Talk:Hyderabad State

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Gotitbro in topic Line that makes no sense

Untitled comment

edit
  1. Razakar movement and the violence that followed
  2. People's movement within Hyderabad state for unification with India
  3. Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action

Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References added

edit

With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.

Forced annexation

edit

Seems like cherry picking sentences from Sherman Taylors reference is acceptable however as soon something is added which is already in the source which does not go with the justifications of the annexation its regarded as unsourced "On 13 September 1948, therefore, the Government of India declared a state of emergency, and sent its troops into Hyderabad State. During the ‘police action’, the Indian Army entered Hyderabad with the objective of forcing the Nizam to re-install Indian troops in Secunderabad to allow them to restore order in the state. The Nizam surrendered in four days, and the Government of India appointed Major-General J.N. Chaudhuri as Military Governor. Delhi decided that the Nizam could retain his position as Rajpramukh, though law-making and enforcement power rested with the Military Governor" This is on page 9 and ignoring the fact that it was a forced annexation (clearly it was forced as the main article Indian annexation of Hyderabad itself describes it as a military intervention) I will be restoring the sentence as censoring this information is not what Wikipedia is for. DavosBarton (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Forcing to re-install troops doesn't amount to "annexation". The term "annexation" is not even used in this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Are you now denying that it wasn't an annexation ? Please just read the main article on the annexation and yes sending in troops to invade Hyderabad state to force the nizam is a method to achieve annexation the main article itself is called "Indian annexation of Hyderabad" why are you even arguing this point you know better. I am sure more neutral editors could also contribute as I feel some are still attached to some nationalistic narrative surrounding this annexation which for long they tried to term as "integration" you dont end up with hundreds and thousands of dead for no reason a military invasion which is always forced results in these fatalities. DavosBarton (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looking back at your previous comments in regards to the annexation you were still arguing that it was not an annexation which raises a few questions on your judgement. However even Sherman Taylor (which uses mostly Indian sources and Indian government claims and is slanted heavily towards Indias narrative) also calls it an invasion and seizure of territory by the Indian military I can post the quote if you want. DavosBarton (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here as some neutral sources which refer to Indias invasion as a annexation (Please not I am not great with adding books as a source so I will just copy and paste the web link and page [1] and [2] note none of these are government associated and are neutral. DavosBarton (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Line that makes no sense

edit

Hyderabad's location in the middle of the Indian union, as well as its diverse cultural heritage, was a driving force behind India's annexation of the state in 1948.

This barely makes sense. Nothing about the Razakars, the Nizam's atrocities, the Communist-led rebellion etc. I will rewrite the lead in a couple of weeks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This and the repeated insertion of "country" (see #Country) despite consensus to the contrary is the handiwork of socks from the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magichero1234 network. Be wary of these and similar additions to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply