The irony couldn’t have been greater, even by deliberate design. On a day to celebrate the Indian Constitution, Udaipur in Rajasthan was rocked by a clash over a ‘royal coronation’ and its related traditions in a country that has been a modern, democratic republic for the past 75 years.
Far from enhancing respect for constitutional norms or the democratic principles enshrined in the supreme document of post-independence India, the unseemly drama in Udaipur was reminiscent of royal intrigue, princely pettiness and medieval mindsets.
Royal clashes and property disputes in Udaipur, especially those connected with coronation rituals and access to heritage sites like the City Palace, highlight a basic dissonance between India’s democratic framework and lingering feudal traditions.
The Indian Constitution abolished princely states and royal privileges in the post-independence era and aimed for equality and justice. However, the Udaipur crisis reflects that remnants of monarchy persist in social domains and underlines how outdated feudal norms still hold sway in large segments of Indian society, creating tensions between tradition and modern constitutional ideals.
To fully understand the deeper issues involved, some familiarity with the broad contours of the dispute in Udaipur’s erstwhile royal family seems essential.
The current row erupted after Vishvaraj Singh, the son of Mahendra Singh Mewar who died a fortnight ago, was crowned as the 77th Maharana of Mewar on Monday. After the coronation, Vishvaraj, also a BJP MLA, tried to seek the blessings of family deities - the Dhooni Mata temple inside Udaipur City Palace and the Ekling Ji temple 50 km away. But as both temples are run by a trust, managed by his uncle Arvind Singh Mewar and his cousin Lakshya Raj Singh, he was denied entry.
The roots of the long-standing family feud lie in the battle for control and access to the City Palace and the properties under the Udaipur Palace Trust. The basic dispute dates back to 1984, when Bhagwat Singh, the last king who ruled the princely state of Mewar, made his younger son Arvind Singh the director of the trusts to manage royal properties, including temples, forts, and palaces. This decision effectively ousted and sidelined his elder son Mahendra Singh from the Udaipur royal properties.
This simmering dispute reached a boiling point and turned violent after Vishvaraj was denied entry into the City Palace to perform rituals at the Dhuni Mata Temple.
The situation soon escalated and led to clashes on Monday night, with loyalists of both sides of the former royal family pelting stones. As the confrontation left three people injured, an air of grave tension prevails in the area and among the battling factions of the erstwhile princely family.
Beyond the family feud and the legal dispute over control of royal properties that’s been raging for decades, the ugly fracas signify the persistence of feudal norms that stand in stark contrast to India's commitment to democracy.
In a video of the event, a descendant of a former noble family of Mewar slashes his finger on a sword and applies the blood as a ‘Raj Tilak’ on Vishvaraj Singh’s forehead. As priests chant Vedic mantras, even a 21-gun salute is given to the newly-enthroned ‘Maharana’ in a ceremony that seems hardly suitable for a modern democracy. The grand coronation and its rituals hardly seem in sync with India’s Constitution and its aims of promoting equality and justice among all citizens.
What makes the ceremony more curious and questionable is that Vishvaraj Singh and his wife, Mahima Kumari, both hold public office as MLA and MP respectively. Having taken oaths on the Constitution of India, which defines the country as a democratic republic, they are expected to eschew feudal traditions like coronations or rituals rooted in monarchy. Despite being elected representatives, they seem keen to be viewed as ‘royalty’ by their supporters which seems to mix democratic governance with monarchical traditions.
In that sense, by sailing on both boats, the political couple of Mewar verily represents a paradox that subverts the cherished constitutional values they have sworn to practice and strengthen!
While the royal fracas in many ways seem as unseemly as a street brawl, both factions are defending their positions in modern lingo and sophisticated legalese. Arvind Singh Mewar and his son Lakshya Raj Singh who control the Udaipur City Palace, and prevented Vishvaraj Singh from entering the palace premises, justify their actions as a bid to prevent trespass on private property.
Besides accusing Vishvaraj of ‘misusing his political power’, Lakshyaraj argues that “endangering the lives of people” in the name of rituals was “not appropriate”. However, Lakshyaraj does not question or challenge the relevance of feudalism or monarchy in contemporary India. His opposition primarily rests on the idea of private property and royal protocol, not on constitutional or democratic principles!
Similarly, Vishvaraj Singh talks of the violation of his rights in the denial of his entry into the City Palace and temples that are public places today. But he expressed his disappointment at the violent events in the context of customs and traditions and asserted, “The situation today is unfortunate. I am grateful for people’s support, but there are traditions where we seek blessings, and it is wrong to block them.” He added that his struggle was not just about royal properties, but about the need to ensure respect for long-standing traditions.
Clearly, it's not democratic ideals but tradition, custom and royal protocols that dominate the mindsets on both sides of this deep divide.
If the role of the ex-royals seems dubious, the local administration has also hardly covered itself in glory. As the sordid drama unfolded, most officials and policemen seemed to stand around like passive spectators even as royal factions clashed violently. Most citizens wonder whether the supine stance of local authorities was an act of calculated complicity or an insipid inaction borne out of fear of the powerful, well-connected ex-royals. In the face of royal pressures, the administration seemed ineffective in upholding its basic duty of upholding law and order - and that too on Constitution Day!
The Udaipur royal mess seems a microcosm of India's larger struggle to reconcile its democratic principles and republican framework with remnants of its royal history. At the heart of this ‘royal drama’ lies the tension between tradition and modernity.
For some, these rituals are significant cultural practices, but for many others, they represent outdated hierarchies incompatible with democratic principles. Such disputes reflect the urgency to redefine the role of former royals in contemporary India.
In balancing cultural preservation with modern constitutional ideals, we must ensure that traditions do not conflict with the principles of equality and democracy. As we celebrate 75 years of our constitution, what India needs is less of tradition and more of transformation!
(The author is a veteran journalist and expert on Rajasthan politics. Besides serving as a Resident Editor at NDTV, he has been a Professor of Journalism at the University of Rajasthan in Jaipur. He tweets at @rajanmahan. This is an opinion article and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)