PARUKUTTY NETHYARAMMA RULED AND LOOTED COCHIN

There was heavy looting in the palace

Travancore had Attingal,Kunnummel Ranis and the Umayamma Rani.In modern times,it was ruled by three women:Gowri Lakshmi Bayi(1810-1815),Gowri Parvathi Bayi (1815-1829) and Sethu Lakshmi Bayi (1924-1931).Among them only one,Ayilyam Thirunal Gowri Lakshmi Bayi reigned in her own right for three years, 1810-1813,before becoming Regent during 1813-1815.The Other two were only Regents.It was the adoption of 1788 that brought Gowri Lakshmi and Gowri Parvathi to Travancore.Sethu Lakshmi and Sethu Parvathi,grand daughters of Raja Ravi Varma were adopted from Mavelikara in 1900.

Parukutty

Cochin,people think,never had a Queen.Wrong.It had a very scheming Queen in her 90s who reshaped the State's destiny within two years-Gangadhara Lakshmi(1656-1658). It had a brainy Nair lady ruler Parukutty Nethyaramma who took over the reins during the reign of an absent minded King and an absent Penvazhi Thampuran or Valiamma Thampuran,the Senior Lady of the Royal family.

It is known that when Sonia Gandhi took over as AICC President,the constitution of the Congress Parliamentary Party was amended to incorporate a significant clause:The Congress President will have the right to appoint or disappoint the Prime Minister.It was tradition in Cochin-the senior most female member,Valiamma Thampuran as Head of the royal family will have the authority to appoint or dismiss the King.

So,during the last days of the Portuguese in Cochin,the senior most female member,Gangadhara Lakshmi decided that she will appoint herself.She was 93.Her real name is not known.

It was 1656 . King Rama Varma (1650-1656) died and she found it difficult to find a successor because of disputes in the family.He was adopted from Chazhur.Under Portuguese command,she had adopted five princes from Aroor and Vettath.Both the Mootha thavazhi ,senior branch and Elaya thavazhi,junior branch claimed the throne.The Zamorin,the invading Dutch and small principalities supported the Mootha thavazhi.The Portuguese who supported the rival faction asked Gangadhara Lakshmi to invoke tradition and assume throne.She was Queen for two years during 1656-1658.She raised the Cochin Army of 3500 strong Infantry,120 cannons ,55 Artillery Units and three Naval ships.The Elayathavazhi got monopoly in succession, as princes from Moothathavazhi were arrested and imprisoned.Several princes from Moothathavazhi escaped from the capital of Mattancherry to Ceylon.They met the Dutch in Colombo and the Dutch prepared themselves for the siege of Cochin.

R M Palat

Though Gangadhara Lakshmi made her adopted son Rama Varma the King (1658),she ran the administration.The Dutch built their first Fort Orange in Paravur.Gangadhara Lakshmi discreetly sent Rama Varma to Paravur and worked out a pact with the Dutch.The Dutch Governor Hendrik Van Rheede double crossed and the Dutch in 1660 killed two princes of Moothathavazhi ,who met them in Colombo and brought them to Cochin.At the same time the Queen allied with the Portuguese too.

The Dutch invaded Fort Cochin in 1661 and they fought the great war with the Portuguese in the beach.The Portuguese counted on the Cochin army to pound the Dutch ships at Vypin Fort.The Queen ordered her army to fire balls without gun powder.Fort Cochin fell and King Rama Varma was killed by the Moothathavazhi in the prevailing anarchy.They forged a letter of appointment by Gangadhara Lakshmi and crowned Goda Varma.The Queen was made a hostage in the Calvetty Palace.
The Dutch Governor Van Rheede realized the foul play only when the Cochin Army began to attack the Dutch at the Calvetty Palace.Since it was violation of the friendship treaty,the Dutch soldiers stormed the Palace, arrested the Queen and kept her in custody at Malabar House.She reaffirmed loyalty to the Dutch and blamed Goda Varma for the foul play.At 98,she was again crowned by the Dutch for just two days.Goda Varma arrested and her brother Vira Kerala Varma succeeded her,ending the decade long crisis in 1663.The Palace which was damaged was rebuilt by the Dutch and it became Dutch Palace.

