No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2024
This article explores the practice of the sport of tiger hunting among the Wodeyars, the maharajas of Mysore, through an examination of art, archival records, state gazetteers, and a tour diary of Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV. It argues that the Wodeyars only adopted the sport as an expression of kingship in the late nineteenth century, under British influence. This, I posit, was part of their larger attempt to align their kingship to more popular Indian modes, specifically the Rajputs. By reading accounts of the sport in Krishnaraja Wodeyar’s tour diary, along with examining the Wodeyars’ attempts at forging kinship relations with the Rajputs, the article demonstrates how the sport became crucial to the Wodeyars’ assertion of a Rajput identity and to attempts to obtain a higher position in the princely hierarchy of the colonial period. The recognition that the success of tiger hunts was significant to Rajput kingship and identity, along with rising concern over the diminishing tiger population, led the Wodeyars to enclose forests, establish private hunting preserves and a shikar department, and classify tiger as game in an attempt to improve the sport and make it exclusive.
1 ‘Jairam Ramesh recalls Jayachamaraja Wadiyar’s contribution to wildlife conservation’, The Hindu, 21 February 2020.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 See Ramusack, Barbara N., The Indian princes and their states (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 See Hughes, Julie E., Animal kingdoms: Hunting environment and power in the princely states (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the use of the sport in Rajput political practice. For more on Mughals’ employment of the hunt, see Pandian, Anand S., ‘Predatory care: The imperial hunt in Mughal and British India’, Journal of Historical Sociology, vol. 14, no. 1, 2001, pp. 79–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parpia, Shah, ‘Mughal hunting grounds: Landscape manipulation and garden association’, Garden History, vol. 44, no. 2, 2016, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar
6 Punzo Waghorne, Joanne, The raja’s magic clothes: Re-visioning kingship and divinity in England’s India (University Park: Penn State University Press, 1994), p. .Google Scholar
7 Mackenzie, John M., The empire of nature: Hunting, conservation, and British imperialism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Storey, William K., ‘Big cats and imperialism: Lion and tiger hunting in Kenya and northern India, 1898–1930’, Journal of World History, vol. 2, no. 2, 1991, pp. 135–173Google Scholar. For more on the hunt as a colonial display of masculinity, see Pandian, M. S. S., ‘Gendered negotiation: Hunting and colonialism in the late 19th century Nilgiris’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, vol. 9, nos. 1–2, 1995, pp. 239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sramek, Joseph, ‘Face him like a Briton: Tiger hunting, imperialism and British masculinity in colonial India 1800–1875’, Victorian Studies, vol. 48, no. 4, 2006, pp. 659–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the use of the hunt as a means of colonial governance, see Ramadas Mandala, Vijaya, Shooting a tiger: Big-game hunting and conservation in colonial India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Belliappa, Mukunda, ‘A natural history of colonialism’, New England Review (1900–), vol. 36, no. 3, 2015, pp. 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Ramusack, The Indian princes, p. 28.
10 Ibid., p. 31.
11 Ibid., pp. 31–32.
12 The Anglo-Mysore Wars is a series of four wars fought in the late eighteenth century between the kingdom of Mysore and the combined forces of the British East India Company (mainly, the Madras presidency), the Maratha confederacy, and the Nizam of Hyderabad. It concluded with the fall of Tipu Sultan at the Battle of Seringapatam in 1799.
13 Nair, Janaki, Mysore modern: Rethinking the region under princely rule (Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 2012), pp. 8–10.Google Scholar
14 Rao, Shama, Modern Mysore: From the coronation of Chamarajendra Wodeyar X in 1868 to the present time (Mysore: Higginbothams, 1936).Google Scholar
15 Kooiman, Dick, ‘Invention of tradition in Travancore: A maharaja’s quest for political security’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 15, no. 2, 2005, pp. 151–164Google Scholar. For earlier publications, see McLeod, John, Sovereignty, power, control: Politics in the state of western India 1916–1947 (Leiden: Brill, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ramusack, Barbara N., The princes of India in the twilight of empire: Dissolution of a patron-client system 1914–1939 (Columbus: Published for the University of Cincinnati by Ohio State University Press, 1978).Google Scholar
16 Ramusack, The princes of India, p. 15.
17 Hughes, Animal kingdoms.
18 Rice published two sets of gazetteers of Mysore. Rice, B. L., Mysore and Coorg: A gazetteer (Bangalore: Government of Mysore Press, 1876–1878)Google Scholar is published in three volumes: Mysore general (1877, vol. I), Mysore by districts (1876, vol. II), and Coorg (1878, vol. III). B. L. Rice, Mysore: A gazetteer compiled for the government (Westminster: Archibald Constable and Company, 1897) is published in two volumes: Mysore in general (1897, vol. I) and Mysore by districts (1897, vol. II).
