THE CHRISTIAN HIJACK OF KERALA POLITICS,1932-1938

Thangassery was a British Area

Looking back at some episodes in Kerala history,it becomes evident that a Christian agenda was at work to catch the vulnerable sections of the Hindu society and its leaders like C Kesavan.Ambedkar's 1935 exhortation to dalits came in handy,and the movement which began in the early 1930s began to show its true colours in the Abstention movement and the Thangassery struggle.In both,Barrister George joseph played a significant role.

Barrister George Joseph

Vaikom Sathyagraha (1924–25) was a social protest in erstwhile Travancore against untouchability and caste discrimination in Hindu society of Kerala. The movement was centered around the Sri Mahadeva Temple temple at Vaikom, in the present day Kottayam district. The Sathyagraha was aimed at securing freedom to all sections of society to pass through the public roads leading to the Sri Mahadeva Temple.Gandhi wanted only caste hindus to be on the fore front of the Vaikam Sathyagraha-hence he ordered Barrister George Joseph who was very much there to lead it,to exit from the scene.

Gandhi wrote to George Joseph on 6 April 1924:

"As to Vaikom, I think you shall let the Hindus do the work. It is they who have to purify themselves. You can help by your sympathy and your pen, but not by organizing the Movement and certainly not by offering Satyagraha. If you refer to the Congress resolution of Nagpur, it calls upon the Hindu Members to remove the curse of untouchability. I was surprised to learn from Mr Andrews that the disease had infected even the Syrian christians".

Andrews mentioned by Gandhi is C F Andrews ( 1871-1940 ) a priest of the Church of England,educator,social reformer and a close friend of Tagore and Gandhi.He was instrumental in convincing Gandhi to return to India from South Africa.C. F. Andrews was affectionately dubbed Christ's Faithful Apostle by Gandhi, based on his initials, C.F.A. For his contributions to the Indian Independence Movement.He taught at St Stephen'ds College,Delhi. George Joseph,a Syrian Orthodox Christian in the Gandhi camp from Chengannur,moved away,and embraced catholicism.

In response to popular demand for representative government,the Travancore Legislative Reforms Act of 1932 was enacted.However in the view of the major under-represented communities,the Ezhavas,the Muslims and the Christians the impementation of the new Act would have resulted in their getting even fewer seats in the legislature than before.The disproportionate representation of Nairs would not change as a result of the new Act.

The representatives of the three organisations on 17 Decembetr 1932 formed the Samyuktha Rashtriya Samithi ( Joint Political Conference).A deputation submitted a petition to the Dewan,Thomas Austin on 9 January 1933.Austin ( 1887-1976 ) was an ICS officer of the 1910 batch;he was district Collector of Nilgiris during 1929-32.Later,he was Chief secretary,Madras.Austin Town in the city of Bangalore, is named after Thomas Austin who had built houses for low-income groups in the Cantonment section of the city.

The Joint Political Conference met on 25 January 1933 and passed a resolution that its members ' should abstain from taking part either by voting or by standing as candidates in the elections or by accepting nominations to the Legislature so long as the Government did not make adequate provision for the representation by election of all communities in proportion to their population in the Legislsture'.

To win the sympathy of of the British,the Conference drew a distinction between 'Abstention'( Nivarthanam) and 'Non-Cooperation'( Nissahakaranam) of Gandhi.The Viceroy Lord Willingdon was engaged in a campaign to crush the Non- Cooperation movement in India.The Travancore Government could not be deceived.The agitation continued to the end of 1933 when the Travancore Givernment in their attempt to eliminate the protest before the arrival of the Viceroy in Travancore,served a notice to the Christian news paper,Malayala Manorama,whose publisher K C Mammen Mappillai was a financier of the movement,to show cause why legal action should not be taken against it for supporting the agitation.It should ne noted that the Dewan was not Sir CP,the Dewan was a christian,Thomas Austin.A gag order was imposed on its leaders N V Joseph,P K Kunju and C Kesavan.It was in this back drop the Thangassery episode took place.

While the Christian,Thomas Austin was the Dewan,the leaders of the movement and its supporters till now have blamed Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer,who was only the constitutional Advisor to the King,for suppressing the agitation,because he took steps to close the Travancore and National Quilon Bank later as Dewan in 1938-Mammen Mappilai was the one who had founded the Travancore Bank.

Viceroy Willingdon

The leaders of the movement claim that it was Sir C P who began a campaign to incorporate Thangassery,a small village with a population of 2000,who were mostly Christians,into the Travancre state.Covering an area of only about 100 acres,Thsngsssery originally formed part of the principality of Kollam ( Quilon ) and was ceded to the Portuguese in the sixteenth century.The Dutch then took it from the Portuguese and the British in turn from the Dutch,with the final transfer from the Dutch to the British taking place around 1815.Thus the village did not form part of Travancore for 400 years.A part of Tirunelveli district in Madras Presidency,it soon became a refuge for some of the Abstentionists who wanted to escape the attention of the Travancore police.

The determination to take over Thangassery was resisted by the inhabitants,who wanted their special British protectorate status.On 24 June 1934 the inhabitants passed a resolution to the British crown,to protect their status.A petition was submitted to British authorities in Madras,who then decided not to transfer without the concurrence of the inhabitants.On 15 January 1935,a counter petition was submitted to the Vuceroy by those wished for the merger.In response to this,another petition was drawn up,with demands similar to that of the Abstention movement.At the suggestion of Mammen Mappilai and others,early in 1935,M M Varkey,a stooge of Mappilai,was despatched to Madurai to meet George Joseph.George agreed to act an emissary to the Viceroy,if he was authorised by the people.A revised petition with clear authority to act on behalf of the people was given to George.

George and Varkey went to Madras and met the Governor Lord Erskine.From there they went to the offices of The Hindu and and Madras Mail,and keeping with Geoge's character or the lack of it,gave unwanted media exposure.George Joseph spoke at the local Congress meeting on prohibition,when invited.But George exploded against the very idea of prohibition,and the journalists surrounded him.He spoke about the Abstention movement and plight of the thangassery inhabitants in Travancore.In his trip to Delhi fro Madras,in every railway station,the press approached him for more.Before leaving for Madras he had informed of the developments in Travancore,to William Wedgewood Benn,former Secretary of State for India ( 1929-31 ) and the Duchess of Atholl,British Hostess of political soirees.Duchess of Atholl,Katharine Marjorie Stewart-Murray resigned the Conservative Whip in 1935 over the India Bill.

Duchess of Atholl

In Delhi,George and Varkey met the Viceroy Willingdon,whom George had known while he was Governor in Madras.Thus Thangassery remained part of British India until India became independent.On their return journey from Delhi,George and Varkey found their first class reservations cancelled and seats occupied by others.George created a fuss thatbthe train was not allowed to leave until it was agreed that both of them could travel in the general manager's saloon.

M M Varkey who accompanied George records in his book Ormakaliloode,that it was Mammen Mappilai who organised the trip of George to Delhi.

Varkey was summoned through telegram by Mappilai to Alapuzha,where T M Varghese was also present.Mappilai gave blank cheque books and a list of banks where he can clear the cheques, to Varkey.Thangsassery Christians gave Rs 500.Mappilai dropped Varkey at the Alapuzha railway station in his car.

The inhabitants of Thangassery,writes Varkey,had to go to Tirunelveli for all thir needs since it was in British Inda.Hence,a merger in travancore would have been a positive development.But both Anchuthengu near Attingal and Thangassery,being part of British India,provided safe haven to the Abstentionists,to plan the agitation and escape.

The Abstentionists organised the Thangassery Christians to sent petitions to the Viceroy on three occasions:May 18 1934,8 September 1934 and 15 January 1935.The Viceroy ignored them,as he had full faith in the Travancore Dewan ( 1934-36 ) Sir Muhammad Habibullah.

Habibullah was a member of the Arcot royal family and closely related to the Nawabs of Arcot. From 1925 to 1930, he was a member of the Executive Council of the Viceroy of India.Habibullah was appointed Dewan of Travancore by Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the Maharaja of Travancore, on 15 March 1934, and remained in office for two years.Immediately after taking office, he appointed a committee to determine the appropriate electoral representation for the state's various communities. Specific numbers of legislative seats were reserved for Christians, Ezhavas and Muslims. However, because of objections by the Nairs—the military caste of Travancore—the issue was not resolved.Habibullah retired in 1936 and was succeeded by Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer.

