India withdraws Al Jazeera’s security clearance for ‘airing Kashmir documentary’

[Abdullah719]

After Al Jazeera network, a Qatar-based media giant, aired a documentary on Indian-occupied Kashmir, India has withdrawn the security clearance granted to the network.

Though the reasons for the action against Al Jazeera are not known, a documentary on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir telecast by the channel is believed to have upset the central security establishment, leading to the decision, said the Times of India in its report.

However, the Qatar-based channel has appealed to the government against the withdrawal of the security clearance and a final decision on it is awaited. Security clearance was issued to the channel on December 3, 2010, and revoked on May 29, 2018, said the reports quoting an official of Indian ministry.

“Our role is limited to the matter related to security clearance. The decision on cancellation of the broadcasting licence will be taken by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,” he said.

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/08/25/india-withdraw-al-jazeeras-security-clearance/


Al Jazeera's broadcast in India likely to stop after MHA withdraws security clearance

NEW DELHI: Al Jazeera, an international English news channel, may have to stop broadcast in India as the Home Ministry has withdrawn the security clearance given to it.

The Qatar-based channel has appealed to the government against the withdrawal of the security clearance and a final decision on it is awaited, a government official said.

Though the reasons for the action against Al Jazeera are not known, a documentary on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir telecast by the channel is believed to have upset the central security establishment, leading to the decision.

When contacted, a Home Ministry official said it is the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting which takes the decision on the issue of broadcasting licence given to any media outlet.

"Our role is limited to matters related to security clearance. The decision on cancellation of broadcasting licence will be taken by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting," the official said.

Another official said the security clearance was given by the Home Ministry on December 3, 2010 and withdrawn on May 29, 2018.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...s-security-clearance/articleshow/65533479.cms

 

[Arham_PakFan]

How tolerant.

The question is what are they afraid of?

 

[slipcatch]

Al-Jazeera will become the worse channel to ever exist acoording to Indians on this forum.

 

[Azzurri]

Shinning India

 

[Syed1]

Largest democracy is the world

 

[Pakistanian]

They can't stop the truth from coming out.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They can't stop the truth from coming out.

Well, they can in India at least. What is more funny is that Al Jazeera news website articles used to be spammed by hordes of Indians with abusive messages and they used to tolerate it. They still do for all I know. Seems fundamentalist Muslim nations are more liberal and tolerant than their Hindutva counterparts.

 

[JaDed]

Well, they can in India at least. What is more funny is that Al Jazeera news website articles used to be spammed by hordes of Indians with abusive messages and they used to tolerate it. They still do for all I know. Seems fundamentalist Muslim nations are more liberal and tolerant than their Hindutva counterparts.

Incorrect, Al Jazeera is known to never show anything against Qatar.

In that logic you can go and abuse times now as well like many indians do, if showing spammed negative comments is the criteria.

 

[JaDed]

Al Jazeera is not the worst channel but if anyone thinks they are not biased then obviously they are incorrect.

 

[msb314]

Largest democracy is the world

The question is what is India hiding?

 

[Abdullah719]

Al Jazeera is not the worst channel but if anyone thinks they are not biased then obviously they are incorrect.

There is no channel that is completely unbiased.

 

[JaDed]

There is no channel that is completely unbiased.

Yeah but most defn do criticize the country try they are from ,even TOI / Republic have criticized BJP , are you saying All Jazeera will criticize Qatar?
That level is blatant propaganda,similar to what RSS mouth piece is.

 

[Abdullah719]

Yeah but most defn do criticize the country try they are from ,even TOI / Republic have criticized BJP , are you saying All Jazeera will criticize Qatar?
That level is blatant propaganda,similar to what RSS mouth piece is.

They are a state mouthpiece so obviously can't take them too seriously when the topic is Qatar.

 

[slipcatch]

India is a country where they have the most shut down of internet by government than any country in in the world, Pakistan is second on that list.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yeah but most defn do criticize the country try they are from ,even TOI / Republic have criticized BJP , are you saying All Jazeera will criticize Qatar?
That level is blatant propaganda,similar to what RSS mouth piece is.

What has Qatar done comparable to India in Kashmir?

 

[Napa]

We Indians just love lectures about democracy by a channel owned by a MidEast dictatorship )

 

[Napa]

What has Qatar done comparable to India in Kashmir?

