Let's set aside Sikkim and Bhutan for the moment — both are remote corners of the subcontinent. Hyderabad, on the other hand, is the largest princely state in South Asia, sitting squarely in the center of the Deccan Plateau.For any rising power in North India, controlling Hyderabad is essential if they are to keep the South — which has historically remained outside northern dominance — in check.
The divide between North and South India is far greater than anything in China. The Tamil peoples of the south have founded their own kingdoms multiple times. Apart from Hinduism, there is little that binds the two regions together.If Alan Wilson were in Nehru's position, he too would never tolerate Hyderabad remaining independent.
"Now," Alan began, "if we follow Jinnah's vision — two separate nations, each for its religious majority — then, Your Highness, by simple religious alignment, I assume you would side with Jinnah?" He let the Nizam's Muslim faith speak for itself.
The Nizam nodded without hesitation. "If those were the only two choices, yes — I would choose Jinnah."
"That makes things difficult."Alan's tone turned grave. "Nehru will never allow Hyderabad to remain as it is. Your state, as you control it now, lies far from the Muslim-majority provinces of the northwest, and far from Bengal in the northeast. In the worst-case scenario — a religious war — you would be surrounded by hostile Hindus, far beyond the reach of any Muslim relief. The geography simply doesn't work in your favor."
He pressed the point. "In Hyderabad, Hindus make up eighty percent of the population. Muslims are an absolute minority. If Nehru stirs up Hindu sentiment and calls for a plebiscite — or finds some other pretext — it will be very difficult to resist. Look at Junagadh: a Muslim ruler over a Hindu majority. When the ruler decided to join Pakistan, the Hindu populace revolted. He fled to Pakistan, and India took control."
The case of Kashmir was the opposite: a Hindu ruler over a Muslim majority — and it became the fuse that lit the Indo-Pak war.Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir — these were all the same problem in different forms. The British withdrawal from India left more than one powder keg behind; it was only Nehru's skill that kept most of them from exploding.
In reality, independent India had no intention of negotiating with Pakistan over such matters. If the ruler was Muslim, they called for a Hindu-majority plebiscite. If the ruler was Hindu, they "respected" the ruler's decision.What's yours is mine; what's mine is mine. That policy, Alan reflected, would endure well into the 21st century.
"Must the partition follow Jinnah's plan?" the Nizam asked irritably. "London could simply continue to govern the subcontinent. Churchill himself favors holding on, does he not?"
Alan said nothing. He could hardly tell the man that the world had changed — that Britain's empire now lived under the shadow of two new giants. The United States and the Soviet Union would never allow Britain to use India, as it had after the Great War, to rebuild imperial strength.
In the 1920s, Britain had still been America's equal, and Washington dared not gamble its national fate on a direct confrontation. But now? The Americans were stronger, and the Soviets matched them in will. The Suez Crisis would prove the point: when Britain and France tried to act the old imperialists, both Washington and Moscow threatened them into retreat.
But as the Resident in Hyderabad, Alan could not admit that Britain no longer had the power to preserve its military presence in South Asia. That would be humiliating.
So instead, he produced a line from the free-trade imperialists of London:"Public opinion in India now strongly favors independence. Protests and unrest are constant. The revenues we take from India no longer outweigh the cost of administering it. London will not run a losing business."
Alan didn't believe a word of it. Such voices had always existed, but if Britain could truly hold India, no one would care about "losing money." Even the Americans, for all their moral posturing, fought wars they claimed to oppose when it suited them.
For now, he would pretend London's hands were tied — and deflect the Nizam's question back at him. But that didn't mean Alan intended to do nothing in the time left before independence.
After all, the Nizam had billions in personal wealth. A fraction of that would be more than most men could earn in a lifetime. Alan had already looted the Golden Temple once; money was something he could never have too much of.
And beyond personal gain, he had other motives — both in this life and his last — for making India's future as troublesome as possible. The Partition was inevitable, and it would be drawn to favor Hindu interests.
From a broader geopolitical view, the entire arc from Gibraltar to Indonesia formed the Muslim world. On a map, it was obvious: a Hindu-majority India would sever that arc in the middle, breaking the chain of Muslim states. That, to the great powers, was a strategic advantage.If, instead, a Muslim-led state ruled South Asia, that chain would remain unbroken — a nightmare for any major power.
Alan was certain of one thing: even the Soviet Union, for all its differences with the West, would prefer an India strong enough to block the Muslim world.History had shown — Europe's rise began with the subjugation of the Middle East's Muslim powers.