Indira Gandhi is being painted in a complete negative light here, and the Princes and Kings and Nawabs are being glorified here.
Let me disagree.
The Princes, Nawabs, and Kings were all chosen based on birth and birth only and they are flag bearers of a classist society with no chance of upwards mobility. They were proponents of a system which was deeply sexist and castiest.
I am very glad that they were gotten rid of.
About Gandhi, she is among the best and worst Prime Ministers of India. She is the only one who suspended democracy and started emergency rule, and was an autocrat. On the other hand she implemented a lot of policies that pulled many people out of poverty, helped the freedom fighters in Bangladesh to gain freedom from the Genocidal and mass-rapist regime of Pakistan. Sje fully deserves the criticism for being an autocrat.
And on a different note, it is weird seeing an Indian woman being referred as Devi. Devi is not a last name. Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage. Their last name became Devi which means "goddess", literally.
It is still used informally in formal conversations and media. So if an Indian woman is X Y, where X is the given name, and Y is the family name, the woman can be referred to as X Devi.
Just Devi makes no sense. Foreign writers writing about India should know these.
Also, the title Devi is often divisive and casteist, as often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).
Agree with most of what you said. Indira Gandhi was no saint and there were enough horror stories from her rein growing up that its ebossed on my brain.
But the royals weren't the goody-two-shoes as the article mentions. Most of them were so disconnected from the ground reality that it is hilarious to think they were capable of ruling anybody. The article mentions Jai's yearly visits to europe, in a time when half the country had barely enough to eat (this was before green or white revolution in the country). Gandhi's family was the from the same category, and I am glad none of them are in power anymore.
> Devi is not a last name
Agree..
> Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage.
We probably grew up in different parts of country, but I can definitely attest my grandmother having last name the same as my grandfather after marriage (her father's before getting married). I am almost certain that was the case with my great grandmothers too, but its a little hard to track it down to be 100% sure.
> often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).
This was also not the case from where I grew up. For at least 100 years this was not the case. There was ridiculous caste segregation, and other casteist nonsense all over, but the naming didn't really reflect like this. Often the ruling class had some fancy titles, that the peasants didn't have, but they also didn't have any marker like 'dasi'.
1. They were gotten rid off long before Indira Gandhi came anywhere close to power. What she did do, was legislate the abolition of privy purses. These were part of the agreement that the GoI had with the princes at the time of accession. Indira violated that contract, because she was in power.
Her primary sins:
1. Emergency
2. Nationalization of banks, and other leftist causes.
3. Abolition of privy purses.
Hah. When I read about those privy purses I think about the startups dumping venture capital.
The GoI poured money on royals when they were entering 'the market' (governance), and when they had a strong market standing, they pulled a bait and switch, and raised prices (stopped giving out massive discounts, a.la. Uber, WeWork).
Not that I'm complaining, 9/10 royals where horrible people completely disconnected from the general population. Good riddance.
Let me disagree.
The Princes, Nawabs, and Kings were all chosen based on birth and birth only and they are flag bearers of a classist society with no chance of upwards mobility. They were proponents of a system which was deeply sexist and castiest.
I am very glad that they were gotten rid of.
About Gandhi, she is among the best and worst Prime Ministers of India. She is the only one who suspended democracy and started emergency rule, and was an autocrat. On the other hand she implemented a lot of policies that pulled many people out of poverty, helped the freedom fighters in Bangladesh to gain freedom from the Genocidal and mass-rapist regime of Pakistan. Sje fully deserves the criticism for being an autocrat.
And on a different note, it is weird seeing an Indian woman being referred as Devi. Devi is not a last name. Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage. Their last name became Devi which means "goddess", literally.
It is still used informally in formal conversations and media. So if an Indian woman is X Y, where X is the given name, and Y is the family name, the woman can be referred to as X Devi.
Just Devi makes no sense. Foreign writers writing about India should know these.
Also, the title Devi is often divisive and casteist, as often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).