Meritocracy, Succession, and Power in the Asaf Jahi Dynasty

The article exploring the history of the Asaf Jahi dynasty was presented by Dr. Marcella Sirhandi at two significant events: the international conference at the “Veeranari Chakali Ilamma” Women’s University in Hyderabad from January 16 to 18, 2025, and the international seminar titled “The Nizam Era (1724–2024): A 300-Year Journey of Legacy & Inspiration” at the Administrative Staff College of India. The insights shared in these presentations have been sourced for this website to enrich our understanding of the Asaf Jahi dynasty’s legacy.

Please note that the links provided for each citation will direct you to the respective pages from which the citations are sourced.

The Asaf Jahi Dynasty: A History of Meritocratic Succession

The year 2024 marks the third centenary of the glorious Asaf Jahi Dynasty/Nizam-ul-Mulk Dynasty of Hyderabad. As we explore the extraordinary succession pattern within Asaf Jahi Dynasty who were initially semi-independent subedars/viceroys of the Moghuls for the Deccan from 1724¹, a notable and exemplary absence of gender discrimination emerges.^{2, 3} This distinguished dynasty prioritized the welfare of family, subjects and troops^{1, 4} even if it meant ruling parent sacrificing their immediate children in succeeding them.⁵

Our study delves into the unpredictable dynamics governing the succession of founder Asaf Jahi I/Nizam-ul-Mulk in great detail as it’s a comprehensive study of the clear commitment to meritocracy over gender biases as exemplified in their first ever choice of successors. This commitment was evident from the outset, notably after the death of the founder Qamar-ud-din Khan in 1748. The dynasty witnessed a departure from the usual succession norms by opting for a grandson, Muzaffar Jung, through the founder’s daughter Khair Unnisa, bypassing six more, eligible sons.^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9} As a start, the title of Muzaffar Jung and the government of Raichur and Adoni^{10, 11}, (later Subedari of Bijapur)^{10, 12} with the right of the Deccan Subedari on the strength of a Firman said to be from the Moghul Emperor, were conferred on Muzaffar/Hidayat Mohi Uddin Khan on founder Nizam-ul-Mulk’s recommendation at the Moghul court, and assurance of succession in future included as is evident.

This marked the beginning of a pattern of succession that defied linear chronology and gender biases but valued merit, a legacy that unfolded through subsequent generations till the last ruling Nizam also naming a grandson as his succesor.^{6, 8, 9, 13} Note that the earlier successions moved from brother to brother rather than father to son.¹⁴

NOTE: To clarify any confusion, all serial numbers assigned to any of the rulers of the Deccan irrespective of their stature as Subedar of Moghul or Monarch and irrespective of titles take Founder as I, even though initially his title did not assign him as ‘I’ until advent of ‘II’ and ‘III’ that initiated the qualification as a Dynasty.

From the Favourite Nominee to Power Struggle

Qamruddin, according to various historical records, was appointed the Moghul subedar of Hyderabad Deccan in 1713 and bestowed with the title of Nizam-ul-Mulk 1 (but he did not settle permanently in Deccan until 1724).

It was not until 1724, following his victory in the battle of Shakar Kheda (by some accounts on 31 July 1724 and others on 11 October 1724), that Qamaruddin settled for good in Hyderabad, Deccan and spawned a dynasty subsequently^{1, 4} and later granted the title of Asaf Jah on his bringing order in the region. Historically, his dynasty came to be considered to be established in 1724.

After his death, his second son Nasir Jung, though once in jail for having revolted against Qamaruddin to grab power^{15, 16, 17, 18}, and despite his unpopularity with his founder father and the public at large¹⁹, grabbed the seat as 2^nd Subedar of Moghuls^{20, 21} at the time when Muzaffar was stationed in Bijapur as the Governor¹². Nasir Jung already had titles but did not acquire titles of Nizam-ul-Mulk or Asaf Jah, even though this makes him the second on seat, as explained later.

Nasir was defeated and put to death by Muzaffar’s efforts in rallying the relevant prevailing forces to consent with him as was the norm prescribed closest to Ijma.^{19, 22, 23} Ijma, a Muslim concept, is consensual decision. Nasir’s short stint was the result of his elimination also backed by a determined combined group of the founder’s original supporters, Muzaffar’s supporters as well as Salabat (the third son of the Founder) and the French who dominated the process of the succession by eliminating Nasir.^{19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29} They collectively thought that Muzaffar befitted the throne better than Nasir and fulfilled the Founder’s wishes. (and consensus obliges most but doesn’t please all). He was earlier legitimised in his father’s lifetime and awarded Subas and various titles by the Moghuls as their future Subedar on the behest of his Founder grandfather.^{7, 10, 30, 31, 32}

