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 

NOTHING IS LEFT IN THE KERALA HEALTH MODEL

Kerala Sold Health Care to Corporates

With the handling of Covid-19 in a revolutionary manner, Kerala, a tiny state in South India is at the forefront of the struggle against the fight and has earned global attention. The Economist, where my son is a journalist, in an article remarked that if Vasco da Gama is to arrive in Kerala now, he will not seek the spices, instead he will crave human resources.

There is said to be a Kerala model, which economists like Amartya Sen have extolled in their writings, prompted by Dr K N Raj, who was Director, of the Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum. The Kerala model is one in which a state invests a lot of public money in the fields of health and education to give it free for the people. The left in the state has always tried to take credit for the same; in fact, the left's role in all this is minuscule. So let us delve into the medical history of the state, which was built by human resources, not by the right or left.

When Padmanabhan Palpu, who belonged to the backward Ezhava caste was denied admission to the Travancore Medical College in 1878, he got admission to the Madras Medical College where Dr M C Koman was a Professor. Dr Koman, who again belonged to the backward Dheevara caste from Kannur, later became the Vice Principal there.

Dr M C Koman

Sir MC Koman (1865 - 1925) Civil Surgeon at General Hospital Madras and also Associate Professor at Madras Medical College, submitted a Report on Investigation into Indigenous Drugs 1920, kept in the Asia Pacific section of British Archives. He is the only Knighted doctor from Southern India.

Ayurveda research

On 2 November 1915, A S Krishna Rao proposed a resolution in the Legislative Council of Madras Presidency, that the Madras government "direct a research and investigation of the Ayurvedic system of Medicine, to improve that system."It was passed in 1917, though in a much-revised form, "to direct a research and investigation of the pharmacological action of Indian drugs".The colonial rulers thereby expressed faith in the physical material of India, but not in the knowledge produced and recorded in, as Surgeon General G G Giffard put, it, "unintelligible" Sanskrit writings, a language of "priestly mysticism "and so clearly unsuited for scientific truths. Dr Koman was appointed as Chairman of the committee. The colonial plundering of native material with a rejection of indigenous forms of knowledge was manifested in many realms of activity, and medicine was no exception.

Koman submitted three reports, from 1918 to 1920. He considered a range of ingredients used for indigenous medicines and tested their effects on patients according to the standards of Western science. The Dravida Vaidya Mandal and the Madras Ayurveda Society protested and published a report which said, "the learned doctor had thoroughly failed to understand the indigenous systems and had grievously erred in many vital points."

Koman was initiated into the British Freemasons at the John Miller Lodge in Madras in the year 1898. He became District Grand Master of the District Grand Lodge at Madras in 1902, 1913 and 1914. He was the first Indian Worshipful Brother installed as Supreme ruler in Daman and Pythias Conclave (Primus in India) in 1910. invested with the Collar and Jewel of District Junior Grand Warden in 1918 honoured with Past Assistant Director of Ceremonies in 1923, and a Chair was created in Sir Koman's name at Madras Masonic Institution. He held a toast in a Cake and Wine dinner at the Banqueting Hall in honour of HE the Duke of Connaught in 1921. He was chosen Deputy Grand Master at the District Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in 1924. the third Indian to serve more than 25 years at John Miller Lodge. On the eve of the opening of Freemasons Hall at Madras in February 1925, Sir Koman's noble soul left its physical Tabernacle and flitted away into the land of peace.

Koman's relative V V Janaki was the first gynaecologist in South India, in 1909.

People like Koman could pursue medicine because people associated with the Thalassery British factory had established a hospital there in 1819. The hospital grew out of Oakes' work.

Rev Francis Spring, the Chaplain at Thalassery factory was part of the team that established the first school in Pallikkunnu, Thalassery on 25 June 1817, along with Parson John Laverock Oakes, Edbert (Canara), and Thomas Harvey Barber. The first schoolmaster was a Portuguese called John Baptist or Bapiste, a “native catechist,” who had four native assistants. Spring left for England in 1824. It was taken over by the CMS that year. In 1824, it contained 59 children of various castes and classes. Spring was able to take over control of the school to a greater extent in the years after 1820; it began to try to convert pupils to Christianity. John L. Oakes who was Master Attendant at Thalassery, died in about 1819, leaving 20,000 Rupees of his own fortune for the relief of the poor of Thalassery.

Palpu, LMS, DPH (Cantab) FRIPH (London) ( 1863 – 1950) was a bacteriologist and is iconic in the annals of medical history of India due to his yeoman service during the plague in the erstwhile Mysore State. Palpu was posted as the first health officer during the plague outbreak. He played a key role in containing the spread in Bangalore. The Maharaja of Mysore later felicitated Palpu for arduous service to the state and he was instrumental in setting up the Victoria Hospital (Bangalore Medical College) in Bangalore.He met Vivekananda in Mysore. It was Vivekananda who told him to find a religious leader in Kerala for its renaissance, and we got Sree Narayana Guru. But Guru's biographer T Bhaskaran denies this.

Dr Palpu

Palpu's brother P Velayudhan was the first Ezhava graduate in Travancore. Palpu was the first LM & S in the state. Palpu passed Matriculation in 1883, a year after the graduation of his brother, and while a student of FA (intermediate) he wrote the entrance exam of the government medical school in 1884 and got the second rank. But he was denied admission by caste Hindus. Over age was given the reason-born in 1863, he was 24 at the time of passing the entrance exam. He reached Madras on 10 October 1885. With the help of his brother who was employed in Madras, he got admission to the course, Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery in the Madras Medical College. Palpu passed in 1889, but his application for a medical post in Travancore was rejected. He joined the Madras government service as vaccine superintendent on a monthly salary of Rs 70.

The government Medical school, started in 1884, where Palpu studied was the forerunner of the later medical college. In 1901 Dr. Percy Turner (Colonel Dayanesan) was appointed as the Physician of Catherine Booth Hospital, Nagercoil. He opened the first private Medical School in Travancore under the approval and funding of the Travancore Government. The medical school lasted only a few years from 1908-1914, but many officers graduated from it. They were Brigadier T. Chacko Joseph and Senior Majors S. Ghanaiah and J. Manuel who were in charge of the branch hospital.

Dr C. O. Karunakaran, a notable bacteriologist and microbiologist, again from the Ezhava community, was the founder of Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He was the first principal of the college and was also the Special Officer appointed to establish the first medical university in the erstwhile state of Travancore-Cochin. Born in 1892 at Mavelikkara, C.O. Karunakaran had his initial schooling at Mavelikkara Government High School. After the intermediate in Maharaja's College, Ernakulam he joined Madras Medical College for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.

C O Karunakaran

.

Following his study at Madras Medical College, he completed DTMH, DPH and DB from the University of Cambridge and the University of London. He worked for a short period as the Medical Officer of an estate and then as the Health Officer of Thiruvananthapuram. Later he took over as the Superintendent of the Public Health Laboratory near the Civil Hospital (present Trivandrum General Hospital) at Thiruvananthapuram. Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyer realising his abilities, sent him to the United States of America for industrial training. When he returned he improvised the laboratory and in 1948, he was appointed as the Special Officer for establishing the first medical college in the state of Travancore-Cochin at Trivandrum. With his effort the plans for the construction of the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram were finalised in a year and construction of the college was completed in just 16 months, once again proving the mettle of Sir CP.

Family planning

The first call for family planning in India was by Dr. C.O. Karunakaran in his famous Karthikapally speech in 1925. He died on 30 November 1970. In his will, he had stated that no state honours or religious rituals be performed at his funeral. It also stated that the body should not be kept for more than six hours. He was the son of Alumoottil Padeetathil Ummini Kunju Channar and Kunjupennu Channati. His elder brother C.O. Madhavan was the Chief Secretary and Mayor of Thiruvananthapuram city. His younger brother Dr. C.O. Damodaran was the Commissioner of the Kerala Public Service Commission.

I have traced examples from the backward caste to prove the point that casteism was not rampant in the state factor which made progress easier. Hence Narayana Guru said, "It was the British who gave me sannyasa."

Medieval Kerala shows us that ‘practising hygiene’ was imposed as a responsibility and duty of different castes to have proper management of the caste hierarchy and gender-related functions. The pursuit of hygiene had been central to the community formation, purity of the self and community and integrity as well. Development of notions like ‘personal hygiene’, ‘domestic hygiene’, ‘social hygiene’, ‘ritual hygiene’, and ‘caste hygiene’ was maintained by rigid maintenance of the ritual, geographical, legal and actual boundaries in the name of “pulayappedi” and “parayappedi.” Through proper facilitation of ‘self’ and ‘other’ this practice was continued as late as the nineteenth century. Practices like constructing strange notions regarding the functioning of the female body, the biological change, the menstrual cycle and distancing it with ‘purity’, and so on were nurtured by different communities.

Medieval Ayurvedic sources such as Chikitsa Manjari (Manipravala period)48 and Mahasaram (compiled in the 1820s) are compilations of ancient and medieval practices of hygiene and medicine. These texts give us valuable information about the actual Ayurvedic medical practices that prevailed in medieval Kerala. Chikitsa Manjari was originally a Manipravala text which is not available now, but the printed copy of the same is available with many medieval Ayurvedic families such as Mezhathur Vaidya Madom in Thrithala. Ashtanga Hridaya and Ashtanga Sangraha, written by Vagbhatantha (between A.D. seventh and ninth century)49 also give ideas of dosha-based actual practices that were very prominent in the medieval healing practices in Kerala.

