AHC/WI: Independent Hyderabad

Hey AHers

How would Operation Polo, the Indian invasion of Hyderabad, be prevented? Could the British be called in to repel or dissuade the Indians from invading?
And what would the effect of an independent Hyderabad be, especially in regards to Kashmir, Goa, Pakistan and the Sikh regions?

Even if Operation Polo doesn't go forward, the Nizam's government would still need to deal with the ongoing mass uprisings by the Hindu population of Hyderabad State. There had already been massive unrest and the Nizam's militia forces only inflamed the situation along with attacking Indian border guards. Without an Indian invasion you'd just see a bloody civil war start within Hyderabad State and, frankly, once that happens there's no real justification for anyone to prevent Indian troops moving in to restore order. The Nizam's troops would doubtless resist and the end outcome would be the same but with lots more people dead, and probably even more reprisal riots against Muslims across India.

the only way is to somehow shatter India even more, making Hyderabad one of many Indian states.

What kunbg Zog said. The only way Hyderbad was going to remain independent is as part of some British divide and rule strategy where the Raj is split up into multiple (more than 5) regional successor states. If you get an India then the continued existence of a Oppressive Muslim Sultanate ruling a largely Hindu populace is fantastically unlikely.

Thoresby said:

If you get an India then the continued existence of a Oppressive Muslim Sultanate ruling a largely Hindu populace is fantastically unlikely.

Click to expand...

How oppressive was Hyderabad? I was under the impression that the Nizams were fairly liberal reformers aside from wanting to remain independent.

Wasn't there also a very active Communist movement in Hyderabad? Isn't there a risk that they assume power and overthrow the Nizam if India don't?

Simon said:

How oppressive was Hyderabad? I was under the impression that the Nizams were fairly liberal reformers aside from wanting to remain independent.

Click to expand...

Apparently, Hyderabad had been getting increasingly theocratic in the 20th century. An agency was actually set up to "encourage" Hindus to convert to Islam en masse.

I believe that the Nizam was working with the several members of the House of Lords to gain diplomatic recognition for an independent Hyderabad.

There was also talk of an independent Hindu state in Travancore (part of what is now the Indian state of Kerala) getting diplomatic recognition from the Crown.

History would be much different had these two states become sovereign nations. Travancore would definitely have adopted a capitalist economic model (as opposed to the socialism of Nehru). Given the natural resources and high literacy rate, Travancore might have equalled South Korea (or perhaps even Japan) by the 1990s. Interestingly, an economic vibrant Travancore would have been the destination for the Hindu diaspora. In retrospect, an independent Travancore would have been a strategic asset to the United States in the Cold War.

The Nizam was an enlightened ruler and Hyderabad could also have become an economic power.

hesiod said:

I believe that the Nizam was working with the several members of the House of Lords to gain diplomatic recognition for an independent Hyderabad.

There was also talk of an independent Hindu state in Travancore (part of what is now the Indian state of Kerala) getting diplomatic recognition from the Crown.

History would be much different had these two states become sovereign nations. Travancore would definitely have adopted a capitalist economic model (as opposed to the socialism of Nehru). Given the natural resources and high literacy rate, Travancore might have equalled South Korea (or perhaps even Japan) by the 1990s. Interestingly, an economic vibrant Travancore would have been the destination for the Hindu diaspora. In retrospect, an independent Travancore would have been a strategic asset to the United States in the Cold War.

The Nizam was an enlightened ruler and Hyderabad could also have become an economic power.

Click to expand...

Travancore capitalistic? With the amount of communist support among the Malayalee people in general that's highly unlikely. You might not see Nehrus level of centralisation etc but it's likely to be a socialist democratic state at least along the lines of Eurosocialism. The Varma kings were generally quite enlightened so I suspect they could tolerate Communist parliamentary majorities. An independent Travancore (assuming Cochin is included) would be unlikely to be a destination for the "Hindu diaspora" (by which i suspect you mean Indian diaspora, including Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Jains among others) since (a) by itself it would be a Malayalee nation and (b) it's unlikely to be very much in need of foreign educated labour (like South Korea or Japan, it's likely to produce more than enough educated workers for its economic needs). Also given that this would be a Malayalee nation, the status of Malabar, which is definitely Malayalee but as part of the old Madras Presidency, would be a sore point.

