Mysuru: Suggestions by Pramoda Devi Wadiyar regarding the conduct of the Jumboo Savari and the safety of the golden howdah during Mysuru Dasara have triggered a debate on social media, with citizens expressing differing views on the erstwhile royal family’s legacy, government responsibility and the legal status of royal artefacts.
The discussion gained momentum following sharp responses from Mysuru District in-charge Minister Yathindra Siddaramaiah and Chief Minister D K Shivakumar to Pramoda Devi Wadiyar’s recent media statements. Her concerns reportedly included the conduct of government officials, particularly the police, and proposals concerning the traditional procession and the use of the Ambari.
While some social media users have defended the royal family’s historical contribution to Mysuru and Karnataka, others have focused on the legal framework governing the Palace and the arrangements for using the golden howdah during the annual festival. The debate has also raised questions about public expenditure, ceremonial traditions and the responsibilities of officials during a major cultural event.
Advocate questions minister’s remarks on royal family’s legacy
Girish Bharadwaj, a Bengaluru-based advocate, criticised Yathindra Siddaramaiah’s remarks, arguing that the historical and constitutional circumstances surrounding the accession of princely states to independent India should be taken into account.
“Yathindra appears to have little understanding of the Instrument of Accession and the constitutional framework under which princely states joined independent India,” Bharadwaj said.
He referred to Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, stating that the ruler was among the earliest princely rulers to accede to India voluntarily. Bharadwaj argued that the rights and privileges associated with the erstwhile royal family should be considered in their historical and constitutional context.
He also questioned the government’s handling of the Dasara arrangements, arguing that the minister should reflect on the coordination of officials before criticising the royal family.
Bharadwaj highlighted the Wadiyar family’s contributions to education, healthcare, infrastructure, culture and public welfare, saying these had left a lasting mark on Mysuru and Karnataka.
“Their legacy is one of service, sacrifice and commitment to this land,” he said.
His comments reflected one strand of the online debate, in which supporters of the erstwhile royal family have emphasised its historical role in the development of Mysuru and the importance of maintaining respect for its traditions.
The exchange comes amid wider public discussion about the relationship between the royal family’s ceremonial role and the state government’s responsibility for organising Dasara, one of Karnataka’s most prominent annual cultural festivals.
Safety of golden howdah becomes a key issue
Sampath Kumar, a technology professional, expressed support for Pramoda Devi Wadiyar’s concerns about the safety of the golden howdah during the festivities.
He questioned whether sufficient attention was being paid to the Ambari when senior officials and police personnel were occupied with taking photographs during the event.
“Pramoda Devi Wadiyar is right in being anxious about the safety of the Ambari. If everyone — right from the CM to the Police constable — is busy clicking pictures, what will happen to the Ambari,” Kumar said.
At the same time, he acknowledged Yathindra’s argument concerning the legal aspects of royal property and the payment made for using the Ambari during Dasara.
“Yathindra is also right in highlighting the legalities of the royal property and the hefty sum that is being paid to rent the Ambari,” he added.
Kumar’s comments illustrated the mixed views emerging from the controversy. While the safety and ceremonial importance of the golden howdah have prompted concern, the financial and legal arrangements governing its use have also become part of the discussion.
The Ambari is a central feature of the Jumboo Savari procession, in which the idol of Goddess Chamundeshwari is carried in a ceremonial howdah mounted on an elephant. Its use involves arrangements concerning the artefact, the procession and the officials responsible for managing the event.
The concerns raised online have therefore extended beyond the disagreement between the minister and the royal family to include the practical responsibilities involved in protecting an important ceremonial object during a crowded public celebration.
Activist invokes Wadiyar contributions to Mysuru
Activist Mohan Gowda framed the controversy as a question of respect for the erstwhile royal family’s historical contributions.
In his comments, Gowda argued that the Wadiyars had used their wealth, vision and resources to contribute to the development of modern Mysuru. He said concerns raised by Pramoda Devi Wadiyar about the golden howdah and the safety of elephants participating in Dasara should be addressed with respect and accountability.
“Government office is a responsibility, not a licence to disrespect history and tradition,” Gowda said.
He also argued that the family’s legacy should not be viewed solely through the financial arrangements involved in the use of the Ambari.
Gowda’s remarks reflected criticism from social media users who believe that discussions about government expenditure should be separated from questions of historical recognition and ceremonial respect.
The debate, however, also involves the state’s role in organising a public festival and ensuring that arrangements are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and administrative procedures.
Mysuru Dasara draws large crowds and involves several government departments, including the police, which are responsible for crowd management and security. The movement of the procession, the presence of dignitaries and the participation of elephants make coordination among officials an important part of the event.
The controversy has brought these responsibilities into sharper focus, with some participants in the debate emphasising tradition and others pointing to the legal and administrative dimensions of the arrangements.
Writer cites earlier High Court case over royal artefacts
Writer Siddegowda Shyam Prasad referred to an earlier legal dispute involving the golden howdah and the golden throne, highlighting the distinction between the government’s decision to make payments and a judicial determination of ownership.
According to Prasad, retired professor P V Nanjaraja Urs filed a public interest litigation in the Karnataka High Court in 2015 challenging payments made to the erstwhile royal family for the use of the golden howdah during Mysuru Dasara. The petition also questioned the family’s custody of the golden howdah and golden throne.
Prasad said the High Court dismissed the petition, leaving the questions concerning possession and the government’s decision on payments to its discretion.
He also stressed that the dismissal did not amount to a judicial declaration that the royal family owned the artefacts.
The distinction is significant to the present debate because the question of who possesses an object, the terms on which it is used for a public event and its legal ownership are not necessarily the same issue.
The golden howdah’s use during Dasara has become a focal point of the dispute, bringing together questions about heritage, public expenditure and the legal status of objects associated with the former Mysuru kingdom.
The comments shared by Prasad add a legal dimension to the discussion, which has otherwise largely centred on political statements, historical contributions and the conduct of officials.
Debate reflects competing views on tradition and public responsibility
The social media discussion over Pramoda Devi Wadiyar’s remarks has highlighted differing perspectives on the role of the erstwhile royal family in contemporary Mysuru.
Those defending the Wadiyars have emphasised their historical contributions and argued that concerns about the safety of the golden howdah and the conduct of officials deserve careful consideration. Others have focused on the government’s responsibilities, the legal framework governing the Palace and the expenditure involved in using the Ambari for the annual procession.
The dispute also underscores the importance of distinguishing between political arguments, historical interpretations and legal questions. Public comments by individuals participating in the debate represent their respective views and do not, by themselves, settle the legal status of the royal artefacts.
With the chief minister and the minister having responded to the royal family’s concerns, further discussions between the government and the family could influence how the issues are addressed.
For Mysuru, where Dasara is closely connected with the city’s identity and history, the challenge is to manage the festival’s public and ceremonial responsibilities while addressing concerns about safety, administration and heritage.