The Maharajah’s decision, when it was communicated to the Maharani, was at once received as insulting and unbecoming. For one, his decision that the Rs 1 lakh was to be inclusive of her existing allowances was massively disappointing; as the Maharani sourly wrote to the Resident: ‘Surely the term one lakh in itself possesses no peculiarly pleasing sound unless it stands for its accepted value.’117 She pointed out that in Pudukkottai, which was a small neighbour of Travancore and an inferior in the precedence of princely states, the ex-Regent received in retirement half the allowance enjoyed in power. Her own standing as Regent of Travancore had been much higher than the former’s. Besides, she argued, ‘the receipt of any allowance less than Rs 1 lakh would be quite incompatible with the status of the ex-Regent of an important State like Travancore whose position the Government of India has declared to be on a higher footing than that of appointed Regents’.118 She expected the decision to be in keeping with ‘the spirit of Sir CP’s oral communication’, which had appeared more generous, rather than this present parsimonious interpretation.119
As for ceremonial honours, the Maharajah’s order was unclear. The Maharani was informed that only on her birthdays would the salute of seventeen guns be fired and not on other occasions. Besides, the order did not speak of questions such as her birthday ceremonials, her escort and so on, and she wanted ‘a statement in unambiguous terms showing in detail every item under honours and dignities’ she was to enjoy.120 From the present order it appeared to her that she was to have ‘none of the customary honours of the Ruler in ordinary times but all [of them]’ on her birthdays, a situation that would be ‘nothing short of a mockery’.121 Having expressed her protest in writing Sethu Lakshmi Bayi concluded:
… I am really much worried and unhappy at my future position not being settled even after all these months and would earnestly request you to kindly represent to the Government of India that I feel deeply distressed at the thought that for the faithful and unselfish discharge, under exceptional difficulties, of the onerous trust committed to my care the reward should be the kind of treatment that is being meted out to me.122
The Maharani also wrote to the Dewan, asking for clarifications and pointing out that the allowance proposed earlier was meant to be exclusive of existing receipts, unlike what was actually ordered, and that she ‘would strongly protest’ if the present decision were considered final.123 Mr Pritchard also was very disappointed by the Maharajah’s orders. He reminded the Government of India of a meeting the latter, Sir CP and the Junior Maharani had with the Viceroy prior to the investiture when it was agreed that Lord Willingdon ‘should be the final arbiter as to the nature of the honours and dignities to be enjoyed by the Senior Maharani’.124 Sir CP had also earlier promised to submit a memorandum with proposals for the Government of India’s consideration before passing final orders. None of this had been done and the Maharajah had directly issued unilateral instructions in breach of this understanding.
The Resident pointed out that the Maharani, who had at first asked for all her allowances and dignities to be continued in retirement, accepted Sir CP’s proposal for a more modest settlement not because she was satisfied by it ‘but simply because she wishes to do everything reasonably possible to avoid bickering and haggling’.125 Then, when Sir CP suggested the figure of Rs 1 lakh there was not ‘the faintest suggestion’ that this was to include existing allowances. This would mean that the Maharani would actually receive only Rs 46,000 a year as pension for her services, which was seriously below what was suitable and dignified.126 While he knew that in claiming Rs 2 lakh at the start Sethu Lakshmi Bayi was ‘preparing the ground for a compromise’, she could not reasonably be expected to accept anything less than Rs 1 lakh, and he could therefore understand why she was ‘incensed’ by the present decision.127 This order itself, Mr Pritchard felt, was ‘actuated by vindictiveness’ on the part of the Maharajah and his mother. Indeed, he asserted, ever since the termination of the Regency was announced, both had ‘gone out of their way to hurt Her Highness’ feelings and generally make her a lot unhappier’.128 This was all in contravention of the hopes expressed in the Viceroy’s message that the Maharajah would treat his aunt with dignity and honour in retirement.