Habibullah

Habibullah was the only Muslim Dewan Travancore ever had;this means the the Christian Abstention movement was forceful during a Muslim administrator,though they blamed Sir C P.

Varkey records that, "Mammen Mappillai saw Thangassey episode as a god send opportunity to showcase the sorry plight of the Travancore Christians."

At Delhi,George and Varkey stayed at the home of Pothan Joseph,Editor of Hindustan Times,and brother of George.George had lunch with Lancelet Graham,member of the Viceroy's Executive Council,and met the Viceroy the next day.He told the Viceroy that Christians at Thangassery were being sold like cattle;a cold blooded lie,since slavery was abolished in Travancore in 1855.After the meeting,George sent a telegram to Sir CP,informing of his success and challenging CP.He also sent messages to William Wedgewood,A A Somerville,Lord Atholl and Fitsalan,according to Varkey.Sir Annesley Ashworth Somerville ( 1858-1942 ) was a conservative MP from Windsor during 1922-1942.

This Christian manipulation found its nemesis at Kozhencherry soon.

C Kesavan,T M Varghese,George Joseph

On 13 May 1935,the Joint Political Conference held a meet at Kozhencherry under the President C Kesavan,on the backdrop of the Tangassery agitation.Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer wanted to incorporate Thangassery into Travancore,whereas the Christian inhabitants there wanted a British Protectorate.George Joseph presided over the Kozhencherry meet.In his challenging address,Kesavan made critical references to the Nairs' monopoly of the general administration,roundly condemned the policy of of the government for discriminating against other communities and hinted at the intention of the Ezhavas to leave the Hindu fold.At the same conference,a request was made to the King of Travancore to dismiss Sir C P as his legal and constiturtional advisor ( Sir CP was made Dewan only in 1936) on the ground that his continuance was inimical to communal harmony.Kesavan said:

"We do not want that 'Jantu' (creature).I did not say 'Jantu' but Hindu. He will do no good to the Ezhava, Christian and the Musalman. When I say this I do not see any play of protest in the countenance of any one of you. It is after the arrival of this gentleman here that such a bad name about Travancore state has spread outside. Unless this man leaves the country, no good will come to it. We have achieved these things by the joint organisation of our three communities."

Calling one a Jantu ( animal ) was a statement of hatred,not of criticism.

A week later,Kesavan was charged under section 117 of the Travancore Penal Code for exciting contempt and feelings of disaffection towards the Government.George Joseph was appointed the defence counsel.He was to make a journey from Madurai to argue the case and return there on the completion of the hearings.Since it was believed that George Joseph's arrest was a strong possibility,the Kottarakara railway station was the only safe venue for the discussion of the case and the political events of the day since the railway stations constituted British territory and thus were outside the jurisdiction of the Travancore authorities.Kesavan was found guilty and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a payment of a fine of Rs 500.

At the trial of Kesavan,Thangassery issue came up again.While delivering the judgement,Justice Raman Thampi observed that taking of a local issue to the British government over the head of the Travancore government,was highly irregular and the petition presented to the Viceroy amounted to disloyalty to Travancore.

In the book,Christians and Public Life in Colonial South India,1863-1937,Chandra Mallampalli records:"Througout the 1930s both Indian and International media had devoted much attention to the role of religion in determining the future of India'd depressed classes.Views of Gandhi and Ambedkar on conversion and nationality,alongwith Pickett's study of mass movements,had contributed to a climate of religious competition within which dalit issues were being addressed.At the Yeola Conference of 1935,Ambedkar issued his evocative call to dalits to seek equality of status within "another religion".His declaration caused Hindus,Muslims,Buddhists and Christians alike to consider the prospect of masses of dalits to committing themselves to their folds.Within this competitive climate,a group of prominent Christians attempted to carve out a middle path between excessive evangelistic zeal and indifference to the plight of the dalits.They formulated their position in a statement,"Our Duty to the Depressed and and Backward Classes".

Barrister George Joseph was one among them.J W Pickett wrote,Christian Mass Movements in India.

The signatories were: K.K. Chandy, S. Gnanaprakasam, S. Gurubatham, S. Jesudasen, M. P. Job, George Joseph, K.I. Matthai, A. A. Paul, S.E. Ranganadham, A.N. Sudarsanam, O. F.E. Zacharia, D.M. Devasahayam, G.V. Martyn ( Only 13 names are on record.)

Ambedkar had announced in a speech at Nasik in 1935 that he will renounce Hinduism. In the same year a meeting was held at Yevala in which through a resolution a decision was taken to the effect that "we should Denounce the Hindu religion". In that meeting Ambedkar had said, "though both a Hindu because I could not help it, I would not die as a Hindu." Gandhi described this as a "bombshell".

Thomas Austin

Kesavan's conviction aroused some of his Ezhava community friends even more and a section among them sought mass conversion to Christianity.They approached George Joseph on this matter.According to the biography,George Joseph:The Life and Times of Kerala Christian Nationalist,George Joseph's attitude was some what ambivalent.While any addition to the Christian fold was welcome to some one with his recently acquired Christian convictions,he was uneasy about the non-religious motivation underlying the intended mass conversion.He counselled caution when a number of Christian organisations wanted to take a more active role in promoting this project.This was also the time that he corresponded with Ambedkar regarding the efficacy of mass conversion as a political weapon to improve the status of the untouchables.However more favourable circumstances,notably the Temple entry Proclamation led many Ezhavas to reconsider the original plan of embracing Christianity.

The book claims that this conversion movement had the approval of SNDP Yogam-it can't be true becuase Sir C P had made several Ezhavas including Kumaran Asan Sree Moolam assembly members and eventually before Sir C P left Kerala,SNDP Yogam held farewell meetings in honour of him.R Sankar was a close friend of Sir CP.Sir CP allotted 27 acres of prime land to build the SN College free of cost,at the heart of Quilon town.Sankar and associates expressed their gratitude to Sir CP.Kesavan who was an atheist and anti Hindu, instead of condemning the Sabarimala Temple burning,applauded it by saying that destruction of temples would eradicate superstitious beiefs in society.

Incidentally it was Narayana Guru,renaissance leader and life long President of SNDP Yogam and Kumaran Asan,the Illustrious General Sceretary of SNDP,who vehementally opposed the conversion move of a group of upstarts and insisted that there is no religion equal to Hinduism in providing spiritual freedom and enlightenment,in a well known article,titled,Mathaparivarthana Rasavadham,a treatise on religious conversion.

George Joseph,who had supported Fascism as a rival to Communism after he left Gandhi,began to preach Christianity among the depressed classes and in 1937,a manifesto was issued by 14 Indian Christians including him,for conversion of the depressed classes to Christianity.George Joseph,a soldier of Christ,who had become an evangelist wanted to convert the depressed classes who constitute a majority of the Hindu population as a prelude to forming a Christian theocratic state in India.

Gandhi with Harijans

In the book,Hindu-Christian Dialogue:Perspectives and Encounters , Harold Coward states:

"Disagreements with Gandhi went beyond differences concerning specific facts about the motives for and consequences of conversion.Whereas Gandhi considered all religions on par,if not similar,in that they were both true and flawed,the Christians saw religions as basically distinct,each with differing gifts to offer.Moreover,whereas Gandhi sought to remove untouchability and the disabilities from which untouchables suffered without destroying the existing socio-religious order,the Christians,like Ambedkar,considered social conflict the inevitable price of meaningful change.This comes out clearly in many Christian statements including the one on "Christian Attitude to Harijan Revolt" issued by the Bangalore Conference Continuation in June 1936.This statement,unlike a later one,"Christian Evangelism in India", prepared by the National Christian Council ,was sensitive to reformist Hindu concerns and fearful of aggravating communal rivalries.It therefore urged Christians to continue their work among untouchables with great care and even to exercise a "ministry of reconciliation between caste Hindus and Harijans."

It further states:

"Perhaps the most thoughtful and sensitive Christian response to Gandhi's concerns came from a group of fouteen nationalist Christians who wrote a careful statement entitled,"Our Duty to the Depressed and Backward Classes:An Indian Christian Statement," in March 1937.On one hand,it recognized the fact untouchables were seeking the fellowship of the church and that it was the duty of the Christian Church to receive such seekers as well as to awake spiritual hunger.On the other,it urged restraint,so as not "to alienate the sympathy and spoil the open mindedness of the Hindu to the Gospel by any ill-considered attempts at external results of a questionable value".

Barrister George Joseph was one among the 14 signatories.

Gandhi called this an "unfortunate document" as its main purpose,in his creading,was "not to condemn unequivocally the method of converting the illiterate and the ignorant but to assert the Right of preaching the Gospel to the millions of Harijans."

Gandhi replied:

"The duty of the Christian Church in India is turned into a right.Now when duty becomes right it ceases to be a duty.Performance of a duty requires one quality-that of suffering and introspection.Excercise of a right requires a quality that gives the power to impose one's will upon the resister through sanctions devised by the claimant of the law whose aid he invokes in the excercise of his right.I hsave the duty of paying my debt,but I have no right to thrust the owed coppers ( say ) into the pocket of an unwilling creditor.The duty of taking spiritual message is performed by the messenger becoming a fit vehicle by prayer and fasting.Conceived as a right,it may become an imposition on unwilling parties."

The Editor of The Guardian,one of the 14 co-signers took issue with Gandhi's remarks and concluded that Gandhi's criticism does not allay Muslim and Christion suspicions that "Mahatma Gandhi is a downright communalist and cannot but fight as a Hindu inspite of his nationalism."

Ivanios,1908

The book mentioned above, then goes on to establish what it calls Gandhian Christianity,bringing into the picture,C F Andrews,Gandhi's close friend.Following Andrews,whose Mahatma Gandhi's Ideas appeared in 1929,Frederick B Fisher a Methodist missionary Bishop,and Jaswant Rao Chitamber,soon to become the first Indian Methodist Bishop,published very appreciative biographies of Gandhi in the U S in which they argued that Gandhi was putting Christian ideals into practice.Rajkumari Amrit Kaur,a Christian had also shared the same feelings.

George Joseph briefly returned to Congress,failed in Muncipal elections and in his practice as a lawyer,again left Congress and then got immersed in Roman Catholicism.His conversion to Catholicism was triggered off when Mar Ivanios,a Syrian Orthodox Archbishop acknowledged the authority f the Pope as the head of all Christian churches in 1931.Mar Ivanios was lured by a heftuy sum from Rome,according to his detractors.George Joseph joined the break away group led by Mar Ivanios.He began to campaign for the Christians and more specifically for the Catholics in the political arena.

He visited a French Jesuit,Fr Gathier who taught philosophy at a Jesuit seminary at Shembaganur,near Kodaikanal. The Jesuit Archives of Madurai Province is situated at Shembaganur (Kodaikanal) and Fr Gathier was in charge of the archives,from 1937.He dropped in his regular visits to meet his client,Maharaja of Nabha,at Kodaikanal.Ivanios was the first MA holder in Malankara Church.

Towards the end of his life,George paved the way for the closure of Kerala Kaumudi.On George's 50th birth day on 5 June 1937,he presided over a political conference at Punalur.There he was taken in a large procession led by caparisoned elephants.For Kerala Kaumudi,edited by Kesavan,George sent a message,which was published on 7 March 1938,two days after his death.The message read:

"The specific work of this year of the Kerala Kaumudi should be to press for responsible goverment in Travancore.The Legislative Council is in the process of reformation and you can have a state Government only by constitutional responsibility.In other words,power must pass from the palace to the Lregislative Council."

The Travancore Government considered publication of this message as unacceptable and by an executive order cancelled the license for publishing the paper.The publishers also forfeited the deposit of Rs 1000.

The Abstention movement didn't have the blessings of the Indian National Congress,which had banned any political movement in princely states.The Congress was agitating only in British India.Hence a section of the Christians,who still claim the movement was part of the freedom struggle,are eschewing a dead cause.

George Joseph died on 5 March 1938.Till his death,he was associated with the Abstention movement,a Christian movement in which C Kesavan was only a pawn of the global Christian agenda.The Joint Political Conference weakened and with the resignation of stalwarts such as N V Joseph and E P Varghese,on 4 July 1938,the last meeting of the Conference decided that all members of the organisation should be advised to join the newly founded Travancore State Congress.

____________________

Gandhi's Reply to 14 Christians Including George Joseph:

Segaon, Wardha
April 3, 1937

An Unfortunate Document

Fourteen highly educated Indian Christians occupying important social positions have issued a joint manifesto setting forth their views on the missionary work among Harijans. The document has been published in the Indian Press. I was disinclined to publish it in Harijan, as after having read it more than once I could not bring myself to say anything in its favour and I felt that a critical review of it might serve no useful purpose. But I understand that my criticism is expected and will be welcomed no matter how candid and strong it may be.

The reader will find the manifesto published in full in this issue. The heading⁽¹⁾ is also the authors'. They seem to have fallen between two stools in their attempt to sit on both. They have tried to reconcile the irreconcilable. If one section of Christians has been aggressively open and militant, the other represented by the authors of the manifesto is courteously patronizing. They would not be aggressive for the sake of expedience. The purpose of the manifesto is not to condemn uniquivocally the method of converting the illiterate and the ignorant but to assert the right of preaching the Gospel to the millions of Harijans. The key to the manifesto is contained in paragraphs 7 and 8. This is what one reads in paragraph 7:

"Men and women individually and in family or village groups will continue to seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. That is the real movement of the Spirit of God. And no power on earth can stem that tide. It will be the duty of the Christian Church in India to receive such seekers after the truth as it is in Jesus Christ and provide for them instruction and spiritual nurture. The Church will cling to its right to receive such people into itself from whatever religious group they may come. It will cling to the further right to go about in these days of irreligion and materialism to awaken spiritual hunger in all."

These few sentences are a striking instance of how the wish becomes father to the thought. It is an unconscious process but not on that account less open to criticism. Men and women do not seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. Poor Harijans are no better than the others. I wish they had real spiritual hunger. Such as it is, they satisfy by visits to the temples, however crude they may be. When the missionary of another religion goes to them, he goes like any vendor of goods. He has no special spiritual merit that will - distinguish him from those to whom he goes. He does, however, possess material goods which he promises to those who will come to his fold. Then mark, the duty of the Christian Church in India turns into a right. Now when duty becomes a right it ceases to be a duty. Performance of a duty requires one quality - that of suffering and introspection. Exercise of a right requires a quality that gives the power to impose one's will upon the resister through sanctions devised by the claimant or the law whose aid he invokes in the exercise of his right. I have the duty of paying my debt, but I have no right to thrust the owed coppers (say) into the pocket of an unwilling creditor. The duty of taking spiritual message is performed by the messenger becoming a fit vehicle by prayer and fasting. Conceived as a right, it may easily become an imposition on unwilling parties.

Thus the manifesto, undoubtedly designed to allay suspicion and soothe the ruffled feelings of Hindus, in my opinion, fails to accomplish its purpose. On the contrary, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I venture to suggest to the authors that they need to reexamine their position in the light of my remarks. Let them recognize the fundamental difference between rights and duties. In the spiritual sphere, there is no such thing as a right.

1. The heading of the manifesto was. "Our Duty to the Depressed and Backward Classes".

Note: The signatories were: K.K. Chandy, S. Gnanaprakasam, S. Gurubatham, S. Jesudasen, M. P. Job, G. Joseph, K.I. Matthai, A. A. Paul, S.E. Ranganadham, A.N. Sudarsanam, O. F.E. Zacharia, D.M. Devasahayam, G.V. Martyn.
 

Vol.65 P. 47-48 (Harijan, 3-4-1937

____________________

Reference:

1.Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters/ Harold Coward
2.Christians and Public Life in Colonial South India, 1863-1937: Contending with Marginalty/ Chandra Mallampalli

3.George Joseph:The Life and Times of Kerala Christian Nationalist/ George Gheverghese Joseph

4.Ormakaliloode/M M Varkey

5.Christian Mass Movements in India/J W Pickett

© Ramachandran 

BOMBAY HC VERDICT IN TNQ BANK CASE

Judgement By a British Judge

In 1938,the Travancore National & Quilon Bank was liquidated.It had been the fourth largest bank after a merger of two banks in 1937-Travancore National Bank (TNB) and Quilon Bank. TNB was established in 1912 by K.C. Mammen Mappillai in Thiruvalla.Quilon Bank was established by another Syrian Christian, C. P Mathen in 1919 .

The merger honeymoon lasted barely a year as the bank wound up under court order in August 1938. Charged with breach of trust and misappropriation, the directors were arrested. In a trial where the defence was impeded at every step, the Directors were found guilty and sent to prison.Both Mappillai, Mathen,Mappilai's brother K V Varghese and Mappilai's son K M Eapen were sent to prison in 1939.They werw arrested in Madras on 20 0ctober 1938,but were brought to Travancore only 5 April,1939.

Their journey to Travancore was delayed for long because of a case filed by Mathen in the Mumbai High Court,against their extradition to Travancore from Madras.It was an appeal against the Madras High Court order.Mumbai High Court dismissed the appeal.Here is the Mumbai High Court verdict on the case from records,for the inquisitive minds ( the Judge J Thankerton was British):

Bombay High Court

C.P. Matthen vs The District Magistrate Of Trivandrum and Another on 6 June, 1939

Equivalent citations: (1939) 41 BOMLR 1119

Author: Thankerton

Bench: G Lowndes, Porter, Thankerton

JUDGMENT Thankerton, J.

1. This is an appeal from (1) a judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Madras, dated November 4, 1938, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1,003 of 1938, which, on a reference by a division bench of the same Court, held that the orders of Pandrang Row J., a single Judge of the Court, on an application for writ of habeas corpus and relative applications, and dated October 21, 24, and 26, 1938, made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 986, 990 and 985 of 1938 respectively, were null and void, (2) a judgment and order of the said division bench, dated November 7, 1938, made in petition No. 1,003 in implement of the above judgment, and ( 3 ) a judgment and order of the said division bench, dated November 7, 1938, made in petition No. 985, dismissing the application for a writ of habeas corpus.

2. The appellants challenge the validity of certain warrants issued by the Resident for the Madras States under Section 7 of the Indian Extradition Act (XV of 1903 ) to the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras, under which they were arrested, and they ask to be discharged. The course of procedure which has been followed has raised important questions as to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to issue a writ of habeas corpus in the present case, and as to the competency of a single Judge of the High Court to issue such a writ or the analogous writ under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898).

3. The warrant against the first appellant was in the following terms, To the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.

Mammen Mappilai ( second row) in Kuppapuram with family,1924

Whereas Mr. C. P. Matthen, Director of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. (which is now under liquidation), who is now reported to be residing at Marble Hall, Sterling Road, Nungumbakam, Madras, stands charged with offences punishable under sections 410, 419, 421, 480 and also sections 99 and 104 of the Travancore Penal Code corresponding to sections 409, 418, 420, 477A, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code committed in the Travancore State, you are hereby directed to apprehend the said Mr. C. P. Matthen and surrender him to the frontier police station of the Travancore State for production before the District Magistrate, Trivandrum.

Herein fail not.

( Sgd.) C. P. Skrine, Resident for the Madras States.

The warrants against the other three appellants were in the same terms. The fourth appellant denies that he is a director of the bank, but that is not material at this stage. It will be noted that the warrants were not dated. The appellants were all arrested in Madras on the instructions of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who is the second respondent in this appeal, on October 20, 1938. The Travancore National and Quilon Bank was formed by the amalgamation of two banks and was incorporated in Travancore in September, 1937, though the head office was in Madras and the larger part of its business would appear to be carried on in the Madras Presidency. The appellants, who are Travancore subjects, had taken up residence in Madras in 1937, in order to conduct the business there. The District Magistrate, Trivandrum, referred to in the warrants, is the first respondent in this appeal.

4. Learning that the appellants were to be taken to Travancore by a train leaving at 11 a.m. on October 21, 1938, and having in view that the High Court did not sit until 10-45 a.m., the sons of the first and second appellants presented a petition (No. 985 of 1938) under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of all the appellants early on the morning of that day to Pandrang Row J., a Judge of the High Court, at his residence. This petition was supported by an affidavit by the son of the first appellant, and along with it a further petition (No. 986 of 1938) was presented to the Judge asking for a stay of execution of the warrants. On the latter petition (No. 986 of 1938), Pandrang Row J. made the following order, viz.:

As the matter is extremely urgent the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, should detain these prisoners in his custody and not send them away from Madras pending further orders of the High Court.

5. The appellants had meanwhile been produced before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and made an application for a reference to the Local Government under Section 8(a) of the Indian Extradition Act. While this application was in course of being heard, the order passed by Pandrang Row J. was produced and the Magistrate thereupon remanded the appellants to custody.

6. Subsequently on the same day, the Crown Prosecutor presented al petition ( No. 990 of 1938 ), praying that the order of Pandrang Row J. on petition No. 986 be vacated, mainly on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction, as, under Rule 2(a) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court, jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code could only be exercised by a bench of the High Court, and not by a single Judge. This petition, No. 990, was heard by Pandrang Row J. on October 22, 1938, and on October 24, the learned Judge made an order in petition No. 990 refusing to vacate the order for stay in. petition No. 986, and dismissing petition No. 990. The learned Judge held himself to be bound by the decision of a full bench of the High Court of Madras in In re Govindan Nair (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 922, F.B., to the effect that the High Court had jurisdiction at common law to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and he held that such jurisdiction was vested in each of the Judges of the High Court, and could not be taken away by Rules.

7. On the same day, October 24, 1038, the first of these petitions, No. 985, came before a bench of the High Court (Burn and Stodart JJ.), who refused to proceed with the matter, as Pandrang Row J. was seized of it. In answer to the Court, counsel for the applicants stated categorically that the application was for a common law writ of habeas corpus and not a petition to the High Court to exercise its powers under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On October 26, 1938, Pandrang Row J. heard petition No. 985, and made an order that a writ of habeas corpus should issue to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, returnable before himself on October 28, 1938, and a writ nisi was accordingly issued.

8. On the same day, October 26, 1938, the District Magistrate, Trivandrum, the first respondent in this appeal, presented a petition (No. 1,003 of 1938 ) to the High Court, under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the orders of Pandrang Row J., dated October 21, 22, and 26, 1938, should be quashed as having been made without jurisdiction, and calling the present appellants as respondents. This petition was supported by an affidavit by the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Travancore.

9. This petition, No. 1,003, came on for hearing on October 27 before Burn and Stodart JJ., who, as the hearing could not be completed on that day, made an order suspending the operation of the writ nisi, issued under the order of Pandrang Row J. dated October 26 and staying further proceedings on petition No. 985 until the further orders of the Court should be known, with a direction to the second respondent to keep the prisoners in his custody till further orders.

C P Mathen

10. After the further hearing on petition No. 1,003, Burn and Stodart JJ., on November 2, 1938, referred the following questions of law to a full bench:-

(1) Can this High Court or any Judge of it issue the common law writ of habeas corpus in any of the cases covered by Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code?

(2) Can an application for a common law writ of habeas corpus or for directions under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code be heard and disposed of by a single Judge of this Court? In other words : Are Rules 2 and 2a of the Appellate Side Rules intra or ultra vires?

(3) If a single Judge has power to issue the common law writ of habeas corpus, is the writ issued by our learned brother Pandrang Row J, on October 26 liable to be quashed by this Court for the reason that it has been issued in contravention of the rules in force in the High Court in England?

11. In stating their reasons for the order of reference the learned Judges dealt with the contentions submitted to them as follows:-The petitioner, the first respondent in this appeal, submitted three contentions : in the first place, that the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue the common law writ of habeas corpus in cases, which admittedly include the present case, covered by Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code; the learned Judges held themselves bound to reject this contention by reason of the decision of the full bench in Govindan Nair's case, already referred to, but gave reasons why they thought that it should be reconsidered. In the second place, the petitioner maintained that even if the High Court had still power to issue the common law writ of habeas corpus, nevertheless Rule 2 was intra vires and binding on all Judges of the Court, and that, accordingly, a single Judge had no power to deal with such proceedings; the learned Judges held this to be well founded. In the third place, the petitioner maintained that even if a single Judge has jurisdiction to issue the common law writ of habeas corpus, the procedure in this case had not been proper in that Pandrang Row J. had made the writ returnable to himself and not to the Court, during term time, which was in contravention of the rules in force in the High Court in England, which would apply in the case of a common law writ in the High Court of Madras ; the learned Judges agreed with this contention. The respondents-the present appellants-maintained two arguments : first, that in a criminal matter, such as this one, there was no right of appeal; but the learned Judges held that the Court was entitled to entertain the petition by virtue of Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the second place, the respondents objected to the locus stand of the petitioner, who had not been a party to the application for a writ; the learned Judges rejected this objection. Having regard to the importance of three of the questions argued before them, the learned Judges made the reference already mentioned.