Van Rheede in his autobiography has paid rich tributes to her brilliance,double play and tactics.

Parukutty Nethyaramma was known for her administrative capabilities,but full of intrigues. She was Lady Rama Varma,a product of circumstances.

She was the consort of King Rama Varma(1914-1932) who is popularly known as Madirasiyil Theepetta Thampuran (the king who died in Madras).She was born in Thrissur in1874 to Kurur Nambudiripad.Her mother was from Padinjare Shrambi house of Vadakke Kurupath family. Ramavarma(born 1858) was 16 years elder to her.When they got married in 1888,Rama Varma was a prince and the chance for him to become the king was remote.But Rajarshi Rama Varma(1895-1914) abdicated the throne after a tussle with the British.He had used the Germans to build the Parambikulam Tramway and entertained the German Consul Bueler at Hill palace. The sale of 14 caparisons of the Poornathrayeesa Temple to build the Ernakulam-Shornur railway line and withdrawal of privy purse to the family members had precipitated a crisis in the Royal family;the line was opened in 1902.With all this,the British tried to poison the mind of his wife.Life became hell for him.He stepped out of Hill Palace with just a personal trunk of clothes.Following his abdication,the Valiyamma Thampuran too abdicated after appointing Rama Varma as King.His wife Parukutty filled the gap,took over and virtually became the authority.The majority of the orders during 1914-1932 were signed by Parukutty.

Ramavarma

 A set of palace scholars argue that Rama Varma was an able administrator who attempted reforms based on the Study of Sociology by Herbert Spencer and Political Economy of John Stewart Mill, which doesn't seem to be true.He had other interests:he used to cure snake bites,he tried to comprehend the language of the lizards using Gawlisastra.

According to Sir T. Vijayaraghavachari, the Dewan, “His Highness conveys his commands in a Socratic method. You have to watch his words carefully not to miss the meaning. …..His Highness is a student of Spencer. At times, he would make me suspect he was an agnostic at heart. The act of worshipping in the temple, once H.H remarked to me”- ‘has a tonic effect. The spectacular side of the temples here has to be developed so as to leave a marked impression on those who go to the temples.’

T.K. Krishna Menon recorded this Raja’s period in his book, The Days that were,thus: "The next ruler was a great constitutional Monarch. His generous nature and lofty patriotism and desire to take the country through reasoned progress to the front place among the Indian States were visible in every act of his. He had ‘a dislike for all pomp and ostentatious display’. His knowledge of the Ayurvedic system of medicine and his special aptitude in the treatment of cases of poisoning were always at the disposal of the public. He evinced a parental solicitude in the elevation of the depressed and backward classes. The very first thing that engaged his attention was the financial position of the State……The result was remarkable. The annual income rose from 46 lakhs of rupees in 1914-8-15 to 86 lakhs in 1927-7-28 and a surplus from 12 to about 70 lakhs."

Parukutty handled financial matters.Middle men were driven away from the Palace owned agricultural lands ,collection of taxes was improved; Valiya Thampuran Kovilakam Trust was formed to administer the Palace estate.A stroke made Ramavarma paralytic and he suffered dementia.Rama Varma was in Ollur or Shornur most of the time undergoing Ayurvedic treatment.With improved finance,Parukutty upgraded Maharajas College.Ramavarma was the Chief Guest at the golden jubilee celebrations of the Ernakulam College in 1925 and it was renamed Maharajas college in honour of him.Parukutty improved Trichur zoo,developed the road which later became the M G Road,and renovated the Durbar Hall.She gave 1000 acres from her property  to build the new Central Prison at Viyyur.She was instrumental in opening the royal city gates of Tripunithura to commoners.For her works,King George V honoured her with Kaiser -i-Hind, in 1919,the only Nethyaramma (Nair consort) to get such a recognition.The tradition was that Nethyarammas were untouchables during the day and immensely touchable during the night.Parukutty rewrote the rules and revamped the system.The revenue of the state won a 17 gun salute from the British.When a picture of any Nair consort of the King is not available,we have a rare picture of her supervising a work.

Parukutty Nethyaramma

Her cousin Kurur Neelakantan Nambudiripad was a prominent Congress leader.She met Gandhi in Trichur in 1925 and became an ardent follower.Gandhi was made a state guest and her son V K Aravindaksha Menon was deputed to assist Gandhi.The letters section of The Collected Works of Gandhi has the correspondence between him and Parukutty's daughter V K Vilasini Amma.Her second daughter Ratnamma was married to R M (Ramunni Menon)Palat,son of Sir C Sankaran Nair,who was AICC President.Palat became Minister for Public Health in Madras later.Her son Aravindakshan had married Malathy,daughter of V K Narayana Menon,contractor in Trichur.It was in his house Pandyala, Nehru,Kamala and Indira had taken rest en route to Ceylon.Parukutty began to wear Khadi and started units around Hill palace for Khadi products,to the displeasure of the British.This action of her forced the British to remove the King from his seat,but the attempt failed.The Viceroy Lord Willingdon tried to prove the King insane.

Junior Rani

A bizarre incident full of drama, took place in 1930.When the British were delaying the coronation of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma in Travancore,the Junior Maharani Sethuparvathi Bayi,his mother, met Parukutty Nethyaramma.The Junior Rani was in rivalry with the Senior Rani,Sethulakshmi Bayi,who was the Regent.He was supposed to be crowned in 1930,when he attains the age,18.But the British believed that Chithira Thirunal was mentally unstable and refused to anoint him.They asked the Junior Rani to wait till he is 19 and half.The Junior Rani recounted this to Parukutty and became indignant.All of a sudden, the Rani brandished a revolver and threatened to shoot herself.We are not told how Parukutty saved the situation.The Resident ANL Cater's fortnightly report after this incident speaks of the Junior Maharani's "fondness for intrigue".

There were two disasters during the reign of Ramavarma, when T Raghavachari was the Dewan:plague in Mattancheri and a communal riot at Trichur,Parukutty's native place.The communal riot was in February-March,1921,four months before the Moplah rebellion in Malabar.The Christians in Trichur,loyal to the British,attacked a non co-0peration meet and set fire to the shops and houses of the Hindus,during a loyalty procession.The King wrote to the British Resident and the Dewan was removed.Dr A R Menon was the leader of the Congress,and the Congress leadership invited the Mappilas of Malabar for the protection of the Hindus.The Mappilas arrived in thousands and held a procession.Thereafter,the Resident H H Burkitt and the Dewan called both the parties for a discussion and the issue was settled after a week.

Dewan Vijayaraghavachari replaced Bhore and was at the helm during the events of outbreak of Plague in Mattanchery, scarcity of rice in the State and riots in Trichur. To tackle the rice problem, he fixed maximum selling prices of local paddy and rice, opened a circar depot for sale to the poor and tried to procure Burma rice from Madras. In addition, he opened relief works to give labour to the unemployed and at Trichur opened a trial poor house to give kanji. Dewan’s preemptory order to put down the rioters in Trichur did not win approval of the Highness. As regards to Cochin Harbour, hydroelectric scheme, and paper pulp industry Dewan was non-conclusive for the time being. He co-operated with the start of boy-scouting in a quasi-Governmental mode. He favoured progressivity of the legislative council. In spite of the laudable services of the Dewan there was a falling off and Dewan Narayana Menon replaced Vijayaraghavachari.

The three year tenure of Narayana Menon as Dewan was largely uneventful except for the heated activities in the legislative Council as regards to the Cochin Harbour scheme. Extract from Dewan Narayana Menon’s letter dated November 1924 refers to Parukutty: “Keeping me on for another year does not commend itself to the consort and she wants to let me go at the end of my term and put in Narayana Iyer instead.”…… On account of the condition of H.H’s health the administrative machinery has I fear gone out of order.”

