This persistent typecasting of erstwhile princely states not only disregards their diverse contributions to the nation, but also reveals the broader danger of allowing pop culture, politics, and prejudice to hijack historical truth

Social historian Philip Jordan sagely notes, “History is an aggregate of half-truths, semi-truths, fables, myths, rumours, prejudices, personal narratives, gossip and official prevarications”. This truism insists that the wider understanding of history is always subject to cherry-picking by those with the “monopoly of the narrative” to frame a certain narrative that they prefer.

Anyone (or any side) can be made to look like a saint or sinner, depending on who gets to define “history”. In a 5000-year-old civilisation given to many dark corridors of ravages and societal wounds, it is only natural that certain perceptions (not necessarily truths) have evolved.

These perceptions can be further preyed upon to stitch stereotypes — therefore care and sensitivity to avoid demonising any individual, community, or set of “types” is imperative. The Indian Constitution further articulated provisions that insisted on the equality of all without any form of discrimination.

Therefore, Article 14 on Equality of Law, Article 15 on Prohibition of Discrimination, Article 16 on Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment, Article 17 on Abolition of Untouchability, Article 18 on Abolition of Titles etc., all put the citizenry on equal footing with no allowance for any further disparagement of any.Sadly, from unhinged politicians, toxic clergy (from all religions), amoral media hawks, regional/ethnic supremacists, to even the entertainment honchos in the Film Industry, all partake in the stereotyping route to fructify their selfish objectives, without considering their impact on the larger society.

This insensitivity perpetuates dangerous and unfair stereotypes. The entertainment industry is rife with the image of fierce gun-wielding Thakurs, money-lending Mahajans, comical Sardars, heavily accented Gorkha watchmen et al. That these stereotypes denote real-time people from societal/ethnic/religious groupings who may or may not subscribe to such occupations or characterisation, is regrettably ignored.

Democracy is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways — at one end, it asserts the equalising push of constitutionality, and at the other end, it puts those in the “minority” (any stereotyped grouping) at the risk of ridicule, especially if such a group does not have the adequate numbers to fight back. For such a “minority” group, even the new-found “cancel-culture” is meaningless and inefficacious. Such an aggrieved group finds itself struggling to nuance a narrative that is so one-sidedly simplistic, and detrimental to its perceptions. One such group given to lazy generalisation, mockery, and derision, is the erstwhile “Royals”, representing the 565 odd Princely States (pre-independence) or their minor feudatories. The common perception about them still veers around being trapped in the past and living debauched and decadent lives.

Supposedly handlebar-moustached men of the group still drive around in open jeeps with the demure ladies with their heads covered in French Chiffon sarees and Basra pearls tinkering around, demurely! This wholly inadequate and reductive image harks back to the times of Life magazine published in 1947 which noted the Maharajas to have “11 titles, three uniforms, 5.8 wives, 12.6 children, five palaces, 9.2 elephants, and not less than 3.4 Rolls Royce cars”!

While the essential reality has evolved to far more egalitarian moorings, the stereotypes persist. That there is a new breed of overentitled and affluent ‘Maharajas’ (from the world of politics, industry captains and even entertainment czars) — yet the surname of most villains in films is still suffixed with “Singh”!

In a shocking portrayal of stereotyping a community, the 1992 film Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar featured two colleges representing contrasting social classes, values, and conduct: Rajput College and Model College. In it, a marauding lot from Rajput College go about intimidating others with war cries of “Veer Bahadur ladke kaun? Rajput, Rajput”, whereas the amiable “hero” of the film with ostensibly progressive moorings hails from Model College — willy-nilly implying the term “Rajput” as an exact opposite of “Model”!

It is hardly surprising that the members of erstwhile “Royalty” (again, mainly from “Rajput” stock) were recently incensed when yet another typecasting was done on a major OTT platform, tellingly titled “The Royals”. The pigeonholing of characters as debauched wastrels feeding on past glories was rote, tired, and oh so clichéd!

Somewhere the fact that many of these Royal families had also led perfectly noble, progressive, and sacrificing lives, was lost on so many — the fact that unlike in the “West” where many “Royals” were assassinated, put to guillotine, or simply hated, whereas many (certainly not all) in the Indian context were much loved, feted, and even remembered till date, was again obliterated from the public imagination.

So many of them had contributed to the freedom struggle or willingly acceded to contribute to the “Idea of India” during Independence and surrendered so many privileges in return for certain sovereign promises (which too were reneged with the Abolition of the Privy Purse, 1971) remains a forgotten footnote in the unseen annals of history. So many other members had gone on to distinguish themselves and uphold the majesty of India in the Armed Forces, Sports, Academics, and Politics as Statesmen etc., is forsaken for the compartmentalised description, and it rankles deep. This certainly doesn’t warrant vigilante justice, but the fact is that honourable, proud, and patriotic lot of people from the stock of past privileges need not be vilified (or deified) any more or less than any others. But then, such honesty and nuance do not sell entertainment.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lieutenant Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. Views are personal)