By now news broke out in Travancore of the Viceroy’s decision. Mr Pritchard anticipated that with most of the newspapers in the state being ‘out for sensation’, the Maharani ought to prepare to have her feelings ‘gravely hurt’ by the press.75 He was not let down and these newspapers, he wrote, made ‘little attempt at disguising the editors’ pleasure on account of the early termination of the present administration’.76 The Junior Maharani too was rejoicing. On her way back with her son she arranged all the way in Travancore addresses, receptions and celebrations.77 The capital was abuzz with talk about who the next Dewan would be, with the names of K.M. Panikkar, Sir V.T. Krishnamachari, and Sir CP standing out as most likely. There was general euphoria among the politicians in Trivandrum, their joy as much due to the termination of the Regency as it was about the investiture of their Maharajah. As for Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, she suffered a relapse of tuberculosis, which, doctors informed the Resident, was due to ‘worry owing to the unexpected curtailment of the Regency period’.78 Her thoughts at the time are glimpsed in a letter she wrote Mr Pritchard:
I feel grave misgivings about my future but my consciousness that all through the stressful period of the Regency I have done the exacting duties of my position according to my lights and that I have done nothing forgetting God or my conscience, will, I hope, make me endure with fortitude, the troubles the post-Regency period may hold in store for me.79
To assuage her concerns, which were natural, the Viceroy sent the Maharani as decided in Simla, his personal assurance that the early termination of the Regency had nothing to do with any faults found with her government but was determined by other factors entirely. On 18 August the Maharani received the Viceroy’s letter in which Lord Willingdon, after explaining how he found the Maharajah to be capable enough to take over the administration, wrote:
In coming to this decision I would assure Your Highness that I do not differ in any way from my predecessor’s opinion regarding the manner in which you as Regent have ruled the great State of Travancore during the minority period. The appreciation of the Government of India has already been given public expression by the conferment upon Your Highness of the Crown of India and all that I have seen and heard makes me realise with increasing force how richly Your Highness has deserved that high distinction. I have since my assumption of office learned nothing but good of Your Highness’ administration and all praise the admirable manner in which, under conditions of considerable difficulty, you have discharged your responsibilities on behalf of the minor Maharajah. In deciding therefore that he should receive his ruling powers in November, my one regret has been that this may cause some disappointment or inconvenience to Your Highness, since you had reason to suppose that your tenure of office would extend until August 1932. I am sure however that you will realise the weighty reasons underlying my decision and will believe me when I say that if I had felt it consistent with my conscience to postpone the date in your interest, I should in view of your great services to Travancore have been anxious to do it. I feel, however, that when a minor has become competent to assume the duties and responsibilities of his inheritance it is my bounden duty to invest him without further delay.80
As it happened, it had by now turned out that the Viceroy would not, after all, be able to personally install the Maharajah. The Second Round Table Conference in England was scheduled to commence in September and the Government of India were in constant touch with London on this account already; the Viceroy could barely go on tour at such a critical time.81 The decision about the Maharajah, however, remained and it would be up to Mr Pritchard to perform the ceremony in November, with a message from Lord Willingdon read out in public. The Viceroy also informed the Maharani personally of his regret at being unable to perform the investiture and hoped to visit Travancore ‘and renew my old time friendship with Your Highness’ at another date.82 For her part, the Maharani acted with decorum and, with her stiff upper lip, showed herself satisfied with the Viceroy’s letter. The following day she replied:
If I had any misgivings about the raison d’etre for revising a decision repeatedly affirmed by successive British representatives in Travancore, Your Excellency’s assurance that the revision was necessitated by the considerations stressed in Your Excellency’s letter and that it meant no reflection on me or my administration, has dispelled them. I am deeply gratified by the eloquent tribute Your Excellency has been pleased to pay to my work in the State and I am happy at the thought that I can go into retirement conscious that the Regency Administration has all along been well received by the Suzerain Government.83
The months passed quickly thereafter, and November arrived with frenzied haste. Aspects of the investiture durbar on 6 November had all been planned at the Kowdiar Palace, and were to be followed two days later by the Maharajah’s first birthday revelries as a monarch. But when the final draft of the programme was sent to Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, she felt unhappy on seeing that she was to be received at the function with a twenty-one-gun salute and other honours, but would depart with none, as though she were merely an ordinary member of the family, not a retiring ruler. The Maharajah, however, was firm and refused to permit the firing of a salute for the Maharani once she had resigned powers ‘even as a special courtesy for the occasion’.84 It appears she considered not participating in the durbar at all, but the Maharajah ‘expressed a wish that Her Highness should be present at the function so that he could take over the administration from her directly with her blessings’.85 Therefore, so as not to be called churlish in laying down the reins of state, she decided to waive her objections and to personally hand over power to the Maharajah. And as promised, at the installation durbar, a message from Lord Willingdon was read out before the assembly, in which high praise was reserved for Sethu Lakshmi Bayi.
