Princely India by Raja Lala Deen Dayal: Court Photographer (1884-1910) to the Premier Prince of India.

Reading this book is like having an intimate look into a slice of history.

Every time I visit Hyderabad, I visit the Mecca Masjid where the Asaf Jah kings lie in peace: all except the First Nizam and the Seventh Nizam. One can still find the remnants of past splendour in the Paigah tombs and the vast tomb complex of the Qutubshahi kings. Yet, the nondescript marble tombs of the Asaf Jahs draw as many visitors as the rest. My favourite is the tomb of the sixth Nizam Mahbub Ali Khan Pasha in Mecca Masjid where visitors are smeared with ashes on the brow to protect them from snake bites and bad luck. This book offers a rare glimpse of this King, Saint and beloved of the people, the 6th Nizam of Hyderabad.

The Asafjah dynasty rose out of the ruins of war through audacity and political craft.

Twice in history, Asafjahs swam against the current of political change that drowned even bigger dynasties in its deluge: The first time after the invasion of Delhi by Nadir Shah in 1739 and second, after the 1857 Indian war of Independence that ended with the exile of Bahadur Shah Zafar II to Rangoon and the complete dismantling of the Mughal empire.

This book is a collection of photographs taken by Raja Deen Dayal. Financial adversity compelled Deen Dayal’s later generations to sell off somewhere between forty thousand to sixty thousand annotated glass plate negatives for the price of glass scrap. The present book is a compilation of the remaining photographs by the grandson Raja Amichand Deen Dayal. No other photographic or literary record of Nizam Mir Mahbub Ali Khan exists.

Mahbub Ali Khan ascended the throne when he was three following the demise of his father and was tutored by an English teacher, Major Clerk appointed by the British resident, John Cordery. The tutor was later dismissed by the resident for imparting to the young Nizam ‘liberal’ values detrimental to the empire. After the departure of the English tutor, Raja Deen Dayal was one of the very few who had rare access to the reclusive life of the shy and private Nizam. He was appointed the court photographer in 1884 and worked in that capacity until his death in 1910. The demise of the sixth Nizam in 1911 ended the royal patronage to Deen Dayal’s successors.

Clark Worswick discusses in his historical text to the volume, the immense contribution of Raja Deen Dayal in immortalizing the Nizam and Princely Hyderabad through his photographs. While I agree with him, I would also like to add that it was the fore sight and generosity of Mir Mahbub Ali Khan that preserved history and Deen Dayal’s craft for future generations.

The Asaf Jahs were the last gate keepers of Mughal art and high culture. The fall of the Mughal Empire and the dissolution of the Awadh court catalysed an influx of talent into Hyderabad seeking royal patronage and support. The aftermath of the 1857 war of Independence heralded an era of abrupt change. Traditional arts such as paintings, portraits and miniatures gave way to the modern art of photography. Getting a photograph ‘done’ was a symbol of modernity for the Indian aristocracy and Indian bourgeois alike. The absence of patrons and clamour to climb the social ladder hastened the demise of the art of portraiture. Photography became more than art, it became a symbol of social advancement.

Nizam Mahbub Ali Khan’s patronage assumes special significance because this was the first of such an offer to a native Indian professional photographer, privileging him over other reputed and established British Photography firms. Worswick’s words add credence to this sentiment:

“…..the native photographers had to contend with the social snobbery that dictated periodic visits by the princes to British photographic firms based in Calcutta. Perhaps this tradition, more than anything else, doomed the emergent Indian photographer. Yearly the princes would make their almost obligatory trip to Calcutta for the social season, when it was customary for them to be ‘done” by either Bourne & Shepherd or Johnston & Hoffman. These firms were so large, well-equipped, and prestigious that it was impossible for a small Indian firm in a native state to compete (P.18)”


