THE BUDDHA AS A HINDU AND MARXIST

The Mystery of the Adi Buddha

I had been to Bodh Gaya.Buddha got enlightenment while meditating underneath a fig tree here.Emperor Asoka's evil queen Tissarakha  thought Asoka was pouring his love and affection to the tree instead of her and used a Mandu thorn to kill the tree in the Mahamega arama.Hindus had been visiting Bodh Gaya since atleast Buddha's own life time.The site was actually maitained by a lineage of Saiva priests.

Why so?

It is because there was a Hindu Buddha.The Adi Buddha,who is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu.

In Lalita Vistara, it is described how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha. The original name of Bodhgaya is Kikata, after Gautama attained enlightment there, it came to be known as Buddha gaya. Even today the rituals of worship is preformed by sannyasis of Sankaracharya sect.

Lankavatara Sutra, the famous buddhist work says that Ravana, King of Lanka first worshipped Vishnu incarnation Buddha then successive and future Buddha.

It is very evident that Purana and Buddhist Chronology does not synchronize with each other, while they seem to be saying about the same person. When Analyzing this question. It becomes apparent that we have merged two Buddhas. The Adi Buddha or Avatar Buddha of Vishnu and Shakya Buddha or Gautama Buddha into One.

Adi Buddha was born on 1887BC to Mother Anjana in Kikata (Bodh Gaya).

He established the Philosophy of Ahimsa, Non Violence. He preached against ritual animal sacrifices that has crept into Vedic Hinduism. He emphasized the divine in all beings and divinity of all souls arousing compassion for all.

Bhagavata Purana says "At the commencement of the Kāli-yuga will Vishnu become incarnate in Kikata, under the name of Buddha, the son of Jina, for the purpose of deluding the enemies of the gods."

Puranas say that Adi Buddha was born in Ikshvaku Dynasty.

Adi Buddha is contemproary of Srenika(Sunika) whose father was Hemajit or Kshemajit or Kshetroja or Ksetrauja. Son of Srenika is Kunika. His son is Dharshaka.

Siddhartha was was born around 560BC in the royal family of Suddhodana and Mayadevi in Lumbini in Nepal. Siddhartha received his name Gautama from his spiritual Master Gautama Muni, who belonged to Kapila dynasty,as per Sundarananda Charita. He left home, his royal comforts to find enlightenment. He went to Bodh Gaya to meditate and got enlightenment.It again means Bodh Gaya was a pilgrimage centre during his time.

Gautama Buddha is the propagator of Bahyatmavada, Jnanatmavada and Sunyavada, three pillars of Atheism. He Went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of Adi Buddha.

If Adi Buddha was the contemporary of srenika,as stated above,again confuion arises-Bimbisāra (c. 558 – c. 491 BC or during the late 5th century BC,was  also known as Seniya or Shrenika in the Jain histories.He was a King of Magadha (r. 543 – 492 BC or c. 400 BC and belonged to the Haryanka dynasty. He was the son of Bhattiya,a chieftain. His expansion of the kingdom, especially his annexation of the kingdom of Anga to the east, is considered to have laid the foundations for the later expansion of the Maurya Empire.

He is also known for his cultural achievements and was a great friend and protector of the Buddha. Bimbisara—according to Hiuen Tsang—built the city of Rajgir (Rajagriha), famous in Buddhist writings (others attribute the city's foundation to his successor).He was succeeded on the throne by his son Ajatashatru.

Bimbisara welcomes Buddha

He became a devotee of Jainism impressed by the calmness of Yamadhar (a Jain Muni). He frequently visited Samavasarana of Lord Mahavira seeking answers to his queries.Per Jain scripture, Bimbisara killed himself in a fit of passion, after his son had imprisoned him. Consequently, he was reborn in hell, where he is currently residing, until the karma which led to his birth there comes to an end.It is further written, that he will be reborn as Mahapadma (sometimes called Padmanabha), the first in the chain of future tirthankaras who are to rise at the beginning of the upward motion (Utsarpini) of the next era of time

According to Buddhist scriptures, King Bimbisara met the Buddha for the first time prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, and later became an important disciple that featured prominently in certain Buddhist suttas. He is recorded to have attained sotapannahood, a degree of enlightenment in Buddhist teachings. Although Bimbisara let the women in his palace visit Buddha in his monastery in the evenings; the women wanted a hair-and-nail stupa they could use to venerate the Buddha any time. Bimbisara spoke with Buddha who complied with their requests.

Many biographies of the Buddha begin not with his birth in his last lifetime but in a lifetime millions of years before, when he first made the vow to become a buddha. According to a well-known version, many aeons ago there lived a Brahman named (in some accounts) Sumedha, who realized that life is characterized by suffering and then set out to find a state beyond death. He retired to the mountains, where he became a hermit, practiced meditation, and gained yogic powers. While flying through the air one day, he noticed a great crowd around a teacher, whom Sumedha learned was the buddha Dipamkara. When he heard the word buddha he was overcome with joy. Upon Dipamkara’s approach, Sumedha loosened his yogin’s matted locks and laid himself down to make a passage across the mud for the Buddha. Sumedha reflected that were he to practice the teachings of Dipamkara he could free himself from future rebirth in that very lifetime. But he concluded that it would be better to delay his liberation in order to traverse the longer path to buddhahood; as a buddha he could lead others across the ocean of suffering to the farther shore. Dipamkara paused before Sumedha and predicted that many aeons hence this yogin with matted locks would become a buddha. He also prophesied Sumedha’s name in his last lifetime (Gautama) and the names of his parents and chief disciples and described the tree under which the future Buddha would sit on the night of his enlightenment.

Over the subsequent aeons, the bodhisattva would renew his vow in the presence of each of the buddhas who came after Dipamkara, before becoming the buddha Shakyamuni himself. Over the course of his lifetimes as a bodhisattva, he accumulated merit (punya) through the practice of 6 (or 10) virtues. After his death as Prince Vessantara, he was born in the Tusita Heaven, whence he surveyed the world to locate the proper site of his final birth.

He determined that he should be born the son of the king Shuddhodana of the Shakya clan, whose capital was Kapilavastu. Shortly thereafter, his mother, the queen Maha Maya, dreamed that a white elephant had entered her womb. Ten lunar months later, as she strolled in the garden of Lumbini, the child emerged from under her right arm. He was able to walk and talk immediately. A lotus flower blossomed under his foot at each step, and he announced that this would be his last lifetime. The king summoned the court astrologers to predict the boy’s future. Seven agreed that he would become either a universal monarch (chakravartin) or a buddha; one astrologer said that there was no doubt, the child would become a buddha. His mother died seven days after his birth, and so he was reared by his mother’s sister, Mahaprajapati. As a young child, the prince was once left unattended during a festival. Later in the day he was discovered seated in meditation under a tree, whose shadow had remained motionless throughout the day to protect him from the sun.The later legend is well known.

The Nirvana of Buddha

But the irony is that,for a man who espoused Ahimsa,the end was by eating meat.At age 80 the Buddha, weak from old age and illness, accepted a meal (it is difficult to identify from the texts what the meal consisted of, but many scholars believe it was pork) from a smith named Chunda, instructing the smith to serve him alone and bury the rest of the meal without offering it to the other monks. The Buddha became severely ill shortly thereafter, and at a place called Kusinara (also spelled Kushinagar; modern Kasia) lay down on his right side between two trees, which immediately blossomed out of season. He instructed the monk who was fanning him to step to one side, explaining that he was blocking the view of the deities who had assembled to witness his passing. After he provided instructions for his funeral, he said that lay people should make pilgrimages to the place of his birth, the place of his enlightenment, the place of his first teaching, and the place of his passage into nirvana. Those who venerate shrines erected at these places will be reborn as gods. The Buddha then explained to the monks that after he was gone the dharma and the vinaya (code of monastic conduct) should be their teacher. He also gave permission to the monks to abolish the minor precepts (because Ananda failed to ask which ones, it was later decided not to do so). Finally, the Buddha asked the 500 disciples who had assembled whether they had any last question or doubt. When they remained silent, he asked two more times and then declared that none of them had any doubt or confusion and were destined to achieve nirvana. According to one account, he then opened his robe and instructed the monks to behold the body of a buddha, which appears in the world so rarely. Finally, he declared that all conditioned things are transient and exhorted the monks to strive with diligence. These were his last words. The Buddha then entered into meditative absorption, passing from the lowest level to the highest, then from the highest to the lowest, before entering the fourth level of concentration, whence he passed into nirvana.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the term ādibuddha is often used to describe Samantabhadra, Vajradhara or Kalachakra. In East Asian Mahayana, the ādibuddha is typically considered to be Vairocana.

The Guhyasamāja Tantra says of Vajradhāra, " Vajradhara, the Teacher, who is bowed to by all the Buddhas, best of the three diamonds, best of the great best, supreme lord of the three diamonds."

Alex Wayman notes that the Pradipoddyotana, a tantric commentary, states that the "three diamonds" are the three mysteries of Body, Speech, and Mind. Wayman further writes: "Tsong-kha-pa's Mchan-'grel explains the "lord of body": displays simultaneously innumerable materializations of body; "lord of speech": teaches the Dharma simultaneously to boundless sentient beings each in his own language; "lord of mind": understands all the knowable which seems impossible.