The British occupied Malabar in 1792.

Modern medicine in Kochi

Ernakulam General Hospital in the state of Kerala in India, was founded by the King of the Kochi princely state in 1848. The last King of Cochin was known as Parikshit Thampuran (1876-1964). Though his real name was Rama Varma (Kunjunni) Thampuran, he was known as Parikshit because of the travails he had to undergo before his birth. He went through the kind of experiments the Pandava king, Parikshit of Mahabharatha had to undergo before his birth.

Thampuran's mother, Amba/Manku Thampuran was not able to deliver the child even after two days after she started having labour pain. When the Ayurvedic medication by Thycaut Moos and Elamana Krishna Menon, was found fruitless, the family members decided to bring Dr D Gunther, Medical Officer, and father of Robert Gunther, from Ernakulam, and other doctors from the Cochin Fort, to do an operation. Dr Gunther said that they would be able to save either the mother or the child. The family began praying to the presiding deity, Sree Poornathrayeesa. Then, a Kshatriya lady (Nambishtathiri) servant in the Palace who was an expert in the ottamooli (treating with one wonder drug) treatment, came forward and said she would make a try. Dr Gunther grinned; he went to a room and sat there waiting for the tragic end.

The servant searched the Palace compound, made a juice with some medicinal plants, carried it on a wooden plank and entered the Queen's room. Within minutes, the cry of the newborn made the Palace jubilant-the mother had a sudden, easy delivery. Only Dr Gunther was unhappy. T M Chummar, who knew the King very well, records that, it was the famous Vaidya Madom Nambudiri, who experimented with a wonder drug, and it was before the arrival of the doctors.

Parikshit Thampuran with the Jews/Painting in Kochi Synagogue

The first attempt to introduce modern medicine was made in Cochin in 1818 by a missionary, Rev J Dawson, who opened a dispensary in Mattancherry. It received a monthly grant from the government, but it was closed after a couple of years. In 1823, the Civil Surgeon of British Cochin was made ex officio Darbar physician, and a Dresser was attached to the jail at Ernakulam, while the Trichur jail was placed in the charge of the Dresser attached to the British Military detachment there. These three people began to show the advantages of modern medicine and surgery. In 1845, Dewan Sankara Warrier opened the first Government Hospital, the Charity Hospital in Ernakulam, which was developed into the present General Hospital. Just a year before the birth of Parikshit Thampuran, in 1875, a hospital was opened at Thrissur.

Kerala has a long history of organized health care. Before the advent of European medicine, families of practitioners of indigenous systems like Ayurveda handed their traditions from generation to generation. People were accustomed to approaching caregivers when they were sick, rather than turning to self-treatment. When the colonial powers established their presence in the region, they brought their medical system with them. In the 19th century, the princely rulers of the erstwhile states of Travancore and Cochin (which later were integrated into the state of Kerala along with the Malabar district of the Madras presidency in British India) took the initiative in making the Western system of care available to their subjects.

Gowri Laksmi Bayi

Vaccination was introduced in Travancore in 1811. This was the beginning of preventive medicine in the state. There was a lot of resistance from the public to the introduction of Western medicine. The royal family was prompted to act as a role model for popular acceptance. Upon the persuasion of the Resident, members of the royal family underwent smallpox vaccination in 1813, when Col John Munro was Resident and Queen Gowri Laksmi Bayi (1810-1815), mother of Swati Tirunal was Regent. Western medicine was introduced as a preventive care as vaccination against smallpox. Munro was, of course, interested in proselytisation. Maharani Ayilyam Thirunal Gouri Lakshmi Bayi was the Maharani of Travancore from 1810 till 1813 and Regent from 1813 till her death in 1815 for her son Swati Thirunal Rama Varma.

The widespread occurrence of smallpox and continuous pressure from Munro forced the Regent, who was rumoured to have an affair with Munro, to start a smallpox unit with a resident doctor. Munro reported to the Madras government:
"I wrote to her Highness earnestly requesting that she would allow herself to be vaccinated, and I sent a medical gentleman to Thiruvananthapuram to perform the operation. The Rani replied as she formerly had smallpox, it was unnecessary to vaccinate her; if however, I insisted upon her undergoing the operation, she would submit to it on my return to Thiruvananthapuram and in the meantime the doctor might vaccinate..."

In the beginning, only the members of the royal family and the Government officers received the benefits of this method of treatment. With the help of the Durbar physician Dr. Proven, the Maharani established a small section for vaccination in 1813, thus laying the foundation for preventive medicine in the State.

