No royal nostalgia, please!

Despite scions’ protestations, the age of kingdoms was not a pleasant one

Alok Tiwari

The scions of many erstwhile royal families were up in arms against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s remarks in an oped about some ‘pliant’ maharajas and nawabs that led to East India Company making a chokehold over our country. The article was not about role of those families but rather a warning about what happens when fair competition gives way to crony capitalism. The reference to royals in the opening paragraph of the article was in passing. Still, it rattled the descendants of the families enough to condemn the article as ignorant and insulting. Most of these former royals, mostly owing allegiance to BJP (no surprise there), called out the article as demeaning the role played by their families in upholding and their sacrifices in formation of modern unified India.

It is a bit rich that the BJP, whose leaders otherwise miss no opportunity to condemn the dynastic succession in Congress and ridicule Rahul as ‘yuvraj’ (prince), would stand by these princelings. Each of them is nothing if not a dynast and owes their position to only their family heritage. But that is politics for you. What concerns me is that their protestations, if not contested, may lead to some kind of nostalgia for an age of kings (or a rare queen). We are already heavily into rewriting of history to paint the past golden. But while doing so let us not lose sight of the modern day democratic political system that has empowered the common people like never before. Of course, things are not perfect but to think that they were far better in the days of some wise king would be a mistake.

We as people already carry too much baggage of these royal families. The fact that even seven decades after being a republic their descendants continue to use titles like raje, maharaj, nawab, chhatrapati etc. without facing public criticism means we accept they are not ordinary citizens. Several of these families have turned to politics and continued to rule albeit after joining the democratic system. No complaints about it, everyone has a right to seek people’s mandate. It is concerning though that their lineage gives them a head start in many constituencies, and we do not hold them to account quite in the same way as we would other politicians.

I am not a historian so I would refrain from making any sweeping generalization. I also know that some rulers may have genuinely had welfare of their people at heart. However, what is undisputed is that royal families of modern-day India were under British tutelage for nearly a hundred years before India gained independence. There were over 550 of them. While a handful might have aided some freedom fighter or an organization here or there, most of them took no part trying to oust the British. In fact, many of them considered the freedom of modern India with some trepidation as they feared, rightly, that their position would not be tenable in a democratic country. The resistance Sardar Patel encountered in getting many of them to surrender even their token sovereignty speaks for itself.

For a group that remained silent witness to and beneficiary of, if not an active collaborator in, British project of pillaging India economically to now claim to be upholders of culture and having made sacrifices is amusing. Such was their sacrifice that even after independence they still ended up with huge palaces, many of them today stand as luxe hotels, other estates and handsome privy purses (until Indira Gandhi ended them in 1971). Even before the British established their supremacy, dozens of royals collaborated with them against their local adversary. This record of collaboration extends not just to British period but much earlier with other invaders too. Before 1857, if some resisted an invading force it was more to save their own kingdoms rather than to establish anything akin to what we know as India today.

History apart, let us be clear eyed about what living in kingdom meant for common people. Yes, many of them were great patrons of art and built fabulous temples, mosques, palaces, cenotaphs, tombs, and mausoleums that we today value as grand pieces of architecture.  Some may have been benign and generous towards common people too. But I know of no sovereign who actually let go of their power in favour of rule of law. Nobody established a written constitution that limited the powers of their government and enshrined rights of the common people. Nobody established an independent judiciary to which a citizen could approach with a plaint against the ruler himself. Certainly, no king submitted himself to an election to determine if he could continue in office.

No kingdom of the past provided the rights we have today and the rule of law we enjoy (however imperfectly). The British were the first to bring them in. Even if the British were less than honest in their implementation, they sowed the seeds of a modern democratic state. Today, a prime minister may unleash his agencies upon a political opponent, but that opponent can also hope to get some protection from a court. Earlier, a critic could live only on the mercy of the ruler.

I remain wary of attempts to whitewash the past and downplay the inequities and miseries of the bygone age. We should know about our history and the great empires that existed on this land, but we should not fail to ask what the position of common people under them was. Did they enjoy any rights, have access to justice, have freedom of movement, expression, faith, and business? We may often be exasperated by our messy democracy, but it would be a mistake to get nostalgic about some royal age gone by. That age was one of exploitation of the poor and aggrandizement of the ruler. We are better to be rid of it.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Nov 13, 2024