19 Rice, Coorg, p. 54.
20 Ibid., p. 160. According to the customs of the region, the person who killed the tiger and the one who first touched its tail were considered the heroes of the hunt. While a person who touches the tail of the tiger slayed by the king is honoured with a gold bangle, those that first touch the tail of tigers killed by others is gifted a silver bangle.
21 Ibid., p. 54.
22 Rice, Mysore general, p. 147.
23 Rice, Mysore in general, p. 177.
24 Rao, C. Hayavadana, History of Mysore under the Wodeyar dynasty of kings, 1399–1704 (Bangalore: Superintendent Government Press, 1943), pp. 529–536.Google Scholar
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., p. 536.
28 Ibid., pp. 523–524.
29 See Rangarajan, Mahesh, ‘The Raj and the natural world: The campaign against “dangerous beasts” in colonial India, 1875–1925’, Studies in History, vol. 14, no. 2, 1998, p. .Google Scholar
30 Simmons, Caleb, ‘The goddess and vaiṣṇavism in search for regional supremacy: Woḍeyar devotional traditions during the reign of Rāja Woḍeyar (1578–1617 CE)’, Indian History, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 27–46.Google Scholar
31 Clooney, Francis X. and Stewart, Tony K., ‘Vaisnava’, in The Hindu world, (eds) Mittal, Sushil and Thursby, Gene (New York and London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 162–184.Google Scholar
32 M. K. Ranjitsinh argues that as the Vaishnavite rajas of Manipur did not engage in hunting, they did not take steps to protect wildlife in their state. According to him, they did not take up the sport in the colonial period, and it was the British who were responsible for any wildlife preservation measures taken in the state. See M. K. Ranjitsinh, A life with wildlife: From princely India to the present (Noida: Harper Collins Publishers India, 2017).
33 Rao, History of Mysore, p. 480.
34 The Bangadi shikari is very similar to the large-scale elephant capture operations, or the khedda employed by the Mughals and later by the East India Company to capture elephants. Mysore was famous for its khedda operations in the colonial period.
35 Annual report of the Mysore Archaeological Department for the year 1938 (Bangalore: Superintendent, Government Press, 1938), pp. 46–71.
36 Nair, Mysore modern, pp. 8–10.
37 Desai, Vishaka N., ‘Timeless symbolic royal portraits from Rajasthan 17th–19th centuries’, in The idea of Rajasthan: Explorations in regional identity, (eds) Schomer, Karine and Erdman, Joan L. (Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 1994), pp. 313–342.Google Scholar
38 Nair, Mysore modern. See also Simmons, Caleb, Devotional sovereignty: Kingship and religion in India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Nair, Mysore modern, p. 88.
40 Simmons, Devotional sovereignty, p. 170.
41 Vinil Paul in his examination of the history of hunting in the modern state of Kerala informs us that the princes of Travancore and Kochi continued to keep away from hunting in the colonial period. However, they were more than happy to accommodate the desire of their European and British guests to hunt wild animals. See Paul, Vinil, Mrugaya: Keralathinte Nayattucharithram (Kottayam: DC Books, 2022).Google Scholar
42 Rao, Modern Mysore, p.17.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Mangan, J. A. and Mackenzie, Callum, Militarism, hunting, imperialism: ‘Blooding’ the martial male (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar
47 Miller, John, Empire and the animal body: Violence, identity and ecology in Victorian adventure fiction (New York: Anthem Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 ‘Report on the Education of H. H the Maharaja of Mysore’, British Library (BL), India Office Records (IOR)/R/2/Box 44/404, 1871.
49 Russell, William Howard, The Prince of Wales’ Tour: A Diary in India, with Some Account of the visits of His Royal Highness to the Courts of Greece, Egypt, Spain and Portugal (New York: R. Worthington, 1878), p. .Google Scholar
50 Ibid., p. 135.
51 ‘Diary of H. H the Maharaja of Mysore: Provincial tour 1901–02’, Royal Society for Asian Affairs (RSAA).