Coming to Muzaffar, the favourite, slated to succeed his founder grandfather (as ubiquitously mentioned across historical accounts)^{20, 7, 33, 34}, was the first ever nominee for succession and was slated to be the second on the seat (as founders don’t succeed anyone but lay out the norms) by the founder grandfather^{33, 31}, but was the second to succeed the Founder and a third to gain the seat^{33, 29, 30}. The eldest 1st son of Qamruddin was placed by Qamaruddin to have a presence in the Moghul court in Delhi. However, do note Qamruddin despite his stature failed to get his grandson on the subedar seat^{20, 35, 29} on his own steam though that was his wish according to many accounts, even having made a ‘will to that effect later produced by Muzaffar.³⁰

This proves a ruler wanting his choice executed into a result is subject to conducive prevailing conditions. This also proves that anyone, especially within the family, with support from the people in influence, power or majority in numbers could make a claim to the seat, which if successful would be legitimate there on^{19, 22}. In fact, the Moghul Aurangazeb who was chiefly instrumental in the eventual elevation of the Asaf Jahi Nizams to be the rulers of Hyderabad by overthrowing the Qutub Shahs that originally founded Hyderabad (without any provocation), demonstrated rank outsiders succeeding in hostile takeovers was perfectly in order. It’s a historical fact that Aurangazeb had imprisoned his father & killed his elder brother.^{36, 37} Yet Aurangazeb with all his apparently dark deeds was considered no less a legitimate emperor & a pious one at that, by most of the same faith, demonstrating it’s all justifiable and acceptable in acquiring power.^{36, 37} It’s only after Muzaffar’s death at the hands of his estranged and disgruntled earlier associates (owing to Muzaffar’s dependence on the French in exclusion to them or Moghuls)^{35, 38, 39} did the Moghuls attempt to place Ghazi Jung, the eldest of the Founder’s sons, on to the subedar’s seat reiterating the past acceptance of Muzaffar. However, Muzaffar missing out on his grandfather’s title is dealt with later. (Note: it was widely acknowledged that the mother-son duo of Nizam Ali Khan, youngest son of Qamaruddin, poisoned Ghazi Jung).^{40, 41, 42} This success of the grandson Muzaffar reiterates that there are no clear rules to succeeding to a ruler’s or administrator’s seat as he was a generation below 6 brothers, who were all eligible next generation of the founder and all capable in handling the Moghul Subedar seat⁴³, ⁴⁴ (three clearly demonstrating capability ascending the seat with one as vizier⁴⁵ at the Moghul court and another two as leaders locally).

After Muzaffar died in battle, the French placed Salabat Jung, the 3^rd son of Qamaruddin as 4^th on the seat, counting Qamaruddin as 1^st, showing external powers too had a role & not just the dynasty’s founder or ruling father.^{25, 26, 27, 35, 29, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50}

No wonder, Islam too does not attempt to enforce any rule regarding succession to a ruler, as rules can only be enforced on subjects under a ruler, not bind his challenger who could be an absolute stranger or a blood brother.

Being Muslim, employing Islamic principles of governance, Qamruddin could have been taking cues from the Prophet’s nonlineal successor, his father-in-law Abu Bakar Siddiqui R. A. (whose direct descent the Asaf Jahis proudly proclaimed through affixing Siddiqui to their names), guided by consensus, or the Prophet’s daughter who was the sole link to the Prophet’s continuity of his blood line, or even the daughter of a ruler, Razia Sultan in Delhi, superseding her three elder brothers onto the seat of Sultan. From the first to the last Nizam both seemed to have no regard for primogeniture, to say the least.^{51, 52, 13, 31} The father to eldest son succession is only likely in absence of all other routes that could be employed to gain the seat; and all sons being equal, they choose the eldest. Even in the case if any one son is superior, he takes charge over any inept son, logic being, if an inept son happens to take charge it may lead to annihilation of the dynasty, royal family as well as the subjects.

The Factual Chronology of Succession: 7 Nizam Fiction⁵³

Though the initial succession was founded on lofty progressive principles in intent, the quest for power could steep the family into intermittent bloody skirmishes including fratricide^{40, 41}. Salabat, the third son of the Founder, was dethroned, ‘jailed and killed’^{54, 51, 52} by the youngest and by far the most treacherous brother Nizam Ali Khan⁴⁴ with the interplay of the British and Marathas. His mother on his behalf was considered the assassin of the eldest son of the Founder by poisoning him.

In Nasir’s case, (2^nd son of founder/ the second to seat himself after founder’s demise) his deprivation from his father’s titles by Moghuls could be the result of his attempt to overthrow his founder father (a Moghul favourite since childhood) in his father’s lifetime and his father’s diktats after his death as well as the relatively fleeting stint Nasir enjoyed, could have contributed for not being further conferred titles akin to ones that were bestowed on his father. The pattern of succession, the titles and the numbering (the universally accepted chronology) seems all ad hoc due to scanty data, the most apparent common thread being that the three successors just after the Founder (i.e. 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th) came into power through foreign forces and with no consultation or dependence on the Moghuls. This gives us the reason to believe that the first successor and the second successor after Founder (second and third on seat including Founder as I) were more or less autonomous rulers/monarchs and did not even depend on titles from the Moghuls.