During the reign of the Rani, the attitude which prevailed in the royal family and among the public about socializing with foreigners changed. European doctors were allowed to treat women as members of the royal family. Dr. Proven was the first person appointed as the physician of the royal palace at Quilon (Kollam) and Dr. James Rose was appointed as the deputy physician at the palace. Rani Parvathi Bai (1814 – 1829), established a charity dispensary at Thycaud in 1816 where the jail convicts were treated first.

In Travancore

In 1818, two small dispensaries were opened, one in the palace and the other within the premises of the Nayar Brigade barracks. The Brigade hospital supervised by the Brigade commandant extended medical services to the military. A free dispensary was also opened under the supervision of the military medical officer at Quilon. Rama Varma Swati Thirunal Maharaja (1829 – 1847) established a charitable Hospital at Thykaud under the responsibility of the residency surgeon and provided free medical treatment to the people there.

Cholera started wreaking havoc in Bengal in 1819 and soon spread to Bombay and Bangalore. When it was felt that the disease would soon reach Travancore, the then ruler Regent Queen Maharani Gowri Parvathy Bayi (1815-1829) sought the help of the English East India Company to contain the scourge. Learning that foreign and allopathic doctors were at the forefront of the efforts to control cholera in big cities, she started plans to contain it. There were very few doctors trained in modern medicine in Travancore. Dr William Brown, Dr Gayle and Dr Muthuswamy are among them. Maharani decided to bring preventive English medicine from Madras and distribute it through traditional healers,vaidyans. On the 12th day of the month of Thulam in the Malayalam year 994 (1820), Dewan Janardanarayar Venkittayyar issued a proclamation stating that Allopathy doctors should train traditional healers.

Dr Brown, who was paid Rs 460 by the East India Company, was allotted another Rs 200 as salary to stay in Thiruvananthapuram. Those trained were appointed to the post of Medical pupil.

Dr Brown was the son of a Danish missionary, Dr John. Dr Brown wrote a book, Propagation of Christianity Among the Heathens in 1814, proving modern medicine had a religious content.

Marthandavarma

Uthram Thirunal Marthandavarma, who ruled Travancore from 1846 to 1860 had a great affinity for English medicine; he got a human skeleton carved out of ivory in 1853 to study anatomy and osteology. Social customs barred him from touching corpses and bones. Created by a craftsman, the skeleton is displayed now at the Natural History Museum on the Zoo campus. Travancore Dewan Peishcar, P Shangoonny Menon, in his History of Travancore from Earlier Times, has recorded that Marthandavarma had even run a private dispensary, where he treated people, carried out minor surgical operations, vaccinated his palace attendants with his own hands and distributed English medicines when he was Elaya Raja or heir apparent. He also set up a laboratory which had various apparatus and chemicals purchased from other parts of the globe His friendship with the Residency surgeon Dr Brown helped him study modern medicine. Even after Dr Brown left for England, Marthandavarma indulged in self-study by procuring and reading the works of eminent authors. He procured medicines from the Durbar physician's dispensary and used them for treating his own attendants and their families.

With the prince spending a large amount of time at his dispensary, people, especially those belonging to the Hindu community, preferred this institution to a government charity hospital.

Though upper-class Namboothiri Brahmins would not even touch English medicines under the idea that most of the liquid substance contained spirits, they began to take them freely from the prince's dispensary.

Brahmins, who visited Travancore as part of various religious ceremonies, spread the news of the medical knowledge of the prince and the virtues and effectiveness of European medicines in Malabar (north Kerala) and other neighbouring princely states.

The royal's dispensary was the only resort of outside-state Brahmins for medical aid while coming for Murajapam, an auspicious ritual conducted in Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple here every six years.

Records also showed that Utram Thirnal successfully treated his brother and the then king Swati Thirunal, when he suffered from diarrhoea.

A three-month-long treatment under him also cured the chronic dyspepsia of a 'Gouda Brahmin Sastri,' who came here for Murajapam from Benaras.

The prince's laboratory had glass retorts, boilers, evaporating dishes, crucibles of different kinds, and many other things necessary for conducting chemical experiments.

There was also a powerful electric machine, a galvanic battery, an air pump, and an ice-making machine besides several kinds of optical instruments, such as stereoscopes of various sorts, telescopes of sizes and opera glasses.

The charity dispensary started by Swati Thirunal in the palace continued to function under the name Elaya Raja’s Dispensary until the Fort Dispensary was established. Seven hospitals were opened in different parts of the State. The people thronged to these hospitals as they got free food and good treatment. The Medical Department which was thus started made rapid advances during the early years of the reign of Ayilyam Thirunal Maharaja (1860 – 1880). He laid the foundation stone for the civil hospital in 1864. This later developed into the present General Hospital. In the same year, the Palace Medical Officer was put in charge of the Medical Department. The civil hospital was under the direct supervision and control of the Durbar Physician, Dr. H.M. Ross.