You understand that Qatar is a dictatorship, don't you? It means the people are powerless and the rulers can do as they please. Kashmiris live in a democratic country where they vote like other Indians.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You understand that Qatar is a dictatorship, don't you? It means the people are powerless and the rulers can do as they please. Kashmiris live in a democratic country where they vote like other Indians.

Citzens of Qatar wouldnt swap places with Kashmiris or any Indians.

 

[Varun]

Ouch. Perhaps Al Jazeera can shift base to China to cover some events and open some eyes. What say, [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION]?

Everybody knows about the tinderbox Kashmir is anyway - they weren't going to unearth anything new and the catfight will continue for decades to come.

 

[Napa]

Citzens of Qatar wouldnt swap places with Kashmiris or any Indians.

You don't speak for Qataris.

I would think many people of world would value freedom to living under a dictator. Easy for you to say people don't value democracy while flying the flag of Britain.

There are Shias in Qatar, and we all know how they will be treated if the going gets rough (which it will).

Just a few months ago Qatar was in danger of being invaded by SA.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/998033/saudi-arabia-qatar-war-invasion-james-mattis

 

[KingKhanWC]

Ouch. Perhaps Al Jazeera can shift base to China to cover some events and open some eyes. What say, [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION]?

Everybody knows about the tinderbox Kashmir is anyway - they weren't going to unearth anything new and the catfight will continue for decades to come.

Sure not everyone is sensitive like Indians , actually i dont think anyone is .

 

[JaDed]

What has Qatar done comparable to India in Kashmir?

Football world cup....but of course nothing LL come out.

 

[JaDed]

They are a state mouthpiece so obviously can't take them too seriously when the topic is Qatar.

Yes that's not a bias then it's a state moutpiece its worse, no one takes such news channel seriously.

 

[JaDed]

Sure not everyone is sensitive like Indians , actually i dont think anyone is .

Actually Arabs are very sensitive, let Al Jazeera run onestory on Qatar and then we LL know.

 

[slipcatch]

Sure, reporters who speak against the RSS and the current government in India end up dead sometimes, no bid deal.

 

[cricketjoshila]

AL Jazeera presents one of the most biased views you can get. A channel run by a middle east conservative monarchy giving sermons on democracy and liberalism is laughable.

The people they invite to talk about India, well most indians will know the view even before those people opened their mouths.

 

[Major]

AL Jazeera presents one of the most biased views you can get. A channel run by a middle east conservative monarchy giving sermons on democracy and liberalism is laughable.

The people they invite to talk about India, well most indians will know the view even before those people opened their mouths.

) [MENTION=147221]slipcatch[/MENTION] nice prediction bro

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

AL Jazeera presents one of the most biased views you can get. A channel run by a middle east conservative monarchy giving sermons on democracy and liberalism is laughable.

The people they invite to talk about India, well most indians will know the view even before those people opened their mouths.

Sounds similar to our own news channels like Times Now.

 

[JaDed]

Sure, reporters who speak against the RSS and the current government in India end up dead sometimes, no bid deal.

There are 100s of journalists who speak against RSS, The Hindu and it's subsidiaries have been speaking against RSS for ever, and that's a top news agency in South.

We will see what happens when a Qatari citizen who becomes a journalist in Qatar speaks against Royals.

 

[Thomaskutty]

This reminds of the recent UN rights report on Kashmir, authored by a Jordanian prince. All these people from arab sheikdoms sneaking into ventures like media forums and human rights organisations is too adorable. Perhaps they wouldn't mind doing a report on the uighur community in china

 

[MenInG]

This reminds of the recent UN rights report on Kashmir, authored by a Jordanian prince. All these people from arab sheikdoms sneaking into ventures like media forums and human rights organisations is too adorable. Perhaps they wouldn't mind doing a report on the uighur community in china

Or maybe the injustices are too obvious for anyone to ignore

 

[Bewal Express]

Al-Jazeera will become the worse channel to ever exist acoording to Indians on this forum.

Will they get more grief than Mikey?

 

[Bewal Express]

AL Jazeera presents one of the most biased views you can get. A channel run by a middle east conservative monarchy giving sermons on democracy and liberalism is laughable.

The people they invite to talk about India, well most indians will know the view even before those people opened their mouths.

But were they wrong on this issue?

 

[DRsohail]

Why are they having so much fear?

 

[cricketjoshila]

But were they wrong on this issue?

I havent watched the documentary. But i have read that it was very biased.

