Talk:Annexation of Hyderabad/Archive 1

Require reference
There were large scale communal riots in various parts of the state in the immediate aftermath of the military operation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.166.141 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hyderabad had given Rupees 200 million to Pakistan, and had stationed a bomber squadron there." What is the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschwynn (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"and leader of the radical Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) Party, to set up an voluntary militia of Muslims called the 'Razakars'" What is your reference to say that MIM is a radical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.29.217 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
This article, however , well stocked on information as it seems,is slightly tilted towards anti-nationalism with respect to India and Pakistan in a unjust way.The annexation of Hyderabad was purely propelled by national and populist interest of the people of erstwhile hyderabad state who were exceedingly downtrodden by the nizamiat or aristocracy of  the nobleman as was the case in all the princely states in the erstwhile subcontinent.The newly created Islamic republic of Pakistan was full of glee as to a prospect of a collusion with a seemingly moslem state{85 % were Hindus living with harmony with Muslims} of Hyderabad due to  moslem  roots at the helm of its affairs. In order to push its unjust claim for Jammu&Kashmir it sought to have access to heart of India in order to push its nefarious designs which were foresighted by the ruling Indian party.Thus it is believed that the national interest of India under Sardar Vallabh Patel is well exemplified.If there is one country which is more similar to Republic Of India ,theologically, practically,militrarily,sociallyit is none other than United states of America.Just look at the middle class of both countries both fueled by flourishing democracy.The challenges faced by the American democracy has been similar to the one faced by Indian democracy.... and thus  the socalled annexation of hyderabad was just a replay of American-Mexican War albeit in the 20th century.

Starquentin (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the army of Hyderabad was expected "to put up fierce resistance" as said by the article

This page needs an objective look and I'd like to put an NPOV tag to it.

--iFaqeer 10:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this page appears definitely not to be NPOV. =/ 134.50.7.201 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added citation needed tags to the aftermath paragraph Bharatveer 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I added an NPOV tag to the section "Aftermath" because: 1. It did not sound very neutral and appeared to be lacking quite a bit of information, and 2. I don't have time now to try and sift through piles of sources. Hopefully others will see this and try to clarify, cite, and contribute. Rubber soul

I would like to add NPOV tag to the whole article. There are few terms like "what Govt of India gives is victor's story" which should not be added.

Some of the items even appear biased. One example is the part that tries to pass off as proven fact what can, at best, only be an allegation that Indian troops committed atrocities on communists during the aftermath. While the page is indeed informative, it seems like the author has not fully succeeded in not allowing his / her personal prejudices from creeping in. --203.199.198.152 11:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)203.199.198.152 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Sagar sagar@tanksali.com

The History of Hyderabad article claims 200,000 Moslem deaths, which could be mentioned, to be NPOV, along with the role of airman Sidney Cotton. Hugo999 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by the idea that there was an INVASION of Hyderabad State. As I understand it from visiting that delightful city in 2003 there was an adjacent military cantonment at Secunderabad, which must in 1948 have had Indian Dominion Troops, all they had to do was move out to take charge. This is what seems to have happened. I would further wonder how useful the Nizam's government was to the ordinary citizen, bearing in mind the wealth that was taken to Australia, and the present opinion that Muslim States are failed states. I was troubled by the expensive garden ornaments in the graveyard of the royal family, which spoke of Muslim self agrandisement in death rather than concern for the people of the state. For those Muslims who will accuse me of Christian bias, I will point out that I have two Muslim chosen sonbs, on of whom comed from Hyderabad. The Reverend Peter M. Hawkins.

This article is still low on references and high on bias. "crowds of razakars disappeared magically"? "drove back to King Kothi to brood"? Kelvinc (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, "drove back to King Kothi to brood" etc sounds soooo much like its a novel.. Reverend Peter Hawkins is right, it was not merely an 'invasion', the people living in the Nizam's dominions were downtrodden & neglected, they were planning to overthrow him anyway, so it was a force from within along with Indian army moving in. The Nizam played the religion card, but his own muslim citizens were also tired of being looted under his regime, all the farmers were preparing to revolt. But these are stories narrated in our families, I dont know where to get references from.. Lilaac (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The initial expression "The liberation of Hyderabad" is very much opinionated. Legally it was an annexation, no matter how much the people of Hyderabad might have welcomed it or not, which is almost always only speculation and assuming that the people of Hyderabad would be homogenous and all feel the same way about the annexation. The elites for instance might have been in favour of an independent Hyderabad. Also there's a type-o in the second paragraph: "Nisam's" instead of "Nizam's". And here's a word missing: "The Indians however, were wary of having an independent - and possibly hostile [state] in the heart of its territory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.133.4 (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

bad source
This version has listed this BBC link as a source. If you examine that webpage, you will see the source of the assertion about post-conflict reprisals and the "50,000" figure to come from a blog - not a credible reference. I have thus removed the questionable parts. Shiva  (Visnu)  19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyderabad Campaign (1948) → Operation Polo – To avoid all conflicts between titles Police Action & Hyderabad Campaign (1948). No reputed reference has given for term "Hyderabad Campaign". This term might be an original research Sarvagyana guru (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Srnec (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo concern
N.B.: There appears to be a 'mix-up' of the two Major-Generals in the photograph. El Edroos is actually at 'left' side and J N Chaudhuri at 'right' side. The misrepresentation of the two Major-Generals in the write-up below the photograph has not been duly amended yet. My contention may be checked from the photos of Late Gen. J N Chaudhuri from Google and other sources for proper verification.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a source that the picture is currently mislabeled? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from Google photos of Gen. J N Chaudhuri, Indian Army websites can also be sources for the verification of the physical identity.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Require reference
When the British finally departed from the Indian subcontinent in 1947, they offered the various princely states in the sub-continent the option of acceding to either India or Pakistan, or staying on as an independent state.

