, to please his master. Two contemporary inscriptions are found on the site, one inside the mosque and the other outside, stating this fact.

          Though Ayodhya did not command great importance during the Muslim rule, there are many instances where some Hindu chiefs could take upper hand in getting control over the region and the town in the intervening periods when the central authority was weak. But the Hindu chiefs who were successful to possess their control over the town for a while were not strong enough to enjoy independence and much less to remove Muslim religious structures. The first historical reference made with regard to the Ramajanmabhumi could be found in the demand of the Marathas to hand over Ramajanmabhumi to them along with other two major Hindu temples at Varanasi and Mathura when  Shuja-ud-Daula, Nawab of Oudh, sought Maratha help to fight Ahmad Shah Abdali in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761).  But, unlucky for them, the combined Hindu and Muslim forces were routed in the Battle and the Marathas lost their commanding position in Indian politics once and forever. Soon, India was brought under the English Company’s rule. Another important reference is about the endowment made by Ahalyabai Holkar in the form of an annuity to conduct daily puja (worship) at Lord Rama temple on the Janmabhumi. As the ruling class failed to recover the temple and the Janmabhumi, the sanyasis and the devotees made their efforts to regain their control on the Janmabhumi and clash between the communities continued during the British rule. When there were concerted armed attacks on the question of Janmabhumi, the English government dealt the problem as a mere law and order issue and tried to tackle it through their district and taluk magistrates. The English were successful in deferring the issue till they left India.

India, after becoming independent, opted for a ‘secular’ state and parliamentary democracy with ‘universal’ franchise. The Government sought judicial redress of the Ayodhya problem. The claimants of Janmabhumi were required to prove that: (a) Ayodhya was an important Tirtha (holy place of Hindu pilgrimage) from the ancient times; (b) the present Ayodhya is the same as epic Ayodhya; (c) King Rama was a historic personality; (d) King Rama was born on the site of Babri mosque; and (e) a Hindu temple, precisely that of Lord  Rama, was destroyed to build Babri mosque during Babar’s reign. Though “the vital question of certain established long reputed facts do not require proof in the ordinary sense by way of adducing evidence afresh is not called for”[iv] the government referred the issue to judicial courts and they in turn referred it to the archaeological bodies for investigations..  Before independence such doubts never struck to any one, not even to the Muslim priests or activists and the then Muslim or British governments. At that time, the conflict was merely on the question of control and possession between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Strangely, in the post independent political scenario, history is expected to provide answers to these questions to solve the nagging problem.

          The story of King Rama is dealt in detail in Valmiki’s great epic, Ramayana and considerable sketches at length of the story and major incidents are found in puranas, other major epic, Mahabharata, ancient kavyas, Pali texts etc, besides quite a good amount of orature in India and abroad. Though the epics, puranas and orature could not be dated specifically, the ancient literature can be traced to a few centuries before Christ. Abundant references to Ayodhya/river Sarayu as a holy pilgrimage for Hindus and Rama as a virtuous personality/king/ divine incarnation can be found from the literature- Sanskrit and vernacular- pertaining to the first two millennia in the Chiristian era.  During the past two centuries, research by the western and Indian scholars and Indian traditional scholars yielded valuable information about our remote past. Archaeological explorations and excavations were carried to unearth our past by the western enthusiasts in the beginning followed by scientific work done by the trained archaeologists. Since most of our knowledge was preserved in the formal oral recitations, dating the antiquity of their compositions becomes a near impossibility. With archaeological evidences, our civilization which remained unbroken can of course be   dated back to Harappan times, three millennia before Christ. But the antiquity of our elite Culture and literature cannot be traced with the available archaeological finds. Therefore, one has to wait till archaeologists could unearth the epic Ayodhya, if at all there was such, to identify the same with the present Ayodhya or otherwise. 

          River Sarayu was said to be a major river originating from the Manasasarovar at the foot of Mount Kailash, the abode of Lord Siva, during the Ramayana times. The river in course of time might have changed its course and attained the present status of a tributary to Holy River Ganga. It was being treated as the River of Salvation even much earlier to Holy River Ganga which was brought down to us by Bhagirath, a king from the Iksvaku line of Ayodhya. King Rama left his mortal body in the river and assumed his original divine form of Lord Vishnu. The river continued to command reverence as a Tirtha.  King Balarama, king of Dwaraka in Mahabharata times, who is also considered one of the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu, and Guru Nanak (1469-1539), founder of Sikhism, had a holy dip in the river as an important Tirtha. Besides River Sarayu, the town of Ayodhya, as the capital of Iksvaku dynasty,  gave great rulers like Bhagirath, Raghu, Dilip, Dasarath and Rama, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu himself. Ayodhya and River Sarayu are considered holy Tirthas from times unknown. Present Ayodhya city has many a site recognized as holy sites/monuments of worship by Hindus and attracts many sanyasis and sants to live in/visit Ayodhya. The devotees, who visit Ayodhya, adore the holy dust of Janmasthan on their foreheads and bow their heads at numerous holy sites in the town. However, history and archaeology may have their own limitations in assessing the religious significance of Ayodhya as a kshetra and Sarayu river as a Tirtha which are subjective in their nature.

          We have clear evidence of writing in India from about Indus times. But, historically our literary tradition dates back to about 5-6 centuries BC when Puranic, Buddhist and Jain texts were codified. But Indian oral tradition is much older. Rama’s life, personality, rule and divinity inspired many saints, scholars, poets, singers and writers besides devotees in creating a voluminous literature in all literary forms in many languages of India since times immemorial and in many languages of the world from the early historical times. Ramayana has also greatly influenced many art forms –architecture, sculpture, painting, music, dramatics, etc.