 

[Bewal Express]

I havent watched the documentary. But i have read that it was very biased.

So rather than ban, why not seek a right of reply. The Ind have ruled them for 70 years and the British ruled Ind for over a 100, but ultimately all colonial rule ends, and they will be free.

 

[Bewal Express]

Why are they having so much fear?

The Kash muslims i know hate the Ind with a passion which wasnt so much the case when i was growing up. And i know that many Inds are really enjoying their Hindu nationalism and their anti muslimness but for the 1st time i am sensing a shift there. I can remember many years ago, i jokingly said to an Ind muslim that it wont be long before you guys regret not coming to PK and he nearly bit by my head off and said that he was a proud Ind, but more recently when i talk about the BJP, the bravado has gone.

 

[slipcatch]

The Kash muslims i know hate the Ind with a passion which wasnt so much the case when i was growing up. And i know that many Inds are really enjoying their Hindu nationalism and their anti muslimness but for the 1st time i am sensing a shift there. I can remember many years ago, i jokingly said to an Ind muslim that it wont be long before you guys regret not coming to PK and he nearly bit by my head off and said that he was a proud Ind, but more recently when i talk about the BJP, the bravado has gone.

Stop, according to few Indians here, only Indian know Indian and Indian occupied Kashmiri, rest of the world do not have any interaction with Indian and Indian occupied Kashmiris, lol

 

[Musakhel]

When al jazeera made a documentary on balochistan many years back Indians were praising their journalism.

 

[slipcatch]

As predicted, nationalist Indian with insecurities and fragile nationalist ego came out to de-legitimize news channel because the news channel isn't pro-active in talking about the state of Qatar, that is because Indian can't argue against the content of the documentary, violence, occupation, rape and killing of innocents, all of which had been highlighted and made into documentary in the past by many different media outlets.

Every state run media is bias when it comes to presenting news about their own state. Currently, the people of Qatar are living far better and quality life than most of the Indian in India so no reason to go against the state.

As you can see from the response, few of them have not even watched the documentary and yet trying to defend every and any atrocities committed by the Indian army against the people of Kashmir.

 

[slipcatch]

There are 100s of journalists who speak against RSS, The Hindu and it's subsidiaries have been speaking against RSS for ever, and that's a top news agency in South.

We will see what happens when a Qatari citizen who becomes a journalist in Qatar speaks against Royals.

And I will speak against that, too.

Qatar has stopped and arrested reporters in the past for speaking against the state, it has been documented, so is killing of Indian journalist who may have spoken against RSS and BJP, even ordinary citizens and celebrities are threatened and killed for speaking against RSS and BJP.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So rather than ban, why not seek a right of reply. The Ind have ruled them for 70 years and the British ruled Ind for over a 100, but ultimately all colonial rule ends, and they will be free.

Al Jazeera have the right to appeal.

The hindus the ladahkis the gujjars and bakarwals are quite happy to live in India. A large number of kashmiris are in the armed forces.

So a religious extremist movement is no freedom struggle.

 

[Bewal Express]

Al Jazeera have the right to appeal.

The hindus the ladahkis the gujjars and bakarwals are quite happy to live in India. A large number of kashmiris are in the armed forces.

So a religious extremist movement is no freedom struggle.

But they are minority and the majority want nothing to do with Ind. And as much as you like to paint it as religious extremism, it isnt and i think your decision makers know that. And whether happens in the near future or in a longer period, they will be free because the colonizers are always forced out.

 

[cricketjoshila]

But they are minority and the majority want nothing to do with Ind. And as much as you like to paint it as religious extremism, it isnt and i think your decision makers know that. And whether happens in the near future or in a longer period, they will be free because the colonizers are always forced out.

They are non muslims are close 35%. The unsettled pandits, gujjars and bakarwals along with the Shias of ladakh make close to 10% . Thats a very significant population.

If only majority opinion mattered then undivided India had overwhelming non muslim population. Still the voices of the muslims were heard and they got a separate nation.

You may not like it but non muslim voices matter too. And the history of muslim majority nations treatment of non muslims is hardly exemplary.So a significant amount of population are happy that India protects their rights.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Intolerance of media in India has certainly gone up in recent times but I think our Pakistani friends need to be cautious of not jumping into bed with everything that comes up out anti India.

Qatar and its mouthpiece have very vested interests and we live in an era where you can manipulate the media enough to get Donald Trump as a President.

