Interesting. The Nizam's last days in 1947 are however remembered for the tragic killings engaged in by his secret police " The Razakars". Unfortunately most Western historiography doesn't dwell on this. Like the treatment of the 1946 Calcutta Riots, my research for an upcoming book shows these silences to be unfortunate for a Rankean and non " Project" history of the era.
Mulla briefly mentions the Razakars as a paramilitary squad that committed acts of violence against Hindus.
I also wondered how the remains of the Indian Army who defeated the Japanese in Burma, who withstood communalism, were divided by partition, were willing to turn against Hyderabad.
My sense is that the Anglo-sphere wanted to distance itself from the British Empire, so no one wanted to tackle the period between the end of WW2 and India’s independence. However, I am open to your thoughts on those matters.
It's a complex period of history. Further complicated by Leftist readings. There was in the Tory Party of the time and considerable sections of British officialdom and aristocracy a preference for the Muslim League and a geo- strategic interest in the creation of Pakistan. However there were also some British servicemen and ICS who wanted to see a strong and united India under Congress. What has muddled the picture is the role of Marxist history. As in the history of 1940s India or the birth of Israel, it never helps to distort facts to suit a Leftist project. This lot casts long shadows till today.
Incidentally Tuker according to some sources was keen on becoming CInC of Pakistan army. That explains a lot of his anti Congress bias.
Interesting. The Nizam's last days in 1947 are however remembered for the tragic killings engaged in by his secret police " The Razakars". Unfortunately most Western historiography doesn't dwell on this. Like the treatment of the 1946 Calcutta Riots, my research for an upcoming book shows these silences to be unfortunate for a Rankean and non " Project" history of the era.
Mulla briefly mentions the Razakars as a paramilitary squad that committed acts of violence against Hindus.
I also wondered how the remains of the Indian Army who defeated the Japanese in Burma, who withstood communalism, were divided by partition, were willing to turn against Hyderabad.
My sense is that the Anglo-sphere wanted to distance itself from the British Empire, so no one wanted to tackle the period between the end of WW2 and India’s independence. However, I am open to your thoughts on those matters.
It's a complex period of history. Further complicated by Leftist readings. There was in the Tory Party of the time and considerable sections of British officialdom and aristocracy a preference for the Muslim League and a geo- strategic interest in the creation of Pakistan. However there were also some British servicemen and ICS who wanted to see a strong and united India under Congress. What has muddled the picture is the role of Marxist history. As in the history of 1940s India or the birth of Israel, it never helps to distort facts to suit a Leftist project. This lot casts long shadows till today.
Incidentally Tuker according to some sources was keen on becoming CInC of Pakistan army. That explains a lot of his anti Congress bias.