The present genre of history has developed as a scientific discipline since past two centuries. Many scholarly studies are made in the recent times on the history and geography of Ramayana times mostly based on the ancient literature. But still, the direct references to clarify the current doubts on its historicity and authenticity are scanty. Even those available few references are not contemporary and can be interpreted differently.

Archaeology has also developed in the recent centuries as an allied discipline of history providing material sources to construct history. In India, archaeological explorations were attempted in 19^th century with chance findings on the surface by the colonial administrators. Later, the English government took interest in exploring India in a limited way through a government department. The Government has taken up archaeological explorations and excavations which could throw some light on pre-historic, proto-historic and ancient material cultures of Indian sub-continent. Later some projects on these lines were taken up by the government and university departments to study the authenticity and historicity of our epics with the help of new archaeology. Projects on Ramayana archaeology and on Mahabharata were also undertaken by specialist archaeologists like (Late) H D Sankalia (Deccan College, Poona) and B B Lal (former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi). B B Lal suggests that the early habitation on Ayodhya could be traced back to about 7-8 centuries BC. Many ruins and sites were explored in Ayodhya pertaining to different religious sects- Hindu, Jain and Buddhist- belonging to early centuries of Christian era as evidenced by the Chinese pilgrims and mentioned in indigenous literary accounts. Thus, archaeology does provide enough material to prove that the town was habited since at least a few centuries before Christ and it also served as a centre for major Indian religions, besides being a capital town for the Iksvaku dynasty.

The latest archaeological excavations conducted on the Court directions at the Janmabhumi site did reveal the ruins of a basement of a very big columned erstwhile monument on which the Babri mosque was built.   Stone pillars and door-jams with Hindu motifs used in the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi were found in the excavations. The images of Hindu deities were also found below the ground at the disputed site. These archaeological arte’ facts are also being interpreted differently by the archaeologists and historians.

The issue attained greater complexities in the post-independence period due to mounting pressures from the activists from both communities and the hesitance of the governments both at centre and state to take a firm decision. While the issue is being played into judicial courts and intellectual and political forums and various associations – professional and religious –, once a local issue it has now transformed into a communal issue and then it had grown into a national problem detriment to communal harmony. All thinking men –religious activists, intellectuals, politicians, professional historians and archaeologists- are divided into at least three groups; a) those who stand for the Hindu cause, b) those who stand for the Mosque and c) the majority of others who support an amicable settlement of the controversy. In influencing the public opinion in favour of Muslim community, the ‘secular’ historians and ‘progressive’ intelligentsia make concerted endeavor in support of the Muslim cause. They further condemn all those who sympathize the Hindu cause as Hindu fundamentalists and ‘saffron brigade’. The media has also been critical of the Hindu group, to a large extent, for raising what they call a ‘non-issue’ for political ends. Revisiting the past with preconceived notions and vested interests leads to misinterpretation of historical facts. Since independence, volumes are written by the teams of scholars owing allegiance to either side of the issue. In this milieu, the worst sufferer could be history as a scientific discipline and historiography as a technical craft. The need for Historical wisdom is, generally, felt in shaping the public policies in a democratic welfare state. But, the desirability of application of history in the resolution of nagging public disputes leading to street fights has to be examined with much care and caution. While history is a science, politics, i.e applied history, is an art.

Ayodhya is, technically speaking, not a historical problem, because Ayodhya stood even before the modern genre of history was born. It is definitely not a property issue to be adjudicated in civil courts because contending groups are not prepared to share the holy land on material considerations. It is also not a religious problem, as orthodox or traditional sections of both groups also feel  that the religious shrines can not be raised on disputed sites. Muslims do not consider that it is not a pious act to raise  the mosques on the temple ruins and so also the Hindus. It is basically a complex cultural issue between the two communities whose respective sentiments are hovering high. If conciliatory attempts fail, each group tries to assert their demand politically. History tells us several instances of such disputes from the past. There were monarchies prepared to fight it out at any cost to resolve a problem applying caturopaya , namely, saama, daana, bhe’da, danda one after the other. War was the last resort. Satguru Sivananda Murtyji[v] opines that resorting to war when all other peaceful ways failed was also considered a civilised approach to end a problem for ever.   In those days, might was right. But modern democracy and electoral politics do not allow the settlement of such cultural problems instantly. On the other hand the modern governments take credit for seemingly unending prolongation of the issue. Thus such problems continue to stay for long if not forever.

---

[i]. This article is based on the unpublished doctoral dissertation, entitled, “Problems of Perspectives of Contemporary Indian Historiography – A case study of Ayodhya issue” submitted to Kakatiya University, Warangal (2012) by Dr M Sambiah.

[ii] Professor of History (Rtd) and former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kakatiya University, Warangal, AP (506009), e-mail: ysudershanrao@gmail.com, Phone 09849450116

[iii] Reader in History, CKM Arts & Sc College, Desaipet, Warangal, AP.  Ph. 09393370601

[iv] A note of Sri K Sugunakar Rao, senior advocate, Warangal, AP on the Allahabad High Court Judgment on Ayodhya issue, given to the authors. He further opines, “this cardinal rule was lost sight of in the course of judicial scrutiny of the dispute pertaining to Ayodhya.”

