By Sadiq Zafar for TwoCircles.net,
Today in contemporary India, a sizeable population of intellectuals is busy in discussing issues related to the princely states existing before the invasion of imperial forces in the 19th century. And the argument goes further to branding some as patriots and others as usurpers. So, what exactly are the parameters to judge in order to conclude any debate of such kind? We need to be a little logical in order to achieve any point where we can actually judge the role of any princely state as patriotic or unpatriotic.
If one princely state had a war with another, they used to attack the structures which were the symbols of power, religious attachments or socio-cultural importance and their demolitions were inevitably a prominent message to recognize the new power. So, in that case, states used to attack temples, mosques, forts and other epitomes of power. If Marathas or Rajputs or Travancore Army or Wadiyars fought a battle, they used to destruct the power symbols of their counterparts, the same way Mughals or Nawabs or Sultans fought battles with other princely states in order to expand the jurisdiction of their kingdom and it was never seen as a communal aggression to move against any princely state, it was just the quest of power and to increase the umbrella of geographical footprints under their control.
Now, analyzing the existing structures which would be the mitochondria of the then princely states, their conditions are self-explanatory as to what had happened to them when they stood against any superior power. Many of them are just the parts of text books, scrapped from the ground as if they never existed. And if we analyze the 1857 uprising against the East India Company and the later resistances against the British colonial power, it is very easy to conclude that which princely state stood against the imperialist supremacy and who was with the invaders, by just observing the existing conditions of their symbols of political, social and religious identity of that time.
A case study of two major political centers of the 19th century reveals much to think that what exactly had happened and where, while taking extreme cases from the western part and the gangetic plains, i.e., Rajputs and Nawabs, as the part of analysis. We can observe the extent of destruction faced by the princely state of Awadh under the rule of Nawabs, which is not just in the textbooks but also on the walls of the Residency of Nawabs in Lucknow.
With imprints of bombardments, altered religious and dismantled cultural centers and crumbling walls, every layer of plaster that falls from the surface of residency loudly narrates the story of invasion in which it stood tall against the imperial power. In contrast to these conditions we see structures of socio-religious importance and cultural identity in Rajasthan, the then princely state governed by Rajputs, as intact, stating a story in its own and a message for those who can read that where it stood, by the side of invaders or as a resistance to the foreign forces.
Now, if we literally want to brand any ruler as a patriot, let’s make it very simple, those who died fighting the British army or resisted against the British forces, who didn’t want any kind of invasion into the territory under their control, are the figures who should be respected without any ifs and buts because we remember the slogan inscribed on our hearts and brains, “Indians and Dogs, not allowed” and most heart wrenching the Bengal famine, our own holocaust caused by the British imperial power.
(Zafar Sadiq is the author of book Sustainable Development of Yamuna Floodplain, Delhi)