The British give only two options to princely states that either merge with India or Pakistan. There was no third option like it is saying remain as Independent State.

Therefore, please rectify the sentence as When the British finally departed from the Indian subcontinent in 1947, they offered the various princely states in the sub-continent the option of acceding to either India or Pakistan. 182.69.85.114 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Rewrote the lead
I have rewrote the lead based on various WP:RS. It was originally based on this source, which is not considered WP:RS. Also included the Sunderlal committee and estimates by A.G. Noorani in the lead. More changes might follow. Kingsindian (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014
Please include points from these sources

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2012/04/operation-polo-forgotten-massacre-in.html

http://twocircles.net/2011sep17/fall_hyderabad_17th_september_black_day_human_history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanpur,_Ranga_Reddy_district

103.254.100.10 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The communal violence is already mentioned in a seperate section. Please state explicitly what else you wish to be added. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2
Operation Polo → Indian integration of Hyderabad – Much of the article is background, prelude, and aftermath. The battle only takes up one section and is the weakest part of the article, with very few references. The aftermath is very briefly described. The suggestion is to write a comprehensive article on the integration, with the background and prelude, as well as the aftermath, described in more detail. With the new name, political factors can be given more space, rather than purely military matters. The battle can be a section in the article, like it is now. Currently the page has a military name, and is included in Category:Violence against Hindus, Category:Violence against Muslims and Category:Religious violence in India, which is not ideal because most of the violence did not come from the Indian military. There is precedence for this name, see Indian integration of Junagadh, though that article is very weak. Here is a link to "integration". Kingsindian (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: The category Category:Violence against Muslims and Category:Religious violence in India were added within past week by the supporter/proposer of this move request. -- AmritasyaPutra T 12:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent justification. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Operation Polo could have its own article (someone would need to dedicate a bit of work to it), but if so, this article as it exists would be the main article, with a subsection summarising an Operation Polo article. It's about the entire integration of the principality, from the preceding negotiations to the aftermath. &mdash;innotata 04:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - integration implies changes to structure, democratic processes, law, weights and measures etc. Wouldn't Indian annexation of Hyderabad be a more accurate name? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be ok for the operation itself, but I am envisaging a more comprehensive article, dealing with prelude and aftermath. In the aftermath, the bureaucracy was widely overhauled by the Indian govt., which created its own problems, and many other changes happened. The annexation just took 5 days, and was a foregone conclusion, but the issue is much more complex than that. I have added a link to "integration" in the move request. Kingsindian (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a good place to debate the deeper issues behind the terminology, but I would like to point out that "integration" is indeed the standard term as in "Political integration of India." Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Google hits for "Operation Polo" is 83,600. Google hits for "Indian integration of Hyderabad" is 2. Operation Polo is not exactly the synonym of "Indian Integration of Hyderabad", so this "move" would be incorrect. This article may be refactored and another new article created. -- AmritasyaPutra T 12:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of citing Google searches here. But gives 5 million results,  gives 174,000. As I said already, the part which only deals with the battle is very small and very weak, with few references. Kingsindian (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we rename this page, I expect that we would still have "Operation Polo" as a redirect to this page. Or "Operation Polo" could have a separate page of its own in future focusing on the military operations.  In either case, we wouldn't lose any traffic coming via Google. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Strong rationale that the article is more than just the invasion. Indian Annexation of Hyderabad is a better title though. Hyderabad joined India following a military operation - Integration doesn't reflect that reality. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Integration is the standard term used in India for Hyderabad and the other princely states becoming part of the Union, so our principles of using commonly recognisable names (and using national varieties of English) apply. Also, annexation isn't perfectly accurate either, since Hyderabad wasn't independent under the Raj. &mdash;innotata 13:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that strictly accurate? Under the terms of independence, princely states had the option of becoming independent entities. The Nizam opted for independence and India's military expedition was more than a year later. In short, Hyderabad State was independent for 13 months, became a part of India unwillingly and as a result of military action. Annexation is definitely a better term than integration because it encompasses the entire process, what happens before the military action, what happens during the military action, and the immediate aftermath. Somewhat along the lines of 1961 Indian annexation of Goa. Once Hyderabad became a part of India, that's when the process of integrating it began. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the difference from Goa is that Hyderabad was under the "paramountcy" of British India, whereas that wasn't the case for Goa. There was a British resident in Hyderabad and British Indian army garrisons stationed there. These arrangements continued when India became independent.  As User:Kingsindian says the issues are complex and it is best to stick to non-controversial terminology in naming the page. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see "annexation" as a controversial word. However, as I say below, "integration" is better than the status quo so que sera sera. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The issues are complex. "Annexation" is arguable, but "integration" is also widely used (I gave an example in the header). The lead for the article states that it was annexed in the military operation, so that is not an issue. The issue is that the article's scope is a bit broader. The annexation itself was only a small part of the story. Kingsindian (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. Integration is definitely better than the current title. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Noorani
I have Noorani's book (Destruction of Hyderabad). But, the index isn't great and the Google Books doesn't have a searchable copy. So, it is not easy to find information in there. I am making some notes as I am reading it, and I will add them to the article when I am reasonably done.