Your Highness is fortunate in succeeding to the inheritance of a State which has been administered in a most statesmanlike fashion not only by your predecessors but also by Her Highness the Maharani Regent during your minority. The debt which Your Highness and the Travancore State owe to Her Highness the Maharani Regent is one which it is difficult for me to estimate or for Your Highness to repay, but I feel sure that you will leave nothing undone to maintain Her Highness’ dignity and welfare in retirement.86
With that, the Maharajah was proclaimed sovereign ruler with much fanfare and splendour, and Sethu Lakshmi Bayi ‘resigned her powers with great dignity’ and relinquished the Regency after ruling for a period of seven years.87 When she left the durbar, she found waiting for her an ordinary carriage, devoid of those marks of state that she had enjoyed for the last several years as ruler. As the guns boomed in the capital, celebrating the rise of a new monarch and the emergence of a new power centre, Sethu Lakshmi Bayi returned quietly to Satelmond Palace and collapsed into bed, unwell, with her heart full of unspoken resignation.
The eclipse Mr Pritchard forewarned had begun.
As Regent of Travancore, Sethu Lakshmi Bayi had enjoyed an unparalleled position in India, with more power than any other ruling Maharani. Though, in 1924, at her own installation durbar she was declared an appointed Regent, in the subsequent years the position was clarified and the Government of India accepted that as per matrilineal law, she had actually succeeded to power.88 She was not handicapped by a Council of Regency, despite persistent demands by detractors, and conducted the government in the manner of a Regnant Maharajah, also enjoying all marks of sovereignty within the state. That is why, when the decision was taken to invest the Junior Maharani’s son with ruling powers sooner than initially anticipated, she was asked to submit ‘in accordance with the State and family custom’ proposals for her future in retirement.89 Sethu Lakshmi Bayi had every reason to hope for an honourable settlement; after all the previous Regent in Travancore, Gowri Parvathi Bayi, who ruled from 1814 until 1829, received ‘all the honours appertaining to a reigning sovereign’ even in retirement,90 and at the time of her death some years later, ‘all the funeral ceremonies and other observance
s on the demise of a sovereign’ were duly performed.91
The most important ceremonial honour Sethu Lakshmi Bayi desired to have continued was the twenty-one-gun salute she enjoyed within the state. She also wished to have a personal nineteen-gun salute granted by the Government of India, were she ever to travel into British Indian territory or to another principality. The request by itself was not unprecedented, for in 1895 the Maharani Regent of Mysore had received this honour, and Sethu Lakshmi Bayi too expected the same in 1925.92 But by then the attitude of the Government of India regarding personal honours had changed significantly and the ‘tendency in modern times’ was strongly ‘in the direction of restricting all such honours’.93 The authorities viewed that indeed in Travancore the Maharani held a very unique position and was ‘a Regent in a more real sense than the Rani Regents [elsewhere] usually are’.94 But if such an honour were granted to her, there would be similar inevitable demands from others too, opening a can of worms Delhi preferred to avoid.95 So, in 1925, the decision was against the grant of a personal salute but the Government of India concluded that ‘when a suitable opportunity offers itself’ in the future, combined with her unique status, an exception from the rule could perhaps be justified.96 For the time being, since the Maharani was enjoying a full twenty-one-gun salute within the state and all the dignities of a sovereign, the authorities felt that the matter ought not to be pursued.97 She repeated her request in 1929, however, wanting also to discuss her retirement, but was again told that it was too early to negotiate these.98