[v] Mahamahopadhyaya, Dr  Sivananda Murtyji, (Guruji), ‘Anandavan’, Bheemunipatnam, A.P to whom authors express their gratitude and reverence. Guruji opines that history belongs to people and it should not be confined to universities. This article is an attempt to acquaint general intelligentsia the findings of modern researches  in the fields of social sciences in general and history in particular.

Select Bibliography

Ashis Nandy et al.,	:	Creating a Nationlity:  The Ramajanmabhumi Movement and Fear of the Self, Delhi, 1998.
Bakker, Hans	:	Ayodhya, Hallond, 1987.
Beveridge, A.S. (Trans)	:	Babar Nama (Memories of Babar) London, 1992.
Bipan Chandra	:	Essays on Contemporary India, New Delhi, 1993.
Engineer, Asghar Ali	:	Politics of Confrontation, the Babri Masjid Ramajanmabhoomi Controversy Run-Riot, Delhi, 1992.
Gopal, Sarvepally (Ed)	:	Anatomy of A Confrontatio – The Babri Masjid Ramajanmabhoomi Issue, New Delhi, 1991.
Hutchinson, G.	:	Narratives of Mutinies of Oudh, London, 1859.
Harbans Mukhia	:	Perspectives on Medieval History, New Delhi, 1993.
Harsh Narain	:	The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute-Focus on Muslim Sources, Delhi, 1993.
Irwin, H.C.	:	The Garden of India or Chapters on Oudh History and Affairs, London, 1880.
Jitendra Bajaj (Ed)	:	Ayodhya and Future of India, Madras, 1992.
Kamala Subramaniam	:	Ramayana, Bhratiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1993.
Koenraad Elst	:	Ayodhya and After issues before Hindu Society, New Delhi, 1991.
Koenaraad Elst	:	Ramajanmabhoomi Vs Babri Masjid – A Case study in Hindu Muslim Conflict New Delhi, 1990.
Leyden John (Trans)	:	Memories of Zehiruddin Mohammed Babar Emperor of Hindustan, London, 1819.
Majumdar, R.C. General Editor	:	The Maratha Supremacy, the History and culture of the Indian people, Publisher Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1977.
Mandal, D.	:	Ayodhya Archaeology after demolition New Delhi, 1993.
Nathu, R.	:	The Babri Masjid of Ayodhya, Jaipur, 1990.
Nilannjan Mukhopadhyay	:	The Demolition-India at the Cross roads, Delhi, 1994.

RomilaThaper Horbans Mukia Bipinchandra	:	Comunalism and the Uniting of Indian History, New Delhi, 1967.
Sharma, R.S.	:	Communal History and Rama’s Ayodhya, Delhi, 1990.
Sharma, Y.D. and others	:	Ramajanmabhoomi:  Ayodhya, New Archaeological Discovries, Delhi.
Sankalia, H.D.	:	Ramayana Myth of Relaity?  New Delhi, 1993.

Read more

Interplay of Autocracy, Nationalism and Communism In Hyderabad State under the Last Nizam – An Overview

Interplay of Autocracy, Nationalism and Communism

In Hyderabad State under the Last Nizam – An Overview

(Paper presented in the World Meet on Telugu History and Culture, held at British Library, London, on 14-15 July 2012)

----Sudershan Rao Yellapragada[1]

--- Hema Botlagudur[2]

Twentieth Century heralded with an unprecedented national upsurge in both Indias –Native and British—in varying degrees. Rulers of Native India enjoyed autonomy in internal administration. Though their number is staggering, the status of about a score of them was in a way comparable to the Princes of Europe. Most of these native princes enjoyed unquestioned authority and influence over their subjects irrespective of their personal religion.[3] The Hyderabad State was one among such premier States.

Its peculiarity was that the ruler was a Muslim and his subjects were mostly Hindu. May be, Bhopal stood next to it in status, territory and population among the Muslim minority princely states ruled by Muslim rulers. Another peculiarity of the Asaf Jahs was that they were content with a subordinate title, the Nizam-ul-Mulk[4], right from the founding of the Hyderabad State in 1724 to its joining Indian Union in 1948 though they were virtually independent all through.  They owed nominal allegiance to the Mughal Emperor till 1857 and later turned into a subservient ‘faithful ally’ of the British. Islamic Theocracy[5] and Feudalism were the two main pillars on which Nizam’s ‘autocracy’ stood. Based on such a stable and strong support, it was believed then that the Nizam’s rule   would never end. Even after Indian independence was declared, the Nizam was still given to understand by his ‘advisors’ that the withdrawal of the British hegemony unequivocally meant his sovereignty which he strongly cherished[6]. What made the Nizam ignore the ringing bells of impending destiny resulting in dissolution of his State?  How did these two supporting pillars become brittle? What strategies did Nationalism adopt to unnerve the Islamic Theocracy which in course of time gave way to Muslim communalism and how could Communism encounter the Feudalism to hasten the demolition of the autocratic State in the last phase of the Nizam’s rule? However, these questions are asked many a time by the lay and specialists. These questions are investigated and answered in their own   perspectives. Scores of biographies of freedom fighters and free-lance writings[7] have been published in the post-independent era. Hundreds of research papers and theses were done by the research scholars in History and other allied disciplines during these sixty years of independence[8]. Most of these works have been written in the same heat and spirit of the national struggle outliving their need and purpose. Now that the exigencies and priorities of the freedom struggle do not exist anymore, this may facilitate a dispassionate revisit to the history of the last few decades of the Nizam’s rule. It may turn out to be a useful exercise to understand the impact of the then political developments and techniques of mass mobilization on the imaging of the last Nizam as an autocrat[9].     