52 Ibid., pp. 29–30.
53 Ibid., p. 62.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid., p. 110.
56 Ibid., p. 111.
57 Cannadine, David, Ornamentalism: How the British saw their empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. .Google Scholar
58 Ibid., p. 14.
59 Ibid., p. 10.
60 Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Representing authority in Victorian India’, in The invention of tradition, (eds) Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 165–210.Google Scholar
61 In the British-created hierarchy of princes, each Indian king was accorded a certain number of gun salutes: 21 was the highest and nine was the lowest. Queen Victoria stood at the apex and received a 101-gun salute, followed by the viceroy with a 31-gun salute. At the 1877 Durbar, Lytton raised the three richest rulers, namely of Hyderabad, Baroda, and Mysore, to a 21-gun salute.
62 While making arrangements for the vice-regal visit in 1913, Hugh Daly, the Resident of Mysore, suggested an evening tea party ‘as the Indian gentlemen who attend mixed functions here come mostly from the official class & are at home at a garden party than at an evening reception’. He reminded the military secretary that ‘there is practically nothing to correspond with the class of nobles & Sardars whom one meets in the states of northern & central India’. ‘His Excellency the Viceroy’s (Lord Harding) visit to Mysore’, BL, IOR/R/2/Box33/320, 1913.
63 Ikegame, Aya, Princely India re-imagined: A historical anthropology of Mysore from 1799 to the present (New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid., pp. 101–102.
66 The Government of India had implemented the Age of Consent Act of 1891 which prohibited the consummation of marriage for girls below 12 years old in British India. In Mysore, marriage was prohibited for Hindu girls below the age of eight. For a discussion of the debates around it, see Nair, Mysore modern, pp. 219–244.
67 Robertson to Elgin, 22 October 1897, BL, IOR/R/1/1/195.
68 Crooke, W., ‘Rajputs and Mahrattas’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 40, 1910, pp. 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 Freitag, Jason, Serving the empire, serving the nation: James Tod and the Rajputs of Rajasthan (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), p. CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is important to note that Tod (1829) did not place the Rajputs and the European races at the same stage of development. Like many other Orientalists, he believed that the Rajputs were at the infantile stage, while the Europeans had reached maturity.
70 Kolff, Dirks H. A., Naukar, Rajput, and sepoy: The ethnohistory of the military labour market of Hindustan 1450–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
71 Ibid., p. 72.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 Satyanarayana, A., History of the Wodeyars of Mysore, 1610– 1748 (Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, 1996)Google Scholar. For more on the use of origin myths and legends for vested interests in Mysore, see Simmons, Devotional sovereignty.
75 Confidential Memo of Instruction, 26 July 1898, BL, IOR/R/2 temp. 30/278.
76 On the other hand, the reactions to the alliance from the local populace were not very favourable; see Ikegame, Princely India re-imagined, pp. 97–118.
77 In discussions regarding the re-evaluation of the succession to the throne of Pudukottai, the opinion of the Maharaja of Mysore, who was ‘a sudra ruler’ like that of Pudukottai, was given due weightage over other rulers. The Maharaja of Mysore was in opposition to the succession, unlike the Rajputs who supported it. See Dey Jhala, Angma, Courtly Indian women in late imperial India (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2008), p. .Google Scholar
78 ‘Indian States: Pudukota; succession (1927–1930)’, BL, IOR/L/PS/10/1221/1.
79 Rao, Modern Mysore, p. 496.
80 ‘Visit of a Grand Duke of Russia to Mysore on a shooting trip’, National Archives of India (NAI), Mysore Residency (MR), 1891, Prog no. 14, 1891.
81 Ibid.
82 Hughes, Animal kingdoms.
83 Ibid., p. 115.
84 Ibid., p. 55.
85 Ibid., p. 60.
86 Ibid., p. 61.
87 Ibid., p. 78.
88 Albert Theobald and his sons Charles and William were popular naturalists and big-game sportsmen in the region. Theobald Brothers, the family’s taxidermy enterprise, was one of the most popular taxidermy firms in colonial India. File: ‘Appointment of Mr. Theobald as State Shikari’, Bangalore State Archives (BSA), Forest Department (FD), 1901, 74 of 1901, 1–6.
89 Order No FI. 1757–68/Ft. F. 29–95, dated 12 January 1904, BSA, FD, Proceedings, 1903–1904. As result, Theobald’s appointment as state shikari ceased from 1 January 1904. See Suresh, Usha and Gayathri, J. V., Selections from the records of the Mysore Palace: Game and tiger preserves of the maharajas of Mysore (Bangalore: Department of Archives, 2001), p. .Google Scholar
90 See Suresh and Gayathri, Selections, p. 2.
91 By royal hunts, I am referring to hunts arranged for the entertainment of the maharaja and his personal guests. By state hunts, I mean hunts arranged for the entertainment of state guests. Separate accounts were maintained for the expenses incurred by the game preserves officers for the two kinds of hunts.