It is fairly clear that Noorani is biased against Sardar Patel. So, I think it would be inappropriate to include his ideas on Patel on Wikipedia. I have great respect for Noorani, but I don't regard him as an authority on Patel. Noorani thinks that one has to be just like Nehru to be considered secular. Sorry, no. Nehru is Nehru and Patel is Patel. They were both secular in different ways. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not have Noorani's book, all I have read is the reviews of the book, and Noorani's other articles on Hyderabad in Frontline and elsewhere. When you say that Noorani is biased against Sardar Patel, that may be right or wrong, but it is not too relevant. See Identifying_reliable_sources. Since he can be considered biased, I have given him in-text attribution. Noorani is used for two claims about Patel,
 * That he was mainly behind using the military option, while Nehru took a less hard-line position. That, I think is not in doubt, since the Sherman source also identifies Patel by name.
 * The second claim is that Patel hated the Nizam personally and was ideologically opposed to Hyderabadi culture. Noorani said much more, that Patel was a Hindu nationalist, and wanted to destroy Hyderabadi culture and so on. I have left those out for now.
 * I have not read the book, so I do not know what he says which led him to reach these conclusions. However, the conclusions are notable, and I do not see any problem with including them, as long as they are attributed. If there is any other source which contradicts these claims, I would be happy to consider it. Kingsindian (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't know all of Wikipedia policies on such issues. I am just using my common sense.  Since it is clear that Noorani is biased against Patel (and he calls both Shankar's and Rajmohan Gandhi's biographies as "hagiographies"), we shouldn't use his statements about Patel except statements of fact.  His opinions of Patel have no place in this page.  We could put them in the Sardar Patel page if we wish but provide balance using multiple sources.  We are getting into the WP:COATRACK territory here.
 * "Patel hated Nizam" is a very strong statement to make and I am surprised he makes it so lightly without sufficient foundation. As for Patel destroying "Hyderbadi culture," whatever that might be, no mention has been made about such culture on this page.  I think the book doesn't give sufficient information about such a culture either.  Given that this is a central plank in Noorani's attack, he needed to put a chapter on Hyderabadi culture in his book.  But there isn't one.  There isn't even a small section on it.  As far as I am concerned, this "Hyderabadi culture" is entirely imaginary.  So, I say that both of these statements have to go. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid WP:COATRACK is just an essay, and what I quoted is a guideline. One statement regarding Patel hardly approaches WP:COATRACK anyway, which talks about an article. Secondly, the fact that Noorani calls other biographies as hagiographies does not by itself imply any bias. Many biographies are hagiographies, and he is entitled to call them if he thinks so. Thirdly, let's assume he is biased, this is what in-text attribution is for, as I made clear. Fourthly, I have no idea how Noorani's claims about Patel are received in the scholarly reviews, but they were considered notable to include in newspaper/magazine reviews. It is not for me or you to judge the quality of a person's output. In regard to this, note that Noorani considers Kashmir and Hyderabad inextricably linked, and he has written a lot on Kashmir, and Patel/Nehru's actions there, so his comments about Patel's ideology are not airy-fairy. Fifthly, I am open to different interpretations of Patel's actions. Consider this from Sherman (page 17) Note that this can't be included as it is, because it would violate WP:SYNTH:
 * "'As news of the convictions of Razvi and his men reached the public, prominent politicians again pressed Nehru to show generosity to the Muslims of Hyderabad. The Prime Minister was sympathetic. Hyderabadi Muslims, he wrote to Patel, exemplified a unique ‘and rather attractive culture’, and were ‘very much above the average’ ... When Nehru first voiced these arguments, Patel demurred. He was convinced that the promise of penal action against criminals had helped restore law and order, and that if that promise were not fulfilled, it would signal the government’s partiality for Muslims and would endanger the peace in the state.'" Kingsindian (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection if multiple interpretations are presented. But that is not the case at present.  There is just one sweeping opinion, which I regard as biased. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It may well be a biased opinion, but it is notable. I don't know much about history or historiography, but interpretation is everywhere. See E H Carr's What Is History%3F. As I stated, I am fine with including any other sources which say something different. But I don't see this as a reason for excluding a notable and relevant opinion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hardly think it is "notable". Yes, Noorani is well-known, but seems well past his prime and this book is totally incoherent.  Even Muslim bloggers seem to find it impossible to explain what the book is about, e.g., .  He himself is unable to explain what has actually been destroyed (cf. this interview ). So, latching on to his rants about Patel is the best that the people are able to do. We won't know whether the book is "notable" until we find some scholarly analysis of it, which will probably take a couple of years at least.  