D.SIVA RAMI REDDY :

At a time when India is trying very hard to gain a permanent seat in United Nations Security Council, the sore thumb that is going to haunt is the Hyderabad case, which is sitting on the Agenda of Security Council since 1948. Even in 2016, Pakistan is still raking up the issue.

It is said that a custom is being developed whereby the Security Council keeps a matter indefinitely upon its agenda with no intention of acting again upon it, the purpose being to save face, and that this is the explanation in the case of Hyderabad.

Why is it kept alive at the UN Security Council? It is said that a custom is being developed whereby the Security Council keeps a matter indefinitely upon its agenda with no intention of acting again upon it, the purpose being to save face, and that this is the explanation in the case of Hyderabad. At a round table conference held here on Wednesday by Dr M Channa Reddy Memorial Trust wants the matter to be buried forever. Several panelists tried to put the issue in perspective.

Pendency of Hyderabad case at UN Security Council was also one of the reasons for not granting statehood to Telangana during 1969 agitation. Though then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi air dashed to Hyderabad following the killing of 26 people, she did not make any statement conceding the demand for separate Telangana.

The Case of Hyderabad:

The complaint of Hyderabad was presented in a cablegram dated August 21, 1948, addressed to the President of the Security Council which reads as follows:

“The Government of Hyderabad, in reliance on Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations, requests you to bring to the attention of the Security Council the grave dispute which has arisen between Hyderabad and India, and which, unless settled in accordance with international law and justice, is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Hyderabad has been exposed in recent months to violent intimidation, to threats of invasion, and to crippling economic blockade which has inflicted cruel hardship upon the people of Hyderabad and which is intended to coerce it into a renunciation of independence. The frontiers have been forcibly violated the and Hyderabad villages have been occupied by Indian troops.

The action of India threatens the existence of Hyderabad, the peace of the Indian and entire Asiatic continent, and the principles of the United Nations. The Government of Hyderabad is collecting and will shortly present to the Security Council abundant documentary evidence substantiating the present complaint. Hyderabad, a State not a member of the United Nations, accepts for the purposes of the dispute the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the Charter of the United Nations.

It is understood that the submission of the present complaint does not prejudice the submission of the dispute to the General Assembly” (Source: UN Docs.S/998 and S/1000. The Complaint of Hyderabad came before the Council at its 357th meeting in Paris on Thursday, September 16, 1948; Sir Alexander Cadogan (United Kingdom) is President at that time. The question before the Council was the adoption of the provisional agenda, prepared by the President and the Secretary General, and including the complaint of Hyderabad.

Tsiang (China) asked that the Hyderabad case be postponed until Monday, since he was without instructions from his government. The President was inclined to think that the matter was too urgent to delay. Jessup (US) felt that agenda could be adopted ‘without in any way prejudging the competence of Security Council or any of the merits of the case”. The Chinese delegate argued that admission to the agenda “does imply a certain views to the juridical status of the parties to a dispute,” but was willing to have discussion provided that “a formal decision regarding the adoption of the agenda should be postponed.”

Sir Alexander Cadogan then replied to an earlier request of the Soviet delegate as follows:

“I can inform the Security Council that on 15 August 1947 the suzerainty of the Crown in the United Kingdom over Hyderabad, and all other Indian states, came to an end. None of the powers previously exercised by the Crown was transferred to the Government of the two new Dominions, that is, India and Pakistan. Hyderabad has not subsequently acceded to either of those Dominions, but on 29 November 1947 the Nizam entered into a “standstill’ agreement with the Government of India for a period of twelve months.

One effect of that agreement was to place, during its currency, the conduct of Hyderabad’s external relations in the hands of the Government of India. There have been frequent allegations on both sides of breaches of the agreement, but there has been no resort to the arbitration for which provision was made in the “Standstill Agreement”. When the President put to vote the question as to whether there should be an adjournment until Monday, there was one vote in favor and ten abstentions.

Since a majority had not been obtained, the motion failed; and the President then put to a vote the motion of Argentina that the provisional agenda be adopted, with the understanding that its acceptance “would not decide or affect the question of the Security Council’s competence.” By a vote of eight for, and three abstentions, the agenda was adopted. In accordance with previous precedent, the President then invited Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, representative of India, and Nawab Moin Nawaz Jung, representative of Hyderabad, to take seats at the Council table.

Nawab Moin presented his case over some pages, which may be summed up in his own words as follows:

“Our case is that he United Nations is confronted with the most determined and most serious onslaught on its principles since the Oraganizaiton was set up; that this breach of the Charter is not the result of a sudden eruption of passion but is due to a premeditated plan, the implications of which have been carefully weighed and deliberately accepted: that the action taken by the Dominion of India constitutes a denial of the principles of independence and equality, as laid down in the Charter; that the cause of Hyderabad has now been identified with those principles; that it is within the province and in the power of the United Nations to prevent the accomplishment of the criminal design; and that action- swift, authoritative and determined- must be taken to prevent and to stop this treat to international peace and justice”.

He urged that the time was limited and every hour counted; and went on to say: “The situation demands immediate action by the Security Council not only under Chapter VI of the Charter relating to the peaceful settlement o f disputes, but also under Chapter VII which bears on the action of the Security Council for enforcing its decisions for safeguarding the peace of the world.

In that Chapter, Article 39 of the Charter enjoins on the Security Council the duty to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression, and that it shall take appropriate action. Who can doubt that these conditions are now present?” Sir Ram swami Mudaliar, on behalf of India replied that he would not go into the merits or demerits of the allegations made, since Hyderabad has no right to appear before the Security Council at all.

He said: “ In my Government’s view, Hyderabad is not competent to bring any question before the Security Council; that it is not a State; that it is not independent ; that never in all its history did it have the status of independence; that neither in the remote past nor before August, 1947, nor under any declaration made by the United Kingdom, nor under any declaration made by the British Parliament, has it acquired the status of independence which would entitle it to come in its own right to present a case before the Security Council” .

He asked for time until Monday when he would present documents and state his case. When Monday came, however, Hyderabad has surrendered and the Council, naturally, in uncertainty, postponed action- indefinitely, as it has turned out.