12. On November 4, 1938, the full bench (Sir Alfred Leach C.J., Madhavan Nair, Varadachariar, Wadsworth and Lakshmana Rao JJ.) having heard arguments, made an order in which the questions were answered as follows:-

(1) The common law writ of habeas corpus does not run in British India in a case like this. Assuming that the Court formerly had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a case like this, that power has been taken away and the powers conferred by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure substituted.

(2) Rules 2 and 2a of the Appellate Side of this Court are intra vires the Court's powers.

(3) Mr. Justice Pandrang Row's order issuing a rule nisi was passed without jurisdiction and is consequently null and void.

(4) The position therefore is that the application filed by the respondents under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the Court which means that it must be dealt with by the Criminal Bench.

13. In the same order the learned Chief Justice directed that the application under Section 491 (No. 985) should be placed before the criminal bench on the following Monday, November 7. The reasons of the full bench for their judgment were subsequently given on November 8 in a judgment delivered by the Chief Justice.

14. The proceedings in petition No. 1,003 were resumed by Burn and Stodart JJ. on November 7, 1938, when they made an order in accordance with the answer of the full bench, setting aside the order of Pandrang Row J. in petition No. 985, dated October 26, 1938, which directed the issue of the writ nisi already referred to.

15. On the same day, November 7, 1938, Bum and Stodart JJ. dealt with petition No. 985, which came before them under the direction of the Chief Justice. After hearing arguments and considering the affidavits, the learned Judges delivered judgment and made an order dismissing the petition.

16. This appeal is taken against (1) the judgment of the full bench, dated November 4, 1938, on the questions referred to them in petition No. 1,003, (2) the judgment of the division bench, dated November 7, 1938, in petition No. 1,003, and (3) the judgment of the division bench, dated November 7, 1938, dismissing petition No. 985.

TNQ Bank HQ at Kollam,now hospital

17. Counsel for the appellants submitted four contentions, viz. :

1. That the first respondent had no locus standi in the matter raised in the appellants' petition No. 985, and that, for the same reason, his petition No. 1,003 was incompetent and should not have been entertained.

2. That Rules 2 and 2 A of the Appellate Side Rules were ultra vines, or, in any event, were not applicable to the present case.

3. That the warrants were illegal and invalid for the following reasons, (a) that there is definite jurisdiction in the High Court to examine, on evidence, whether the conditions laid down by the Extradition Act and the rules made thereunder for issue of the warrants have been complied with, (b) that, when thus examined, it would be found that such conditions had not been complied with, (c) that, in any event, the warrants were ex facie invalid, in respect that

(i) they did not show that the conditions had been complied with,

(ii) that they did not show sufficiently with what offences the appellants were charged, or when they were committed,

(iii) that they did not sufficiently show where and to whom the appellants were to be delivered up, and

(iv) that they were undated.

4. That jurisdiction to issue the common law writ of habeas corpus in a case such as the present still subsisted, and that Pandrang Row J. had jurisdiction to order the issue of the writ nisi.

18. On the first contention, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the first, respondent was entitled to intervene in the appellants' petition No. 985, and that the petition No. 1,003 was competently presented by him. Counsel for the appellants referred to the rules made by the Governor-General in Council, under Section 22 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1903, as to the Procedure of Political Agents for Surrender of Accused Persons to Native States (No. 1862 I.A., dated May 13, 1904), and in particular Rule 2, which provides as follows : 2. The Political Agent shall not issue a warrant under Section 7 of the said Act except on a request preferred to him in writing either by or by the authority of the person for the time being administering the Executive Government of the State for which he is a Political Agent, or by any Court within such State which has been specified in this behalf by the Governor General in Council, or by the Governor of Madras or Bombay in Council, as the case may be, by notification in the official Gazette.

19. He maintained that the only parties who were entitled to take part in the proceedings relative to the warrants in the present case were (a) the appellants, (b) the second respondent, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, (c) the British Resident for the Madras States, and (d) the Government of Travan-core. But their Lordships are of opinion that the terms of the warrants show that the authority to whom, in terms of Section 7 of the Act, the appellants are to be delivered, is truly the first respondent, who will control their custody, though the police of Travancore at the frontier station will receive the delivery on his behalf. Rule 7 of the rules above referred to makes this sufficiently clear ; it provides as follows:-

'7. In the case of an accused person made over for trial to the Court of the State, the Political Agent shall satisfy himself that the accused receives a fair trial, and that the punishment inflicted on conviction is not excessive or barbarous; and if he is not so satisfied he shall demand the restoration of the prisoner to his custody, pending the orders of the Governor General in Council.

20. It is dear that, if occasion arose for such an application in the present case, it would fall to be made to the Court of the first respondent. Their Lordships are of opinion that the first respondent is entitled to vindicate his right to obtain the custody of the appellants, and that this contention of the appellants fails.

21. It will be convenient to dispose next of the fourth contention of the appellants. On this point their Lordships agree with the conclusions of the full bench in the present case which are stated in the judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice as follows :

The High Courts Act of 1861 authorised the Legislature if it thought fit to take away the powers which this Court obtained as the successor of the Supreme Court, and Acts of the Legislature lawfully passed in 1875 and subsequent years leave no doubt in my mind that the Legislature has taken away the power to issue the prerogative writ of habeas corpus in matters contemplated by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898.

Young Sir CP 

22. Indeed counsel for the appellants stated that he found difficulty in pressing this contention, and the reasoning of the learned Chief Justice, on which he based the above conclusion, is so clear and convincing, including his narration of the legislative Acts referred to in his conclusion, that their Lordships are content to adopt it, as also to state that, like the learned Chief Justice, they are in entire agreement with the judgment of Rankin C.J. in Girindra Nath Banerjee v. Birendra Nath Pal (1927) I.L.R. 54 Cal 227. Accordingly the appellants' fourth contention also fails. It follows that the appellants' petition No. 985 must be treated as an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second contention of the appellants related to the Appellate Side Rules of the Madras High Court. Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as material, provides:

491. (1) Any High. Court may, whenever it thinks fit, direct

(b) that a person illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within such limits" (i.e. the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction) "be set at liberty ;

(2) The High Court may, from time to time, frame rules to regulate the procedure in cases under this Section.

23. The material rules of the Appellate Side Rules are as follows :

2. The following matters may be heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges provided that if both Judges agree that the determination involves a question of law they may order that the matter, or question of law, be referred to a Full Bench :

(4)(c) for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, 2a. All applications for writ of habeas corpus shall go before a Bench of Judges dealing with criminal work.

24. In view of their Lordships' opinion, already expressed, as to the incompetence of the issue of a common law writ in the present case, the appellants' contention, that these rules are ultra vires so far as they affect the issue of such a writ, does not arise, but the appellants maintain that, on proper construction, these rules do not apply to an application for directions under Section 491, which they maintain is not covered by the words " all applications for writ of habeas corpus". Their Lordships are unable to accept this contention, and their view is confirmed by the terms of the statutory notifications in the Fort St. George Gazette as to Rule 2A, which first appeared in a somewhat different form in the Gazette, 1925, Part II, p. 307, under date January 3, 1925, in which it is expressly described as an amendment to the rules regulating proceedings under Section 491(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it was as follows, " All applications for writ of habeas corpus shall go before a Bench of three Judges, of which the Chief Justice, unless otherwise ordered, shall be one." The alteration of the rule to its present form appeared in the Gazette, 1929, Part II, p. 1309, under date August 17, 1929, and the description of the amendment is identical with that in the earlier notification. Accordingly, Pandrang Row J., as a single Judge, had no jurisdiction to deal with petition No. 985.

