Matsya Nyaya – A big fish swallows a smaller one. A bigger fish swallows the big fish. An even bigger fish swallows this bigger fish. This goes on till the biggest fish is the master of the lands. Well, this is how consolidation of empires happen but such a tiered structure is a bit hard to find.
Let’s switch to Calicut theatre of operations. Calicut swallowed some smaller fish and tries to swallow some small fish. Valluvanad and Cochin tried to support the smaller kingdoms. Valluvanad is beaten down into inconsequence and Cochin is swallowed. First come Portuguese and then the Dutch. These try to support the smaller fish Cochin. Even they too fail and are almost consumed.
Another big fish is forming at the other extreme – Travancore. It has eaten all the smaller fishes and fell on Cochin. Cochin asked for Calicut help. Calicut is defeated but before it retaliates, Cochin joins Travancore. Round set for a bigger fight between Calicut and Travancore. Both withdraw back because even bigger fish attacked them – Mysore attacks Calicut and Carnatic attacks Travancore. War is going on badly for Calicut. Then, an even bigger fish attacks Mysore – The Marathas.
The level of bickerings between these smaller fishes led to setting up of an even smaller fish, the British, as the biggest fish.
Well, he didn’t know about the true colours of Jaipur…It is the only Rajputana kingdom which never rebelled against the Muslims and voluntarily surrendered whenever there is a change in gaurd.
Written c. November 1682.
[After five long sentences of traditional eulogy]
Shri Shambhu Raja craves your friendship and after enquiring about your welfare communicates to your highness his own words in this letter.
We have received your communication and understand your object to mean that no opposition should be offered to the Emperor of Delhi, but that his suzerainty should be accepted.
Thereafter you came to know how your son Krishna Singh met his ruin for having intrigued with Sultan Akbar; and after full consideration of the political situation you again wrote to us in laudable terms that we acted rightly in offering shelter in our dominion to Sultan Akbar, that you approved the course we followed and that as we are Hindus, you signified your readiness to execute whatever was considered expedient in the circumstances.
If such indeed is your real intention, then you yourself ought to take the lead in this affair. The present wicked Emperor believes that we Hindus have all become effeminate and that we have lost all regard for our religion. Such an attitude on the part of the Emperor we cannot any longer endure. We can not put up with any thing derogatory to our character as Kshatriyas. The Vedas and the codes enjoin certain injunctions of religion and caste, which we cannot allow to be trampled under foot, nor can we neglect own duty as kings to our subjects. We are prepared to sacrifice every thing, our treasure, our land, our forts, in waging war against this satanic Emperor. With this firm resolution we have for these two years extended our hospitality to Akbar and Durgadas, We have killed many a brave captain of the Emperor, imprisoned several, released some after exacting ransom, and some out of compassion; several effected their escape by offering bribes. In this way the imperial commanders have proved themselves utterly incompetent. The moment has now arrived when the Emperor himself can be captured and made prisoner with, the result that we can rebuild our temples and restore our religious practices. We strongly assure you that we have resolved to execute all this in the near future.
But we are in comparison with you young and inexperienced. We have seen and heard so much about your valour and your zeal for religion. You at present fully possess the seven arms of kingship, so that if you muster courage and co-operate with us in the task of annihilating the power of this Emperor, what may not be accomplished ! When we ponder on this situation, we feel extremely surprised to find that you keep yourself so quiet and so unmindful of your religion.
There is another point. You and we have well observed what sort of a man Durjan Singh Hada is and what wealth he possessed. But he sacrificed his wealth and relying on his own personal valour created such a havoc at our instigation, as you being so near must have fully learned about. We from our side are doing our best. We are planning to despatch Akbar and Durgadas into Gujarat, so that you on your side must courageously execute whatever is possible. Shah Abbas of Persia has signified his willingness to support the cause of Akbar; but it does not in our opinion behove us to accept Muslim help in this cause and enable Abbas to gain the credit. Was it not your own revered father Jay Singh who gained the honour of helping Aurangzib to capture the throne of Delhi? You can now follow the same example and obtain the same credit by helping Akbar (to the throne). If he becomes the Emperor of Delhi with the help of the Muslims of Persia, they will gain predominance. It is necessary to prevent such a contingency. If you and we join our forces and place Akbar on the throne, we shall get the opportunity of protecting our religion and on your part you will shed lustre on the house of Jay Singh.