On 6 December 1924, C.W.E. Cotton, the Resident wrote to Ramavarma: “Having regard to the state of your Highness’s health, you may perhaps wish to avail yourself for further term of Mr. Narayana Menon’s experience and the fact that he is so doughty a champion of the Durbar’s interest in the problems connected with the Cochin harbour scheme will make him difficult to replace until they are settled.”

A confidential letter from Hill Palace, Tripunithura, dated 14 December 24 to Mr. Cotton ,said: “I propose to appoint Rao Bahadur Mr. T.S. Narayana Iyer, my present Chief Judge to succeed Mr. Narayana Menon. I am glad to say that I am rapidly improving in my general health and there is less difficulty in walking.”

On 5 February 1925, Resident Cotton wrote to Patterson the officiating Secretary of the Government of India, Political Department: “Mr. Narayana Iyer is not a flyer and has no recent administrative experience. But his reputation is good, and if the selection is restricted to the officials in State Service, he is certainly the best man available. Narayana Menon was too steadfast a guardian of the State finances ‘to be no longer acceptable to the Maharaja’s consort who is the defacto ruler of the State. It is to be presumed that she has hopes that Mr. Narayana Iyer will prove more accommodating. The Maharaja is too old and too feeble to take any real active interest in the administration and the Dewan has to be constantly on his guard to prevent undue interference on the part of the consort whose ruling passion is the acquisition of wealth for her already wealthy family.”

T.K.Krishna Menon adds, “But, as for Narayana Iyer, he had no hint of any extraordinary gifts. His conspicuous gift was negative. It was his silence. Events always played the trump card for him. His luck was a legend, and he was loyal to the last breath of his life.”

Narayana Iyer’s tenure as Dewan continued to be troublesome. Discontentment among the junior male Thampurans progressed to such an extent that a memorandum of no confidence against the administration was submitted to the Resident and the Secretary to the Madras Government. The Dewan had to defend the Raja who was for all purposes seemed to be out of the loop. British also was confronted with the vexing problem of how to deal with a mentally disabled ruler of a feudatory State.

The Junior Thampurans of the Ruling Family, Cochin wrote a letter to Lt, Col. C.G. Crosthwaite, Agent to Governor General, Madras State on 10 October 1928,in which they requested an interview to discuss several troubling issues informally. Such an interview did take place and Dewan Narayana Iyer who was also present tried to rebut all the issues vigorously. Several letters were written by the Dewan, Crosthwaite and Kerala Varma, the leader of the Junior Thampurans.

Ramavarma,Baroda Gaekwad,Wife and Parukutty

Narayana Iyer’s term was to end and frantic effort was made to replace him with the son-in-law of the consort/Raja. A few letters are available to substantiate this.However, at this point the British authorities decided to bring in C.G. Herbert I.C.S. as Dewan.

Lt. Colonel H.R.N. Pritchard  followed Crosthwaite as Agent to the Governor General, Madras State Agency. The interchange of letters that took place between Herbert and Pritchard certainly give a perspective of what happened between 1924 and 1932.

Herbert’s letter to Pritchard dated 24 December 1931 can be summarized as follows:

 1. A note is enclosed in the letter to explain the difficulties experienced in the State of Cochin.

2. Intervention in the administration, might take two forms, one consisting of the transfer of the Sarvadhikariakar through whom the consort is effecting her influence and the second consisting of the appointment of Elaya Raja as Regent. The third possibility is to do nothing until the Raja dies or situation becomes so bad that the Government of India can take over.

The note written by Herbert has been so informal that liberal amount of paraphrasing has been resorted to: “It has been evident to me since I became Dewan rather more than a year ago that His Highness, owing to his age and ill-health, is incapable of taking any personal part in the administration. Under the constitution however many of the affairs of the State can only be transacted under the orders of the Maharaja or with his concurrence, and in spite of the present Maharaja’s incapacity orders continue to issue in his name. Obviously therefore, in fact, these orders are passed on His Highness’s behalf by others who have taken His Highness’s place in the administration.”

