SANSKRIT AND THE BRITISH DESIGN TO CONVERT HINDUS

The 1857 Rebellion Ended the Design

The East India Company, with the blessings of the British government, had chalked out a plan to convert Indians to Christianity, through Sanskrit. This was aimed especially at the upper strata of the Hindu society, and with this aim, the Boden Sanskrit professorship was established at Oxford University in 1832 with money bequeathed to the university by Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Boden, a retired soldier in the service of the East India Company, to assist in the conversion. (1)

Colonel Boden served in the Bombay Native Infantry of the Company from 1781 until his retirement in 1807. He moved to Lisbon, Portugal, for the sake of his health, and died there on 21 November 1811. His daughter Elizabeth died in August 1827, and Boden's will provided that his estate should pass to the University of Oxford to establish a professorship in Sanskrit. His purpose, as set out in his will of 15 August 1811, was to convert the people of India (2) to Christianity "by disseminating a knowledge of the sacred scriptures among them". (3) Elizabeth was buried in a vault at Holy Trinity Church, Cheltenham, where a memorial stone carries an extract from Boden's will about the bequest, and records that Boden's estate was worth about £25,000 in 1827. (4) Oxford university accepted Boden's bequest in November 1827, and the first professor, Horace Hayman Wilson was elected in 1832. (5) Boden's bequest was also used to fund the Boden Scholarship, awarded "for the encouragement of the study of, and proficiency in, the Sanskrit Language and Literature". (6)

An editorial in The Times in 1860 said that the professorship was "one of the most important, most influential, and most widely known institutions at Oxford, not to say in the whole civilised world." (7) It paid between £900 and £1,000 per year for life. (8)

The first two Boden professors were elected by Oxford graduates, as the university's statutes instructed: Horace Hayman Wilson won by a narrow majority in 1832; there was a hotly contested election in 1860, as the rivals, Max Muller and Moniere- Williams, both claimed to be best at fulfilling Boden's intention of converting India to a Christian nation. They presented different views about the nature of Sanskrit scholarship. Reforms of Oxford implemented in 1882 removed mention of Boden's original purpose of conversion of Indians from the statutes. (9)

Horace Wilson

Four of the first five professors were born in British India or had worked there. Sir Monier Monier-Williams (professor 1860–99) held the chair the longest, and a deputy was appointed to carry out his teaching duties for the last 11 years of his life.

The first and second Boden professors were chosen by Convocation, the governing body, comprising all who had graduated with a master's degree or a doctorate. In 1832, the voters had a choice of two candidates: Horace Hayman Wilson and William Hodge Mill. Wilson, a surgeon by training, worked in India for the East India Company and was involved in scholarly and educational activities. (10) Mill had been the principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, since 1820. (11) 

William Hodge Mill (1792–1853) was an English churchman, to the core. He took deacon's orders in 1817, and the priest's in the following year and continued residence at Cambridge.  In 1820 he was appointed the first principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, then just founded, under the superintendence of Bishop Thomas Fanshawe Middleton. There he assisted in the publication of works in Arabic, of which he had already gained some knowledge, and addressed himself to the study of the Indian vernaculars and Sanskrit. He co-operated in the work of the Sanskrit and other native colleges. He was also a leading member of the Bengal Asiatic Society (vice-president 1833–7) and supported the society's Journal, which was then just founded. He also deciphered several inscriptions, then little understood, especially those on the pillars at Allahabad and Bhitari. Mill's health obliged him to return to Europe in 1838. He was appointed in 1839 chaplain to William Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the same year Christian Advocate on the Hulse foundation at Cambridge. In 1848 he became Regius Professor of Hebrew at the same university, with a canonry at Ely Cathedral. His lectures were chiefly on the text of the Psalms. His major work is Christa-saṅgītā (Calcutta, 1831, 8 vol; 2nd edition, 1837), a translation of the Gospel story into the metre and style of the Sanskrit purānas; it was originally suggested to Mill by a Hindu pundit, who was the main author of the first canto.  Other works of the same period are a Sanskrit translation of the Sermon on the Mount, and contributions to the Arabic translation of the Anglican prayer book. His Christian Advocate's publication for 1840–4, ‘On the attempted Application of Pantheistic Principles to the Criticism of the Gospel,’ appeared in two editions, and is mainly directed against David Strauss, German theologian.

In the 1832 contest, Wilson was seen by detractors as too close to Hindu leaders to be appointed to a post which had the purpose of converting India to Christianity, and his links to the theatre in Calcutta were considered unwanted. (12)

Nevertheless, he defeated Mill by 207 votes to 200 when the election was held on 15 March 1832. (13) Another candidate, Graves Haughton, a professor at the East India Company College, withdrew from the election in favour of Wilson, one of his former pupils, as he did not want to split the loyalties of the common circle. For his "candid and honourable conduct," he received a written address of appreciation signed by two hundred members of the university, including professors and the heads of seven of the colleges. (14)

Wilson died on 8 May 1860. The election for his successor came during the public debate about the nature of British missionary work in India,  after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The East India Company, which controlled the British territories until they were absorbed into the British Empire in 1858, had a general policy until 1813 of non-interference with Indian religion. Christian missionaries required a licence to proselytise. Most could operate without a licence, except for Evangelicals, who were too radical, when other Christians were chastened to be tolerant of other faiths. As the Evangelical movement grew in strength, it pressed for greater efforts to bring Christianity to India, and the Company relaxed its approach to missionaries in 1813. (15)

After 1858, the British government was reluctant to provoke further unrest by interfering with Hinduism. Still, many of the British rulers in India were themselves Evangelicals sympathetic to efforts to convert the country. As religious historian Gwilym Beckerlegge has said, "the furtherance of Christian mission had become inextricably bound up with attempts to define Britain's role in India and indeed to justify Britain's presence in India." (16) The issue was whether Britain was there simply to govern India or to "civilise" it and if the latter, whether to draw up or destroy India's existing culture and religion. (17) Many of those who supported increased missionary work in India, says Beckerlegge, regarded the events of 1857 as "nothing less than a divine judgment" on Britain's failure to bring Christianity to the country. (18)

There were two schools of thought on whether Sanskrit should be taught to help the administration and conversion of India, or for its own merits. The East India Company had instructed its employees in Sanskrit at its college at Haileybury, Hertfordshire, and the College of Fort William in Calcutta, to educate them in Hindu culture. For some, this led to an interest in Hinduism as revealed in the Sanskrit texts. This was in contrast to continental Europe, especially Germany, where scholars examined Sanskrit as the mother of all languages, as part of the "science of language", comparative philology, rather than for reasons of imperialism. Few European scholars visited India, but many British Sanskritists had lived and worked there. (19) According to American academic Linda Dowling, some uncivilised British scholars in other fields had strong doubts about Sanskrit, as a "crude linguistic forgery pieced out of Latin and Greek", or as proving little "except a thoroughly unwelcome kinship between Briton and Brahmin." (20)

Thus, the 1860 election for Boden professorship came at a time when opinions were divided on whether greater efforts should be made to convert India or whether to remain sensitive to Hinduism.

After Wilson's death, although five men indicated their intent to seek the chair or were proposed in their absence, there were only two candidates left in the race: Monier Williams and Max Müller. The candidacy of Edward Cowell, Professor of Sanskrit at the Government College in Calcutta, was announced in The Times on 28 May 1860. It said that Wilson had pronounced him "eminently qualified" to succeed him. (21) He later wrote from India refusing to stand against Müller. (22) Ralph Griffith, a former Boden scholar professor at the Government Sanskrit College in Benares, announced his candidacy in August 1860 but withdrew in November. (23) James R. Ballantyne, principal of the college in Benares, was proposed in June 1860 by friends based in England, who described him as the "chief of British Sanscrit scholars". (24)

Moniere Williams was an Oxford-educated Englishman who had spent 14 years teaching Sanskrit to those preparing to work in British India for the East India Company. (25) Müller was a German-born lecturer at Oxford specialising in comparative philology. (26)Williams laid great stress in his campaign on Boden's intention that the holder should assist in converting India through the dissemination of the Christian scriptures. (27) Müller's view was that his work was of great value to missionaries, and published testimonials accordingly, but was also a worthy end in itself. (28)

Müller was from the German duchy of Anhalt-Dessau and took up Sanskrit at university as an intellectual challenge after mastering Greek and Latin. (29) At this time, Sanskrit was a new subject of study in Europe, and its connections with the traditional classical languages attracted interest from those examining the history of languages. (30) He obtained his doctorate from Leipzig University in 1843, aged 19, and after a year studying in Berlin, he began work in Paris on the first printed edition of the Rig Veda. A brief visit to England for research in 1846 turned into a lifelong stay. The Prussian diplomat Baron von Bunsen and Wilson persuaded the directors of the East India Company to provide financial support for Oxford University Press to publish the Rig Veda. Settling in Oxford in 1848 Muller continued his Sanskrit research, becoming Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages in 1854 and a fellow of All Souls College in 1858, (31) "an unprecedented honour for a foreigner at that time", according to his biographer, Nirad C. Chaudhuri. (32)

Williams, in contrast, worked on later material and had little time for the "continental" school of Sanskrit scholarship that Müller exemplified. Williams regarded the study of Sanskrit as a means to an end, namely the conversion of India to Christianity. In Müller's opinion, his own work, while it would assist missionaries, was also valuable as an end in itself.

Williams was the son of an army officer and was born in India. He studied briefly at Balliol College, Oxford, before training at Haileybury for the civil service in India. The death of his brother in battle in India led him to return to Oxford to complete his degree. He also studied Sanskrit with Wilson before teaching it and other languages at Haileybury from 1844 until 1858, when it closed following the Indian rebellion of 1857. (33) He prepared an English–Sanskrit dictionary, at Wilson's prompting, which the East India Company published in 1851; his Sanskrit–English dictionary was supported by the Secretary of State for India. (34) According to Dutch anthropologist Peter van der Veer, Williams "had an Evangelical zeal" in line with the views that had inspired Boden to establish the chair. (35)

Both men battled for the votes of the electorate, the Convocation of the university, consisting of over 3,700 graduates, through manifestos and newspaper correspondence. Williams laid great stress in his campaign on the intention of the original founder of the chair, that the holder should assist in converting India through the dissemination of the Christian scriptures.

