10 ms·

Jaipur’s Last Stand

100 points by lermontov 5y ago

nobrains 5y ago
The nickname "Ayesha" is not mentioned once in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Devi 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."
- db1234 5y ago
  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/story/maharani-gayatri-devi-rajmata-jaipur-978697-2017-05-23 https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs...
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    You should have finished the story. The Prophet Mohammed married Ayesha at 6 yo and had sex with her at 9 yo. We know this is true because the Koran says so, and also mentions her dolls. Wait, it gets better. Since the Prophet was the "perfect man" and Muslim men emulate him, in Islamic Republics you can still marry (or kidnap and marry) 6 yo girls and have sex with them. Any attempt to ban that is, of course, blasphemy against Islam, and results in riots to this day. An attempt is being to whitewash online Korans to hide this and other less savory practices from the public. The Muslim world is aware that the Koran is full of horrible things, but are fine with that as long as people can't link to it directly. Ironically, since the Koran is the "perfect word of God" and "easy for anybody to understand", altering online versions is also blasphemy. :)
baybal2 5y ago
How it all ended for princely families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_lapse 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-that-are-struggling-today/ https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/indian-royal-families...
- tinuviel 5y ago
  > 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/survivor-of-razakars-brutality-reminisces/article5126155.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/surviv...
  - notsureaboutpg 5y ago
    Many of the princely states committed crimes like this at various points in history. The Rajasthani princes retained their wealth by converting their princely estates into hotels / resorts, or diversifying their incomes, as they saw the end of government assistance coming. The South Indian princes did not do the same, imo, though there may be many other factors at play, I believe this is the largest one.
- hellol-amda 5y ago
  May be because they were closer to delhi.
vishnugupta 5y ago
Fascinating 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.
- jangid 5y ago
  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.
  - pranavdotexe 5y ago
    I think in every case around the world except North America, borders are associated with centuries of history. Since today's North American's aren't native - the borders weren't necessarily meant to follow any historical significance. This might be the reason of straight demarcations.
  - chakkepolja 5y ago
    Indian states are often based on linguistic divisions.
- thedravidian 5y ago
  > 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.
truth_ 5y ago
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 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).
- nondravidian 5y ago
  1. They were gotten rid off long before Indira Gandhi came anywhere close to power. What she did do, was legislate the abolition of privy purses. These were part of the agreement that the GoI had with the princes at the time of accession. Indira violated that contract, because she was in power. Her primary sins: 1. Emergency 2. Nationalization of banks, and other leftist causes. 3. Abolition of privy purses.
  - e3bc54b2 5y ago
    Hah. When I read about those privy purses I think about the startups dumping venture capital. The GoI poured money on royals when they were entering 'the market' (governance), and when they had a strong market standing, they pulled a bait and switch, and raised prices (stopped giving out massive discounts, a.la. Uber, WeWork). Not that I'm complaining, 9/10 royals where horrible people completely disconnected from the general population. Good riddance.
newyankee 5y ago
The 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
- pritambaral 5y ago
  The Gandhi dynasty is not descended from the M.K "Mahatma" Gandhi who fought for independence. It is descended from Nehru though, through Indira Gandhi (née Nehru).
  - girishso 5y ago
    Nehru did fight for independence though.
    - forcry 5y ago
      An interview with Nehru. Not to prove anything.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      By "the ... Gandi who did X" I meant, "as opposed to the other Gandhis who didn't X".
      - girishso 5y ago
        But you did agree Nehru fought for the independence, who's these current Gandhis are direct descendants.
        pritambaral 5y ago
        I said nothing on the matter. Neither for nor against. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
- tsjq 5y ago
user-the-name 5y ago
What a ridiculous article. Nothing but fawning over aristocracy. Borderline misogynistic too with quotes like "Indira could not stomach a woman more good-looking than herself and insulted her in Parliament".
- antihero 5y ago
  It's also odd that there's another comment critiquing the article, but it is marked as dead?!
- yunohn 5y ago
  I don’t have a judgement about the article, but I think you’ve clearly misread it? The quote is not by the author, rather as written - “As the writer Khushwant Singh eloquently observed”.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    "Eloquently observed" means the author enthusiastically agrees.
- truth_ 5y ago
  Yes, the article celebrates birth-based aristrocacy, and I absolutely cannot stomach it. But people do like that. Think of all the attention the British Royal family gets.
smohnot 5y ago
FYI: there is a forthcoming biopic on Gayatri Devi: https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/biopic-series-on-maharani-gayatri-devi-in-works-here-s-an-introduction-to-the-beautiful-rajmata-of-jaipur-101613804246309-amp.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/biopi...
known 5y ago
British stitched together 545+ Independent Kingdoms and created India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

