Photo - courtesy of Gouri Satya.

Hasn't the 26th amendment to the Indian constitution abolished all the titles including that of Maharaja? So, what does this ceremony mean? And technically, no Indian citizen can have any princely title. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend26.htm

Besides, there is this Article 18 of the Indian constitution that also originally abolished all titles to Indian citizens. And yet, curiously, there are still people who claim to be princes, Rajkumaris, nawabs, maharajas, begums, ranis, etc. There are also Zamindars and Zahirdars though the zamindari system is long gone. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1163710/

மணி மணிவண்ணன் Welcome to reality ! The ""Royalty" is still around because their people want them ..... having been let down by politicians of every hue.

That indeed. Mysorians have fond memories of the erstwhile Jayachamaraja Wadeyar and their respect and affection runs deep. Also, the politicians who came after independence have behaved in a more feudal manner causing people to remember the past with nostalgia.

All of that may be true. But to address erstwhile royalty and the zamin/zahirdars with their titles is even more feudal than our bad democratically elected leaders. At least we can kick these rascals out once in a while. A king cannot be deposed except by a coup. And there is no guarantee that all kings will be benign. As people are finding out, even the ever so humble Travancore princely family is now being suspected of swindling the temple jewels. Indians have the opportunity to shape their leaders - that is why there are elections. One cannot elect bad leaders and complain.

the only thing it has done is removed the position of a "ruler". The Government of India has never "abolished" or "banned" hereditary and ancient titles and Article 18 says that the Govt of India cannot bestow titles upon its citizens, not that ancient titles are "abolished" Please dont spread your hate filled half baked knowledge

Wow! "Hate filled"!! I do remember seeing news items explicitly asking former royalties not to use their titles as constitution prohibits it. I don't care one way or the other. To be a "Maharaja" of no land is an empty title and I don't know why anyone would care to carry it around in a democracy.

People can be nostalgic about royalty because they have no power. There is no reason to assume that the royals are less despotic than politicians. 1000 years ago India was over runned by foreigners who nearly destroyed it ancient civilization. If the ancient kings had cared more about their people less about themselves they might be able to some up the power to resist invasion, but they were to involved in themselves and their dualistic caste system and thus lost the country.

Anyway the post Independence politicians have started their own failed dynasties.

Yes democracy well-done ! I would still prefer a state ruled by a King. ( a Monarch system ) if maintained by a righteous ruler is far more stable and Prosperous.

It is in the nature of all dynasties to fail. They either over-reach or elevate incompetents or both. At least with democracy transitions are less bloody.

This is a ceremonial title. Period. The Mysore Kings were known for their legendary benevolence and wisdom. This post acts only as a token of gratitude to those Wadiyar Kings under whom the Kigdom of Mysore benefited immensely. India is a secular socialist republic today - and yes, we are happy about it.

The framers of the constitution did not include the words secular and socialist for sound reasons.

I lived in Mysore during the post independence and pre republic days..Yes Jayachamaraja wadiar was a benign king and the transition was superbly managed

He was a poet and one who has the finer aspects as a. quality is sure to be benign

And I must. Say this ,the people of Mysore accepted the change in the most dignified way.And there is nothing wrong in calling them king or Raja! What's there in a name,?A rose smells as sweet by any other name !

It is great that he was so well loved, and indeed Mysore is a beautiful city. It is interesting to compare a Raja State that escaped India's national hood, Nepal. The vast neglect of the country, has left the nation with no sense of ownership. The public sector has no sense of responsibility and the nor does feel any sense of national pride population. The country is plunging into darkness, a place that only a few year's back was know for it's beauty. It is the opposite of Mysore, and also show tham many royal used their nations as simply the family's plantation and didn't nurture their country nor it's population

Is article 18 not included "Amma" title? :D

Mr Original Commenter, i'm sorry i cant read your name, but if you are referring to the legal aspect then please come up with an express prohibition under any law. One may feel anything but lets not try to colour it as the legal position.

Explain where is the "hate" in this? India is a constitutional republic. There is no royalty here. Erstwhile royalties are also commoners who have no additional privileges here. So, it is odd that some people still cling to these feudalistic titles. Does the government of India refer to them by the royal titles? Are these princes waiting for the republic to fail and a restoration of monarchy? Even as a ceremonial title this doesn't belong in a democracy.

Aparna Rawal care to elaborate on titles? U may be helpful here.

And you ask me where is the hate in this ? Sorry, I wont oblige you with another reply after this.

Time to work for Bharat MATA

hitler painted, wrote poetry and had a few pet dogs