¹ See the tabular statements for the period 1923–1928 in the Report of the Indian Statutory Commission (London, 1930), vol. IV, pp. 108–20, and vol. VI, pp. 586–99.Google Scholar

² SirCorfield, C., The Princely India I Knew: From Reading to Mountbatten (Madras, 1975), p. 48.Google Scholar See also SirO'Dwyer, Michael, India as I Knew It, 1885–1925 (London, 1925), p. 141;Google Scholar and SirLothian, Arthur, Kingdoms of Yesterday (London, 1951), p. 184.Google Scholar

³ Statutory Commission Report, vol. I, p. 29;Google Scholar and Coupland, R., Indian Politics, 1936–1942 (London, 1943), p. 178.Google Scholar The quotation comes from the Statutory Commission.

⁴ ‘Review of the Hyderabad Agitation’ compiled by the Intelligence Bureau, Home Dept Govt of India, May 1939, Home Pol[itical file] 43/3/39, N[ational] A[rchives of] I[ndia], p. 1; and note by SirTasker, Theodore, Revenue and Police Member, Nizam's Executive Council, dated June 1939, I[ndia] O[ffice] R[ecords], I[ndia] O[ffice] L[ibrary, London], R/1/29/1921.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘Review of Hyderabad Agitation’, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

⁶ Resid[ent]'s fort[nightly] report for the first half Apr. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1669.

⁷ SirHydari, A. to Priv. Sec. Viceroy, 19 Apr. 1938, IOR R/1/29/1719.Google Scholar

⁸ Tirtha, R., Memoirs of Hyderabad Freedom Struggle (Bombay, 1967), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁹ Dig Vijay (Sholapur), no. 43, 27 04. 1939, Sita Ram Papers, file 32 Pt 3, NAI.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Birkenhead, to Irwin, Lord, 22 Apr. 1926, Irwin Collection, Sec. of State's Letters, vol. I, IOL.Google Scholar

¹¹ Trench to SirTasker, T., 29 Aug. 1949, Tasker Coll. vol. 17, IOL.Google Scholar

¹² ‘Handing over note’ by SirKeyes, Terence, Resdt at Hyderabad, dated Apr. 1933, Keyes Coll. vol. 31, IOL.Google Scholar

¹³ Note by Tasker, 23 Apr. 1972, Tasker Coll. See also Tasker's diary entry for 29 July 1939, in which he describes the Nizam's rapacious behaviour at ‘X’s' wedding. Tasker Coll.

¹⁴ ‘A Peep into Hyderabad’, reprinted in The Tribune (Lahore), 5 06 1939.Google Scholar Hyderabad's literary rate—4.9 percent—was half that of the surrounding provinces. ‘Conditions In Hyderabad, 1939’, Jawaharlal Nehru Coll., subject file 102/2 N[ehru] M[emorial] M[useum and] L[ibrary, New Delhi].

¹⁵ During the 1930s the Ecclesiastical Dept spent an annual average of Rs 300,000 on Islamic charities, Rs 15,000 on Christian charities and Rs 3000 on Hindu charities. Other large sums were expended on Islamic institutions abroad. Between 1926 and 1932 Rs 10,000,000 was given to Aligarh University, Rs 500,000 to the London mosque, Rs 100,000 to the Jama Masjid in Delhi, Rs 100,000 to a mosque in Palestine; Rs 100,000 to a proposed Muslim military school, Rs 80,000 to a Muslim association in Turkey, and Rs 232,000 to the travelling expenses of Muslims going to Mecca. Gen. Sec. Hindu Mahasabha, to Pol. Sec. Govt. of India, 24 Dec. 1936, Mahasabha Papers, file R–7 of 1936–1937, of NMML; The Tribune, 7 June 1939; and Moonje, B. S. to B. N. De, 13 Feb. 1938, Moonje Papers, Subject file 47, NMML.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Keyes' handing over note, loc. cit. About 80 percent of the state's Khalsa lands, which were subject to tax, belonged to Hindus. There was no income tax.

¹⁷ Firman of 1908, quoted in The Tribune, 7 June 1939.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Bishop of Nagpur, quoted in Lord Zetland to Lord Linlithgow, 4/5 July 1939, IOR, L/P8S/13/621.

¹⁹ Ibid.; also Sir F. Wylie, Gov. of C.P., to Viceroy, 23 July 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1921.

