In 1901, Rani Bai Shri Hajuba of Rajkot ‘secretly and abruptly’ departed her kingdom for a neighbouring state, Dhrangadhra. In a confidential letter sent by the Political Agent of Kathiawar, she was accused of having a ‘mischievous advisor’ who had misguided her through intrigue (khatpat) to leave her kingdom without informing the British management. Seven years later in 1908, the Rani of Palitana, from a kingdom in close geographic proximity, was accused by her Political Agent of similar court intrigue and was questioned for remaining in the home of her brother, the Raja of Bansda, rather than returning to her own state. Both Hindu queens acted in this manner to safeguard the interests of their daughters during disputed marriage alliances.

These two cases, regarding the freedom of movement for Hindu ranis in peninsular Gujarat, relate to the broader theme of British intervention in the internal affairs of Indian princely states during the late colonial period. Colonial intervention in the marriage politics of Rajput princely states was hotly debated, bifurcating opposing groups of royal and aristocratic circles, challenging earlier, pre-colonial dynastic hierarchies and providing new powers and capabilities to Hindu Rajput queens. Expanding upon the earlier chapters, this chapter argues that the British administrative government was often a middle player in the conflicts between Hindu queens and traditional male wielders of power. In certain instances, Zenana women advocated non-intervention in the domestic affairs of their states while local noblemen and ruling princes endorsed and encouraged British influence to bolster indigenous constructs of patriarchy and male rulership.

The interpretation of conjugal happiness was central to this debate. In defiance of earlier Rajput and Hindu precedent, both queens used the language of love, ‘choice’ in marriage and ‘happiness’, to legitimate their actions in breaking off their daughter's betrothals. In contrast, male factions argued that such values negated the fundamental principles of Rajput and Hindu family law, and would ultimately lead to a ‘revolution’ in marriage practice.