Humanities desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 8

Current legal status of princely/royal titles in India?

A number of secondary sources say that the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India of 1971 not only abolish the privy purse and royal privileges but also wtihdrew official recognition of royal titles of the Indian princes of the former princely states as well.^[1]

However, the word "titles" itself is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Amendment and my own research has turned up evidences pointing to otherwise. First, the Kerala High Court ruled in 2013 that referring to Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma as "His Highness Maharajah of Travancore" in an official advertisement of government function is not unconstitutional, saying that "Though by the 26th amendment to the Constitution, Article 363 was repealed whereby the rights and privileges of the rulers of Indian states were taken away, still the name and title of the rulers remained as such and unaffected in so far as names and titles were not contemplated as rights or privileges under the repealed Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution."^[2] Second there is the fact that there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India,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:

It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the country would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law. So, does this mean that the secondary sources below are wrong and the Indian government still officially recognize royal titles? Are there any other reliable sources that could shed light on the legal status of these titles? StellarHalo (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 1. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. Retrieved 6 November 2011., "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). 2. Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded Civilization, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles." (pp 37–38). 3. Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses." (page 78). 4. Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, U of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished." (page 84). 5. Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' " (page 441). 6. Cheesman, David (1997). Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865-1901. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5. Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). 7. Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520). 8. Ward, Philip (September 1989), Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognized," their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)
^ Makir, Haneef (17 December 2013). "'His Highness' isn't unconstitutional: Kerala High Court". The Times of India. Retrieved 7 August 2021.

Without claiming any relevant legal expertise in the matter, I would observe that "withdrawing official recognition" of titles is not the same thing as making them "contrary to law." For cultural reasons, both individuals and institutions might consider it polite and/or appropriate in some circumstances to continue to use them as a courtesy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.68 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the above, I have no expertise here, but it's clear that from the already cited text that the Indian Constitution allows former princes to keep their titles, while also removing literally every single privilege and right those titles grant. They are functionally just a name with no rights or privileges attached to them. I can call myself the Emperor of the United States, and no one cares, because calling myself that is meaningless, it carries no rights or privileges with it. Similarly, the former Princes can still call themselves princes, insofar as it is a legally meaningless act. --Jayron 32 02:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European royal houses all seem to have a pretender selected in some manner from the previous royal family to take over if a King/Queen/Tsar/Tsarina is called upon to assume the throne. That makes me wonder if there is a person in waiting to be the Maharajah of Maharashtra. I could not find a name in Wikipedia or online. Edison (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, do you mean Shahu II of Kolhapur? "He became the ceremonial Chhatrapati Maharaja of Kolhapur (the main city of Maharashtra) in 1983". Alansplodge (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol, drugs, or R.I.P.

Fairfax High School (Phoenix, AZ)'s dress policies,[1] item 3, say "Clothing and accessories cannot depict any of the following: violence, hatred, obscene material, alcohol, drugs, or R.I.P."