²⁰ As the Nizam's Subjects League, formed in 1935 to protect mulki interests, put it: ‘services in Hyderabad are manned mostly by Northern Indians and these gentlemen have formed a sort of caucus and a clique with a view to keep[ing] out the others from the administration. Secondly, they suffer from an unbearable superiority complex which is most galling and irritating to the Mulkies.’ Hasan, Syed Abid, Whither Hyderabad? (A Brief Study of Some of the Outstanding Problems of the Premier Indian State) ([Madras], 1935) p. 44.Google Scholar

²¹ Pickthall, Marmeduke to Rushbrook-Williams, L. F., 23 Jan. 1932, A[ndhra] P[radesh Archives, Hyderabad], R/1/47/10/105. In fact, 96, 670 out of 99, 184 village officers were Hindus!Google Scholar

²² ‘An Appeal to Hyderabad Muslims by One of Them’, quoted in Hasan, Whither Hyderabad, p. 180.Google Scholar

²³ Pol. Member, Hyderabad Exec. Council, to Sec. Int. Aryan League, 11 Sept. 1934, Mahasabha papers, file P-7 of 1936–1937; and Hydari to Gandhi, n.d., IOR, R/I/ 29/192.

²⁴ Times of India (Bombay), 7 06 1939.Google Scholar

²⁵ Leonard, Karen, ‘The Mulki-Non Mulki Conflict’, in People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States (ed. Jeffrey, R., Delhi, 1978), pp. 91–2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hydari, to Narendranath, Raja, 15 May 1939, AP, R/1/47/10/886.Google Scholar

²⁷ Hydari, to Resdt, , 23 Apr. 1938. IOR, R/1/29/1725.Google Scholar

²⁸ ‘Conf'dl. note’ by Resdt, dated Oct. 1933, IOR, R/1/29/1853.

²⁹ Resdt to Priv. Sec. Viceroy, 10 Jan. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1668.

³⁰ ‘Secret note’ by Resdt, dated Mar. 1936, IOR, R/1/24/1853.

³¹ Minutes of meeting, Pol. Dept Govt of India,27 July 1939,IOR, R/1/29/ 1922.Google Scholar

³² There was one temple for every 82 Aryas, one mosque for every 265 Muslims and one temple for every 382 Hindus. Times of India, 7 June 1939.Google Scholar

³³ Note by Crofton, R. M., dated 20 Oct. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1853.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bombay Chronicle, 7 July 1939.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ramesan, N. (ed.), The Freedom Struggle in Hyderabad [FSH], vol. IV (Hyderabad, 1966), p. 77.Google Scholar As Akola was outside the Nizam's dominions, the statement quoted may be taken as a genuine expression of feeling, since there was no immediate threat of police reprisals against the participants.

³⁶ Statement of 5 September 1938, ibid., p. 137.

³⁷ Hydari, to Resdt, , 3 Apr. 1939, IOR, R/I/29/1920.Google Scholar

³⁸ Hydari, to Resdt, , 19 June 1939, IOR, R/I/29/1929.Google Scholar

³⁹ Savarkar, V. D., Presdt Hindu Mahasabha, to M. S. Aney, 2 July 1939, Aney Papers, subject file 7, NMML.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Jung, Rahmat Yar, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, to Ali Yavar Jung, 5 Nov. 1938, AP, R/I/47/10/936.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hydari, to Resdt, , 19 June 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1921.Google Scholar

⁴² Note by Hydari on a conversation with Madpati Hanumanth Rao, Vakil, 2 Aug. 1938, AP, R/1/47/10/718.Google Scholar

⁴³ Dig Vijay, 27 Apr. 1939, Sita Ram Papers.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Hydari, to Gandhi, , 5 Jan. 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1803.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Hydari, to Resdt, , 19 June 1939, AP, R/1/47/10/718.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ ‘Review of Hyderabad Agitation’, p. 7; Dig Vijay no. 54, 10 May 1939, Sita Ram Papers: police reports in AP, R/1/47/10/936;Google Scholar and Hydari, to Resdt, , 19 June 1939, AP, R/1/47/10/718.Google Scholar According to British sources 115 apologies had been received in one jail alone by May 1939; nationalist sources also admit that ‘some’ prisoners apologised.

⁴⁷ Police files in AP, R/1/47/10/936; and Resdt's fort, report for 1st half February 1939, IOR, R/1/29/2018.

⁴⁸ The occupations of those arrested in Oct.–Nov. 1938 are given as: students (20), retail traders (19), beggars and unemployed (14), vakils and pleaders (11), teachers and private tutors (9), ‘privately employed’ (6), goldsmiths (5), tailors (5), motor mechanics and drivers (5), life-insurance agents (3), cooks (2), electricians (2), carpenters (2), clerk (1), waiter (1), hakim (1), and temple official (1). Daily earnings of the 23 who provided details ranged from one to two rupees. Data from police dossiers in AP, R/1/47/10/936.

