Bhopal Princely Servants: Some Documentary Evidences

Introduction

Last year, I was privileged to publish an article in this journal on ‘Servitude in a Princely Establishment: Bhopal, Nineteenth to Early Twentieth Century’, ¹ where I researched upon Bhopal, a princely state in colonial India, a unique for the reason that it had, for four generations and more than a century, been ruled by Muslim women: Qudsia Begum (1819–1837), her daughter Sikandar Begum (1847–1868), granddaughter Shah Jahan Begum (1868–1901) and grand-granddaughter Sultan Jahan Begum (1901–1926). ² Availing myself of the documents from the National Archives of India (NAI) and its Bhopal Branch (BB), I discussed the conditions of the domestic servants who laboured to provide the comfort and luxury on a lavish scale, as befitted the high status of the ruling family. My special attention was centred on those servants who were of foreign origin—Europeans, Africans and Georgians; especially the latter two, of whom there had been quite a number of slaves. In that article, I also referred to domestic labour as a subject of considerable interest for social scientists. ³ In my present article, I will attempt to carry this study further, analysing the data that can be gleaned from archival documents and other sources on the work conditions and social position of the Bhopal princely servants—this time, not foreigners, but locals.

For the rulers of Bhopal, like other aristocrats in Northern and Central India, the Mughal court offered a model. In their lavish palace lifestyle, culinary tastes, dress, etiquette, festivals and banquets, amusements, hunting expeditions, visits to various parts of the principality, even in the writing of royal histories—the Bhopal nawābs did their best, if not to match the padishahs, at least to be ‘mini-Mughals’. ⁴ This was especially observable in the architecture of the princely palaces and mosques in Bhopal, which not only bear the same names but copy, with varying success, the style of the imperial Mughal edifices. ⁵ The Mughal imperial (or, to be more precise, princely) style was maintained for the Bhopal rulers, themselves initially a rather modest family of Afghan mercenaries, by a host of palace servants. It was a host indeed: in my previous article, I suggested that the total number of servants working for the princely family in all palaces, villas, gardens, and so on could be estimated, notwithstanding the scarcity of data, at a thousand or more. ⁶

Referring to the domestics as a distinct professional group, the Bhopal documents used three terms found also in the Mughal sources: mulāzimān [literally, servants attached to someone], shāgird pesha [literally, disciples, but meaning domestic servants], ⁷ and , more rarely, bandagān-i huzūr [literally, slaves of the court]. However, in the BB documents, I came across another term, never met by me in the Mughal texts: shāgird pesha. The latter word in Persian means ‘pupil by profession’, but also a servant among its other meanings. ⁸

It is difficult to ascertain the full list of occupations of the Bhopal palace domestics. The archival file 45 of the Bhopal Central Secretariat [Daftar-i inshā], dated 1891, provides a list of professions, primarily of servants responsible for transportation. In the elephant stables, a ‘brigade’ comprising driver [fīlbān] and fodder preparers [carkaṭān] attended each elephant. Princely baggies were in charge of drivers [kocvān] and grooms [sāīs]. ⁹ There were also palanquin bearers [kahār], camel drivers [shuttar savār], cart drivers [‘a‘rābchī], ushers [chobdār], peons [chaprāsī], cleaners and servants responsible for carpets, covers, etc. [farrāsh]. ¹⁰ This list referred to the transport service only. Other documents mention gardeners, garden workers, cooks, guards, personal attendants and so on. Those servants were, to be sure, male. Numerous female servants—handmaids, wet nurses, ayahs, and so on—attended the ladies of the princely family. Those women, like their male colleagues, found but a scanty mention in the archival documents and memoirs. Almost invisible, they would come out of the darkness on some special occasions only.

The ‘Grace-Giving’ Visit

One such occasion was the visit to Bhopal by lord Lansdowne, the Viceroy of India, in November 1891. The visit, planned as a part of the Viceroy’s routine ‘autumn’ tour of Indian territories, became an event of special significance for Bhopal, where preparations started a few months before the visit. It was not only a tour of a high-ranked guest but also the visit of a suzerain to grace his privileged and favoured vassal. Therefore, in the Bhopal documents, the visit was officially termed as ‘splendour-augmenting’ [raunaq afroz]. Almost a month and a half before the visit, the programme was finalised and sent to Bhopal. The Viceroy was to come with his wife and daughter, accompanied by secretaries, clerks, one ‘European’ handmaid and sixty ‘native servants’. ¹¹ This was modest indeed in comparison with a later visit to Bhopal by a succeeding Viceroy, Lord Minto, in 1909, whose retinue included 120 ‘native servants’ and 6 chaprāsīs. ¹² According to the protocol, the visitors stayed in one of the princely palaces, Lal Kothi or Taj Mahal, around which a camp was established for the Viceroy’s attendant officers and servants, who were at work within their residences and en route, and when the ‘excellencies’ held receptions for their hosts and visiting local princes. On all other occasions, the visitors were served by local personnel. And it was in connection with the 1891 viceregal visit that the ‘invisible’ servants of the Bhopal princely family came into the limelight.

The already quoted BB File 45 begins with the application from the head of the tosha-khāna [the department responsible for the princely attires, carpets, furniture, etc.] for the allotment of ₹2,000 ‘for the servants’ uniforms and bringing to proper order [durustī] the wands of the chobdārs, as well as polishing the gold- and silver gilded utensils, the repair of tents, harnesses, etc’. ¹³ The next page of the file contains the order to send to the Shaukat Mahal palace ‘a carpenter by name Ganesh’ to repair the furniture. Another servant sent to the same palace was a nameless workman whose occupation was mentioned as gaddī-sāz, literally ‘creator of pillows/thrones’: His job was to prepare sitting pillows for the native guests and for the sahibs who wished to sit ‘in Oriental fashion’. ¹⁴ Further, on seventy-five pages of the text, only one problem was highlighted: that of the uniform [wardī] for the servants of the Bhopal palaces.

Perhaps the practice of providing uniforms for the palace servants was a European innovation in Bhopal, where this idea had been first implemented by Sikandar Begum. In BB, there is File 18, dated 12 November 1855, where the head of the Central Secretariat submitted to the nawāb a project for the uniforms of the state servants, but it dealt with the administrative officers and palace servants. ¹⁵ By the time of Lord Lansdowne’s visit, the palace servants had already been put in inform. This was attested by not only File 45 but also File 48, 1891. Both complain that the servants of the princely palaces, villas and parks had been wearing uniforms, but ‘those uniforms had not been changed for three years’, they ‘became unwearable, dirty and shabby’ and therefore needed change. The petitioning officers responsible for the preparation of arrangements in palaces and parks for the visit emphasised that in old uniforms the servants will look ‘ugly [badṣūrat]’, and it will bring harm [nuqṣān] to the ruler’s reputation. ¹⁶ The new uniform was viewed as a marker of ‘dignity and grandeur’ [shān-shaukat] of the state. ¹⁷

Just as the preparations for the ‘grace-giving’ visit started, the Central Secretariat and tosha-khāna were flooded by petitions from servants requesting to be included in the list of receivers of the new uniform. It was needed by all—gardeners and runners, chobdārs and cooks, palanqueen bearers and drivers, torchbearers, water carriers, and others. Even the Prince of Wales Hospital requested uniforms for its orderlies and girls’ school, besides its cleaners. The reason mainly set forth was the shabbiness of the old uniforms or their absence, while there was the possibility of the ‘lord sahib’ and other ‘high-ranked sahibs’ peeping into this or that corner. ¹⁸ Thus, the director of the Nur Bagh Park stated that his workers were almost ‘naked’, and ‘if the sahibs see them it will be a shame. How can they in their present garb offer the sahibs flowers and fruit?’ ¹⁹

Some government officials used the occasion to include their own servants in the list of official attendants. One Muhammad Ahmad, a clerk, petitioned to provide a uniform for his servant Kalla, who worked as torchbearer and barber, for the clerk who himself worked in the office where some ‘high sahib’ could unexpectedly come. Muhammad Ahmad’s petition was turned down due to ‘late application and lack of time’. ²⁰ The number of such applications was growing day by day; very soon, the allotted ₹2,000 were spent, and the tosha-khāna sought additional sums of money from the treasury. ²¹