C P Skrine book

25. It only remains to deal with the appellants' contentions as to the warrants :In the first place, they maintained that the Court is entitled to examine, on evidence, whether the conditions laid down by the Extradition Act and the rules made under Section 22 of the Act have been complied with, and that the appellants were entitled to an opportunity to satisfy the Court (a) that the offences must have been committed in Madras, and (b) that, in reality, the Travancore authorities desired to get the appellants into their jurisdiction in order to charge them with political offences, which would not be extraditable offences. It must be remembered that the warrants are issued by the agent of the Government of India, and not by an agent of the Travan-core State, and this executive act is safeguarded in various ways by the Act and by the rules. For instance, Rule 4 provides that the Political Agent shall, in all cases before issuing a warrant under Section 7 of the Act, satisfy himself, by preliminary inquiry or otherwise, that there is, prima facie, a case against the accused person. The appellants do not suggest that the Resident did not so satisfy himself in the present case. But, if such a suggestion were to be made, their Lordships are of opinion that it would not be properly the subject of inquiry by the Court, but should be stated to the Magistrate on an application to him to report to the Local Government under Section 8A of the Extradition Act. Their Lordships see no reason why the offences charged cannot have been committed in Travancore, and what they have stated above directly applies to the suggestion that the true object of the extradition is to enable the appellants to be charged with political offences. It may be added that a bogus trial of the offences, in respect of which the extradition is made, would appear to fall within Rule 7, and to make it the duty of the Political Agent, in such an event, to demand the restoration of the prisoners to his custody.

C P Skrine

26. Lastly, the appellants contend that the warrants are illegal ex facie in respect (a) that they do not sufficiently show with what offences the appellants were charged or when they were committed, (b) that they do not sufficiently identify the place where, and the person to whom, the appellants were to be delivered up, and (c) that they are undated.

27. As regards (a), no form of warrant is prescribed by the Extradition Act or the rules, and the warrants clearly describe the offences with which the appellants are charged, which is all that is required by the ordinary form of warrant of arrest prescribed by Section 75 and form II of Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships may also refer to the explanation to Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. This objection fails. As regards (b), Section 7(1)of the Extradition Act uses the words, "for his arrest and delivery at a place and to a person or authority indicated in the warrant," and their Lordships are of opinion that all that is required is that the place and person shall be sufficiently indicated to enable the Chief Presidency Magistrate, to whom the warrants are addressed, to act in pursuance of such warrants and to give directions accordingly. It is clear that the second respondent has no difficulty in this regard, and, if there were any doubt on the warrants taken by themselves, which their Lordships are not prepared to assume, the matter is placed beyond doubt by the Government of Madras (Home Department) Order No. 1,293, March 10, 1938, under which the Government direct that in future all persons extradited should be handed over at " the nearest frontier police station in the Travancore State". That order was addressed, among others, to the second respondent. There can be no difficulty in identifying the nearest frontier police station of the Travancore State for production before the District Magistrate, Trivandrum, and, in their Lordships' opinion, a police station is a perfectly lucid description of the authority to whom the surrender is to be made. Contention (c) as to the absence of date also fails, in their Lordships' opinion. While it undoubtedly would be the usual and better practice to date the warrants, no provision in the Act or the rules appears to require directly or implicitly that the warrants must be dated ; no period is expressed as running from the date of the warrants. This disposes of all the appellants' objections to the validity of the warrants.

28. Their Lordships have now stated the reasons which led them on April 3, 1939, humbly to advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Court verdict ends here.

C P Skrine ( 1888-1974 ),Clarmont Percival Skrine, the Resident for the Madras states then, British consul-general in Kashgar from 1922 to 1924, Under-Secretary of State for India and agent for the Madras States from 1936 to 1939.Born in Kensington, London,he was the son of Francis Henry Bennett Skrine (1847−1933) of the Indian civil service and Helen Lucy née Stewart (1867–1954). He was educated at Winchester and New College Oxford in England and qualified for the Indian civil service in 1912. Joined the Indian political service in 1915. From 1916 to 1919 he was British vice-consul in Kerman, Iran. From 1922 to 1924, Skrine was posted in Kashgar, in Chinese Turkestan, as the British consul-general.From 1926 to 1929 he was British consul in Seistan. On 20 November 1936, Skrine was appointed agent for the Madras States. Skrine served till 1 April 1937, when the agency was abolished and replaced with a residency. Clarmont also served as the first resident for the Madras States from 1 April 1937 to 15 January 1939. In January 1942 he traveled overland to Mashhad, Persia (near the Turkmenistan border) to become Consul General and remarkably took some cine footage of his journey. British public records indicate he remained in post till the end of World War Two.From 1946 to 1948, Skrine served as Counsellor for Indian Affairs in Teheran, Persia.

Skrine was a friend of Louisa Carolina Mariya Ouwerkerk ( 1904-1989 ),Economics/History professor and later Principal in Trivandrum women's College,who had a turbulent relationship with Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer,whom she had considered once the perfect dinner partner.Her 10 years in Travancore from 1929 are detailed in her book,No Elephants for the Maharaja,which was published posthumously in 1994.Louisa got more involved with the Congress,other agitators and the Christian lobby and was hobnobbing with the Resident Skrine too much.Sir C O wrote to the Raja on 17 September 1938 to get rid of her,terming her a communist.Sir C P told Skrine that her ( O's house ) was the rendezvous of an 'unhealthy pseudo religios spiritualistic circle."

She got the trmination order while she was on vacatuon in Denmark in 1939.She was born to Dutch parents in England.She was drawing a salary two times higher than that of her native colleagues.She rushed back to India in December,met Tagore and Gandhi,bacame Acting Principal in the Maharani's College for Women,Bangalore in May,1940.The British intercepted her letters and found What Sir C P had conveyed about her was right.In November 1940 she was arrested and sent her to the parole camp in Satara.Sir Maurice Gwyer,Chief Justice of India supported her But her association with RevR R Keithan,who held communist views,stood in the way.She wrote Untouchables in India.She was released in April 1941,on condition that she will not teach again.She later taught in Nigeria.A book has been written on her-The Story of a Self-Willed Lady:Louise Ouwerkerk in India by D Koolman.A book on Skrine too exists-Envoy of the Raj: Career  of Clarmont Percival Skrine.

© Ramachandran 

THE FAMILY FEUD BEHIND THE TNQ BANK FALL

Mammen Mappillai Freed After Confession and Apology

Post Covid period,we will see many banks in the world in crisis,and many bank mergers. In 1938, the Travancore National & Quilon Bank was liquidated. It had been the fourth largest bank after a merger of two banks in 1937-Travancore National Bank (TNB) and Quilon Bank. TNB was established in 1912 by K.C. Mammen Mappillai in Thiruvalla. Mappillai was a member of the prominent Kandathil Christian family which founded around 15 banks. His family also founded the Malayala Manorama group and the MRF. One of the founders was a priest who had some experience with running chits. 

People in the family blame Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer, Dewan of Travancvore for the liquidation. But a closer look will reveal that the two families that ran the two banks, were in a rivalry inside the merged entity. The family feud gave Sir C P the chance to settle political scores. Obviously, it was because Mammen Mappilai had his own political ambitions. There was no need for Sir C P to learn politics from him-Sir C P was Secretary of the Indian National Congress in 1917. But Mappillai with few like minded Christians like T M Varghese, Barrister George Joseph and M M Varkey, had thwarted a move by the Travancore Government to merge Thangassery near Kollam into the State. Thangassery, like Anchu Thengu near Attingal, was part of British India and the ones who took part in the Abstention movement led by Christians then were hiding safely in these two places. Sir C P was then the Constitutional Advisor of the King; not the Dewan.

Let us go to the brasstacks.

TNB’s paid-up capital rose from Rs13,000 in 1912 to over Rs11.6 lakh in 1936. The reserve fund in 1936 was as high as 30% of the paid-up capital. Deposits rose from Rs3.75 lakh in 1922 to Rs177.65 lakh, a 60-fold increase in a 24-year period.

Quilon Bank was established by another Syrian Christian, C. P Mathen in 1919 with a paid-up capital of Rs 56,000. It rose to Rs 11.79 lakh in 1936. Deposits rose from Rs 54,000 in 1919 to Rs 102.57 lakh in 1936, about 190-fold increase in 17 years. In 1936, the reserve fund was nearly 17%of the paid-up capital, and there were 36 branches including three in what was then Ceylon.