According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the ādibuddha is also seen in Mahayana Buddhism as representation of the universe, its laws and its true nature, as a source of enlightenment and karmic manifestations and a representation of the Trikaya.

Within the Nichiren school of Japanese Buddhism, the Nikko-lineage, specifically the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, regard Nichiren as the Adi-(primal) Buddha and dispute the contentions of other sects that view him as a bodhisattva.

Tibetan thangka of Vajradhara

Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Indonesian Buddhism. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.This concept is used by the Indonesian Buddhist Council, an organization that seeks to represent all Buddhist traditions in Indonesia such as Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

Adi Buddha is a term used in Tantric Buddhism to refer to the Primordial Buddha. The term Sanghyang Adi Buddha is agreed upon and used by the Indonesian Supreme Sangha and the Indonesian Buddhist Council as the designation for the God Almighty. This term is not found in Pāli Canon, but used in some old Indonesian Vajrayana texts such as Sanghyang Kamahayanikan.

Sang Hyang Adi Buddha refers to "the seed of Buddhahood" inside every being. In Mahayana Buddhism, Adi Buddha refers to the primordial Buddha that outlines the same Universal Dhamma.The Adi-buddha is not a monotheistic deity as in the Abrahamic traditions, but is rather the primordial nature of mind, the part of the mind that never enters samsara, and is thus the "primordial Buddha." As the Primordial Buddha never entertains conceptual ignorance or proliferation, all that arises is referred to as "self-liberated."

Indonesian National Encyclopedia (1988) describes Adi Buddha and the traditions that are used this term thus:

"Adi-Buddha is a term for the Almighty God in Buddhism. This title came from the Aisvarika tradition of Mahayana in Nepal, which is spread through Bengal, and became also known in Java. Aisvarika is the term for the disciples of theist view in Buddhism. This word came from 'Isvara' which means 'God' or 'Great Buddha' or 'the Almighty', and 'ika' which means 'follower' or 'disciple'. "

"This term is used by the Svabhavavak Buddhism in Nepal. This school is one of the branch of Tantrayana school of Mahayana. The term for God Almighty in this school is Adi-Buddha. Later, this view also spread to Java in the time of Srivijaya and Majapahit. The present scholars knows this term from the paper of B.H. Hodgson, a researcher who studied the religious in Nepal.

"According to this view, one can coalesce (moksha) with Adi-Buddha or Isvara through his efforts with the ascetic path (tapa) and meditating (Dhyana)."

The use of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a name for a supreme God is controversial among Indonesian Buddhists to the present day. The reason is that the concept of Sanghyang Adi Buddha, which only exists in Tantrayana/ Vajrayana traditions, is not a god in the sense of a personal god of the monotheistic religions. The use of the name of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a personal god, is the product of a compromise with political reality, and is contrary to the teachings of Buddhism. Because of this political compromise, Indonesian Buddhism differs from mainstream Buddhism. This controversy also extends to Very Venerable Ashin Jinarakkhita as the originator of the term Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a god in Buddhism.

Mahavamsa traces the Shakya dyansty to Ikshvaku dynasty and starts the dynasty with Ikshvaku.

Threvada Texts refer to six Preceding Buddhas (Those who have been awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, krakuccanda, Konagamara and Kashyapa, also they say Maitreya as the Buddha of the future.

Amara Simha, Buddhist scholar, who wrote Amarakosha gives eighteen names of Vishnu avatara including the name Sugato (Which Shankara calls Buddha) and seven names of Shakya Simha Buddha without any mention of Sugato. So we can even argue that Shankara talks about avatar Buddha not Shakya Buddha. Amarakosha states the Lord Buddha is also known as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human being.

Analysing Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita sutra, Astasahastrika prajna- paramita sutra, Sata-Shastrika Prajna, Pramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara shows three categories of Buddha namely,

Human Buddhas: Like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after enlightment.
Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were born enlightened.
Adi(Original-First) Buddha: the Avatar of Vishnu.

Adi Shankara, who can be termed founder of Hinduism,in discussion with others treated both Buddhas as one person and did not discriminate between the two.Hindu scholars doesn't see Vedanta in Buddhism,since Buddha was a Nasthika.Maybe,Buddhism can be included only as part of the Purva Mimamsa,which dwelt only in outer spheres of human actions.With his Advaita Mayavadha philosophy Sankara not only stopped the rise of Buddhism in India, assuring its decline. 

By Combining two Buddhas Indology scholars have ignored the Purana accounts and thus the Indian mythology. Whenever the Puranas refers to Adi Buddha,the euro centric scholars will cite Gautama Buddha to discredit and vice versa.

Colonel Kennedy, argues that the Buddha of the Purana and Buddha the founder of the Buddhist system of religion have nothing in common but the name, and that the attempted identification of these two is simply the work of European scholars, who have not been sufficiently careful to collect information, and to weigh the evidence they have had before them.

The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddha’s nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. Historian Fleet, who makes a study of ‘Rajatarangini’, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories arise from the euro centric existential dilemma.

Indology scholars just pick and choose to discredit Purana sources. The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddha’s Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddha’s Nirvana is imaginary. Western scholars arbitrarily skipped 12 centuries of Indian history because their ‘hypothesis’ about Alexander’s invasion did not match with centuries-old Indian chronology.

We see that Early Buddhist texts distinguishes the two Buddhas, while the later ones seem to ignore the former. The Rock Edicts of Piyadasi teachings are of Adi Buddha and not Gautama Buddha. Gautama Buddha is not the avatar of Vishnu. Avatar of Vishnu is Adi Buddha.

Buddha is considered as an avatar of Vishnu, by traditions within Hinduism. Buddhists traditionally do not accept the Buddha to be a Vishnu avatar. The adoption of Buddha may have been a way to assimilate Buddhism into the fold of Hinduism.Much like Hinduism's adoption of the Buddha as an avatar, Buddhism legends too adopted Krishna in their Jataka tales, claiming Krishna the Vishnu avatar, to be a character whom Buddha met and taught in his previous births. The adoption of the Buddha in texts relating to Hindu gods, and of Hindu gods in Buddhist texts, is difficult to place chronologically. According to Alf Hiltebeitel and other scholars, some of the stories in Buddha-related Jataka tales found in Pali texts seem slanderous distortions of Hindu legends, but these may reflect the ancient local traditions and the complexities of early interaction between the two Indian religions.

Bodh Gaya

Though an avatar of Vishnu, the Buddha is rarely worshipped like Krishna and Rama in Hinduism.According to John Holt, the Buddha was adopted as an avatar of Vishnu around the time the Puranas were being composed, in order to subordinate him into the Brahmanical ideology. Further adds Holt, various scholars in India, Sri Lanka and outside South Asia, that the colonial era and contemporary attempts to assimilate Buddha into the Hindu fold are part of a nationalistic political agenda, where the Buddha has been reclaimed triumphantly as a symbol of indigenous nationalist understandings of India's history and culture.

Swami Vivekananda said:

"Buddha was a great Vedantist (for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta), and Shankara is often called a “hidden Buddhist”. Buddha made the analysis, Shankara made the synthesis out of it. Buddha never bowed down to anything — neither Veda, nor caste, nor priest, nor custom. He fearlessly reasoned so far as reason could take him. Such a fearless search for truth and such love for every living thing the world has never seen."

He added:

"In Buddha we had the great, universal heart and infinite patience, making religion practical and bringing it to everyone’s door. In Sankaracharya we saw tremendous intellectual power, throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything. We want today that bright sun of intellectuality joined with the heart of Buddha, the wonderful infinite heart of love and mercy. This union will give us the highest philosophy. Science and religion will meet and shake hands. Poetry and philosophy will become friends.."

There are several other statements of Vivekananda on Buddha,which are contradictory;he has also termed Buddha a Hindu.In Notes Taken Down in Madras ( 1892-1893) ,Vivekananda says,"Buddha,we may say now,ought to have understood the harmony of  religions;he introduced sectarianism."

But in Vivekananda's Buddha's Message to The World ( 18 March 1900 ) Vivekananda remarked:

"Buddha was the triumph in the struggle that had been going on between the priests and the prophets in India. One thing can be said for these Indian priests — they were not and never are intolerant of religion; they never have persecuted religion. Any man was allowed to preach against them. Theirs is such a religion; they never molested any one for his religious views. But they suffered from the peculiar weaknesses of all the priests: they also sought power, they also promulgated rules and regulations and made religion unnecessarily complicated, and thereby undermined the strength of those who followed their religion."

Vedantists will never agree with Vivekananda's statement that Buddha was a vedantist.Buddhism,infact,has nothing to do with vedanta.For this too,I quote Vivekananda:"Buddhism proves nothing about the Absolute Entity. In a stream the water is changing; we have no right to call the stream one. Buddhist deny the one, and say, it is many. We say it is one and deny the many. What they call Karma is what we call the soul. According to Buddhism, man is a series of waves. Every wave dies, but somehow the first wave causes the second. That the second wave is identical with the first is illusion. To get rid of illusion good Karma is necessary. Buddhists do not postulate anything beyond the world. We say, beyond the relative there is the Absolute".