The Bhopal tailors were overburdened: One document recorded the order to tahsildars to send local tailors to the capital. Some servants were provided with two uniforms: ‘simple [sādī]’ and ‘ceremonial [rasmī]’. Among the latter, there was a class of servants designated as peshdast [assistant]. During banquets or other ceremonial gatherings, such servants stood behind the guests, ready at one sign to do any errand (bring something, call someone, and so on). ²²

Both files, 45 and 48, contain petitions and decisions on one problem only: uniforms for servants. In some cases, it was ‘shabby’, in other cases, ‘of varying designs and ugly’, made of crude and low-quality material, or certain servants who had the chance to show themselves to the ‘high sahibs’ were by mistake not included in the list. For the servants who had to serve the Viceroy and his retinue, the uniform was made ‘after European fashion’, necessarily with les [lace], which had to demonstrate the ‘civilised’ style of the hosts. In some cases, the servants were measured, but as the time of the ‘grace-giving visit’ approached, the decision was ‘to make the chogha [jacket] so loose that anyone could wear it’. ²³ The question of what to do with the uniforms after the visit was answered clearly: ‘not to wear, otherwise they (uniforms) will soon get shabby’. ²⁴ The above-quoted documents discuss uniforms, but at the same time give important information about the servants themselves and their relations with the ruling family. It is important to note that the very multitude of domestics and their ‘decent’ look were markers of high social status, both of the Bhopal rulers and their British sovereigns.

Home Away from Home

Wherever the members of the Bhopal nawābī family would go, they were necessarily attended by servants. Even leaving their palaces, they had to remain in their ‘home’, an abridged copy of their residences and enjoy the palace comfort. The rulers never appeared in public, unattended by servants. Thus, Louis Rousselet, a French traveller and archaeologist, described how Sikandar Begum entered the hall where she held an informal meeting with her ministers, accompanied by a big group of ‘young girls’. ²⁵ In the Bhopal Golghar (Round House) museum, there is a document pertaining to the last years of the princely state, dated 21 June 1947. Printed on the official letterhead with the coat of mail of the princely state, it was signed by the manager of the ‘Bhopal Talkies’, the city’s first cinema hall with sound. The text was a regular report of the visit of the cinema hall’s ‘royal box’ by the members and guests of the ruling family. It mentions nine visits to the hall for the three weeks of June. Perhaps it was needed for claiming payment for the tickets. In the six visits of nine, all members and guests of the family, children or adults, were accompanied by servants, regularly two for each visitor. Perhaps they did some work during the film shows, like bringing drinks, fanning and massaging feet, and so on, but their main function was in their very presence, which demonstrated the high status of the masters.

Servants accompanied the Bhopal rulers during their pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina ²⁶ and to Europe. In 1911, Sultan Jahan Begum, along with her sons, Obaidullah and Hamidullah and their families, boarded the ‘Caledonia’ steamer to visit, ‘in private capacity’, Britain, Italy, Switzerland and, on the way back, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Damascus and Medina. Apart from governesses, secretaries, doctors, head of the tosha-khāna and mullah, the retinue included four handmaids and four male servants. ²⁷ The story of this visit was recorded by Maimuna Sultan, the daughter-in-law of the reigning Begum and wife of her youngest son, Hamidullah. One of the servants was a cook who prepared halal food for the princely family (the non-availability of such cooks was, according to the princess, a hindrance for the Muslims’ sea journey). ²⁸ In the travelogue, the princess praised good manners, effective work and cleanliness of the British servants and compared them favourably with the servants from her home country whose ‘bad reputation’ and dirtiness were, according to her, well known. Maimuna Sultan was shocked by the fact that British handmaids earned a few times more than their Indian colleagues, worked for more than one family, enjoyed days off and even visited theatres. Appealing to the Indian elite to school their servants in cleanliness and efficiency, the princess did not, however, advise her compatriots to provide their domestics with proper salaries and days of rest! ²⁹

Sultan Jahan Begum undertook her next visit to Europe in 1925. This visit was official, as she sought from the British the permission to abdicate in favour of her youngest son, Hamidullah. ³⁰ The journey was described in detail by her granddaughter, Abida Sultan, in her reminiscences. Among the servants accompanying the Bhopal ruler was her most trusted handmaid, Anwar Bua, whom Abida Sultan described as her grandmother’s alter ego. On the steamer, this faithful servant, suffering from seasickness, would sit day and night near her mistress’ door to be at her service round the clock. ³¹ In London, the princely family settled in a specially hired mansion, where, apart from the Indian servants, the staff included a British butler, four drivers, six lackeys, two cooks, three kitchen servants and eight handmaids. ³²

European servants provided for the Western glamour, so necessary when the nawāb spared no efforts to positively impress the British royal family and aristocracy. Nevertheless, Indian servants were also necessary, since the ruler, as mentioned before, was supposed, even while travelling, to live in a mini copy of her palace. To employ British servants only, without Indian ones, contradicted the status, as much as for the Viceroy who had visited Bhopal with a host of his own servants. Further, the British servants were ignorant of the specific features of the Indian household and knew nothing of such occupations of their Indian colleagues as cooking Indian food, fanning the masters and massaging their feet. Abida Sultan humorously recorded the confusion that happened during the official reception of the Bhopal delegation in Dover. Heading the colourful procession of her family, courtiers and servants, Sultan Jahan Begum grew angry as the container with her favourite pickles was loaded into the cars with the baggage, not the personal car provided for her. Ignoring the crowd and the reporters, she demanded that the container be brought and put into her car. A British steward, dispatched to bring the container, loaded it upon his shoulders, but having no idea of its contents, turned it upside down and immediately bathed in the oily and spicy sauce. Offended by the roaring laughter of the delegation, he swore badly and kicked the ill-fated container so that it fell into the sea. ³³

The Bhopal princely servants attended not only to the needs of members of the ruling family but also to the visitors to Bhopal, primarily Europeans, whose rank was not so high as to claim palace accommodation. For such visitors, state-owned guesthouses were available. Thus, Louis Rousselet was, by the order of the Bhopal government, settled in the Moti Bungalow, an ‘elegant pavilion’, where the guests were served by numerous attendants. ³⁴ Similarly, in 1879, F.D. Bridges, a British lady traveller, stayed in a Bhopal guesthouse by recommendation of the British Resident. ³⁵ In 1898, Shah Jahan Begum purchased a villa in Sehore town from the widow of the chief engineer of the Bhopal, Ujjain railway, and converted it into a guesthouse for travelling Europeans. The guesthouse was managed by a British man, but all servants were hired and salaried by the Bhopal government.

NAI has a big file of documents pertaining to this guesthouse: They deal with the property purchase, transfer and management, exchange of letters with the guests, dining hall menu (English cuisine only), accommodation bills for British officials and army officers. The only Indian mentioned among the guests was the ruler of Narsinghgarh, a small principality 72 km from Bhopal, with whom the rulers of Bhopal were in friendly relations.

The guesthouse employed its own staff: housekeeper [khānsāmān], cook, lackey, cleaner, gardener and guard. ³⁶ All of them belonged to the servants of the state and got their salaries from the Bhopal government. The file includes a ‘notice’ (1901), signed by J. Lang, the political agent in Bhopal, informing the guest that, by a special order of the Begum, all guesthouse servants were strictly prohibited from claiming or accepting any payment or tips from the visitors, and if the tips were asked for by any servant, the guests were requested to report the case to the management. ³⁷ The document testifies to the fact that in the guesthouse, specially maintained for ‘European guests’, who could reside there only by permission from the political agent, the staff was managed and salaried by the state government.

To note, the issue of the servants being rewarded by not their masters but outsiders was extremely important and specially discussed during the preparations for every visit of high-rank guests to the princely state. There was, doubtlessly, fear of the servants being bribed and used for spying after the masters or harming them. However, the primary reason was that in the ‘master–servant’ relations, domination presupposed the master’s exclusive right to determine the salary, reward or punishment of the servants. NAI hosts a small file of letters, dated 1912: The addressees were W.G. Davis, political agent in Bhopal, D.G. Mackenzie, deputy political agent in Indore, and Hajji Mohammed Abd ur-Rauf Khan, the vakīl [representative] of the Bhopal government.

