The Hyderabad Delegation under Laik Ali, accompanied by Sir Walter Monckton, during January–February 1948, had several meetings with the Governor-General and discussed several aspects of the affairs of Hyderabad. Finally, on Mountbatten’s suggestion, it was agreed in principle between the Hyderabad delegation and the Government of India that a plebiscite be held in Hyderabad on the issue of accession, under certain conditions.

The Nizam agreed in principle, but still sought to safeguard the independence status of Hyderabad. However, the negotiation broke down on 19th June 1948.

Monckton advised that if the Hyderabad Government decided not to make this offer, then an immediate application should be made either to the UNO or the International Court of Justice to intervene in the dispute between India and Hyderabad in order to preserve peace. He also suggested that the question of plebiscite about Nizam’s accession to India be put before the UNO.

However, Hyderabad was too late to act on this advice. The delegation to the UN, led by Moin Nawaz Jung, the Minister of External Affairs, only reached Paris on 13th September 1948—by then, the Indian forces had already entered Hyderabad, changing the course of politics and history. Consequently, Sir Walter Monckton resigned as constitutional adviser to the Nizam, attributing the failure of his efforts to Hyderabad’s policy of “too little, too late.”

After Lord Mountbatten left India on 21st June 1948 without resolving the Hyderabad issue, the relations between Hyderabad and India deteriorated further. Negotiations for a permanent settlement through a friendly medium failed.

The case of Hyderabad before the Security Council was submitted through a cablegram by Zahir Ahmed, Secretary-General of External Affairs, Hyderabad Government, dated 21st August 1948, addressed to the President of the Security Council. It read:

“The Government of Hyderabad, in reliance on Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, request you to bring to the attention of the Security Council the grave dispute which has arisen between Hyderabad and India, and which, unless settled in accordance with international law and justice, is likely to endanger international peace and security.
Hyderabad has been subjected to violent intimidation, threats of invasion, and a crippling economic blockade intended to coerce it into renouncing its independence. Frontiers have been forcibly violated, Hyderabad villages occupied by Indian troops, and the existence of Hyderabad threatened. This affects not just India, but the entire Asiatic continent, and is supported by documentary evidence.”**

According to Eagleton, this was followed by a cablegram dated 12th September 1948, in which the Hyderabad Government, in view of the officially proclaimed intention of India (as announced by the Prime Minister) to invade Hyderabad, asked that the complaint be placed on the agenda by Wednesday, 15th September.

On the following day (13th September), another cablegram informed the Secretary-General that “Hyderabad had been invaded.”

Moin Nawaz Jung presented the case in detail before the Security Council and urged for quick action to safeguard peace and the integrity of Hyderabad. However, due to technicalities, immediate action was not taken, and the matter was filed on the agenda.

After the Police Action, the case became an obsolete issue.

India’s White Paper on Hyderabad, published on 10th August 1948, asserted that in accordance with the Standstill Agreement, Hyderabad’s foreign affairs were to be governed by India. Regarding Hyderabad’s case at the United Nations, India considered it a domestic issue between Hyderabad and India.