Talk:Gaj Singh

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

India: Rajasthan Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan.
	This article was last assessed in November 2016.

Untitled

Is he really a "reigning monarch" ??? Hektor 12:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not constitutionally, no. The people of Jodhpur do give him some recognition however.--Couter-revolutionary 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was the Maharaja of Jodhpur from 1952 to 1971, though he never enjoyed full sovereignty as a Regency Council was formed during his minority and later he went to the UK for studies. In 1971, the Government of India, through an amendment to the constitution, derecognised him and other rulers of the Indian princely states, so he is now merely the titular Maharaja. WikiWhizKid1999 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is elephentine in "The Elephentine infant Maharaja" a real word? What's it mean here? I can't find a definition, and elephantine (like an elephant) would seem the wrong word ??? Studentroku 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism or a joke. I have removed it. 86.25.59.77 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there still Maharajas in India?---- YES, there are

Now Wkik reliable refrences and sources to his titles have been provided and his name cannot be changed to Mr Gaj Singh from HH Maharaja Gaj Singh ll. If that is done, vandalisim will be reported. Karan112 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Maharajas in India anymore. Indira Gandhi the then prime minister made it illegal in 1971 to call anyone maharaja. Can anyone please change this page name to Mr Gaj Singh. There is a case pending against him in Jodhpur for illegal usage of term Maharaja.

For more detail see my IP talk please [[]]

Can you not read ?? I have provided a full list of cases from the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA where it has recogonised ROYAL TITLES.Karan112 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The successful entry of several prominent princes and members of their families did not always endear them to the governments of democratic India. Eventually, the government of Mrs Gandhi tired of their increasing involvement in opposition politics and sought to curb their influence. The abolition of the privy purses, guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and the elimination of the princely order itself, became the policy of the Congress party. After a year-long battle, this was finally achieved by an amendment to the Constitution at the end of 1971.

Although some parties have attempted to portray the constitutional changes as an abolition of the princely order, this does not appear to be the legal position. The changes merely removed official recognition of the position of "ruler", as defined by the 1950 Constitution, and enabled the ending of privy-purse payments. The amendments did not touch upon any aspects of the treaties and engagements made during the accession of the princely states, nor did they even address the matter of rights to styles and titles. Since then, there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are: "Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar vs. The Union of India & Anr." (1978), "H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. C.I.T." (1994), "The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vs. H.H. Maharani Usha Devi" (1998), "Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur Chamli Jan" (2000), "Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors." (2001), "Union of India & Another vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan" (2005). It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the land would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law. Karan112 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

UmaidBhawan Exterior 1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titular Ruler Vs Current Ruler

There have been a series of edits and reversions, I call it an edit war, regarding the term 'Titular Ruler' (an honourary position) Vs Gaj Singh as the Current Ruler. I would encourage the various parties, particularly User:1.38.86.47 who has been very active on this subject. I see another discussion further up regarding use of the term Maharaja which seems unconcluded, this seems to be a similar but separate issue. Many thanks, JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 16:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]