Müller announced his candidacy on 14 May 1860, six days after Wilson's death. (37) His submission to Convocation referred to his work in editing the Rig Veda, saying that without it missionaries could not fully learn about the teachings of Hinduism, which impeded their work. He, therefore, considered that he had "spent the principal part of my life in promoting the object of the Founder of the Chair of Sanskrit." (38) He promised to work exclusively on Sanskrit and said that he would provide testimonials from "the most eminent Sanskrit scholars in Europe and India" and from missionaries who had used his publications to help "overthrow the ancient systems of idolatry" in India. (39) He was able to provide a list of missionary societies that had requested copies of the Rig Veda from the East India Company, including the Church Missionary Society and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. (40)

Müller's view was that his work on the Rig Veda was of great value for missionary work, and published testimonials accordingly. He also wanted to teach broader subjects such as Indian history and literature to assist missionaries, scholars, and civil servants – a proposal that Williams criticised as not by the original benefactor's wishes. The rival campaigns took out newspaper advertisements and circulated manifestos, and different newspapers backed each man. while Müller was German, some of the newspaper pronouncements in favour of Williams were based on a claimed national interest of having an Englishman as a Boden professor to assist in converting India.

Williams declared his intention to stand for election on 15 May 1860, one day after Müller. (41) In his written submission to Convocation, he emphasised his suitability for appointment in light of Boden's missionary wishes. After giving details of his life and career, his experience in Sanskrit obtained at Haileybury, he stated that for the past 14 years "the one idea of my life has been to make myself thoroughly conversant with Sanskrit, and by every means in my power to facilitate the study of its literature." (42) He assured voters that, if elected, "my utmost energies shall be devoted to the one object which its Founder had in view;—namely 'The promotion of a more general and critical knowledge of the Sanskrit language, as a means of enabling Englishmen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion.'" (43) Unlike Müller, he regarded the study of Sanskrit "as chiefly a means to the missionary conversion of the Hindus rather than as an end in itself", as Dowling puts it. (44) In this way, Dowling says, he could attempt to deflect attention from his "modest abilities in classical Sanskrit" when compared to Müller's "internationally acknowledged achievements". (45) Moreover, the appeal to Boden's original intentions came during a period when Convocation tended to pay little attention to the expressed wishes of benefactors. (46)

In August 1860, Müller wrote to the members of Convocation about his plans to teach a broad range of topics in addition to Sanskrit, including comparative philology, Indian history, and literature. Simply teaching the language "would be but a mean return" for Boden's generosity, he wrote. (47) In this way, he would help to supply "efficient" missionaries, "useful" civil servants, and "distinguished" Boden scholars. (48)

Moniere Williams

In turn, Williams wrote that if Boden had left instructions that the man elected should be the one "most likely to secure a worldwide reputation for the Sanskrit Chair, I confess that I should have hesitated to prosecute my design." (49) However, this was not the case and it would be "unjustifiable" in terms of the statutes governing the chair if the professor were to lecture on wider topics. In his view, the Vedic literature was "of less importance" and the philosophical literature was "very mystical and abstruse", whereas "the classical or modern" period which includes the laws, two heroic poems, and the plays was the "most important". (49) Reminding his readers that he had edited two Sanskrit plays, he stated that the literature of the third period constituted the Sanskrit scriptures, not ("as has hitherto been believed") the Veda, "still less the Rig Veda". (50) He commented that Müller's edition of the Rig Veda was requiring "an expenditure of time, labour, money, and erudition far greater than was ever bestowed on any edition of the Holy Bible", adding that Boden did not intend to "aid in the missionary work by perpetuating and diffusing the obsolescent Vedic Scriptures." (51) He said his own approach to Sanskrit scholarship, with his dictionaries and grammar books, was "suited to English minds", unlike Müller's "continental" and "philosophical" approach, which dealt with texts no longer relevant to modern Hindus that missionaries would not benefit from studying. (52)

In a letter to The Times published on 29 October 1860, Müller took issue with Williams. To the claim that it would be unjustifiable to teach history, philosophy, and other subjects as a Boden professor, he quoted from one of Wilson's public lectures in which he had said that it had always been his intention to offer "a general view of the institutions and social condition, the literature, and religion of the Hindus." (53) He noted that he had published in all three areas into which Williams divided Sanskrit literature, and disputed Williams's views on the relative importance of Vedic literature concerning a review of one of his publications by Wilson. Williams, he said, "stands as yet alone" in asserting that the heroic poems and the plays, not the Vedas, were the real scriptures. (54) He refused to accept Williams's estimate of the labour involved in the edition of the Rig Veda, and said that to compare his little effort with that carried out on the Bible was "almost irreverent". (55) He rebutted the claim that Boden would not have wanted the Vedic scriptures to be supported. He said that the Bishop of Calcutta, George Cotton had written that it was of "the greatest importance" for missionaries to study Sanskrit and its scriptures "to be able to meet the Pundits on their own ground", and that the bishop's view was that nothing could be more valuable in this work than Müller's edition, and Wilson's translation, of the Rig Veda." (56)

After this letter, Williams complained about Müller conducting his campaign in the newspapers and misrepresenting what Williams was saying. (57) Müller asked three professors and the Provost of Queen's College to consider the accuracy of his letter, and they pronounced in his favour. (58) In Beckerlegge's view, all these replies and counter-replies did was "illustrate the increasingly heated tone of the exchanges" between the two men and their supporters. (59) It was "as if the protagonists were prospective members of Parliament". (60) Insults regarding the nationality of Max Müller and the proficiency of Monier Williams as a Sanskritist were being bandied back and forth by their supporters. (61) One of the Boden scholars at Oxford, Robinson Ellis, said Williams had not been able to prove that he could read a Sanskrit text. When challenged, he later amended this to a claim that Williams could only read a text when he could compare it to another one, describing this as "mechanical labour which is paid for at the public libraries at Paris and Berlin at the rate of half a crown a year." (62)

Each had a committee of helpers; Williams had two, one in London, the other in Oxford. (63) He spent over £1,000 on his campaign – as much as the Boden professor was paid in a year. (64) In June 1860, Müller complained in a letter to his mother about having to write to each one of the "4,000 electors, scattered all over England"; he said that sometimes he wished he had not thought of standing for election, adding "if I don't win, I shall be very cross!" (65)

The rival campaigns took out newspaper advertisements and circulated manifestos, and different newspapers backed each man. (66) A public debate raged about Britain's role in India particularly after the Indian Rebellion of 1857–58, whether to convert India or whether to remain sensitive to local culture and traditions. (67) Although generally regarded as superior to Williams in scholarship, (68) Müller had the double disadvantage of being German and having liberal Christian views. (69).

According to Beckerlegge, there was a view held by many of those involved in the keenly fought struggle between Williams and Müller that more depended on the result than simply one man's career – missionary success or failure in India, "and even the future stability of British rule in this region," in the light of events in India in 1857, might depend on the abilities of the Boden professor. (70) Victory would depend on each side's ability to persuade non-resident members of Convocation to return to Oxford to cast their votes. (71)  Müller was backed by scholars of international merit, whereas Williams was able to call upon Oxford-based academics and those who had served in India as administrators or missionaries. (72) Both claimed support from Wilson – "as if the principle of apostolic succession was involved in the appointment", says Chaudhuri. (73) The Times reported on 23 May that friends of Williams placed considerable weight upon a private letter to him from Wilson, "indicating Mr Williams as his probable successor." (74) In return, Wilson was revealed to have said "two months before his death" that "Mr Max Müller was the first Sanskrit scholar in Europe". (75) The source of this information was W. S. W. Vaux, of the British Museum, who described his conversation with Wilson in a letter to Müller in May 1860. In reply to Vaux's comment that he and others wanted Wilson's successor to be "the finest man we could procure", Vaux quoted Wilson as saying that "You will be quite right if your choice should fall on Max Müller." (76)

The Times published a list of leading supporters for each candidate on 27 June 1860, noting that many people were not declaring support for either "since they wish to see whether any person of real eminence announces himself from India".(77) Müller was backed by Francis Leighton, Henry Liddell and William Thomson (the heads of the colleges of All Souls, Christ Church, and Queen's), Edward Pusey, William Jacobson and Henry Acland (the Regius Professors of Hebrew, of Divinity, and of Medicine) and others. Williams had the declared support of the heads of University and Balliol colleges (Frederick Charles Plumptre and Robert Scott), and fellows from ten different colleges. (78)

As Beckerlegge has stated, "voting for the Boden Chair was increasingly taking on the appearance of being a test of patriotism." (79)

On 5 December 1860, two days before the election, friends of Müller published an advertisement in The Times to list his supporters, in response to a similar record circulated on behalf of Williams. By then, Müller's list included the heads of 11 colleges or halls of the university, 27 professors, over 40 college fellows and tutors, and many non-resident members of the university including Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford and Sir Charles Wood, the Secretary of State for India. (80) A list published on the following day added the name of Charles Longley, Archbishop of York, to Müller's supporters. (81) The public supporters for each candidate were about the same in number, but while Müller was backed by "all the noted Orientalists of Europe of the age", Williams's supporters "were not so distinguished", according to Chaudhuri. (82)

One evangelical publication, The Record, contrasted the two candidates: Müller's writings were "familiar to all persons interested in literature, while they have destroyed confidence in his religious opinions"; Williams was described as "a man of sincere piety, and one who is likely, by the blessing of God on his labours, to promote the ultimate object which the founder of the Professorship had in view."(83) The Homeward Mail, a London-based newspaper that concentrated on news related to India (84) asked its readers whether they wanted "a stranger and a foreigner" to win, or "one of your own body". (85) A writer in The Morning Post said that voters should "keep the great prizes of the English universities for English students". (86) The Morning Herald said that it was "a question of national interest" since it would affect the education of civil servants and missionaries and therefore "the progress of Christianity in India and the maintenance of British authority in that empire". (87) It anticipated that Britain would be ridiculed if it had to appoint a German to its leading academic Sanskrit position. (88)

