The Only Prince Left in India
You’re reading my newsletter, Terra Nullius, on the weird and interesting intricacies of the countries and places that make up our world. It currently goes out to over 1,000 people every week. You can subscribe here:
The tired trope of India that somehow still persists for those abroad is that of an exotic land filled with snake charmers, elephants and maharajas. The fact that India is now one of the world’s largest economies and a centre of tech innovation seems to have passed many people by.
But that does not mean it has lost all of its historical peculiarities. Snake charming was banned in 1972 but can still be found throughout the country, working of elephants has been heavily restricted but still occurs, and in 1971 the titles of all of India’s princes were all abolished, and yet one still exists.
I have been fascinated with this anomaly since some years ago I was in an Indian airport and saw a list of names at the door of a VIP lounge. It was the government lounge, and everyone entitled to use it was on this list, to be used in case of any dispute. It began in an expected way with the President and Prime Minister of India and made its way down to various Ministers and heads of Indian non-governmental bodies but one name stuck out at me: “His Highness the Prince of Arcot”. No one else on there seemed to be a royal or prince of any kind.
It’s worth pointing out that India has hundreds of titular royals, who ruled over large parts of the country for hundreds of years. Most were figures of religious or cultural importance as well as being secular leaders, and the foreign empires like the British and Mughals who conquered India retained many of the princes, giving them limited autonomy in return for support. At the independence of India from Britain, there were almost 600 princely rulers, covering almost 40% of the land that became India and Pakistan. Each varied massively in size from the largest states that were almost 100,000 square miles with millions of subjects down to the smallest kingdoms which often were no more than a few miles across.
A significant amount of effort was taken during the process of independence to integrate these princely states into the newly independent countries. Almost all of the rulers acceded quickly and peacefully in return for recognition of their symbolic status and titles by the new republics who also promised perpetual large annual payments to sweeten the deal. A handful of princely states were stubborn and were integrated by force, with issues as a result to this day, such as Jammu and Kashmir.
As a result, for the first few decades of independent India, there existed a class of royals recognised within the republic, with privileges and financial support not that different to what they received during the period of British rule. But in 1971 this came tumbling down.
The then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi amended the Indian Constitution to abolish all privileges and titles, along with any financial subsidies. She believed the whole system to be at odds with the secular socialist republic she was attempting to perfect. The move also had financial benefits: the large princely subsidies stopped being a drain on the Indian treasury while much of the royals’ gold and property were seized by the Government in the process. In 1972, Pakistan followed suit and similarly abolished its remaining princes’ titles.
So overnight the almost 600 Maharajas, Maharanas, Rajas, Nawabs, Khans and so on disappeared. Each His Highness became plain old Mr in the eyes of the Indian Government and those that still claim royal status are often met with government punishment. All except His Highness the Prince of Arcot.
Arcot is a town of about 150,000 on the road between Madras and Bangalore in what is now the state of Tamil Nadu. It was once the seat of a powerful Muslim dynasty that ruled as the Nawabs of the Carnatic from the 1690s until 1855. At their peak, they controlled much of the southeastern coast of India. By the early 19th Century the invasion of British and French imperial forces had removed much of the Carnatic’s power and they became heavily indebted to the colonial trading companies. In 1855, the 13th Nawab of Arcot died without children. The British, influenced by the East India Company, declared the kingdom had lapsed as a result and annexed it entirely. As a token compensation, Queen Victoria in 1870 gave the last Nawab’s uncle a pension and the title of “His Highness the Prince of Arcot” for him and his descendants in perpetuity. This was granted in a type of royal charter, known as letters patent.
As there was no land still to rule, the Princes of Arcot existed in a strange realm of being kings without a kingdom but with significant influence and prestige. The title continued to pass down through the original holder’s family and they built a large palace, Amir Mahal, in Madras that became a centre of culture instead of one of government.
But what became of the Prince of Arcot in 1971? The constitutional amendment deprecating princely titles was unambiguous, it abolished all privileges of those who had been rulers of states, but the Nawabs of Arcot had no state. It applied to rulers who had joined India in 1947, but the Nawabs of Arcot had done no such thing. Their title came from the letters patent issued a century beforehand by the British, a charter automatically inherited by the Republic of India at independence. As legal successors to the British Empire in India, many similar letters patent were taken on by the newly independent country in this way, but only one had granted someone the title of Prince.
There was not much that could be done. To abolish the Princes of Arcot would require an Act of the Indian Parliament to override the letters patent. So instead the Government did what they were forced to by the original document, and so the President of India recognised the Princes of Arcot. The policy continues to this day, confirmed by a presidential decree in 1994 and a court case in 2019.
As a result, if you consult the Government of India’s Warrant of Precedence you will find His Highness Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali, the current Prince of Arcot, nestled after the Governor of Tamil Nadu and before the state’s cabinet ministers. He inherited the title in 1993 and is entitled to a police escort, a state funeral upon death and various tax exemptions. He still hoists a royal standard above his home and has a grand letterhead with his princely coat of arms.
The Prince stays out of politics, but it is traditional for foreign diplomats and Indian government officials to pay courtesy calls on His Highness if visiting Tamil Nadu and the state’s Chief Minister is received for regular audiences. The pension agreed by the British is even still paid by the government in Delhi, although with inflation it’s only around £1,500 per year these days.
The present Prince of Arcot spends much of his time dedicated to cultural and religious causes and was asked by the Indian Government to lead the country’s Muslim pilgrims on Haj in 2019. Should you ever be passing through Tamil Nadu, it is worth stopping by the family’s palace as the Prince’s heir, Asif, is a keen quizmaster and regularly hosts quiz nights at the palace for local societies and dignitaries.
“I love being the Quiz Master,” Asif told a newspaper. “I learn myself from every question I ask. According to me, it is one of the finest ways to improve your general knowledge.”
Perhaps one question in the quiz might even be: “Can you name the only remaining Indian prince?”
If you’re enjoying this newsletter, please share it:
Very interesting article. Reminds me of Paul Scott’s novels about partition. The issue of the princely state at partition integral to the plot of the last of the quartet
A factual error in an otherwise fine article. It is true that Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu & Kashmir did not accede to India on August 47 (at the time of partition of India). However, he signed the formal letter of accession to India in October that year, when the new state of Pakistan tried to annex J&K by force.