Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:31:19.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Status of Hyderabad During and after British Rule in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Taraknath Das
Taraknath Das*
Affiliation:
Public Affairs and Regional Studies, New York University; Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between the Government of the Union of India and the Princely State of Hyderabad has attracted world-wide attention. Through what seems to be complete misunderstanding of the legal status of Hyderabad, the United Nations placed the case on the agenda of the Security Council. Although the Nizam of Hyderabad, after the successful conclusion of the Indian Army's punitive expedition into Hyderabad, has petitioned the United Nations to withdraw the case, the question still remains on the agenda.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1949 , pp. 57 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Singh, op. cit., pp. 95–97.

2 See Taraknath, Das, Sovereign Bights of Indian Princes (Madras, 1925), p. 32 Google Scholar; Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law, edited by Dr. L. Oppenheim (Cambridge, 1914), p. 205.

3 For a concise but excellent study of Lord Wellesley’s foreign policy toward Indian Princes, see Roberts, , History of British India (Oxford University Press, 1923), Chap. XX.Google Scholar

4 Imperial Gazetteer of India (Published under the authority of His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1907), “Vol. IV, pp. 77–82.

5 Professor Edward Thompson, The Making of the Indian Princes (Oxford, 1944), p. 14.

6 Professor Edward Thompson, op. cit., p. vi.

7 Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol. IV, p. 82.

8 “Liability to intervention in case of grave misrule is an incident common to all the States. There are also other occasions for interference which are likely to be taken whenever they occur.” Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol. IV, p. 88.

9 Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol. IV, pp. 84–85.

10 India Year Book, 1922, p. 115. Sir William Hunter, in his Indian Empire, describes the limitation of the right of Indian Princes in the following manner: “… The English Government has respected the possessions of Native Chiefs and more than one third of the country still remains in the hand of the hereditary Rulers… . The Government (British), as Suzerain in India, does not allow its feudatories to make war upon each other, or to have any relations with foreign States. It interferes when any Chief misgoverns his people: rebukes, and if needful removes the oppressor, protects the weak and firmly imposes peace upon all.” (Italics added.)

11 Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law, pp. 217–218.

12 Taraknath Das, Sovereign Rights of Indian Princes, p. 50.

13 Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law, pp. 220–221. See also John Bassett Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, p. 17.

14 Lawrence, T. J., Principles of International Law (New York, 1915), pp. 62–63 Google Scholar.

15 Hall, William Edward, Treatise on International Law (7th ed., Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 27 Google Scholar.

16 Speeches by Lord Curzon, Vol. III, p. 212.

17 India Year Book, 1922, pp. 115–116.

18 Montmorency, Sir Geoffrey de, The Indian States and Indian Federation (Cambridge University Press, 1942), p. 88 Google Scholar.

19 Indian Review (Madras, India), April, 1922, p. 275.

20 Pannkkar, K. M. , Indian States and the Government of India (London, 1927), pp. 47–48 Google Scholar; Banerjee, A. C. , Indian Constitutional Documents (Calcutta, 1946), Vol. 2, pp. 458–462 Google Scholar; Government of India, White Paper on Hyderabad (New Delhi, 1948), pp. 43–44.

21 Brailsford, H. N., Subject India (New York, 1943), p. 130 Google Scholar.

22 Indian States Inquiry Commission (Cmd. 3302, 1929), par. 39, p. 23.

23 Das, Taraknath , Sovereign Bights of Indian Princes (Madras, 1925), p. 18 Google Scholar.

24 Professor Singh, Gurmukh Nihal , Indian States and British India: Their Future Eelations (Benares, 1930), p. 122 Google Scholar.

25 Montmorency, Sir Geoffrey de, The Indian States and Indian Federation (Cambridge University Press, 1942), p. 105 Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., p. 121.

27 Constitutional Proposals of the Sapru Committee (Bombay, 1946), pp. 101–102.

28 Dutt, R. Palme, The Problem of India (New York, 1943), p. 111 Google Scholar.

29 Government of India, White Paper on Indian States (New Delhi, July, 1948), pp. 45–46.

30 Indian Independence Act, 1947, 10 and 11 Geo. 6, ch. 30, pp. 4–5.

31 For details see White Paper on Indian States (New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1948).

32 Indian Information, Vol. 21 (Dec. 15, 1947), p. 357.

33 The very title “Nizam’’ means the superintendent of a territory under the Mogul Empire, and succession of a Nizam was invariably sanctioned by the Mogul Empire. After the suzerainty of the Mogul Empire passed into the hands of the East India Company, the succession of the Nizam had to be approved by the East India Company. No independent country has its rulers’ succession approved by another Power.