⁴⁹ ibid. Karen Leonard makes a similar point in her study of the Kayasthas of Hyderabad, remarking that the ‘Kayasths in the more militant political and religious movements tended to have marginal economic and social status’. Leonard, Karen I., Social History of an Indian Caste: The Kayasths of Hyderabad (Berkeley, 1978), p. 222.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Resdt's fort. report for 1st half Feb. 1939, IOR, R/1/29/2018; Savarkar, V. D. to M. S. Aney, 2 July 1939, Aney Papers, subject file 7; and Viceroy to Sec. of State, 26 July 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1922.Google Scholar

⁵¹ FSH, IV, p. 157.Google Scholar

⁵² Press statement by Sabha, Sanatan Dharma in Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 22 07 1939.Google Scholar

⁵³ Report by Central Intelligence Office, Lahore, n.d. IOR, R/1/29/1921.

⁵⁴ ‘Review of Hyderabad Agitation’, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ They included a Land Alienation Restriction Act (modelled on the famous Punjab Act of 1901), a Moneylenders' Regulation, a Land Mortgage Act, and a Bank Act.

⁵⁶ Bheruaba, S. N. to Ali Yavar Jung, 3 Nov. 1938, AP, R/1/47/10/718.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Viz, Ramkishen Doot, Baswant Rao, and Srinivas Rao Havaldar.

⁵⁸ Bajaj to Hydari, 3 Dec. 1938, Bajaj Papers, NMML.

⁵⁹ Dig Vijay, no. 54, 10 May 1939, Sita Ram Papers.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., no. 48, 3 May 1939.

⁶¹ Sudharkar, M., Sec. Int. Aryan League, Delhi, to Col. Wedgwood-Benn, M.P. (teleg.), 21 June 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1921. Later estimates went as high as 23.Google Scholar

⁶² The British Indian mortality rate from ‘natural causes’ was 10 per 1000 prisoners a year. Reckoning that Hyderabad's 8000 satyagraha prisoners stayed an average of two months, the statistical expectation would be a loss of 12 or 13 prisoners, which is very close to the number who actually died. Note by Sir Theodore Tasker dated 15 July 1939, Home (Pol.) 43/3/39.

⁶³ Note dated 14 July 1939, ibid.

⁶⁴ Note by Tasker, 15 July 1939, ibid.

⁶⁵ Note by Hollins, dated 14 July 1939, ibid. Hydari told Gandhi that the diet given to the prisoners included ghee, mutton and cereals, and that newspapers were supplied to them. FSH, IV, p. 160.

⁶⁶ Dig Vijay, no. 53, 9 May 1939, and no. 54, 10 May 1939, Sita Ram Papers.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Note dated Dec. 1937, IOR, R/1/29/1853.

⁶⁸ Note by Herbert, C. C., dated 16 Nov. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1803.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Note by Director, Intelligence Bureau, Govt of India, dated 10 June 1939, Home (Pol.), 42/2/39; and extracts of anonymous letters received by the Nizam threatening retaliation in IOR, Pol. (Intl.) Colls 11/57 (3).

⁷⁰ Ansari, A. H. to Yar Jung, Mehdi 16 and 26 Oct. 1938, AP, R/1/47/10/718, and ‘Review of Hyderabad Agitation’, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Long extracts from this report are quoted in Benichou, Lucién, ‘From Autocracy to Integration: Political Development in Hyderabad State, 1938–1948’, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of W. A., 1985, pp. 102–4. Naidu accused the HSC of being unrepresentative, timid and communal.Google Scholar

⁷² Harijan, 18 Feb. 1939, p. 167.Google Scholar

⁷³ This point is argued at some length in my article ‘Congress “Paternalism”: The High Command and the Princely States, 1920–1940’, in South Asia (forthcoming). For the Darbar's views on Congress strategy see note in Rahman, H., dated 27 Mar. 1938, AR, R/1/47/10/914; and Hydari to Resdt, 23 Nov. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1803.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The Hindu population of the States in 1921 was 53.5 million, the Muslim population 9.5 million. Statutory Commission Report, vol. I, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Krishna Rao, M., Sec. Madras Arya Samaj, to Sec. Mahasabha, 18 Nov. 1937, Mahasabha Papers, file M–3 of 1935–7. As of 1937 the Mahasabha had not a single branch south of the Krishna.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See, for example, Joshi, H. M. to Balwantrai Mehta, Sec. AISPC, 28 May 1938, AISPC Papers, file 44 of 1937–41, NMML.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Shikhare to Mehta, 17 June 1938, ibid.