Herbert expands on the various courses he could take in such a dicey situation:“A change seemed very desirable, if not absolutely necessary, in the interest of the Thampurans – the members of the Ruling Family – for reasons which will be stated later.”

“For these reasons I discarded the idea of waiting till the situation reached a crisis before taking steps to improve it, and decided to adopt the alternative course of replacing the present Sarvadhikariakar by a man in whose integrity confidence may be reposed.” 

Herbert wanted to appoint the Sarvadhikariakar  Narayana Pisharodi as the Commissioner of Devaswoms with the same pay grade and bring in Subramania Aiyer as the new Sarvadhikariakar. Herbert’s recommendations were questioned or rejected.

One of the principal complaints of the Thampurans was about the large sums of expenditure from the Palliyara Muthalpidi for the benefit of the consort and her children after the Maharaja became ill. One of the Thampurans had information obtained surreptitiously from the Palace Accountant. A copy of the same was included with the note. Irregularities in the management of the Ammaraja’s estate and Sarvadhikariakar managing the same instead the Raja infuriated the Thampurans. They were demanding a thorough audit of the accounts of the Palliyara Muthalpidi for the last few years.

C G Herbert

Herbert continued:" have endeavored in this note to describe the situation created in the State by the present condition of His Highness’s health and the difficulties that arise as a consequence in the transaction of State affairs. I do not think those difficulties are likely to diminish as time goes on: on the contrary as interference from the Palace are increasing there seems every reason to apprehend that administration in future become more and more difficult. Two methods of dealing with this situation now appear to exist. The first is to allow the administration to be carried on, as it was carried on in the past, under the influence of the consort and the Sarvadhikariakar. In that event there is, in my opinion, no possible advantage to be gained by a Dewan appointed from British India at the head of the administration: for his proposals can always be vetoed by the consort and the Sarvadhikariakar, it is evident that his opportunities for improving the administration will be exceedingly limited. The balance of advantage in these circumstances seems to me definitely to lie in the appointment of an indigenous Dewan. For the chances of friction arising on administrative questions between the consort and the Sarvadhikariakar on the one hand and the Dewan on the other would be minimized by such an appointment while the administration itself could in the circumstances lose nothing by it.

"The alternative course would be to check the influence of the consort and the Sarvadhikariakar. It was with this aim in view that I suggested the transfer of the
Sarvadhikariakar from his present post. Whether that would in fact have solved the problem it is of course now impossible to say: there was at least the chance of its doing so. But it is doubtful whether, matters having reached the stage which they have now done, it will be worthwhile to go to the trouble of securing the Sarvadhikariakar’s transfer merely for the sake of making the experiment. Assuming that it is desirable to interfere in the matter at all the better course would be definitely to end the part which His Highness’s consort and the Sarvadhikariakar now take in the administration.

"One thing is thus clear. The time has now come when a definite decision has to be taken whether on the one hand to allow the consort and the Sarvadhikariakar to continue their interference in the affairs of the State: or, on the other to limit if not to terminate that interference altogether. In the former alternative the balance of advantage is against having a Dewan from outside the State at the head of the administration: for this can only result in friction in administrative matters without any corresponding gain."