Both Mappillai's and Mathen's fathers had earlier partnered in a bank named Thayyil Bank.Both Mappilai and Mathen had started the New Guardian of India Life Insurance Company  in 1934.

In 1937 both these banks merged to form TNQ. The merged TNQ Bank became the fourth largest Indian bank at that time after Imperial Bank, Central Bank of India and Bank of India. It had 75 branches spread over the country with the Central Office at Madras and the Registered Office in Travancore.

The honeymoon lasted barely a year as the bank wound up under court order in August 1938. Charged with breach of trust and misappropriation, the directors were arrested. In a trial where the defence was impeded at every step, the Directors were found guilty and sent to prison.Both Mappillai, Mathen, Mappilai's brother K V Varghese and Mappilai's son K M Eapen were sent to prison in 1939. Mappilai familywas released in 1941 and Mathen in 1942. Mappillai had tendered a written apology to facilitate the release. Mammen Mappilai didn't go to the jail as a freedom fighter; he went there as a fraudster. Mammen Mappillai’s brother K  C  Eapen died in prison.

Matthen,unlike Mappilai,refused to apologize.He had been extradited from Madras and imprisoned in Trivandrum, allegedly for balance sheet irregularities. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment but offered many chances to walk free if he would acknowledge guilt. He was released on January 22nd 1942 without condition or explanation and returned to Madras.

Chalakuzhy Paulose Mathen and his family moved to Madras. In 1952 he was elected to the Lok Sabha from Mavelikara constituency and in 1957 was appointed Indian Ambassador to Sudan. He died in 1960.

Matthen was born into a landed Christian family in central Travancore, in Kavumbhagom, Thiruvalla. He went to Madras after high school and did his Bachelor of History degree at Madras Christian College. He completed his education with a Bachelor of Law. He founded the Bank at 29.

K C Mammen Mappilai, after passing B A. from Madrsa Christian College, wanted to enter the Mysore Civil Service like some of his college-mates. But his uncle Kandathil Varghese Mappillai, founder of Malayala Manorama, persuaded him to come back to Kerala and become a school teacher.He joined M D Seminary High School and become its Headmaster. Varghese Mappillai persuaded his nephew to help him in the working of Malayala Manorama. He had an interest in chitty and lottery from the beginning. Varghese Mappillai passed away in July 1904, And the mantle of publishing the newspaper fell on the shoulders of Mammen Mappillai who was just 31 years old.

He resigned his Headmastership in 1908 and took over the publishing of Manorama as full time job. Along with publishing he went into a number of business projects some of which never saw the light of Day. Shipping, Road Transport, Retail Shop, Book Publications etc. were some of them. However, he gave Kerala's economy a new bounce. He used Malayala Manorama to popularise cultivation, particularly rubber, the MONEY TREE from Brazil. Rubber eventually became backbone of Kerala midlands and continues to be so.

He was a member of the Modern Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State of Travancore.

Most of the banks then, including TNB, mobilized most of their deposits and earned profits via chit funds. The bank’s financials were vulnerable to certain shocks. Which is the case for most bank failures.This happened in the case of TNQ Bank too.

Mammen and Matthen's success in insurance company together led them to amalgamate their respective banks in 1937. The registered office remained at the Quilon Bank headquarters in Travancore but the main business of the bank was conducted from its central office in Madras where its primary shareholders were based. Sir CP Ramaswami Iyer encouraged this arrangement by offering to place Rs 7,000,000 of Travancore treasury money with the merged bank but this offer was never fulfilled. He made the offer to keep the bank in the Travancore soil,since Mappilai and Mathen had planned to register it at Madras.

K M Eapen,Bank Secretary with C P Mathen,London,1936

TN&Q Bank was established in 1937 with a new Quilon headquarters building which Matthen built at a cost of Rs. 140,000 (a very large sum of money at that time). To retain the business and deposits of the Travancore State, Matthen and Mammen had not only agreed to the headquarters in Travancore but that two of the bank’s directors were the Dewan’s appointees and also that the Bank’s General Manager, a confidant of the Dewan named K. S. Ramanujam, was appointed at the specific recommendation of Sir CP.All this was done,when the duo had a cordial relationship with the Dewan.

The bank’s financial run concluded with 88% of the public’s deposits being returned by the bank, and the bank becoming insolvent. At this point,Travancore administration demanded the extradition of Matthen and Mammen from Madras Presidency to Travancore State to stand trial for defrauding the public. Sir CP  convinced the British Government in Madras that the bank and its directors had been financing the Congress party so appeals to the Madras High Court and the Privy Council in London to stay the extradition orders were rejected and 3 directors of the bank including Matthen, Mammen and Mammen’s elder brother K V Varghese and Mammen’s son K M Eapen, were transported in chains from Madras to Quilon to stand trial.

At the trial in Trivandrum, the erstwhile General Manager of the bank - K. S. Ramanujam,  testified that Mammen and Matthen had defrauded the bank and four directors (including Mammen’s brother and son) were then awarded 8 years imprisonment. The bank’s remaining assets were liquidated by the State, and the bank’s assets were sold.The bank headquarters’ building in Quilon was auctioned  for Rs 15,600.It was bought by Kollam Municipal Chairman K G Parameswaran Pillai,for the Ophthalmic department of the district hospital. Pillai,who had a loan liability of Rs 86,249 got a waiver of Rs 56,249.K C Karunakaran,a prosecution witness,got a waiver of 2 lakh on his loan of 4 lakh.TNQ Banks,property just opposite to the secretariat in Trivandrum was auctioned off for Rs 16001 to Chattanatha Karayalar,Chairman of State Credit Bank.

U P Kukkiliya, advisor to the liquidators,became a judge of the Highcourt;he also got the 225 acre cashew estate of P V Swaminathan, which was pledged with the bank as collateral. He got it free.

K. S. Ramanujam vanished abroad after the trial. Sir C P sent word to Mammen and Matthen that if they admitted their accused guilt and sought the Maharaja’s mercy they could be pardoned. Mammen and his son agreed to sign the declaration but Matthen continued to refuse. Sir CP initially declined to agree to the release without all of three of them admitting guilt, but finally released Mammen and his son on receiving their written confessions.They confessed that only they are responsible for the fall of the bank.

Matthen continued to hold out on his refusal to sign the confession, despite heavy pressure brought on him through the Inspector General of Police, Mr Abdul Karim, visiting him regularly in jail and suggesting that he sign a letter – which the IG had drafted, requesting the Maharaja to pardon and release him.Mrs Mathen approached the British advovate general B L Mirett with all the records,and he wrote a report absolving Mathen. It was sent to the Viceroy Linlithgow ( 1936-1943).

In these circumstances,finally, on 22nd January 1942,  C. P. Matthen was unconditionally released by the Maharaja's Government without any written or verbal admission of guilt. The IG, Abdul Karim, took Matthen in his official car from Travancore jail to his house where his family had waited patiently for his release from jail. Thus,Matthen's position remained opposite to that of Mammen and family,exposing the separation and betrayal.He wrote his memoirs in 1951, called I Have Borne Much.

He died on 2 June 1960 in Paris, Île-de-France, France and buried at Thiruvalla.

Records prove the bank’s financials were vulnerable to certain shocks. Secondly,the Bank promoters alleged that the entity was brought to a grinding halt by C.P. Ramaswami Iyer, the powerful Dewan of the State of Travancore.

What turned Sir C P against the Bank was Mappilai's political ambitions. Sir C P's job was to serve the interests of the Travancore royal family, by destroying financiers of rival political agitations. Mappilai and the Bank were such financiers. K.G. Vijayalekshmy in the book Educational Development in South India (1993) highlights how the relationship between the bank and the government were strained. The emblem of the bank was similar to that of the Travancore coat-of-arms and despite requests to change the same, the bank insisted on the status quo. The Abstention movement in Kerala was started to secure adequate representation for the Ezhavas, Christians and Muslims in the state legislature. In 1938,when the Travancore State Congress was formed, it allied with the movement. The Dewan found TNQ Bank supporting the State Congress.The Indian National Congress was not there in Travancore.

Till today the Congress in Kerala is dominated by the christians-years later Malayala Manorama sided with the A K Antony-Oommen Chandy faction in the Congress to oust the Hindu Chief Minister, K Karunakaran.