Besides the question of the allowances, there were the items of honours such as strength of the outriders, escort, a permanent subhedar guard, etc., ‘which are of the highest importance in the maintenance of Her Highness’ dignity’. The Resident had already informed Sir CP about the urgent need to settle this as well.129 But in deciding this matter, excessive reliance could not be placed on precedents, for papers available were scarce and incomprehensive. The only records pertaining to the former Regent Rani Gowri Parvathi Bayi’s life in retirement were some orders to the state forces, which only showed that she was ‘accorded the highest honours on the occasion of her birthday’, including a twenty-one-gun salute.130 In view of this, Mr Pritchard felt that it was not ‘unreasonable to assume that in the matters of guards, escorts, etc. about which no documentary evidence is traceable, the ex-Regent was treated with equal generosity’.131 Now, however, the Maharajah was determined to stick to the letter of the old documents and provide honours only on birthdays, ignoring the Maharani on other occasions and treating her not only as any other member of the family, but also withdrawing from her the high position she ought to enjoy as head of the dynasty.
Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, in the meantime, further scaled down her expectations and expressed them more precisely. As Attingal Rani she enjoyed a jemadar escort and now ‘what I want is only the substitution of the subhedar for the jemadar and the addition of a fifer and drummer’.132 Similarly, as against the two mounted soldiers who escorted her as Attingal Rani, she wished to have four outriders and one NCO when she went out driving. She was similarly entitled to one NCO and three privates at Satelmond Palace as her official guard, and she now wanted the addition of three more privates to this number. As for her salute, these, in keeping with her position, were to be fired not only on her birthdays but also when she left and arrived at the capital, as they would be for the Maharajah and were for her for the past seven years. The number of peons she wished to have for her office was reduced to eight and she hoped to retain the police guard as before. As for personal staff, she was willing to forfeit this request. And on her birthdays, the Maharani wished the state forces to carry colours in honouring her, for her information was that existing records showed the last Regent as having enjoyed this.133 But on further perusal no such information was found in the records and hence she withdrew that stipulation too.134 This revised claim was, she noted, more than reasonable hoping that at long last the Maharajah would agree and take a final decision.
But the Maharajah was unrelenting and in the last week of May, Mr Pritchard expressed his regret to Sir CP that he had not agreed to provide Rs 1 lakh exclusive of existing allowances to the Maharani.135 Sir CP’s words in response were: ‘I will tell you what it is Colonel Pritchard. I could not get either of the parties to view the matter dispassionately.’136 By ‘either parties’ he meant the Junior Maharani and her son, and further stated that their ill feeling owed to their bad relations with the Valiya Koil Tampuran.137 Mr Pritchard argued that while Rama Varma might have given offence to the Maharajah and his mother, that was no reason to distress Sethu Lakshmi Bayi who had ruled with widely lauded dedication. He also asked Sir CP why the time-honoured process of going through the Government of India before passing final orders had been flouted, which question, however, the latter evaded.138 Sir CP insisted that he personally thought of Sethu Lakshmi Bayi as ‘a most estimable lady’ affirming that her claims were ‘by no means excessive’, then ascribing the delay to hangers-on and relations who were supposedly influencing the Maharajah against being generous towards his aunt.139
In any case, Mr Pritchard decided to meet the Maharajah personally. At first Chithira Tirunal attempted to ward him off, stating that he would express his views privately to the Viceroy.140 The Resi
dent then put his foot down and insisted that this would entail further delay. At first, he pointed out, the Maharajah evaded a decision claiming there was not enough time. But now ‘it could not be denied that it was not for the want of time that the question … remained unsettled’ after so many months.141 But the Maharajah made it clear that he had no intention of furnishing a proper memorandum with proposals that could then be sent to the Government of India, suggesting instead that Sir CP would write a private letter to the Viceroy explaining his views on the subject. This raised an objection from the Resident who explicitly stated that there was nothing ‘private’ about all this and that it was entirely official and had to be channelled through the Resident and not through Sir CP or any outside agents, no matter what their personal connections with Lord Willingdon.142
With regard to the substance of the settlement, the Maharajah made it clear he had no inclination to ‘go out of his way’ to give the Maharani ‘anything extra’ than what was proved to have been received by Rani Gowri Parvathi Bayi.143 The Resident once again asked the Maharajah to reconsider because there were only a few military orders extant and ‘it would not be just to refuse certain dignities and honours to the ex-Regent merely because papers a century old, if they ever existed, cannot be traced’.144 Chithira Tirunal then came to his principal objection against giving the Maharani such honours, for her demands, he claimed, showed that ‘she wanted to be on an equality with him’.145 When Mr Pritchard asked him to give one example of such a desire on her part, the Maharajah pointed out that a subhedar escort was the ruler’s privilege, which she wished to claim. The Resident responded that there was sufficient distinction, as his guard would carry colours and the Maharani’s would not and that he would have two fifers and drummers and she one each. Some more petty discussion in this vein entailed after which, surprisingly, the Maharajah informed Mr Pritchard that he had not actually so far seen any of the papers repeatedly submitted by Sethu Lakshmi Bayi regarding her claims.146 The interview, therefore, did not take the matter at all forward as the Maharajah was unacquainted with important aspects of the case, and had not found the time in all these months to even glance at her representations and appeals.
