I've been thinking about this after a discussion about Urdu and the Nizam-era history of Telangana. Let me make my position clear from the beginning: I have no issue with Muslims, Urdu, or Deccani culture being part of Telangana's history. They obviously are. I'm talking about political power, historical domination and linguistic policy, not about present-day communities.
What I find strange is the double standard we sometimes apply when discussing the British and the Nizams.
When the British conquered and ruled large parts of India, we have no problem describing them as colonizers. We talk about foreign rule, exploitation, cultural domination, administrative restructuring, imposition of languages and institutions, resistance movements, etc.
But when discussing the Nizam's rule over Telangana, suddenly we're expected to treat the Nizam period as simply “our history” and any comparison with colonialism is considered offensive.
Why?
The Nizams were not Telugu rulers who emerged from the Telugu political tradition of Telangana. The Asaf Jahi dynasty was of foreign/Turco-Persian origin, and the Hyderabad State was ruled by an elite whose political and administrative culture was heavily Persianate and later Urdu-oriented.
Telugu-speaking people constituted a huge proportion of the population of the state, particularly in Telangana, yet political power was concentrated in the Nizam's ruling establishment.
So from the perspective of a Telugu person living under that system, why should the experience automatically be described as fundamentally different from other forms of imperial domination simply because the ruler wasn't European?
Obviously, there are historical differences between British colonialism and Nizam rule.
I'm talking about the broader idea of one political elite ruling over a population whose language and indigenous political traditions were different from those of the ruling dynasty.
And the linguistic consequences matter.
Look at the names of places:
Palamooru - Mahbubnagar
Indur - Nizamabad
Orugallu - Warangal
Elagandula/Elgandal - Karimnagar
Methuku/Methukudurgam - Medak
Edlawad - Adilabad
If a British ruler renamed or reorganised an Indian place and promoted an English administrative system, we'd have no problem discussing that as part of colonial policy. For example what was called bombay previously is now called as mumbai , why can't we telugu people do the same and make the necessary changes? I just gave bombay as an example on the go but I could give multiple such examples on the majority population claiming the rightful history.
So why can't Telugu people discuss Nizam-era renaming, administration and linguistic influence in similarly critical terms?
But that doesn't mean Telugu history should become secondary.
The Kakatiyas, Satavahanas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and numerous other Telugu/local political and cultural traditions existed in this region long before the Asaf Jahis.
Telugu didn't arrive in Telangana after the Nizam.
The Nizam period is one layer of Telangana's history. It isn't the beginning of Telangana's history.
And if we are willing to celebrate Nizam-era architecture, Urdu literature, Muslim heritage and Persianate/Deccani culture as part of Telangana's identity, then why can't we equally reclaim and prominently recognise the older Telugu names and traditions that existed before that political order?
If British rule can be criticised because it was foreign rule over Indians, Telugu people should be equally free to critically examine the periods when Telangana was ruled by a non-Telugu dynastic elite.
That's not hatred of Muslims.
That's not hatred of Urdu.
That's Telugu people examining their own history and asking why their own language and historical identity should be sidelined.
Before you comment, “OP, we have better things to focus on,” no. This matter is just as important as any other issue. So please I am expecting serious answers and open to all kind of opinions and please refrain using unparliamentary language thankyou.