The Nizam and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Pandu Ranga Reddy In the wake of independence there were communal tensions in India. Hindu Mahasabha and pro-Hindu elements in the very Congress became vociferous. MIM was not lagging behind. No amount of verbosity would conceal the naked truth, Britishers while granting independence, it bifurcated India into two dominions for Hindus – residuary India, Muslim’s Pakistan.
It was based on two-nation theory. However, Paramountacy power not transferred to either to India or to Pakistan.
With this, 563 princely states had also become independent. They could join either to India or to Pakistan or even to be independent. Taking the advantage of the non-inclusion of the clause (Transfer of Suzerainty) of the Crown to the Government of India, the Nizam preferred to be independent rather than to ‘accede’ either to India or to Pakistan. He took the moral high ground that India was for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims; his dominion, Hyderabad, was a plural state had many Hindus.
Being himself a Muslim ruler, he wanted to be secular. He was morally and legally right. However, Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and B.R. Ambedkar assured the Nizam that India would not be a theoretic state and would be a secular, democratic and welfare state.
The Nizam’s Constitutional Advisor, Sir Walter Moncton was more pragmatic and drew-up a plan of ‘Association’ and ‘Accession’ with Government of India. This paved the way for Standstill Agreement.
That means, the Nizam came down from ‘Independence’ to ‘Association’, an autonomous state similar to that of earlier Jammu & Kashmir with Art. 370. Is it not now the states’ demanding Centre – States’ federal rights?