 

[Bewal Express]

They are non muslims are close 35%. The unsettled pandits, gujjars and bakarwals along with the Shias of ladakh make close to 10% . Thats a very significant population.

If only majority opinion mattered then undivided India had overwhelming non muslim population. Still the voices of the muslims were heard and they got a separate nation.

You may not like it but non muslim voices matter too. And the history of muslim majority nations treatment of non muslims is hardly exemplary.So a significant amount of population are happy that India protects their rights.

As much as the voices of the minority matter, so do the majority and the majority want out.

 

[Yossarian]

Yes that's not a bias then it's a state moutpiece its worse, no one takes such news channel seriously.

India obviously does. At least in the case of Al Jazeera it does. That's why they've taken away Al Jazeera's security clearance thereby effectively banning it.

 

[JaDed]

And I will speak against that, too.

Qatar has stopped and arrested reporters in the past for speaking against the state, it has been documented, so is killing of Indian journalist who may have spoken against RSS and BJP, even ordinary citizens and celebrities are threatened and killed for speaking against RSS and BJP.

Fair enough, but the point is mainly about Al Jazeera here.

 

[JaDed]

India obviously does. At least in the case of Al Jazeera it does. That's why they've taken away Al Jazeera's security clearance thereby effectively banning it.

True, they even take 5 ppl protesting in UK as an issue over something in India and over react, no denying there.

But surely banning Al Jazeera in India will not stop it from being the Champion paper of biased readers.

 

[JaDed]

But they are minority and the majority want nothing to do with Ind. And as much as you like to paint it as religious extremism, it isnt and i think your decision makers know that. And whether happens in the near future or in a longer period, they will be free because the colonizers are always forced out.

In that logic majority in India didn't want partition of India, hope you see the issues here, you cannot define majority minority as you want, is it limited to a town?Village?City? Who draws the boundaries?

Also if considering majority, it is in this case majority is India and status quo will remain.

 

[Bewal Express]

In that logic majority in India didn't want partition of India, hope you see the issues here, you cannot define majority minority as you want, is it limited to a town?Village?City? Who draws the boundaries?

Also if considering majority, it is in this case majority is India and status quo will remain.

But partition was agreed and it was agreed on the basis that a nation called PK would be created in muslim majority areas and Kashmir was a Muslim majority area.

 

[Varun]

The Kash muslims i know hate the Ind with a passion which wasnt so much the case when i was growing up. And i know that many Inds are really enjoying their Hindu nationalism and their anti muslimness but for the 1st time i am sensing a shift there. I can remember many years ago, i jokingly said to an Ind muslim that it wont be long before you guys regret not coming to PK and he nearly bit by my head off and said that he was a proud Ind, but more recently when i talk about the BJP, the bravado has gone.

The next time you meet him, tell him that it doesn't matter what he thinks anyway. The GoI and the PA will continue squabbling with their handbags regardless.

 

[hamid.s]

its basic deflection of the premise of the situation and blaming qatar, their conservative monarchy, and qataris and blah blah. just because AJ doesn't air/criticize their own gov't doesn't mean all their international reporting is also not credible. in fact, AJ is regularly cited and sourced by various other news channels and programs.

the premise is that Indian gov't has withdrawn AJ's clearance because of a documentary. This should not happen in a democratic country where freedom of press is the most fundamental pillar.

this would have been acceptable for Qatar or Saudi Arabia. but not for India.

but if you want to deflect and say oh look AJ doesn't criticize their own gov't and so what India has done is no big deal, then compare India with Qatar/KSA and not with US/UK and other democracies in the world.

 

[JaDed]

its basic deflection of the premise of the situation and blaming qatar, their conservative monarchy, and qataris and blah blah. just because AJ doesn't air/criticize their own gov't doesn't mean all their international reporting is also not credible. in fact, AJ is regularly cited and sourced by various other news channels and programs.

the premise is that Indian gov't has withdrawn AJ's clearance because of a documentary. This should not happen in a democratic country where freedom of press is the most fundamental pillar.

this would have been acceptable for Qatar or Saudi Arabia. but not for India.

but if you want to deflect and say oh look AJ doesn't criticize their own gov't and so what India has done is no big deal, then compare India with Qatar/KSA and not with US/UK and other democracies in the world.