As I leaf through the book I feel, for once Nizam Mahbub Ali Khan’s generosity has not been laid waste. Raja Deen Dayal’s photographs serve both as a record of architecture and social commentary about the times. Deen Dayal captures the mood between the ruler and the ruled with a unique Indian sensibility. For instance, the photograph of the masquerade party demystifies the relations between the imperial ruler and the native (pp. 82-83). The photographs of the tiger hunt in Madanpalle (P.53) and the visit of Grand Duke Alexander of Russia in (P.55) allude to a vanished world. It is hard not to remember the food for work programme of the modern Indian state as one pores over the pictures of the famine relief and public work programs to provide employment to people in 1910(P.64 and P.69)

This book is a window into the past giving us a rare glimpse of the social and political climate in Hyderabad during the reign of Nizam Mahbub Ali Khan. A picture is worth a thousand words, but I would say each photograph is worth ten thousand more because hidden within the static image is the story of a dynamic socio-political milieu.

"Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth" by Audrey Truschke

Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth by Audrey Truschke

My rating: 1 of 5 stars


In this book Audrey Truschke takes up the challenge of addressing one of the most controversial figures of Indian history. The book should be read in the spirit it was written- as a "preliminary" engagement/exploration of alternative understandings about Aurangzeb. A historian’s task to this extent is doubly challenging: identifying the source material and putting aside one’s predispositions and prejudices in the task of interpreting the sources. Truschke claims she has stepped forward from earlier research (read Jadunath Sarkar’s) on Aurangzeb in this regard.

The author attempts to understand Aurangzeb’s core values and how they informed his rule as an emperor. She claims that Aurangzeb wanted “to be a just king, a good Muslim and a sustainer of Mughal culture.” She condones Aurangzeb’s use of violent tactics to continue his plans of an expansionist state. In her words: “But the question before us is not whether Aurangzeb was a just king. Rather I want to know what Aurangzeb thought it meant to be a just Mughal king, and how that shaped is world views and actions as emperor of Hindustan” (P.13).

However, at a few points in the book, it is hard to reconcile the author’s benign reading of Aurangzeb with her own evidence. The narrative construct seems repetitive and thin. The reader is left unconvinced. For instance, the author claims Aurangzeb extended state security to Hindu and Jain temples more often than he demolished them. Aurangzeb authorized targeted temple destructions and desecrations throughout his rule (PP 100-101). Though, Aurangzeb issued an order in 1672 recalling all endowed land grants given to Hindus and reserved all such land grants for Muslims it was not strictly enforced, hence a second order was issued.

Truschke contends that: “If strictly enforced, this move would have been a significant blow to Hindu and Jain religious communities, but historical evidence suggests otherwise” (P.105). I feel the author widely misses the point that policy stance sets the tone for public culture. Policy initiatives especially in those times cannot be taken lightly. The empire existed to please the emperor. In the absence of appropriate checks and balances in that time and day the emperor’s inclinations would have directed and shaped political culture of the public.

The idea that Aurangzeb’s religious ideas were puritanical and that he was “pious” than his predecessors is contested in the book. I wish the author would have delved deeper into the tenuous relation between religion and politics. That the Mughal emperors and even the kings of the Delhi Sultanate in the earlier centuries strived to win over the religious leaders to legitimize their authority has been explored elsewhere. It is this nuance that might have been explored in the book. For all his ‘piety’ and stance on morality I feel Aurangzeb was not far from his predecessors in craving approval from the Ulema and privileging the role of religion in real politick. Rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and early Mughal emperors were aware that they might have won over the land but the popular will and sympathies lied with the Sufi masters who were the real Kings ruling the hearts of the people.

I would have liked to read more about Aurangzeb’s contentious relation with the Sufis of Delhi and the Deccan. The author does have a good point that Aurangzeb’s piety might have been a performance for himself (to redeem himself from guilt for his past actions) and for others (to gain credibility). The conflicting personalities of Aurangzeb are laid out in Chapters 4 and 5.
I wish the author would have engaged more on Aurangzeb’s lack of an enduring legacy. Had he consolidated his victories and built a bureaucratic apparatus to implement his idea of justice, history would have remembered him as fair and impartial and not as a vindictive, impulsive emperor meting out retributive justice.

We need more scholars like Truschke to challenge received understanding but we also need rigorous scholarship that moves beyond conjecture and thin evidence.







View all my reviews