A strained relationship between the British and own Royal House
When he was fed up with the actions of some British officers, Sir Sri Rama Varma XV, the Cochin King, went to the Ayyanthole Karthyayani Temple at Thrissur. Seeing the bell hung over the temple dome outside the Sanctum was very small, he decided to offer a big one and called a bronze smith, and gave instructions, to get the sound right.
Ringing the bell in a Hindu temple, is a knock at the entrance of the God, asking permission to enter. It has a twang to create the required sound. A temple bell is a symbol of antarala, the space between the sky and earth. In Sathapatha Brahmana, it is mentioned that evil should be driven out by invoking good-quality sound.
The new big bell was offered by the King and was hung. When he pulled the twang, he suddenly felt a disturbing tone, of discordant notes. The saddened King said: It is a hint by the Goddess, of the fading voice of the King. If it is the will of the Almighty, let it be so.
He wrote to the British Resident, James Andrew, that he was abdicating the throne, in August 1905, just a month after the verdict in the sensational trial of Kuriyedathu Thatri, a Nambudiri Woman, who spelt out 65 names of the males she slept with. This trial of chastity created a furore in the State since the males were very powerful and from the higher castes. Here is the King's view of the trial, from his Reminiscences:
Early in 1905, I had to engage myself in another sensational social question. A Nambudiri woman was suspected of leading an immoral life. According to customary law, a social tribunal is appointed by the Raja to enquire into the misdemeanours of Nambudiri ladies. The tribunal examines the lady in a Smarthavicharam and if she confesses her lapses before the tribunal she and the men mentioned by her as being involved are excommunicated by the Raja. The men were not told what their offence was nor were they given a chance to clear themselves from the one-sided accusation of the woman of ill fame.
This curious system, though it offended against the elementary canons of jurisprudence, has the sanction of established usage from time out of mind and was one of the bulwarks of the Nambudiri social system very jealously preserved by that community.
 |
| Rajarshi Rama Varma |
In the case which cropped up in 1905 a large number of persons belonging to several communities were implicated by the woman in the Smarthavicharam.The injustice of condemning this motley group without giving the men concerned an opportunity to refute the allegations of the woman was realized by me. In consultation with Sir V Bashyam Iyengar, I framed certain rules for the conduct of Smarthavicharam. The persons alleged by the fallen woman to have had illicit intimacy with her were furnished with copies of her allegations and they were called upon to show cause why they should not be dealt with according to the customary law. They were allowed to cross-examine the woman and to adduce evidence. All persons denied having had anything to do with the woman. But they could not refute the charges. Some of them engaged counsel and wanted to import the procedure of law courts. This I could not permit, as legal subtleties were out of place in the enquiry which was a quasi-religious one and related only to questions of fact. Any violent breach from the past was bound to evoke strong opposition from the conservative Hindus whose sentiments had to be respected.
Sixty-four persons were involved in the enquiry and all of them were excommunicated. This evoked strong resentment among the educated section of the people. I had anticipated this. But I was not for superimposing any violent changes on society when they were repugnant to the feelings of most conservative people.
 |
| P Rajagopalachari |
I have quoted at length, because this incident juxtaposed conservatism against modernism, and conservatism won, and the King was on the part of the conservatives. He was always on the part of conservatism, if we look at his role in excommunicating K Ravunni Menon of Villadam, Thrissur, for going to study in England and entering into a sambandham with a Nair woman on his return. I am not going into details, but it is sufficient to say that his strong stance in such matters was the cause of the rift between him and his younger brother, who died as heir apparent. Members of the Tripunithura royal family say that the King was against Kurur Unni Nambudiripad, a friend of his brother, who had eschewed Congress ideals. Kurur was a cousin of Parkutty Nethyaramma, wife of Rama Varma XVI, who succeeded the King. Her daughter Ratnam had married Ramunni Menon Palat(R M Palat), son of Sir C Sankaran Nair, who studied at Oxford and became a Minister in the Madras Government.