I really think we should depend on the established material about Hyderabad. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple of references. The Muralidharan article is quite excellent, containing a nice summary of the Noorani book as well as Hyder's book which I didn't know about previously. If you can't access the article, please send me private mail and I can email it to you. (This is independent of what I have been saying earlier.) Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let me emphasize that editor opinions count for very little. You have the book and can decide about its persuasiveness yourself, but that is separate from the issue here. Being quoted in multiple news and magazine reviews does make one notable. There is no doubt sensationalism in the press about everything. However, we have no other way to determining notability. I do not know of any scholarly reviews of this book, which suggest something else about Patel's ideology, or his attitude towards the Nizam. If something comes in the future, it can be added.
 * The following is a meta-discussion about whether Noorani is right or wrong. It is not strictly relevant to WP, but I will take a stab at it anyway, since it is interesting to me. To take the two sources you suggest, zerothly, a blogger being Muslim or not is irrelevant to the issue. Firstly, the interview source is a very brief, one paragraph response, and hardly counts, while the blogger is mostly complaining about too much material, not sufficiently organized. Secondly, as a point of logic, if one dislikes Hyderabadi culture, this does not imply that one is able to carry out the destruction. Remember that Patel died in 1950. Thirdly, was there no destruction? Just in the military operation, 200,000 people were killed. If you read the Sherman source, about 18,000 people were imprisoned in the operation, and 11,000 Muslims were released after 6 months because no evidence was found. The whole bureaucracy was overhauled, bringing in outside civil servants who couldn't even speak the language. It succeeded only partially: people found various ways around it. And of course, there were other factors, like linguistic ones, finally leading to the splitting up of the state in 1956. I do not mean to say this was all Patel's fault. Kingsindian (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Concluded vs reported
I feel that the excerpts from the BBC article are not NPOV. For example, the current text says that "The Committee concluded that while Muslims villagers were disarmed by the Indian Army, Hindus were often left with their weapons.", whereas the BBC article says that "The team reported that while Muslim villagers were disarmed by the Indian Army, Hindus were often left with their weapons." There is a big difference between a reports conclusion and a fact that is reported in it. In fact, the article goes on to say that "The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims." So it is very plausible that the involvement of the Indian armed forces in the massacres were sporadic, and not the norm. Unless anyone has objections, I am going to change the wording of the communal violence section to exactly what the original source says, and add the second POV that the armed forces also protected targeted communities from communal violence. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are quibbling with the wording, "concluded" vs "reported", please feel free to change it. I don't think it makes any difference. The exact words from the report are, "the policy of leaving the Hindus in possession of their arms was almost general." Nothing I have seen indicates that the involvement of the armed forces was "sporadic." A report commissioned by the Indian Government would obviously attempt to whitewash the role of the Armed Forces. The communists, on the other hand, have accused the Armed Forces of being primarily responsible for the massacres while the Hindu civilians attempted to protect the Muslims. (But the communists only had influence in Telangana. The worst massacres happened in the districts that are now in Maharashtra and Karnataka.) Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we then link to the report directly ? Because the BBC article certainly doesnt give that impression. Plus its always better to refer to the primary sources. Also, there are two separate questions. The first is of leaving Hindus in possession of their arms, which clearly was a systematic policy on the part of the army. The second is participating in the massacres, the committee's reportage here seems to be that there were some occassions in which the armed forces participated in the massacres, whereas in many others it did not. Regarding the Communist perspective, we should also it include it with appropriate referencing. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources; see reliable sources. We should especially not attempt to summarize reports of commissions, court judgements etc. In any case, the report is in the appendix of the Noorani's book, cited in the Bibliography. As far as I know, that is the only place where it is available, until somebody manages to put it on Wikileaks. In my opinion, the best source to read is the Muralidharan article, also cited in the Bibliography. If you can't access it, please send me private mail, and I can send you a copy. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015
the URL link for "Razakars" should be lead to "Razakars(Hyderabad)" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razakars_(Hyderabad)}; and NOT "Razkars" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razakar}. (Relevance)