Muzaffar 2^nd to succeed the founder in reality (grandson of founder through his daughter / 3^rd on seat counting founder as 1^st): Muzaffar though primed to be second on the seat immediately after founder, with titles and positions by the Moghuls on the behest of his father did not get a recognition as Subedar with titles identical to his father on actually gaining control of the Deccan. This can only mean his coming into power through the foreign source completely independent of the Moghuls came in the way of gaining his father’s titles from Moghuls. Not that he needed the blessings as he was truly independent of the anyway weakened Moghuls, with French support. This places him in the category of a Monarch. The same could be said about the first on seat after the Founder irrespective of the devious unilateral path he chose to the seat of power.

Though Salabat, the third successor after the Founder (the fourth on seat), was in due course anointed as Subedar by the Moghuls, and though helped by foreign forces, he too was given titles of ‘Madarul-Mulk Asafud daula’ with Subedari. This was in variance to his Founder father’s title, though Salabat ruled for over eleven years which could again point to his being elevated to power without Moghul consent coming in the way of his full Moghul recognition.

Yet all three prior to the universally accepted Nizam-ul-Mulk II, Asaf Jah II (who was Fifth on seat) are not considered or enumerated in sequence of the Asaf Jahi/Nizam-ul-Mulk Dynasty by historians. This omission is even though the historians unanimously agree that there were these three on the seat after the Founder and before Nizam-ul-Mulk II/Asaf Jah II.

Thereafter the successors of Asaf Jah II/Nizam-ul-Mulk II were subsequently titled Asaf Jah III as well as Nizam-ul-Mulk III and these two particular titles continued thereon up to the seventh who was the last ruling Nizam⁴⁴ (and in reality, the tenth on the seat but a monarch) now universally titled ‘Nizam of Hyderabad’. And though the seventh had titled his grandson as eighth, the seventh’s rule itself was terminated in 1948 by the Indian army absorbing the princely Hyderabad State into the Union of India.⁵⁵

The Uneventful Succession of Nizams III and IV

The obvious fact was overlooked that there were 10 formidable & recognised successors to sit at the helm of this dynastic seat.^{44, 45} The most relevant context in compiling the composition of a dynasty is to enumerate the entities straddling power and ensuring they are from the same bloodline to identify and qualify it as a dynasty and in being considered as part of the dynasty. Having this or that title shouldn’t be of any consequence, yet there seems to be a glaring lapse by collating only those on the seat that carried the same title of the founder and omitting the three in line after demise of founder.

Another proposition: for three rulers prior to the Nizam-ul-Mulk II/Asaf Jah II left out from the universal count – (When we talk about the term ‘Dynasty’ which comes into play only after a couple of successors or generations by which time, let’s say, Sikander Jung, the universally/popularly listed Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah III, (6^th on seat) could have counted his father Nizam Ali Khan as (Asif Jah II) and linked his father Nizam Ali Khan to the Founder counting the founder as I in retrospect who clearly wasn’t titled as ‘I’ as there was no anticipation of subsequent successors (all concerned in this titles exercise here bore the same titles conveniently). The founder would not have been titled as (I or 1^st) on the outset (as there were no second or third or any signs of a dynasty. Sikander Jah may have eliminated the mention of his father’s brothers/sons of Founder, prior to his father on seat at a later point. This obscuring of the three of the predecessors of his father may be due to the embarrassment of his father and his father’s mother on his father’s behalf, being responsible for the death of two sons of the Founder – Ghazi and Salabat. The historians subsequently may have been in the influence of Sikander Jah even officially coerced with his abridged version as power devolved through universal Nizam II and III and theron.

There is little to indicate that some titles are superior to others in many cases, but the historians maybe under the influence of Nizam-ul-Mulk II (the fifth on seat) and Sikander and his progeny, seem to be responsible in giving one set of titles priority and advantage over others. These assumptions seem appropriate with the data in hand.

This aberration in chronology in enumerating the dynastic succession (dealt in earlier headings) became the norm even though this seat was legitimately in succession held by two sons of the Qamaruddin & a grandson through a daughter of founder Qamaruddin in between Qamaruddin & Nizam Ali Khan.⁴⁴

However, with these inputs it is sensible to say that the two who are not mentioned as Moghul subedars under Asaf Jahi dynasty banner were in fact closest to being Monarchs in their own rights and in that way somewhat superior to the other descendants of the founder upto the V^th who again could claim sovereignty brought to him in 1858 by the termination of the Moghul reign itself.⁵⁶ At this third centenary juncture, it seemed fitting to bring some recognition to the hitherto obscured rulers of the Deccan region.

Afzal-Ud-Dowla, Nizam-ul-Mulk V/Asaf Jah V (actually 8^th on seat), who was initially a subedar of the Moghuls became an independent Monarch as the British exiled Moghul ruler Bahadur Shah Zafar to Rangoon bringing the curtains down on the Moghuls.⁵⁶ The present recognised Nizam H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan’s great grandfather H.H. Mahboob Ali Khan (listed historically the 6^th Nizam) the most secular and beloved^{57, 58, 59, 60} had the grandest distinction of being born in a Monarchy, ruling since 2.8 years of age and dying as a Monarch in 1911.⁶¹

Except for stipulating and promoting consensus in the aforementioned situations in propounding the concept of ‘Ijma’, Islam plays no role in any guidelines in power succession⁶² (Although Islam is so particular about succession of property & wealth of any Muslim person, whether in power or not, devolving on the person’s sons & family after his/her demise). In the absence of a powerful king/queen no likely compliance to even their wishes in successfully replacing him/her by a successor is guaranteed. In the present complete absence of a ruler or king, pure consensus through majority is all that’s available & valid in a democratic family in a democratic country like India, rallying consent or related forces for achieving position is acceptable for aspiring contenders and proposition in Islam.

