bulbul Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hyderabd Nizam wanted to join Pakistan?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger80 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hi Thanks for all the info and details. Do have knowledge about hyderabad. The ruler was muslim right. One pakistani told me that the ruler wanted to join Pak but indian govt did not allow or forced or something like that. I did tell him that Hyderabad is in south and geographically impossibe to be a part of pakistan. he argued that according to the terms and conditions the ruler had the right to decide. Coming back to kashmir i would blame the maharaja. He should have been decisive and opted to remain independent. Would have saved us a lot of headache. Also would it be correct to assume that the present day kashmir muslims were hindus/pandits before? I read up on allama iqbal on wiki seems like his grandparents were kashmiri pandits!! The Pakistani tribals attacked Kashmir after independence. The Maharaja ran for help from India , which gave them only on the condition that Kashmir will become part of India. He never had option of being independent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Honestly. I dont mind listening to Basit after several pints. He sounds so reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hi Thanks for all the info and details. Do have knowledge about hyderabad. The ruler was muslim right. One pakistani told me that the ruler wanted to join Pak but indian govt did not allow or forced or something like that. I did tell him that Hyderabad is in south and geographically impossibe to be a part of pakistan. he argued that according to the terms and conditions the ruler had the right to decide. Coming back to kashmir i would blame the maharaja. He should have been decisive and opted to remain independent. Would have saved us a lot of headache. Also would it be correct to assume that the present day kashmir muslims were hindus/pandits before? I read up on allama iqbal on wiki seems like his grandparents were kashmiri pandits!! Read about razakar movement. People were robbed , raped by the razakars this was the tipping for Indian Union to step. People used to carry weapons to protect their families from razakars. Being so far from Hyderabad how would a paki know what was happening in telangana. If you get a chance update him with his knowledge. Of course they are brainwashed they wouldn't know difference truth and fabricated stuff. Their is marathi movie that will released soon. The name is razakar. Try to watch if you have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hi Thanks for all the info and details. Do have knowledge about hyderabad. The ruler was muslim right. One pakistani told me that the ruler wanted to join Pak but indian govt did not allow or forced or something like that. I did tell him that Hyderabad is in south and geographically impossibe to be a part of pakistan. he argued that according to the terms and conditions the ruler had the right to decide. Coming back to Kashmir i would blame the maharaja. He should have been decisive and opted to remain independent. Would have saved us a lot of headache. Also would it be correct to assume that the present day kashmir muslims were hindus/pandits before? I read up on allama iqbal on wiki seems like his grandparents were kashmiri pandits!! From what I understand, Nizam wanted to remain independent. To control any uprising in Hy'bad, the Nizam used his private army called the Razakars .... Indian carried out Operation Polo, a police action, against the Nizam and Hy'bad became a part of India However in Junagarh, the Nawab wanted to join Pak but Ind asked for a plebiscite and 99% of people in Junagarh voted to join Ind In Kashmir, the Maharaja was forced to take the action because of Pak's actions. If Kashmir too had been handled by Sardar, the issue would probably have been resolved at that time The partition was a sad chapter in the subcontinent's history. While Pak supported extremist groups whether in Kashmir or Hy'bad (Razakars), Ind had been swift in countering such actions Apart from these operations, another famous operation by India was Operation Vijay (1961), which helped to liberate Goa from Portuguese occupation In fact Ind has even supported popular movement in Pakistan. In 1971, Pak carried out Operation Searchlight against the Bengali uprising in East Pakistan. India intervened and Bangladesh was formed. Pak sees these defeats as Ind trying to establish its hegemony in the region. Old timers in Pak are still afraid that Ind will break Pak in to pieces As they say, if you fear something too much, it is likely to happen - Looking forward to Operation Baluchistan :P .... In Baluchistan, Pak is once again trying to subjugate a popular movement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalebi_bhai Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 That is cr@p...The Nizam wanted to be independent. He never wanted to join Pakistan. It has to be remembered that Hyderabad had its own currency, airline, telecommunication, army,etc and was a huge and prosperous area with many districts of current Maharashtra and Karnataka part of it. The ruler was a muslim and he was the richest man in the world at that time. However, the state of Hyderabad was >83 or 84% hindu. There was a one year standstill agreement between Nizam and Union of India but it was very risky to have a powerful independent "dominion" inside the central heart of India so Union of India ( under leadership of Sardar Patel ) initiated police action ( called Operation Polo ) where Hyderabad state was surrounded on all sides by Indian army and Nizam conceded defeat. He appealed to UN and British Parliament also but nothing came out of it. Pak tried to poke its finger by appealing to UN but no one cared. I can provide more details. There were quite a few issues with how Union of India acted ( you might remember that TRS MP - daughter of CM of Telangana recently even made a controversial statement that Telangana was forced into India and it is partly true ) but the only link to Pak is that many Hyderabadis migrated to Karachi after Hyderabad became part of India and became "mohajirs". There are lot of muslim families in Hyderabad who have relatives in Karachi,etc and marriages between them is also very common - I think Sania Mirza is a relatively famous case. As far as I know, the army stepped in as soon as the Razakars started killing and plundering the locals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 As far as I know' date=' the army stepped in as soon as the Razakars started killing and plundering the locals.