Ga59cor (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--regentspark (comment) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge Pandit_Sunderlal_Committee_Report into this article
The other article is just a stub. It should be merged here. Kingsindian (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(moved from other page)
 * It seems to me that the right thing to do is to create a page called "1948 Hyderabad massacres" and merge this page into that one. The core text can be taken from the Operation Polo page and it can get expanded in time. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that would be a good idea. The Sunderlal Committee report was talking about the operation in particular. And this page contains much background etc. All of this was in context of the integration of Hyderabad, it is true, but the violence is not neatly separable from the operation itself. The Sunderlal Commmittee talks about people killed "during and after the police action" and goes into details. Kingsindian (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the edit note of User:AmritasyaPutra at 21:15, you will see why this organisation doesn't work. Operation Polo is a police operation.  What does it have to do with religious violence?  99.99999% people think that.  Me too.  So, if you want to do an iota of justice to those 200,000 hapless victims that got killed, please spin off a separate article. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not sure what this has to do with the merge discussion. The Sunderlal Committee report is specifically about the operation. Secondly, I never thought of my actions as doing justice to anyone. I am just writing a wikipedia article. It seems to me that the way to deal with the edit you mention is to revert it, and point out the facts. Operation Polo was a military operation, called a "police action" by the Indian govt. As it states in the lead, it was used to annex Hyderabad. As is well known, military actions lead to all kinds of violence: religious, ethnic and political. Kingsindian (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Kingsindian. May I ask Kautilya3 between which religions did this religion violence took place? Who was the perpetrator and who was the sufferer? The lead says it is a Police action. Was it a religious police? -- AmritasyaPutra T 02:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, some calm. There is no reason for such edit summaries as "are you kidding" etc., though I agree with 's edit. To, the operation involved a lot of communal violence, as stated in the section. The lead says that it was called a "police action" by the govt., but it was a military operation. As the Sunderlal committee report and other sources say in the communal violence section, the Indian army was not innocent of communal violence of its own. And also, since one particular community was disarmed due to their association with the Razakars, they were left vulnerable to attacks from others. And of course, there were other factors, like historic factors. This is all inseparable with the operation. Kingsindian (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noting that 'are you kidding' summary is by Kautilya3. Thank you. -- AmritasyaPutra T 02:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise, noting that the edit that User:Kingsindian agreed with also mine. It looks like, when you get into edit wars, you begin to process only 1 out of every 10 words.  The rest of it just skips by.  Why don't you stop these edit wars? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I am not getting into your 'edit war', you have to sort it yourself, I asked a simple question on the content above, since I felt the comment about edit summary may appear to point to me I made a simple factual note on it. Hope that helps! Cheers!.-- AmritasyaPutra T 11:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(separate thread) There is already an article on State of Hyderabad which goes into the history and includes Operation Polo inside it. Perhaps this is what you meant? Kingsindian (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The point is that most people think of the "Operation Polo" as the one that marched into the Hyderabad State and took it over.  When the Nizam signed the accession, that operation was over.  We were all told in school that this was bloodless operation.  The massacres that happened afterwards represent the aftermath of the Operation Polo, which need their own page.  It is like how we have a page for 2002 Gujarat violence, which represents the aftermath of Godhra train burning.  So, in my view, there were three events: Razakar terror, Operation Polo and 1948 Hyderabad massacres, each of which needs its own page. (I am not sure what the State of Hyderabad page has to do with this.) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To add another point, right now the Pandit Sunderlal Committee Report page is standing as a proxy for a proper page on "1948 Hyderabad Massacres." So merging it into Operation Polo would amount to removing the only page we have on the massacres, which I regard "unjust."  How does "justice" come into it?  When we cover up facts or distort them, we would be unjust to the facts and also unjust to the people involved, often voiceless people and dead people.  That is not what Wikipedia should be about. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I have a suggestion: we can have an article called "Integration of the State of Hyderabad into India", to discuss both the prelude and the aftermath? For instance, the Telengana rebellion preceding the Operation is also important, and it is given very little space. The alternative is to simply have a page alone for the violence/massacre, since the Telengana Rebellion has its own page. Kingsindian (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have another thought on "justice" and articles. When you say that people think of Operation Polo as bloodless and so on, it seems to me that it makes all the more sense to put stuff here, which gives context, rather than in a separate article. Article forking would only involve hiving off of content into separate pages. It seems to me that it should be discussed holistically in one article. And another thought, merging would result simply in the article being redirected here, the original page would remain. Kingsindian (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer a separate page on the violence/massacre, because it also gets listed under religious violence categories. (That is in fact I came upon this issue, by browsing through the Violence against Muslims page.)  Listing Operation Polo, a military term, in those categories has the unfortunate effect of suggesting that the Indian Military was a key player, whereas in reality it wasn't.  I have a feeling that we will get more information and sources for the violence itself in the coming years, because the Sunderlal report has become semi-public, and academics/journalists have begun to look into it. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also be happy if we changed the title of this page from "Operation of Polo" to "Indian integration of Hyderabad" (to rhyme with "Indian integration of Junagadh"). Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, making a naming the page called "Indian integration of Hyderabad" seems to solve the problem that stuff can be discussed in one place, while avoiding the impression that all or most of the violence was done by the military. If you feel that this is good, you can open a move request (or I can do it). Kingsindian (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you request it please? I am not sure of the procedure to be followed. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge: Whatever mentioned in committee's article is already mentioned in this article. I think no need of separate article. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   22:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I did the text-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2015
Muhammad Zain Amin (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ No request made. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2015
Muhammad Zain Amin (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reundant info
This edit simply repeats the information in the next sentence. The mass looting and rapes by Razakars is describe in the very next sentence. Similarly, the terrorising of the Hindu community is described in the very next sentence. I have removed some of the redundant material and rephrased the rest. I agree with you about the violence vs unrest and kept it that way. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree about redundancy. I changed my own edit after re-reading your comment here. I was a bit concerned about integrity of the quote from Kate though. I removed the first mention of rape per your request, but kept the second one since that part wasn't redundant and was part of a full quote (providing a sourced assertion). Hopefully this compromise text is mutually satisfactory. Devanampriya (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Indian integration of Hyderabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926163441/http://www.indianofficer.com:80/forums/history-wiki/899-operation-polo-liberation-hyderabad.html to http://www.indianofficer.com/forums/history-wiki/899-operation-polo-liberation-hyderabad.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources
@RegentsPark @Kautilya 3