An editorial in The Times on 29 October 1860 called Muller "nothing more nor less than the best Sanscrit scholar in the world." (89) It compared the situation to the 1832 election when there had also been a choice between the best scholar (Wilson) and a good scholar "who was held to have made the most Christian use of the gift" (William Hodge Mill). (90) Williams, it said, appeared as "the University man ..., the man sufficiently qualified for the post, and, above all, as the man in whose hands, it is whispered, the interests of Christianity will be perfectly safe." (91) His proposal not to teach history, philosophy, mythology or comparative philology "seems to strip the subject very bare" and would, it thought, leave the post as "an empty chair". (92) It stated that Müller "best answers to the terms of Colonel Boden's foundation." (93) His field of study – the oldest period of Sanskrit literature – "must be the key of the whole position", whereas Williams was only familiar with the later, "less authentic, and less sacred" writings. (95) The editorial ended by saying that Oxford "will not choose the less learned candidate; at all events, it will not accept from him that this is the true principle of a sound Christian election." (96)

Max Muller

Edward Pusey, the influential "high church" Anglican theologian associated with the Oxford Movement, wrote a letter of support to Müller, reproduced in The Times. In his view, Boden's intentions would be best advanced by electing Müller. Missionaries could not win converts without knowing the details of the religion of those with whom they were dealing, he wrote, and Müller's publications were "the greatest gifts which have yet been bestowed" on those in such work. (97) He added that Oxford would gain by electing him to a position where Müller could spend all his time on work "of such primary and lasting importance for the conversion of India."(98) Beckerlegge finds Pusey's support noteworthy, since Pusey would not have agreed with Müller's particular "broad" approach to Christianity, and was thus providing a judgment on the academic abilities of the candidate best placed to advance missionary work in India. (99) One anonymous writer of a letter to the press in support of Müller, shortly before the election, expressed it thus: "A man's personal character must stand very high, and his theological opinions can afford but little ground for animadversion on either hand, when he unites as his unhesitating supporters Dr Pusey and Dr Macbride" (100) – a reference to John Macbride, "a profoundly religious layman of the 'old' evangelical school". (101) However, Dowling describes Müller as "impercipient of the subtle twists of theological argument, the fine shadings and compunctions of Victorian religious feeling" – a weakness that was held against him. (102)

The election was held on 7 December 1860 in the Sheldonian Theatre. (103) Special trains to Oxford were provided for non-resident members of the Convocation to cast their votes. Evangelical clergymen turned out in force to vote. (104) Over about five and a half hours of voting, 833 members of the Congregation declared for Williams, and 610 for Müller. (105) In the end, Williams won by a majority of over 220 votes. He helped to establish the Indian Institute at Oxford, received a knighthood, and held the chair until he died in 1899. Müller, although deeply disappointed by his defeat, remained in Oxford for the rest of his career, but never taught Sanskrit there. The 1860 election was the last time that Convocation chose the Boden professor.

Historians have advanced various views as to why, even though Müller was generally regarded as the superior scholar, he lost to Williams. (106) Beckerlegge suggests several possible factors: unlike Williams, Müller was known as a writer and translator rather than a teacher of Sanskrit, he did not have links to the East India Company or the Indian Civil Service, and he had not been educated at Oxford. (107) In his obituary of Müller, Arthur Macdonell (Boden professor 1899–1926) said that the election "came to turn on the political and religious opinions of the candidates rather than on their merits as Sanskrit scholars", adding that "party feeling ran high and large numbers came up to vote." (108) Similarly, Dowling has written that "in the less cosmopolitan precincts outside Oxford ... the argument that Müller was 'not English' told heavily against him" since "the argument was unanswerable." (109) She adds that Tories opposed him for his liberal political views, traditionalist factions within Oxford rejected "Germanizing" reform, and "the Anglican clergy ... detected unbelief lurking in his umlaut". (110) The American historian Marjorie Wheeler-Barclay takes the view that the three motives for people voting against Müller cannot be disentangled. (111) Those who supported Indian missionary work, Dowling writes, saw it as the key to continued British rule, and there was no need to take a chance by electing Müller, who had "a reputation for unsound religious opinions" since Williams was a scholar "of distinction known for his conservatism and piety." (112)

Müller attributed his defeat to his German background and suspicions that his Christianity was insufficiently orthodox, factors that had been used to influence in particular those voters who were no longer resident members of the university. (113) He had lost, he wrote, because of "calumnious falsehood and vulgar electioneering tactics." (114) Williams wrote in his unpublished autobiography that he had been "favoured by circumstances" and that, unlike Müller, he had been regarded as politically and religiously conservative. (115)

Müller wrote to his mother, on 16 December:

"The last days have been full of disturbance. You will have seen by the papers that I did not get the Sanskrit Professorship. The opposite party made it a political and religious question, and nothing could be done against them. All the best people voted for me, the Professors almost unanimously, but the vulgus profanum made the majority. I was sorry, for I would gladly have devoted all my time to Sanskrit, and the income was higher; but we shall manage. " (116)

Williams served as Boden professor until he died in 1899, although he retired from teaching, while retaining the title, in 1887 because of his health. (117) The subject for his inaugural lecture was The Study of Sanskrit about Missionary Work. As the East India Company had switched to using English rather than Sanskrit or Persian for its work, "a natural source of students had already dried up not long after the Boden Chair was inaugurated [in 1832]". (118) Williams helped establish the Indian Institute at Oxford, proposing the idea in 1875 and helping to raise funds for the project on his visits to India, and persuaded the university to add a degree course in oriental studies. His publications included translations of plays and grammatical works. He was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1887 when he changed his surname to become Sir Monier Monier-Williams. (119)

Robinson Ellis was required to attend Williams's lectures despite his low opinions of the new professor's abilities. Williams said Ellis's "whole demeanour was that of a person who would have welcomed an earthquake or any convulsion of nature which would have opened a way for him to sink out of my sight". (120) In the end, Williams won over most of those who had opposed his election, except Müller. (121)

For Müller, losing the election was "a decisive turning point in his scholarly and intellectual life", according to Chaudhuri. (122) It meant that Müller was never to teach Sanskrit at Oxford, although he remained there until his death in 1900; (123) nor did he ever visit India. (124) Greatly disappointed by not winning the chair, Müller "regularly avoided or snubbed Monier Williams and his family on the streets of Oxford", according to Williams. (125) He was appointed to a chair of comparative philology in 1868, the first Oxford professorship to be established by the university itself without money from royal or private donations. (126) He wrote a letter of resignation in 1875 when the university proposed to award an honorary doctorate to Williams, citing a reason that he wanted to spend more time studying Sanskrit. Friends attempted to talk him out of it, and the university appointed a deputy professor to discharge his duties. (127)

Despite his electoral defeat, Muller enjoyed a high reputation at Oxford and beyond: he "occupied a central role in the intellectual life of the nation", according to Beckerlegge. (128) In Beckerlegge's opinion, Müller's views about the nature of Christian missionary work showed the difficulty at that time for Christian academics "actively working to promote a more tolerant and even-handed study of other religious traditions". (129) Dowling considers that "[w]ithin his own lifetime, Müller was discredited as a linguistic scientist" and has "little relevance" to later models of the study of language. (130)

Of the other candidates, Cowell was elected as the first Sanskrit professor at the University of Cambridge in 1867, supported by Müller and others. (131) Griffith was the principal of his college from 1861 until 1878, succeeding Ballantyne; he carried out further work in India after his retirement and died there. (132) Ballantyne resigned as principal because of health problems and returned to England, where he served as librarian to the India Office, a position that Wilson had held in addition to the professorship until he died in 1864. (133)

Boden professors, till India attained freedom:

Horace Wilson (1832-1860)

Wilson trained as a surgeon and learnt Hindustani en route to India to work for the East India Company, where he studied Sanskrit and other languages. He published articles in the journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, of which he was secretary for 21 years. Opposing compulsory Christian tuition for Indian students, he favoured traditional Indian education mixed with studies of the English language and Western learning, although he regarded Indian culture as inferior to that of the Western world. He arrived in Oxford in 1833 after his election in 1832 but moved to London in 1836 to be a librarian at East India House, the company's headquarters, travelling back to Oxford as necessary to carry out his duties. He held both positions until he died in 1860.

Monier Williams (1860-1899)

Williams was born in India, the son of an army officer. Educated in England, he trained for the East India Company's civil service at the company's college. Still, news of the death of his brother in battle in India prompted him to return to Oxford and study Sanskrit with Wilson, winning the Boden scholarship. After graduating in 1844, he was a professor of Sanskrit, Persian and Hindustani at the company's college until 1858, when it closed after the Indian rebellion. As a Boden professor, he wanted to create stronger links between India and England with the creation of a specialist institute at Oxford. His advocacy and fundraising at home and overseas led to the Indian Institute opening in 1884 (completed in 1896), and he gave about 3,000 manuscripts and books to its library. He retired from teaching in 1887; Arthur Macdonell was appointed as his deputy in 1888 and succeeded him. 

Arthur McDonnel (1899-1926)

Macdonell was born in India, where his father was a colonel in a local regiment, and lived there until he was six or seven. He spent several school years in Germany before studying Sanskrit and comparative philology at Göttingen University. He studied literae humaniores (classics) at Oxford, also winning scholarships in German, Chinese and Sanskrit. After lecturing in German and Sanskrit at Oxford and obtaining his doctorate from Leipzig, he was appointed as deputy to Monier-Williams in 1888, succeeding him in 1899. Macdonell developed the library and museum of the Indian Institute, raised funds in India for a scholarly edition of the Mahābhārata, and helped the Bodleian Library acquire many Sanskrit manuscripts. His main scholarly interest was Vedic Sanskrit, producing books on its mythology and grammar, and editions of some Vedic texts. 

Frederick Thomas (1927-1937)

Thomas read classics and Indian languages at Cambridge and then spent six years teaching before becoming assistant librarian, later the librarian, of the India Office. After 24 years as a librarian, arranging and studying the many books and manuscripts the India Office had acquired, he spent 10 years as a Boden professor. His main scholarly interests were in philology, but he also studied Buddhism, Jainism, philosophy, logic and myth. He also helped produce the standard translation of Harshacharita, a 7th-century Sanskrit biography. 