Flocculencio said:

Travancore capitalistic? With the amount of communist support among the Malayalee people in general that's highly unlikely. You might not see Nehrus level of centralisation etc but it's likely to be a socialist democratic state at least along the lines of Eurosocialism. The Varma kings were generally quite enlightened so I suspect they could tolerate Communist parliamentary majorities. An independent Travancore (assuming Cochin is included) would be unlikely to be a destination for the "Hindu diaspora" (by which i suspect you mean Indian diaspora, including Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Jains among others) since (a) by itself it would be a Malayalee nation and (b) it's unlikely to be very much in need of foreign educated labour (like South Korea or Japan, it's likely to produce more than enough educated workers for its economic needs). Also given that this would be a Malayalee nation, the status of Malabar, which is definitely Malayalee but as part of the old Madras Presidency, would be a sore point.

Click to expand...

If I recall, the rulers of Travancore circa 1947 were definitely anti-communist and decidedly more pro-American than pro-British. Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer, who most likely would have been Prime Minister of an independent Travancore, is credited with laying the foundation for the industrial development of southern India.

I did mean the Hindu diaspora, in particular, those from the Brahmin community. While many would have gone to Canada, UK and the US (the US especially after 1967), a significant portion would have had no problem settling in Travancore and Travancore would have had no problem a highly educated workforce with whom there were strong ethnic connections.

On top of everythign else, isn't Hyderabad land-locked?

mowque said:

On top of everythign else, isn't Hyderabad land-locked?

Click to expand...

Hyderabad was landlocked and that would have weighed heavily against economic viability. However, Churchill would most likely have recognized an Independent Hyderabad just to spite Nehru (whom he resented). Labour, being close to Nehru, had no such compunction.

hesiod said:

If I recall, the rulers of Travancore circa 1947 were definitely anti-communist and decidedly more pro-American than pro-British. Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer, who most likely would have been Prime Minister of an independent Travancore, is credited with laying the foundation for the industrial development of southern India.

I did mean the Hindu diaspora, in particular, those from the Brahmin community. While many would have gone to Canada, UK and the US (the US especially after 1967), a significant portion would have had no problem settling in Travancore and Travancore would have had no problem a highly educated workforce with whom there were strong ethnic connections.

Click to expand...

"Strong ethnic connections"? I think you really underestimate the extent to which Indian nationalism has reduced the perceived differences between different Indian ethnic groups. This would be even more pronounced in what would be a Malayalee national state. Appealing to a nominal shared Hindu identity wouldn't work in an ethnic state, especially given that Travancore would have significant minority populations of Malayalee Muslims and Christians (along with some Malayalee Jews, who in this scenario might not be so eager to return to Israel).

Also the rulers may well have been anticommunist. I'd like to see how long this attitude lasts in the face of mass politics which is why I figured Western European style social democracy would probably be the outcome.

Flocculencio said:

"Strong ethnic connections"? I think you really underestimate the extent to which Indian nationalism has reduced the perceived differences between different Indian ethnic groups. This would be even more pronounced in what would be a Malayalee national state. Appealing to a nominal shared Hindu identity wouldn't work in an ethnic state, especially given that Travancore would have significant minority populations of Malayalee Muslims and Christians (along with some Malayalee Jews, who in this scenario might not be so eager to return to Israel).

Also the rulers may well have been anticommunist. I'd like to see how long this attitude lasts in the face of mass politics which is why I figured Western European style social democracy would probably be the outcome.

Click to expand...

The British "divide and conquer" didn't work so well in the so-called upper castes. Though divided by language and perhaps some religious rituals, Brahmins from all of South India viewed themselves as having the same ethnic origin (Kashmir or some other part of Northern India who took refuge in the south from the Islamic invaders.) I believe that all temple rites were conducted in Sanskrit.

Hindu Kings had absolutely no problem with Jews or Christians.

This is a highly evolved culture. There is a school of thought that suggests that the fundamentals of the calculus were first written down in southern India and transmitted to Europe via Portugese traders (from Portugal it went to England, their close trading partner).

Interesting to speculate how a pro-American nation on the Asian mainland would have altered history.



Just speculating, but an independent, pro-American Travancore most likely would have established diplomatic relations with Israel and provided an alternative to relying on Islamic nations to fight communism.

Flocculencio said:

"Strong ethnic connections"? I think you really underestimate the extent to which Indian nationalism has reduced the perceived differences between different Indian ethnic groups. This would be even more pronounced in what would be a Malayalee national state. Appealing to a nominal shared Hindu identity wouldn't work in an ethnic state, especially given that Travancore would have significant minority populations of Malayalee Muslims and Christians (along with some Malayalee Jews, who in this scenario might not be so eager to return to Israel).