I

After the death of Aurangzeb, the wars of succession weakened the once mighty Empire. The Nizam-ul-Mulk also had a trying time due to unstable political situation in the empire. He was fleeing to Deccan in 1723, on the plea ‘for a change of air’, after losing confidence of the Emperor, Muhammad Shah. But he had to confront with his own Deputy, Mubariz Khan, who declared himself Viceroy of Deccan. Nizam defeated Mubariz at Shakar Kheda, near Aurangabad,  with the help of Peshwa Baji Rao I. Emperor Muhammad Shah had no alternative but to confirm him to Deccan Viceroyalty with the title, ‘Asaf Jah’[10]. Virtually, Nizam was independent of the Central authority without any obligations what-so-ever to the Center. Nizam was ruthless in establishing his authority over the region. His deputies were more ruthless in putting down any insurgency. One such deputy, Rustum Khan created a ‘reign of terror’ in bringing the coastal belt under the Nizam’s control. He had no scruples. Ballads were sung in the villages condemning his atrocities.[11]

The first Nizam also kept the foreign companies at a distance. He kept the English and the French guessing whom he favoured most – a policy he deliberately adopted. It was almost impossible for them to have an audience even with his deputies to represent their grievances. They had to befriend the Nizam’s officials by offering them rich gifts and helping them in their private trade.[12] But the death of Asaf Jah I in 1748 threw the entire Deccan in jeopardy. The French and the English intervened as ‘auxiliaries’ in the wars of succession at Arcot and Hyderabad and soon emerged as ‘principals’. Finally, Nizam Ali Khan could firmly seat himself on the throne as Asaf Jah II in 1761. During his long rule spanning over four decades, Hyderabad had significant strides towards losing its suzerainty to the English. Nizam Ali Khan was the first among Indian princes to sign Subsidiary Alliance with the English in 1800 for his fears towards Marathas and Mysore. He not only lost his external sovereignty, but even his internal suzerainty was impaired to a great extent by allowing subsidiary force to stay in his capital. The maintenance of subsidiary force proved itself a great drain on the economy of the State.[13]

Nizam Ali Khan was succeeded by Sikandar Jah in 1803. During his rule the process of demilitarization of Hyderabad had started as a result of the Subsidiary Alliance. The Nizam was forced to accede permanently Northern Sarkars (the present coastal region from Srikakulam to Krishna districts) which were already leased out to the English in 1768 by him expecting military assistance from the English against Marathas. The Rayalseema districts were also ceded to the English for payment of dues on account of subsidiary forces.[14] Thus, Hyderabad was reduced into a land-locked country surrounded by British India.[15]

Nasir-ud-Daula Aaf Jah IV (1829-1857) inherited a truncated State with no considerable sources of revenue. The country was impoverished. Nizam’s officials played havoc in countryside to fleece the already poor peasants. The life of common man became deplorable and the State was going from bad to worse in all respects. Dacoities, robberies and unsocial activities became the order of the day. Many riots and conspiracies took place.  The jagirdars, zamindars, high officials and rich landlords confined themselves to the city of Hyderabad indulging in leisure-sport ignoring their responsibilities and commitment to their fiefs.[16] Summing up Nasir-ud-Daula’s times, Rajendra Prasad writes  “British hegemony over Hyderabad increased with each passing day (and) the dependency of the Nizam increased correspondingly”.[17]

Afzal-ud-Daula took the reins as Nizam IV in May 1857 when the reports were coming in about the out-break of Sepoys against the British rule. The new Nizam heralded a new era in Hyderabad under the leadership and able administration of Salar Jung I. Hyderabad also felt the tremors of Great Revolt against the British. But soon it  settled down to normalcy. The Nizam was decorated with ‘Star of India’ which meant, ‘Our Faithful Ally’.[18] Afzal-ud-Daula paid least attention to the aspects of public administration. The chief officials of the State were either recommended or thrust upon the Nizam for appointment by the British[19]. New breed of English educated Muslims were invited to occupy important positions in the State administration from outside Hyderabad. This policy invited the wrath of the local aristocracy. The issue of ‘Mulki and Non-Mulki’ came up to the fore.[20] The administration and power was going into the hands of bureaucracy. While the Nizams were mostly confining to the palace-life, the administrative control was concentrated in the Resident.

After the death of Afzal-ud-Daula in 1869, a boy of less than 3 years of age, Mir Mahaboob Ali Khan became Nizam VI. He was placed under the Regency of Salar Jung I. During the long reign of Mahaboob, after Salar Jung I, Mir Laiq Ali (1883-1887), Sir Asman Jah (1887-1893), Sir Viqar-ul-Umra (1893-1902) and Maharaja Kishen Pershad (1902-1911) were the de-facto heads of the State under the directions of the English and wielded greater influence in the Court. The reforms of late 19^th and early 20^th centuries in Hyderabad could go to their credit. Mahaboob with his fun and frivolities endeared the nobles who were lucky to have direct access to his audience. But, he was ‘marinated in alcohol’ and his feeble attempts to take the reins into his hands were never successful. He died in 1911. The State was passed on to Mir Osman Ali Khan, the last ruler.