Ramavarma in his final Years

On 3 January 1932, Col Pritchard wrote to Sir Charles Watson, Political Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi,on the senile behaviour of the King.I quote just a few lines from the letter:"In order to give a further illustration of His Highness’s condition I will describe briefly his behavior at the Durbar which was held in connexion with the presentation of Kharitas from Lord Irvin and the Viceroy. As I shook hands he broke into a guffaw of inane laughter which I must confess was somewhat disconcerting. I tried to enter into the usual brief conversation, but His Highness remained completely dumb until I asked whether he found the climate cooler in Tripunithurai than in Ernakulam. I must mention that we were then sitting in his Palace in Tripunithurai. His Highness turned to me and said “Where is Tripunithurai?”. During the firing of the Vice regal salute His Highness created some embarrassment by repeatedly calling out “What is the firing for?” and much more when he turned to the heir apparent and asked him whether his wife was present! He didn’t know what to do with my garland and finally his hands had to be raised over my head by the Dewan. When my wife received hers His Highness again emitted a peal of laughter saying in a loud voice “Lady Sahiba'. It was altogether an extremely undignified Darbar.”

He stated further:“In a letter addressed to Cater in December 1929 the Thampurans wrote that, however since their respect and reverence for His Highness’s person was, they felt compelled to complain as they knew that things which were done in His Highness’s name were done by others and that, so far as they knew the Maharaja had practically ceased to function, and that his powers and authority were being usurped by others. Finally they prayed to be freed from a rule by people other than the legitimate Ruler. The Thampurans are undoubtedly convinced ( and so is Herbert) that the Consort and Sarvadhikariakar are looting the Palliyara Muthalpidi properties, and, as they are precluded from filing a suit against the Karanavan or manager because he is the Ruler, they very naturally claim that if Government consider it expedient to permit a mentally defective Ruler to retain his powers then it is for the Government to devise some way of protecting them from being robbed."

Several interesting facets of information regarding the looting by Parukutty Nethyaramma,could be noted after reviewing the communications between Herbert and Pritchard:

1. Palace accounts indicated every year, from 1918 onwards 25,000 to 35,000 rupees withdrawn from the Palliyara Muthalpidi until 1929 for various reasons.

2. Vellikulangara and Mattathur of forest lands was given to the Palliyara Muthalpidi from the Government during the X-Raja’s time. These lands were leased to the Consort for RS 200/- and cutting the trees fetched Rs 17,000, but nothing was put back in the Muthalpidi.

3. Maharaja’s own Palace when he was first Prince was gifted to the Consort. But she sold it to the Palliyara Muthalpidi for Rs 13,000/- but was assigned as pattom tenure for Rs 200/-

4. Few irregularities in dealing with Ammaraja’s estate also has been listed.

5. There was a plan to move the Maharaja’s College from Ernakulam to Ramavarmapuram near Thrissur.

After receiving the letter sent by Pritchard a telegram from Polindia arrived on 29/1/1932: “ H.E. the Viceroy directs that you should arrange to have H.H. the Maharaja of Cochin examined at once by a European mental expert with a view to ascertaining his mental condition and capacity to rule. Agrees that Doctor Somervell should if possible be associated with the mental expert in this examination.”

Dr Somervell agreed to be of help. Major A.C.A. Smith, Superintendent of the mental hospital of Yeravada, Bombay was to examine the Highness in Madras. But on 25 March 1932, Sir Sri Rama Varma, Maharaja of Cochin died at 7.45 A.M. at Cochin House, Madras.

After the death of the King,Parukutty initially shifted to the Ratna Vilas Palace she built near her home in Trichur.Then she went on an extended tour abroad with her grandson Sankaran Palat who was admitted to Le Rosey in Switzerland and later the Charter House,England.She returned to India and divided her time between Coonoor and Trichur.She had tea estates and a tea factory in Conoor.

About her activities,a fortnightly Intelligence Report at the National Archives,Newdelhi states:"The hill palace here is the center of nationalist activity and charkhas have been introduced to assist the weaving of the Khadi."

I doubt whether any Gandhian now knows the story of Parukutty.

C G Herbert was reversed foreign service in Cochin to Madras,and Sir Shanmukham Chetty was appointed Dewan,in 1935.Chetty became the first finance minster of independent India.He was an economist and was chosen by Gandhi against the wishes of Nehru.He resigned in 1949,due to conflict of views with Nehru.

See  my Posts,KRISHNA MENON AS HEADLOAD WORKER,PRINCE RAMAVARMA