Edward Johnson (1937-1942)

After winning the Boden scholarship, Johnston served in the Indian Civil Service from 1909 to 1924, acquiring knowledge of the Indian language and culture which he improved on his return to England. He also learnt some Tibetan and Chinese to use sources in those languages. His writings drew upon his practical knowledge of Indian life. His main work was an edition and translation of Buddhacarita ("Acts of the Buddha") by the 2nd-century author Aśvaghoṣa, published between 1928 and 1936. As a Boden professor, he helped to catalogue the Bodleian Library's Sanskrit manuscripts and to improve the Indian Institute's museum. 

Thomas Burrow (1944-1976)

Burrow studied classics and oriental languages at Cambridge, spending one year of his doctorate, on Prakrits, the later languages close to Sanskrit, in London. After two further years of research in Cambridge, he was an assistant keeper in the Department of Oriental printed books and manuscripts at the British Museum for seven years, where he studied Dravidian languages, which thereafter was his main area of research and publication. As a Boden professor, he taught Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit; according to his successor, Richard Gombrich, Burrow may never have set any of his students the task of writing an essay. On field trips to India, he helped to record previously unstudied Dravidian languages. Gombrich described him as "amiable but socially passive and taciturn", and as "a single-minded scholar of great learning". (134)

Christopher Minkowski was appointed in 2005 as the eighth Boden professor.

The End of the Project

After the Sanyasi Rebellion in India during 1770-1777, twenty years after the 1857 rebellion, the conversion project was shelved by the Britishers. It was evident that the project would lead to rebellion in India. So, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1877 implemented a process of reform imposed by Parliament that had begun in the middle of the 19th century and empowered a group of commissioners to lay down new statutes for the university and its colleges. The commissioners' powers included the ability to rewrite trusts and directions attached to gifts that were 50 years old or more. (135) 

The statutes governing the Boden chair were revised by the commissioners in 1882; there was no mention after that of Boden's original proselytising purpose. The professor was required to "deliver lectures and give instruction on the Sanskrit Language and Literature", to contribute towards the pursuit and advancement of knowledge, and to "aid generally the work of the University." He had to provide instruction to students for at least four days each week during at least twenty-one weeks each year, without further fee, and to deliver public lectures.  Instead of election by Convocation, the new statutes provided that the electors would be the Secretary of State for India, the Corpus Christi Professor of Comparative Philology, the Sanskrit Professor at the University of Cambridge, someone nominated by Balliol College and someone nominated by the university's governing body. Revisions by the commissioners to the statutes of Balliol College in 1882 provided that the Boden professor was to be a Fellow of the college from then onwards. (136)

Further changes to the university's internal legislation in the 20th and early 21st centuries abolished specific statutes for the duties of, and rules for appointment to, individual chairs such as the Boden professorship. The University Council is now empowered to make appropriate arrangements for appointments and conditions of service, and the college to which any professorship is allocated (Balliol in the case of the Boden chair) has two representatives on the board of electors. (137) In 2008, Richard Gombrich said that he had had to "fight a great battle" in 2004 to ensure that another Boden professor was appointed to succeed him on his retirement, and credited his victory to the university's realisation. His view was that Oxford retained the chair in Sanskrit because it was the last such position in the United Kingdom.

___________________

1. Chichester, H. M.; Carter, Philip (May 2005). "Boden, Joseph (d. 1811)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press.2. At this time, "India" described the area covered by present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh

3. Chichester, H. M.; Carter, Philip (May 2005). "Boden, Joseph (d. 1811)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6. Ibid

Extract from Joseph Boden's will, 15 August 1811
"I do hereby give and bequeath all and singular my said residuary estate and effects, with the accumulations thereof, if any, and the stocks, funds, and securities whereon the same shall have been laid out and invested, unto the University of Oxford, to be by that body appropriated in and towards the erection and endowment of a Professorship in the Shanskreet [sic] language, at or in any or either of the Colleges in the said University, being of opinion that a more general and critical knowledge of that language will be a means of enabling my countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion, by disseminating a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures amongst them, more effectually than all other means whatsoever." ("Oxford". The Observer. 19 November 1827. p. 2.)

7. "Editorial". The Times. 29 October 1860. p. 6.

8. Chaudhuri, Nird, Scholar Extraordinary, Chatto and Windus (1974), p. 221

9. "Boden professor of Sanskrit - About". www.balliol.ox.ac.uk. 

10. Courtright, Paul B. (2004). "Wilson, Horace Hayman (1786–1860)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press

11. Bendall, Cecil; Loloi, Parvin (2004). "Mill, William Hodge (1792–1853)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

12. Courtright, Paul B. (2004). "Wilson, Horace Hayman (1786–1860)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.

13. "University Intelligence". The Times. 17 March 1832. p. 4.

14. Goodwin, Gordon; Katz, J. B. (January 2008). "Haughton, Sir Graves Chamney (1788–1849)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press

15. Beckerlegge, Gwilym (1997). "Professor Friedrich Max Müller and the Missionary Cause". In Wolfe, John (ed.). Religion in Victorian Britain. Vol. V – Culture and Empire. Manchester University Press. p. 186

16. Ibid, p 187

17. Ibid, 201

18. Ibid, 202

19. Ibid, 188

20. Dowling, Linda (March 1982). "Victorian Oxford and the Science of Language". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. Modern Language Association. p. 165

21. "University Intelligence". The Times. 28 May 1860. p. 6.

22. "University Intelligence". The Times. 31 October 1860. p. 4.

23. "University Intelligence". The Times. 17 August 1860. p. 7.

24. Boden Sanscrit Professorship". The Observer. 3 June 1860. p. 3.

25. Kochhar, Rajesh (March–April 2008). "Seductive Orientalism: English Education and Modern Science in Colonial India". Social Scientist. 36 (3/4): 54.

26. Beckerlegge, pp. 334–335
27. ibid, pp. 333–334
28. ibid, pp. 334–335

29. Fynes, R. C. C. (May 2007). "Müller, Friedrich Max (1823–1900)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.

30.Beckerlegge, p. 180

31. Fynes, R. C. C. (May 2007). "Müller, Friedrich Max (1823–1900)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

32. Chaudhuri, p. 220

33. Macdonell, A. A.; Katz, J. B. (October 2007). "Williams, Sir Monier Monier– (1819–1899)". In Katz, J. B (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

34. Kochhar, Rajesh (March–April 2008). "Seductive Orientalism: English Education and Modern Science in Colonial India". Social Scientist. 36 (3/4): 54

35. Van der Veer, Peter (2001). Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Princeton University Press p. 109

36. "University Intelligence". The Times. 16 May 1860. p.9

37. ibid

38. Beckerlegge, pp. 334–335

39. ibid

40. ibid, 203

41. "University Intelligence". The Times. 16 May 1860. p. 9

42. Beckerlegge, pp. 333–334

43. ibid

44. Dowling, p. 165

45. ibid

46. Beckerlegge, p. 197

47. ibid, p. 198

48. ibid, p 199

48. Chaudhuri, p. 223

49. "University Intelligence". The Times. 22 October 1860. p. 7

50. ibid

51. ibid

52. Beckerlegge, p. 199

53-56: Müller, Max (29 October 1860). "Sanskrit Professorship". The Times. p. 7

57: ibid

58. ibid

59. Beckerlegge, p. 201

60. Evison, Evison, Gillian (December 2004). "The Orientalist, his Institute and the Empire: the rise and subsequent decline of Oxford University's Indian Institute" p. 2

61. Thomas, Thomas, Terence (2000). "Political motivations in the development of the academic studies of religions in Britain". In Geertz, Armin (ed.). Perspectives on Method and Theory in the Study of Religion: Adjunct Proceedings of the XVIIth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Mexico City, 1995. Brill Publishers. p. 85

62. Evison, p. 3.

63. Chaudhuri, p. 222

64.  Evison, p. 2

65. Müller, p. 238

66. Van der Veer, p. 108

67. Chaudhuri, p. 220

68. "University Intelligence". The Times. 28 May 1860. p. 6

69.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 31 October 1860. p. 4.

70. Beckerlegge, p. 178.

71. ibid193

72. ibid

73. Chaudhuri, p. 226

74. "University Intelligence". The Times. 23 May 1860. p. 9

75. ibid

76. Müller, p. 236

77.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 27 June 1860. p. 12

78. ibid

79. Beckerlegge, p. 180

80.  "Boden Professorship of Sanskrit at Oxford". The Times. 5 December 1860. p. 6

81.  "Boden Sanskrit Professorship". The Times. 6 December 1860. p. 8

82. Chaudhuri, p. 221

83. Quoted in Beckerlegge, p. 196

84. Kaul, Chandrika (2003). Reporting the Raj: The British Press and India C. 1880–1922. Manchester University Press. pp. 87–88

85-88. Quoted in Beckerlegge, p. 196

89-96.Editorial". The Times. 29 October 1860. p. 6

97.  Pusey, Edward (11 June 1860). "The Boden Professorship of Sanskrit". The Times. p. 9

98. ibid

99. Beckerlegge, p. 203

100. Müller, pp. 241–242

101. Simpson, R. S. (2004). "Macbride, John David (1778–1868)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press

102. Dowling, p. 164

103.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 8 December 1860. p. 9

104. Evison, p. 3

105.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 8 December 1860. p. 9

106. Tull, Herman W. (June 1991). "F. Max Müller and A. B. Keith: 'Twaddle', the 'Stupid' Myth and the Disease of Indology". Numen. Brill Publishers. 38 (3): 31–32

107. Beckerlegge, p. 195

108. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1901). "Obituary: Max Müller". Man. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 1: 18–23.

