Talk:Annexation of Hyderabad

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)

Pakistani propaganda report

You would notice that I have removed the {{unreliable source?}} for the BBC News article on the Sunderlal Report. I had forgotten why this tag was added back in 2017 and had to refresh my memory. It was because the BBC News had put up the fake Pakistani propaganda version of the report in its image. The write-up was fine, but the image was that of the fake report. (BBC has now fixed the image.)

The Pakistani version still exists. It has been printed in full in Omar Khalidi's book. It starts with the paragraph:

Before the Military Action (i.e., before 13 September 1948) the general situation in the state was peaceful. However, in the districts of Nalgonda and Warangal the Communists were active, and the Razakars (volunteers belong to the MIM) were involved in crimes in the villages bordering Indian provinces such as in Nanded and Aurangabad. Instances of murder and kidnapping were rare....

The real report says nothing of the sort. Somebody just cooked up whatever they wanted to say, and produced a report look-alike to fool the world. I suppose this will remain as a perennial proof of the kind of games Pakistan plays.

The real report was published for the first time in the 2014 book of Noorani. He got the original from the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, which is the only copy known to exist. Since it wasn't a government report there were no copies anywhere else, except perhaps with the authors and Sardar Patel (who was the other recipient of the report).

The reason I am bringing this up now is that William Dalrymple apparently used the same fake report in his book. The book is being cited and sourced in the article:

• Dalrymple, William (2004) [1998]. "Under the Char Minar". The Age of Kali: Indian Travels and Encounters. pp. 210. ISBN 9780143031093.

Should we get rid of it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Support removal of Dalrymple. He is far from an expert in this area. And, the error is obvious. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is just another balatant attempt to cover up the atrocities committed in Hyderabad during annexation. Terming whatever comes against 'Pakistani propaganda' is totally unfair but it has been normalised on Wikipedia over the years. I think some neutral editors should look into this. Pinging Fowler&fowler... USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's very regrettable that nothing was done about this and that Kautilya3's tendentious edits were allowed to go into effect, not just here but also at Hyderabad massacres. The result is an article that severely downplays the extent of the atrocities, and in fact even blames the victims for the crimes committed against them— as an example of the latter, over the course of several years Kautilya3 and pals have slowly wittled down the "Goals" in the infobox of Hyderabad massacres to just two things, one of which is "Retributive violence", which uncritically reproduces the Hindutva apologetic that "the Muslims had it coming" while ignoring the vast body of scholarship that challenges this assertion. Can you imagine if the article for The Holocaust or even WWII claimed that German violence was "retributive"? They have also conspired to remove categorization of the events as genocide, even though multiple reliable sources have made this claim.

Pinging again @USaamo and @Fowler&fowler— both these articles are genocide-apologetic travesties as currently written. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Queries

• Does anybody oppose to using Purushotham, Sunil (2021). From Raj to Republic Sovereignty, Violence, and Democracy in India. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9781503614543. 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)

@Kautilya3:. 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)

Requested move 15 August 2021

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Hyderabad → Annexation of Hyderabad by the Dominion of India – better descriptive title, consistent with other such articles. Peter Ormond 💬 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Category:Annexation there is a mixture of title conventions. The current title is not ambiguous so there's no real need for a longer title. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The title is incomplete. It is about "Annexation of Hyderabad", but doesn't mention "annexation by whom"? Peter Ormond 💬 02:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Ivar the Boneful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ivar the Boneful and WP:TITLE. The current title is descriptive, recognizable, concise, and natural enough. --RegentsPark (comment) 09:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: unless there is another example of an annexation of Hyderabad, there is no need for the disambiguation.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary disambiguation -- DaxServer (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Major changes of wording

182.48.219.128 (talk · contribs) has been making major changes regarding the wording of the article. Before more changes are made, I would like to ask them to discuss the changes here on the talk page so that consensus can be reached. Remember that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Thank-you, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)