The Oxford professor and later President of India, S Radhakrishnan states that "as a matter of fact, nowhere did Buddha repudiate the Upanishad conception of Brahman, the absolute"; that Buddha, if anything, "accepted the Upanishad's position". Buddhologists like K.R. Norman and Richard Gombrich meanwhile, argue that the Buddha's anatta theory does indeed extend to the Brahmanical belief expounded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that the Self (Atman) is the Universal Self, or Brahman.They point to the Pali Alagaddūpama-sutta, where the Buddha argues that an individual cannot experience the suffering of the entire world.

Ambedkar,the Dalit leader who in 1935 declared his intention to convert from Hinduism to Buddhism and converted about 20 years later, rejected that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Ambedkar, while he was a Hindu and before he launched a new form of Buddhism, reinterpreted Buddha's teachings into what he called Navayana (New Vehicle), wherein he tried a Marxist interpretation of Buddha teachings. He founded and converted to a new version of Buddhism, a version which criticized and rejected Hinduism, but also Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism because, according to Ambedkar, they all misrepresented the Buddha.

To me,arguing on philosphy is intellectual masturbation.Buddha need not be a Hindu to be accepted into its fold because Buddha is part of the great Indian tradition where the Samkhya/Charvaka primeval Marxist philosphy ruled for 700 years.Hinduism even accepts that soulless philosphy part of its tradition.Hence,the ousted Rama advised his brother King Bharatha to  honour the Charvakas,the then Marxists,while knowing the Marxists are intolerant.Hence the many lives of Buddha makes the Indian tradition vibrant and exotic.

© Ramachandran 

MARUTHANAYAGAM-CONVERSION AS OPPORTUNISM

He Had Captured Puli Thevar Too

“The mutiny in Meerut, which many claim as India’s first war of Independence, took place in 1857. However, almost a 100 years before that rebellion broke out, Marudhanayagam took on the British. To stop him, the British had to spend an amount that is almost on par with the amount that the US had to spend to vanquish Saddam Hussein in recent times",said Kamal Haasan on Marudhanayagam,while he was on a project on the so called hero.

Marudhanayagam,was Muhammad Yusuf Khan thoughout his mature life.So why the movie is titled Maruthanayagam?To appease the Hindus?

The British had his body dismembered and his body parts displayed on the principal gateways of the city of Madura for a while before despatching it to various other places as a warning to others who might harbour thoughts of rebellion against them.

Kamal had shot 30 minutes of the film and two hours were left.His then wife Sarika was the costume designer.But why Kamal shelved his dream project?As a political analyst,I infer that the movie,if made would be in hot waters,because Marudhanayagam,a Vellala Pillai,had got converted into Islam,and for long years in his life,he was Muhammad Yusuf Khan.He is not a hero of Hindus,neither of the Tamils.For people of Travancore,he was a brabarian,who looted the state every season.

His life is a contrast to the life of Chempaka Raman Pillai,the modern day anti British warrior,who never changed loyalities,unlike Marudhanayagam-It is better Kamal do a film on Chempaka Raman Pillai.

There are different accounts and versions on Marudhanayagam, but one of the most extensively researched accounts happens to be by an Englishman called Samuel Charles Hill.Hill, in his book on Marudhanayagam tilted Yusuf Khan, The Rebel Commandant, says Marudhanayagam was born a Hindu at Pannaiyur in Ramnad district and that he ran away from home as a boy. Later, he converted to Islam and took the name Muhammad Yusuf aafter which he seems to have entered the services of a couple of Europeans.

Yusuf Khan tomb

Yusuf seems to have rendered  service, both as a military general and as an administrator. From the time he provided security to the convoys bringing supplies to the forts at Tirunelveli to the countless victories he won for the British, his services were ubiquitous. As a result, he was appointed Governor of Madurai and Tinnevelly. Yusuf Khan (1725 – 15 October 1764) or Maruthanayagam Pillai (correctly Mathuranayagam Pillai) was born in Panaiyur, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India in 1725. From humble beginnings, he became a warrior in the Arcot troops, later Commandant for the British East India Company troops. The British and the Arcot Nawab used him to suppress the Polygars (Palayakkarar) in the south of Tamil Nadu. Later he was entrusted to administrating the Madurai country when the Madurai Nayaks rule ended. Later a dispute arose with the British and Arcot Nawab, and three of his associates were bribed to capture Yusuf Khan; he was hanged in 1764 in Madurai.

Polygar (also spelled Palegara, Palaiyakkarar, Poligar, Palegaadu, Palegar, or Polegar, or Paalegaadu was the feudal title for a class of territorial administrative and military governors appointed by the Valmiki Nayaka rulers of Southern India (notably Vijayanagara Empire, Madurai Nayakas and the Kakatiya dynasty) during the 16th–18th centuries.

The Polygars of Madurai Country were instrumental in establishing administrative reforms by building irrigation projects, forts and religious institutions. The Polygars who worshipped the goddess Kali did not allow their territory to be annexed by Aurangzeb.

Their wars with the British East India Company after the demise of the Madurai Nayakas is often regarded as one of the earliest struggles for Indian independence. The British hanged many and banished others to the Andaman Islands. Dheeran Chinnamalai, Veerapandya Kattabomman, Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone, Puli Thevar, the Marudu brothers and Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy were some notable Polygars who rose up in revolt against the British rule in Southern India. The war against the British forces predates the Indian rebellion of 1857 in Northern India.

Maruthanayagam Pillai (or Mathuranayagam Pillai) alias Yusuf Khan was born circa 1725  in a Hindu farming family of Saiva Vellalar caste.Being too restless in his youth, he left his native village, and converted to Islam. To make a living, he served as a domestic hand at the residence of the French Governor Monsr Jacques Law in Pondicherry. It was here he befriended another French, Marchand (a subordinate of Jacques Law), who later became captain of the French force under Yusuf Khan in Madurai. Whether Yusuf Khan was dismissed from this job or left on his own is unclear. He left Pondicherry, for Tanjore and joined the Tanjorean army as a sepoy (foot soldier).

Around this time, an English captain named Brunton educated Yusuf Khan, making him a learned man well-versed in several languages. From Tanjore he moved to Nellore (in present day Andhra Pradesh), to try his hand as a native physician under Mohammed Kamal, in addition to his career in the army. He moved up the ranks as Thandalgar (tax collector), Havildar and finally as a Subedar and that is how he is referred to in the English records ('Nellore Subedar' or just 'Nellore'). He later enlisted under Chanda Sahib who was then the Nawab of Arcot. While staying in Arcot he fell in love with a 'Portuguese' Christian (a person of mixed Indo-European descent) girl named Maasa (?Marsha /?Marcia), and married her.

In 1751, there was an ongoing scuffle between Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, (who was the son of the previous Nawab of Arcot Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan hence the rightful claimant) and Chanda Sahib his relative and a pretender, for the throne of Arcot. The former sought the help of British and the latter the French. Chanda Sahib initially succeeded and became the Nawab, forcing Muhammed Ali to escape to the rock-fort in Tiruchirapalli. Chanda Sahib followed and with the help of the French, besieged Trichy. Muhammed Ali and the English force supporting him were in a grim position.

 

 Robert Clive, (who had earlier joined the East India Company as a writer) with a small English force of 300 soldiers made a diversionary attack on Arcot to draw away Chanda Sahib's army from Trichy. Chanda Sahib dispatched a 10,000 strong force under his son Raza Sahib to retake Arcot. Raza Sahib was aided by the Nellore Army and Yusuf Khan as a Subedar must have been in this force. At Arcot, and later at Kaveripakkam, Chanda Sahib’s son was badly defeated by Robert Clive, and it was now Chanda Sahib's turn to escape to Tanjore where he was killed by Mankoji, a Tanjorean general. The English quickly installed Muhammed Ali as the Nawab of Arcot and most of Chanda Sahib's native forces defected to the English.

Madurai during Yusuf Khan

Yusuf Khan's military career started during the Carnatic Wars. Under Major Stringer Lawrence, Yusuf Khan was trained in the European method of warfare and his natural talent in military tactics and strategy blossomed to its full potential.Over the next decade, as the Company fought the French in the Wars of the Carnatic, it was Yusuf Khan's guerrilla tactics, repeatedly cutting the French lines of supply, that did the French in, particularly during Lally's siege of Madras in 1758.Thomas Arthur Lally was to later describe the role of the Nellore Subedar's sepoys in these words: "They were like flies, no sooner beat off from one part, they came from another.

His greatest supporter during this period was George Pigot, the English governor in Madras. 

George Pigot

In March 1956 Yusuf Khan was sent to Madurai to collect taxes and restore order. But during that time Madurai was under control of one Barkadthullah of Chanda Sahib days, with the support of Hyder Ali of Mysore. During this time an old Fakir climbed the top of the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and was preparing to build a dargah for himself, which angered the locals. Barkadthullah justifying the Fakirs attempts further added fuel to the fire. During this time Yusuf Khan arrived with little as 400 troops to take control of Madurai, showing his brilliance in defeating Barkadthullah’s large army, with Barkadthullah fleeing to Sivaganga Zamin and the Fakir, got whacked out of the town.