92 ‘Constitution of Tiger Preserves’, No R. 4507–16—Ft. 98–16–2, dated 16 November 1917, ‘Constitution of Game Preserves’, BSA, FD, 1916, Prog: 98 of 1916, 1, 2, 3.
93 Letter from M. G. Rama Rao, Chief Conservator of Forests, Mysore to L. Krishna Rao, Secretary to the Government of HH the Maharaja of Mysore, Revenue department, dated 13 November 1916, ‘Constitution of Game Preserves’, BSA, FD, 1916, Prog: 98 of 1916, 1, 2, 3.
94 See Rangarajan, ‘The Raj and the natural world’, p. 294.
95 Hunters often wait for game on elevated platforms of considerable height, known as machans, which are often constructed on tree branches.
96 Devi, Gayatri, A princess remembers: The memoirs of the Maharani of Jaipur (New Delhi: Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd, 1995), p..Google Scholar
97 Order no I.C.2962–3/Ft.112–21–1 dated 19 November 1921 (referred to in Order no G 13449/ft 210–28–3), ‘Appointment of Mr D.N Neelakanata Rao’, Mysore Regional Archives (MRA), Game and Tiger Preserves (GTP), 1926.
98 Order No. I.C.516-18/Ft. 30-26-2 dated 20 July 1926, MRA, GTP.
99 Govt. order No. I.C.251-61/Ft. 352-25-3, dated 12 July 1926, MRA, GTP.
100 ‘Amendment of the Game and Fish Preservation Act of 1901’, BSA, FD, 179 of 1926, 1–4.
101 Ibid.
102 G.O. No. G 12144-200–Ft. 179–26–2 dated 10 July 1928, in ‘Amendment of the Game and Preservation Regulation II of 1901’, BSA, FD, 1926, 179 of 1926, 1–4.
103 Records mention only seven tiger shikar camps held for European guests from 1931 to 1947, with six tigers bagged.
104 Reports on the Working of the Game and Tiger Preserves for the years 1932–33; 33–34; and 34–35, MRA, GTP.
105 While tracking a bison, the party encountered a tigress at close quarters and the Maharaja shot her. Entry dated 19 April 1939, ‘Weekly diaries of D. N. Neelakanta Rao 1936–1939’, MRA, GTP, 1936.
106 Mackenzie, The empire of nature, p. 172.
107 Weekly Diaries of the Game and Tiger Preserves Officer 1929–1949, MRA, GTP.
108 ‘Weekly Diaries of D. N. Neelakanta Rao 1929–1949’, MRA, GTP.
109 The number of tigers wounded is not included.
110 ‘Weekly Diary of the Game and Tiger Preserves Officer from June 1937–June 1938’, MRA, GTP.
111 ‘Weekly Diaries of D. N. Neelakanta Rao 1929–1949’, MRA, GTP. For an opposing view of natives to big-game hunting, see Rashkow, Ezra, ‘Resistance to hunting in pre-independence India: Religious environmentalism, ecological nationalism or cultural conservation?’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 49, no. 2, 2015, pp. 270–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
112 Many photographs show the Maharani Pratap Kumari of Mysore at the khedda. However, the records make no mention of any bags nor of her presence during the princely shikars.
113 ‘Administration Report of the Game Preserves Office, 1940–41 to 1947–48’, MRA, GTP, 1940.
114 Procida, Mary A., Married to the empire: Gender, politics and imperialism in India, 1883–1947 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
115 Ramadas Mandala, Vijay, ‘Tiger huntresses in the Company Raj: Environmentalism and exotic imaginings of wildlife, 1830–45’, International Review of Environmental History, vol. 5, no. 2, 2019, pp. 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116 Ramadas Mandala, Vijay, ‘British huntswomen in colonial India: Imperialism and gender hierarchies, 1980–1921’, International Review of Environmental History, vol. 6, no. 1, 2020, pp. 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
117 Devi, A princess remembers, p. 54.
118 Gayatri Devi records that she went on her first shoot at the tender age of five. Ibid., p. 62.
119 Ibid., pp. 62–63.
120 Ibid., pp. 138–139.