So, in 1931, when the Maharani was finally asked for a proposal pertaining to her settlement, she repeated her request for a personal salute, and asked for the continuation of the local twenty-one-gun salute to her for life. As for allowances, she desired to continue receiving the Rs 2 lakh she had per annum for expenses as also the Rs 15,000 allotted for tours within the state. For ceremonial honours the Maharani requested continuation of her subhedar escort, with fifer, drummer and colours, besides a contingent of the Royal Body Guard of five outriders, including one non-commissioned officer (NCO), to act as her escort when she went out driving. At Satelmond Palace she expected the existing police guard to remain, as also the usual force of special constables that accompanied her when she toured the country. On her birthdays she desired the same ceremonials that she had been enjoying for the past seven years. As for her office, she wished to have a staff of one secretary, two clerks, one typist, and twenty peons, in addition to the peons she had as Attingal Rani. Finally, the Maharani wished the state to provide her a good limousine for her personal use and a cheaper car for the use of her entourage, with two drivers and two cleaners, all maintained at state expense.99
The Maharani was keen to have her settlement decided by the Government of India before the termination of the Regency owing to ‘fear that the Maharajah may not accord her just treatment’ and ‘by her uncertainty as to how far the Maharajah will be influenced by his mother’.100 While Mr Pritchard appreciated these fears, he did not deem it wise to settle the matter without consultations with the Maharajah, and suggested that the Government of India wait until after the investiture. The matter of the Maharani’s honours and allowances, he opined, were ‘exclusively the prerogative of the Ruler’ and the authorities could intervene only if the Maharajah failed to behave ‘wisely and justly’.101 In 1829 also, when the last Regency terminated, from the record of a conversation the then Resident Col Morrison had with the young Rajah, it appeared that it was up to the latter to decide the future of the ex-Regent; at that time Rani Gowri Parvathi Bayi was provided ‘through life the same honours and marks of respect to which she had been accustomed as Queen Regent’.102 From this it appeared that the present Maharani had a ‘substantial’ claim to existing privileges continued for life but the Government of India would have to see ‘the extent to which the Maharajah is prepared to go to satisfy Her Highness’ and could only ‘use their good offices’ in convincing him to provide a dignified settlement to Sethu Lakshmi Bayi.103
As for the request for a salute, Mr Pritchard was personally in favour of this owing to her exceptional status and position. Regarding her allowances, however, he was against the continuation of the existing sum of Rs 2,15,000 but pointed out that the Maharani would nevertheless require a ‘large annual allowance fixed on her for life’ because her financial position merely as Attingal Rani did not befit her status any more.104 In her capacity as senior female member of the family the Maharani received an average of Rs 40,000 per year from the Civil List, which, however, was ‘intended to be disbursed solely on religious and charitable purposes’.105 Then she enjoyed from the Sripadam Rs 54,000. Out of this, Sethu Lakshmi Bayi paid Rs 12,000 to the Junior Maharani, Rs 16,000 for costs of her establishment, and another Rs 12,000 towards religious charities. This left her a slim figure of only Rs 14,000 a year for her personal income, which was deemed too inadequate for a woman who was practically sovereign in a wealthy state for years.106 Mr Pritchard felt, thus, that if an aggregate pension of Rs 1 lakh were provided to the Maharani, she would be satisfied and ‘there would still be ample margin for savings’.107
The Government of India again declined the request for a personal salute but took note of the Resident’s views and agreed that the matter could be decided only after the Maharajah’s investiture. Accordingly, Mr Pritchard opened the topic with the latter promptly following his installation and birthday celebrations. There was some urgency in reaching a decision, it was felt, as the Maharani’s own birth anniversary was fast approaching and ceremonials on the occasion would depend on the Maharajah’s orders. To general shock, however, the Maharajah issued a notice that on the Maharani’s birthday she would be given the same honours and dignities that she had enjoyed before the Regency, when she was simply Attingal Rani.108 Sethu Lakshmi Bayi immediately protested and Mr Prichard had to himself approach the Maharajah and remind him that the last Regent had received a full twenty-one-gun salute on her birthdays, with all honours of sovereignty, which ought to be the precedent in the present case also. He also requested Sir CP to put together a formal note containing what exactly was proposed for the Maharani’s future, which he could then forward to the Government of India before final orders were issued on this subject.109