That's an issue because credibility is low, when you cannot criticize the country that is funding you, next there won't be any criticism of countries that Ally with Qatar, after than positive news about Qatar and it's allies.
If that's a source for various news outlets, then good for them but not sure how you are justifying that?

 

[JaDed]

But partition was agreed and it was agreed on the basis that a nation called PK would be created in muslim majority areas and Kashmir was a Muslim majority area.

Agreed by whom? Was there a referundum? If so please share it coz apparently that's what everyone on PP wants in Kashmir, if it was about elected leaders deciding on partition,in that logic Abdullahs etc have already accepted Kashmir to be part of India.

 

[Bewal Express]

Agreed by whom? Was there a referundum? If so please share it coz apparently that's what everyone on PP wants in Kashmir, if it was about elected leaders deciding on partition,in that logic Abdullahs etc have already accepted Kashmir to be part of India.

By your rulers the British. The British partitioned Ind on the basis that the muslim areas would become PK.

 

[cricketjoshila]

As much as the voices of the minority matter, so do the majority and the majority want out.

There is no conclusive evidence of that claim of yours.

And in any case those who want out are in the valley which is 18% of the area. So thats all they will get.

 

[cricketjoshila]

But partition was agreed and it was agreed on the basis that a nation called PK would be created in muslim majority areas and Kashmir was a Muslim majority area.

Kashmir was a princely state and no princely state was up for partition.

 

[Bewal Express]

There is no conclusive evidence of that claim of yours.

And in any case those who want out are in the valley which is 18% of the area. So thats all they will get.

Thats why you need a billion troops to keep the locals down.

 

[JaDed]

By your rulers the British. The British partitioned Ind on the basis that the muslim areas would become PK.

Your rulers? Why don't you say us British then as well.
Also how was it agreed upon then if British 'rulers' decided it,which is what you said.

 

[Bewal Express]

Your rulers? Why don't you say us British then as well.
Also how was it agreed upon then if British 'rulers' decided it,which is what you said.

I am not sure what where you are going with this but we the muslims had no intention to be ruled by Hindus( and history has shown us to be right) and the British agreed to this solution.

 

[cricketjoshila]

By your rulers the British. The British partitioned Ind on the basis that the muslim areas would become PK.

Your? Didnt the British rule areas that are present day Pakistan?

The princely state were free to join either country provided they shared a border with it.

 

[enkidu_]

In that logic majority in India didn't want partition of India, hope you see the issues here, you cannot define majority minority as you want, is it limited to a town?Village?City? Who draws the boundaries?

Also if considering majority, it is in this case majority is India and status quo will remain.

India is not a nationality but a federation/union of many nationalities (Punjabis, Tamils, etc) and Partition was decided region-wise, looking at the demographics and its majority religion, and like Punjab was divided district-wise J&K too could follow that way if the demographics themselves are ambiguous (no clear majority or a majority by districts/regions).

The Valley and the Muslim-majority districts of Jammu would fulfill the unfinished Partition agenda.

 

[Bewal Express]

Your? Didnt the British rule areas that are present day Pakistan?

The princely state were free to join either country provided they shared a border with it.

And so was Hyderabad, which opted to be independent until the Ind invaded.

 

[JaDed]

India is not a nationality but a federation/union of many nationalities (Punjabis, Tamils, etc) and Partition was decided region-wise, looking at the demographics and its majority religion, and like Punjab was divided district-wise J&K too could follow that way if the demographics themselves are ambiguous (no clear majority or a majority by districts/regions).

The Valley and the Muslim-majority districts of Jammu would fulfill the unfinished Partition agenda.

The agenda is urs , anyone is free to move to Pak ,just like one who still move to India.

Borders will remain the same atleast for our life time.

 

[Bewal Express]

The agenda is urs , anyone is free to move to Pak ,just like one who still move to India.

Borders will remain the same atleast for our life time.

IA they wont. It took a night for the Berlin wall to come down and Kashmir will be free from your murderous thugs.

 

[enkidu_]

The agenda is urs , anyone is free to move to Pak ,just like one who still move to India.

Borders will remain the same atleast for our life time.

You mean Nehru, Gandhi, etc didn't want to get rid off the British ? That's also the Partition they agreed on.

And yes you can also have your wishes, but it's the peoples of J&K who will decide of this, not me nor you.

 

[JaDed]

You mean Nehru, Gandhi, etc didn't want to get rid off the British ? That's also the Partition they agreed on.