Here is the URL to the thesis: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2317&context=etd

And the page number is 133.(for the smuggling of parts of report to Karachi and causing embarrassment). This source also talks a great deal about rape by both sides, but notes that Indian troops' atrocities were on a much bigger magnitude than those committed by the Razakars.

There is a second source which repeats the same: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/1882/11/11_chapter7.pdf

The page number is 229 (for the smuggling of parts of report to Karachi and causing embarrassment).TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits
Ya... whoever reverted the edits I made, please explain, since they were all sourced, and important to the subject. Hammad.511234 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As my edit summary states, you need to provide page numbers and/or quotations to verify the new content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll do that now then. Hammad.511234 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am copying below the three blocks of text you have added so that we can talk about them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Omar Khalidi source

 * This content is roughly in the source, but it is not accurate. Communists are said to have been active in Nalgonda and Warangal. But there is no such qualification for Razakars, who were present throughout the state. In fact, the source says they were especially active in Nanded and Aurangabad. You have omitted this information.
 * The more serious problem is that the source itself is not reliable. From the preceding pages, it appears that this information is from Khalidi's copy of the Sunderlal Report. But the real version of the Report from the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, reproduced in the Noorani book, does not have this passage at all. I presume that Khalidi reproduced some corrupted version of the Report. The notion that Hyderabad was "relatively peaceful" before the invasion contradicts multiple reliable sources. So, I am afraid this whole passage has to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Refugees

 * Once again the text is inaccurate. The 40,000 refugees are in "CP alone." You have omitted this. Secondly, page 8 of the source doesn't say why people left as refugees. You have supplied a reason. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Communists

 * Once again loads of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR in this passage. The first sentence is unreferenced. Terms such as "slaughter" and "mass slaughter" don't appear anywhere in the sources. "Hyderabadi Muslims" and "poor Hindus" are not mentioned in the souces either. The sources don't characterise anything like the "majority of the fighting." In fact, on page 7, Sherman says that the communists allied with Nizam in May 1948. Presumably there was no fighting between the communists and the Razakars after this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the Omar Khalidi source. I agree with the last two points. I was about to fix the CP part myself, but I forgot. The total number of refugees is not clear, and the "thousands of refugees" is probably the best we can do given the available sources. As for the last point, the fact that 2000 people were killed is already present in the Telengana rebellion section and does not need to be repeated. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. to Indian annexation of Hyderabad (non-admin closure). ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Indian integration of Hyderabad → Integration of Hyderabad – Adding "Indian" is unnecessary. In line with similar article: Integration of Junagadh. – Filpro (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). BilCat (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(Misplaced move request. - BilCat (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC))


 * Oppose. It's a descriptive title either way. The adjective is useful to specify that this is the integration of Hyderabad State into another state. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think the present title is perfectly fine. If necessary, "Integration of Hyderabad" could be created as a redirect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've created the redirect. - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The current title is bad and the "solution" is worse. Neither is clear about the topic of the article, i.e the Indian annexation of Hyderabad.  (cf. Annexation of Portuguese India and Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli).  Integration would more properly refer to what happened after Operation Polo and the annexation.  I prefer Indian annexation of Hyderabad for clarity and accuracy or else a return to the earlier title of Operation Polo.  —  AjaxSmack   02:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I too think either of those is preferable to the current title. Srnec (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can't consider terms like annexation without reliable sources using the term. Comparisons to Goa etc. are not tenable because they were not princely states of British India (or "protectorates" in international law). I will try to write a discussion below as to why it wasn't an "annexation". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Lead sentence of the article: "Operation Polo, the code name of the Hyderabad "Police Action" was a military operation in September 1948 in which the Indian Armed Forces invaded the State of Hyderabad and overthrew its Nizam, annexing the state into the Indian Union." (Emphasis mine.) Granted, WP itself isn't a reliable sow, but if we use the word I the Lead, I don't see why it's not appropriate in the title. But of course what matters is what reliable sources say. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet gotten around to cleaning up this article. The best well-sourced material on the political aspects of the operation right now exist only on Standstill agreement (India). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Integration of Hyderabad", Support Indian annexation of Hyderabad - more accurate title. - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Move to 'Indian annexation of Hyderabad'. 'Integration is nothing but a WP:EUPHEMISM. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the 'Indian' is important in the title because India was, essentially, an outside agency that actively incorporated Hyderabad. I support a move to "Indian annexation of Hyderabad" because that is the more accurate description. --regentspark (comment) 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't oppose "annexation", but "integration" is also widely used. See the move request above for examples. Compare Annexation of Portuguese India and Integration of Junagadh. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Annexation of Hyderabad as the more recognisable of two titles both commonly used. Discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
The term annexation seems quite common for this action but less so than integration  by 2:1 which is not overwhelming. So both are acceptable titles by usage. To me annexation is a more recognisable term by a long way, I was wondering what integration could possibly mean in that context until I read the article, it is seriously ambiguouis. Andrewa (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Annexation
In the RfC above, several editors favoured the term "annexation" rather than "integration". Here are my thoughts on it.
 * For it to be an annexation, we would need to establish first that it was an independent state, which is by no means clear. Until 15 August 1947 it was a princely state of the British Indian Empire, ceding the three standard subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communication to the colonial Indian government. In addition, the state also had to accept a British Resident in the capital, whose advice the ruler had to more or less follow. The British also stationed troops inside the state to keep law and order, and to keep the ruler's own designs in check.
 * No doubt the ruler toyed with the idea of independence, and he was also egged on by the All-India Muslim League (which inherited Pakistan). However the British did not accept the proposition. It wasn't as if the British didn't know the idea. They granted independence to the Khanate of Kalat, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, but not to Hyderabad. The ruler instead got a 3-month extension to finalise the arrangements with India.
 * The ruler signed a Standstill agreement with India on 29 November 1947, agreeing to maintain all the existing arrangements he had with British India, except paramountcy, i.e., no Resident and no troops stationed inside the state. He also wasn't required to join the Constituent Assembly of India. (I might note that he got these concessions mainly because he was Muslim. No Hindu princely ruler got terms like this, not even the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. They all had to hand power over to responsible governments and join the Constituent Assembly.) In any case, the stage was set for Hyderabad to become an autonomous princely state of India at this point, provided the ruler played ball.
 * But he didn't. He promoted militant Muslim nationalists (Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen), who terrorised the Hindu majority, carried out border raids, and interfered with the railway communications. (The train from Bombay to Madras would have to pass through the state, among others). They also blocked all constitutional reform. India faced tens of thousands of Hindu refugees that fled from the state.
 * Apparently India demanded that the Majlis be banned and India be allowed to station troops inside the state to keep law and order. This was refused. Hence India invaded. The objective of the invasion was not to annex the state, but rather to compel the ruler to allow Indian troops to be stationed for law and order. I suppose it was also to break the militants. The invasion was successful and the ruler accepted the terms.
 * The problems started after the surrender. The existing government of the state seems to have gotten completely demoralised, and law and order broke down. Hindus, who had all the built-up fury, turned on the Muslims and killed them on a vast scale. There were no functioning political parties in the state other than the Majlis (because the ruler had never allowed them to function). So, forming a responsible government was not possible. India had to impose Martial Order. This stuff is a bit murky and I am still trying to get to the bottom of it. It seems that it is this imposition of Martial Order that gives it some character of an "annexation". But I don't think it was done by design, but rather by compulsion. All the other princely states of India, including Jammu and Kashmir, had functioning political parties, which took over the governments after they joined India. Hyderabad was the only state without them.