Also the rulers may well have been anticommunist. I'd like to see how long this attitude lasts in the face of mass politics which is why I figured Western European style social democracy would probably be the outcome.

Click to expand...

Seconded. Indian nationalism may have been a relatively recent phenomenon in OTL, but there's no underestimating its force, especially after the partition and the creation of modern India. If Travancore doesn't accede to the Union State, there's going to be troubles.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Ganesha said:

Seconded. Indian nationalism may have been a relatively recent phenomenon in OTL, but there's no underestimating its force, especially after the partition and the creation of modern India. If Travancore doesn't accede to the Union State, there's going to be troubles.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Click to expand...

Sardar Patel, as I understand, would not allow an independent Travancore. I don't think the British nor Americans understood the value of a pro-American, free market state taking hold on the Indian subcontinent. So they would not have stood in his way.

Had the Truman recognized Travancore, it might have made an enormous difference in the course of history.

hesiod said:

The British "divide and conquer" didn't work so well in the so-called upper castes. Though divided by language and perhaps some religious rituals, Brahmins from all of South India viewed themselves as having the same ethnic origin (Kashmir or some other part of Northern India who took refuge in the south from the Islamic invaders.) I believe that all temple rites were conducted in Sanskrit.

Click to expand...

Malayalee Namboothiri brahmins have very, very, different rituals, customs and even social structure (with a matrilinieal culture and a unique formal intermarriage system with the Nair warrior caste) from even the Tamil Brahmins (who are probably closest culturally to the Malayalees).

Also the Brahmins are a tiny minority (only around 1.4% of the current population)- they're going to be an influential voice in the state's politics but by no means the dominant one. You're totally ignoring the large, educated, politically aware lower middle class (which extended across all castes) that IOTL dominated Kerala state politics.

Hindu Kings had absolutely no problem with Jews or Christians.

Click to expand...

I never said they did. I'm a Malayalee Syrian Christian myself and I'm aware that a number of government ministers of the Varma kings were Christians. What I said was that in this situation, non-Malayalee Brahmins would be seen as foreigners. Any government attempt to create a shared identity will have to be based on Malayalee ethnicity because if they use Hinduism as the basis they alienate the 44% of the population which is not Hindu. You have to realise that an independent Travancore will be an ethnic state.

This is a highly evolved culture. There is a school of thought that suggests that the fundamentals of the calculus were first written down in southern India and transmitted to Europe via Portugese traders (from Portugal it went to England, their close trading partner).

Click to expand...

I'm aware of my culture's achievements, but they're of zero relevance here.

I don't think the British nor Americans understood the value of a pro-American, free market state taking hold on the Indian subcontinent. So they would not have stood in his way.

Had the Truman recognized Travancore, it might have made an enormous difference in the course of history.

Click to expand...

In the immediate post-war atmosphere, no one was really concerned about establishing "free markets"- indeed the general received wisdom was that planned economies were best for newly independent developing nations. The shift towards free markets only really came in the 60s...and even then a lot of the Asian Tigers aren't the best examples of free market economies- Japan and Singapore for example had/have a lot of government involvement in the economy.

Just speculating, but an independent, pro-American Travancore most likely would have established diplomatic relations with Israel and provided an alternative to relying on Islamic nations to fight communism.

Click to expand...

But I see no reason why this would be any concern of Travancore. India, even though it opposed the partition of Palestine established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1950.

You still haven't explained how the King somehow manages to handwave away the large, educated, highly politically active, left-wing lower middle class that was already present at the time.

hesiod said:

Sardar Patel, as I understand, would not allow an independent Travancore. I don't think the British nor Americans understood the value of a pro-American, free market state taking hold on the Indian subcontinent. So they would not have stood in his way.

Had the Truman recognized Travancore, it might have made an enormous difference in the course of history.

Click to expand...

Agreed, Sardar Patel would not have for a second allowed the creation of an independent Travancore.

Why would Truman recognize Travancore? And even if he does, the new Republic of India is unlikely to let that count for much - it's not like the US would be willing to back up that recognition with force. It

Cheers,
Ganesha

Kashmir at least had the option, as a Muslim-majority Princely State, of accession to Pakistan.

Hyderabad was surrounded by Indian territory and really no central Indian government could have allowed the damaging precedent of secession to be set.

Kashmir at least has some chance of joining Pakistan if things had gone differently, Hyderabad is just screwed.