Sir CP, however, wrote to the Viceroy complaining that the Resident was being unnecessarily pushy in pressing the new Maharajah for an early decision on the matter, stating that
… His Highness is naturally anxious to go into the matter carefully in consultation with me having regard especially to H.E.’s statement [in the message at the investiture paying a tribute to the Maharani]. The solution that I propose to suggest is that His Highness should pass orders to the effect that he will shortly examine the question and decide on the honours and dignities due to the [ex-]Regent, the Junior Maharani and the other members of the family, but that, for this year pending such decision and without prejudice to it, the ex-Regent will get the same honours as last year (when she was actually Regent) except that she will get a salute of 2 guns less than the Maharajah.110
This was acceptable to the authorities and thus at the Maharani’s birthday she received, for what would be the last time in her life, all the dignities and honours due to a sovereign, minus two guns from the twenty-one-gun salute. But the tone of Sir CP’s letter was not propitious, for it seemed to suggest that the Maharajah viewed her as just one among other members of the family and not with any special consideration as ex-Regent who once held ruling powers herself, or as head of the royal house. In any case, in the months after her birthday, the new government as well as the Resident became busy due to a number of reasons, and it was February 1932 before Mr Pritchard spoke again to Sir CP about the pending matter. The latter responded that the promised memorandum was still not ready but offered a vague idea about what he would try to persuade the Maharajah to provide. This was that the Maharani be granted a seventeen-gun salute within the state, an allowance of Rs 1 lakh, and ‘that for the rest the pre
cedents in connexion with Rani Gowri Parvathi Bayi should be followed’.111 Mr Pritchard was agreeable to this and felt that Sethu Lakshmi Bayi, who was ‘getting very restive’ and was ‘anxious that the matter should be settled with the least possible delay’, would also accept it.112 Now that Sir CP knew what to propose, he could, it was imagined, move forward and finalize matters. But, for obvious reasons, the Resident suspected that ‘unless His Highness and Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer are pushed a bit they will still further delay the decision on the case’.113 Since the Maharajah was scheduled to go to Delhi soon, he suggested that the Viceroy too put pressure on him to settle the matter promptly.
On 3 March, Lord Willingdon wrote to the Maharajah asking him for a report on the Maharani’s settlement, insisting that it ought to be finalized without too much delay.114 The Maharajah duly replied stating that he himself was ‘quite anxious’ to settle the question and had instructed Sir CP to ‘go into the matter fully’ and acquaint the Viceroy with its progress when they met.115 This meeting took place eventually and Sir CP made the same suggestions as he had to Mr Pritchard. But on 1 April 1932 when the Maharajah issued orders, they appeared to Sethu Lakshmi Bayi as an absolute travesty:
Her Highness will receive an aggregate annual allowance of one lakh of rupees, the said sum being inclusive of the income from the properties, allowances and other emoluments set apart for the senior female member of my family. She will be entitled to the privileges and dignities as set out in the papers relating to the 1840 [sic] precedent … her Salute being fixed at 17 guns. It is to be remembered that this order deals only with the personal perquisites of Her Highness and does not deal with those of her children whose cases will be similar to those of other junior members of the family.116
Ivory Throne Page 47