Fight with the new generation Residents
 |
| John Rees |
P Rajagopalachari was the Dewan from December 1896, and N Pattabhi Rama Rao succeeded him, in September 1902, and was there till 1907. The King's problems seem to have aggravated a few months before, Thatri's trial, in December 1904, when James Andrew, who was Collector, Thanjavur, succeeded Gordon Thomson Mackenzie, as Resident. Two well-furnished bungalows, one at Thrissur and one at Cochin were at his disposal and was accorded other facilities regarding supply of boats and provisions. When Dewan Rao wanted a change in this, the King asked him to wait, till the Resident's visit. During Andews' first visit to the King in December, a hitch occurred, and he complained to the King. Though the Dewan met the Resident on the order of the King to settle the issue, Andrew lectured the Dewan on the curtsies due to him. Soon the Government of India ordered that the Residents should not accept from the Durbars any privileges such as rent-free houses or conveyances. The government wanted the Bolghatty Residency either for purchase or on a long lease. The lease at Rs 6000 per annum was fixed, and the deed was executed in 1909.
 |
| R M Palat |
 |
| F A Nicholson |
In 1905, the King ordered the seizure of Rs 50 per month for six months from the pay of Dr Coombes, the Chief Medical Officer, Thrissur, for failing to properly treat a convict of the Central Jail, who was mortally wounded by a warder. While the convict needed treatment, Dr Coombes directed shifting him to the Mental Hospital, Thrissur, and he died. The allegation was that this was done to help the assailant- no statement was available from the convict. The King ordered an enquiry by Narayana Marar, Puisne Judge of the Chief Court, and based on his report, Robinson, Superintendent of the Jail, was removed, and Coombes punished.
Before the arrival of Andrew, the King had fought with the Resident Gordon Mackenzie, over two tusks seized in Cochin, after his claim that the tusks belonged to Travancore. It is a different story. At that time, the Resident was common to Travancore and Cochin. The Residents in the tumultuous period were James Thompson, John David Rees, F A Nicholson, Gordon Thomson Mackenzie and James Andrew. Rees, the King feels, torpedoed all reforms and often went to the Government Press, carrying tales to the Governor of Madras, Sir Arthur Havelock (1896-1900), against Dewan, Rajagopalachari, and his reports were leaked by the Governor's private secretary to the King and Rajagopalachari.
 |
| Rama Varma(?), Mackenzie, Sri Mulam Thirunal and Augusta Mary Blandford |
The King sank deep into a persecution complex. He made the proposal to abdicate, in August. He writes: I found a determined attempt everywhere to thwart me. I bore it up, as being incidental to my position as Ruler, as long as I could. But my troubles instead of diminishing, only increased.
 |
| Rees caricature/Leslie ward |
The attitude of Resident Andrew became more and more formal and the King failed to get the degree of consideration and sympathy he used to get from Thompson and Nicholson. The Residents were disposed to be more critical than helpful. The King says the general level of people selected for the office of the Resident was not high, enough to be of any substantial help to the King in solving the many intricate problems. The King records: Thus, neither Mr Mackenzie nor his successor Mr Andrew could help us in formulating the settlement proposals (the Government had sent the draft of the proclamation for the Settlement of Land Revenue to the Resident, towards the close of 1904).
The King goes on record: Both (Governor) Lord Ampthill and Sir James Thompson were my best friends. But both of them were to quit India shortly for good. I was not quite sure of getting any substantial help in the conduct of the administration from their successors and was afraid of my experience with the Resident repeating itself in the Madras Government.