109. Dowling, p. 164.

110. ibid

111. Beckerlegge, pp. 202–203

112. ibid

113. ibid, 195

114. Dowling, p. 164

115. Beckerlegge, p. 195

116. Thomas, p. 86

117. Evison, p. 2

118. Thomas, p. 86

119.  Macdonell, A. A.; Katz, J. B. (October 2007). "Williams, Sir Monier Monier– (1819–1899)". In Katz, J. B (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

120.  Evison, p. 3

121. ibid

122. Chaudhuri, p. 222

123. Kochhar, Rajesh (March–April 2008). "Seductive Orientalism: English Education and Modern Science in Colonial India". Social Scientist. 36 (3/4): 54

124. Beckerlegge, p. 188

125.  ibid, p. 183

126. Tull, Herman W. (June 1991). "F. Max Müller and A. B. Keith: 'Twaddle', the 'Stupid' Myth and the Disease of Indology". Numen. Brill Publishers. 38 (3): 31–32

127. Chaudhuri, pp. 232–234

128. Beckerlegge, p. 179

129. ibid

130. Dowling, p. 160

131. Beckerlegge, p. 173

132.  Macdonell, A. A.; Katz, J. B. (2004). "Griffith, Ralph Thomas Hotchkin (1826–1906)". In Katz, J. B (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press

133. Simpson, R. S. (2004). "Ballantyne, James Robert (1813–1864)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University

134. Gombrich, Richard F. (2004). "Burrow, Thomas (1909–1986)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press

135.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 22 November 1860. p. 10

136.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 15 May 1860. p. 9

137. Beckerlegge, pp.203, 334–335

© Ramachandran

THE KILLING OF RAMA SIMHAN BY MUSLIMS

The Congress Helped to Destroy the Case

While Kerala is discussing Variyamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji and the Hindu genocide of 1921 on the eve of the centenary of the Mappila Rebellion, the story of the conversion of Unneen Sahib to Hinduism has to be remembered. As a result, the fanatic Muslims killed him and his family. It is known as the Ramasimhan episode since Uneen Sahib became known as Ramasimhan after his conversion.

I had read the name of Ramasimhan in the book, Khilafath Smaranakal by Mozhikunnath Brahmadathan Nambudiripad and had searched for the details in the library of the newspaper where I had worked. Unfortunately, the daily, established in 1888, had been banned for nine years from 1938 and thus had not reported the incident.

The conversion

In the book, Brahmadathan speaks negatively of Cherumukk Kunjan Othikkan who converted Kilimannil Unnian from Islam to Hinduism and made him Ramasimhan Nambudiri. Brahmadathan had been declared an outcast by his own Nambudiri community, after the Maappila revolt of 1921. Brahmadathan, Congress President of Cherpulassery in Palakkad was arrested by the police in a case in September 1921. He was given a life sentence and was imprisoned at the Bellary jail. He was declared an outcast for eating along with people belonging to other castes. He had gone to the high priest Cherumukk Somayajippad then seeking pardon. His entreaties were rejected then. After his death, his brother Kunjan Othikkan inherited the position of the high priest-he had been running a bank and had no knowledge of the rituals. But, according to Brahmadathan, he made his position an office of profit.

Kiliyamannil Thekke Palliyayali Moidu of Chemmankadavu village in Malappuram district of Kerala, had two sons namd Unneen and Alippu.Moidu or Kiliyamannil Moideen, hailing from Chemmankadav near Kodur in Malappuram, had made some money, managing the British rubber estate at Palipilly near Thrissur. He acquired land and a rubber estate himself, which were inherited by his son, Uneen or Unniyan.

Unneen was a rubber estate owner near Malaramba, Angadippuram, Perinthalmanna. The British government conferred the title of ‘Khan Sahib’ on Unneen as he was a landlord loyal to them. Unneen married the daughter of a prominent timber merchant Khan Bahadur Kalladi Unni Kammu of Mannarkadu in Palakkad district. Unneen had an Ettukettu bungalow at Angadippuram called the Malaramba bungalow and had leased for 90 years the 600-acre Malaramba estate from Kundrakal Nair, and had named it KM Moidu Rubber Estate. He drove an American Ford car. He had two brothers, Ali Bapu and Kunjahammed.

Unneen reached Angadippuram around 1905, to plant rubber following the British methods. He leased the 600 acres at Pariyapuram, and the land had a dilapidated Narasimha temple.

Unneen was very much attached to Western culture and was following their lifestyle. Being a rich landlord, he maintained local mosques, a madrasa and used to insult Hindus and their places of worship. He used the ruins of a nearby temple for building a latrine in his house. But all of a sudden he became sick and affected severe stomach disease. No treatment found to cure his illness. On seeing his pathetic condition some elders of nearby locality advised him to consult an astrologer and some Hindu Sannyasins for his recovery as they feared that it was a curse of God. They advised him to refrain from insulting Hindu deities and the Vedic literature. 

Ramasimhan

During the campaign of Tipu Sultan in the Malabar region of Kerala, hundreds of temples were destroyed and plundered by the Muslims. Prominent among them were Tali Shiva Temple at Kozhikode and Shri Narasimha Moorthi Temple at Malaparamba.

The Narasimha temple came into existence nearly 350 years ago. But it had lost its prominence due to neglect by the family who owned it. Afterwards, one Kundrakkal Nair took up the reconstruction work. With Tipu Sultan’s entry into the Malabar region in 1779, this temple was also got destroyed along with others. Then, Unneen Sahib's family got a lease of 100 acres of land around this temple for a rubber plantation.

A dream

One night in 1944, Uneen had a dream of a fierce face shouting and screaming at him. He got very much afraid. The dream continued for several nights. His Hindu friends advised him to consult an astrologer. One of his friends was the lawyer Manjeri Rama Iyer, who was Dewan of the Nilambur Raja. Rama Iyer had converted himself to Buddhism. He was supportive of the Uneen family in 1921 and was critical of the trials of the Mappilas then. Iyer's family had disowned him.

The astrologer found out that it was Lord Narasimha who had appeared before Uneen in his sleep. He was demanding Unneen resettle Him in his old temple. The astrologers told Uneen to do it. He agreed to the proposal to reconstruct the temple in all its glory. His nightmare got over. He began to visit the temple site. He saw a number of Namboodiri pujaris, granite stone cutters, and the Narasimha idol being brought by the architects. It became a very busy pilgrimage centre for people from different professions. The mantras being recited influenced him very much.

He realised his mistakes and became repentant about his past actions. His painful stomach disease was also got relieved shortly. He changed his living style and eating habits. He took a special interest in Yoga, meditation and charitable works for the well-being of the Hindus. But the sudden change in Unneen Sahib infuriated the orthodox Muslims. The Muslim clergy tried their level best to change the mind of Uneen but were unsuccessful. He became more attached to Hindu religious texts and beliefs. He went to the Arya Samaj at Calicut along with his brother, sons and many other family members and got re-converted into Hinduism the shuddhi ritual conducted by Arya Missionary Buddha Singh in 1946. Unneen held Dayanand Saraswati's 'Satyarthprakash' in his hand. The incident was splashed in dailies and published in Fort St George Gazette.

On becoming a follower of the Vedic religion, Uneen got the name, Ramasimhan. One of his brothers, Ali Bapu, became Dayasimhan. Dayasimhan later became Narasimhan on his conversion into a Namboothiri Brahmin. Ramasimhan’s two sons changed their names to Fateh Singh and Jorwar Singh, the names of Guru Gobind Singh’s two valiant sons who were murdered on the orders of Aurangzeb during Mughal Rule for refusing to accept Islam. Former RSS Malabar pracharak Shankar Shastri had made all the necessary arrangements for the conversion of Unneen and his family.

Ramasimhan's two children renamed Udaya Simhan and Satya Simhan were sent to Delhi Arya Samaj school for education and joined the Birla College.

Accepting the request of Ramasimhan, the learned Namboodiri Brahmins agreed to convert Dayasimhan, brother of Rama Simhan into a Namboodiri Brahmin and his name was changed to Narasimhan Namboodiri. They even arranged the marriage of him with a Namboodiri girl named Kamala, daughter of Puzhakkattiri Kottuvadi Mangalathu Manaykal Narayanan Nambudiri.

Muslim protest and murder

When a Maulavi criticised the re-conversion as a great mistake on the part of Ramasimhan, he retorted: "I have not committed any mistake. It was my grandmother who, on being captured by Muslims, committed the fault of converting to Islam. I am re-converting to Hinduism to rectify the fault and atone for the sin of my grandmother."

But the reconversion of the wealthy and prominent Muslim family of Uneen caused a tremor in the Muslim-dominated Malabar region. They feared that it may create an exodus from Islam to the Vedic religion. On coming back to Hinduism, Ramasimhan became a peace-loving person. He returned his guns and licensed revolvers to the government which he was using earlier for hunting. He told the government that he no more need guns since now he believed in non-violence. He became a vegetarian and brought a cook, Raju/Ramu Iyer from Thrissur. The Muslim clergy spread the rumour that Uneen has become mad. His father-in-law Unnikkammu took away his daughter.

Dressed up as a Brahmin, Unneen converted the mosque in front of his home, into his visitor's room, for Hindu saints and priests, who frequently visited his home and performed pujas. He stopped gifts to mosques and began contributing to temples.

Things took a new turn when Kunjahammed, Uneen's younger brother decided to reconvert into Islam, in 1946. He held a meeting of prominent Muslims and clerics, to persuade Uneen to revert back. About 30 attended. Ramasimhan, who had thoroughly studied Hinduism by then, debated successfully with the Muslim clerics. The clerics announced that Ramasimhan was possessed by a Kafir Jin and he need to consume 14 oranges, which were ritually blessed. Ramasimhan refused. This act of Ramasimhan was counterproductive and encouraged the Islamic fundamentalists to brutally assassinate him and his family. Things became worse when Dayasimhan decided to marry a 15-year-old Nambudiri girl, Kamala, daughter of Mangalath Manaykal Narayanan Nambudiri, after his sacred thread ceremony, or upanayana. After the wedding, Narasimhan became a priest at the Narasimha temple.