Mr Pritchard found Sir CP’s behaviour also quite distasteful, for he had consistently stated that ‘he was most sympathetically inclined towards Her Highness and that he was in favour of her being treated magnanimously’.147 And yet, there was this insistence to take a few existing military orders as a definite precedent and granting the Maharani a salute and other honours only on her birthdays, which had ‘nothing sympathetic or magnanimous about it’.148 By June, matters were still pending at the palace and the Resident realised that the Maharajah was not serious at all about fulfilling his duties towards his aunt. Papers regarding the Maharani’s claims were available with the Dewan, but the latter had not received any orders to forward them to the palace.149 Indeed, stated Mr Pritchard, ‘not a single reference’ had been made to the Dewan by the Maharajah in connection with the Maharani’s settlement, almost as if it were a non-issue for him.150 It was clear that the question was not being considered by officials but by influences in the palace. It was also seen as disrespectful of him towards the Viceroy, for five months previously in April he had assured the latter that the subject was receiving his full attention. From his attitude since then, however, ‘it would not appear that the Maharajah is troubling himself very much’.151 Mr Pritchard felt that it was time for some plain talking now, and to insist that the Maharajah settle the issue within a fixed period of time. Additionally, he informed the Government of India that
… Her Highness has been seriously ill for weeks and is really ill now. I am told, and I believe it, that she is fretting very much indeed on account of the delay in the settlement of her claims, and that if her anxieties were removed the slow progress she is now making might be accelerated. This is an additional reason why, in fairness to Her Highness, the case should be decided without further delay.152
Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, despite her illness, was constantly troubled by stress and angst about her future, which did not seem at all promising, given the open hostility of the Maharajah. Writing on 20 June to Mr Pritchard, she made her grievances against the Government of India’s acquiescence in Chithira Tirunal’s lack of sympathy known while also appealing for a speedy decision:
I am sorry that nothing has so far resulted from my writing to the Dewan about my allowance etc. in accordance with your suggestion. I hope that you will not now think that I am fretting myself without cause, seeing that over seven months have passed since the termination of the Regency. When first I requested a settlement of my post-Regency position the Government of India said that since the Regency was to terminate only in August 1932 they did not find it necessary to decide the question so far in advance. I reopened the question a year or two later and they said in reply to my representation that the matter would be decided at the time of the Investiture. Afterwards when the determinative of the Regency was decided upon before the time originally fixed for it, I requested you to have the question settled if possible before the end of the Regency. The Government of India’s order then was that they would be settled after the Maharajah was invested with powers. Now the Investiture has taken place and, as I have already stated, seven months have followed and yet there appears to be no early prospect of the settlement of my affairs. I dare say the matter is still pending with the Government of India. May I request you kindly to convey to the Government of India my sense of acute disappointment and humiliation at the matter still hanging fire and to pray for early orders. If a telegraphic message can be sent I shall be deeply obliged.153
