Indira 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…
But the royals weren't the goody-two-shoes as the article mentions. Most of them were so disconnected from the ground reality that it is hilarious to think they were capable of ruling anybody. The article mentions Jai's yearly visits to europe, in a time when half the country had barely enough to eat (this was before green or white revolution in the country). Gandhi's family was the from the same category, and I am glad none of them are in power anymore.
> Devi is not a last name
Agree..
> Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage.
We probably grew up in different parts of country, but I can definitely attest my grandmother having last name the same as my grandfather after marriage (her father's before getting married). I am almost certain that was the case with my great grandmothers too, but its a little hard to track it down to be 100% sure.
> often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).
This was also not the case from where I grew up. For at least 100 years this was not the case. There was ridiculous caste segregation, and other casteist nonsense all over, but the naming didn't really reflect like this. Often the ruling class had some fancy titles, that the peasants didn't have, but they also didn't have any marker like 'dasi'.