I am not denying that they have their own language,history and culture. But it is way too intertwined with the Ganges belt and the communal differences were too many for any linguistic nationalism to develop in the north. Some of the biggest icons of Indian national movement were Gujarati and the Bombay and Calcutta presidencies were clearly in the hands of British who gave away their parts to the Dominions of India or Pakistan. It would be hard to have a linguistic nationalist ideas being born from an area which was the torch bearer for India as a country.
Yes, you are right in the aspect that many freedom fighters were from Gujarat, but they all envisioned a united India through peace, but once it becomes clear that is not the case, violence will ensue over the basis of regionalism, all these leads back to the main point, in which Hyderabad cannot be independent with other Indian states popping up
Dragonspectre
Kicked
Public protest against annexation is all good and dandy but at the end of the day rule of monarchy was over in India. At any rate without a huge military build-up, there can be no independent Hyderabad.
Indian army would have taken over Hyderabad one way or another. As I said the rule of monarchs were pretty much at an end.
Why would Britain seek to support Hyderabad? Entire Indian subcontinent fought for the British in two wars and you don't see them favouring any monarchs whatsoever. They had economic interests in India and after more than 200 years of exploitation and looting, they were pretty much satisfied. Besides, they were rather focusing on dealing with the USSR rather than play ally half a world away in Hyderabad. Already most of the Asian holdings were slipping from their hands as the USSR and USA began to crack down on all imperial colonies and setting them all free.
Peace? Sardar Vallabhai was willing to use force when he deemed it was right, frequently challenging Nehru's methods. If they couldn't get a complete India, they would definitely strive to keep as much as possible. And Gujarat and Bengal would be bordering Muslim states much bigger than them, they would be safer economically and militarily being with the Delhi.
Well they still held onto some possessions like Hong Kong and Malaysia for more time than India. If the Telugus were adamant about being part of a sovereign state like Hyderabad(a much different one from OTL without atrocities of Razakars and neglect of Telugu and also better industrialization), they had incentive to help diplomatically their ally to be independent to maintain presence in Asia for a while, and they could help stop a complete communist revolution in the new country and the state transitions into a constitutional monarchy in following years.
And as such Hyderabad would be the first one to be invaded to secure India's central regions
This is assuming that India and Nizams don't have a peace treaty where the Nizam remain neutral in Indo-Pak conflicts and India recognizes the state as it couldn't control Telugu nationalist feelings.
Nope, Sardar Patel wanted it to be conquered as he felt, it was a cancer across the heart of India, he felt severely constrained the internal politics and development of India by having such a large state across the middle of India
See it would work only if majority were in favour of joining India. But what if that wasn't the case? I am trying to look at a scenario where the masses are in favour of a sovereign state and see a reformed Nizam(different from OTL if they were seeing themselves as Telugu sultans patronising Telugu equally and also industrialising a bit more) as their chance to make it a reality.
Alternatively, I would like to know your views on if there can be a scenario where Telugus can emerge as a nation with as much less balkanization as possible of the Indian subcontinent? What would be a likely cause in helping this become a reality? Death of Patel in early 1948? A Viceroy who understands that an invasion would mean bloodshed?
I dont really know about it Indian supernationalism really engulfed and superceded all but religious nationalism of muslims, Indians due to British Raj realised the importance of being together as one nation rather than many squabbling kingdoms that led to them being conquered the first time
As such if an independent telugu nationalism does exist in India, that means there was no strong pan Indian nationalism, as such India would be inevitably balkanized
Yeah Indian nationalist fervour was real. But I wanted to counter it by trying out these scenarios:
1) A change in the attitude of the Nizams where they become similar to the Qutb Shahis were they patronised Telugu and promoted religious Harmony and were more liberal.
2) A bit more industrial development due to the said factors as literacy rates increase due to Telugu not being suppressed.
3) Formation of cultural organizations like Andhra Mahasabha and Library movement( Iyyanki Venkata Ramayya is considered to be the architect of Public Library movement in India) in the second half of 19th century which glorify and emphasize on Telugu identity.