The brief sketch of political history of the Hyderabad under the six Nizams would reveal how once most powerful autocratic rule of the Asaf Jahs during the first Nizam was reduced to a degenerated  aristocracy by the close of 19^th century. It is a long saga of unmaking of a despotic dynasty rule resulting in anarchy towards its closing years. The last ruler has seen dismantling of his State. His efforts to correct the situation by playing himself into the hands of Islamic communal forces met with disastrous consequences. The political scene in the first half of the 20^th century in Hyderabad State was dominated by Nationalist struggles and armed revolt of the Communists. What were the strategies of the newly emerging forces to counter the State under given circumstances?

II

There is a popular legend that the rise and fall of the Aaf Jahs were pre-determined. An unknown fakir predicted that the dynasty would rule for only seven generations.[21] Whether one believes it or not, it came out to be true. The seventh Nizam still dreamt of an independent Muslim State in the middle of the Deccan even after India’s independence.[22] He was like an innocent school boy of Hyderabad of his times who had to wish for ‘eternity’ of the Nizam’s Government in his daily prayer in Urdu.[23] Both Mahboob and Osman ruled for about 80 years in succession. They were well exposed to the Western knowledge and life-style. Their attempts to bring the benefits of modern civilization and western education were only limited to a few aristocratic families living in Hyderabad. Their efforts in bringing some social reforms like Sati in the Hindu society were also confined to paper[24]. They, however, could not think of any social reforms for the Muslim community. For this study, we take one or two reforms under the last Nizams that had greater impact on the rise of social consciousness among the people.

With the coming of non-Mulki western educated  Muslims occupying high administrative positions including the office of Prime Minister, Hyderabad was drawn on to the threshold of modernity. Reforming Education system in the State was given a serious thought. The replacement of Persian by Urdu as State language in the second half of 19^th century was a major break-through during the Premiership of Salar Jung II. This measure  removed the artificial atmosphere created by the continuance of Persian as Court language even when it had ceased to be so in the other parts of India.[25] Persian was also not a common man’s language. This was followed by introduction of Urdu as medium of instruction in Government schools after much discussion over the issue of what should be the medium, Urdu or English. This reform benefitted Muslim community only. Those who were educated through Urdu could take government employment. But Hyderabad was a multi-lingual State. Telugu, Kannada, Marathi and Urdu were spoken by large numbers of population. While the first three languages are commonly spoken by the people of three distinct regions of the State, Urdu speaking people were spread all over the State. Except Urdu, the people who spoke the other three languages as their mother tongues belonged largely to Hindu faith. Those who spoke Urdu as their mother tongue were invariably Muslims. The Government had deliberately ignored the Hindus and their languages. On the other hand, the Government pleaded with Sir Syed Ahmed, mentor of western educated Muslims in India, who favoured English medium, that the education should be imparted in peoples’ mother tongue. But the same thing was denied to the majority of Nizam’s subjects. Non-Muslims had to educate their children in private and unorganized street schools. The Government was also refusing to grant scholarships to those students who had not learnt Urdu/Persian to go for higher education abroad.[26]

Asman Jah who succeeded Salarjung II had introduced Compulsory Education Scheme for the children of Jagirdars and Inamdars. The measure, in a way, was aimed at thrusting Urdu education on other religious community. He warned if these landlords failed to send their children to the Government School meant for them, they would be penalized. But the scheme failed.

Introduction of Urdu education was pursued with a religious fervor. The technical education, sciences, engineering and medicine were taught through Urdu. Most of the technical books were readily translated and higher education was streamlined. Nizam Osman Ali also founded University after his name at Hyderabad with Urdu as medium of instruction in 1918. Spread of Urdu education created a class of its own among native Muslims who were anti-English and also anti-Congress.

The modern education is global in its character and universal in its application. It needs an international language for reaching the entire humanity and to develop through research. For those who are trained in regional languages would have lesser scope to share the global platform. This was a folly of the Nizam’s Government. The new Urdu educated class were confined to their own State. Thus Urdu education led the beneficiaries to take a U-turn further entrenching them in medievalism. The modern education choosing Urdu as medium failed to be an effective tool for moving the generation forward towards a positive social change. Islam and Urdu have become synonymous. Promotion of Urdu as official language and also as medium of instruction for all, irrespective of their mother-tongues, through the Government schools had a great negative impact on the society.

The emerging Press in Urdu, vernaculars and English in the last two decades of the 19^th century adopted different trends.[27] Though their circulations were limited, the educated section of the population was swayed by the waves created by these papers and periodicals. The Urdu press like Hazar Dastan which was receiving annual subsidy from the Government was critical of the English. Generally the Urdu Press was critical of the British and Indian National Congress barring one or two in the later times. The English papers which came up later, like the Pioneer, The Hyderabad Record, The Deccan Times were not only pro-Congress and anti-British but also critical of Nizam’s administration.[28] In 1891, the Government issued a circular imposing several restrictions on the newspapers. Most of the papers including some Urdu papers like Shoukat-ul-Islam who refused to sign an agreement with the Government were closed.

Many more stringent gastis (government orders) were promulgated when the political movement took momentum during the last decades of the Nizam’s rule. Entertaining a fond hope of independent Hyderabad under the Asaf Jahi dynasty, the Nizam VII did not even tolerate M A Jinnah who was critical of dynastic rule[29] in the Native States – Muslim or Hindu. The Nizam took serious objection to Jinnah’s speech in Hyderabad on ‘India Tomorrow’ in 1919 and ordered that he should not enter Nizam’s Dominions in future without obtaining permission.[30]  The Congress and the Muslim League leaders alike from British India were unwelcome in Hyderabad.