The Muslim clerics held a secret meeting, declared Ramasimhan an apostate and decided to inflict the death sentence on him, according to the Sharia. The then IS, Izzatul Islam, which was formed to help the new converts, was assigned the killing job. Seven people from Pookottur, formed the death squad-Paramban Mammad, Kunyatkalathil Moideen Kutty, Puliyan Muhammad, Muttayilkaran Aymutty, Nanath Kunjalavi, Kalathinkal Kunhamu and Illikkappadi Ayamu. They met at the estate of Abubakar Haji, prayed and began their journey with a gun and 20 bullets.

The Muslim fundamentalists attacked the house of Ramasimhan at 2 am on 3 August 1947 armed with deadly weapons and slaughtered the sleeping Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan Namboothiri, his wife Kamala Antarjanam and their cook Raju Iyer, in cold blood. A large force of Muslims had come in two trucks with all types of arms, and they demolished the house of Rama Simhan. They desecrated the nearby temple, killed the holy cows and threw the meat and entrails there. Kamala's mother and her other children, who were in the bungalow, escaped.

The assailants destroyed the Narasimha temple; looted the bungalow. The idol was thrown into the pond. They filled the temple well, with the debris of the compound wall.

The Hindus of the whole locality got afraid and hid in their houses. Nobody was there to claim the dead bodies of Rama Simhan and his family. RSS was not a mature organisation then. The bodies were unceremoniously buried by the police on the hillock. Only one Hindu, the RSS pracharak from Nagpur, Sankara Shastri, was present.

The whole incident didn't get the attention it deserved, since the country had plunged into the independence celebrations.

The police arrested the assailants of Ramasimhan and his family. Ramasimhan's younger brother Kunjahammed, father-in-law Unnikammu and an accomplice Haneefa were arrested on the seventh day. Perinthalmanna SI Kesava Menon led the police team.

The weapons used for the murder were retrieved from the Kulathur Muthalakkot pond in which they were dumped. Four of the murderers were sentenced to death by the District and Sessions Court at Palghat.

Acquittal

The Muslim fundamentalists rallied behind the marauders and raised a huge sum of money for their legal assistance on appeal in the High Court of Madras. It was ironic that the Justice Lionel  Clifford Horwill ( ICS) of the Madras High Court, in a judgement on January 19, 1949, acquitted all the accused of want of credible evidence. He also observed  that “it is unfortunate that such a grave crime organised by the Moplah Muslims against the Hindus of the area has not been detected; if the police were unable to obtain more evidence it was because the Moplah community largely succeeded in maintaining secrecy.”

The pseudo-secular politicians of the then Madras Government were bribed by influential Muslim businessmen for supporting the convicts in fighting the case in the Madras High Court. In the PS Kumaraswami Raja cabinet of 1949, Kozhippurath Madhava Menon was the minister from Malabar, with a Courts and Prisons portfolio, apart from Education. The evidence was destroyed and prosecution witnesses were threatened and coerced into silence. As a result of such actions, the case was dismissed on the grounds of lack of evidence. Thus the murderers of this heinous crime were set scot-free. Many confidants of Rama Simhan like his Manager were bribed and were compelled to hand over the guardianship of his sons to his father-in-law Unni Kammu who forcibly reconverted them to Islam later. Even though the rule of the land could not punish the assailants and their supporters, many of them had a tragic life in their later part of life. Few of them became insane and destitute.

Madhava Menon

As a result of the Congress's support for the Mappila rebellion as well as the Ramasimhan murder 25 years later, the Hindus welcomed Communism to Malabar. The RSS had no foothold then. The RSS never forgot the incident in Malaparamba and their own helplessness at that time. They prepared themselves to redeem what they could not do in 1947. With great difficulty, the Mattummal Narasimha Moorthi Temple Trust went to the court to get an order for handing over the temple lands to the remaining dependents of Rama Simhan. His two children who were in Delhi were brought back and brought up as Muslims again. The Court allowed the Trust to reconstruct the temple. The members of the Trust began the reconstruction with very strong black granite stones. It took five years for the temple work to be finished. After elaborate religious Vedic rites, the temple complex, consisting of the main Lord Narasimha Moorthy, Lord Ganesha, Devi Durga, Lord Ayyappa and Lord Subramania, was been opened to the devotees again. After 60 years, the self-respect of the Hindus could be redeemed.

Today, the MES Medical College stands at the place where Ramasimhan's bungalow stood.MES claims that the estate was transferred to them by his descendants of him, after his murder. But the claim is said to be baseless since it was leased out by the Kundarakal Nair family to Unneen for 90 years. The lease agreement got expired in 1995; hence, the estate should be transferred back to the family or should be attached by the government. Even if the descendants had transferred the lease rights, it was illegal. The temple and the 60 cents around it have been handed over to the Hindus, after a prolonged legal battle.

The Verdict in the Appeal:

Madras High Court

Paramban Mammadu And Ors. vs The King on 19 January 1949

Equivalent citations: (1949) 2 MLJ 544

Author: Horwill

JUDGMENT Horwill, J.

1. The four appellants and three others who were acquitted by the lower Court were charged by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of conspiring with P.W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under section 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons and rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, and one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found the first accused only guilty of conspiracy and the four appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 34, read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on all the four counts. He sentenced the four appellants to death and, as already stated, acquitted the other three.

2. The motive for the offence is said to have been the enmity borne by the Moplah community in general and the seven accused and P.W. 10 in particular against Ramasimlhan and his brother, the second deceased because they had renounced Islam and allowed themselves to be converted to Hinduism. Narasimhan had subsequently been elevated to Nambudiri rank and had been accepted by the Nambudiri community as one of their numbers; and to him in marriage was given the daughter of P.W. 26, a girl of 15 years of age, who was with her husband at the time of the murder and shared his fate. After the first deceased had been converted from Islam to Hinduism, he diverted the large sums of money that he was accustomed to contributing to Muslim charities and spent them on Hindu charities. In particular, he renovated a Hindu temple in the vicinity and was responsible for restoring regular worship there. He began a diligent study of the Hindu scriptures and was studying the Bhagavad Gita, and had perpetually with him P.W. 25, a Nambudiri, to teach mantrams to the second deceased. He had moreover sent his two sons to Delhi to be instructed and brought up in the Hindu religion. All this, the prosecution says, gave rise to a great deal of enmity against him among Muslims; and specific instances have been spoken to in the evidence in which Muslims were heard denouncing very severely the first deceased and even threatening his life.

3. Exhibit P-60 gives an accurate idea of the bungalow of Ramasimhan, by the name " Malaramba Bungalow ". The main entrance to the bungalow was on the eastern side. To enter the house one has to pass through a door situated on the eastern side of a porch, which is the entrance to the bungalow. Just inside that door were lying the first deceased and P.W. 24, a boy kept by the first deceased to massage him. This witness was lying on a mat (M.O. 17), which assumes some importance because on it was found a footprint, and P.W. 25 lay on another mat (M.O. 18), which is important for the same reason. From the verandah, one can enter the room marked " B " on the plan and from that central room, one can pass to rooms north and south. Immediately to the north of that central room was a room in which was lying a child of P.W. 26, the mother of the third deceased. Still north of that room again on a cot were lying the second and third deceased. To the south of the central room were lying P.W. 26 and two of her children. To the west of this series of rooms which run north to south is a verandah, from which is a passageway to the west leading into the dining hall and the kitchen. The western verandah of the main building was separated from this passageway by a door which was said to have been fastened on the night of the offence, as was the main entrance at the east. If those doors were secured, then, apparently, the house could only be entered by breaking open those doors. If one passed through the door separating the western verandah from the passageway, one passed first into the dining hall, where were sleeping the fourth deceased and his assistant, P.W. 22. To the west of the main hall was a kitchen in which P.W. 22 subsequently took refuge.

4. According to the story of the persons who were in that bungalow on the night of the offence and who survived the murderous assault, the first inkling that any strangers were trying to enter came from a banging on the front door. P.W. 24, deposed that the door had not been securely fastened. Although there were three bolts, only the bolt on the top had been secured; and so when the door was knocked that bolt fell and the door opened. P.W. 24 does not give evidence of any great value; for as soon as he saw a person enter, he ran through into the middle room and there joined P.W. 26 and her children. P.W. 25, on hearing cries, hid behind an almirah situated close to where he was lying. From there he was able to see something of what was taking place. He deposed that a little after midnight (2 a.m. was that time generally agreed upon), he heard a sound of a battering of the front door. Before he hid behind the almirah, the first deceased came saying " Who is it, Eda " and then crying out " Boy, I am cheated ", referring to the second deceased. He saw somebody cutting the first deceased with a weapon about a cubit long. He was able to see what was happening, not only by the moonlight shining through the door but by the light of a torch that was being shown by the assailant. The second deceased then came running and flashed a torch to see what was happening. He ran back when she saw the assailant. The witness saw a person chasing the second deceased but is unable to say whether or not that person was the same man who had attacked the first deceased. A little later, when things had become a little quieter, he made his escape. When the fourth deceased and P.W. 22 heard the door separating the verandah of the main building from the passage being broken open, P.W. 22 ran into the kitchen before anyone entered there; but he saw a person attacking the fourth deceased. Subsequently, somebody flashed a torch into the kitchen; but as he was hiding behind the door, he was not seen. The fourth deceased, though severely injured, was able to escape and give two statements, Exhibits P-24 and P-7, before he died. Exhibit P-24 is a statement recorded by a Head Constable. Later on, he was taken to the hospital, where the Sub-Magistrate (P.W. 6) recorded the other statement, Exhibit P-7. The earlier statement was a simple one in which he said that at about 2-30 a.m., he saw somebody flashing a torch and heard him kicking at the door of the bungalow. The man kicked open the door, flashed the torch in his face, and immediately began to attack him. It would seem from this statement that only one person came into the dining room where he was sleeping, but he saw a number of persons running away after attacking the second deceased. Then somebody fired at him with a gun and wounded him in the hip. Exhibit P-7 is to the same effect and is clear that he saw only one person, and that that man incited another to shoot him. It is of importance that in Exhibit P-7 he stated that the man whom he saw was a Moplah. P.W. 18 was sleeping in a Ford Car in a shed that had been erected against the southern wall of the bungalow, and when some persons ran there and set fire to the car, he escaped without identifying anybody. He said that he was able to make out from the accent of the assailants that they were Moplahs. There is other evidence that the persons who were attacking there were Moplahs; and we find no reason for thinking that the persons who made these statements were unable to say to what community the attackers belonged; for the dress and speech of the Moplahs are distinctive.

