Sardar Patel and VP Menon were chosen as the masterminds behind roping in five hundred princely states, most of them in a state of shock and forced against their will into the Indian Union. The princes were given all manner of assurances from time to time in order to bring them into line, but unfortunately the goal posts changed frequently as it suited the Government. In return for merging their states into the Union of India the princes were promised that they would receive an annual privy purse according to the size of the state and its viability, and they would also have certain privileges granted to them. The Privy Purse was to be halved with each successive generation and therefore was self limiting: the so called privileges were in most part mere window dressing, primarily to assuage the ego of the princes.
Bikaner was the sixth largest princely state in India in 1947 and it was a nineteen gun salute viable state. My grandfather Maharaja Sadul Singh took the lead and signed the instrument of accession on behalf of Bikaner—the first prince to have done so. He was lauded by both Sardar Patel and also Lord Mountbatten for his vision and foresight during difficult times and steering his five-century-old state into modern India with a firm hand. The Privy Purse set for Bikaner was twenty lacs which immediately halved when my grandfather died in 1950. A solemn covenant had been entered into by the Government of India and the Indian princes: I am sure the Princes could not possibly have foreseen that some three decades later, all these solemn pledges and promises were to be torn up and cast aside yet again.
After Independence, many princes joined politics and many stood in the first Lok Sabha election held by newly independent India in 1952, one of whom was my father. Most of the princes stood as independent Members of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case maybe. Most were from the opposition parties, and the Swatantra party was popular among the princes in Rajasthan. So strong and binding were the ties of these feudal rulers with the former subjects of their state that they won with huge margins in each successive election.
This happened with routine regularity and must have irked Mrs. Indira Gandhi who took many of these victories as a personal affront, particularly in the cases of the Rajmatas of Jaipur and Gwalior, Gayatri Devi and Vijayraje Scindia—both highly respected ladies in their own right who commanded great respect and affection from the people in their respective constituencies. She finally decided to do something about it, and the best way was to clip the wings of the Indian Princes by depriving them of their Privy Purse and privileges. The process for the abolition of the privy purses and privileges of the princely states was set into motion. The fact that the Indian princes had given up huge tracts of land, rolling stock, various palaces and government buildings, both in their own states and in other parts of the country and merged viable armies into the Indian union without a single drop of blood being spilt, seemed of little consequence to Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
Some two decades later, the stage was set for another confrontation with the princes – once again led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In June 1967, Jagjivan Ram moved an official resolution on the Implementation of Congress Programmes and hidden somewhere in that rather large document was the resolution that read: ‘The privileges other than the privy purses enjoyed by ex-rulers are incongruous to the concept and practise of democracy. The AICC is of the view that the Government should examine it and take steps to remove them.’ The amendment was duly adopted by a vote of seventeen for and four against; Morarji Desai was one of the few who objected.
The princes constituted an organisation which became known as the Concorde of Princes. From time to time they gathered together to discuss the future course of action in respect of their privileges and privy purses being abolished. The Maharaja of Dhrangadhra, a gray- haired erudite and suave man was appointed the convenor. The Concorde was also a platform for social gatherings where they met and formally addressed themselves as ‘Your Highness’ which would have been extremely amusing under different circumstances, but turning to more serious issues which threatened their very existence, they shortly issued a statement in which they roundly condemned the proposal which would renege on the solemn agreements made between the Government of India and the princes at the time of merger in 1947.
In October 1967, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Gandhi gave permission to YB Chavan, the Home Minister, to initiate formal negotiations with the princes. The Maharaja of Baroda, Fateh Singh Rao, the Begum of Bhopal and the Maharaja of Dhrangadhra were appointed to meet with the Home Minister on behalf of the princes. As time went by, the princes realised that the Government was in no mood to negotiate favourable terms for the princes but wanted to bulldoze the abolition of the privy purses and privileges with full speed. To Mrs. Gandhi speed was of the essence in this matter and shortly after, on 18 May, the Home Minster introduced a three- clause bill called the 24thAmendment Bill, which simply sought the omission of Articles 29 and 362 and 366. D.R. Mankekar in his book, ‘Accession to Extinction’, wrote:
‘The concept of rulership with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes is incompatible with an egalitarian social order. The Government has therefore decided to terminate the Privy Purses and privileges of the rulers of the former Indian states.’
In September 1970 there began a two-day debate in Parliament on this subject, and quite naturally feelings were running high on both sides; I was keen to attend the debate and particularly to hear my father speak. Many of the speeches in favour of the abolition of the privy purses had no bearing in reality: there was very little understanding of what exactly the Privy Purse was being spent on. Speaker after speaker merely repeated the unrealistic stories of excess and lavish living by the princes which were, in fact in most part, far from the truth. My father spoke calmly of the pride that he felt in his father Maharaja Sadul Singh who had been the first prince to unhesitatingly stand up and sign the Instrument of Accession, thereby giving the lead to other princes to join in. The Union of India would not have been possible so easily, he said, had it not been for princes like him taking the lead.
In his speech, my father said: ‘There is much misunderstanding in the minds of the people as to how the privy purses of the rulers are utilised; this note is designed to convey the correct picture. While the ruler draws the Privy Purse in his personal name, the dependent members of the family and a large retinue are directly benefited from this. It is a fact that a ruler, for example drawing a Privy Purse of 10 lakhs would be on average, employing 600 to 700 people, counting permanent and temporary employees.
Charities are tied up with various traditions in the state and these are obligatory: some in the case with ceremonies like the Gangour procession, Dusshera and Holi, Diwali, Navratri in Rajasthan and many other places. In my personal case, ever since my election to Parliament since 1952, my entire income as a Parliament member has been given to poor students as scholarships and nearly 1200 poor students are studying on this scholarship alone each year. At the time of integration Bikaner State, although a desert state, handed over nearly a thousand miles of railways whose capital value would run to 30 to 40 crores; over a thousand miles of irrigated land, the Gang canal and an army of well-equipped people, besides cash amounting to Rs.4.5 crores to the government.
If the Congress made the correct approach, even the most reactionary of the former rulers would be able to come and shake hands with them. But if you shut the doors to them, then you are going to shut the doors of democracy; you will prove that your faith in democracy is skin deep and that you are paying lip service to democracy.’
The Lok Sabha adopted the Constitution Amendment Bill by three hundred and thirty six votes for and one hundred and fifty five against. To add to the tension, the electronic device used to count the votes failed at the last minute and thus a physical poll had to be conducted. Mrs. Gandhi, having won the first round, moved the Bill to Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament two days later. There the Bill was defeated by one third of a vote and failed to secure the two thirds majority
by around thirty three votes, much to the chagrin of the Government. The Prime Minster then stalked out of the House. Prepared for just such an eventuality it is said that Mrs. Gandhi had drafted a Presidential order de-recognising the rulers. India’s President at the time was VVGiri who signed the order, bringing down the curtain on the princes and their privy purses and privileges.
It was around this time that my father encountered an extremely irate Prime Minster in the gallery of Parliament and he asked her why she was treating the princes in this way. ‘We are loyal citizens of India who are prepared to lay down our lives for this country,’ he told her, and she turned on him and shook her finger in his face and said, ‘I will teach you all a lesson.’ It had become a personal issue with her. It was a dark period of time in the history of the Indian princes post-Independence and for that matter for Indian democracy. It was certainly a very odd way for the country to thank the very people who were responsible for giving up their states and powers to make an independent India a reality.