⁷⁸ Quoted in B. S. Moonje to [illegible], 10 Dec. 1938, M. S. Aney Papers, subject file 7.

⁷⁹ Resdt to Pol. Adviser, 2 Oct. 1939 IOR, R/1/29/1860.

⁸⁰ On the AISPC's anti-Muslim bias see N. C. Kelkar's presidential speech to the Party's fourth annual session, 22 July 1933, IOR, Pol. (Intl.) Colls 11/9; and Shikhare, B. V. to Mehta, B., 17 June 1938, AISPC Papers, part I file 44 of 1937–41.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Resdt to Pol. Sec., 20 June 1931, IOR, R/1/29/760.

⁸² Five hundred Hyderabadis are said to have attended the Haripura session of the Congress in Feb. 1938, FSH, IV, p. 182.Google Scholar

⁸³ Note dated Mar. 1936, IOR, R/1/29/1853.

⁸⁴ Resdt's fort. report for 1st half Apr. 1931, Pol (Intl.) Colls 4/6.

⁸⁵ On the history and doctrines of the Samaj see Fox, Richard G., ‘Urban Class and Communal Consciousness in Colonial Punjab: The Genesis of India's Intermediate Regime’, in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 18 (1984), pp. 459–89;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJones, Kenneth W., Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in 19th-Century Punjab (Berkeley, 1976);Google ScholarJordens, J. T. F., Däyananda Savasvati: His Life and Times (Delhi, 1978),Google Scholar and Swami Shraddhänanda: His Life and Causes (Delhi, 1981);Google Scholar and Thursby, G. R., Hindu–Muslim Relations in British India (Leiden, 1975), ch. II and ch. IV, pp. 136–72.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ By the late 1930s the Samaj had altogether about 150 State branches, 18 in Hyderabad City. See Leonard, Social History, p. 222; Hydari to Resdt, 23 Apr. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1725; and Resdt to Pol. Sec. 12 July, 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1921.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ On the activities of Arya preachers Bansilal and Shamlal in Bidar and Udgir, sec FSH, IV, pp. 88–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ His mellifluous Urdu is alleged, on one occasion, to have moved the Nizam to tears. Benichou, ‘From Autocracy to Integration’, pp. 138–9. He was ennobled with the title of Nawab in 1930 partly in recognition of his contribution to the Urdu language.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ The most remarkable tabligh preacher of the 1930s, Siddiqi Dindar, achieved great success among the Lingayats by posing as an avatar of their caste-deity Basweshar, Channa. Mahratta (Poona), 8 07 1938;Google ScholarFSH, IV, p. 88; and Resdt's fort. report for 1st half July 1937, IOR, R/1/29/1311.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Resdt's fort, report for 1st half Sept. 1936; Mahratta, 8 July 1938;Google Scholar and Elliot, C. M., ‘Decline of a Patrimonial Regime: The Telengana Rebellion in India, 1946–51’ in Journal of Asian Studies, vol. XXIV (1974–1975), p. 37n.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Jung, Rahmat Yar to Yar Jung, Mirza Ali, 10 Aug. 1936, AP, R/1/47/10/903.Google Scholar

⁹² Arya speeches 15 Apr. and July 1938, quoted in ‘The Arya Samaj in Hyderabad’, 1939, Sita Ram Papers; Rahbar-i-Deccani, 20 Apr. and June 1938, quoted in ‘Nizam Defence Examined’, Sita Ram Papers file 32; and speech by Siddiqi, 1931, ibid.

⁹³ Memorial from Chandulal, Sec., Arya Samaj, Hyderabad to Viceroy, June 1935, Mahasabha Papers, file p–3 of 1933–34; Dig Vijay, no. 51, 7 May 1939, Sita Ram Papers; and ‘Nizam Defence Examined’ p. 32.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Note dated June 1939, IOR, R/1/29/1921.

⁹⁵ The Ved Sandesh, quoted in ‘The Arya Samaj in Hyderabad’, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Resdt's fort, report for 2nd half of Mar. 1938, IOR, R/1/129/1669.

⁹⁷ Resdt to Viceroy's Priv. Sec. 18 Apr. 1938, and Hydari to Viceroy's Priv. Sec., 19 Apr. 1938, IOR, R/1/29/1719.