Any idea what R.I.P. is in this context? RIP (disambiguation) doesn't help. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think it means the usual meaning of RIP. DuncanHill (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a private school? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only the OP had included a link to the school's website where one might be able to find that out for oneself. DuncanHill (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that link. Where does it say that it's a private school? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It says it's part of Phoenix Union High School District. DuncanHill (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does a public school get away with such rigid rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The administration reserved the right to "make final determination on acceptable dress". It's like calling shotgun on the front seat. If you say it before someone else does, they can either admit defeat or fight for the right (non-violently, of course, violence is expressly prohibited elsewhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an extraordinarily lax dress code for a British state school; a local (to me) sixth-form college (16 to 18 year-olds) near London requires "that students wear jackets, collar, and tie, with their shirts tucked in" and prohibits skirts above knee length, dyed hair and piercings except for a single one in each ear. "Sixth formers can expect to be sent home if they do not dress appropriately". [2] Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume British state schools are publicly funded? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by the state - see state-funded schools (England) (actually financed by a complicated mix of local and national taxation, but free to students). Not to be confused with public schools which are independent fee-paying establishments. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do parents in that school's area have any say in which school their kids go to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, parents have to submit a list of (usually) three schools in order of preference and are selected on a points system. The best performing and most popular schools often have the most prescriptive dress policy, since they can afford to be choosey. Not a perfect arrangement, but what is? Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While such strict dress codes may be rarer in the US, although the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District recognised the First Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to school students right to protest via what they wear in some instances, the Supreme Court has been largely silent and others courts have often come down in favour of schools desire to prevent "substantial disruption" so many schools have implemented quite strong limits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Whatever Americans think of school uniform policies in England, I think many (obviously not all) in England will have similar strong feelings about the fact 15 US states still practice school corporal punishment to the extent "As of 2014, a student is struck in a U.S. public school an average of once every thirty seconds". Likewise even some in the US have found it interesting [11] [12]/[13] that students wearing masks in schools is according to some, like Ron DeSantis, an important matter of parental choice to the extent that salaries may be withheld for those making rules which violate it [14]. But if parents don't want their children to be required to cover their shoulders (for girls) or follow strict gender stereotypes [15] [16] or the numerous other requirements imposed, this apparently isn't something where parental choice is so important. P.S. Although not touched on in reliable sources, it seems likely [17] [18] the reason this came up is for similar reasons as this school district has a mask mandate which may violate state law [19] but that dress code is apparently fine. Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence immediately following the one listed here describes apparel and accessories "encourag[ing] gang or crew affiliation." A quick search with this in mind turns up the "RIP Crew", a gang apparently having been known for purveying various crime in the Phoenix area: [20]. Perhaps this was an affiliation of particular concern, though it doesn't strike me as having been a prevalent or long-lived organization. More broadly, "rip crews" seems to be a term generally used to refer to roving gangs of criminals near the U.S.-Mexican border: [21] -- though no idea if apparel depicting "R.I.P" would be meant to reference this; would seem to me to be a little hokey, if it does. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 16:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good food for thought, but Phoenix (like most cities) has a lot of gangs. Seems unlikely a school would publicly call one out, as if it were the rival administration. That said, principals are people, too, and it's not impossible some have street cred to maintain. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also true, and my thought while writing it was that it was a bit of a stretch. A likelier possibility, in my mind, is that it is referencing something known specifically among the student body of the school -- though, to the general thrust of your comment, I don't know that it would be the best strategy to legitimize whatever objectionable, specific cause it might represent by calling it out in particular (absent, of course, illicit association and/or some concern for general street cred by a school administrator as you humorously suggest). But my speculation bears little relevance here, and certainly agree with Baseball Bugs' practical suggestion below. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 20:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wager my own cred as a street prophet that the specific known objectionable thing is exactly what it suggests, but management is trying to be "sensitive" and not "trigger" students who knew the "recently departed" ones. It goes by many names, this great equalizer, this fact of life, this thing that should not be. Bugs is rightest, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it most likely this simply refers to rest in peace as others have mentioned. While concern that even well meaning items of remembrance of people know in the school may cause harm to some students could be a factor, especially considering the section it's in I wouldn't be surprised if it actually has nothing to do with remembering people from within the school who died. While this was in Arizona not Florida, I imagine someone wearing R.I.P Fidel Castro has the potential for disruption especially if there were students of Cuban descent. Considering his well known dispute with Donald Trump, even R.I.P John McCain would probably have annoyed at least some students despite McCain's general popularity in Arizona.

But anyway, I also wouldn't completely rule out this having some local meaning that may or may not be obvious to students of the school, but whoever wrote it thought it would at the time. I would note the section also says This includes wearing all of one color, red or blue shoe laces or items that encourage gang or crew affiliation. (Phx Bird, 602, or geographic locations) I assume the 602 related to Area code 602 and clothing like [22]. Phx bird I'm not sure. It may relate to clothing with the Arizona Cardinals's bird mascot like [23] but I'm not sure. Whether people attending in the school know what it means, who knows.