Similarly, India too now vigorously stipulates democratic consensus, even shuns gender discrimination as its enforceable principle.

A Recent Call to Revive Asaf Jahi Values

On 14 January 2023 on the demise of the VIII Nizam Barkat Ali Khan (Mukarram Jah) who was the grandchild of the VII^th and last ruler up to 1948 (VII^th had skipped his own next generation including two sons in anointing Prince Barkat)¹³, Prince Barkat’s son was coronated by only a part of his intimate family & some associates, that approximated a dozen. This even excluded his father’s own brother and his other son among others.⁶³

This event was unlikely to be accepted, as the late Nizam VIII⁶³ Media links himself bereft of even the titular title of “Nizam of Hyderabad” that he once carried, had as well as the family’s favour, for they soon enough noted he typically held them in obvious disdain as evidenced in his statement on page 252 in the book ‘The Last Nizam’ by John Zubryzcky⁶³ . As acts speak louder than words, his negative conviction is consistent with his act of completely relocating himself to a strange country Australia, turning his back on a 300-year prime connect with India. The book quotes an infamous statement over some estate he was to purchase in Australia, “I love it, there isn’t a bloody Indian in sight”⁶³ clinching how deep the indifference to compatriots and kin ran. He all but turned his back except when he visited occasionally to sell some of the family properties here and it is logical to assume where he transferred the funds.⁶⁴ (For the layman, the very title of the book ‘The Last Nizam’ written by a famous author with personal interview of Mukarram Jah/Barkat with all his progeny already born, says it all.)⁵⁵ In fact, he wasn’t even really a Nizam especially at that point or even a titular Nizam in the formal Indian context.

The extended family also noted and mentioned to researchers and interviewers that Mukarram Jah’s eldest son (Azmet Jah), no better, included his father too in his own disdain for royal family by apparently stating in a notice to defendant, dated 23-12-94 and later joined by rest of the family members in their echoing Azmet’s contempt as reiterated on pages 10, 11, 20 and 21 in judgement of O.P. 147 of 1995 that is to the effect that Mukarram Jah is unfit to be head of family, has created debts & can create further debt through his spendthrift ways & disgrace his family. In the face of all these conflicting contentions as well as the inability of the eldest son to clearly demonstrate how he specifically & individually can succeed his father as the favoured child among others including his own male sibling, considering he himself was once ranged against his father in spiteful litigation for pecuniary self-gain queers his contention to succeed his father as the head of the family. His poor opinion of his dad is re-confirmed in High Court for the State of Telangana case of No. WP 9569 of 1991⁶⁵ wherein Azmet (in agreement with his immediate family) showed urgency to acquire his father’s wealth in his father’s lifetime rather than after his demise, in an obvious self-centered trait which did not go unnoticed by the family and who could no longer trust him for their own wellbeing, eliminated him as contender to the top family position. A case filed by his aunt Ahmadunnissa in 1967 got a high-court division bench order in 1068 dt. 29^th Jan 1968 reported in AIR 1969 AP423 as Ahmadunnisa Begum VS Union of India⁶⁶ (which is supposed to be compromised merely just between the duo, the compromise in another court has no effect on the above reasoned High Court Order that considered all prevailing Indian Laws and declared the VIII^th as a citizen of India under applicable Indian law). Now almost the whole extended family is against the eldest son who stepped into his father’s shoes after the demise of his father (titular till 1971) VIII^th Nizam. In yet another case O.S. No. 419 of 2024 filed by Alexander Azam Jah – another son of Mukarram Jah through his wife Helen Ayesha Jah, states that he has been deprived by Azmet Jah of his legitimate rightful share from trust/s created by VII Nizam and assets of which Azam Jah is a beneficiary. To this effect, Azmet Jah has not spared his brother (Azam Jah) either in his selfish motives (contrivances), let alone his disregard for their father Mukarram Jah. It’s not proper to predict results as these are subjudiced cases and mired in litigation at various levels.

A Topic of Discussion Within the Wider Family

Also, under what logic can a son contending that his father is not fit to be the head of his family in a formal court of law, substantiate he should succeed that same father (his father himself being the grandson of previous ruler), just because he is the eldest son & then go on to proclaim himself as ‘Nizam of Hyderabad’ to succeed his father in position and title with no other validation or qualification with just a handful of incomplete immediate family. Besides, he wishes to be the Nizam of Hyderabad after abolition of all titular titles in India in 1971 and absence of princely state of Hyderabad from 1948. The consensus being only route to heading a family today and anyone, be it son or family lacking it completely can only absurdly hope for inherit a title which anyway no longer exists for half a century. The government did not recognise the succession (& their view is evident on the Internet in most cases and legal documents), neither did the extended family of royals who shortlisted someone reliable & beneficial to head them; in some cases, head them against the previous dispensation and immediate family of the VIII Nizam. Earlier, the rest of the family, the present title-claiming eldest son included, was already ranged against the late Nizam.