Once again Yusuf reached Madurai on May 20, 1759, only to find the place in total chaos. He is believed to have restored order swiftly and was able to remit his rent regularly. 

Puli Thevar statue in  Nerkattumseval

During this time Yusuf Khan battled with Puli Thevar, (pronounced Pooli Thevar; the correct full name was 'Pooludaiya Thevar' or in short 'Poolu Thevar') a polygar of Nerkattumseval(Original Name was Nelkettaanseval), a small town to the south-west of Madurai. Puli Thevar was rebelling against the Nawab and the British. Yusuf Khan quickly separated Travancore Raja from Puli Thevar's group after entering into an agreement. Yusuf Khan captured several of Puli Thevar's forts which were earlier tried unsuccessfully by the British. Later in a battle Puli Thevar was captured by Yusuf Khan, however Puli Thevar disappeatred in Sankarankovil (some believe he disappeared in Sankarankovil Gomathi Ambal Sannithi ). It is believed that Puli Thevar  escaped to regions of Hyderabad Deccan along with his followers where he was planned to be hanged. Puli Thevar remains a legend in the area and no further details about him is available.

Hill in his book points out that apart from remitting his rent regularly, Yusuf Khan managed to create and equip a force with which he could take on the combined forces of the Nawab and the British.

Reports of Yusuf Khan's victories  filled the Arcot Nawab with jealousy and alarm that he might depose him. Yusuf Khan  instructed all the traders to render taxes directly to him, while the Arcot Nawab wanted to have taxes routed through him. The British Governor Pigot diplomatically advised Yusuf Khan to do as per Arcot Nawab’s order, also some British traders supported the same citing Yusuf Khan as Nawab’s employee. To make matters worse the Nawab’s brother Mahfuz Khan started planning to poison Yusuf Khan, with the whole hearted support of the Nawab.

In 1761, and again in 1762,Yusuf Khan  offered to lease Tinnevelly and Madurai for four years more at seven lakhs per annum. His offer was refused, and whether he was enraged at this, or whether he thought himself powerful enough to defy his masters, he shortly afterwards threw off his allegiance and began to collect troops in an ambition to be the lord of Madurai.

Charles Hill book 

Around this time some British traders reported  to the Nawab and the Company, on Yusuf Khan "as encouraging people with anti-British sentiments, spending vast sums on his troops”. Nawab, in turn with the British sent Captain Manson with orders to arrest Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan sent a note to Sivaganga Zamindari reminding them on their pending Tax arrears.Sivaganga’s Minister and General came to meet Yusuf Khan in Madurai, and after not getting their expected respect, got a rude warning, citing annexure of certain territories for the failure of arrears. The enraged Sivaganga Zamindar, immediately ordered Yusuf Khan to be “captured and hanged as like a dog”. Ramnad Zamin’s general Damodar Pillai and Thandavarayan Pillai met the Arcot Nawab in Trichy,complained on Yusuf Khan’s plunderings of Sivaganga villages, his cannon manufacturing plant in association with a certain French Marchaud, whom he a befriended earlier, with plans for a war against the Nawabs.

Arcot Nawab and the British quickly acted by amassing a huge army. For a start they aroused Travancore Raja against Yusuf Khan.In the ensuring battle the Travancore Raja was defeated and the British flags in his domains were chopped and burnt, and joined hands with the French and also hoisted the French flag on the Madurai Fort. When Governor Thomas Saunders in Madras called Khan for a meeting, he refused evoking the wrath of the East India Company.Delhi’s Shah and Nizam Ali of Hyderabad, the Arcot Nawab’s overlords proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the rightful legal governor of Madurai and Tirunelveli regions. Arcot Nawab along with the British was hell bent on finding a reason to capture and kill Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan had enemies lurking around him everywhere. Earlier working for the Arcot Nawab and British he earned the wrath of Mysore, and had slaughtered most of all rebellious Polygars who were anti-British, and the remaining were on the prowl. Now the Tanjore, Travancore, Pudukkotai, Ramnad, Sivaganga kingdoms joined with the British and the Arcot Nawab to attack Yusuf Khan, who by this time had proclaimed himself independent ruler of Madurai and Tirunelveli. In the First siege of Madurai in 1763, the English could not make any headway because of inadequate forces and the army retreated to Tiruchi citing Monsoons.

Nizam Ali of Hyderabad once again proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the Rightful governor, while the Arcot Nawab and the British issued death sentence for Yusuf Khan as “to be captured alive and hanged before the first known tree as like a dog”.

In 1764 again the British troops surrounded the Madurai Fort, this time cutting supplies to the fort.Yusuf Khan and his troops went without food and water for several days inside the fort,surviving on horse and monkey meat according to European sources,but held on with great energy and skill, renovating and strengthening the fort at great expense, and repelling the chief assault with a loss of 120 Europeans including nine officers,killed and wounded. At the end of that time little real progress against him had been made, except that the place was now rigorously blockaded.

The Arcot Nawab consulted Sivaganga General Thaandavaraaya Pillai, along with Major Charles Campbell, hatching a  plot to bribe Yusuf khan’s Dewan Srinivasa Rao, Marchand the captain of the French mercenaries and Khan’s doctor Baba Sahib. One morning, when Yusuf Khan was offering his prayers inside the fort, Marchand, Srinivasa Rao and Baba sahib went in quietly and pinned Yusuf Khan to the ground and tied him up using his own turban. Hearing this commotion, one youth called Mudali, close to Yusuf Khan, raised an alarm. He was quickly caught and cut down. As the news of the coup reached Yusuf Khan's wife, she rushed to the scene with a small posse of troops. But they were helpless against the well armed French and other European mercenaries, standing guard around the fallen ruler. Under cover of darkness and an even darker veil of secrecy, Marchand whisked away Yusuf Khan out of the fort and handed him over to Major Charles Campbell, who commanded the English among the besiegers. The major part of Yusuf Khan's native forces remained totally unaware of the fateful drama that had been enacted inside his house.

The next day, in the evening of 15 October 1764, near the army camp at Sammattipuram, on the Madurai- Dindigul road, Yusuf Khan was ignominiously hanged as a rebel by Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, the Nawab of Arcot. This place is about two miles to the west of Madurai, known as Dabedar Chandai (Shandy), and his body was buried at the spot.

What motives forced the three main conspirators, who were Yusuf Khan's close confidantes, to betray him? It is said that Yusuf Khan had once flogged Marchand with a whip (the first time a European officer had been whipped by a native ruler) and so he was waiting for an opportune time to take revenge. It is also possible that extreme misery of the people and soldiers inside the fort  might have forced the Dewan Srinivasa Rao and Baba Sahib, the physician of Yusuf Khan to decide that handing Yusuf Khan over to the English, would make them lift the siege and relieve the people of their intense agony and suffering.

Records show that the British tried to hang yusuf Khan thrice and twice the rope broke.Twice the noose broke down and he fell down alive, for which Yusuf Khan ordered the troops to remove a neck brace before hanging.The agitated Nawab ordered his men to chop his body into several parts and place them all over his domains. As went his head to Tiruchirappalli ,arms to Palayamkottai, legs to Tanjore and Travancore for public viewing and later buried at Periyakulam city near Madurai. The remaining body was buried at Madurai.In 1808, a small square mosque was erected over the tomb in Samattipuram, in Madurai, which exists to this day on the left of the road to Theni, at Kaalavaasal, a little beyond the toll-gate, and is known as 'Khan Sahib's pallivasal'. 

Hill's book sums up his life with this quote: “Of Yusuf Khan, there now remains only a little white mosque, a street in Madura known to the people by his name though officially it bears another designation and a fast fading memory of one who, though he died a rebel, had been a gallant and skilful soldier...."

Why Yusuf Khan got converted in the first place? We can only guess based on his other actions and the signs of those times. Between the fall of the Nayak Kingdoms and British take over, Tamil Nadu was total mess, with Arcot, Mysore, Palayakaras, Travancore, French, British, Dutch, Zamindars and all trying to feast on the pieces.

Each bent on betraying the other, making and breaking alliances turns and twists.

Yusuf Khan reminds us of the Condottieri ,mercenary adventurer captains, who switched allegiances by the day. French today, tomorrow Arcot. Day after the British-always looking to make money and aggrandize himself.

For such a person, faith is also matter of convenience. Being a Hindu in those tumultuous times would not have been any advantage and given his colour, Europeans hardly are going to accept him as one of his own.

Condottieri were Italian captains contracted to command mercenary companies during the Middle Ages and multinational armies during the early modern period. They notably served European monarchs and Popes during the Italian Wars of the Renaissance and the European Wars of Religion. Notable condottieri include Prospero Colonna, Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, Cesare Borgia, Andrea Doria, the Duke of Parma, and the Marquis of Pescara.

The term condottiero in medieval Italian originally meant "contractor", given that the condotta was the contract by which the condottieri put themselves in the service of a city or of a lord, but became a synonym of "military leader" during the Renaissance and Reformation era. Some authors have described Guido da Landriano (the real figure behind the legendary Alberto da Giussano) as the "first condottiero" and Napoleon Bonaparte (in virtue of his Italian origins) as the "last condottiero". According to this view, the condottieri tradition would span a huge diverse period from the battle of Legnano in 1176 to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Most historians would narrow it down to the years from c.1350 to c.1650, with a particular focus on the rise of the commanders of free companies (capitani di ventura) and their transformation into captain generals fighting for the major powers during the struggle for political and religious supremacy in Europe.

In 1494, the French king Charles VIII's royal army invaded the Italian peninsula, initiating the Italian Wars. The most renowned condottieri fought for foreign powers: Gian Giacomo Trivulzio abandoned Milan for France, while Andrea Doria was Admiral of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In the end, failure was political, rather than military, stemming from disunity and political indecision, and, by 1550, the military service condotta had disappeared, while the term condottiere remained current, denominating the great Italian generals (mainly) fighting for foreign states; men such as Gian Giacomo Medici, Ambrogio Spinola, Alexander Farnese, Marcantonio II Colonna, Raimondo Montecuccoli and Prospero Colonna were prominent into the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. The political practice of hiring foreign mercenaries, however, did not end. For example, the Vatican’s Swiss Guards are the modern remnants of a historically effective mercenary army.

The end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 and the birth of Westphalian sovereignty diminished Roman Catholic influence in Europe and led to the consolidation of large states, while Italy was fragmented and divided. The condottieri tradition greatly suffered the political and strategic decline of Italy and never recovered.

Portrait of a condottiero by Ermanno Stroiffi

Contrast Yusuf Khan with Puli Thevan.Puli Thevar, one of Yusuf Khan’s enemies, fought for his own heritage, land and freedom and died for it.Puli Thevan was a Tamil Polygar who ruled Nerkattumseval, situated in the Sankarankoil taluk, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. He is notable for fighting against the imperial British rule in India.Puli Thevar was born in the Maravar community in Puli Nadu, a part of Pandya Nadu.Venni Kaladi, was the general of Puli Thevar's army.

Yusuf Khan’s loyalties changed by the hour. Finally he grew too large for his boots and the same Nawabs and Colonials who aided his growth, ganged up on him and killed him.

He is not worthy of any honour, just because he was eventually killed by India’s oppressors.

While an adventurer’s story would be an exciting read/movie, Kamal Haasan maybe trying to make him into  some kind of an oppressed lower caste hero who rebels against his society, converts and fights against oppression. That is just hijacking an opportunist for his own agendas.

Going to the other conversion,Yusuf Khan had married a christian.

The Catholic Mission in North Arcot dates back to 1604. 

The last great prince of the declining Vijayanagar empire (now in Andhra Pradesh), Venkatapathy Deva Rayalu, conquered the kingdom of Vellore in January 1604 and named it Raya Elluru. Elapuri or Elluru in Telugu language would mean city or town. Raya Elluru was meant a town conquered by the king Rayalu and thus the town was named after him - combination of two words Raya and Elapuri.

There were then some Jesuit Fathers at the court of King Rayalu at Chandragiri. He took them also to his new court at Vellore. The word Vellore derives from the Tamil word ‘Vel’ which means 'spear'; according to another conjecture there were idols of Tamil God ‘Murugan’ holding ‘Vel’ in and around Vellore. Vellore was formerly called Velappadi (a place thickly surrounded by a particular tree called ‘Velamaram’) and for this reason and background the name Vellore came into existence. 

Ancient Jesuit documents show that among these Jesuits, there was one named Fr. Antonious Rubunus, a preacher and confessor, who was commuting between Chandragiri and Vellore. He was sent to Japan on 12th August 1642. On 22nd March 1643 he was killed at Nagasaki.

In 1610, there was a general upheaval against the Jesuits,because of persecution.It was due to the dishonourable conduct of the Jesuits that their residences both at Chandragiri and at Vellore were suppressed by a Royal order of the king Philip III of Spain and Portugal in 1611.

© Ramachandran 

THE ONLY ICS OFFICER WHO WAS DISMISSED

He Appointed Wife's Relative as Subordinate

Only one Indian Civil Service ( I C S ) officer was dismissed from service,that too for corruption-I M Lall of 1922 batch,Punjab cadre.He was removed as a disrict judge,by India Secretar Leo Amery,on 4 June 1940.A legal battle followedand was sent on compulsory retirement,after Independence.ICS had a judicial branch and India had quite a number of judges from ICS.K P S Menon,first foreign secretary belonged to K P S Menon's ICS batch.

In Punjab, the first four Chief Justices, post-Independence, were from the ICS, namely Eric Weston, a European ICS, AN Bhandari, GD Khosla and Donald Falshaw, another European ICS, who left in 1966.

I have collated here the details of the Lall dismissal from the verdict in the case by the Bombay High Court bench consisting of D U Parcq,Morton,M R Jayakar and J Thnkerrton.It was written by Thankerton.I M Lall had appealed against the decision by the Secretar of State for India and after Independence,the High Commissioner for India.The verdict was delivered on 18 March 1948, in the case The High Commissioner for India Vs I M Lall.

It was an appeal by special leave from an order of the Federal Court of India dated May 4, 1945, which varied a decree of the High Court at Lahore dated March 27, 1944.Lall,who had been a member of the Indian Civil Service since 1922, instituted the suit on July 20, 1942, against the Secretary of State for India, challenging the validity of an order by the latter dated August 10, 1940, which purported to remove Lall from the ICS.

The Federal Court of India was a judicial body, established in India in 1937 under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1935, with original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. It functioned until the Supreme Court of India was established in 1950. Although the seat of the Federal Court was at Delhi, however, a separate Federal Court of Pakistan was established in Pakistan in Karachi after the Partition of India. There was a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London from the Federal Court of India.

Leo Amery

In 1935 Lall was stationed in Hoshiarpur, where he enlisted one Sundar Das, a nephew of his wife, in the subordinate staff of one of the Courts under his control. Soon thereafter Lall took over charge as District and Sessions Judge at Multan. Early in April, 1937, Lall was transferred to be employed in the North-West Frontier Province. In September, 1937,Lall received a letter from the Judicial Commissioner, enclosing a letter from the Chief Secretary to the North-West Frontier Government, informing the Judicial Commissioner that the Punjab Government had decided to hold a departmental enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules into the conduct of Lall,while stationed at Multan during 1935-86, and that eight charges had been framed against him . The letter proceeded to ask that steps should be taken to serve the charges on Lall and that he should be asked to furnish within a reasonable time a written statement of his defence and to state whether he wished to be heard in person or not.

The eight charges were divided into two categories, the first of which alleged improper favouritism or nepotism in connection with Sundar Das ; the second category alleged improper victimization of certain of the junior officials who had protested against the attempted promotion of Sundar Das by an order of the respondent in December, 1936. At the end of each charge were indicated the witnesses or documents whereby it was proposed to attempt to prove the charge. Near the end there were two paragraphs interposed, which clearly related to all the charges and were as follows:

• That the above facts and his failure to offer any sufficient explanation up to the present are sufficient to prove that he had abused his position as an officer entrusted with power of appointment on behalf of the Crown to show favour to a relation of his to the detriment of other officials serving under him, in contravention both of the recognised principles governing the conduct of Government servants as well as of the express orders of Government, and that he further abused his position as an officer entrusted with powers of discipline over other officers of the Crown to persecute various persons who sought to protect their own interests in a legitimate manner.
• That he should show cause why he should not be dismissed, removed or reduced or subjected to such other disciplinary action as the competent authority may think fit to enforce for breach of Government rules and conduct unbecoming to a member of the Indian Civil Service.

After Lall's reply to the charges,J.D. Anderson, Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, was appointed to hold the departmental enquiry. Anderson examined Lall on June 10, 1938, in course of which Lall pleaded guilty to the first two charges, and, without any further examination of witnesses, he made his report on August 9,1938.As regards the remaining six charges, he found them unproven, but he indicated that he had not been able to make a full enquiry, and that a longer investigation, including a fortnight at Multan, and a further examination of documents were desirable before coming to final conclusions. Anderson's report was not disclosed to the respondent, and the Government appointed F.L. Brayne, Commissioner, Rural Reconstruction, Punjab, to complete Anderson's preliminary enquiry.

Frank Lugard Brayne (1882 – 1952) was an administrator in the Indian Civil Service (ICS) during the British Raj . A nephew of Lord Lugard, who was zealous in his attempts to improve what he considered to be a "backward" Africa (to fight against slavery and human sacrifice), Brayne had a similar evangelical outlook and was considered to be a maverick in the ICS. He attracted the opprobrium of both his colleagues and Indian people themselves in his attempts to improve the life of villagers in Punjab.Son of a priest,Brayne passed the competitive examination for appointment to the ICS in 1905. He was sent to the Punjab, where he worked for some time as secretary to Delhi Municipality during the period when the planning of New Delhi was underway.

After the war, Brayne returned to the Punjab and in 1920 he married Iris Goodeve, a daughter of Edgar Goble. He became district officer of Gurgaon, some 40 miles (64 km) from Delhi, at a time when the area, comprising a population of around 700,000, was suffering greatly from a recent influenza epidemic, a failed monsoon and the return of soldiers from the war. To counter the deprivation, Brayne initiated what became known as the Gurgaon Scheme, in which he hoped to alleviate the plight of peasants in all its aspects by encouraging and facilitating the idea of self-help. He wrote several books about this, including Village Uplift in India, Socrates in an Indian Village, Socrates Persists in India, and Socrates at School, as well as one comparing rural life in India with that of England. The scheme was not a success. Brayne's interventionism had a "missionary zeal".By 1937, Brayne was Commissioner for Rural Reconstruction in the Punjab and in 1940 he was Financial Commissioner (Development) there.