Like-wise, Telugu was identified with Hinduism. Any literary activity in Telugu was viewed with suspicion by the State as anti-Nizam. As Jinnah identified Gandhi as the leader of Hindus and the Indian National Congress as a Hindu organization[31], the Nizam’s administration also identified any Congress program as Hindu and anti-Nizam. More restrictions were imposed on Hindus and their education through non-Urdu languages. So the Hindus had to adopt programs like Library movement and festivals like Ganesh Utsav to mobilize masses for political change. So, all the nationalist programs in Hyderabad were wearing literary and cultural masks[32]. The Hyderabad Political Conferences were held outside Nizam’s Dominions at places like Kakinada (1923), Bombay (1926), Poona (1928), Akola (1931). The Andhra Maha Sabha spearheaded the mask-political program to prepare the people of Hyderabad for political agitation against Nizam for a responsible Government.

As the Hindus were preparing for a collective bargain for  democratic governance, Muslims on the other hand started their own organization, Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen in 1927 under the leadership of Nawab Sardar Yar Jang. The organization become more effective and active under Bahadur Yar Jung who became its President in 1939. With a body of Muslim volunteers, Razakars, the party became a militant organization acquiring complete control over the State administration. The Hyderabad State Congress was banned in 1939 even before it was born. The Razakars opposed the Congress as it was anti-Nizam and its members were mostly Hindu. Thus Hyderabad State Congress was identified as a party of Hindus and the freedom struggle in Hyderabad attained communal character.

The atrocities of the Razakars were inexplicable. They dreamt of an independent Islamic State under the Nizam by forcing his Hindu subjects to convert to Islam dangling swords on their necks. They adopted the same strategy with which the First Nizam brought the entire State under his command with an iron hand through ‘State terrorism’ with the help of his officials like Rustum Khan. But now the last Nizam did not realize that the times had changed. He had no control over those who created terror in his State in the name of Islam. The ‘Islamic Terrorism’ was unleashed on innocent masses of other religious communities, claiming that whatever was done was for the sake of Islam and the Nizam. The Nizam simply walked into the prison of his own making, finally leading to sign the letter of his own abdication prepared by the ‘other side’. While the reign of Islamic terror was going on unchecked, there was another armed struggle brewing in.

III

Another major pillar of strength of the Nizam’s autocracy was a class of men who served him in administration and army as chief officials, zamindars, deshpandeys, deshmukhs, jagirdars etc who were generally known as doras. With their gadis (fortresses) and hench-men, they enjoyed unquestionable position in the rural Hyderabad. Asaf Jah I, soon after he founded Hyderabad, created a class of Nobles, both Muslims and Hindus. Generally he granted jagirs to Muslims to maintain army and serve him when he needed while Hindus were employed to serve in the civil administration. Most of these jagirs were hereditary but every successor should receive a fresh sanad from the Nizam conferring the jagir or title. Nizam Ali Khan Asaf Jah II granted new forces to the existing jagirdars and granted paigah estates.[33] This class of nobles called feudal lords in western parlance owed personal allegiance to the Nizam. As Nizam’s authority was depleting as he became more and more subservient to the British, these nobles were transformed into mere land-lords. The State was no more dependent on their military or administrative support since the English took charge of the defence and controlled the civil administration through its own nominees. These nobles have retired to city of Hyderabad, built beautiful mansions and lived a luxurious life. The rural folk were fleeced and impoverished. To make a long story short, the nobility lost all its teeth by the times of the last Nizam. Darbaar-e-Durbaar, a contemporary Urdu book, “gives an authentic picture of the degenerate life led by the royalty and nobility in a feudal system. It also shows how divorced that life was from the common people. Wine, women and song were the preoccupation of those people whom the accident of birth had provided a golden spoon at the start of their life.”[34] There were only two classes of people –the nobility and the slavish poor- existed in Hyderabad. There was an unbridgeable gap between these two classes of people. The poor were dependent on their masters for their living without any voice to express their grievances. They lived in penury and thought that they owed their lives to their master. It was seemingly an unending road for feudal oppression. At this juncture, the Prime Ministers nominated by the British brought in many changes in the economic edifice of Hyderabad that was till then a mere feudal State.[35]

The introduction of modern industry, mining, railways etc imported foreign machinery, capital and also work-force both skilled and unskilled from British India into Hyderabad. This created a new class of organized working class concentrated in modern industrial belts, like Warangal, Nizamabad, Hyderabad, Singareni, Kothgudem and also in townships connected by railways. A new class emerged in Hyderabad. They were not traditionally tied up with the Nizam’s feudalism. They came from different parts of British India. They were already exposed to new western political ideologies like democracy and communism. Till then, the communist activists or any other outsider had no access to rural Hyderabad because of the people’s ignorance and feudal oppression. Now, with the new working folk from outside the State entering rural Hyderabad to work in Industries and mines, the entry of outside political activists became possible. They could bank upon sympathetic supporters to carry on their mission against landlordism in Telangana.

The Razakars’ attacks on one side and the communists’ armed attacks on other side forced the rural rich flee for their lives to British India. In the last decade of Nizam’s rule, it is said that Hyderabad was under the control of two governments, Razakars ruled during day-times (din ka sarkar) and the communists during nights (raat ka sarkar). The contemporary literature describes various sagas of oppressions and protests.[36]  The communist movement rang death-bell to Nizam’s feudalism. The anarchy was created by the both armed groups, Razakars and communists. The Indian Government had scuttled the hopes of the Nizam for an independent State. The Nizam had to bow down before the Indian army which is moderately termed as ‘Police Action’ in 1948. Indian Army suppressed both the Razakars and the communists soon after.