A new O.S. 404 filed in 2021 initiated by Mukarram Jah’s cousin adds to all the above relied cases as well as newer cases piling up against a sole or narrow claim that is attempting to exclude the vast family by the late titular Nizam Mukarram Jah and, now whoever is similarly claiming to succeed him in keeping the larger family out.

Coming to the Present

With a firm inclination to select their own Nizam head of Dynasty, almost all the Sahebzadgans (descendants of the Nizams, specifically represented under a Society that represents 1 to 6 Nizam) that exceed 4500 of the clan (as reported in press like Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Indian Express, numerous of the E-Media & the internet itself publicised in a large press conference on 11^th February 2023, took this momentous initiative at “Khaja Ka Chilla”, a religious shrine in Hyderabad revered by the Dynasty on 2^nd March 2023, creating history. Reaffirming this publicly on 4^th June 1923 and reiteration by the largest section of descendants of the VII^th Nizam on 12^th January 2024 which included top government officials keen on protecting their country’s financial interests warning likely buyers to desist buying into these contested properties.⁶⁴

With a spontaneous impetus by the largest group of the 7^th Nizam’s descendants (that claim equal social standing and rights as well as to property of the earlier designated Nizam^{66, 67}, especially after independence of India in 1947 and central government enactment of 1971, joining in, this momentous decisive action became a firm irrevocable reality. With thousands of the supporters backing this eventually in a legal format permissible in courts to retrieve properties & with more numbers joining by the day, this decision has taken root and been cemented to stay. It is also now completely accepted by the press which had initially announced Azmat’s sole elevation freely till H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan came into the picture forty days later forcing them to reconsider logically. Moreover these steps are in accordance to Indian Court rulings (that include orders passed in O.P 147 dated 21-06-1999, Ahmadunissa vs. Union of India⁶⁶, as well as a catena of similar rulings) that point to the rights of the present extended royal family in major decisions, have elevated a notable direct royal descendant of the family, H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan, by almost complete majority, to the esteemed designation of IX Nizam of the Asaf Jah Dynasty of Hyderabad within a legal framework through the only available legitimate sequential process, independent of Govt. regulation. Any interference or any other fabrication of the designation of the erstwhile title of Nizam of Hyderabad is fantasy and fiction. Now due to the 26^th Constitutional Amendment Bill formally ending royalty and its privileges (except for some unrelated privileges) the Nizam, titular to begin with, lost his titular title too including the right to nominate.

Now in a rational progression of the ‘Nizam of Hyderabad’ title, a misnomer since 1971, was transposed to present Indian context to adapt to the Indian context was substituted into a perfectly apt Nizam of the Asaf Jahi title, the Nizam of Asaf Jahi has superseded and appropriately substituted the very same now redundant title of Nizam of Hyderabad.

However, H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan, a bachelor and with no progeny of his own, makes it abundantly clear that all recoveries of Dynastic properties will not be just his personally at all and belong to everyone in the extended royal family who are legally entitled as per sharia/Muslim law applicable to all Muslims in India today. The erstwhile title, now a misnomer is now frequently used to fraud the gullible in certain matters. H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan lacking descendants that could tempt into divert funds seems to be a win-win situation for the family that chose him as the head.

The dynastic family has made H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan commit to assigning a successor in case he wants to abdicate for any reason of his own, for they are sure that the vacuum will create upheaval in the people to take his place or decide the next Nizam of the dynasty which will derail all the good work he would have done so far. The written authority given to H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan is otherwise irrevocable in itself.

Non-investigative gossip or fashion magazines put up their own opinion on the basis of simplistic assumptions, similar to earth being flat. On the other hand, there are thousands from the family who have recognized H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan as their 9^th Nizam of their Dynasty and are representing through a registered Society vide 1089/2020 by the name Majlis-e-Sahebzadagan Society and on court admissible documents. The members of the family have welcomed the transition of Asaf Jahi family dynasty in imbibing democratic temper through the unanimous recognition of H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan as the first Democratic Nizam whom they believe will lead the family in the backdrop of Indian democracy. The Members of Majlis-e-Sahebzadagan Society carry an ID card and on passing the dependants increase the support for H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan exponentially. However, many among them want to keep their participation restricted to courts to bolster him when the need arises in cases that involve financial benefits, but are avoiding the media or are media-shy. A very large number stand as silent moral supporters who only want intangible involvement in the going-ones in the eventual assurance of gaining whatever benefits accrue through H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan’s efforts for the family as a whole, in which case they would anyway be valid beneficiaries/sharers if legalities go in favour of the wider family. Azmet is now taking over religious trust created by his ancestors with the help of the trustees trying to imply that it entitles him in title and succession. But trusts have little to do with that aspect (just as family has more to do with choosing their head). Trusts handle funds for religious purposes and needs. The family’s plan to attack this move on technicalities are afoot. They strive to disqualify and him to be replaced by their own person of confidence.