Brayne took the Lall matter up and wrote to the respondent on November 17, 1938, relative thereto. After various procedures, in which Lall took part, and in the course of which the Government refused to disclose Anderson's report to him, Brayne made his report on January 24,1939,in course of which he examined in detail all the eight charges, and found that the nepotism was " complete and deliberate," and that the charges of victimization were all fully proved.

The question was wheter these actions were in accirdance with Section 240 of the Act of 1935, whether the enquiries held by Anderson and Brayne were valid, and whether the Lall was afforded a reasonable opportunity of answering the charges.

On June 21, 1939, the Government of the Punjab sent the records of the enquiry, including Anderson's and Brayne's reports, to the Federal Public Service Commission, and expressed their opinion that Lall should be removed from the Indian Civil Service but should be granted a compassionate allowance. This Commission, in terms of Section 266(3)(c) of the Government of India Act of 1935, was consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving His Majesty in a civil capacity in India. Lall made representations to the Commission, protesting against the procedure of the enquiry and submitting arguments on the merits. The Commission, in a letter dated August 31, 1939, agreed with Brayne and the Government of the Punjab that no other conclusion was possible than that Lall had acted deliberately both in the matter of nepotism and the matter of victimization, and agreed that he should be removed from the service but should be granted a compassionate allowance, which should be equal to a two-thirds pension.

By Gazette Notification of August 10, 1940, Secretary of State for India directed the removal of Lall from the Indian Civil Service, and Lall was so informed by a letter of the same date.

The Chief Justice in Lall's case observed that at no time before his removal from the service was Lall allowed to see the reports of either Anderson or Brayne, nor was he informed that either the Punjab Government or the Federal Public Service Commission or the Government of India or the Secretary of State were definitely proposing on the basis of these reports to remove him from the service. He had received the general invitation to show cause against possible dismissal (amongst other possible punishments) included at the end of the charges originally served on him. But no opportunity to show cause against dismissal was given to him, after dismissal had passed from being a possible punishment to the punishment proposed and recommended. At no time was he given an opportunity, before dismissal, of making representations against the accuracy of facts found by Anderson or Brayne in their reports or against the adverse deductions drawn against him, particularly by Brayne.

Bombay High Court Verdict

From the Mumbai High Court oder:

Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, provides as follows :

240. (1) Except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is a member of a civil service of the Crown in India or holds any civil post under the Crown in India, holds office during His Majesty's pleasure.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed from the service of His Majesty by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(3) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him:

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply

(a)where a person is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(b)where an authority empowered to dismiss a person or reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause.

(4) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Crown in India holds office during His Majesty's pleasure, any contract under which a person, not being a member of a Civil service of the Crown in India, is appointed under this Act to hold such a post may, if the Governor-General, or, as the case may be, the Governor, deems it necessary in order to secure the service of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to him of compensation if before the expiration of an agreed period that post is abolished or he is, for reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post.

The terms " dismissal " and " removal from the service " were accepted as synonymous, and Lall did not maintain before the Board, as he had unsuccessfully maintained in the High Court and the Federal Court, that the appellant had not authority under the Constitution to remove a member of the Indian Civil Service from the service. The removal of the respondent was intended to operate by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 240.

Three important questions of construction arouse for decision, viz. 1st, Is Sub-section (1) of Section 240 qualified by Sub-section (3)? 2ndly, Is Sub-section (3) mandatory, or permissive? and 3rdly, What is the proper construction of the words in sub-section (3) "the action proposed to be taken in regard to him"?

Neither of these sections states its provisions to be an exception, but makes an express provision which is necessarily inconsistent with Sub-section (1) of Section 240. On the other hand, Sub-section (4) of Section 240 begins, "Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Crown in India holds office during His Majesty's pleasure...," which is clearly expressed as an exception, but the statutory provision which follows does not affect the terminability of the office. It provides for a payment of compensation in certain events, but does not curtail His Majesty's power to terminate at His pleasure. The appellant maintains that Sub-section (3) does not in terras make express provision such as is contemplated by Sub-section (1); but the opening words of Sub-sections (2) and (3)"No such person as-aforesaid " clearly indicate a qualification of, or exception to, an antecedent provision, which is plainly Sub-section (1). The court finds it difficult to deal with this contention irrespective of the decision of the next question. If Sub-section (3) is merely permissive, and not mandatory, there will be no substance in the first question; but, if Sub-section (3) is mandatory, the court is of the opinion that it would constitute an express provision of the Act, which would qualify the provisions of Sub-section (1) and provide a condition precedent to His Majesty's exercise of His power of dismissal provided by Sub-section (1).

In the second question, it will be necessary to refer to the position prior to the Act of 1935, when the relevant statutory provision was made by Section 96B of the Government of India Act, 1919, and, in particular, by Section (1), which provided as follows:

96B. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of rules made thereunder, every person in the civil service of the Crown in India holds office during His Majesty's pleasure, and may be employed in any manner required by a proper authority within the scope of his duty, but no person in that service may be dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, and the Secretary of State in Council may (except so far as he may provide by rules to the contrary) reinstate any person in that service who has been dismissed....

The later part of the sub-section gives a limited right of appeal, which is not relevant to the present purpose. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 96B, the Secretary of State in Council is empowered to make rules for regulating the classification of the civil services in India, the methods of their recruitment, their conditions of service, pay and allowances, and discipline and conduct.The enquiry in this case was conducted under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which were authorised by this subsection. Rule 55 provides:

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Service Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on a member of a Service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal Court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be. reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case.

He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority so direct, an oral enquiry shall be held. At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. All or any of the provisions of the rule may,, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived, where there is a difficulty in observing exactly the requirements of the rule and those requirements can be waived without injustice to the person charged.

Bombay High Court

It is to be observed that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 96B of the Act of 1919 are made "subject to the provisions of this Act and of rules made thereunder," that it makes express provision corresponding to Sub-sections (2) and (2) of Section 240 of 1935, but no express provision corresponding to Sub-section (3) of 1935 ; that matter was left to Rule 55. It is interesting to contrast two decisions of this Board, delivered on the same day in 1936. In Rangachari v. Secretary of State for India (1936) L.R. 64 I.A. 40 : S.C. 39 Bom. L.R. 688 it was held that a dismissal of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to that by which he -was appointed was contrary to the provisions of Section 96B, Sub-section (1), of the Act of 1919, and was bad and inoperative. Lord Roche, in delivering the judgment of the Board, said (at p. 53), " It is manifest that the stipulation or proviso as to dismissal is itself of statutory force and stands on a footing quite other than any matters of rule which are of infinite variety and can be changed from time to time."

In the other case, Rule Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India (1936) L.R. 64 I.A. 55 : S.C. 39 Bom. L.R. 690, it was held by the same Board that failure to comply with the rules made under Sub-section (2) of Section 96B of 1919 did not give any right of action. Lord Roche, in delivering the judgment of the Board, said (p. 64):

"Section 96B and the rules make careful provision for redress of grievances by administrative process, and it is to be observed that Sub-section (5) in conclusion reaffirms the supreme authority of the Secretary of State in Council over the civil service."

These considerations have irresistibly led their Lordships to the conclusion that no such right of action as is contended for by the appellant exists. They regard the terms of the section as containing a statutory and solemn assurance that the tenure of office, though at pleasure, will not be subject to capricious or arbitrary action, but will be regulated by rule.

Contrasting the provisions of Section 96B of 1919 with the provisions of Section 240 of 1935 their Lordships have no difficulty in holdingin agreement with both the High Court and the Federal Court that the provision as to a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed is now put on the same footing as the provision now in Sub-section (2) of Section 240, which was the subject of decision in Rangachari's case, and that it is no longer resting on rules alterable from time to time, but is mandatory, and necessarily qualifies the right of the Crown recognised in Sub-section (1) of Section 240 of 1935. The provisions of Section 96B (1), now reproduced as Sub-section (2) of Section 240 of 1935, and of Sub-sections. (2) and (3) of Section 240 are prohibitory in form, which is inconsistent with their being merely permissive.

The third question seeks the proper construction of the phrase "A reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him." It might be stated more narrowly as the meaning of "the action proposed to be taken." In their judgment, the High Court said, The plaintiff's contention is that this opportunity should have been afforded to him after the finding of the enquiring officer had been considered and the punishment decided upon. With this contention we are unable to agree.

Eight charges were served on the plaintiff and at the end he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed, removed or reduced or subjected to such other disciplinary action as the competent authority may think fit to enforce for breach of Government Rules and conduct unbecoming the Indian Civil Service. He was aware from the very start of the enquiry against him that removal from service was one of the various actions that could have been taken against him in the event of some or all the charges being established, and in this sense he was showing cause during the course of the enquiry against the action proposed. The plaintiff's contention that there should be two enquiries the first to establish that he had been guilty and the second to determine what should be the appropriate punishment, and that in each stage he should have reasonable and independent opprotunities to defend and show cause does not appear to be correct or intended by the Legislature.