4) This leads to fear of being dominated by Delhi if they joined India. The Telugu areas which were part of Madras province also feel that they will be dominated by Tamils(a fear they had OTL) and the North. Due to liberal policies of the Nizams, the Andhra people might be more inclined to be part of a prosperous Hyderabad state. This is a win-win for them as they will join a more industrialised area than India and the Nizams gain access to Bay of Bengal.
5) The Nizam in a bid to remain independent, cedes Marathi and Kannada regions to India to show that he doesn't support any other division of India and will also remain neutral in times of Indo-Pak conflicts in return for recognition of the Hyderabad state.
While nations land-locked by a single other nation do exist, they are very few enclaved countries and they only exist due to unique circumstances. Vatican city and San Marino are examples where Italy could not, or would not absorb these countries into it. India on the other hand, has no such qualms. There is no reason for an independent state of hyderabad to exist if a united (or even semi-united) India exists.
Setting aside the nationalism issue, since that would require innumerable PODs, we can try to see how such a rich and big nation could defend itself from the bigger nation surrounding it. Hyderabad is not surrounded by mountains since it is on the deccan plains and IRL the Indian armed forces managed to defeat and annex the state of Hyderabad within a period of 5 days. I do not see the annexation failing, even if it requires a year or two since Hyderabad is part of the deccan heartlands, has no other borders than its borders with India and is pretty much indefensible.
Someone mentioned that Hyderabad would buy Goa but the Portuguese kept it as a colony for prestige, not money. India had to invade it and kick out the Portuguese and I do not see Hyderabad doing anything different.
Setting aside the nationalism issue, since that would require innumerable PODs, we can try to see how such a rich and big nation could defend itself from the bigger nation surrounding it. Hyderabad is not surrounded by mountains since it is on the deccan plains and IRL the Indian armed forces managed to defeat and annex the state of Hyderabad within a period of 5 days. I do not see the annexation failing, even if it requires a year or two since Hyderabad is part of the deccan heartlands, has no other borders than its borders with India and is pretty much indefensible.
Someone mentioned that Hyderabad would buy Goa but the Portuguese kept it as a colony for prestige, not money. India had to invade it and kick out the Portuguese and I do not see Hyderabad doing anything different.
Yeah I agree that invasion of Hyderabad cannot fail with the real life conditions.
But what if we can avoid it altogether? I should have changed the title, my bad. I listed out some possibilities in the thread which will make an annexation of Hyderabad unfeasible and costly. I would like to know your thoughts on it, maybe add some points which could help in forming an independent Hyderabad state.
There's a good chance that this will happen especially in the South but not much in other regions. NE India might prove to be a headache but can be subjugated by the Indian army
Slan
Banned
Losing just the South is a big deal bro. And I'm not even talking about Pakistan trying to snatch some territories if they feel India is going down.
Yeah South is a big deal no doubt about that. India will be losing manpower and revenue sources. But if the Telugu nationalism succeeds in taking off, it would be a headache for India to be actively suppressing such a huge population, better make peace with them and gain/retain as much land as possible in other areas.
If Mysore doesn't join India and Kannadigas also start demanding, the trouble starts. But Nizams can play them off by giving Kannada regions that they hold to India and warming up to India in return for recognition of its sovereignty.
There is just one problem though, the Hindu Population will not accept a Muslim ruler, especially with States will Pakistan existing and affecting the populace, and this era of Nationalism, Hindus would want a Hindu ruler, not a muslim one
Well if the Nizams were more localized to the Telugu culture, there's a chance for linguistic nationalism superseding religious ones especially if there were no major religious conflicts and religious freedom is allowed. Also the creation of Pakistan didn't mean much to the general public. They were not affected by the partition and the only way they looked at it as a foolish ruler trying to hold onto the power with the help of a foreign Muslim power. But if the Nizams take an anti-Pak or neutral stance and abide by it, is there any reason for the existence of Pakistan to affect the populace of state of Hyderabad?
Yes, the Urdu speaking muslim elites would be sympathetic to Pakistan, as such there will be conflict