In the first letter, Davis referred to the ‘tradition’, according to which, during the visits to Bhopal by Agent to the Governor General (AGG), his servants received ₹100 as a ‘gift’ from the Begum. Davis reported to Indore that ₹37 of this sum had already been distributed by the vakīl to the butler, caprāsī, torchbearer and the ‘mate’ (who supervised the servants); the remaining ₹63 had to be distributed among other servants like the cook and the others. The letter got a categorical answer from Mackenzie that the ‘tradition’ of gifting the AGG’s servants by the ruler was not officially recognised; therefore, the sum had to be returned to the vakīl with a request to acknowledge receipt. ³⁸ The problem seemed so acute that a special document was issued containing a strict prohibition for the servants of the British high officials accepting gifts and foodstuffs from ‘native chiefs’. ³⁹ Perhaps the sharp reaction from Mackenzie could be explained by the issuance of this prohibition document 9 years before the afore-mentioned case.

The guesthouse manager had no right to reward the servants, but he was permitted to punish them. As it happened, when one Mr Ernest G. Flower complained that while the housekeeper had been informed about the arrival of Mr and Mrs Flowers at night (21 November 1903) well in advance, the room was not ready. As the letter addressed to the political agent in Bhopal stated, the real culprit was a lackey [khidmatgar] Munir Khan, who, as was specially mentioned, was ‘a servant of the durbar’, that is, the Government of Bhopal. The letter, signed by the guesthouse manager, suggested fining Munir Khan one rupee. The political agent approved the fine and requested that a copy be sent to the vakīl of Bhopal. ⁴⁰ This document demonstrates that while the guesthouse servants were employed and salaried by the princely state, the English management was permitted to punish them, and even such trifling cases had to be reported to the political agent, and the Government of Bhopal being also informed.

Details from a Portrait Yet to Be Made

Archival documents and other sources that had been available did not allow me to create a complete portrait of the princely servants in Bhopal. It is impossible to calculate, even approximately, the number of domestics; the nomenclature of their occupations could be restored, but indirectly. Thus, the archival files quoted in this article mention elephant and camel drivers, grooms, coachmen, cart (later on car) drivers, palanquin bearers, gardeners and trenchers [belchedār], couriers and runners, sweepers, barbers, watercarriers, farrāshes, chobdārs, gaddī-sāzes, torchbearers, waiters, cooks, peshdasts, butlers, and so on. Those servants were exclusively male: Only in the memoirs, especially those by Abida Sultan, one may find female attendants of the queens and other women of the princely family. Apart from the handmaids, Abida Sultan mentioned her wet nurse Najjo Bua (birthing a child almost every year, she got a palace nickname Bakri Bua, that is, Goat Auntie), and Zahida Begum, a midwife who assisted Maimuna Sultan and, after that, got employment as Abida Sultan’s ayah. ⁴¹ Female servants were the main guardians of the children of the princely family. Traditionally, after birth, the babies were entrusted not to their mothers, who were themselves children (Maimuna Sultan birthed her elder daughter Abida at the age of twelve) but to the queen’s grandmothers. Busy with their state affairs, the latter entrusted their grandchildren to nannies, handmaids and, further, to European governesses whom I have mentioned in my previous article. ⁴²

Sources available to me had no direct indications on how and by whom the servants were recruited. However, there is evidence that personal attendants to the royal family members had been hired or approved after somebody’s introduction by the rulers themselves. In the BB File 46, dated June 1869, ⁴³ Sultan Jahan Begum, at that time an 11-year-old princess, officially requested her mother, ⁴⁴ nawāb Shah Jahan Begum, to appoint one Shakur Khan as driver of her female elephant Gulbadan, instead of the previously appointed Akbar Khan. The reason, according to the princess, was Shakur Khan’s high qualification and the elephants being used to him; Akbar Khan, unfamiliar with the animal’s character, could only spoil her. The letter also mentioned Akbar Khan’s salary as ₹7 per month, while Shakur Khan was to receive ₹15. This petition was turned down by the nawāb: ‘Akbar Khan has already been appointed and he will have this job’. ⁴⁵ This document shows that the servants to attend royal family members were recruited by the rulers only, and even the nawāb’s daughter could not change the decision. When Sultan Jahan Begum was the ruler, she, going to Delhi for Edward VII’s coronation durbar, left instructions to her ministers. Among them, there was one that no appointment by the ministers, either of state officials or of palace servants, could be final without her approval. ⁴⁶ The salary of the servants mentioned in the text cannot be evaluated without the knowledge of the prices at that time. Twenty-two years later, in 1891, in the petition on the uniform for the orderlies and other servants of the Prince of Wales Hospital, the monthly salary of ₹5–₹7 was called ‘meagre’, making it difficult for the employees to support their families. ⁴⁷ The prices could definitely change in 22 years.