In the Federal Court, Varadachariar J. agreed with the conclusion of the High Court on this question, but the majority of the Court held a contrary view, which is expressed by the learned Chief Justice as follows:

"It does however seem to us that the sub-section requires that as and when an authority is definitely proposing to dismiss or reduce in rank a member of the civil service he shall be so told and he shall be given an opportunity of putting his case against the proposed action and as that opportunity has to be a reasonable opportunity, it seems to us that the section requires not only notification of the action proposed but of the grounds on which the authority is proposing that the action should be taken and that the person concerned must then be given a reasonable time to make his representations against the proposed action and the grounds on which it is proposed to be taken. It is suggested that in some cases it will be sufficient to indicate the charges, the evidence on which those charges are put forward and to make it clear that unless the person can on that information show good cause against being dismissed or reduced if all or any of the charges are proved, dismissal or reduction in rank will follow. This may indeed be sufficient in some cases. In our judgment each case will have to turn on its own facts, but the real point of the subsection is in our judgment that the person who is to be dismissed or reduced must know that that punishment is proposed as the punishment for certain acts or omissions on his part and must be told the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action and must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such punishment should not be imposed."

Their Lordships agree with the view taken by the majority of the Federal Court, In their opinion, Sub-section (3) of Section 240 was not intended to be, and was not, a reproduction of Rule 55, which was left unaffected as an administrative rule. Rule 55 is concerned that the civil servant shall be informed " of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action," and to afford him an adequate opportunity of defending himself against charges which have to be reduced to writing ; this is in marked contrast to the statutory provision of "a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him." In the opinion of their Lordships, no action is proposed within the meaning of the sub-section until a definite conclusion has been come to on the charges, and the actual punishment to follow is provisionally determined on. Prior to that stage, the charges are unproved and the suggested punishments are merely hypothetical. It is on that stage being reached that the statute gives the civil servant the opportunity for which Sub-section (3) makes provision. Their Lordships would only add that they see no difficulty in the statutory opportunity being reasonably afforded at more than one stage. If the civil servant has been through an enquiry under Rule 55, it would not be reasonable that he should ask for a repetition of that stage, if duly carried out, but that would not exhaust his statutory right, and he would still be entitled to represent against the punishment proposed as the result of the findings of the enquiry.

On this view of the proper construction of Sub-section (3) of Section 240, it is not disputed that the respondent has not been given the opportunity to which he is entitled thereunder, and the purported removal of the respondent on August 10, 1940, did not conform to the mandatory requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 240, and was void and inoperative. It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider the respondent's challenge of the proceedings under Rule 55, and the questions of fact relative thereto.

The Federal Court altered the finding of the High Court, and made a declaration " that the plaintiff I.M. Lall was wrongly dismissed from the Indian Civil Service on June 4, 1940, and has further ordered that the High Court aforesaid do take such action in regard to any application duly made by or on behalf of I.M. Lall for leave to amend to claim damages as to the High Court shall seem right " ; and they remitted the case to the High Court.

In the opinion of their Lordships, the declaration should be varied so as to declare that the purported dismissal of the respondent on August 10, 1940, was void and inoperative, and that the respondent remained a member of the Indian Civil Service at the date of the institution of the present suit on July 20, 1942, Any further action by the Crown that may have occurred since the raising of the action is not covered by the present suit.

The appellant appealed against the order of remit to the High Court for the assessment of damages, and the order of remit by the Federal Court was not maintained by the respondent before this Board, but, on the other hand, he maintained that he was entitled to recover by this action his arrears of pay from the date of the purported order of dismissal up to the date of action. It is unnecessary to cite authority to establish that no action in tort can lie against the Crown, and therefore any right of action must either be based on contract or conferred by statute. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of Lord Blackburn in the Scottish case of Mulvenna v. The Admiralty [1926] S.C. 842, in which the learned Judge, after reviewing the various authorities, states:

"These authorities deal only with the power of the Crown to dismiss a public servant, but they appear to me to establish conclusively certain important points. The first is that the terms of service of a public servant are subject to certain qualifications dictated by public policy, no-matter to what service the servant may belong, whether it be naval, military or civil, and no matter what position he holds in the service, whether exalted or humble. It is enough that the servant is a public servant, and that public policy, no matter on what ground it is based, demands the-qualification. The next is that these qualifications are to be implied in the engagement of a public servant, no matter whether they have been referred to in the engagement or not. If these conclusions are justified by the authorities to which I have referred, then it would seem to follow that the rule based on public policy which has been enforced against military servants of the Crown, and which prevents such servants suing the Crown for their pay on the assumption that their only claim is on the bounty of the Crown and not for a contractual debt, must equally apply to every public servantsee Leaman v. King [1920] 3 K.B. 663, Smith v. Lord Advocate (1897) 25 R. 112, and other cases there referred to. It also follows that this qualification must be read, as an implied condition, into every contract between the Crown and a public servant, with the effect that, in terms of their contract, they have no right to their remuneration which can be enforced in a civil court of justice, and that their only remedy under their contract lies in an appeal of an official or political kind."

Their Lordships are of opinion that this is a correct statement of the law. In the present case there is no obligation as to pay in the respondent's covenant, as already mentioned. The respondent sought to establish a statutory right to recover arrears of pay by action in the civil Court; he made reference to certain sections of the Government of India Act, 1985, viz. Sections 179(9), 247 (4), 249 and 250, but it is enough to state that their Lordships are unable to derive from them any statutory right to recover arrears of pay by action. He also referred to Section 32 of the Government of India Act of 1919, which, by Sub-section (2), provides the same remedies against the Secretary of State in Council as might have been had against the East India Company if the Government of India Act, 1858, and the Act of 1919 had not been passed, but it has been settled ever since Gibson v. East India Company (1897) 5 Bing. N.C. 262, that pay could not be recovered by action against the Company, but only by petition, memorial or remonstrance. It follows that the respondent fails in his claim to arrears of pay.

Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the judgment and order appealed from should be varied by substituting, in place of the declaration made therein, a declaration that the order of August 10, 1940, purporting to dismiss the respondent from the Indian Civil Service was void and inoperative, and that the respondent remained a member of the Indian Civil Service at the date of the institution of the present action on July 20, 1942 ; that the order for a remit to the High Court should be set aside, and that otherwise the judgment and order should be affirmed. As prescribed by the Order in Council granting special leave, the costs of the respondent will be paid by the appellant as between solicitor and client. Their Lordships are not disposed to accede to, the application made by the respondent during the hearing, at which he was represented by counsel, to be allowed the costs of his coming over to this country from India.

Lall,later worked as an advocate in Punjab.

A case pertaining to his dismissal was still alive in 1974.It pertained to a case fo recovery of Rs 19,173.57.The subordinate judge class I had dismissed the suit on 27 November 1963.Delhi High Court Judge B C Misra set aside the lower court verdict in the appeal on 31 October 1974.

From this case,we get to know that when removed,Lall was given Rs I lakh as ex gratia payment and a compassionate allowance of at the rate of Rs 4693.50 per annum subject to a minimum of £ 440 per annum,during the period he had been out of service.Part of the compassionate allowance was commuted and the other part was paid in instalments.The commuted amount came to Rs 34026.06 thaough what paid to him was Rs 49,822.60 ( besides one lakh).The amount was paid against an undertaking given by him to refund if found he was not entitled to it.Later on the government discovered that it had over paid Rs 19753.57 and it claimed refund of the same.The government of Punjab and Government of India instituted a suit against Lall,on 31 May,1960.

Lall argued that the plaint was not properly signed,and the Government of Punjab had no locus standi to file it.He claimed that he had declared to be in service finally judgement of the Privy Council in March,1948 and that he was entitled to payment of his salary for the period and that the payment paid by the government disn't come to half his salary.He had never accepted the payment in full and final settlement of the claim,but only accepted it as part payment and has reserved his reserved his right to obtain the balance.He admitted to having received Rs 1,49,822 .60.

The Judge has recorded that the government had claimed that Lall was reinstated on 30 September 1948,which is incorrect.The High Court reversed the order of the lower court favouring Lall.Lall was removed on 4 June 1940.He filed a suit which resulted in the decision of his appeal by the High Court of Lahore.An appeal against this was taken before the Federal Court,wgich decided it.An appeal against this was taken to the Privy Council.The final decision by the Privy Council in the matter is reported in The High Commissioner vs IM Lall AIR 1948 PC 121.The Judicial Committee held that "removal of IM Lall from service was void and a declaration was granted that on the date of the suit,June 1942 he remained in service".In the eye of the law,thus Lall never had any break in service and his removal having been set aside,and eclared void,and declaratiion having been granted that he continued to remain in service,the legal effect was to treat Lall as in service during the whole period from the suit till the decision of the Privy Council.and until after legally terminated.During this period,he was entitled to receive salary.But e had not filed any suit for recovery of the salary,the Court observed.