IV

Asaf Jahs ruled Hyderabad for seven generations spanning over two and a quarter century. The First Nizam’s autocracy was based on ‘State Terrorism’ legitimized by ‘Islamic Theocracy’ and supported by ‘Feudalism’. The State system appeared so stable that Nizam’s authority and rule seemed to be permanent. But the successors of the first Nizam lost their independence and suzerainty –internal and external- to the English gradually. Still the idea of ‘eternity’ was ringing in the ears of the Nizams. Once being a mighty power in Deccan, the fall of Hyderabad unceremoniously makes in interesting study.

Education as such is a ‘change engine’ (coining in computer terminology). Obviously, Western education consisting of modern science and technology transformed Medieval Europe to Modernity. Language is a tool used as medium to spread education to get the desired results. Education depending on its nature, use and content needs a right type of medium to dispense its knowledge. Nizam’s Government used Urdu as medium to impart western education instead of English. This proved to be a retrograde step. The newly educated youth were still entrenched in medievalism. The Urdu language, being the mother tongue of Muslims, became synonymous to Islam. The new class of Razakars resorted to ‘Islamic Terrorism’ harping on the idea of ‘eternity’ of Islamic State. But, they ignored the change in the times. The present ‘Islamic Terrorism’ could be easily tackled by the modern State. Further, Urdu education led to communal division on linguistic basis as the languages were identified with religious communities. Thus, National movement in Hyderabad was given communal overtones and treated as Hindu uprising against the Muslim Nizam.

The newly introduced modern industry based on modern science and technology brought with it a new class of organized workers from British India who were exposed to the western political ideas. The entire rural Hyderabad was an impregnable ‘citadel’ of medieval feudalism. An outsider could not penetrate into this ‘citadel’. The modern industry created a new organized working class independent of Hyderabad feudal controls. This new class formed the base for the political activists of various shades to develop contacts in rural Hyderabad. Communists encouraging Trade Unionism in labor-belts rose to the status of conducting armed attacks against the land-lords. The seemingly never-to-be-broken ‘citadel’ gave in cracks. The feudal structure which had outlived its purpose was already brittle. It was only waiting for a strong wind to blow it out.

The two strong pillars of Nizam’s Autocracy, the ‘Islamic Theocracy’ and ‘Feudalism’ fell under the pressure of modern education and Technology. The Nizam’s State which was wished to be surviving for ever with the help of these two pillars had finally crumbled. In seven generations, Nizam’s autocracy was transformed into degenerated aristocracy. The last Nizam was too feeble to offer any resistance to Indian Army to enter the capital city of Hyderabad. He was nomore an autocrat. The long saga of the Nizams reminds us that nothing stays permanently however strong or stable and wished or prayed. Because, as Satguru Sivananda Murty garu[37] says aptly, “It is in the nature of the Nature itself that does not allow anything to stay forever in this world”.

---

[1] Prof of History (Rtd) and former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kakatiya University, Warangal 506009; ‘Sivananda’ #5-11-643, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, 506009, India; ysudershanrao@gmail.com .

[2] Research scholar, #7, Aragon Dr, Leamington Spa, Warwick, CV34 6LR, UK (hemayellapragada@yahoo.co.uk)

[3] This is very evident from works of historians like Barbara Ramusack, India's Princely States: People, Princes and Colonialism. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 2004; Ian Copland, Princes of India in the endgame of empire, 1917-1947 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Ian Copland, State, community and neighbourhood in princely North India, c.1900-1950. Cambridge: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2005; Waltraud Ernst, Biswamoy Pati (Ed), India's Princely States: People, Princes and Colonialism. New York: Routledge, 2007.

[4] Chin Qilich Khan, who later founded Hyderabad State, was awarded the title of ‘Nizam-ul-Mulk, Fath-e-Jung’ and he was also made Viceroy of Deccan by Mughal Emperor, Farukh Siyar, in 1712. Sherwani & P M Joshi, History of Medieval Deccan, Vol I, 1973, p.614.

[5] Asaf Jah I declared in his testament that his successors should rule Hyderabad according to Sunna (the sayings and practices of Prophet) and advised his successors to pay nominal allegiance to the Mughal Emperor.

Yusuf Hussain Khan, Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah I, Mangalore, 1936. pp 184-220.

[6] “The Nizam was bent upon independence. Even more so were…………Muslims called the Ittehad-ul-Muslameens” writes Sir Mirza Ismail, a liberal Prime Minister of Hyderabad in the most troubled period of the Hyderabad State, from Aug 1946 to June 1947.                       N Ramesan (Ed), The Freedom Struggle in Hyderabad, Vol IV, Hyderabad,1966, p.276.

[7] For example, one may refer to this recent analytical study of the Telangana region, its people and their life during the most troubled period of anarchy towards the closing years of Nizam’s rule based on about 41 autobiographies of socio-political activists of the times. G B Srinivasa Murthy, Atma Kathallo Anati Telangana, (Telugu) Nizamabad, 2008

[8] For a glance, see Omar Khalidi’s Hyderabad State under the Nizams 1724-1048: A Bibliography of Monographic and Periodical Literature, Hyderabad, 1985.

[9] Most of the Telugu literature which came during the last phase of freedom struggle in Hyderabad State and research studies in the post independence invariably addressed the Nizam as an autocrat. The titles of doctoral theses  also suggest the same. For example, see doctoral thesis of Lucien D Benichou: From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State, 198-48, Hyderabad, 2000. Please see for more details of dissertations and academic studies with an exhaustive note on historical sources of the period: V K Bawa, The Last Nizam, Hyderabad, 2010.