I'd note the lace thing is interesting. I suspect but can't be sure it relates to [24] [25] [26] , namely that red laces means you associate with Nazism and blue means you killed a police officer. The first source calls into serious question whether there's much truth to this although the latter two sources suggests there could be some truth to the red one albeit most likely in specific contexts. Alternatively it could be related to some gang identifier although only those 2 colours were singled out but I assume there are more gang colours. (Although trying to ban all white or all black laces seems a recipe for problems.)

While the meaning of the colour ban may be obvious; although I have no idea what local knowledge may be common, I can't help wondering if the rationale is likely lost on most students. Of course one point is that even for stuff like R.I.P and Phx Bird, if there is some hidden meaning it may be that the people targeted will understand what's being referred to even if most students are scratching their heads like us, so it's good enough. (For the laces thing, unless there is some widespread local knowledge that you only wear red laces if you X, I suspect most people considering it would have no idea why they are banned.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to the red and blue laces, I can't really say as regards Phoenix in the 2020s, but in Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s it would have indicated affiliation with the Bloods or the Crips, respectively. --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found [27] which suggests the Phoenix Bird and Phoenix 602 is actually somehow related to gangs or tagging. However I couldn't really find any more about these although searching for them is difficult. 602 the fact is it the area code doesn't help, Phoenix bird the bird gang stuff from Arizona Cardinals and it being Phoenix. I did find Warlocks Motorcycle Club (Florida) but I'm fairly sure that's unrelated. But I'm also think these are minor local groups which is what makes it difficult. The tagging makes me wonder if these are more on the youth "gang" side of petty crime rather than the more hard core gang side like the red and blue laces and the RIP may or may not be. While I don't know when that dress code was last revised (from my searching, I sort of think the reason the OP came across it is actually because of discussion related to mask mandates an issue I raised above) the other ref is from 2014-2015 so those ones are not new. In any case, I'd now give a reasonable chance Tyrol5 is correct. P.S. I forgot to mention banning rest in peace clothing also avoids disruption from those who aren't really saying 'rest in peace' or wanting to genuinely memorialise the person who died. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there's a "contact us" link, the OP could write to them and ask what it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were it not for the dots between the letters, are you sure it's not just a rule against "ripped jeans" or other torn clothing? See Jeans#Used_and_distressed_looks. I regularly encounter "dress code" signs at upmarket venues with "ripped/torn jeans" included on the banned list. When I encounter people in ripped jeans (apparently "high fashion" amongst certain demographics), I wonder whether the manufacturer has some sort of "jeans-ripping machine", or whether some poor Bangladeshi or Chinese employee has a job at the factory as the "jeans-ripper", with a quota of ripping x number of jeans per hour. Eliyohub (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I blame them Bulgarians. Comin' over 'ere, rippin' our jeans." etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This seems very unlikely because 1) this doesn't look too be OCRed text or something like that. I fail to see how something written explicitly would come up with R.I.P in place of ripped. 2) The section on shorts etc deals with the issue of ripped pants "Any rips and tears in pants and must be below the knee, NO RIPS or TEARS in shorts are allowed." I mean okay that section is also missing something, probably the word skirts, but it's easier to see how that can happen in normal editing and writing than ripped becoming R.I.P. I guess if someone typed it on a mobile phone I could set a small possibility of ripped becoming R.I.P but otherwise, no. Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland of the region

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman once said that Bangladesh will be "Switzerland of South Asia". How many nations were considered "Switzerland" of their own region because of their neutrality? Donmust90 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to neutrality, but Switzerland–Uruguay relations says:

Uruguay was described as the "Switzerland of the Americas" in a 1951 New York Times article for its popularity as a haven for capital fleeing Europe at the time and its adoption of Swiss-inspired banking laws. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2012 RefDesk thread - "Switzerland of the East" also notes that there is "the Switzerland of the Middle East" (Lebanon, even if nowadays it's out of shape), "the Switzerland of Africa" (Guinea) and even the "the Switzerland of Oceania" (New Zealand). Another editor (me actually) notes a number of places in England known as "Little Switzerland" because they are hilly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainous or even just hilly landscapes in many lowland countries are often likened to Switzerland (even if "Alps" is more common). In Germany, Holsteinische Schweiz is the official name of such an area. --T*U (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia is well known as wanting to become the Switzerland of East Asia. Zoozaz1 talk 08:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Little Switzerland, North Carolina, known more for its mountainous location than its banking policies or neutrality in war. There is also a New Bern, North Carolina which is not even mountainous... --Jayron 32 19:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica - the Switzerland of Central America. And also Chile has been named the Switzerland of South America. Oalexander (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the real question is what is the Switzerland of Switzerland? --Jayron 32 18:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Canton Schwyz, whence the whole country derives its German name, Schweiz? Oalexander (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am intrigued… also, what is the North Carolina of Switzerland? Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop of York's salary

What is the current salary for an Archbishop of York, and are Archbishops allowed to claim the daily attendance allowance when they turn up at the House of Lords? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From April 2021, £72,900.Source--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question, "Bishops are claiming up to £27,000 a year in fixed-rate allowances to attend sessions of the House of Lords on top of their travel costs", although it goes on to say that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are amongst those who do not make a claim for expenses. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, there's a new Ebor since then though. Rails against the elite from his palace. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Bishopthorpe Palace, but other bishops have quite modest apartments within their palaces, which also double as head offices, conference centres and accommodation for other key staff members. Some head teachers earn more. I met Stephen Cottrell when he was at Chelmsford and he seemed a reasonable chap. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you met Hitler playing with his dogs and enjoying the company of children, you might say "he seemed like a reasonable chap". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Good point, but they never made Hitler the Archbishop of York. Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's got a brewhouse, brewster's cottage, and is rent free. Very modest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know the details about Bobrikov's assassination?

In the article Assassination of Nikolay Bobrikov, which I translated from the assassination section of fi:Eugen Schauman, it says:

At about 11:00 AM on Thursday 16 June 1904 Governor-General Nikolay Bobrikov was coming to conduct a session of the Senate. He and his entourage walked through the Senate Square. Eugen Schauman was watching Bobrikov from the window of the top floor and heard him step inside alone and start slowly walking up the stairs wearing his uniform and coat, carrying a briefcase and a walking stick. Schauman withdrew from the window and started descending the stairs towards Bobrikov.

How do we know this? Schauman didn't live to tell the tale (he died instantly after the shooting) and he didn't have the time to leave a letter about this. Bobrikov wasn't even inside the building when Schauman was waiting for him. Were there witnesses, or has this just been extrapolated from what Bobrikov and the senators managed to report from the incident afterwards? JIP | Talk 15:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. Either that statement is reliably sourced or it isn't. If it isn't, it has no place in the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish article relies heavily on a single source, the book Ministeri Ritavuoren murha (The Murder of Minister Ritavuori) by Risto Niku, also cited in our articles on Heikki Ritavuori, his assassin Ernst Tandefelt, and Eugen Schauman. The latter article contains a less elaborate description of the events, not narrated from an omniscient point of view. I cannot evaluate how reliable this source is, but on the face of it it would seem that if the narration reflects the presentation in the book, its author filled in some gaps in what is known with a fertile imagination. --Lambiam 21:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 1. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. Retrieved 6 November 2011., "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). 2. Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded Civilization, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles." (pp 37–38). 3. Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses." (page 78). 4. Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, U of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished." (page 84). 5. Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' " (page 441). 6. Cheesman, David (1997). Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865-1901. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5. Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). 7. Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520). 8. Ward, Philip (September 1989), Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognized," their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)

[MAHIR-2] Makir, Haneef (17 December 2013). "'His Highness' isn't unconstitutional: Kerala High Court". The Times of India. Retrieved 7 August 2021.

[1]

[2]