Cholera arrived in Travancore even as people were dying in the hilly areas of the north and south due to malaria and smallpox. The rulers of Travancore realised that the local treatment methods were ineffective against the combined threat posed by the three epidemics. As a result, hospitals offering free allopathy treatment (Dharmasupathri/charity hospital) were opened in various parts of the state. They included the Army hospital inside the Fort in the Malayalam era in 994 (1819 ) and the other hospitals in Kollam in 995 (1820), Thycaud in 1012 (1837), and Nagercoil in 1015 (1907).

Swati Thirunal

Travancore King Swati Thirunal died on December 27, 1846. His condition began deteriorating on Christmas. He resorted to fasts and abstained from food. He denied audience to all including family members and personal physician Dr Colin Peterson.

Dr Achutsankar S Nair, a bioinformatics expert who sings Carnatic music brilliantly, and Catherine Logan have jointly published a paper, Colin Peterson and his Medical Report of Travancore (1842). Catherine is related to Peterson(1815-1863). We have seen Peterson was never allowed inside the Raja's chamber. In the paper, they said:

"In 1846, a few months before Swati Thirunal's demise, it is known from several advertisements that appeared in London Times that Colin Peterson administered a drug marketed by Holloway on Swati Thirunal."

Holloway's ointment is known to have been created by Thomas Holloway, who termed it a 'cure anything' ointment and made him rich. It is also today known that Holloway's medicines contained aloe, myrrh and saffron, which are unlikely to cure anything in the modern view. However, the diseases claimed to be cured are pointers to the medical conditions of Swati Thirunal and require further research by medical practitioners.

Gowri Parvathy Bayi

Travancore society in the earlier periods was confronted with a lot of communicable diseases which shook the Travancore society and led to the increase of death rate. The year 1895 recorded the highest figure in the death rate being 19.52 per million. In 1896 and the following year the ratio fell to 15.01 and 15.72 respectively and 13.63 in 1898. After 1898 the figures began to improve on account of the unusually severe prevalence of cholera and smallpox. 

A Medical school was also opened in 1869 in the capital to improve the education of the officers in the department. A new mofussil hospital was opened in Quilon (1870 – 71) with accommodation for patients. This hospital stood as the first mofussil hospital in the State. At first Deputy Surgeon of the Madras Presidency supervised the functioning of the hospitals in the State but later, the Durbar Physician was entrusted with that responsibility.

The earliest record of the ravages of cholera in Travancore was in 1869. The epidemic spread from the south along the main and diverging lines of communication to upwards of fifty miles north of Trivandrum causing very heavy mortality, especially among the aged and infirm and continued to prevail in the southern districts till the beginning of 1888 after which it died out. In1888. There was a terrible epidemic 6,587 cases were reported in the Taluks of Tovala, Agasteeswaram and Eraniel with 2, 101 authenticated deaths. Having at the beginning of the year prevailed in a sporadic form almost throughout the country, it laterally reached the fishing villages on the seacoast and assuming the character of an epidemic of a severe type affected the whole of the southern division causing great loss of life. After 1890 there had been a marked decline in death from this epidemic.

The infection of cholera represented by some specific morbid material is often brought into Travancore with the influx of pilgrims in connection with Saint Xavier's festival at Kottar and the Car Festival at Suchindram. At both these festive gatherings, the conditions of insanitation are crucially so pronounced as to render every facility for the growth, development and dissemination of the disease to all parts.

The year 1890 witnessed a serious epidemic costing 10,508 lives and affecting practically the whole state. The disease has continued ever since as a constant menace with alternating manifestations of mildness and virulence. In 1927 another furious outbreak over-ran South Travancore and also the Taluks of Trivandurm, Chirayinkizh and Shenkotta claiming altogether 10,727 victims.

A royal proclamation of 1879 by Ayilyam Thirunal made vaccination compulsory in Travancore for public servants, prisoners and students.

All heads of public departments were instructed to see that those under their care and control were vaccinated. Administrative reports indicate that public health authorities were also concerned about the spread of cholera during fairs and festivals, and initiated measures of containment.