[10] Maasir-ul-Umara, Vol II,   Cf: Sarojini Regani, Nizam-British Relations 1724-1857, Secunderabad, 1963. P 1.

[11] Rustum Khan became notorious by constructing kulla-minars (pyramidal structures with the heads of all adherents of the rebelling zamindars in important towns, on the lines of Nadir Shah, which were hitherto unknown in Deccan. Meckenzie’s Kaifiyads: Mogiliturru, Nuzividu, Peddapuram, Samarlakota etc.

  V R Jagapati Varma: Peddapura Samsthana Charitramu, (Telugu) pp 70-75.

James Grant: Political Survey of the Northern Sarkars, Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company, Vol III, Appendix 13, p.3-4.

[12] For details: Y Sudershan Rao, Andhra Between the Empires, Hanamkonda,1991.

[13] Sarojini Regani, op.cit p.185.

[14] Chandulal, who served as Peshkar to the Nizam III and also a favourite of the British raised heavy loans for the State to pay for the maintenance of subsidiary force. He never used to repay the debt. To those who dared to ask him, he used to have a ready reply, “tomorrow”. Of course that ‘tomorrow’ never came. This ‘tomorrow’ was popular as, ‘Chandulal ka kal’ or Chandulal’s ‘tomorrow’.

V K Bawa, op.cit., p. 29.

[15] Y Sudershan Rao, op.cit, p. iv.

[16] For vivid description of the times, see: Rajendra Prasad, The Asif Jahs of Hyderabad, New Delhi, 1984.

[17] Rajendra Prasad, op.cit, p 68.

[18] The investiture ceremony was a fiasco. The Nizam disregarded the whole affair. But the British showed restraint and ignored it in view of the Great Revolt which roused the aspirations of many Indian Princes.

[19] When Asaf-ud-Daula thought of dispensing with Salar Jung I, he was strongly reprimanded by the Viceroy that the  British Government might be forced to interpose its authority in a manner that could not but be distasteful to him. By 1857, the Nizams ‘had lost even the will to resist or to assist any enterprise which was aimed at defying the British authority in India’.

R C Mazumdar (Ed.)  The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol IX, Bombay, 1970.

[20] Newly emerging press took the issue further with series of informative and critical articles in their newspapers. The Hyderabad Record had fought dauntlessly for the cause for over four years till its end. K Sajan Lal, “The Hyderabad Record” in Journal of Deccan History and Culture, July 1956, p 85; cf N Ramesan, op cit, p.38.

[21] Rajendra Prasad has written on the rise and fall of Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad. The lucid narrative is also embedded with literary flavour. He shows how each Nizam fell as a ‘loaf of bread one after the other from the basket’ signaling the end of the dynasty with the seventh.

[22] Ravi Narayana Reddy, Reminiscences and Experiences, Heroic Telangana, New Delhi, 1973, p 48.

[23] (Translated from Urdu)

“Till Eternity, god keep thy kingdom,

May thou preserved be, Osman,

In His wondrous grace

As thou art the pride of Royalty

So may thy reign glorious be..”

Rajendra Prasad. op.cit. ( Preface)

[24] The custom of Sati or burning of Hindu widow along with her dead husband was prohibited by Mir Mahaboob Ali in 1876.

J Ramanaiah, History and Culture of Karimnagar District (AP),Jagtial, 2008, p.139.

[25] N Ramesan op.cit, Vol III, p 2.

[26] Ibid, pp 18-20.

[27] Aftab-i-Deccan was considered the first Urdu periodical. In 1901, there were 14 periodicals or newspapers out of which 12 were in Urdu and 2 in Marathi. Most of these papers had very short lives.

[28] Idem, pp 27-36.

[29] Jinnah “envisioned … a modern democratic state governed by the rule of law”

A G Noorani, “Jinnah’s Concept of Pakistan”, in Front Line, June 2012.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2910/stories/20120601291008500.htm

[30] Ibid, Vol IV, pp 8-14.

[31] http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/jinnah-mohammed-ali-social-science/

[32] Telugu consciousness had grown in Telangana. In 1921, ‘Nizam Rashtra Jana Sangham’ was formed to work for the progress of the Andhras. Kannadigas and Maharashtrians of the respective lingual regions of the State already had their own associations. A central organization was mooted and founded in 1924 to coordinate all such organisations in the name of Andhra Jana Kendra Sangham. The objectives of this masked political organsiation were: to establish libraries and reading rooms, to help and encourage students, to honour scholars, to collect manuscripts and to conduct historical research, to spread knowledge through hand-bills, book-lets and public speeches, to propagate Telugu, to encourage fine arts and physical culture and to help the helpless.

N Ramesan, op.cit pp 43-46.

[33] Sajida Adeeb, Paigah “Nobility in the Asaf Jahi period”, in V Kishan Rao & A Satyanarayana (Eds), A Thousand Laurels – Dr Sadiq Naqvi, Hyderabad, Vol II, 2005. P 825.

[34] Narendra Luther, Hyderabad, New Delhi, 2006, p 212.

[35] See, A R Desai (Ed), Social Background of Indian Nationalism,  Bombay, 1966.

[36] Numerous works are published on the last days of Nizam’s rule in Urdu, Telugu and English by the political activists, writers, academics etc.

[37] The authors are indebted to Him for his love and grace.

Read more