Looking Ahead to the Future

In his respected social media page, renowned Political Analyst and a top-notch advisor to Indian Government, Mr. Mohan Guruswamy says, “MJ (Mukarram Jah) himself was born to a Turkish lady. When he died a couple of years ago a son, a London based photographer, quietly “coronated” himself as ‘Nizam’, and is trying to grab for himself what is left of Osman Ali Khan’s estate. Also claiming this are an association of Nizam descendants organised by Nizam Mehboob Ali Khan’s great grandson, Raunaq Yar Khan. RYK too has been ‘coronated’ as a ‘Nizam’.” He adds, “I don’t think the laws (and national mood) will support the claim of the London photographer”.⁶⁸ This was even before the overwhelming documented support across the royal Asaf Jah family. Mr. Guruswamy backed this opinion on his social media page citing a research paper awaiting PhD which appeared in a double-peer reviewed journal titled ‘Journal of Diversity Studies’⁵³ by Ms. Zeenathfar Azmi Syed, a Gold-Medallist PhD Research Scholar from Osmania University wherein she discusses the validity of unpredictable succession patterns as enumerated in the previous sections of this write-up and that popular consensus or powerful forces are most likely to provide the fulcrum to the incumbent as the head of the Asaf Jahi dynastic family as their present Nizam. In her meticulously analysed thesis Zeenathfar draws the conclusion that H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan is the IX Nizam of the Asaf Jahi dynasty based on the irrefutable evidences.

H.H. Nawab Raunaq Yar Khan has already created a registered Society of intellectuals and top Govt. officials, IAS, IPS and Army etc., who are aware of the present legalities. This legally aware group that affirmed via a press conference on 12^th January 2024 wherein Mr. Dinesh Reddy – former DGP HOPS of United Andhra Pradesh vociferously reiterated in front of a few thousand strong gathering of the extended family, assuring they will not be sidelined and that⁶⁸ they all will no longer have to tolerate monies generated in India from sale of family properties and valuable articles to be taken out of the country.⁶⁴ This siphoning out was being done earlier by specific people of the Nizams family claiming singular succession as “Nizam of Hyderabad”, with none of them or their benefiting immediate family living in India. This will be a boon to India too. With Hyderabad being absorbed into India in 1948 and the 1971 enactment by Government of India, there can in any case be no title as “Nizam of Hyderabad” nor powers or properties of the earlier Nizams devolving on any individual automatically through succession to any one descendant without consensus or scrutiny through relevant legal guidelines in Indian courts.

Latest emerging developments at the conclusion of 2024 or 300 of the Nizam saga were grave irregularities , procedural, legal & financial, reported in an internal report of the Govt. Waqf Dept. (Dt. 21-10-2024), that oversees the Nizams Awqaf properties, neglected by erstwhile late Prince Mukarram Jah now taken over by his eldest son, a foreigner legally restricted or barred from the key position of Mutavalli. This development reported by the reliable E-media “The Print” on 22-11-2024⁶⁹, (also press Articles on Deccan Chronicle dated 27-10-2024⁷⁰ & Siasat dated 06-10-2024), makes matters worse and change the fortunes of the foreign claimant descendants of Mukarram Jah who the extended majority royals are already wary and negative of, making the course ahead even more slippery for the lineal descendent & self proclaimed claimant to erstwhile prince Mukarram Jah.

Research paper submitted summing up the 300 years (3rd Centenary) of The Asaf Jahi Nizams, by Dr. Marcella Sirhandi and Dr. Aruna Naware.

Bibliography

Please note that the links provided for each citation will direct you to the respective pages from which the citations are sourced.

1. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 134, 135, 136: Discusses the Nizam’s loyalty to the Moghuls, contrasting with Wikipedia’s claim that they declared independence.
2. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, subheading 2, para: Discusses Nasir Jung, Muzaffar Jung, and Salabat Jung (1748–62).
3. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 15, para. 1: Discusses the Nizam’s favorite grandson from his daughter and mentions other sons.
4. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 131, Basics.
5. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, sec. 2, 3rd para: Discusses Muzaffar Jung as Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah I’s favourite and his supposed succession to Nizam I, the Great.
6. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, subheading 2, para. 1: References Qamaruddin’s children, including his daughter’s son, and outlines the sequence of the family, noting that Nizam Ali Khan is the youngest.
7. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 26, last 3 lines: States that Muzaffer Jung was the favorite grandson of Nizam-ul-Mulk and that all hastened to pay him their respects.
8. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 74, para. 2: Discusses the “Dynastic history of his exalted highness the Nizam.”
9. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 75: Mentions that Muzaffar was the favourite of Nizam-ul-Mulk.
10. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period,” p. 138, sec. 2, para. 1: Briefly discusses Muzaffar as Subedar.
11. “Muzaffar Jang Hidayat.” In Wikipedia. Accessed December 1, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Jang_Hidayat. Discusses the governorship of Raichor and Adoni.
12. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 15, p. 16: Muzaffar was appointed Governor of Bijapur.
13. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Introduction, p. XIV: States that the Nizam skipped his son to secure the family’s fortunes.
14. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 75, para. 3: Discusses the admission of ten Nizams and notes that history often ignores them, despite the fact that three of them ruled for a minimum of 11 years (1751–1761). Mentions that Salabat Jung lost power in 1761 or 1762, with some accounts suggesting he died in jail, leading to the loss of the splendour of 1762 to Nizam Ali Khan.
15. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 15, para. 1: Discusses the Asaf Jahs’ successors. In the 2nd para, it mentions that Nasir was confined in the Nander fortress.
16. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 15, last para: Discusses the unpopularity of Nasir. Important points continue onto p. 16.
17. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 73, para. 1: Discusses the clear animosity between Nasir and his father, noting that Nasir was confined in the Nanded fortress.
18. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Chapter II, “In the Court of Hyderabad,” p. 26, para. 2: Mentions that he crossed swords with his father.
19. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 23: Discusses how Nasir was killed by his own supporters who were disillusioned by his deceit, particularly after he jailed Muzaffar despite inviting him for a compromise. This act was seen as a second deceit, as Nasir ignored his father’s wish for Muzaffar to succeed the founder, Nizam. The army also aligned with this sentiment, and Muzaffar was widely supported in Cuddappa, Karnool, and Savaoor.
20. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 15, para. 1: Discusses the Asaf Jahs’ successors, noting that Nasir “seized” the treasury and throne, was confined in the Nander fortress, and that Muzaffar was at the top for the throne.
21. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, sec. 2nd para: Notes that Nasir “seized” the opportunity and the treasure.
22. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 26: Highlights the unpopularity of Nasir and notes that the army was ready for all-round acceptance. This was important for Muzaffar, as he was considered the rightful heir by the people and the army in regions such as Cuddapah, Karnool, and Savanoor.
23. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 139, 1st para: States that Nasir Jung was shot dead and that Muzaffar became Subedar with the support of the French.
24. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 18, p. 19: Discusses the support of Chanda Sahib and his communications with the French.
25. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 19, top para: Discusses the support of the French, specifically Dupleix.
26. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 20: Discusses the support provided by Dupleix.
27. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 21: States, “The French having taken the side of Muzaffar Jung, it was natural that the English would support the other side,” clearly indicating that the French supported Muzaffar.
28. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, sec. 2, para. 4: Discusses how Muzaffar made an alliance with Chanda Sahib of Arcot and Dupleix.
29. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, last para (continued on p. 139): States that the French supported Muzaffar.
30. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, subheading 2, para: Discusses how Muzaffar produced a will and the Subedari of Bijapur.
31. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Chapter II, “In the Court of Hyderabad,” p. 26, para. 1: States that Muzaffar was considered the right choice by his father.
32. “Muzaffar Jang Hidayat.” In Wikipedia. Accessed December 1, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Jang_Hidayat. Explores the concept of lofty titles and the role of subas in the administrative structure.
33. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, sec. 2, 3rd para: Discusses Muzaffar as favourite and his supposed succession to Nizam I, the Great.
34. “Muzaffar Jang Hidayat.” In Wikipedia. Accessed December 1, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Jang_Hidayat. Muzaffar was noted as the favourite.
35. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 29: Muzaffar was killed by non-family members from Cuddapah, Karnool, and Savanoor, who were disgruntled and jealous of the advantages given to the French over themselves after their assistance to Muzaffar in gaining the throne.
36. Chanda, Avik. Dara Shukoh: The Man Who Would Be King. HarperCollins India, 2019.
37. Truschke, Audrey. Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth. Random House India, 2018.
38. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 74: Discusses how Muzaffar got into an affray with the Pathan chiefs.
39. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 74, para. 2: States that Muzaffar was killed by the Pathans, although others claim it was the Nawabs of Cuddapah, Karnool, or Savanoor.
40. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 34: Discusses the political death of Ghazi Jung, the eldest son, who was killed by a gang of Nizam Ali’s Mom-Son duo.
41. Gribble, J.D.B. History of the Deccan. Vol. II. New Delhi: Rupa Publishers, 1924. p. 15: First para.
42. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 75, para. 2: Discusses how Nizam Ali Khan poisoned the eldest and that Salabat was killed.
43. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 138, para. 1: Discusses Nizam Ali Khan as the last son.
44. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 140, sec. 2, chap. 13: Mentions the 10 kings favourably and includes many references.
45. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 75, para. 3: Discusses the admission of ten Nizams, noting that history often ignores them, even though three of them ruled for a minimum of 11 years (1751–1761). It mentions that Salabat lost power in 1761 or 1762, with some accounts suggesting he died in jail, leading to the loss of the splendour of 1762 to Nizam Ali Khan.
46. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 139, sec. para. 5: Discusses how Salabat accompanied his nephew, the 3rd Nizam Muzaffar, and upon Muzaffar’s untimely death, Salabat declared himself the 4th Nizam and ruled for 11 years.
47. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 139, para. 2: Notes the lack of hostility towards Muzaffar, which is considered notable.
48. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 139, para. 2: States that the French placed Salabat Jung in power.
49. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 139, para. 2: Notes that the Mughal Emperor sent a Farman granting the subedari of the Deccan to Salabat Jung with the title of Madarul-Mulk Asafud Daula, which was received in Hyderabad on September 12, 1751 (Tuzuk-i-Wala Jahi, 64; Tarikh-i-Deccan, 84f).
50. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Chapter II, “In the Court of Hyderabad,” p. 26, para. 3: Discusses how foreign powers had influence in the court.
51. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 75: States that Salabat was killed by Nizam Ali Khan in 1761.
52. Mudiraj, K. Krishna Swamy. Pictorial Hyderabad. Vol. 1. The Chandrakanthn Press, 1929. Chapter: “Dynastic History of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.” p. 75: Notes that Salabat ruled for over a decade and was killed by Nizam Ali Khan, who also killed Ghazi, the eldest.
53. Syed, Zeenathfar Azmi. 2023. “The Nizams of Hyderabad and Their Succession: A Tussle for the IX Nizam Title.” Journal of Diversity Studies. https://doi.org/10.51470/JOD.2023.2.1.13. Zeenathfar Azmi Syed is a PhD research scholar and gold medalist from Osmania University, currently awaiting her PhD award. This paper, accepted on August 13, 2023, discusses the succession of the Nizams of Hyderabad and the competition for the IX Nizam title. It is published in the Journal of Diversity Studies, a double peer-reviewed journal.
54. Nayeem, M.A. The Splendour of Hyderabad: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture, 1591-1948 A.D. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers, 2011. Chapter XII, “History of the Asaf Jahs of Hyderabad State,” Part Three, “The Asaf Jahi Period”. p. 140: States that Salabat was overthrown and died in jail.
55. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006.
56. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Chapter 4: Focuses on Afzal ud Daula, the Vth Nizam.
57. Khalidi, Omar. Memoirs of Cyril Jones: People, Society and Railways in Hyderabad. South Asia Books, 1991. p. 69, chapter II, “A Tour Diary”: Discusses Cyril Walter Lloyd Jones, a railway engineer in Hyderabad, and describes the VI Nizam as a saint.
58. Imam, Syeda. The Untold Charminar: Writings on Hyderabad. New Delhi: Penguin Books, January 1, 2008. p. 139, p. 140, p.141, chapter “Letters Tell Stories Too” by Sarojini Naidu: Describes the VI Nizam as a saint.
59. Lynton, Harriet Ronket, and Mohini Rajan. The Days of the Beloved. Orient Black Swan, 1974. The entire book discusses the VI Nizam, portraying him as the “beloved” for his generosity, sensitivity, and secularism.
60. Alikhan, Raza. Hyderabad 400 Years, 1591-1991. Hyderabad: Zenith Services, 1990.
61. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Notes that the VI Nizam ruled since the age of 2.8 years.
62. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Chapter II, “In the Court of Hyderabad,” p. 23, para. 2: Notes that the rulers had no guide under Muslim law.
63. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Chapter 11, p. 252: Includes the statement “No bloody Indian in sight,” attributed to Mukkarram Jah.
64. Zubrzycki, John. The Last Nizam: The Rise and Fall of India’s Greatest Princely State. Melbourne: Macmillan, 2006. Introduction, p. XVII: Discusses the Nizam squandering historical wealth, noted as the largest in the world.
65. High Court for the State of Telangana WP No. 9569 of 1991.
66. Ahmadunnisa Begum vs Union Of India on 29 January, 1968. India Kanoon. Accessed December 1, 2024. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/512487/
67. AIR 1969 ANDHRA PRADESH 423: States that the properties of the Nizams/Monarchs of the erstwhile Hyderabad State, their Properties which constituted their respective Matrukta would still devolve upon all their legal heirs as per Muslim personal law (Shariat).
68. Guruswamy, Mohan. (Renowned Political Analyst). “The Two Who Would Be Nizam of Hyderabad.” Facebook, January 18, 2024. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02sqJoPM7rHwHJgRnhJJLeZrFQpN5TpntNZFTj7Xhr2WAvadd2cmwvTQrrzdfc1E1Ml&id=1500196238&mibextid=Nif5oz.
69. Lasania, Yunus. “Telangana Waqf Board Terms 9th Nizam’s Awqaf Committee Chairmanship ‘illegal’ Due to British Citizenship.” ThePrint, November 22, 2024. https://theprint.in/india/telangana-waqf-board-terms-9th-nizams-awqaf-committee-chairmanship-illegal-due-to-british-citizenship/2369092/.
70. Nallella, Prathyush. “Nizam’s Family to Settle Property Disputes through Talks, Say Experts.” Deccan Chronicle, October 26, 2024. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/southern-states/telangana/nizams-family-to-settle-property-disputes-through-talks-say-experts-1833334.