During the short reign of Visakam Thirunal Maharaja (1884 – 1885), many statutory changes were introduced in the Medical Department and he established one medical centre for every 277 square miles in the State. There were thirty-one medical institutions in the State at the end of his reign. Maharaja Sree Moolam Thirunal (1885 – 1924) took several measures for the extension and improvement of the State Medical Department. He began a system of grant-in-aid to private medical institutions. During his rule, a nursing training school named the Victoria Jubilee Medical School began to function in Quilon which trained girls belonging to several castes. The Maharaja made arrangements at the Quilon hospital to train many more midwives and nurses. He contributed a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the training school. A fort dispensary was instituted by the Maharaja in 1886 – 1887 to treat the women living in proximity to the Maharaja’s palace who hesitated to go to the General Hospital. The Medical Department was strengthened by the appointment of three qualified officers, two of whom were licensed by the Madras University and one was an Apothecary of the Medical College. A small Maternity Hospital was opened as an annexe to the Zenana Mission Hospital in 1888 –1889. As the institution became popular and gained wide recognition, the maternity section was removed from the General Hospital and made into a separate institution.

In 1889, the Medical Department was reorganised and reformed at an additional annual cost of Rs 28,000 During this period of reorganization, a large number of compounders were employed to help the medical officers. A separate officer designated as the chemical examiner was appointed and the Durbar Physician was relieved from that work. A class for educating the compounders was opened in 1890. Though the course was abolished in 1893, all the hospitals were provided with compounders by this time. Accommodation for patients was provided in most of the mofussil dispensaries during 1893 – 1894 and a separate hospital for women and children was opened in the next year.

During the same period, the midwifery centre was shifted from the General Hospital to a new building near Trivandrum Museum and sub-assistant Surgeon Dr John Gomez was put in charge. In 1894 the Maharaja invited a lady doctor to take charge of the women and children’s hospital and recommended that a separate hospital managed by women staff should be established in Trivandrum for the benefit of women and children. In 1895 –1896, a separate Department was formed to control vaccination, collect vital statistics and provide proper sanitation in towns. A separate hospital for patients with incurable diseases was opened at Oolampara in 1896 and certain drugs like Quinin and Chlorodine were distributed to the public through the anchal (postal) office. Again in 1897 – 1898, a thorough re-shuffling was conducted by increasing the strength of the medical staff.

Sree Moolam Thirunal Maharaja decided to constitute the code of rules for the Medical Department. On the direction of the Maharaja, a Medical Code was prepared by the Durbar Physician and principal medical officer Dr. White in the year 1898. In 1906, the services of eight European Nursing Sisters were made available in the hospitals. Later on in 1908, the Victoria Jubilee Hospital was placed under the direct supervision of a female Assistant Surgeon. The Maharaja sanctioned an annual donation to several private medical institutions given the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign. Of these private medical institutes the Nagercoil Dispensary of the London Missionary Society, the Charity Hospital at Alapuzha, the Archbishop’s Hospital near Varapuzha, the Planter’s Hospital at Aryanad and the Local Fund Dispensary at Bodinaikkanur deserve special mention. At the close of 1915, the State maintained twenty-seven hospitals and twenty-six dispensaries.

Sreemoolam Thirunal

Spanish Flu in Travancore

The influenza epidemic of 1918-1919, better known as the Spanish flu of 1918, also almost spared Kerala. The census report of Travancore then is silent on the influenza deaths. But it took its toll in the neighbouring state of Madras. The 1921 census report of Travancore, South India, says:

“Influenza, to which about 6 million of people succumbed in places outside Travancore, affected the state only slightly and was not attended with high mortality”.

The report is silent on the death toll. The fever deaths during 1920-21 were 17, 377 and 15,210 in 1921-22. The duration of the pandemic was very long in Malabar. The mortality rate there was 10-20% per annum, per 1000 people.

The Tirunelveli district of Madras, adjoining Travancore was devastated. It, which had a population of 19 lakh in 1921, had 12,798 fever deaths, mainly due to the flu.

The cholera epidemic of 1927 had proved the need for a more efficient public health organization to grapple with and control such emergent situations as efficiently and speedily as possible. The combating of cholera was one of the most prominent objects of the Public Health Department. The last epidemic of cholera occurred in 19358 causing altogether 11,792 attacks and 6,056 deaths. P Kumaran Nair the Medical officer of health was deputed for cholera special duty. The Public Health Laboratory supplied 7, 07, 875 c.cs.of cholera vaccine for carrying on a Mass Inoculation Campaign as a result of which the epidemic subsided within a shorter period, causing only a much lower incidence than in the case of the previous years.

In 1928, under the auspices of the Travancore government and with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation, parasite surveys were conducted in Travancore which led to measures to control hookworm and filariasis. A health unit incorporating many of the concepts of primary health care was also started in a rural area. The development of health services was not confined to the provision of preventive care – the general hospitals in Trivandrum and Cochin are more than 150 years old. Initiatives were also taken to get members of the respective states who were trained in Western medicine into key posts in the government service.