M R Jayakar

M R Jayakar (1873- 1959 ) who sat in the bench in Lall case was the first Vice-Chancellor of the University of Poona,.Jayakar studied LL.B. in Bombay in 1902 and became a barrister in 1905 at London. In 1905 he was enrolled as advocate of the Bombay High Court. He was Director of The Bombay Chronicle along with Jinnah.

He was a member of the Bombay Legislative Council during 1923-1925, and a leader of the Swaraj Party. He also became member of Central Legislative Assembly. In 1937-1939 he was Judge of Federal Court of India at Delhi. In December 1946, he joined Constituent Assembly of India.He was also the chairman of Indian Road Development Committee, formed in 1927 to report some recommendations in the highway development. He was a member of Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha..He was elected to the Constituent Assembly on a Congress ticket from Bombay. However after a brief stint in the Assembly, he gave up his seat which Babasaheb Dr. B. R. Ambedkar then occupied.

In 1930, Jayakar and Tej Bahadur Sapru were involved in negotiations between Congress and the Government when Motilal Nehru and other Congress members were imprisoned. These negotiations are said to have led to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of March 1931 whereby Congress members were released from prison in return for the discontinuation of non-cooperation; the salt tax was removed and Congress members would be represented at the next Round Table Conference. Jayakar was a member of the Judicial Privy Council in London and attended the Round Table Conference in London in 1931.

In the Secretary of State of India vs IM Lall case in Federal Court in Delhi,the Bench consisted of Justices Petrick Spens C.J, Srinivasa Varadachariar and Muhammad Zafrulla Khan JJ.

The Indian Civil Service (ICS), for part of the 19th century officially known as the Imperial Civil Service, is the elite higher civil service of the British Empire in British India during British rule in the period between 1858 and 1947.

Its members ruled over more than 200 million people in the British Raj. They were ultimately responsible for overseeing all government activity in the 250 districts that comprised British India..The ICS was headed by the Secretary of State for India, a member of the British cabinet.

Leo Amery ( 1873-1955) was the Secretary of State for India who removed Lall.was a British Conservative politician and journalist, noted for his interest in military preparedness, British India and the British Empire and for his opposition to appeasement.During the Second Boer War Amery was a correspondent for The Times.Amery was Colonial Secretary in Stanley Baldwin's government from 1924 to 1929.During the Churchill war ministry Amery was Secretary of State for India despite the fact that Churchill and Amery had long disagreed on the fate of India. Amery was disappointed not to be made a member of the small War Cabinet, but he was determined to do all he could in the position he was offered. He was continually frustrated by Churchill's intransigence, and in his memoirs, he recorded that Churchill knew "as much of the Indian problem as George III did of the American colonies".

Amery opposed holding an inquiry for the 1943 Bengal famine, fearing that the political consequences could be "disastrous". In 1944, the Famine Inquiry Commission was held against his advice.

At first almost all the top thousand members of the ICS, known as "Civilians", were British, and had been educated in the "best" British schools. By 1905, five per cent were from Bengal. In 1947 there were 322 Indians and 688 British members; most of the latter left at the time of partition and independence.

Though the first exam for ICS was held in 1855 in London, not a single Indian, pejoratively called natives then, was there to take the exam because either Indians did not possess the required education and grooming or did not have the means to travel to London, which also included the expenses for boarding and lodging.

Besides, Indian society was superstitious and crossing oceans was considered a bad omen, especially among Hindus. Initially, the ICS was an all-white affair, but the elder brother of Rabindranath Tagore, Satyendranath Tagore, became the first Indian to qualify for the ICS in 1863.Most Indian ICS aspirants took loans to go abroad. In the late 1890s, the philanthropist JN Tata set up a scholarship/loan fund for Indians to study abroad, which included as a condition that they give the ICS exam (by 1924, over a third of all Indian ICS officers were Tata scholars).The first Indian to stand first in one of the two parts of ICS exam held in 1904 was Gurusaday Dutt of Bengal.

A O Hume

Sir William Wedderburn, ICS, of the 1859 batch, who remained judge of the Bombay high court and retired as chief secretary, Bombay Presidency (present day Maharashtra, Gujarat and Sindh province of Pakistan), along with retired director general of agriculture of Government of India, AO Hume, ICS, founded the Congress party in 1885.

Hume became its first president in 1885 whereas Wedderburn served as Congress president in 1889 and 1910.

The first person to qualify for the ICS exam from north India was Sir Shadi Lal Aggarwal of Rewari (Haryana), who was selected in 1902. It’s not well known that Sir Shadi Lal after his training in Haileybury resigned and started practicing as a barrister in Lahore. He later became a judge and chief justice of the chief’s court (later upgraded as Lahore high court on 21 March 1919).

In the 1920 batch of ICS, interestingly, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose stood fourth. Bose reported for training and resigned in April 1921, joined the freedom movement and became Congress president in 1938 and 1939 and also a legendary freedom fighter.

The competitive examination for entry to the civil service was combined for the Diplomatic, the Home, the Indian, and the Colonial Services. Candidates had to be aged between 21 and 24, which gave everyone three chances for entry. The total marks possible in the examination were 1,900. Successful candidates underwent one or two years probation in England, according to whether they had taken the London or the Indian examination. This period was spent at the University of Oxford (Indian Institute), the University of Cambridge, colleges in the University of London (including School of Oriental Studies) or Trinity College, Dublin, where a candidate studied the law and institutions of India, including criminal law and the Law of Evidence, which together gave knowledge of the revenue system, as well as reading Indian history and learning the language of the province to which they had been assigned.

Prior to the First World War, 95% of ICS officers were Europeans; after the war, the British government faced growing difficulties in recruiting British candidates to the service. Fewer and fewer young men in Britain were interested in joining, mainly due to the decreased levels of compensation to be had compared to other careers.Confronted with numerous vacancies, the government resorted to direct appointments; between 1915 and 1924, 80% of new British ICS candidates entered the service in this way. During the same period, 44% of new appointments to the ICS were filled by Indians.

Service Commission under the Government of India Act 1935) made several recommendations: ICS officers should receive increased and more comprehensive levels of compensation, future batches of ICS officers should be composed of 40% Europeans and 40% Indians, with the remaining 20% of appointments to be filled by direct promotion of Indians from the Provincial Civil Services (PCS) and the examinations in Delhi and London were to produce an equal number of ICS probationers. In addition, under-representation of candidates from Indian minority groups (Muslims, Burmese and so on) would be corrected by direct appointments of qualified candidates from those groups, while British candidates would continue to have priority over Indians for ICS appointments.

Broome with Swarup Kumari

At the time of the partition of India and departure of the British, in 1947, the Indian Civil Service was divided between the new Dominions of India and Pakistan. The part which went to India was named the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), while the part that went to Pakistan was named the "Civil Service of Pakistan" (CSP). In 1947, there were 980 ICS officers. 468 were Europeans, 352 Hindus, 101 Muslims, two depressed classes/Scheduled Castes, five domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians, 25 Indian Christians, 13 Parsis, 10 Sikhs and four other communities. Most European officers left India at Partition, while many Hindus and Muslims went to India and Pakistan respectively.

Despite offers from the new Indian and Pakistani governments, virtually all of the European former ICS officers left following partition, with the majority of those who did not opt for retirement continuing their careers either in the British Home Civil Service or in another British colonial civil service.]A few British ex-ICS officers stayed on over the ensuing quarter-century, notably those who had selected the "judicial side" of the ICS. The last British former ICS officer from the "judicial side" still serving in the subcontinent, Justice Donald Falshaw (ICS 1928), retired as Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court (now the Punjab and Haryana High Court) in May 1966, receiving a knighthood in the British 1967 New Year Honours upon his return to England. J P L Gwynn (ICS 1939), the last former ICS officer holding British nationality and the last to serve in an executive capacity under the Indian government, ended his Indian service in 1968 as Second Member of the Board of Revenue, but continued to serve in the British Home Civil Service until his final retirement in 1976.

Justice William Broome (ICS 1932), a district and sessions judge at the time of Independence in 1947, remained in Indian government service as a judge. Having married an Indian, Swarup Kumari Gaur, in 1937, with whom he raised a family, he eventually renounced his British citizenship in 1958 and became an Indian citizen with the personal intervention of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, himself a former barrister who regarded Broome as a distinguished jurist and as "much as Indian as anybody can be who is not born in India." Upon his retirement on 18 March 1972 from the Allahabad High Court as its seniormost puisne judge, Broome was the last former ICS officer of European origin serving in India.

Nirmal Kumar Mukarji (ICS 1943), a member of the final batch recruited to the ICS and who retired as Cabinet Secretary in April 1980, was the last Indian administrative officer who had originally joined as an ICS. The last former ICS officer to retire, Aftab Ghulam Nabi Kazi (also a member of the final ICS batch of 1943), retired as Chairman of the Pakistan Board of Investment in 1994. V. K. Rao (born 1914; ICS 1937), the last living ICS officer to have joined the service in a regular pre-war intake, died in 2018. He was a retired Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh and was the oldest former ICS officer on record at the time of his death. As of 2020, only one ICS officer remains alive- V.M.M. Nair (ICS 1942), who transferred to the Indian Political Service in 1946 and then to the Indian Foreign Service after Independence.


© Ramachandran