Gandhi’s comments came during a speech in which he discussed the historical impact of colonialism on India, focusing on how British rule affected the political and economic structures of the country. Referring to the erstwhile monarchs of various princely states, Gandhi argued that their power was diminished under the oppressive rule of the East India Company and later, the British Crown. He contended that these royals were often subjugated, manipulated, or made to serve the colonial rulers, which ultimately contributed to India’s impoverishment.
However, the descendants of the former royal families have sharply criticized Gandhi for what they perceive as a misguided and oversimplified view of history. They argue that his portrayal fails to acknowledge the significant contributions made by many princely states to the preservation of Indian culture, their role in resisting foreign invasions, and their enduring legacies in the fields of governance, architecture, and social welfare.
A prominent royal heir from Rajasthan, speaking on the condition of anonymity, emphasized that Gandhi’s comment was both inaccurate and disrespectful. “Rahul Gandhi is either ill-informed or deliberately distorting the truth,” the heir said. “Our ancestors were not merely pawns of the British; many of them were strong leaders who governed their territories with pride and autonomy. It is this very spirit of leadership that helped India’s struggle for independence, long before the national movement gained momentum.”
Several royal families have pointed to the important historical role their forefathers played in the Indian independence movement. For instance, the ruler of Gwalior, Maharaja Madhavrao Scindia, who was an influential figure in the early 20th century, had been involved in advocating for greater autonomy from British control. His support for various reform movements and contributions to India's modernization efforts were seen by many as a direct challenge to British imperialism.
While some of the larger, well-known royal families, like the Wadiyars of Mysore and the Nizam of Hyderabad, are remembered for their wealth and influence, many lesser-known royals have also left a mark in their respective regions. Their roles in providing education, developing infrastructure, and managing state resources are part of a more nuanced history that Gandhi’s comment appears to overlook.
“Rahul Gandhi’s selective amnesia is troubling,” remarked a royal from the Deccan region. “He chooses to ignore the fact that many of our families were also early proponents of social reform, educational institutions, and infrastructure projects in their states. His one-dimensional approach fails to recognize the diverse ways in which these royal families shaped India.”
The criticism also touches upon the issue of privileges. Gandhi’s remarks seemed to imply that these royal families were complicit in the destruction of India’s future under colonial rule. However, many descendants of these families contend that they had no choice but to adapt to the realities of British colonialism, often under pressure or threat. Several former princely states had been coerced into agreements with the British, leaving them with limited autonomy.
An heir from the former princely state of Travancore defended the legacy of their ancestors, saying, “Our family, like many others, was subjected to political pressures and forced to align with the colonial regime to protect the interests of the people. However, this did not make us collaborators. We provided for our subjects, fostered cultural exchanges, and ensured that the people in our regions lived well.”
Gandhi’s statement also raised questions about his own privileged background. Several royal descendants pointed out the irony in his remarks, given his familial ties to some of India’s political elites. “If Rahul Gandhi wants to talk about privilege, perhaps he should look at his own background. His family benefited immensely from their connections, yet he forgets this when speaking about others. It is easy to criticize when you have never experienced the hardships faced by ordinary people,” said a royal representative from Uttar Pradesh.
This episode has ignited a broader conversation about the legacy of India’s royal families, who have long been the subject of debate. For decades, these families have had to navigate the delicate balance between modernity and tradition. While their political power may have diminished after independence, many of them have worked to maintain their cultural and historical significance, often contributing to philanthropy and public service.