Shortly thereafter, 279 rulers, forty-two Jagirdars and Talukdars were sent letters by the Home Ministry, informing them of the fact that the President had decided to withdraw their recognition. Simultaneously, orders were sent to the state Governments to withdraw the special privileges hitherto enjoyed by the rulers such as police guards at their residences, exemption from municipal and local taxes, etc. The princes had no option other than to move to the Supreme Court challenging the presidential order. A number of princes, including the Maharana of Udaipur and the Maharaja of Gwalior among others, challenged the validity of the order made by the President of India under Article 366. The eminent lawyer Nani A Palkhiwala was appointed by them to represent them in the Supreme Court.
Nani Palkhiwala argued that if the Government of India broke their promises to the princes so easily then what would be the value of other agreements that they entered into with other parties such as foreign companies and investors. If this point was taken further then the investors of the companies could find themselves in dire straits, whereby they could not repatriate their funds out of the country or face other punitive action. After all, what did the word of the government really count for? In addition to this, the citizens of the country bought government bonds for purposes of investment in good faith, and the government agreed to redeem the same at a given date: what if they were then not to do so and cancel the same? On 4 September, 1970, the writ was complete and submitted to the Supreme Court in Delhi.
At the Supreme Court a seven-member bench of judges was constituted but an additional four judges were taken on later and this made up a panel of eleven judges in all. The petitioners claimed that the order was unconstitutional and ulata vires, mala fide and a fraud on the Constitution. It violated the fundamental rights to equality and property guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The order also infringed article 291, 362 and 366 of the Constitution, which governed the rights of rulers.
On 15 December, 1970, the Supreme Court struck down the President’s order de-recognising the princes and restored to them their privy purses and privileges. The majority judgement imposed a mandate on the union government to pay privy purses to the former rulers who had been ‘accorded Special privileges’ for historical reasons. The princes were of course, jubilant with the judgement as it was a triumph for democracy. My father, who attended court on the day of the judgement, was photographed on the steps of the Supreme Court with a big grin on his face. The photograph made it to the cover of every newspaper the next morning. We were all greatly relieved that the honour of the princes had been restored.
Mrs. Indira Gandhi was not a lady to be so easily thwarted. She had set out to achieve a task and that had to be completed, no matter what. She had the Supreme Court’s decision over ruled by introducing a Parliamentary legislation—this was to be the 26th Constitution Amendment—the validity of this was subsequently upheld.
Shortly after the abolition of the privy purses and privileges, the Chogyal of Sikkim and his American wife Queen Hope paid a state visit to India. My father was invited to a state banquet in their honour at the Rashtrapati Bhawan and ironically, found himself sitting between the Chogyal and Home Minister YB Chavan. At some point, Chavan leaned across and said to the Chogyal, ‘we have finished them off (the princes),’ at which point my father warned the Chogyal ‘Your Highness, be careful, it is our turn today and it may be your turn next. ‘His words were indeed prophetic as shortly thereafter in 1975 Sikkim was subsumed into India and the position of the Chogyal was abolished.
The abolition of the Privy Purse and privileges was indeed a body blow to the princely community; many of the smaller states suffered its devastating effects acutely. Every single Princely state had to make adjustments in the wake of this draconian act. In the case of Bikaner, the old Junagarh Fort and Lallgarh Palace were vested into Public Charitable Trusts, namely the Maharaja Rai Singh Trust and Maharaja Ganga Singh Trust, respectively. The Fort became a dedicated museum and in the case of our palace at Lallgarh, two wings—Sadul Niwas and Karni Niwas—were turned into a hotel to begin earning enough revenue to be able to maintain a property that was almost a hundred years old. These enormous buildings, some of them centuries old, required a huge amount of maintenance. Laxmi Niwas wing had remained closed after the demise of my grandmother in 1971: we were grateful that at least she as the senior- most in the family had been spared the pain of seeing the princes being de-recognised in such an arbitrary fashion, for it would have wounded her deeply.
