Pic 1: Syajirao III, Maharaja of Baroda (1875-1939)
Pic 2: Fateh Singh, Maharana of Udaipur (Mewar) (1884-1930)
Pic 3: Shahaji II, Maharaja of Kolhapur (1894-1922)
Pic 4: Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV, Maharaja of Mysore (1894-1940)
Today is a National Day in India, when it celebrates its constitution. As Indians reflect, my contribution will be to talk about two Indian monarchs from a critical period in Indian history - the ferment of nationalism and the independence movement - whose subtle acts of defiance made an unquestionable if unrecognised and under-appreciated contribution.
The relationship between the British Raj, the princely states and the independence movement is complex and misunderstood. Contemporary accounts of many princely rulers from all sides were not always flattering, although we as monarchists tend to dissent from that. It must be properly understood that India, having been ruled by a succession of empires - Muslim empires including the Mughals, the Hindu Marathas and finally by the British - followed a certain precedent in allowing native states to rule themselves while accepting subordinate status, or subsidiary alliance.
The Delhi Durbar was the supreme exemplification of this alliance. In 1911, when George V visited India, the princely rulers were expected to bow three times and be dressed in full splendid regalia. But there was more than one exception to the rule.
Sayajirao Gaekwad III (1863-1939) was the ruler of the Maratha princely state of Baroda, today in Gujarat, from 1875 until 1939. His reign was one of the most progressive and enlightened in all of colonial era India. Under him, education and infrastructure made such strides well in advance of much of British-ruled India, a legacy that benefits Gujarat to this day. Most important of all was his commitment to improving the status of the lower castes and the Dalits or "untouchables", and to that extent he sponsored the education of BR Ambedkar, the civil rights leader of the Dalits and one of the authors of India's constitution.
Sayajirao was dressed as plainly as possible for a kind, and simply chose to make a single perfunctory bow and walked away in what was widely seen as a sign of disrespect. To many it was a defiance of a stereotype of princely rulers as subservient stooges and agents of the British colonial regime in India, and an indication of his displeasure at his subordinate status. It was perhaps consistent with his Maratha heritage, for his illustrious predecessors had fought to free India from Mughal dominance as well as establish social justice consistent with Hindu beliefs. His sympathies lay with the Independence Movement, and Baroda was widely held up as a model state for an independent India.
Neither was he the only progressive ruler in India. His fellow Maratha ruler Shahaji II (1874-1922), the Chhatrapati or maharaja of Kolhapur, one of the two successor lines of the great Shivaji, reigned from 1894 until 1922. Like Sayajirao, he made enormous progress in improving the lives of the lower caste populations in his states including Dalits, making him a hero to many. Yet the motives for this movement to uplift lower castes had a dimension related to the independence struggle. Much of India's elite, including the independence movement, was dominated by northern Brahmins. This remains the case today. Even when princely states were normally ruled by the Kshatriya caste, the civil administration of the states were predominantly Brahmin. There was a widespread movement to break the stranglehold of Brahmins on politics, including the independence movement.
In South India, where anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindi feeling was and remains quite acute, there were such princely states as Mysore and Travancore which became shining lights for pre-independence India, such that they became widely admired by pro-independence activists. The Maharaja of Mysore, Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV (1884-1940) who reigned from 1894 and came of age in 1902, was one of the outstanding rulers of the era. His efforts in education, health care and infrastructure advanced Mysore to the point that it was widely hailed one of the best-run states on the world, such that Mahatma Gandhi referred to him as Rajarishi or "saintly king". The legacies bequeathed by these kingdoms has resulted in Kerala and Travancore becoming two of the most advanced states of India in education and Bangalore as the IT hub of India.
Yet at the other extreme there were princely rulers who were more conforming to stereotype such that they made, in the eyes of Western and Indian critics, even monarchies like Tsarist Russia seem like paragons of liberalism and progress in comparison. Again, even if this may have been the case well into the 20th Century which of itself shapes the politics of those regions even now, that's not something we're entirely uncomfortable with either.
But of those type, there was none more mystifying and magnificent than Fateh Singh (1849-1930), the Maharana of Udaipur (or Mewar) in Rajasthan. Mewar is one of the oldest of Hindu kingdoms in India. The Sisodia Rajputs are considered the most senior of all Rajput clans, among the "Solar" Rajput clans. Where Rajput dynasties had come to rule much of central and northern India before the Islamic conquests, it was Mewar which eventually emerged as the preeminent Hindu state in the north and which alone became a consistent bastion of resistance to Islamic rule of India. This was typified by Rana Sanga (Sanagram Singh) who fought against the Mughals, and Maharana Pratap Singh who became one of India's greatest heroes by fighting against Akbar.
The Maharanas of Mewar were referred to as Hindupat (head of Hindus) and never quite gave up their imperial ambitions, but were weakened with the rise of Shivaji and the Marathas, who subjugated the other Hindu states. Following from this, Mewar and other Rajput kingdoms accepted a subsidiary alliance with Britain and sided with it during the 1857 Indian Mutiny. But on part of the rulers of Mewar/Udaipur, it was clearly not an alliance they embraced with enthusiasm.
Fateh Singh was as reactionary and traditionalist as a Hindu ruler could be, such that he was hailed as one of the last great kings of the old school in India. While he appeared relatively austere, pious and dignified, it was because of his immense pride in his heritage that he was fiercely independent, resisting British influences in his kingdom (while making necessary concessions to modernity) and refusing to bow before them. He pointedly did not attend the ceremonies of Delhi Durbars of 1903 and 1911. This was because he was not given the highest salute (Udaipur was accorded 19 guns rather than 21), despite is undisputed seniority among Rajput states. He considered it beneath his dignity to bow before foreign rulers and thus refused to meet with George V in 1911 and the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) in 1921.
This is because he was keen to remind everyone that his family was the preeminent of royal families in the land, and that it would be insulting for him to bow to a foreign ruler. He desired no less than equal sovereign status. In 1921, he was forced to surrender most of his powers to his son Bhupal Singh who acceded the throne in 1930. It is even said that he considered Imperial honours to look "better on a horse than a king" and said that the most loyal service he rendered to Britain during World War I was that he "didn't take Delhi" (!), again echoing the feats of his predecessors. Thus the ancient kingdom's relationship with the Mughal, Maratha and British empires were difficult and complicated.
While Sayajirao III of Baroda and Fateh Singh of Udaipur (Mewar) were poles apart in their governance and worldview, they shared in common a desire for equal and independent status as rulers. Their acts of defiance of British paramountcy were carried with subtlety which was not widely appreciated then or now, but it was not unnoticed either. The relationship of both kings to the British Raj was one of mutual respect yet mutual distrust.
As a movement in India builds towards the idea of a Hindu Rashtra, as in Nepal, were a Hindu Emperor to be proposed there would not be a shortage of candidates with such worthy lineages.
Forum: Asia and Africa