The King is off tangent when he opines that, the general level of the Residents was not high; at his time, people who had been in the ICS were sent as Residents. For instance, John Rees(1854-1922) was not a mediocre person, as the King had made him out to be. He entered the Indian Civil Service in 1875, was Under Secretary, Madras and member of the Governor's Council in the 1890s. He was Resident of Travancore and Cochin thrice,1895 April-July,1896 August-December and 1897 July-1898 August. He was a great supporter of the Raj, retired in 1901 and was MP for two terms in Britain, from 1906-1910(Montgomery)and 1912-1922(Nottingham). He married Mary Catherine Dorner, who was a Correspondent of George Orwell, and their daughter, Rose Mary, was an aviator. Rees was a reputed author on India, and his books include, Tours in India, The Mohammedans, The Real India and Modern India.
 | |
| Bhashyam Iyengar |
James Thompson, the King's friend, entered ICS in 1869, was Collector in Madras during 1889-1895 and was made Resident of Travancore and Cochin in 1895. He was Resident for only a year, from 1895 July to 1896 August, in the first year of the King. Thompson was elected to the Madras Legislative Council in 1898 and was Governor during 1904 April-December.
The Tramway Scuffle
For the King, even within the State, things were in disarray. Several officers made a sustained effort to discredit the administration. They ridiculed Dewan Pattabhi Rama Rao and did not promptly carry out his orders. Intrigues were common. Two officers, Alwar Chetty and Haffield were the worst sinners in disobedience to the Dewan, and they were asked by the King to mend their ways. In 1899, V Alwar Chetty from Madras was made Conservator of Forests, in place of Kohloff, and an Engineer, Haffield was selected for construction work, especially, the Parambikulam tramwa y. Hatfield and Chetty quarrelled over the tramway work and both adopted a recalcitrant attitude towards the Dewan. Haffield lost his enthusiasm for pushing on with the tramway and Chetty planned to get rid of him. Haffield applied for leave off and on and asked for a pay hike. Chetty appointed Pereira as an Engineer to assist Haffield without consulting him. Hatfield left the State service on 20 September 1905. Lord Ampthill had agreed to open the Cochin Forest Tramway on 3 October!
 |
| Cochin Forest Tramway |
The King observes: My caution and reluctance to force social reforms on an unwilling public were severely criticized by the fire eaters. The line of action pursued by me in Professor Ramunni Menon's case and the Smarthavicharam case was not to the liking of the English-educated people. Not satisfied with criticizing me for my decision, they were uncharitable to impute motives to me. With all their rationalistic view of things, they could not appreciate the difficulties of the ruler.
At the family front too, there was rebellion. The Civil List was not a fixed item. As the family began to increase rapidly, he thought that some check should be imposed on the allotment of funds from general use for the use of the family in justice to the taxpayers whose interests he was bound to protect. This necessitated retrenchment in various facilities in the palaces. Many of the princes and especially the ladies, were up in arms when the King tried to impose some supervision on them.
The King concludes: Finding myself in this situation, I thought I had better retire from the field to give place to those who could carry on better...I thought it my duty to do the work of administration properly and as I found many hindrances in my way to thwart my work, I had no other alternative, but to retire. I was not enamoured of the pomp and circumstances of my position. If I was not in a position to fulfil my function as a ruler, I had no business to stick to it.
The king was a prisoner of his Orthodoxism, moulding himself on Sanskrit edicts, trying to be a textbook King. Everyone in the royal family was afraid of him, and fear is not a democratic trait. He has yet to mention selling off the 14 caparisons of Poornathrayeesa Temple at all, by him, to raise funds for the Shornur railway line. The royal family members always felt that it was bad financial management.
After abdication in December 1914, he attended a Chakyar Koothu performance. While describing the moment when Sri Rama left Sita, taking into account the public perception, the Chakyar looked at the former King and asked: Ozhinjatho, Ozhippichatho? abdicated,or removed?
From then on people began to refer to him, as His Abdicated Highness.
Reference:
The Reminiscences and Continuation of the Events till 1915/Rama Varma
Note: The caricature of Rees appeared in Vanity Fair, in February 1907.
Note: The caricature of Rees appeared in Vanity Fair, in February 1907.
© Ramachandran
See my Post, TWO GERMAN CRUISERS AND ABDICATION OF COCHIN KING