Directors of Travancore National and Quilon bank with Sir CP  -C.P. Mathen (MD), K. C. Mammen Mappillai, M. O. Thomas Vakkel Modisseril(Director)

The argument of Mammen Mappillai in his autobiography, is echoed by his son, K M Mathew, in his autobiography, The Eighth Ring:

Sir C P managed to force a run on TNQ Bank branches in Madras. In March 1938, pamphlets were distributed in Madras revealing that TNQ bank was run by thieves and plunders. Most of these were printed at the Trivandrum Government Press.The Mylapore branch of the bank was chosen to orchestrate the run as it had the most deposits and most depositors lived locally.  The run soon spread to other parts of Madras city and then to other regions in the Madras Presidency. K.S. Ramanujam, who was the general manager of the bank, was planted by the Dewan to destroy it.K M Mathew noted how the promoters of the bank tried to save the bank by appealing to different set of authorities including C. Rajagopalachari. Rajaji told them to appeal to the Dewan instead! 

Both KM Mathew and CP Mathen,in their own respective accounts of the incident,allege that the liquidator, a former Imperial Bank and Reserve Bank official, was also planted with the connivance of the Dewan of Travancore, and that he disposed of the bank’s assets at throwaway prices far below their market value.

C.P. Mathen’s wife, Eliamma Mathen, On 26 August 1938, wrote in her diary: "Grave troubles in Travancore. Civil disobedience begins today. Lord be Thou with the leaders. Let thy will be done in everything. Perfect Thou the leaders in everything. Let them not be found wanting in anything. Psalm 73 is very apt for today. It foretells C.P.’s fall." 

Mathen's grand daughter Mariam is married to N Ram of The Hindu.

Mammen Mappilai

 Those were the colonial times and one should remember that with all his power and influence,Sir C P was only the Dewan of a princely state; he had no jurisdiction over the Reserve Bank, that assessed the financial position of the TNQ Bank and decided on the liquidation.

The central bank was established amidst multiple failures and was supposed to stabilise the banking system.The central bank facilitated the merger by giving it a large credit line at the start. In its first History Volume (1935-51), RBI discusses the events:

• First week of June, 1938: TNQ Bank approached RBI to provide financial assistance to the bank. RBI agreed on the conditions that assistance will be provided only after detailed investigation of the bank’s financial position. 

• 20 June: RBI asksed TNQ Bank’s auditors to investigate the books as per RBI norms. On the same day TNQ Bank asked the auditors to stop investigation as RBI was not providing any help.
• 21 June: TNQ Bank suspended payment. 
• 22 June: Court proceedings to wind up start in Quilon and Bombay. 
• 23 June: Winding up request presented at Madras.
• 27 -29 June: Madras Government meets RBI officials to address the continued unrest. TNQ Bank agreed to the Government suggestion that it gets its books investigated by RBI (again) to understand how much depositors could be paid etc. RBI estimates auditing expenses worth Rs10,000. 
• 2 July: TNQ Bank approached the Madras high court to release Rs10,000 against the assets of the bank. The court refused the request citing it had no such approval powers. It asked RBI to take up the investigation assuring costs will be paid later. 
• 8 July: RBI special officer investigated the books and finds that the bank was in a worse position than reported. It had exhausted all the realisable securities during the run, its balance sheet was incorrect, the bank was buying its own shares presumably with a view to keeping up their market value; and had loaned to directors and other interested parties on inadequate security, etc. 
• 18-20 July: RBI Deputy governor Manilal Nanavati in Madras 
• 28 July: The Deputy governor wrote to the government saying best option was to let liquidation continue. 
• 9 August: This letter published in local press.The bank is ordered to be liquidated by the district court of Quilon. 
• 5 September: The Madras high court could not take the orders of Travancore district court. Thus, it issued its own winding-up order. 
• 21 March 1955: The above jurisdictional tangle led to a dragging on of liquidation proceedings. The bulk of the deposits were in British India, but loans in Indian princely states leading to further complications. The liquidation finally completed 17 years later in 1955.

The Mappillai group still argues that the RBI did not provide urgent financial help to the bank.RBI's official histories defend its actions, saying this would imply “investing good money after bad". RBI governor C.D. Deshmukh in a speech in 1948, reflecting on the crisis, said that the financial position of the bank was not sound as is perceived. Its depositors could be paid 12-14 annas to a rupee largely due to calling up unpaid capital and war conditions leading to higher valuation for the estates on which loans were made. 

C P Mathen

As regards financial help from the Reserve Bank, one should realize that these were pre-BR Act days (the Banking Regulation Act came in 1949) and, therefore, any prudent central banker who has read his Lombard Street (By Bagehot) would have had to ensure that the bank is solvent before coming forward with assistance. The bank did not initially cooperate, for reasons best known to itself, and later did so only on court orders. BR Act, incidentally, was occasioned more by the failure of around 700 banks during the Second World War (on which, see a mention in a speech by Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the second Indian and longest serving Governor of the Reserve Bank) and after, and the interesting case of “missing banks” in West Bengal, rather than by that of TNQB.

What has not been much discussed in the context of the bank failure is the rivalry between the two groups which controlled the two banks which merged to form the TNQB. In KM Mathew’s Eighth Ring, there is  a hint that all was not well.

In his biography of Sir CP, A Raghu, however, takes another view of the TNQB affair, different from that of the Mammen-Mathen group. According to Raghu, it is worthy of  “a Hollywood thriller”.

K M Eapen, later

Puthupally Raghavan in the second volume of his five volume Viplava Smaranakal (Revolutionary Memoirs) remembers the jail days with Mappilai family and Mathen.Raghavan too has asserted that the TNQ Bank had financed the political agitations.He has said that the run happened because the depositors believed the Travancore government was going to withdraw its 75 lakh deposit,whereas the givernment had no deposit there.S Chattanatha Karayalar,a rich politician resigned as director of the Bank;  V N Narayana Pillai  resigned as director and legal advisor of the Bank.Another director Khaderboi too resigned.Karayalar became Chairman of the State Credit Bank,and Pillai government Pleader.

Raghavan was imprisoned on 7 February 1939, after a political murder.

Death in Jail:K C Eapen with wife Kunjumdamma

According to him, Mappilai, Mathen and others were brought to the jail on 5 April, 1039.They were arrested in Madras on 20 October 1938.Their journey to the Central jail in Poojapura got delayed because of the case they fought against extradition.On 4 April,1039 a British army Sergeant escorted them in the Trivandrum Express.At Shenkottai, theTravancore police waited to take and parade them to Trivandrum.But the British Sergeant refused to hand them over.He escorted them to the jail.They arrived by 8 pm and were sent to a segregated cell.Mappilai was 66.

Within days of their arrival, Bank's deputy Chairman and Mappilai's younger brother K C Eapen alongwith K S Ramanujam surrendered in jail.Though very sick,K C Eapen wanted to spent his days with the family in jail.

The trial began in the second week of August.The trial was completed within two weeks and the case committed to the Sessions court. Sessions trial began on 18 September and it was over in four months time. The verdict came on 4 January 1940. Mappillai, Mathen,K C Eapen and K M Eapen were sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. Ramanujam, who turned approver, was exonerated and given a reward of Rs 30,000.

The Higcourt dismissed the appeal filed by the convicts.Mappilai and the group were shifted from the segregation cell to the common jail. Mappilai and younger brother K C Eapen were in separate cells in the civil ward close to the main gate;Mathen in the fourth cell, K M Eapen and Varghese in another one. All of them had fetters on the left leg.

Within a short span of time,the condition of the asthmatic K C Eapen became worse.His end came on a night and dead body was removed only after six hours,when the lock up got opened in the morning. Mappillai in the adjoining cell,listened to hapless moans in the adjoining cell. A book on him, Jayilile Valyappan ( The Grandpa in Jail ), mentions the inner squabbles within the families.Son of Thayyil Appan and Thayyil Kandathil Mariyamma, K C Eapen died a broken man.

While the blame for the TNQ Bank's fall was put by the Christian lobby on the shoulders of Sir CP, another Christian bank,Palai Central Bank got liquidated without him-it is another story. Stories of the two banks should be read together for the complete picture.

© Ramachandran