My ministers Kavi-kalash and Janardan Pandit are writing to you separately at length. You will also learn all the details personally from (our deputed agent) Pratap Singh and from the trusted spies who will meet you. Please write constantly about your own welfare. What more is there for us to write, when we are sure you comprehend all matters so intelligently?
This discussion in British Parliament on 23 June 1948 presents two intersting facets of the Hyderabad problem. One – Churchill, who declared he is not going to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire tries desperately to inflict his vendetta by creating troubles to India. On the other side, the acts of British government proves that it can never be trusted – It simply washed off it’s hands and left Hyderabad to fend for itself.
Mr. Churchill(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty’s Government have considered or will consider offering their services as mediator between India and Hyderabad.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)I have been asked to reply. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a Standstill Agreement was concluded last November between the Government of India and the Government of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad. This Agreement regulates the relations between India and Hyderabad, and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have no information that leads them to think that it has been brought to an end. It still remains our hope, therefore, that negotiations between India and Hyderabad will lead to a friendly settlement of outstanding differences. I do not think that the prospects of such a settlement would be improved by an offer to lend our good offices.
Mr. Churchill Does the Prime Minister remember the very precise pledges which he gave about this important State of 17 million or 18 million people, that they would have the right to choose whether they would accede to Pakistan or to Hindustan—or India—and that, if not, they could remain a separate Dominion of the Crown?
Mr. Noel-Baker The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the authoritative statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made last July, but if he looks at it he will see that the essence of what the Prime Minister said was that when these States regain their independence they remain in part of geographical India. He said: It would, I think, be unfortunate if, owing to the formal severance of their paramountcy relations with the Crown, they were to become islands cut off from the rest of India… It is the hope of His Majesty’s Government that all states will, in due course, find their appropriate place within one or other of the new Dominions within the British Commonwealth, but until the constitutions of the Dominions have been framed in such a way as to include the States as willing partners, there must necessarily be a less organic form of relationship between them, and there must be a period before a comprehensive system can be worked out.”
Mr. Churchill Is that not a very unrepresentative form of the precise pledges which were given to this House, that the State of Hyderabad and, I may add, the State of Kashmir, should have the right to choose which of the two Dominions in India they would accede to or, if not, to remain outside and separate?
Mr. Noel-Baker I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that His Majesty’s Government now have no jurisdiction in this matter. India and Hyderabad have got to live together and we hope that they will settle this matter together by peaceful means. We have no reason to believe that that is impossible.
Mr. Churchill I was not asking about jurisdiction. I was asking about obligations.
Mr. Noel-Baker We have no obligations at all in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that. The question he put to me was whether we would offer our good offices. The purpose he has in mind is, of course, to get an agreed and peaceful settlement of the differences between India and Hyderabad. About that purpose the Government fully agree with him, but in our judgment it would not help to achieve it if we were now to make the offer which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Major Guy Lloyd Is it not a fact that for several weeks past the late Governor-General of India has been using the utmost of his good offices on his own behalf, and on behalf of the policy of His Majesty’s Government, to bring about a happy settlement of this most difficult matter?
Mr. Noel-Baker Perhaps the House will forgive me if I take this opportunity of saying that in my judgment the late Governor-General of India has rendered very great services both to the sub-Continent and to the world at large. But I must correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. and gallant Member. The Governor-General did not act for His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom. He acted for the Government of India, of which he was the constitutional head.