Mary Punnen Lukose

The appointment of Dr Mary Punnen Lukose (1886-1976) as the surgeon-general of Travancore in the early years of the 20th century is a case in point. A doctor trained in England, she was the first woman to be appointed surgeon-general in an Indian state, at a time when women doctors were still a rarity in Europe and America. Mary Poonen Lukose was an Indian gynaecologist, obstetrician and the first female Surgeon General in India. She was the founder of a Tuberculosis Sanatorium in Nagercoil and the X-Ray and Radium Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, served as the head of the Health Department in the Princely State of Travancore and was the first woman legislator of the state. Her father, T. E. Poonen, was a medical doctor, the first medical graduate in Travancore and the Royal Physician of Travancore state.

She had topped the matriculation examination. However, she was denied admission for science subjects at the Maharajas College, Thiruvananthapuram (present-day University College Thiruvananthapuram) for being a woman and had to pursue studies in history on which she graduated (BA) in 1909 as the only female student of the college and the first woman graduate of Madras University which Maharajas College was affiliated to. As Indian universities did not offer admission to women for medicine, she moved to London and secured an MBBS from London University, the first woman from what would later become Kerala to graduate in medicine. She continued in the UK to obtain MRCOG (gynaecology and obstetrics) from Rotunda Hospital, Dublin and underwent advanced training in paediatrics at the Great Ormond Street Hospital. Later she worked in various hospitals in the UK and simultaneously pursued music studies to pass the London Music Examination.

Mary returned to India in 1916, the year her father died] took up the post of an obstetrician at the Women and Children Hospital, Thycaud in Thiruvananthapuram and also worked as the superintendent of the hospital, replacing a westerner who had returned to her native place after marriage. During her tenure at Thycaud Hospital, she initiated a midwifery training program for the children of local midwives to win over their support and is known to have delivered her firstborn at the hospital. In 1922 she was nominated to the legislative assembly of Travancore, known as Sree Chitra State Council, thus becoming the first woman legislator in the state. Two years later, she was promoted to Acting Surgeon General of the state of Travancore, making her the first woman to be appointed as the surgeon general in India. She continued at the hospital till 1938 during which time she was nominated to the state assembly continuously till 1937. In 1938, she became the Surgeon General, in charge of 32 government hospitals, 40 government dispensaries and 20 private institutions. She is reported to have been the first woman to be appointed as the surgeon general in the world; the first woman surgeon general in the US was appointed only in 1990.

The work of Dr Howard Somervell who came to Travancore after scaling the Everest, was remarkable. Theodore Howard Somervell OBE, FRCS (1890 1975) was an English surgeon, mountaineer, painter and missionary who was a member of two expeditions to Mount Everest in the 1920s, and then spent nearly 40 years working as a doctor in India. In 1924 he was awarded an Olympic Gold Medal by Pierre de Coubertin for his achievements in mountaineering (Alpinism).

Somervell was born in Kendal, Westmorland, England to a well-off family which owned a shoe-manufacturing business founded by two SOMERVELL brothers in Kendal in 1845, that survives to this day, K Shoes. After completing his schooling, he studied at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge where he developed his strong Christian faith and gained First Class Honours in the Natural Sciences Tripos. He then began training as a surgeon at University College Hospital; eventually graduating in 1921 after his training had been interrupted by the First World War. He married Margaret Hope Simpson (1899–1993), daughter of Sir James Hope Simpson, the general manager of the Bank of Liverpool.

Between 1915 and 1918 Somervell served in France with the Royal Army Medical Corps. He was commissioned as a lieutenant with the West Lancashire Casualty Clearing Station on 17 May 1915, having previously been a member of the University of London Officer Training Corps. He was Mentioned in Despatches, but the horrors of the war had a profound effect on him. During the Battle of the Somme in 1916 he was one of four surgeons working in a tent, while hundreds of wounded men lay dying on stretchers outside. On short breaks from surgery, he spoke with some of the dying men and noted that not one asked to be treated ahead of the others. The experience turned Somervell into a pacifist, a belief he continued to hold for the rest of his life. He relinquished his commission in 1921, by which time he held the rank of captain.

Somervell was invited to join the 1922 British Everest expedition. During the expedition, he formed a close friendship with George Mallory, and the two famously read Shakespeare to one another in their tent at night. With the expedition over, Somervell set out to see India, travelling from the far north to Cape Comorin. He was shocked by the poverty he saw and in particular the poor medical facilities. At the main hospital of the south Travancore medical mission in Neyyoor, he found a single surgeon struggling to cope with a long queue of waiting patients and immediately offered to assist. On his return to Britain, he abandoned his promising medical career and announced his intention to work in India permanently after his next attempt on Everest. Most of his famous paintings sold today are from his travels in various parts of India, even though most of his time was in Kerala where many landmarks to his name still remain.

Somervell worked as a surgeon with the London Missionary Society Boys Brigade Hospital (now known as LMS Boys Brigade Hospital ) at Kundara from 1923 to 1949. There was a separate operation theatre for him in that hospital. He had donated £1,000 to the hospital.