5. The offence was committed on the 3rd August 1947, and for a long time, no clues were obtained. A person by the name of Haneefa was later arrested and identified by P.W. 25 as one of the assailants. On the day of his arrest (14th October 1947) was arrested also Kunhammad, a brother of the first and second deceased, who had been converted upon the persuasion of his brothers, but later, reverted to Islam. Another person arrested at the same time was Kutti AH, the father-in-law of Kunhammad. In the meanwhile, the police had been examining the bungalow very closely and a number of blood-stained foot-marks were found in the bungalow on the mats M. Os. 17 and 18 and in the portico. One of these impressions was thought at one time by the Footprint Expert (P.W. 33) to be that of the right foot of Haneefa. Soon after these persons were arrested and one of the footprints identified to be that of Haneefa, a charge sheet was filed against these four persons. 6 or 7 weeks later, on 2nd December 1947, another charge sheet was filed, this time against 13 persons, including the four who had been charge-sheeted earlier, but not including any of the present accused of P.W. 10, the approver.

6. On the 14th October 1947, a special investigating officer (P.W. 45) had been sent to investigate, and he had come to the conclusion that the murder had been committed out of religious fanaticism; and since he had found some hair adhering to a door frame with broken glass in the room in which P.W. 26 was sleeping with two of her children, he sent out constables to make a diligent search in all the neighbourhood for persons who had been injured. The first man with scars to be found was apparently the seventh accused, who was arrested on 14th December 1947. His arrest was followed on 17th December 1947, by the arrest of the sixth accused. The fifth accused was found with scars and arrested on 26th December 1947. On 28th December 1947, the second and fourth accused were arrested, the latter having scars. P.W. 10 had been arrested on 24th December 1947 and gave a statement implicating himself and others on 30th December 1947, whereupon the first and third accused were arrested almost immediately on 1st January 1948. Footprints of the arrested men were taken and examined and provisional charge sheets filed; but it was not until 22nd March 1948, that the final charge sheet was filed against these seven accused, and these accused alone.

7. No special reason has been given by the prosecution why these seven accused and the approver P.W. 10. should have participated in this murder. It has not been shown that these eight persons bore any greater enmity towards the first deceased than any other member of their community, except possibly the fourth accused, who is the President of the Izzathai Islam Sangham, the principal objects of which are said to be to relieve needy Mussalmans and to send converted men to Ponnani for training. He is a leather merchant; but all the other accused seem to be men of humble status, though of independent means, with the exception of the seventh accused, a coolie. Accused 1 to 3 are ryots. The fifth accused is a cart driver and the sixth accused a tea shop-keeper. With the exception of the fourth accused, these men do not occupy any position either in society or in the religious life of the community that would make it likely that they would plot a murder of this kind.

8. The principal evidence against the accused is that of the approver., P.W. 10. One generally expects the evidence of an approver to be rich in detail and colour, consistent within itself and not having any important contradictions when compared with other statements made by him earlier. Such evidence carries conviction to the mind; so that a court feels that very little other evidence is necessary to satisfy it beyond all reasonable doubt that the approver's story is true. The evidence of the approver, in this case, is not however of that kind. It is thin and bare and does not carry with it an air of conviction. After stating that he and other numbers of the Moplah community felt hatred towards the first deceased, he described very briefly the conspiracy, which he said took place on a Saturday about the 14th or 15th of the month of Ramzan, about a week or so before the plot was executed. The plot was hatched quite by chance. At Konapparamukku, a place where people gather together in their leisure time to have a chat, the witness chanced to meet accused 4 and 5, and later accused 6, and discussed with them the enormity of the first deceased's lapse into heresy. At the actual conspiracy were also present accused 1 and 2. Then, after giving a very short account of the conspiracy, he went on to describe the events of the day of the murder and said that at about 4 p.m. on that day (Saturday) he went to Kavattuparamba and there met the sixth accused. They were joined sometime later by accused 2 to 5 and 7. From there, with the exception of himself, these persons left in ones and twos, apparently, agreeing to meet at Abu Baker Haji's rubber estate at 10 p.m. or so. The witness waited behind until 7-30 p.m. for the first accused, who had been observing the Ramzan fast and intended to set out only after he broke it. They then went to the place of assignation and assembled there at 10 p.m. They had with them some unlicensed guns and, as agreed amongst themselves each one of them had a knife. They then proceeded to the Malaparamba bungalow of the first deceased and while the witness kept: watch, the others went inside the compound over the southern wall. He then heard the sound of striking the door and human cries. About ten minutes later, all the seven accused returned. He fired a shot at somebody who was running away, presumably the fourth deceased. They then went on towards a tank about four miles away and there washed off the blood on their persons and either there or in the neighbouring jungle threw away their weapons and bloodstained clothes.

9. One thing that strikes one about this story apart from its bareness, in the open, is the manner in which the accused and P.W. 10 met together on the day of offence prior to its commission. One would have expected that they would have adhered to their original plan of proceeding secretly to the place of assignation in Abu Bucker Haji's rubber estate and not being seen together before that. We find, however, according to the story of this witness, that they met together as early as 4 p.m. and' openly waited for one another until all but the first accused had come. When one compares the evidence of P.W. 10 in the Sessions Court, with his confessional. the statement, one finds material discrepancies relating to the circumstances under which the murder was planned. Exhibit D-7 series are extracted from his statement made to the police. There he stated that they first planned the murder on a Monday about 2-1/2 weeks or so before the murder was committed. Then they, i.e. P.W. 10, and accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 decided to murder the first deceased on the following Sunday. On that Sunday they received information that the first deceased was not in his bungalow; and so it was postponed to the following Friday. They then arranged that himself and accused 1 to 3 and 6 should meet at 10 p.m. that night and that accused 4 and 5 should join them after they had left the tope on their way to Malappuram. They however found that it was again impossible to execute their plan that night; and so the murder was postponed until the following day, with the slightly different arrangement that they should meet together at the Kottapadi maidan at 5 p.m. This seems to us a very different story from, what was given by P.W. 10 in his evidence. One cannot say upon reading through the evidence of P.W. 10 that it is necessarily false; but failing as it does to carry conviction, we feel that very substantial corroboration of his story would be necessary before it would be possible to bring home the guilt of this offence to the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. The learned Sessions Judge relied principally on the corroboration of P.W. io's evidence on the evidence of P.W. 33, the footprint expert. In paragraph 38 of his judgment, the learned Judge stated:

So far as accused I, 3 and 5 are concerned, their complicity is established because their footprints were found at the scene. As regards the 4th accused, P.W. 16 proves that the 4th accused was on his way to the scene along with P.W. 10 and the 5th accused. This is sufficient corroboration for P.W. 13's evidence, as it is manifest that the 4th accused could not have had a destination different from his companions.

That is to say, assuming the guilt of accused 1, 3 and 5 because their footprints were found in the bungalow, the fourth accused must have been guilty, too, because he was associated with men whose footprints had been proved to be that of the murderers.

11. The opinion of a footprint expert is not admissible as evidence. If the court is to make any use of all of the footprint impressions, it must be satisfied from a comparison of the various footprints that they are those of the persons whom the expert says they are. The value of evidence with regard to footprints is obviously very much less trustworthy than evidence with regard to fingerprints. In a fairly good impression of a finger or even in an impression where only a portion of the finger is shown, there is a wealth of detail available to the expert and to the Court for comparison. One sees in a fingerprint a large number of ridges and sweat pores situated along with them.

In examining a fingerprint, therefore, one not merely compares the general configuration of the finger and all the lines on it, but one is able to study such minute details as the bifurcations and junctions of the ridges and the relative positions on those ridges of the sweat pores.

With regard to footprints, on the other hand, it would seem from the evidence and from what we have been able to read from Dr Hans Gross's book on Criminal I Investigation that one can only compare the general shape of footprints found ' with the shape of impressions taken from the feet of the. person suspected. Even in this limited comparison, one has not the same certainty as one would have in. comparing fingerprints; because foot impressions vary considerably according to the circumstances under which they are made. Footprints made when a person is walking slowly or fast, or running slowly or fast or jumping, all create differences that are material. Moreover, a footprint taken after a person has walked a considerable distance, as was the case here when the murder was committed., is larger than a footprint taken when a person has been at rest, as was the case when footprints were taken from the various persons in the Sub-Jail, including some of the accused and P.W. 10. On page 497 of John Adam's translation of the above book, the learned author says:

One may then say with Massen, and rightly, that the details of all the impressions of a barefoot are in each particular case so distinctive and so characteristic that it is always possible to differentiate them, one from another, and recognise again the same impression. This is wholly true only when the impressions in question have been produced under identical conditions...

If then the last and the first impression thus produced be compared, one will see how difficult it is to find this famous ' characteristic resemblance.

He then goes on to say that the difficulty increases if the foot is turned or moved. On page 499 he points out the necessity for making a number of trials in order to ascertain the circumstances under which an impression was made. He says that it is, therefore, necessary to find each time (when conducting the expert meat of taking a number of impressions without adding any fresh colouring matter) a footprint resembling the original in the quantity of colouring substance, when, alone impressions from the same foot might be expected to be similar. On page 510,. the learned author says:

Another result flowing from these conclusions is that the deductions made are only relative;. they can never be expressed by pre-cited data and have only comparative value. It is impossible to give measurements or fixed sizes; for the numerous factors-the size, the weight, and the other corporeal singularities of the individual walking, his burden, his gait, and the variable nature of the oil differ in every case, and maybe combined in so many diverse ways that it is absolutely impossible to give precise indications on this matter.

Malaparamba Mattummal Narasimha Temple

After discussing the matter further the author says:

If one has but one indistinct footprint and no clue therefrom, another must be searched: for.

