It would to most people seem a travesty of justice to declare the Pataudis as the enemy of the nation. It would appear downright bizarre if you were to recall the salience some of the Pataudis have in the popular consciousness.
There was, obviously, the late Mansur Ali Khan, better known as the Nawab of Pataudi, who is still rated as India’s best cricket captain ever. His wife, Sharmila Tagore, has entertained the nation over the decades through the many films she acted in. It is altogether another matter that she also belongs to the illustrious Tagore family.
Of the three children of Sharmila and Pataudi, Saif Ali Khan enjoys top billing in the Hindi film industry, as does his wife Kareena Kapoor. Their elder daughter, Saba, is a jewelry designer and, more importantly, is the caretaker of the Rs 1,000-crore Auqaf-e-Shahi, or the religious endowment of the Bhopal royal family, a rarity for a Muslim woman. The youngest, Soha, too is in the film industry.
Who’s the enemy?
Who would have ever thought that a family such as the Pataudis could even be deemed the enemy?
But this has become their fate ever since the Custodian of Enemy Property for India served a notice on Saif Ali Khan on December 19, 2014. The custodian invoked Section 11 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, to ask the actor why the properties of the erstwhile Bhopal state that he had presumably inherited shouldn’t be deemed as enemy property.
Then, on February 25, 2015, the custodian declared it as enemy property. In fact, proceedings would have been initiated for the custodian to take over and administer the Bhopal royal estate, but Saif Ali Khan secured a stay from the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The case has already witnessed a few adjournments.
The plight of the Pataudis underscores the draconian nature of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and how it continues to haunt citizens nearly seven decades after Partition. To put it simply, the Act allows the custodian to take over and administer the properties of those who opted for Pakistan or subsequently migrated there (or China). Section 2(b) of the Act defines who is “enemy” and Section 2(c) what is “enemy property”.
The Act has been in the news recently because of the amendments made to it through a controversial ordinance promulgated in early January. The ordinance, however, doesn’t impact the Pataudis. The issue involved here, however, involves rewinding to 1947 to determine the line of succession at the time of India’s Independence.
Migration to Pakistan
The Nawab of Bhopal at the time was Hamidullah Khan. He had three daughters from his first marriage – Abida Sultan, Sajida Sultan and Rabia Sultan. In 1947, he married for the second time, but did not have any biological child other than Farzana, whom his wife adopted. Abida Sultan was nominated the heir apparent under the Bhopal Succession Act.
In 1950, Abida Sultan migrated to Pakistan with her son. Some say her father’s second marriage was one of the reasons behind her decision. She entered the Pakistan Foreign Service; her son is Shahryar Khan, a diplomat of repute and the current chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board.
However, before leaving for Pakistan, Abida Sultan relinquished her claim to succession. The throne of Bhopal, anyway, could not have been hers as she had chosen to become a Pakistani citizen.
Abida Sultan’s migration affected only the line of succession to the Bhopal throne, but not the ownership of the Bhopal royal estate. This was because Hamidullah Khan was still alive when she left for Pakistan and the ownership of properties, therefore, still vested in him. The Enemy Act pertains to ownership of property, not to the issue of succession in a royal family.
The only property that could perhaps be deemed to have belonged to Abida Sultan was the Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, which her grandmother is said to have constructed for her. The Noor-Us-Sabah palace is now a plush heritage hotel.
A question of succession
On the death of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, his second daughter, Sajida Sultan, succeeded him to the throne of Bhopal. She had been married in 1939 to the then Nawab of Pataudi, Iftikhar Ali Khan, who led the Indian cricket team on the 1946 tour of England. They had three children – Mansur Ali Khan or the Nawab of Pataudi Jr, and his two sisters, Saleha and Sabiha.
Sajida Sultan’s succession was officially recognised, as was then the practice, by the President of India. On January 13, 1961, the Press Information Bureau released a statement saying Sajida Sultan had been recognised as the “Ruler of Bhopal with effect from February 4, 1960, in succession to His late Highness Nawab Muhammad Hamidullah Khan” – that is, from the day of the Nawab’s death.
Her Indian citizenship was never in doubt. By then, her son, Pataudi Jr, was chosen for the Indian cricket team that toured the West Indies in 1961. Pataudi Jr succeeded Nari Contractor as captain after he was felled by a bouncer from Charlie Griffith and declared unfit for the Test series.
Sajida Sultan died in 1995, but the issue of succession did not arise as the government had abolished the privy purse and royal titles through the 26th amendment of the Constitution in 1971. The Bhopal royal estate was therefore to be divided according to Muslim Personal Law, as per a district court order.
Accordingly, 50% of the estate was to go to Pataudi Jr and 25% each to his two sisters, Saleha and Sabiha. (Under Muslim Personal Law the share of every son’s inheritance is double that of every daughter. Adopted children do not have the right to inheritance.) In subsequent years, as is well known, there arose disputes between Pataudi and his sisters.
White elephant
By then, the Bhopal estate had gradually shrunk. With the abolition of privy purse, and, therefore, deprived of any source of income, Sajida Sultan had sold properties. Some of these were prohibitively expensive to maintain and she also required money for her upkeep and payment of staff salaries. The Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, for instance, was sold to the descendants of Nawab Hamidullah’s former comptroller of the royal household.
Pataudi testified as to how difficult it was to maintain sprawling palaces in a 2011 interview to the Hindu. “I have no palace,” he said. “Palaces are like elephants around your neck. They are very difficult to maintain. Part of the Bhopal Palace has been given to a University. My cousins live in the other portions.”
Indeed, on paper, the Bhopal estate is said to comprise several properties. But several are occupied by people who do not belong to the Pataudi family, or they have been encroached upon. This has led to prolonged ownership disputes in court.
For instance, one part of the Ahmedabad Palace in Bhopal houses Saifia College. The descendants of Sajida Sultan’s sister, Rabia, live in another portion. Other prime havelis and bungalows like Dar-us-Salam are homes to the descendants of those who served Sajida Sultan and her predecessors. Nearly 80 acres of land in Khanu Gaon belong to the royal estate, but an illegal colony has sprung up over there.
Ownership tangle
This means the Custodian of Enemy Property’s order declaring the erstwhile Bhopal royal estate as “enemy property” will affect many, not just Saif Ali Khan. Since ownerships of royal properties have changed hands or are no longer under the effective control of the Pataudis, would the custodian, if it wins the case, evict its current residents, or owners, as well?
Then again, Saif has inherited, legally speaking, just 50% of the share his father Pataudi inherited from his mother, Sajida Sultan. But Pataudi’s share of 50% would then, under Muslim Personal Law, have to be divided between Saif and his two sisters, Saba and Soha.
In reality, therefore, what we are speaking of is the control the Pataudis have over the famous Flagstaff building, constructed to house visiting Englishmen, and about 30 acres of land around it.
Nobody is clear why the Custodian of Enemy Property chose to consider Abida Sultan as the heir of the Bhopal state, given that she had relinquished her claim, Hamidullah Khan was still alive and did not opt for Pakistan, and Sajida Sultan’s succession had been recognised by the President of India.
The Custodian of Enemy Property, Utpal Chakraborty, who issued both the 2014 notice and the 2015 order, communicated to this writer through his personal assistant that he did not wish to speak on the issue. Sharmila Tagore, too, declined to speak saying that the matter was sub judice, or under judgement.
(Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist in Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, has as its backdrop the demolition of the Babri Masjid. It is available in bookstores.)
