Mir Himayat Ali Khan Siddiqui Azam Jah (1907-1970), the eldest son and Heir Apparent of Mir Osman Ali Khan, received education ideals that intended to prepare him as the future ruler of the Hyderabad State—a combination of Islamic, Persianate courtly traditions mixed with British-style instruction.
Azam Jah began his education within the royal household in Hyderabad under carefully selected tutors (ustads) who oriented him in languages, humanities, sciences and sports, and also in court etiquette and administrative practices. British and Anglo-Indian tutors were engaged to provide him with the educational models adopted by many Indian princely states in the early twentieth century.
In addition, Azam Jah also underwent military training, which prepared him for his later honorary ranks in the Hyderabad State Forces, eventually holding the rank of General. His known military ranks were those of Major and Colonel-in-Chief from 1934 to 1937 (granted upon his elevation as Prince of Berar and Heir Apparent) and General from 1937 to 1970 in the Hyderabad State Forces. After his promotion as General, he was known as General His Highness Azam Jah, Walashan Sahebzada Nawab Mir Sir Himayat Ali Khan Siddiqui Bahadur, Prince of Berar, with a personal 9-gun salute. The rank of General was honorary and ceremonial, and the operational command of the Hyderabad State Forces rested with professional officers. The progression of Azam Jah’s rank from Major to General is well documented and shows that his military instruction included drill, cavalry traditions, leadership, and ceremonial duties. Azam Jah was also conferred British honours that included: GBE (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire), awarded in 1943 and GCIE (Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire), awarded in 1946. Azam Jah’s practical education was completed by observing his father’s administration and participating in ceremonial and state functions along with the latter.
After getting prepared in the traditions of court culture, military leadership and state protocol, it appeared that Azam Jah was well prepared for succession. So, the moot question of why Azam Jah, as the eldest son of the seventh Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan, did not succeed his father is both interesting and debatable. Many people belonging to Hyderabad feel that Azam Jah’s elder son, Mukarram Jah, was a more suitable successor. But let us analyse this question academically.
After the military action in September 1948 on Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan remained the titular Nizam, but his sovereign powers had ended. Once Hyderabad became a part of India, there was no longer an independent throne to inherit in the traditional sense of the term. Rather, the Government of India retained Mir Osman Ali Khan as the constitutional head (Rajpramukh from 1950-1956) and continued to recognize him as the former ruler entitled to a privy purse and personal privileges. Mir Osman Ali Khan continued to hold the title of Nizam until his death on 24th February 1967. Since he never abdicated his position and title, Azam Jah as his heir never got an opportunity to reign. Some contemporary memoirs, diplomatic reports, and later biographies describe him as less interested in administration than Mir Osman Ali Khan had hoped. Accounts portray him as enjoying courtly life and social pursuits more than statecraft, though these descriptions should be treated cautiously because they often reflect the opinions of British officials and contemporaries rather than being objective assessments.
Perhaps the most significant development occurred after Mir Osman Ali Khan died in 1967. Instead of recognizing Azam Jah as the eighth Nizam, the family recognized Azam Jah’s elder son, Mukarram Jah, as the symbolic head of the Asaf Jahi dynasty, as Mir Osman Ali Khan is reported to have expressed a preference for his grandson as the future head of the dynasty in 1954 that was also informed to the Government of India. The position of the Nizam was by then purely ceremonial without any administrative responsibilities since royal authority had already ended. In such a situation, it was not that there was any formal act of disinheriting Azam Jah from succession to the throne of Hyderabad; rather, since succession had become largely symbolic after 1948, the family’s recognition of Mukarram Jah after 1967 reflected an internal decision rather than the transfer of sovereign power.
The thin distinction of Mukarram Jah being designated as the symbolic eighth Nizam during the lifetime of his father, Azam Jah, does not point towards him rightfully earning the position but opens up a debate of propriety. Why should we forget that if Mir Osman Ali Khan designated Mukarram Jah as his future successor in 1954, then he had also appointed his young son Azam Jah as his official successor in 1911 itself? Azam Jah was also given the title Wali Ahad by his father, later adapted to Walashan. Not many would know that just a couple of years earlier, Mir Osman Ali Khan was officially promoting Azam Jah as the President of the Board of Trustees and as Head of the family if he ceased to exist. This critical evidence is based on primary sources of some of the Trust Deeds executed by the Nizam from 1950 to 1952.
HEH the Nizam’s Miscellaneous Trust executed on 6th August 1950, HEH The Nizam’s Religious Endowments Trust made at Hyderabad on 14th September 1950, HEH The Nizam’s Sacred Relics Trust made at Hyderabad in November 1950, the Bibi ka Alam and Koh-e-Maula Trust, the Aza Khane Zohra Trust both made at Hyderabad on 29th March, 1951, HEH The Nizams Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust made at Hyderabad on 27th January 1952 between His Exalted Highness Nawab Mir Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, The Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar as the Settlor (an expression deemed to include his heirs, executors and administrators) of the One Part and His Exalted Highness Nawab Mir Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, The Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar, Nawab Zain Yar Jung Bahadur of Hyderabad and Shavax Ardeshir Lal of Delhi hereinafter called the Trustees.
All these Trust Deeds stated that so long as the Settlor continues to be a Trustee of these presents he shall be the President of the Board of Trustees and upon his ceasing to be a Trustee of these presents for any reason whatsoever Walashan Prince Azam Jah Bahadur, the eldest son of the Settlor, shall become the President of the Board of Trustees of these presents, and shall for such purpose be appointed a Trustee thereof in the place of the Settlor. And provided that if the said Walashan Prince Azam Jah Bahadur shall not survive the Settlor, then on the death of the Settlor the remaining Trustees shall appoint the Nizam for the time being as a Trustee of these presents.
Another Trust Deed of the HEH The Nizams Family Trust, executed on 10th May 1950, also has a clause that states if Walashan Prince Azam Jah Bahadur, the eldest son of the Settlor, succeeds as the Nizam of Hyderabad and becomes the Head of the Family, then Shavax Ardeshir Lal of Delhi shall become the President of the Board of Trustees.
After examining these confidential Trust Deeds, it may be inferred that Mir Osman Ali Khan contemplated the continuation of the Asaf Jahi family as a private dynastic institution after the abolition of the Hyderabad State. Azam Jah’s assumption of the position as Head of the Asaf Jahi family following the death of Mir Osman Ali Khan occurred in circumstances where the princely state of Hyderabad had ceased to exist, and the office of the Nizam no longer possessed constitutional recognition. His succession to the headship of the family nevertheless indicates that the traditional principles of seniority and primogeniture continued to carry considerable weight within the internal affairs of the Asaf Jahis. This may therefore be regarded as an indication that the seventh Nizam did not entirely repudiate Azam Jah’s status as the senior male member of the family. At the same time, this circumstance is insufficient to establish that Mir Osman Ali Khan intended Azam Jah to succeed specifically as the titular Nizam.
Thus, these Trust Deeds invite an understanding of the relationship between private family headship, dynastic continuity, and the question of succession. They therefore raise significant questions that historians and scholars must be willing to examine with an open mind and in light of the available evidence.
| | 