But none of this worked and eventually the Maharajah’s personal connections with the Viceroy appear to have been more important than the Maharani’s record as Regent or official propriety in deciding these matters. And Lord Willingdon got away with praising Sethu Lakshmi Bayi but not backing those sentiments with material proof of his commitment. It was the middle of August before the Viceroy had a conversation with the Maharajah. The latter then informed him that the Maharani was entitled already to nearly Rs 1 lakh as Attingal Rani (not adding that only Rs 14,000 of this accrued to her personally and that the rest were religious and other costs), and so Lord Willingdon decided that a further allowance of Rs 75,000 would be a fair settlement. As for dignities and honours, he held the Maharajah’s ideas as ‘quite sound’ and preferred, ominously, to leave those aspects to be decided by him, ‘relying as I do on Your Highness’ sense of fairness and generosity’.154 Interestingly, at the end of the letter, the Viceroy stated that the matter was ‘a private and personal one’ between himself and the Maharajah and had been treated as confidential. Therefore, Chithira Tirunal was to formally write to the Resident and the Political Department for their official records to finalise matters.155 In other words, Lord Willingdon was corresponding behind the back of his own officers in discussing these issues with the Maharajah in private. In response Chithira Tirunal expressed his gratitude and how he was ‘fully conscious’ that he could ‘rely implicitly on the sympathy and kindness’ characterising Lord Willingdon’s dealings ‘with my house and me in particular’.156 Once again, it appears, the influence of Sir CP in providing the Maharajah private access to the Viceroy, circumventing official procedure, helped avoid unpleasantness with the Resident at the Maharani’s expense.
The final orders of the Maharajah issued the same day granted the Maharani Rs 75,000 a year exclusive of existing incomes but the allotment was ‘to include any sums that may be necessary for a Private Secretary and clerical staff in case Her Highness decides to employ such staff’.157 The Maharani was to continue with her jemadar escort, only that a fifer and drummer would be added to it ‘although ordinarily’, pointed out the Maharajah, ‘a jemadar escort does not include a fifer and drummer’.158 The mounted escort would be provided one NCO and the Maharani would receive a guard only at her official residence. Similarly, the firing of a seventeen-gun salut
e was to be confined to her birthdays ‘in accordance with precedents’, while four peons would be added to her existing staff.159 This, it was finally decided, was to be the settlement in retirement of Sethu Lakshmi Bayi after seven years of ruling Travancore.
It did not impress her much and writing in October from Nagercoil, where she was convalescing following treatment under her tuberculosis specialists, the Maharani pointed out sarcastically that the order still did not ‘appear to err on the side of excessive lucidity’ and would need many clarifications.160 She further stated:
Apparently the decision of His Highness as now communicated has received the blessings of the Government of India in which case I cannot help feeling that I have been badly let down by them. I am accepting the decision under strong protest and reserve to myself the right to request the Government of India to revise the present decision on more generous terms at any time in the future. The contrast between what is now offered to me and what was allowed undoubtedly on the Government of India’s advice to my ancestor in similar circumstances is painfully striking.161
Indeed it had been Col Morrison who had first suggested to the then Rajah in 1829 the provision to the ex-Regent of all honours in retirement also. But at that time relations between the Rajah and his aunt were very close and the former even referred to her as his mother, perhaps explaining his readiness to accord her the highest status possible.162 He is also described by a granddaughter of the Junior Maharani as a ‘grateful nephew’ who felt it necessary to bestow on his ‘decidedly deserving’ aunt all honours in retirement.163 Now, however, that was not the case as relations between the Junior Maharani and the Maharajah on the one hand and Sethu Lakshmi Bayi on the other were anything but cordial and the latter was perceived as not ‘decidedly deserving’. And this influenced the question of her settlement in a significant manner. But the Maharani was not alone in resenting the attitude of the Maharajah in all this. As Mr Pritchard ruefully wrote to the Government of India,
Ivory Throne Page 48