Somervell became an associate professor of surgery at Vellore Christian Medical College in 1949, a post he would hold until his retirement in 1961.

There was an outbreak of smallpox at Alleppey, Poonthura and in the municipal town of Trivandrum in 1930. The Leper Asylum opened in 1896 and was shifted to Nooranad in August 1934. Lady Linlithgow’s visit to Travancore was taken advantage of for laying the foundation stone for TB hospital on 11 November 1939.

Somervell

The malaria epidemic in South Travancore in 1934 was the first reported epidemic of malaria in the state on an extensive scale one that affected a far larger population than any other epidemic diseases. The foot of the hills from Bhutappandy to Thodupuzha forms a hyper-endemic belly of malaria and has been recognized as a centre of malarial infection for a long time. The malaria epidemic of 1935-36 was an extension of the disease in a virulent and epidemic form. The epidemic was most severe in certain provinces of Neyyattinkara and Nedumangad Taluks.

N Krishnan Tampi was appointed as the special medical officer in charge of malaria.11 Maharaja contributed rupees 1500 to the Malaria Relief Fund. Maharaja and Maharani visited the malaria-stricken areas and their words of sympathy and kindness to the patients and their gracious presence were a source of encouragement to the people and to the workers alike. Blood films from the patients were regularly taken for microscopical examinations. Mid-day meals to school children were given. The Managing Director of A.D. Cotton Mills Quilon offered 2000 yards of cloth for free distribution among the malaria-stricken people. The Salvation Army organized a party of officers and rendered much help in the malarial areas by collecting clothes, rice and other necessities for distribution among the patients. Sri Rama Krishna Mission and Veera Kerala Gymkhana rendered yeoman service for the control of malaria.

The development of health services was complemented by other parallel events: initiatives to provide safe drinking water (in the capital city of Trivandrum initially) and the provision of state-supported primary education, including education for women. Another important factor was the establishment of mission hospitals in remote areas under the auspices of Christian churches. Young girls from the Christian community in Kerala were keen to take up nursing as a career.

At the time of the formation of the present Kerala state on 1 November 1956, the foundation for a medical care system accessible to all citizens was already laid.

The left came to power in 1957, but November 27, 1951, was a very special day for a group of young men and women, who stood bursting with pride and excitement, when the then Prime Minister of the nation, Jawaharlal Nehru, lit the lamp, marking the formal opening of their alma mater and the first medical school in the State, Trivandrum Medical College. M. Balaraman Nair, a first-batch student, went on to become the first Professor, Principal and the first Director of Medical Education.

It was on August 1, 1951, that the first batch of 63 students joined TMC. The 1951 TMC batch includes several illustrious names like M.S. Valiathan, K.V. Krishnadas, P.P. Joseph, and P. Sukumaran, whose professional achievements and contributions to the health sector are well-known.

The history of Neurosurgery in this Institute is synonymous with the history of Neurosurgery in the state as this was the first medical college to start a Neurosurgery department within the state. The students after undergoing their rigorous training in the department, went on to establish advanced neurosurgical centres throughout Kerala and in several other parts of the country.

The period from state formation to the early 1980s was characterized by great growth and expansion of government health services. Figures show the annual compound growth rate of government health care expenditure for the period at 13.04% (at current prices, without deflation), outstripping both the annual compound growth rate of total government expenditure at 12.45% and the annual compound growth rate of the state domestic product at 9.81%.2 From 1961 to 1986, the state greatly expanded its governmhealth facilities. The number of beds and institutions increased sharply. The total number of beds in government hospitals in the western medical sector increased from around 13,000 in 1960–61 to 20, 000 in 1970–71 and 29 000 in 1980–81. By 1986, the total was 36,000. Estimates in 1996 put the number at 38,000. Private hospitals now surpass government facilities in the density of beds and employment of personnel. The number of beds in government institutions grew from around 36,000 to 38,000 in the 10 years from 1986 to 1996; in the same period, beds in private institutions grew from 49, 000 to 67, 500. This means the successive governments, including the left, torpedoed the Kerala model leaving the health sector at the mercy of the private sector.
-----------------------------------------------
Reference:

1. Evolution of Modern Medicine in Kerala/Dr K Rajasekharan Nair
2. Historical Development of HealthCare in Kerala/Dr V Raman Kutty
3. Western Medicine Under State Patronage in Travancore: A Retrospect/Satheesh P
4.A Social History of India/S N Sadasivan
5. V.Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual
6.T.K.Velupillai, The Travancore State Manual
7. Historicising "Tradition" in the Study of Religion/edited by Steven Engler, Gregory Price Grieve.

© Ramachandran