In 21^st century feeling pride in slavery

She could well have become the empress of India. But history chose to traverse a different course and Begum Sultana, married in the great family of Mughals, now lives in a slum in Forshore Road in Howrah with a monthly pension of Rs. 400.

This is how Mail Today introduced its story "Mughal daughter-in-law awaits hike in pension" on December 8 highlighting Sultana's plight. The story seems to have failed to attract much public attention and discussion.

Rs. 400 per month is too meager an income that should make an individual, forget about a family, make both ends meet in this era of high prices when prices of even daal have touched Rs. one hundred a kilogram. But Mrs. Sultana is not alone in this country. For company she crores of the country's population which cannot spend even Rs. 25 per month a day.

There is no gainsaying the fact that crores of men and women like Mrs. Sultana do deserve all the special efforts of the government to somehow make them earn so that they can afford two meals a day for their family. They deserve all our sympathy.

At the same time it is a matter of principle and honour too. Should a democratic government help an individual or family just because she has her lineage to a monarchical family? Not long ago, in 1971 the country then led by its illustrious Prime Minister late Mrs. Indira Gandhi took pride in breaking itself with the past legacy of feudalism. The more than five hundred, small and big princely States of the country had, in keeping with the spirit of freedom and democracy, voluntarily acceded into the Indian Union. They had surrendered to the government their vast riches in the shape of taxes they received from their subjects, the land and property they possessed. In lieu thereof, the Government of India had then sanctioned them privy purses to help them lead a decent life. But within 25 years, the then Indira Government found it inconsistent with our system of democracy and to make a break with the past of feudalism and monarchical administrations, not only did it bar them from officially prefixing their titles of Rajas, Maharajas and the like, but also discontinued the payment of privy purses  In the objects and reasons for the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India to give effect to this decision, the government stated: "The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Government have, therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of former Indian States. It is necessary for this purpose, apart from amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution, to insert a new article therein so as to terminate expressly the recognition already granted to such Rulers and to abolish privy purses and extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purses."

If privy purses were "incompatible with an egalitarian social order", how could it be so to grant a pension to a person like Mrs. Sultana who traces her lineage to Mughal rulers?

Last update : 20-12-2009 16:19

Keywords : Privy Purse to an Empress of India?, Amba Charan Vashishtha

Average user rating

   (0 vote)