And yes you can also have your wishes, but it's the peoples of J&K who will decide of this, not me nor you.

Exactly my point if it's the leaders u r talking about the Abdullahs etc have agreed to stay with India.

 

[enkidu_]

Exactly my point if it's the leaders u r talking about the Abdullahs etc have agreed to stay with India.

Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed as PM of J&K in '53 because he was pushing for a plebiscite, precising that the accession to India was based on that condition, a condition agreed by his fellow Kashmiri, Nehru, and till today Kashmiris call it "the Nehru promise".

 

[JaDed]

Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed as PM of J&K in '53 because he was pushing for a plebiscite, precising that the accession to India was based on that condition, a condition agreed by his fellow Kashmiri, Nehru, and till today Kashmiris call it "the Nehru promise".

Yeah but he did stay, didn't he?

 

[Bewal Express]

For me its an ego thing with Indians. The best solution is for Kashmir to be independent of both. Billions are spent in weapons from USA, Russia,UK, Fr and Israel etc and this surely could be spent on education.

 

[enkidu_]

Yeah but he did stay, didn't he?

So because Hindus "stayed" for X or Y reason under Mughal and British rules for consecutive centuries it meant that it was "right" ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

And so was Hyderabad, which opted to be independent until the Ind invaded.

Kashmir opted to be independent before Pakistan invaded. Remember both India and Pakistan were to respect the stand still agreement. Since Pakistan broke the agreement and invaded Kashmir. Indiacwas no longer bound by it.

Secondly Hyderabad started the conflict when Kasim Razvi and his men attacked the Indian army post near Kodar.

 

[DRsohail]

Wah what a knowledgable conversation I read here. One thing is far sure that India is very much threatened and feel insecure about the so called indian Kashmir.

 

[Bewal Express]

Kashmir opted to be independent before Pakistan invaded. Remember both India and Pakistan were to respect the stand still agreement. Since Pakistan broke the agreement and invaded Kashmir. Indiacwas no longer bound by it.

Secondly Hyderabad started the conflict when Kasim Razvi and his men attacked the Indian army post near Kodar.

Yea off course he attacked a bigger country so that he could be invaded. Please, stick to this narrative for BJP knuckle draggers.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yea off course he attacked a bigger country so that he could be invaded. Please, stick to this narrative for BJP knuckle draggers.

The Razakars led by Kasim Razvi led the attack.

 

[Bewal Express]

The Razakars led by Kasim Razvi led the attack.

From wikipedia
After India gained independence, the Nizam declared his intention to remain independent rather than become part of the Indian Union.[25] The Hyderabad State Congress, with the support of the Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India, began agitating against Nizam VII in 1948. On 17 September that year, the Indian Army took control of Hyderabad State after an invasion codenamed Operation Polo. With the defeat of his forces, Nizam VII capitulated to the Indian Union by signing an Instrument of Accession, which made him the Rajpramukh (Princely Governor) of the state until 31 October 1956.[23][27]

 

[cricketjoshila]

From wikipedia
After India gained independence, the Nizam declared his intention to remain independent rather than become part of the Indian Union.[25] The Hyderabad State Congress, with the support of the Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India, began agitating against Nizam VII in 1948. On 17 September that year, the Indian Army took control of Hyderabad State after an invasion codenamed Operation Polo. With the defeat of his forces, Nizam VII capitulated to the Indian Union by signing an Instrument of Accession, which made him the Rajpramukh (Princely Governor) of the state until 31 October 1956.[23][27]

On 6 September an Indian police post near Chillakallu village came under heavy fire from Razakar units.

FROM Wikipedia

 

[Bewal Express]

On 6 September an Indian police post near Chillakallu village came under heavy fire from Razakar units.

FROM Wikipedia

So you are saying that if there was no attack, the Ind would have left Hyderabad alone and Even if it were true, why the full scale invasion, what did they think Hyderabad was going to do, invade Ind ? The sheer lies of Ind is mind boggling.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So you are saying that if there was no attack, the Ind would have left Hyderabad alone and Even if it were true, why the full scale invasion, what did they think Hyderabad was going to do, invade Ind ? The sheer lies of Ind is mind boggling.

Once attack is initiated, the retaliation is the prerogative of the one who was attacked.

India at that time was negotiating a agreement with Hyderabad.

Remember, Hyderabad was a land locked state surrounded by India and no movement inbound or outbound was possible without travesing through indian territory or airspace.