The only other passage that needs to be set out is found on page 532:

Much prudence must here be exercised (in taking measurements) and nothing was undertaken which shows no chance of success. On the one hand, the foot itself varies considerably, e.g., it is much smaller in cold weather or after a long rest than during hot weather or after a long march; on the other hand, it is difficult to measure, inasmuch as it is not a regular body and must be measured differently according to the parts dealt with.

If we bear all these facts in mind, then we are far from satisfied that the prosecution has proved that the foot impressions seen by the police on M.Os. 17 and 18 and on the portico are the foot impressions of accused 1, 3 and 5. The process adopted by the expert for comparison was, first of all, to lift the impression by placing over it a glass plate. Through that glass plate, he would see the impression and make its outline on the glass with dots. He would then place the plate so marked over a plain sheet of paper arid mark the dots on the paper. Finally, he compared that with an impression made directly from the foot of the person suspected.

12. Ex. P-4I is said to have been taken from M.O. 17, which is not a very good impression; and we do not think that the dots showing the outline of the toes follow very closely the outline on the mat. Then again we find in examining the angles of the toes on the tracing taken from the impression on the mat and comparing it with the impression taken directly from the feet of the fifth accused that the angles at which the toes meet the ball of the foot are different in the two cases. In discussing these impressions the footprint expert stated that in general the size and contour of the pad were the same, as were the relative positions of the toes and the contour of the heel. That is true, but we cannot attach any importance to the; an inward curve in the lower portion of the pad, which is given as a special characteristic. That inward curve, however, was not very well emphasised in the print taken directly from the foot of the accused; and the inward curve might well be due to the fact that blood did not cover that particular portion of the pad.

13. The impression on M. O. 18 is also not very clear. The lifted impression in Ex. P-42, the expert stated, is in general of the same length as the impression in Ex. P-55, i.e., the impression of the foot of the third accused; the outer line of the pad is similar; and the relative positions of the big toe, second toe, and third toe are similar, as is the size of the big toe and of the heel. When we examined these, we found that the relative positions of the big toe, second toe, and third toe are anything but similar. In fact, they are so dissimilar as to lead us to conclude, not merely that the resemblance between the impression of the third accused's feet was not the same as the impression on the mat, but that the impressions must have been by different persons. We also did not find that the outlines and sizes of the heel and big toe and the length were very nearly the same in the two impressions compared.

14. With regard to the impression, Ex. P-54, of the first accused, the expert gave six general characteristics and two special characteristics which he found common to Ex. P-54 and the impression, Ex. P-35 lifted from the footprint in the portico. The second special characteristic is that there is a depression on the pad between the first and second toes. This, as we have stated with regard to other peculiarities in the outline, may have been due to the fact that that portion of the feet was not sufficiently covered with blood to leave an impression, especially as the corresponding depression is not seen to anything like the same extent on the impression taken directly from the first accused's foot. In trying to ascertain whether the footprint in the portico was that of the first accused, we are handicapped by not having been able to compare the outline marked on the glass with the outline on the portico itself; and we feel that it will not be safe for us to come to any conclusion against this accused in the absence of the original impression.

15. The learned Sessions Judge, for demonstration purposes, had several impressions taken of the feet of two peons in the Court. These we compared with those taken from the mats and the portico, and we found a reasonably close agreement between Ex. G-4 and Ex. G-5, taken from a foot of one of the peons, and Ex. P-35, which was attributed by the expert to the first accused. This is perhaps some indication that one must be careful not to draw too hasty a conclusion from such similarities as were pointed out by the expert. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Mr Jayarama Aiyar has emphasised the evidence that only one assailant was present in the portico; and so even if we assume that one of these three accused was present in the bungalow that night, the other two footprints could not have been those of the other two, and might have been the impressions of the first and second deceased, whose footprints could not be taken. We do not want to over-stress this point; because the observation of P.W. 25 might have been faulty, and he ran away before the assailants left the bungalow.

16. The learned Public Prosecutor, finding that the evidence with regard to the footprints is far from conclusive, has relied on the fact that accused 4, 5 and 7 were found, when examined by various doctors, to have had scars on their persons which could have been the result of injuries sustained on the night of the offence. If there is evidence that an assailant has received any injury on some particular part of his person and a corresponding injury is found on the body of the suspected person shortly after the offence is committed, and there is medical evidence that that injury was probably caused at or about the time when the offence was committed, the evidence of the injury would be strong corroborative evidence against that person. But such evidence becomes increasingly weak as the time between the examination of the injuries or the scars and the date of offence increases. These accused were examined five or six months or more after the offence was committed; and so it was impossible for the doctors who gave evidence to say precisely that these injuries were caused on the day when the murder was committed or even within a short period before or after. They could not even be sure to within a month or so of the offence when the injuries were caused. Further, there is no evidence that any of the assailants met with injuries at the time when the murder was committed, except that when the police officers were examining the bungalow they found some hair adhering to some broken glass. That would indicate that on the person of one of the assailants on a part of his body normally covered with hair, one could expect to find an injury. The learned Public Prosecutor has stated that since there was a lot of broken glass strewn about, some of the assailants might have cut their feet walking over it. That may be true; but it is a curious circumstance that while many scars were found on the bodies of these accused persons, none was found on the feet of any of the accused. The seventh accused had no less than nine scars on his person, the fifth accused had three scars and the fourth accused had one scar and a number of scratches. The learned Public Prosecutor has been unable to suggest how so many injuries could have been caused to these three persons on the night of the offence. We are therefore unable to attach any value to this evidence.

17. P.W. 41, a tailor, deposed that he made a shirt for the fifth accused about eight months before the offence. When the tank spoken to by P.W. 10 was searched, a number of pieces of cloth were found there; and P.W. 41 claimed to be able to identify a piece of cloth about 15 inches long as a portion of a shirt that he had made for the fifth accused. We have examined that fragment, and we can scarcely believe it possible that P.W. 41 could identify it as a part of the shirt he had made so long before for the fifth accused.

18. P.W. 13, a keeper of tea shops at Kodoor and Chattuparamba, deposed that at about 8-30 p.m. on the night of offence he met a man whom he thought to be P.W. 10 and another. If it really was P.W. 10 that he saw, it would be in accord with the evidence of the approver; for he and the first accused might well have been where P.W. 13 said he saw them at about that hour. But P.W. 13 is unable to say with any certainty that it was P.W. 10, and so his evidence is of no value and the learned Sessions Judge very rightly did not place any reliance on it.

19. P.W. 12 deposed that he saw P.W. 10, whom he had known for a very long time, and the first accused, who was then a stranger, but whom he afterwards identified as the first accused, together in Malappuram at 4-30 p.m. on the evening preceding the offence and again at 7 p.m. in a tea shop. This evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W. 10, who deposed that the first accused did not arrive there until 7-30 p.m. and that it was for him that he had remained behind after the other accused had left for Abu Bucker Haji's tope. Moreover, if P.W. 12 had seen P.W. 10 at 4-30 p.m. one would have expected if P.W. 10's evidence is true, that he would have seen the other accused who were with P.W. 10 at that time.

20. The only other witness whose evidence needs discussion as P.W. 16. In the absence of any definite conclusion to be drawn from the footprints, the learned Public Prosecutor relies very strongly on the evidence of this witness. He deposed that on the evening preceding the offence he was taking tea in a shop at Paha.-paramba and left it at about 8-30 p.m. He had not gone very far when he saw P.W. 10 coming along. Behind him in a group were five other persons whom he did not identify. Behind them again, at a distance of 12 yards, were the fourth and fifth accused, whom he had known from boyhood. The place at which he saw these persons was only about a quarter of a furlong from Abu Bucker Haji's plantation, which was the place of assignation. This evidence does not accord very well with the evidence of P.W. 12 who saw P.W. 10 and the first accused together on the other side of the plantation at the same time; and it conflicts still more definitely with the evidence of the approver, who stated that at 4-30 p.m. all the accused, with the exception of the first accused, left singly or in pairs, agreeing to meet in Abu Bucker Haji's plantation at 10 p.m. As he left with the first accused three hours later, he was unlikely to have been with these persons at 8-30 p.m. P.W. 16's evidence, if true, shows that they were leaving the plantation, presumably on their way to commit the murder. These differences in time between the evidence of P.W. 10 and the evidence of P.W. 16 can hardly be due to a mere misjudging of the time. The object of the conspirators was to proceed to the place of assignation singly or in pairs and not to be seen together, and so it is not likely that P.W. 10 would have been mistaken into thinking that he left the plantation at 10 p.m. if, in fact, he left it at 8-30 p.m. Moreover, their attempt at secrecy would have been frustrating if they had left the plantation as early as 8-30 p.m. when they would have expected to meet people on the road, who would see them all together. Nor could P.W. 10 very well have been mistaken as to the time; for he had just finished taking a cup of tea in the neighbouring tea shop and would have had a very good idea of the time in relation to his mealtime; and it is not likely that he would have thought that it was 8-30 p.m. if in fact, it was 10 p.m. The learned Public Prosecutor has asked us to accept the evidence of P.W. 16 on this point in preference to that of P.W. 10, and he has argued that we should not reject the evidence of P.W. 16 merely because we think it unlikely that the accused would have been in the open at about that time. If however, we accept the evidence of P.W. 16 as true, then it is most unlikely that at the time they were on their way to the scene of the offence, which was only eight miles away, and which they did not reach until 2 a.m., the next morning. If he did see them, it would seem more probable they were bound on some peaceful errand or were going for shikar, as the fourth accused is reported to have stated to this witness.

21. It is seen from the above discussion that the evidence of the approver receives no corroboration of any importance from the evidence of any of the other witnesses and has, therefore, to be rejected, as not being sufficient to bring home the offences to the appellants.

22.It is unfortunate that such a grave crime has not been detected; but the failure of the prosecution to prove the offence against the appellants was not due to any defect in the investigation, which seems to have been most carefully-and certainly very honestly conducted. No attempt was made to make evidence, where none was naturally forthcoming; and if the police were unable to obtain more evidence it was because the Moplah community largely succeeded in maintaining secrecy. It was almost impossible without their cooperation for the police to obtain any more evidence relating to the crime.

23. The appeals are allowed and the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants are set aside. They are ordered to be set at liberty.

© Ramachandran