The BB Files 45 and 48, dealing with uniforms, are valuable because they contain lists of servants: For the first time, the names of people serving the rulers of Bhopal are available to us. Especially long are those lists in File 45: It mentions not only the name of each recipient but also whose son [vald] he was. Only in the case of a few men, their fathers’ names were not mentioned. In the nineteenth-century India, the European concept of ‘surname’ was yet in the process of establishment, primarily for the high social ranks; among the commoners, the only identification could be by one’s personal and father’s name. Judging by the mentioned names, the princely family of Bhopal was served by both Muslims and Hindus; in different lists, members of both communities appear in different proportions. In some, Muslims fully predominate: Among the twenty coachmen, only two were Hindus; among the grooms, Hindus were more than half, while the elephant drivers and their assistants were Muslims only; same was the case with the camel drivers. At the same time, all the mentioned palanquin bearers were Hindus: This job seemed to be the exclusive domain of the Kahār caste. Many Hindu servants belonged to the lower castes, as could be judged by the diminutive names of workers and their fathers, such as, Mannu, Natthu, Kallu, Khandu, Jassu and so on. Some servants belonged to the ‘new Muslims’, that is, the scions of Hindu families who had accepted Islam. Among them, we found some cases: Irfan, the son of Dagru; Rahmatulla, the son of Manak; Rahman, the son of Lakshman; Abdullah, the son of Sitaram; Muhammad, the son of Moti, and so on. ⁴⁸ There is no evidence that the rulers of Bhopal preferred Muslim servants or pressured the Hindu servants to accept Islam. However, among the personal attendants of the ruling family members, Muslims were prevalent.

The documents allow suggesting a certain hierarchy among the Bhopal princely servants. Where more than one servant was employed, in many cases there were ‘team leaders’ designated as chaudhurī or jama‘dār. It is not clear who appointed them; was it done by a manager of some department, or maybe some servants, like the Kahārs, came to work in groups that already had a headman. One of the documents from File 48 contains an order to the effect that the uniforms for ‘team leaders’ should indicate the difference between the latter and the rank- and-file servants. The uniforms for the chaudhurī or jama‘dār had to be decorated with laces, sashes and so on to make their status visible during the ‘grace-giving’ visit. ⁴⁹

One of the old traditions of North Indian aristocracy has been, and still is, an emphatically polite and patronising attitude to household servants. Every celebration in the Bhopal princely family was necessarily accompanied by distributing valuable gifts among the attendants. ⁵⁰ The servants who had worked well during the viceregal visit got, apart from gifts, prepared dishes and sweets [pakkā khānā], which the servants could bring to their families. This was viewed as a higher reward than just grain or flour. Words such as ‘Bua’ or ‘Kaka’ attached to the servants’ names were to emphasise their status as ‘family members’. Unlike the British, scions of the princely family could befriend their servants’ children. Thus, Abida Sultan’s foster brother Gullu was her playmate; when she moved to her own palace, he served her as a steward. ⁵¹

According to Abida Sultan, the characterising feature of the Bhopal princely family was ‘puritanism’ in food and attire as well as an ‘egalitarian’ attitude towards servants. ⁵² Such an idyll was, however, not absolute: Munawwar Jahan, Abida Sultan’s relative and friend, who had married the nawāb of Junagadh, paradoxically combined kindness and hospitality with an extremely cruel attitude towards servants. In 1950, after moving to Pakistan, she tortured to death her servant woman by name Bano and was jailed. Abida Sultan retained friendly feelings towards Munawwar Jahan, visited her in prison, and helped her to avoid punishment. The assassin was released after 10 months. ⁵³ Perhaps such cruelty was an exclusion: Visiting Bhopal after emigrating to Pakistan, Abida Sultan saw the members of the princely family who had stayed in India in old palaces and in the company of old servants who had remained faithful to their masters even after the liquidation of the principality.