There was no alternative but to reluctantly ask dozens of old faithful retainers to leave, since the funds that paid their salaries had vanished overnight. A number of thefts took place across the Bikaner properties. However, as the saying goes what does not kill you makes you stronger: the princes, over, time re-grouped themselves and began leading their lives again in a productive manner by turning their properties into hotels and museums, which in time became thriving enterprises, bringing in much need funds that made it possible to maintain these beautiful old buildings.
Stressful and exhausting as the Privy Purse issue had been, life had to go on as normal at home. I was a seventeen- year- old teenager at the time of the abolition of the Privy Purse and as far as my mother was concerned, it was time to start looking for a suitable match for me. It was not an easy matter to find the right husband for me, there is no doubt of that. Greatly influenced by Gloria Steinem who was the icon of our generation, I wanted to make my own independent choices about my future life and finding just the right kind of husband was an important factor. My mother was more concerned about finding a suitable boy for me than my father. My mother would get very irritated when my father suggested that I should marry one of the son’s of his golfing friends. ‘No’ she said, ‘It has to be a Rajput boy from a traditional family like ours.’ An inter-caste marriage as it is quaintly referred to, was definitely not on the cards as far as she was concerned. I think my father felt the same way but he used to like to shock my mother with some of his wild ideas from time to time and succeeded in doing so.
Various young men were examined from time to time and some found wanting. Those that survived the test were then probably rejected by me for not being handsome or intelligent enough; the few that passed muster with both my mother and me were shot down by my father who had a formula for how long such a marriage would last. There was a Maharaja from Himachal who shall remain nameless. On one particular holiday in London he spent quite some time with us, and most evenings we would end up at the Gaylords restaurant in Mortimer Street for dinner. The Maharaja joined us occasionally and was quite keen for his son to marry me. When my father was approached with this proposal he expostulated, ‘You will kill him off in three weeks!’ The alliance did not take place for other reasons, but prophetically he married someone else and then several years later suffered from a serious heart problem at a young age for which thankfully I cannot be held responsible!.
My requirements were of course endles
s and most of them impractical, but living in London was definitely high on the list. To find a suitable Rajput boy well-educated and living in London was in the 1970s a tall order. A young prince was quite keen on me, and we were related through marriage between the families. However his intentions being quite so serious came as a complete surprise to me during the time of the Munich Olympics when we youngsters spent a lot of time together. Before we left Munich he gave gifted me a Dunhill cigarette lighter and a heavy gold chain, and when my mother found out she was shocked and insisted that I return them which I did, and nothing further came of that.
It was logical, therefore for them to consider Maharaj Kumar Jagat Singh of Jaipur who was the fourth son of Maharaja Sawai Man Singhji of Jaipur and Maharani Gayatri Devi. He was about four years older than me and of course very dashing and handsome, having inherited the good looks of both his parents. We were both from the same sort of background and families. My father decided that using a trusted emissary in the matter was the correct and traditional way of going about it. Thakur Rawat Singh was the ideal person to carry out this delicate mission- he was a trusted member of staff of my grandfather and upon his demise had left Bikaner and gone to work for Maharaja Man Singh of Jaipur. He was summoned from Jaipur to broach the subject of a possible alliance to the Jaipur family.
Uncle Jai as Maharaja Sawai Man Singhji was referred, was keen on the match since so far there had been no marriages between Jaipur and Bikaner. Though, at one point of time there had been discreet overtures to marry the Maharaja’s daughter Princess Prem Kumari more commonly called Mickey Baisa to my father, but Maharaja Ganga Singh favoured the Dungarpur alliance instead. I recall my parents inviting both the Maharaja and Maharani Gayatri Devi to lunch at our Delhi residence and at some point of time I was asked to come in and wish them. They were both very sweet and charming and I was of course immensely shy and cannot recall a single word I might have said to them. Before matters could move forward, Maharaja Man Singhji died of a heart attack in 1970 while playing polo at Windsor. Matters came to a standstill thereafter as Rajmata Gayatri Devi first observed a period of mourning and thereafter was busy with her political career.
Palace of Clouds Page 28