100 points by lermontov 5y ago

The nickname "Ayesha" is not mentioned once in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Devi 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."

db1234 5y ago
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/story/maharani-gayatri-devi-rajmata-jaipur-978697-2017-05-23 https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs...
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  You should have finished the story. The Prophet Mohammed married Ayesha at 6 yo and had sex with her at 9 yo. We know this is true because the Koran says so, and also mentions her dolls. Wait, it gets better. Since the Prophet was the "perfect man" and Muslim men emulate him, in Islamic Republics you can still marry (or kidnap and marry) 6 yo girls and have sex with them. Any attempt to ban that is, of course, blasphemy against Islam, and results in riots to this day. An attempt is being to whitewash online Korans to hide this and other less savory practices from the public. The Muslim world is aware that the Koran is full of horrible things, but are fine with that as long as people can't link to it directly. Ironically, since the Koran is the "perfect word of God" and "easy for anybody to understand", altering online versions is also blasphemy. :)

baybal2 5y ago

How it all ended for princely families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_lapse 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-that-are-struggling-today/ https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/indian-royal-families...

tinuviel 5y ago
> 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/survivor-of-razakars-brutality-reminisces/article5126155.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/surviv...
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  Many of the princely states committed crimes like this at various points in history. The Rajasthani princes retained their wealth by converting their princely estates into hotels / resorts, or diversifying their incomes, as they saw the end of government assistance coming. The South Indian princes did not do the same, imo, though there may be many other factors at play, I believe this is the largest one.
hellol-amda 5y ago
May be because they were closer to delhi.

vishnugupta 5y ago

Fascinating 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.

jangid 5y ago
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.
- pranavdotexe 5y ago
  I think in every case around the world except North America, borders are associated with centuries of history. Since today's North American's aren't native - the borders weren't necessarily meant to follow any historical significance. This might be the reason of straight demarcations.
- chakkepolja 5y ago
  Indian states are often based on linguistic divisions.
thedravidian 5y ago
> 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.

truth_ 5y ago

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 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).

nondravidian 5y ago
1. They were gotten rid off long before Indira Gandhi came anywhere close to power. What she did do, was legislate the abolition of privy purses. These were part of the agreement that the GoI had with the princes at the time of accession. Indira violated that contract, because she was in power. Her primary sins: 1. Emergency 2. Nationalization of banks, and other leftist causes. 3. Abolition of privy purses.
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  Hah. When I read about those privy purses I think about the startups dumping venture capital. The GoI poured money on royals when they were entering 'the market' (governance), and when they had a strong market standing, they pulled a bait and switch, and raised prices (stopped giving out massive discounts, a.la. Uber, WeWork). Not that I'm complaining, 9/10 royals where horrible people completely disconnected from the general population. Good riddance.

newyankee 5y ago

The 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

pritambaral 5y ago
The Gandhi dynasty is not descended from the M.K "Mahatma" Gandhi who fought for independence. It is descended from Nehru though, through Indira Gandhi (née Nehru).
- girishso 5y ago
  Nehru did fight for independence though.
  - forcry 5y ago
    An interview with Nehru. Not to prove anything.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    By "the ... Gandi who did X" I meant, "as opposed to the other Gandhis who didn't X".
    - girishso 5y ago
      But you did agree Nehru fought for the independence, who's these current Gandhis are direct descendants.
      - pritambaral 5y ago
        I said nothing on the matter. Neither for nor against. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
tsjq 5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago

What a ridiculous article. Nothing but fawning over aristocracy. Borderline misogynistic too with quotes like "Indira could not stomach a woman more good-looking than herself and insulted her in Parliament".

antihero 5y ago
It's also odd that there's another comment critiquing the article, but it is marked as dead?!
yunohn 5y ago
I don’t have a judgement about the article, but I think you’ve clearly misread it? The quote is not by the author, rather as written - “As the writer Khushwant Singh eloquently observed”.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  "Eloquently observed" means the author enthusiastically agrees.
truth_ 5y ago
Yes, the article celebrates birth-based aristrocacy, and I absolutely cannot stomach it. But people do like that. Think of all the attention the British Royal family gets.

smohnot 5y ago

FYI: there is a forthcoming biopic on Gayatri Devi: https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/biopic-series-on-maharani-gayatri-devi-in-works-here-s-an-introduction-to-the-beautiful-rajmata-of-jaipur-101613804246309-amp.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/biopi...

known 5y ago

British stitched together 545+ Independent Kingdoms and created India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]