Now, let us come to this article. The term "annex" was introduced by a drive-by IP in this edit about 10 years ago. There was no source provided. Then there seems to have been some to-ing and fro-ing, possibly quite a bit of it, still with no sources. Then, about three years ago, somebody added this source: P.V.Kate, Marathwada under the Nizams. I don't have access to the book. When I try to search for "annex" in the Google Books snippet view, it comes out blank. But since the same source and the same page was added for the sentence "Sardar Patel decided to annex Hyderabad", I search for "Patel" instead. There is apparently only one occurrence of Patel in the book, on page 82, and it says the credit of liberation of Hyderabad goes to the Indian troops, Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel. Presumably, this editor thought "liberation" and "annexation" meant the same thing!

So, was it a "liberation" or "annexation"? For the 81% Hindus of the state, who thought of themselves as "Indians", by authority of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, I am sure it was a liberation. For the 19% Muslims of the state, who wanted to preserve an autocratic medieval Muslim state in the heart of India, it was probably an annexation. However, there are certainly enlightened Muslims, e.g., the author of this book, who don't use the term "annexation". The term "October Coup" that he coins doesn't refer to the Indian invasion, but rather to the coup staged by the Majlis in October 1947 in taking over the power in the state. The Nizam himself went on the radio after the Indian invasion and announced:

(The Majlis party still exists. One of its leaders Akbaruddin Owaisi has the record for second highest number of convictions for giving hate speeches.)

The Nizam signed the Instrument of Accession in November 1948, joining India, just like all other rulers of the princely states of India and Pakistan.


 * You make a good argument, but see Clyde Eagleton, "The Case of Hyderabad Before the Security Council", The American Journal of International Law, 44, 2 (1950), 277–302. I'm not sure the legal case is as clear as you make it. Hyderabad became independent on 15 August 1947 because the powers the Crown of the United Kingdom had exercised over Hyderabad came to an end and were not transferred to anybody. Arguably, anything the Nizam signed after his state had been invaded and his army defeated was signed under duress. Srnec (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the legal case is not clear, and I didn't claim otherwise. The international law doesn't have mechanisms to take cognisance of the layers of sovereignty that existed in the pre-1945 world. If we were to call it annexation, we would be making the statement that it is clear. Then we would need to make similar statements for Jammu and Kashmir and the Khanate of Kalat (the present day Balochistan), and perhaps Tibet as well. I don't think this is the way to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct, you did not claim it was clear. In any case, as Andrewa has pointed out: "annexation" (which is not a pejorative) is clearer to the reader.
 * For the record, I have no problem saying that Pakistan annexed Kalat. The real controversial title for this article would "Indian conquest of Hyderabad", but nobody is proposing that. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest this section might be reduced in heading level by one (ie to === Annexation ===) to group it as part of the RM. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism of Army
I had quoted verbatim the criticism of Army in the Sunder Lal Report but it was removed, even when I mentioned the page number and section in which the criticism is registered. Sunderlal Report is an official government report about what happened during and the aftermath of operation Polo, I think some patriotic Indians are trying to save reputation of Indian Army, an Army that deserves to be criticized. Please let me know why this is not a good source to quote... for now I am inserting it back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimustafakhan (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, Please find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. You cannot quote from Sunderlal Report slectively, and create a section with your own title and narrative. That is called WP:OR, and is prohibited on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the violations of the Standstill agreement by India and Hyderabad
I propose to include some relevant content under Political and diplomatic negotiations.

1. We should add about the fact that while the Standstill agreement was still in force, top levels of India's leadership were discreetly supporting raids on Hyderabad.

