Jaipur’s Last Stand
historytoday.com
Jaipur’s Last Stand
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#2The nickname "Ayesha" is not mentioned once in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Devi
From the original article: "Ayesha and Jai, as they were known to their friends, soon became India’s ‘golden couple’, its answer to John and Jackie Kennedy or Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip."
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#3The nickname "Ayesha" is not mentioned once in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Devi From the original article: "Ayesha and Jai, as they were known to their friends, soon became India’s ‘golden couple’, its answer to John and Jackie Kennedy or Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip."
The story behind the name Ayesha:
"Gayatri Devi was more commonly known as Ayesha to her friends and family. According to her, her mother was reading a Rider Haggard's novel and decided that she would name her child Ayesha, after the protagonist. Some days after the birth of Gayatri Devi, an Islamic friend of Indira Devi, told her that Ayesha is a Muslim name. The name remained as a nickname since the family was already calling her Ayesha."
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs...
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#4How it all ended for princely families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_lapse . Ones which lasted until 1971, were de-recognised in years prior to the emergency.
Surprisingly, Jaipur princes managed to largely regain their wealth after being stripped of it, if not actually becoming more wealthier.
This is while even the main family line of Nizam of Hyderabad barely got enough money to live properly, and some of their relatives died in abject poverty.
The last direct descendant of Mughal line famously died as a bum (Mughals had no succession rules as such, but English forced primogeniture on them in their final years.)
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/indian-royal-families...
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#5How it all ended for princely families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_lapse . Ones which lasted until 1971, were de-recognised in years prior to the emergency. Surprisingly, Jaipur princes managed to largely regain their wealth after being stripped of it, if not actually becoming more wealthier. This is while even the main family line of Nizam of Hyderabad barely got enough money to live properly, and som…
> This is while even the main family line of Nizam of Hyderabad barely got enough money to live properly, and some of their relatives died in abject poverty.
The last of Mughals famously died as a bum.
They deserved it imho. Surprised the nizam wasn't prosecuted for his crimes against humanity.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/surviv...
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#6Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is.
Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc.,
India truly became a single political entity only after those hundreds or so kings were forced to abdicate their rule. I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India and not to some princely state.
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#7Indira Gandhi is being painted in a complete negative light here, and the Princes and Kings and Nawabs are being glorified here.
Let me disagree.
The Princes, Nawabs, and Kings were all chosen based on birth and birth only and they are flag bearers of a classist society with no chance of upwards mobility. They were proponents of a system which was deeply sexist and castiest.
I am very glad that they were gotten rid of.
About Gandhi, she is among the best and worst Prime Ministers of India. She is the only one who suspended democracy and started emergency rule, and was an autocrat. On the other hand she implemented a lot of policies that pulled many people out of poverty, helped the freedom fighters in Bangladesh to gain freedom from the Genocidal and mass-rapist regime of Pakistan. Sje fully deserves the criticism for being an autocrat.
And on a different note, it is weird seeing an Indian woman being referred as Devi. Devi is not a last name. Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage. Their last name became Devi which means "goddess", literally.
It is still used informally in formal conversations and media. So if an Indian woman is X Y, where X is the given name, and Y is the family name, the woman can be referred to as X Devi.
Just Devi makes no sense. Foreign writers writing about India should know these.
Also, the title Devi is often divisive and casteist, as often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#8Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…
True. And some states will still take another couple of generations. For example, no sense of Indian-ness was observed when killing Assam policemen by the fellow Indians on the other side fighting over state border.
I remember a discussion a couple of years ago. Why Indian states are not as straight cut as US states? The above incident is an example why it is not possible as yet here. I am not saying it is good or bad.
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#9The article claims that Nehru and Gandhi hated princely dynasties and ironically they themselves are now a political dynasty unwilling to share power with non family members
Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand
#10Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…
> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India
Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other than ourselves. Thank you.