⁹⁸ Gopal Krishna in his study of communal violence in India during the 1960s rated Hyderabad as a town given to ‘persistent violence’, with serious outbreaks in eight out of ten years: ‘Communal Violence in India: A Study of Communal Disturbance in Delhi’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. XX, no. 2 (01 1985), p. 66.Google Scholar The most recent communal outbreak in the City was in August 1984 when ‘at least’ 15 people died. See Menon, Armarth K., ‘The Communal Canker’, India Today, vol. IX, no. 16, 08 16–31 1984, pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Arya Vir, 7 Feb. 1938; speech of 29 Mar. 1938; and Jhanda, 27 July 1938, quoted in ‘The Arya Samaj in Hyderabad’.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ In June Aryan League President Gupta went to Hyderabad and attempted to negotiate a settlement with Hydari. He failed. A year later after months of struggle, the two men would finally resolve their differences. For the terms of this compact, see ‘The Achievement of Satyagraha in Hyderabad State’ (1939), Sita Ram Papers, file 36.

¹⁰¹ On this see ‘Review of Hyderabad Agitation’, pp. 16–17; and circular letter from Viceroy to Gov's [Apr. 1939], IOR, R/1/29/1920.Google Scholar

¹⁰² On Kashmir see my article, ‘Islam and Political Mobilisation in Kashmir, 1931–34’, in Pafic Affairs, vol. 54, no. 2 (1981), 228–59;Google Scholar on Alwar see NAI, Home (Pol.) file 112/1/34, appendix II to notes; on Jind, Resdt’s fort, report for 1 st half Aug. 1934, IOR, R/1/29/1251; on Kapurthala, memorial dated 9 Jan 1934 from the Central Hindu Sabha, B. S. Moonje Papers, NMML; on Jaipur, memorial by Khaksar Movement, Lahore, Feb. 1939, and press statement by Nehru, J., 4 Mar. 1939, All India Congress Committee, file 29 of 1939, NMML; on Ramdurg and Travancore, my article ‘Congress Paternalism’.Google Scholar Some irony attends the mention of Congress in this context for of all the major political parties it was the most strident in its condemnation of communalism. Yet it would be wrong to conclude that Congress was non-communal. Parties in India are known at grass roots level not so much by their ideology as by the company they keep, by who their supporters are. Since Congressites in the 1930s were predominantly (and in some regions almost exclusively) caste Hindus, it acquired, not altogether unfairly, a reputation as the vehicle of this community.

¹⁰³ Krishnamachari, to Bajaj, , 3 May 1940, Bajaj Papers.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Govt of India to Sec. of State public dispatch of 27 Dec. 1893, Pol. Dept Int’l A. Dec. 1894, 113–55, NAI.

¹⁰⁵ On Bikaner see Beneshaim Wahie to Moonje, B. S., 28 May 1933, Moonje Papers, subject file 33.Google Scholar Wahie attributed the woes of Hindus in Bikaner and other Rajput states to ‘princes who… seem to gain more pleasure in the company of non-Hindus’. The seven states were Mysore, Tavancore, Patiala, Kapurthala, Datia, Jhalawar and Gwalior. Interestingly, Christopher Bayly has recently argued in somewhat similar vein about the 18th and early 19th centuries. Bayly contends that the regional struggles for power that attended the decline of the Mughal Empire fostered ‘the emergence of an all-India military culture’ whose religious expression at the courtly level was primarily syncretic. If Bayly is right, the darbari syncretism of the 1930s could be an inherited characteristic, for what were the ‘princely states’ but the surviving lineal descendants of these 18th century warrior kingdoms? See ‘The Pre-history of Communalism? Religious Conflict in India 1700–1860’, in Modern Asian Studies, 19 (1985), p. 183.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ On this general issue see Hurd, John, ‘The Economic Consequences of Indirect Rule in India’, in The Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. XII (1975), 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Figures adapted from Census of India, various volumes, 1931…1941, and The Hyderabad Problem, p. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ The Hyderabad Problem, p. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Memo unsigned, n.d. [apparently written Oct. 1938] AP, R/1/47/10/868. The official’s chronology is astray, however, since the Aiyengar Committee was appointed in 1937, well before Dhulpet.

¹¹⁰ Both Bose, Sugata, ‘The Roots of “Communal” Violence in Rural Bengal: A Study of the Kishorganj riots, 1930’, in Modern Asian Studies, vol. 16 (1982), p. 464,Google Scholar and Chakrabarty, Dipesh, ‘Communal Riots and Labour: Bengal's Jute Mill-Hands in the 1890s’, in Past and Present, vol. 91 (1981), pp. 141–2, claim that communal violence came to Bengal firstly through the activities of ‘up-country’, mainly Bihari, workers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹¹ Krishna, , ‘Communal Violence in India’, pp. 61–74.Google Scholar