"After a stalemate in negotiations between the Nizam and India, mass killing and rape of the Hindu population by Razakars, and wary of a hostile independent state in the centre of India, Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel decided to annex the state of Hyderabad."
Wow, good thing that genocidal Nizam was forcibly put down...
"After having received information that widespread communal violence against Muslims in reprisal for previous atrocities against Hindus,[17] Prime Minister Nehru sent congressman Pandit Sunderlal and a mixed-faith team to investigate. Reporting back the team estimated that between 27,000 and 40,000 civilians have died and that some members of the Indian army and police force participated in violent acts.[18]" I wouldn't call that a minor overreaction. My grandfather didn't leave Gulbarga in 1948 because he was sick of the climate.
The article also fails to mention that Nehru's agent to Hyderabad was the incredibly communal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Munshi
The backlash was said to have been in response to many years of intimidation and violence against Hindus by the Razakars."
It's clear we each have our biases, and this discussion could go on.
I only brought up the wikipedia article in the first place to show that violence against Muslims resulting from the annex of Hyderabad wasn't unprovoked. Both sides were wrong in some of their actions though.