There are several RS for this. Some examples are Muralidharan, Sukumar (2014). "Alternate Histories: Hyderabad 1948 Compels a Fresh Evaluation of the Theology of India's Independence and Partition". History and Sociology of South Asia. 8 (2): 119–138. doi:10.1177/2230807514524091 where it is written

And Lucien D. Benichou, a scholar whose work on Hyderabad's integration into India has been favorably received in the scholarly community, says

2. We should also add this sentence There is also evidence that by March 1948 India had finalised plans for invading Hyderabad although Nehru denied that in April. This is supported in the reliable source and is relevant about India's planning to invade Hyderabad.

3. On the matter of breaches of the Standstill agreement I propose we add the fact that India did not supply arms to Hyderabad and this was a definite breach of the Standstill agreement. This is documented in reliable sources. Example. 2405:204:3326:4AC3:4E68:A284:179D:C44F (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources for civilians killed figure
The introduction says regarding the number of civilians killed that, "Other responsible observers estimated the number of deaths to be 200,000 or higher." There are two sources cited for this figure.

1. The Sherman source says, "Others claim several hundred thousand died." citing a work by Aziz for this figure. The Aziz source, according to Sherman itself, "Aziz mentions Sunderlal and Abdulghaffar’s report in connection with this figure (p.199-202), but the version of their report cited in this article does not calculate or estimate the total number killed."

2. The other source cited is Noorani's book 'The destruction of Hyderabad', without any further details, just a page number.

These sources are clearly incomplete and/or unreliable.

Either we rework the sentence in the introduction, or someone needs to provide reliable references for these claims. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Noorani is just quoting Wilfred Cantwell Smith. So I cited him now. "Responsible observers" is the exact phrase used, and he says Muslims state higher figures.
 * Sunderlal report gives 23,000-36,000 for the 8 districts the Commission visited, and 30,000-40,000 for the other 7 districts for the total state. So that gives a total of 53,000-76,000. Perhaps, we should add this figure and remove Sherman? I think Aziz might have been citing some corrupted version of the Sunderlal report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We should definitely remove Sherman. The Smith reference should suffice for the 200,000 claim. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Balkanization"
The Indian government almost certainly didn't term anything a "balkanization" decades before the collapse of Yugoslavia inspired the creation of that term. Avpdtavrosnitram (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the youth of today! The term "Balkanization" dates back to 1919, well before the annexation of Hyderabad! cf. or .--regentspark (comment) 00:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian annexation of Hyderabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127054521/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE2-3/lns.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE2-3/lns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Indian annexation of Hyderabad → Annexation of Hyderabad – WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles of similar subject i.e. Annexation of Goa and Annexation of Junagadh etc. Hemant DabralTalk  08:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support  per nom.— Harshil want to talk? 06:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious editing
, I see you searching for something in a book and then assuming it is true. The book actually says:

Note that the content you modified was already well-sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , Hi yes, thank you I'll add that in! Magichero1234 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add what you want to add, but if you modify sourced content again without explanation, and edit war, you will be in trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This article begins with saying the Nizam hoped to keep Hyderabad independent with the help of the Razakars, yet at the end, the Nizam's statement in which he dissociates from the Razakars is there. The source for the former claim does not mention this Magichero1234 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the posts above, and verify the source? Why are you opening a new section? You should not be making the same disputed edits until you are able to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source says:
 * I am afraid this is the end of WP:AGF. If you start raising dubious disputes again, you will be reported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this is the end of WP:AGF. If you start raising dubious disputes again, you will be reported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * but it contradicts the bottom claim. I will add in another source, we can keep both claim Magichero1234 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What Nizam claimed doesn't make a difference. He is a WP:PRIMARY source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

flag color of Nizam State?
I always thought Hyderabad flag was yellow/dark green and white? It was red, green and white until 47 but wasn't the flag changed to yellow/dark green/white in 1948 prior to indian occupation/annexation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunderlal report
Why do you believe that reliable neutral sources such as the one provided are not reliable while much of this article is infested by Pro Indian references. The sources clearly implicate Indian army for partaking in atrocities something India tried to hide but was recently exposed Wikipedia should not be held hostage by Indian nationalism just because the numbers of Indian editors is huge. PremijAnans (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article already accurately summarises the source. If you think it doesn't, please state what is missing. Give the text from the source, give the corresponding content from the article, and state what changes are needed. Avoid making up your own narrative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Queries

 * Does anybody oppose to using in framing the article? Also, much more from Benichou and Batla.
 * Does anybody oppose merging Hyderabad Massacre to this page? The only reliable source over there is Noorani. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * . TrangaBellam (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine for the Purushotham. We never object to good content being added!
 * As for the Hyderabad Massacre page, there used to be a page on the Sunderlal Committee Report, which got merged into this page. (You can find the discussion above.) I opposed the merger then. Now I have mellowed a little, but I still don't see the massacres as forming part of the "annexation". It was rather the mismanagement of the situation. And that kind of mismanagement continues to this day.
 * In any case, since the page has been around for a while, you would need to file a Request for merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will be adding content slowly. Your collaboration is welcome.
 * I do not think the masaccres can be so easily segregated from annexation as mere "mismanagement". There were structural issues at play despite the counter-claims of involved institutions.
 * Violence (not just in physical sense) or more accurately, its monopoly formed an integral part in determining how the postcolonial nation-states were formed of fractured territories. Works by Ian Talbot, Sunil Purushotham, Yakoob Khan Bangash (notwithstanding his Pakistan-apologia in places), and others prove that. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Back onto this. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)