The material, which I had been able to read, whatever its limitations, made it possible to surmise that the servants of the Bhopal ruling family had been the main providers of the princely way of life, glamour and status, in both their aspects: one modelled after the Mughals and another after the European aristocracy. The relations between servants and their masters primarily followed a medieval patriarchal model. As can be gleaned from this article and the preceding one, the nawābs had been served by both the slaves and freely hired servants, the latter being an overwhelming majority. The servants were perceived, in a typically medieval vein, as parts of an enlarged family, as its junior, subordinate members, as lifelong ‘disciples’. This was testified by the terminology as well as by the practice of using terms of kinship by both servants and masters in their communication with each other. The master was not just an employer, but a patriarch or matriarch, authorised to reward and punish their younger family members as well as servants. The employer was obliged to take care of the servants. Abida Sultan mentioned a servant woman by name Lakshmi, whose job was to light the kerosene lamps in the palace and extinguish them when the inmates went to bed. This job ended when, in the 1920s, the palaces got electricity. ⁵⁴ However, as testified by the Russian immigrant Vera Luboshinsky, whose husband was employed by the last nawāb, in the 1940s, this woman was still in the palace, ‘and will remain there until she dies’. ⁵⁵ Situations and characters varied everywhere, to be sure, but I strongly doubt that her Western counterpart, under similar conditions, would have been allowed to stay in the master’s house.

In my previous article, I discussed the ‘decorative’ functions of the Bhopal palace servants who had to attest to the high status of their masters by not only working for them but also just accompanying them and being present by their side on every occasion. This ‘attestation’ was needed to impress the subjects, and even more so the British sovereigns. To be sure, the queens’ handmaids and attendants who had to accompany the ruler and be visible for the public were dressed lavishly, but the ‘shabby and ugly’ uniforms of the palace or garden servants and even their going ‘almost naked’ did not seem, as the documents show, to bother the nawābs before the ‘grace-giving’ visit of the Viceroy. The fuss about the uniforms, as recorded in the archives, testified to the rulers’ desire to demonstrate, through the servants’ look, their ‘civilised’ character to the British overlords: Quite naturally, the newly prepared uniforms had to be removed and kept in stock for the next ‘grace-giving’ visit.

The palace servants played an important role, not limited to just attesting to the masters’ status and serving the guests, in the relations between the Bhopal rulers and their British sovereigns. Every ‘grace-giving’ visit by British dignitaries to Bhopal was discussed between the two sides in every detail, and in those discussions, an extremely important aspect was to determine who and how had to pay each other’s servants. The master’s exclusive right to hire, determine salary and reward their attendants was considered pivotal for the very concept of domination. That was why the ‘tradition’ of ‘gifting’ the servants of the Viceroy, AGG and other colonial officials by the Bhopal rulers (and other ‘native’ princes) met with such a negative attitude from the British authorities. The exclusive right to punish servants also belonged to their employers, and even the fining of a lackey with a trifling sum by the British manager was to be reported to the Bhopal government. This monopoly was an attestation of Bhopal’s sovereignty, which the British preferred to maintain in such cases but easily broke down in other—this subject deserves a separate study.

The princely family was attended by hundreds of men and women, Muslims and Hindus and of various castes. Their statuses, salaries, working styles, positions and so on varied, and the closer a servant was to the ‘body’ of the master, the better rewarded s/he was. Like all domestic servants in various countries and different epochs—from antiquity to the present day—they did their jobs silently and remained invisible in the majority of the written sources. And only in some archival materials, dealing with concrete situations, they emerged as human beings with names, families, communal and caste identities, professions, characters and life episodes. Even dressed in the ‘Western’ uniforms, they existed within an Indian, extended and patriarchal family, which could imitate the European fashion in some aspects but not in the core relations between the family and its domestic workers. Admiring the ‘efficiency’ of European servants, the members of the Bhopal princely family understood well that the Western system of master–servant relations wholly contradicted the Indian social order. No doubt, European servants enjoyed better working conditions and salaries, but being for their employers just hired workers and nothing more, they would have never, let me suggest, stayed with their masters after the latter’s princely status was gone, nor would have their masters allowed them to stay with them for life after the necessity of their work had expired. Their Indian counterparts, however, viewed themselves as subordinate members of the family, unable to abandon their forlorn seniors. It would be risky to estimate which system was better, but such a comparison, along with a more detailed study of domestic servants as an important focus of social relations, could be useful for discerning the specificities of each society.