New Delhi:
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s remarks at a rally in Madhya Pradesh yesterday, in which he said backward classes had no rights before Independence and only kings were powerful, has riled up BJP leaders from erstwhile royal families.
Union Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia and his cousin and BJP MP Dushyant Singh have hit out at the Leader of the Opposition, saying that his remarks show his ignorance of the contributions of erstwhile royal families.
Addressing the Jai Bapu, Jai Bhim, Jai Samvidhan rally in Madhya Pradesh’s Mhow yesterday, Mr Gandhi said, “Remember, before Independence and before the Constitution, the poor in this country had no rights, the Dalits had no rights, the backward classes had no rights, the tribals had no rights. Only rajas and maharajas had rights. The Independence brought rights. You got land and land rights.”
Mr Scindia, the Union Communications Minister and a member of the erstwhile royal family of Gwalior, responded sharply to Mr Gandhi’s remarks. “The remarks of Rahul Gandhi, who considers the Constitution his pocket diary, on the role of India’s royal families before Independence show his narrow mindset. In his hunger for power, he has forgotten that these royal families laid the foundation of equality in the country,” he said.
Mr Scindia said Baroda king Sayajirao Gaekwad helped Babasaheb Ambedkar financially so that he could pursue education. “Shahuji Maharaj provided 50 per cent reservation to backward classes in his administration in 1902, laying the foundation of social justice. Gwalior’s Madhav Maharaj I set up centres of education and jobs to empower backward classes,” he said.
Mr Scindia, who was earlier with the Congress and was among the leaders close to Mr Gandhi, said it was the Congress that gave birth to the tyrannical mindset that attacked the rights of Dalits and backward classes. “Rahul Gandhi, first study history, then give speeches,” he said.
Five-time MP Dushyant Singh, whose mother and BJP veteran Vasundhara Raje is Jyotiraditya Scindia’s aunt, said Mr Gandhi’s remarks are an example of his “reckless ‘hit-and-run’ politics, where he makes sweeping generalisations without understanding history”. “Claiming that royal families did nothing for the poor shows ignorance of the immense contributions made by leaders like Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur, who championed social reforms, and the Gaekwad family of Vadodara, who supported Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s education.
The Dholpur royals also played a crucial role in social and infrastructural development. Maharaj Rana Nihal Singh modernised the state’s administration, built hospitals, and developed essential public infrastructure like roads and railways, while his successor continued these progressive efforts,” said Mr Singh, a member of the Dholpur royal family.
“These families played pivotal roles in shaping India’s progress toward equality and justice. Dismissing their efforts not only disrespects their legacy but also exposes Rahul’s habit of making baseless comments for political mileage. Instead of undermining history, he should focus on substantive solutions to current issues,” he added.
Countering the royal charge, Congress leader Pawan Khera said good deeds by a handful of royals do not eclipse the majority’s bad deeds. Targeting Mr Scindia, he said if the Constitution was not amended, the Gwalior dynasty would still be drawing Rs 25 lakh tax-free from the Indian government, as they did till 1971.
In a swipe at Mr Scindia’s royal lineage, Mr Khera quoted Subhadra Kumari Chauhan’s poem, Khub Ladi Mardani Woh Toh Jhansi Wali Rani Thi, which remembers Queen Lakshmibai’s bravery during the First War of Independence in 1857. The lines recount that the ruler of the Scindia dynasty, who sided with the British during the 1857 revolt, had fled the capital.
Mr Scindia’s political rivals have often used the “traitor” jab against him by citing Gwalior ruler Jayakirao Scindia’s decision to side with the British during the 1857 revolt. This is, however, an oversimplification of history. The notion of a unified India did not exist during the 1857 revolt and princely states had their rivalries and interests to protect. Going to war against the British was sure to draw a brutal couunterstrike and the Scindias’ decision at the time should be seen through the prism of practical considerations instead of viewing it according to the binaries of patriotism or betrayal.