[/quote'] I don't the sequence but yes - razakar looting played a part in initiating Operation Polo. However, make no mistake - there was no way India ( Sardar Patel ) was letting go Hyderabad ( maybe Kashmir mishandling made it take that position ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket_Hacker Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 thread kaha se kaha pahuch gaya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 One interesting video - must watch ( only 3 odd minutes ) Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto abusing United Nations Security council at UN headquarters and tearing their papers. rLSR9rWiBiU They gave no respect to UN in 1971 ( this video is after India divided Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh ) and now beg UN to implement its 1948 or so resolution :cantstop: ( which was anyway superceded by Shimla agreement where Kashmir is supposed to be a bilateral issue only. 90 K Pakistani PoWs were released by India due to Shimla agreement ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 thread kaha se kaha pahuch gaya That is the fun in forums else they will be boring. It has rightly been moved to CC and thankfully no abusing but articulation of opinions substantiating with facts...:two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Also the people who killed and raped in Bangladesh in 1971 were also called razakars. Below is the trailer of razakar movie based on telangana during nizam, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 g1AVoNTuDfQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalebi_bhai Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I don't the sequence but yes - razakar looting played a part in initiating Operation Polo. However' date= make no mistake - there was no way India ( Sardar Patel ) was letting go Hyderabad ( maybe Kashmir mishandling made it take that position ). Oh yea. Couldn't let it happen. Would make zero strategic sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This would not work in any part of the world. A small country surrounded on all sides by a huge country. The nizam was most probably hoping that india would break up or was stalling for a better deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 One interesting video - must watch ( only 3 odd minutes ) Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto abusing United Nations Security council at UN headquarters and tearing their papers. rLSR9rWiBiU They gave no respect to UN in 1971 ( this video is after India divided Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh ) and now beg UN to implement its 1948 or so resolution :cantstop: ( which was anyway superceded by Shimla agreement where Kashmir is supposed to be a bilateral issue only. 90 K Pakistani PoWs were released by India due to Shimla agreement ) This speech is historic in the sense that he showed Pak that by making emotional speeches that no one understands and playing the victim, it is possible to create confusion .... Unfortunately, Pak is still following this in 2015 :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 g1AVoNTuDfQ I hope that the film makers do justice to the incidence. In India, the idea is to make a film as per the formula no matter what the subject is. So if the film is on King Ashoka or Bhagat Singh - the main character is still doing the song and dance routine, trying to woo the heroine, doing comedy, etc. much like what the character would do in a college themed movie .... The film makers probably do the same of movies on Gods as well. Movies such as The Passion of Christ and Gandhi are good examples of how such movies should be made :nice: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I hope that the film makers do justice to the incidence. In India' date=' the idea is to make a film as per the formula no matter what the subject is. So if the film is on King Ashoka or Bhagat Singh - the main character is still doing the song and dance routine, trying to woo the heroine, doing comedy, etc. much like what the character would do in a college themed movie .... The film makers probably do the same of movies on Gods as well. Movies such as The Passion of Christ and Gandhi are good examples of how such movies should be made :nice:[/quote'] I have hope on this because it is made by regional industry not Bollywood. Bollywood mostly changes all the real events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This would not work in any part of the world. A small country surrounded on all sides by a huge country. The nizam was most probably hoping that india would break up or was stalling for a better deal. Absolutely. It is not feasible at all. The wealth of Nizams made them blinded. Better deal is the key as you said. Even under British Raj, Hyderabad State paid taxes to them but everything else was more or less autonomous for years ( currency, army, railways,telecom,air force and many others ). Nizam might have been hoping for a similar deal with Union of India but creating razakars lost him whatever little support he had from people. p.s Some other day I will post about MIM ( Owaisi party ) and their involvement in this episode. Quiz Question for ICFers to make this interesting Why Lucknow had Nawab but Hyd had Nizam? What is difference and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Absolutely. It is not feasible at all. The wealth of Nizams made them blinded. Better deal is the key as you said. Even under British Raj, Hyderabad State paid taxes to them but everything else was more or less autonomous for years ( currency, army, railways,telecom,air force and many others ). Nizam might have been hoping for a similar deal with Union of India but creating razakars lost him whatever little support he had from people. p.s Some other day I will post about MIM ( Owaisi party ) and their involvement in this episode. Quiz Question for ICFers to make this interesting Why Lucknow had Nawab but Hyd had Nizam? What is difference and why? I thought Nizam and Nawab are just titles. The nizam guy had different origins from mughals. I remember owasi grandfather had major role in razakar movement and he was banished to pakistan and party was disbanded as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Book_Worm Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Thanks guys for all the time and effort put into your posts. Really appreciate it. Learned a lot about this issue today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts