INDIA'S FIGHT WITH CHINA IN 1967

400 Chinese Soldiers Killed

The Sino-India war of 1962 resulted in China redrawing the border as the Line of Actual Control in its own favour,but in 1967 the second Sino-India war of 1967 saw India push China back.The clash between India and China in 1967 is often remembered as the last shot fired on the India-China border.

That clash in Sikkim, where India got the better of China just five years after defeat in the 1962 war, saw more than 80 Indian soldiers killed while estimates say 400 Chinese soldiers may have been killed.

In 1967, India fought a battle against China to  protect its land and won, according to a book. The 1967 battles of Nathu La and Cho La pass changed the Indo-China political dynamics forever. But no one speaks about this resounding victory.

In his book, ‘Watershed 1967: India’s forgotten victory over China’, army veteran Probal DasGupta explores the mystery.

“When you look at 1971, China didn’t interfere in the India-Pakistan war. Not many have asked that question as to why, but there are many reasons why 1967 is an important yet underrated reason why China did not go down the Siliguri corridor and cut India out. Thereafter, at various stand-offs, whether it is Daulat Beg Oldi or Doklam in 2017, India has always used that template and obtained a dominating position in stand-offs against China.”,he points out. “I think that has set the template and has also ensured, what I’ve maintained – that peace is obtained when you achieve parity. Hence, there was a parity that was obtained in 1967, which got back India’s pride and was also responsible in conveying to China that they’re militarily a bigger power and that they could not overrun India anymore,” adds Das Gupta.

Tensions during a standoff at the Sikkim border in 1967

Relations between India and China were already tense in 1967 but matters came to a head in August 1967. Irked by India’s decision to erect iron pickets along the border from NathuLa to Sebu La, the Chinese began to heckle Indian soldiers. What followed soon was a full blown clash with the Chinese attempting to wrest control over the Nathu La pass from India. A daring decision by the commanding officer, Lt General Sagat Singh stopped their plans from succeeding.

“As India was going up against Pakistan on the Western front, Chinese troops had amassed across the border near Sikkim, and that was the time when it was expected that Indian troops would pull back from Nathu-La. But General Sagat refused to do so because that would give the Chinese easy access to the Siliguri corridor down the Sikkim axis. Therefore, he disagreed with his superiors and stuck to his decision,” says Das Gupta.

Had General Sagat Singh not stood his ground, Chinese troops stationed at Nathu La would have captured the pass. This would give them easy access to the Siliguri corridor during the 1971 war. The outcome of the 1971 India-Pakistan could have then been very different.

“Psychologically, the political leadership was rattled and was even quite demoralised in 1962 as far as China was concerned. We had achieved some success against Pakistan in 1965. However, the overall attitude towards China was still very much different and defensive. Going against the grain of leadership was extremely creditable of General Sagat at that point of time,” Das Gupta records.

In the weeks and months ahead of the clash, the Indian side had decided to fence the border with three layers of barbed wire. Work started on August 20, 1967.

On August 23, about 75 Chinese in battle dress, carrying rifles fitted with bayonets, advanced slowly towards Nathu La in an extended line, and stopped at the border. The Political Commissar — identifiable by a red patch on his cap, and the only one who could speak some English — read out slogans from a red book, which the rest of the party shouted after him.

The Indian troops were “standing to”, watching and waiting. After about an hour, the Chinese withdrew. But they returned later, and continued their protests.

On September 5, as the barbed wire fence was being upgraded to a concertina coil, the Political Commissar had an argument with the Commanding Officer of the local infantry battalion, Lt Colonel Rai Singh. Thereafter, work stopped.

Work was, however, resumed on September 7. This provoked about 100 Chinese soldiers to rush up, and a scuffle ensued. Beaten down by the Jats, the Chinese resorted to stone-pelting, and the Indians responded in kind.

On September 10, the Chinese sent across a warning through the Indian embassy: “The Chinese Government sternly warns the Indian Government: the Chinese Border Defence Troops are closely watching the development of the situation along the China-Sikkim boundary. Should the Indian troops continue to make provocative intrusions, the Indian Government must be held responsible for all the grave consequences.”

The corps commander had ordered the fence to be completed on September 11. That day, as work started, the Chinese came to protest, led by the Political Commissar. Lt Col Rai Singh went out to talk to them.

Suddenly, the Chinese opened fire, and Singh fell to the ground, injured.

Seeing their CO hit, the infantry battalion attacked the Chinese post. But they suffered heavy casualties, including two officers, who were both given gallantry awards. Soldiers in the open were mowed down by Chinese machine gun fire.

Taken aback by the strong Indian response, the Chinese threatened to bring in warplanes. When the Indians refused to back off, the Chinese news agency Xinhua denied these plans.

Having sent its message militarily, India, on September 12, delivered a note to the Chinese, offering an unconditional ceasefire across the Sikkim-Tibet border beginning 5.30 am on September 13. This was rejected, but the situation remained largely peaceful until the 14th.

On September 15, the Chinese handed over the bodies of Indian soldiers with arms and ammunition, saying they were acting in the interest of “preserving Sino-Indian friendship”.

On October 1, another skirmish erupted at Cho La, but the Indians again repulsed the Chinese.

On September 13, 1967, Indian deputy prime minister Morarji Desai, who was visiting the U.S., appeared on the “Today” show. The first five questions he was asked were about the “fighting up in Sikkim” – the reference was to the clashes that had taken place from September 11 at Nathu La and would continue till September 14.

During the 1965 India-Pakistan war, there had been Chinese pressure on India, but the Nathu La fighting was seen as the first major clash between China and India since the 1962 war. And that war shaped how the Sikkim clashes were seen within and outside government in the U.S. In particular, it meant a focus on two aspects of the clashes – first, the likelihood of escalation and, second, Indian preparation and performance.

Asked about heightened Chinese rhetoric and warnings, Desai assessed, “They are mainly angry about the fact that we are not submitting to their pressures and their bullying…They would like us to fall in line with their strategy or their policy of dominating Asia and, ultimately, the world, as I see it.”

The U.S. in 1967 shared this Indian concern about China and its desire to dominate Asia. The Sikkim clashes came even as American troops were fighting in Vietnam, in the midst of Chairman Mao’s unfolding Cultural Revolution, and a few months after China had conducted its first hydrogen bomb test. Since a decade before, American administrations had seen India as part of their China strategy – as a potential counter-weight and democratic contrast to communist China. Indian success, therefore, was seen to be in American interest and a way of addressing the China challenge.

The 1962 war had been a major setback – in both geopolitical and psychological terms – to this strategy, as well as to how India was seen globally, regionally and within the U.S. That war, and setbacks related to Indian economic development and food supply, had shifted the American emphasis from the need to build up India to the need to prevent it from falling. Given this objective, any escalation on the China-India front was seen as potentially having consequences for Indian security and economic development – including by leading to even greater defense spending at the expense of development – and, potentially, requiring greater American involvement.

Thus, the U.S. government kept a close eye on the Sikkim clashes. American intelligence assessments had observed a deterioration of the China-India relationship, with a worsening of Chinese actions and words vis-à-vis India throughout 1967 amid the Cultural Revolution. Along with attacks on and expulsions of Indian diplomats, there had been numerous articles in People’s Daily in praise of the Naxalites, and Naga and Mizo insurgents, and calling for revolution in India. There had also been Chinese military probes into Bhutanese territory that summer. The Central Intelligence Agency indeed later saw the September clashes as “military expressions of intensified political relations.”

During the Nathu La clashes, American officials received updates through various means, including discussions with Indian officials. American and Indian military and diplomatic officials exchanged assessments in Delhi, Washington and Calcutta, including perplexity about Chinese motivations. Indian officials stated that they believed Chinese actions were localized, but deliberate.

The CIA director asked his staff for better reporting on the Sino-Indian border situation. Updates on the clashes made President Johnson’s daily brief each day between September 12 and 15, and then again after a clash took place at Cho La on October 1.

Officials particularly watched the scale of the clashes, the anti-India protests and propaganda campaign coming from China, whether Chinese logistical capabilities had been increased in the area, and Chinese troop dispositions not just at the point of the clashes, but also all along the border.

When the clashes ended, American Embassy officials reported back that “Indians confident they had the best of the incident.” There was a sense of relief within the U.S. government and outside – not just that the clashes had remained limited, but also with regard to how India performed both militarily and diplomatically. Noting that, unlike 1962, Delhi had not engaged in a war of words, The New York Times had indeed approvingly commented on Delhi’s demonstration of “firmness and restraint.” Press reporting on the incident had noted assessments that the clashes would remain limited, but there had simultaneously been concern that the 1962 war had been preceded by just such incidents and also that major Chinese offensives had followed lulls.

There was also an acknowledgement in the media, however, that India was better prepared than five years before. Finally, there was speculation about China’s motives, but also assessments that, whatever they were, they would have the consequences of weakening any voices in India calling for improved relations with China, “speed[ing] India’s movement toward cooperation with other nations of Asia in some kind of anti-Chinese front,” and strengthening those calling for India to develop nuclear weapons.

Pak surrender 1971;Standing third is Sagat Singh

This wasn’t just the assessment of external analysts. Intelligence briefings to members of Congress noted that Sino-Indian border incidents would be ongoing and “could flare up at any time.” There was a sense, however, that China was unlikely to attack in a major way at that time and more confidence in India’s capabilities. But there was also a concluding assessment: that the clashes would do nothing to ease Indian concerns about China and, in particular, “growing Indian fear of Chinese nuclear capabilities could eventually force India to build its own bomb.”

In his answers to the Today show interviewer, Desai tried to reassure the audience on both these fronts. He noted that Chinese behaviour could not be predicted, but said he expected the fighting would remain localized. Noting that India had been preparing and could defend itself, he asserted that India would not succumb to pressure.

In October 1967, another clash at Cho La ended in a similar manner as the one in Nathu La. Gorkhas and Grenadier troops of Indian Army demolished Chinese PLA forces in these battles. At least 88 Indian soldiers and over 340 Chinese troops lost their life in the battles and over a thousand were injured.

DasGupta believes that it was the right kind of political and military leadership of officers like General Sam Manekshaw and General Sagat that made the difference in the battles of 1967.

Probal DasGupta attributes multiple reasons why the battles of 1967 were forgotten.

“It was an era when India had suffered reverses a few years before that. Five years before that, in the 1962 India-China war, India had suffered a heavy setback. So, when this happened, it wasn’t covered as much in the media and people couldn’t really come to terms with what had happened there.”

Secondly, it was also because India and China had kind of not wanted to play it up as much. So, I think tacitly it was agreed to not play it up in the international fora. Thirdly, the most important reason was in 1971 when India had registered a resounding victory which whitewashed a lot of things that had happened in the past.”

Pointing that history shapes a narrative, DasGupta said, “The history of 1962 was written by Brigadier John Dalvi, who was the commander of the 7th Brigade, one of the first Indian brigades to be defeated by Chinese forces. Brigadier Dalvi was taken prisoner and he was kept in China for some time. After he came back, he wrote a book. It was bitter and explosive, but we banned the book.”

“Thereafter, Neville Maxwell wrote a book on India and China; it was sympathetic to China. What happened with that is when Henry Kissinger went to China in 1970-71, he visited Beijing and he met Zhou Enlai, and Zhou Enlai gave him that book as a gift. Henry Kissinger’s drift on China and his entire anti-India narrative was based heavily from his learnings from the book, which he found to be extremely impressive. So this is what history does. History does shape a narrative,” he added.

If it is true that 1967 marked the last major fighting that saw casualties on both sides, it was not, however, the last incident of a shot being fired on the contested boundary.

That would happen eight years later, when a patrol of Assam Rifles jawans was ambushed by the Chinese at Tulung La in Arunachal Pradesh. Four were killed.

The Indian government maintained that the Chinese had crossed the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and ambushed the patrol on October 20, 1975. The Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing accused the patrol of crossing the LAC and firing at a Chinese post. The Ministry handed a protest note on October 22 to the Charge d’Affaires of the Indian embassy in Beijing describing China’s actions as “a self defence response”, according to a November 3 report in the French newspaper Le Monde.The report said India recovered their bodies a week later on October 28.

A U.S. State Department cable from 1975 noted India’s view that the “Chinese ambush was sprung 500 metres south of Tulung La” and took place on Indian territory. It quoted a senior Indian military intelligence officer as saying on November 5 the border there was very clear, marked by a distinctive shale cliff. He said China had moved up a company to the pass and detached a platoon which erected stone walls on India’s side of the pass, and from there fired several hundred rounds at the patrol. Four of the patrol had gone into a leading position, while two others, who escaped, had stayed behind. The officer said the patrol was routine and had been in the area several times before.

John Dalvi

The cable noted that Tulung La was among the more remote passes in the region, a few dozen kilometres from Bum La and Tawang. It noted China had used the pass during the 1962 war as a channel to send its troops down to Bomdi La, to defeat the Indian resistance there to their offensive.

“Although the Chinese appear to be following their policy of enforcing the status quo with respect to the LAC pending negotiations,” the cable concluded, “they apparently still lay claim to Arunachal Pradesh down to the
foothills”.

The Hero of 1962

Lt General Sagat Singh, ( 1918 –  2001) was a General Officer in the Indian Army notable for his participation in invasion of Goa and later in Bangladesh. He held many prestigious command and staff appointments throughout his military career.

Singh was born in the village of Kusumdesar (Moda) in Churu district of Rajasthan.He joined Dungar College at Bikaner but was enrolled as a Naik in Bikaner Ganga Risala after his intermediate exam in 1938. Later, he was promoted to Jemadar (now called Naib Subedar) and commissioned as a Second lieutenant in Bikaner Ganga Risala which was sent to Sind in 1941 to deal with the Hoor rebellion. Later it was sent to Jubair in Iraq and Ahwaz in Iran during the war. He was selected for the 12th War Staff course at Quetta from May to November 1945.

On amalgamation of the State Forces in 1950, he joined Third Gorkha Rifles. He commanded the Second and Third Battalions of the Third Gorkha Rifles. In September 1961, he was promoted to the rank of brigadier and posted as the brigade commander of India's only parachute brigade, the 50th Parachute Brigade. The parachute brigade led by him played a prominent part in liberation of Goa, and his men were the first to enter Panjim on 19 December 1961.

Sagat Singh

As a Major General, he was the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 17 Mountain Division and later a communication zone. While he was the GOC of the mountain division, the Nathu La and Cho La clashes took place, where 17 Mountain Division achieved "decisive tactical advantage" and defeated the Chinese forces in these clashes.

He also played a pivotal role in counter-insurgency operations in Mizoram. For his distinguished services, the general officer was awarded the Param Vishisht Seva Medal . In December 1970, he took over the command of HQ IV Corps as a lieutenant general. The corps made the famous advance to Dhaka over the River Meghna during Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. He witnessed in Dhaka the signing of the surrender instrument by General Niazi.

For his leadership and command for the race to Dhaka, the Government of India honored Lt. Gen. Sagat Singh with the third highest civilian award of Padma Bhushan. Lt. Gen. Sagat Singh is the only other Corps commander besides Lt. Gen. (later Gen. and COAS) T N Raina and Lt. Gen. Sartaj Singh to be so awarded in 1971.

Sagat Singh died at the Army Hospital Research & Referral, New Delhi on 26 September 2001.Lt Gen Sagat Singh's character was played by Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff in the 2018 Indian Hindi-language film Paltan.

Dalvi's Book, Himalayan Blunder

Himalayan Blunder was an extremely controversial war memoir penned by Brigadier John Dalvi. It dealt with the causes, consequences and aftermath of the Sino-Indian War of 1962, that ended in Chinese People's Liberation Army inflicting a defeat on India.

The title seems to allude to the "Himalayan miscalculation" that Gandhi discusses in his autobiographical article for 14 April 1919, and which retained this title as Chapter 33 in Gandhi's autobiography.He had used the expression first at Nadiad.

Brigadier Dalvi served in the Indian Army and gives a first-person account of the war. The book was banned by the Indian Government after its publication.

Because of the book, the term "Himalayan blunder" came to be used as a synonym for colossal failure in the context of Indian politics.

The book begins with the narration of Brig. Dalvi's days in the DSSC, Wellington. He narrates an incident where a guest faculty, a retired British official, after hearing that Nehru had signed Panchsheel agreement with China in April 1954 and had decided to give up the post in Tibet that the British had maintained in Tibet to check Chinese advance, interrupted his class and warned that India and China would soon be at war and people in this class would be fighting it. Brig. Dalvi remembers that he was very angry with the gentleman questioning the authority of the gentleman to criticise the leader of his country.

Brig. Dalvi also examines the position of Tibet vis-a-vis India and China. The British, he says, had insight into China's imperial ambitions. They had therefore cultivated Tibet as a buffer state. Expectedly, the Chinese attacked Tibet in 1950 and captured it. India did not protest the attack owing to Nehru's China-friendly policy. The Chinese began constructing roads from Tibet leading to Aksai Chin near Ladakh. The Chinese had two major claims with respect to Indian territories -

1.Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir.

2. British-designated North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), which is the present-day state of Arunachal Pradesh.

When the war broke out on 8 September 1962, Nehru was away from India. The Chinese attacked simultaneously on the Ladakh area and NEFA. They managed to capture 11,000 km² of area in Aksai Chin and substantial area in NEFA. The commander of IV Corps, Nehru's relative,General Brij Mphan Kaul was not on the front lines and was in Military Hospital, Delhi, recovering from an illness. Dalvi further alleges that B.M. Kaul was promoted to the position of General supplanting more capable, and senior officers because he was personally close to Nehru.

According to Dalvi, the Indian Army lacked leadership, equipment for mountain warfare, weaponry, and basic essentials like warm clothing, snow boots, and glasses. Brg Dalvi lavishes praise on his brigade's courage, bravery, and grit in face of superior opposition. Despite gaining territory, the Chinese army declared a unilateral ceasefire, while still maintaining the status quo. Brig. Dalvi was taken as prisoner of war along with the soldiers of his brigade. He was subsequently imprisoned for six months. Dalvi also records how China had meticulously planned the attack while officially it maintained a different posture.

Dalvi also examines the aftermath of the war. The detractors of Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru held Defence Minister Krishna Menon and General B M Kaul responsible for the debacle and both of them resigned.

Brigadier John Parashuram Dalvi (1920 – 1980),during the Sino-Indian War of 1962,  was the commander of the Indian 7th Brigade, which was destroyed, leading Dalvi to be captured by the People's Liberation Army on 22 October 1962.

Dalvi was born on 3 July 1920 in Basra, Iraq where his father was serving with the British administration. He returned to India in 1923 and studied at St. Mary's High School, Bombay. He graduated and joined to study under the Jesuits at St. Xavier's College, Bombay. In 1940 with the outbreak of World War II he joined Indian Army.

Dalvi was commissioned into the Baluch Regiment. To the end of World War II he served with the regiment's 5th Battalion. He took part in Field Marshal Sir William Slim's pursuit of Japanese Army. From October 1944 to March 1945 he saw fighting with 19th Indian Division notably at the Crossing of the Irrawaddy. 

In 1945 he was selected to join the staff of General Sir Montagu Stopford, GOC XXXIII Corps and later GOC-in-C of 12th Army Burma.

In 1947 he was posted as instructor to Indian Military Academy, Dehradun. He was then moved to 5 Gorkha Rifles as 2nd in command. In 1949 Dalvi was attached with Brigade of the Guards. In 1950, he was selected for Staff College, which he graduated in 1951. He then commanded the 4th Battalion, Brigade of the Guards and later 2nd Guards.

In October 1960 he was given an accelerated promotion to be appointed as Brigadier Administration to XV Corps. In January 1962, he was given the Command on 7th Infantry Brigade in NEFA and fought in the Sino-Indian War. He was taken Prisoner of War on 22 October 1962 and was repatriated in May 1963.

On his return to India, he authored the book about the 1962 war, titled The Himalayan Blunder: The curtain raiser to the Sino-Indian War of 1962.The book was banned in Indian almost immediately on its release, but this ban was later lifted.His book is in direct contradiction with the book authored by his erstwhile commanding officer, Brij Mohan Kaul.In his book Brig. Dalvi bitterly described about his return to India:

We landed in Dum Dum airport in Calcutta on May 4, 1963. We were received cordially, appropriately. But the silence there was disquieting. I realized later. We had to prove we weren't brainwashed by Chinese ideology. We had to prove we were still loyal to India. My own army maintained a suspicious distance. The irony cannot be harsher: this treatment from a country, which for more than a decade had brainwashed itself into holding the Chinese baton wherever it went.

He died of cancer in 1980.

Military historian and film maker Shiv Kunal Verma's book,1962:The War That Wasn't speaks about a character called Bogey Singh.

Bogey Sen’s presence in Tawang between 22 and 23 October only added to the confusion. Before landing at Tawang, the army commander had flown towards Zimithang to get an idea of the terrain which he was not familiar with at all. Once in Tawang, as we have seen, Sen did nothing to bolster the confidence of the garrison. The meeting with [Lt Gen Niranjan] Prasad later in the evening focused on two issues: the Nam Ka Chu rout of 7 Brigade and the immediate withdrawal from Tawang. Bogey Sen opposing a withdrawal only amounted to theatrics, for had he wished, as the army commander, he had the authority to overrule Prasad.

Both officers at the time were unaware that Army HQ, now represented by Monty Palit, was pushing for the same decision. There was a critical difference though—Prasad was planning on falling back on Bomdila with Se-la only playing the part of a delaying obstacle. Palit, on the other hand, based on the one incomplete reconnaissance made almost two years ago, had made up his mind to dig in at Se-la. [Army chief Pran Nath] Thapar having gone along with his DMO, who now had the tacit approval of Nehru, was relegated to the role of a spectator. The Thorat Plan, even though it hadn’t been implemented, at least had had some discussions around it and plans had been drawn up. Just as Tawang was abandoned on a whim, Se-la was seemingly chosen arbitrarily by Monty Palit who played the ‘cleared by the cabinet’ card to ride roughshod over any opposition.

In the coming days, the Indian military high command would take decisions that lacked even the most basic common sense. Even as Palit was coming out of the defence minister’s room with Nehru’s ‘the military must decide where to fight’ mandate, Bogey Sen had decided to sack Niranjan Prasad as GOC 4 Division. Less than three hours previously, as he was leaving Tawang, Sen had eventually endorsed Prasad’s decision to pull back from Bum-la and evacuate Tawang. Surely, having seen for himself the effect of the headlong retreat from Zimithang on Prasad and other senior officers, Sen was experienced enough to know that to pull back any further would result in losing not just all the supplies and material that had so painstakingly been put together, but a withdrawal without a fight would further sap the morale of the men and officers. So far, after the first couple of hours of fighting on the Nam Ka Chu, Tsangdhar, Khenzemane, and Bum-la, all Indian units that had come into contact with the Chinese were only fighting in penny packets or withdrawing. Had it been decided that Tawang was to be held at all costs, it would have made perfect sense to replace Prasad as the GOC since the army commander felt he had lost the will to fight. But to institute this change after the withdrawal order was given was to add considerably to the existing chaos.

On the evening of 23 October neither Delhi, Lucknow nor Tezpur had any idea where the next defensive line was supposed to be; the only orders given until then were to abandon Tawang and Bum-la and fall back on Jang. When Palit took the draft of the order to hold Se-la to the chief, it was decided that Thapar, Palit and the IB chief, [B.N.] Mullik, would fly immediately to Tezpur and discuss the matter with Bogey Sen in person. From all indications,Thapar was still not fully convinced about the decision to hold Se-la. On his own initiative, Palit put into place steps for the stocking of supplies for Se-la, working on the assumption that five battalions would be required to hold the feature.

Who was Bogey Sen?

Lt General Lionel Protip "Bogey" Sen ( 1910 – 1981) commanded the Eastern Command during the Sino-Indian War of 1962. After the conflict, Sen was appointed GOC-in-C, Southern Command, on 10 May 1963.

Sen too wrote a book,Slender was the Thread:Kashmir Confrontation 1947-48.It has nothing on 1962.

Sen was from the exalted, Anglicised generation of Sandhurst-trained, pre-Partition, King’s Commissioned Indian Officers.The high point of his service was his sudden airlift to Srinagar on 5 November 1947 during the Kashmir confrontation, when Pakistani raiders were about to reach the airfield and the capital city, after having sacked, pillaged, burnt, looted and raped in Muzaffarabad, Uri and Baramulla.

A panicky Maharaja Hari Singh abandoned his efforts to somehow become independent, signed the Instrument of Accession to India, and the Army was ordered to save Srinagar and then evict the invaders.

India had very few troops in Kashmir then. The Maharaja’s state army had more or less collapsed. Its British chief left, the next in line killed by raiders close to Baramulla, Muslim troops defected and thousands of others just hid in fright.

Bogey Sen

India and Pakistan both had British army chiefs then as well as a large sprinkling of British officers. As war became inevitable between the two new nations, just 11 weeks old, the British decided none of their officers or personnel would fight. Yet, the British chiefs remained in control.

There was a need to airlift troops to save Srinagar from falling. It had only a dirt airstrip. A brave airlift was set up with Dakotas filled with troops and equipment raising an incredible air-bridge between Delhi and Srinagar. The first brigade commander sent there, Brigadier J.C. Katoch, was wounded in the leg and had to be evacuated. A new Indian brigadier had to be found right away.

L.P. Sen, then a mere colonel, was the No. 2 in the Directorate of Military Intelligence under Brigadier P.N. Thapar (later Army chief in the 1962 war). General Sir Rob Lockhart, then India’s Chief of Army Staff, summoned Sen and ordered him to take over the defence of Srinagar and the Valley at once. Because he was still a colonel, he “promoted” him to brigadier temporarily, until Katoch recovered, “in 10 days or so”.

That was not to happen. Sen continued there for almost two years, defending Srinagar, liberating Baramulla, Uri, even Haji Pir Pass and linking it up with Poonch.He wrote his story in graphic detail in the first real military memoir by an Indian soldier post-Independence. There are controversies and questions about his claims.Sen claims in the book:

"As I was leaving General Russell’s house, I received a message to the effect that Brigadier Thapar would be waiting for me at the southern entrance to South Block of the Secretariat. When I arrived he informed me that Mahatma Gandhi wished to see me and be given an intelligence briefing. We drove to his residence and I told him everything that was known to us. He listened most intently and when I finished and asked whether he has any questions he would like answered, he replied “No, no questions.”

"After a few seconds of silence he continued, “Wars are a curse to humanity. They are so utterly senseless. They bring nothing but suffering and destruction.” As a soldier, and one about to be engaged in battle in a matter of hours, I was at a loss to know what to say, and eventually asked him: “What do I do in Kashmir?” Mahatma Gandhi smiled and said: “You’re going in to protect innocent people, and to save them from suffering and their property from destruction. To achieve that you must naturally make full use of every means at your disposal.” It was the last time I was to see him alive."

_____________

Photo ( top) Courtesy: Probal DasGupta

Reference:

1.Dalvi, Brig. J.P., "Himalayan blunder – The Curtain Raiser to the Sino-Indian war of 1962
2.Kaul, Lt. Gen. B.M/The untold story
3.Maxwell, Neville, India's China War

4.Shiv Kunal Verma/1962:The War That Wasn't

© Ramachandran 

MANORAMA WROTE, THE MAPPILAS ARE SAVAGES

Variyamkunnan A Cart Puller

In 1921, the fanaticism that marked the earlier Mappila outbreaks acquired a far more religious dimension with the nation wide Khilafat movement. Ironically,it took the form of a religiocommunal conflict. The Rebellion acquired a communal colour because of the leadership of Thangals and Musaliyars. The combination of religious appeals with poltics, created a volatile situation, highly susceptible to communalist propaganda.The reports in the print-media, reflect the communal cleavage within Malabar society.

C Gopalan Nair's Moplah Rebellion 1921 is a jouney through the news paper reports that appeared mainly in the English media.Abani Mukherji who interpreted and distorted it as the class war for the first time,turned to the reports of The Hindu and The Times,for facts.As a person who had been in journalism for 40 years,I can tell you that it is a profession that deals only with facts-it has corrective measures,when facts go wrong.Today's tendency among a large group of researchers in Kerala,is to misinterpret the factual reporting of 1921;it creates the impression that communalism is a sobriquet for communism.

The Rebellion caused an acrid narrative war of words within the print media, not only in Malabar but throughout the nation. The print media constructed the narratives of the victims. During the period between 1921-23, both vernacular and the English press regularly published reports on the Rebellion, depending upon the colonial official reports,as well as the victims who had sought asylum at Kozhikode.The Malayalam papers contained reports of Moplah outbreaks, the sources being the press communiqué issued by government , reports published by English newspapers,victim's versions and commentaries.Most of the reports of vernacular papers,presented the victim's version,while a few nationalist as well as pro-Khilafath muslim papers, presented the attacker's version.Nationalist papers had to resort to this,since Gandhi had painted the Khilafat as a national movement.

Among the newspapers, Malabar Islam, Swaraj and Muslim,were the mouth pieces for the Islam. Keralapatrika (Calicut), Malayala Manorama, Nazrani Deepika, and Yogakshemam used forceful language in their reports about the Rebellion.They wrote of the craftiness and cunningness of Mappilas. Some of the write-ups taunted the Hindus for their slavish mentality. Ellis, the Malabar Collector, convened a meeting of the editors of newspapers of Calicut in June 1922 to discuss the ways by which communal amity could be restored in Malabar( Malayala Manorama, 8th June, 1922. NMML, Delhi.).This meeting was attended by editors of Keralapatrika, Mitavadi, Reformer, Kerala Sanchari, Malabar Journal and Margadarsi while editors of Manorama and Spectator boycotted it.

Mathrubumi was started on 17 March 1923 and Al-Ameen in 1924. 

Yogakshemam, the official organ of Yogakshemasabha published a series of articles related to the Rebellion. In its editorial captioned Malabarile Chelakalapam, Yogaksehamam came to the conclusion that 'the rioters consisted of three distinct set of people, one set that wanted to fight the government, another set that was out to loot while a third set were religious fanatics who wished to convert as many as possible. The bulk of the rioters belonged to the second set'.( Yogakshemam, 2 September,1921, NMML, Delhi; FNR dated 10 September 1921, No.37, 1921, Home (General), p.289. TNA.) 

The paper was surprised that Hindu population of the disturbed areas could not offer any united resistance to Mappila rioters and called upon them to organise themselves for defense.This editorial traced the rebellion back to the time of Tipu Sultan in 18th century and hence the title Chelakalapam. Another editorial of the same paper commented:"'Everybody is busy in searching the cause of the revolt.There is no need to tell that Moplas need no cause for revolt".

R H Hitchcock,in the History of Malabar Rebellion,from first hand experience sas SP of Malappuram had reached the conclusion, that "the saddest part of the whole affair was its want of reason". We come across several instances of such convergence between vernacular press reports and colonial official narratives,beacuse they are the facts. M.P. Thuppan Nambudiri, in his article, 'Malabar Lahala' in Yogaksehmam, said: "from Tipu's invasion onwards, their [Mappila's] desire was to convert the whole Malayalis into Islam. It was the British which prevented them from materializing that and we owe a great deal to British for the same . . . . No more self rule is needed in Malabar. We have had enough of the taste of Mappila swaraj and their Khilafath".

Nazrani Deepika from Mannanam,also published reports on the Rebellion. Deepika reported that Mappilas under the veneer of non-co-operation, took the opportunity to loot and convert Hindus to their religion. To prove the vandalism of Mappila rebels, the paper reported that Mappilas entered the Trikandiyur temple and placed a copy of Quran inside the Srikovil (sanctum sanctorum).Congratulating the Magistrate E F Thomas for suppressing the rebellion, Deepika in its editorial commented, 'Thus even the Malabar Mappilas have received an experience of Swaraj and the flavour of Hindu-Muslim unity and a sense of the might of British government. May the British flag now continue to fly in all glory".( Nazrani Deepika, 2 September 1921, 9 September 1921, NMML, Delhi; FNR, 10 Sept. 1921, Home (General), p.352, TNA).

Extreme  language was used by 'Malabari', the South Malabar correspondent of Malayala Manorama, in covering the rebellion. He wrote, "It will be interesting to the readers to know that our Vasudeva Varmamaraja [Variyamkunnath Kunhamad Haji, the leader of the rebellion] who is Collector, Colonel and Governor [of Khilafath Raj] is infact a cart-puller . . . . It is heard that wife of Seethi Koya Thangal [another rebel leader] has eloped with someone and out of grief he is hiding in the forest'.( Malayala Manorama, 19 November 1921, NMML, Delhi.).

On another occasion, sarcastically, he commented: 'The Mopla Rebellion has brought name and fame to our district. Is it not a great honour to us that discussions about our district take place in our parliament".(Malayala Manorama, 8th December 1921, NMML, Delhi).

The Malabar correspondent of this paper,wrote: "Among this family of demons, the prominent ones – Sumali [Chemprasseri Thangal] and Malyavan [Seethi Koya Thangal] have been caught by the police. Only Mali [Kunhahammad Haji] who has done much Kurumalis [mischiefs] remains to be caught hold of . . . . These Thangals were mere Thongans [Impotents] and Moplas attribute Thungatha [fame] to them due to their fanatical spirit . . . . Among these wretched demons, Chempraseri ranks first for mutilating the Hindus alive'(Malayala Manorama, 29th December, 1921, NMML, Delhi).

Ali Musaliyar, a fundamentalist, was depicted in this vein by Kerala Patrika. The paper wrote, "This Musaliyar spoke that if one kills a Hindu, he can marry a houri [celestial beauty] in heaven"(Kerala Patrika, 5 September 1921.).

Malayala Manorama had reported on 25 August 1921 itself that the Mappilas had set fire to buildings and documents ,and looted weapons,cash and instruments.On August 30 it wrote that only two Britishers have been killed not in relation to rebellion:they were Inpector Reedman and Kalikavu Rubber Estate Manager S P Eton.When they shot Eton,they spared Kuttath Raman Nair,saying,they are targetting only Britishers ( Raman Nair's eyewitness account,The Hindu,14 September 1921).

The Thuvvur massacre of Hindus on 25 September was reported by Malayala manorama on 6 October 1921 and Deepika on 7 October:This had been an act of vengeance as in the case of the killing of Khan Bahadur Chekutty,the report said.The Hindus and Muslims of Thuvur village had informed the British.This infuriated the Mappilas.This gave anothe dimension to the revolt.It was not possible for the military to know the move of the mappilas without the ground support.The mappilas reached Thuvvur immediately after the military left.They massacred 34 Hindus and two mappilas and threw the dead bodies into a well.

That the report was published only after 11 days of the incident proves that the reporters had waited to cross check the facts.

Manorama wrote that it was a political blunder to have co-opted the quarelling Mappilas in the Khilafat,non co-operation movements (7 th,17th September,1921). "Mappila rebellion was the after effect of politicizing the Mappilas.Teaching the non co-operation lessons to the fanatic Muslims was like igniting the fire arms"( Malayala Manorama,30 August 1921;Sathyanadham,27 August).

Concluding his long article titled 'Jonakappada' in Malayala Manorama, Moorkoth Kumaran,who belonged to a Thiya noble family of Thalassery, made an observation regarding the measures for prevention of such outbreaks in future. He observed, "In this background two remedies are possible – crush the fanaticism of Mappilas or make Hindus equally fanatic"(Malayala Manorama, 17 September 1921, NMML, Delhi).

While compulsory primary education through common school could wipe out Mappila fanaticism, the latter could be achieved only through the unity of Hindus. He added:"'And in the meantime the Hindus must have fanatism. There should be unity among them. They have to be vigilant and purge out the Mopla phobia . . .. Do you think that so long as Hindus live in unity and harmony, the Moplas will dare to rebel or try to convert Hindus? Caste distinction alone is the cause of this disunity'.( Malayala Manorama, 17th September 1921, NMML, Delhi.)Following the pattern of colonial narratives, Malayala Manorama, in another article traced the cause of the rebellion to the inherent character of Mappilas. The article says, 'These Mappilas, who are of Arab descent, are notorious for their bigotry and blood thirstiness "(Malayala Manorama, 20 September 1921, NMML, Delhi).

Malayala Manorama opined that "fanaticism and hot-temperance were prevalent among Mappilas of other parts of Kerala but only when they got the support of South Malabar Mappilas, they showed the courage to make furcas".( Malayala Manorama, 18 September 1921, NMML, Delhi).

The English papers were pro-Government and as such they presented their most authoritative accounts of the rebellion. The West Coast Reformer, an English paper from Calicut, published a lead article regarding the rebellion. On  October 1921, the paper wrote:

"More than six weeks have passed by since the declaration by Mopla fanatics of Malabar of Jihad in the name of Khilafath. Ali-Musaliyar, the first Sulthan appointed in Tirurangadi mosque has surrendered . . . and stands in the dock with his lean hungry look facing his trial for the greatest offence . . .. The robber chieftain Variamkunnath Kunhahamed Hajee, is still at large perpetrating the cruellest deeds of savagery on the Hindu population. The criminal impudence and effrontery with which this uncrowned king of Nilambur imposes his will upon the trembling Hindus, reminds one of the marauding chieftains of the Robber hordes of Spanish Sierras … Beheading, the common game of oriental despots, is freely visited by this freebooter on Hindus of uncompromising faith without least compuction . . . . The interior of Ernad and Walluvanad taluks are still shivering with dread for this inhuman wretch and his compeer Chembrasseri Thangal".

Though Mathrubhumi was started only in 1923, two years after the Rebellion, umpteen articles and editorials dealing with Rebellion appeared in it during 1923 and 1924. In the year of its inception itself, K. Madhavan Nair,the editor and the Congress leader, wrote a series of articles examining the cause and course of the Rebellion. In one such article which elaborately deals with the fanaticism of Mappilas, he said: "The Mopla right from his childhood hears the songs that extols the martyrs died for the cause of religion and it generates wild desires in him. Or else, he hears about the case of apostasy and believes that he, who does not prevent such disgrace to religion, is outside its fold. In this matter, though Islam forbids forcible conversion, he follows the footsteps of Tipu Sulthan, not that of Prophet Mohamed and kills the Hindus indiscriminately"( K. Madhavan Nair, "Hindu-Muslim Relations" in Mathrubhumi, 24 May, 1923).

In another article of the same series Madhavan Nair wrote, "If Nairs, Thiyyas and Cherumas were united, they could have resisted the Mappila rebels. But due to age-old oppression of Nairs by Nambudiris, of Thiyyas by Nairs and of Cherumas by Thiyyas, the lower orders of Hinduism felt happy over the difficulties caused by the Rebellion to the higher castes'.(Mathrubhumi, 1 May, 1923.)

Murkoth Kumaran

The editorial of Mathrubhumi of May 26, 1923 said:" If the Hindus had the same reverence to their temples as the Muslims had to their mosques, this much of temples would not have been destroyed in the Rebellion zone. It would have been a matter of pride to Hindu community, if a single Hindu was hurt in the attempt to defend the sanctity of his temple"( Mathrubhumi, 26 May, 1923.)

Mathrubhumi in its editorial, countering the allegation of The Muslim, a Muslim journal, reiterated its secular stand and stated that "if a letter is not published in the paper, it is being considered as debasement of a community. We used to get articles written by Nairs,Nambudiris, Nambisans and Mappilas. It is not by considering the caste or creed of the writer, that articles are published in Mathrubhumi".( Mathrubhumi, 25 March, 1924).

The articles and editorials of Mathrubhumi triggered a controversy among the leaders of the Congress and a group under Mohamed Abdurahiman and Moidu Moulavi wrote a series of articles in Al-Ameen, a nationalist paper from Calicut, attacking the anti-Muslim tone of such articles( E. Moidu Moulavi, Charithrachinthakal, Calicut, 1981, p.45.).

Vidwan T.K. Raman Menon, who had served as sub-editor in Al-Ameen, observed:"The relation between Mathrubhumi and Al-Ameen was not smooth. Overtly or covertly, Al-Ameen indulged in countering the editorials and misinterpreting the ideals of Mathrubhumi. I could not see any reciprocity or unity existing between these two nationalist dailies during that period".(S.K. Pottekkat et al. (ed.), Mohammad Abdurahiman (Mal.), Memorial Committee, Calicut, 1978, pp.145-146).

Due to this controversy that Madhavan Nair abruptly stopped publishing the remaining parts of the articles. Later, these articles were collected and published in a book form titled Malabar Kalapam in 1971 by his wife Kalyani Amma. About this book, Moidu Moulavi,who had made communal speeches during Khilafat movement, remarked that "it only helped to strengthen the anti-Muslim sentiments among Hindus and it was a fierce arrow aimed at the Mappila community ... Any Hindu who read this work with an objective mind would turn to be a staunch enemy of Mappilas"( E. Moidu Moulavi, op. cit., pp.46-47.)

Madhavan Nair in his book, traced the root of the rebellion back to Tipu, who not only caused many a hardship to Hindus of Malabar but became the guru (preceptor) of later Mappila revolts(K. Madhavan Nair, Mappila Kalapam, Mathrubhumi Publishers, Calicut, 1971, p.15).

In its editorial of 18 January 1935, titled Mathrubhumikku Mathamilla ('Mathrubhumi has no religion') the paper stated, "To Mathrubhumi both Hinduism and Islam are alike . . . we don't consider it a sin either embracing or deserting a particular religion. Al-Ameen has to understand that K Kelappan is not an Arya Samajist."( Mathrubhumi, 18 January 1935).

Kerala Chandrika, a pro-Khilafat muslim journal wrote: "The government have been trying to disprove the tenets of their religion and injuring their leaders and the inglorious collector of Malabar with a military force entered the holy mosques and stirred the ire of the community. If, while the revered Malappuram Thangal, one of the heads of their religion was praying in the mosque that the holy temple of God should be surrendered by military, which Mohammedan could keep still?" (Kerala Chandrika, 29th August 1921. Also see Fortnightly Report, No.36, 1921, Home (General), p.244. TNA).

K Madhavan Nair

The Muslim ( 28 September 1922) and Kerala Chandrika (2 October 1922) published an article 'Condition of Muslim Women in Malabar' which narrated exaggerated stories about the atrocities committed by Hindus on Mappila women.Muslim Sahakari, another muslim journal also believed that "there was truth in the allegation of Hindu atrocities on helpless Mappila women in the area".(Muslim Sahakari, Calicut, 5 October 1922, MNNPR, 1922, TNA.)

Kerala Chandrika in an article to stir up the wealthy muslims to a sense of their duty towards afflicted muslims in Malabar said, "At night some police officers and their attendants come riding on the white horse [Fully drunk-Tr] and begin to outrage the chastity of helpless muslim women! Who is there to attend to the wretchedness of these poor people?"( Kerala Chandrika, 24 July 1922, MNNPR, 1922, TNA.)

A note in the same paper in 1921 opined that the reports about Mopla's looting Hindu houses, was altogether unfounded, that absolute falsehood against the Muslims were published in English-owned papers.( F.N.R. No. 36, 1921, Home Administration, p.245, TNA.)

Referring to the plight of Hindus in Malabar during the Rebellion, Dr.B S Moonje,Hindu Maha Sabha leader, in his article in Indian Social Reformer (Bombay) wrote, "With us [Hindus] it is a serious problem of scientific investigation into our sociology to find out the causes of such helplessness and unpreparedness of Hindus to defend their homes and women folk . . . Division and hatred have made us cowardly and slavish"(The Indian Social Reformer, Bombay, 26 March 1922, NMML, Delhi).

Malayala Manorma replied to Muslim allegations: "it is to be regretted that Muslim papers in Bombay and Punjab are publishing reports about the vandalism of Hinduism in Malabar. They report that, in the absence of male Mappilas in South Malabar, the Hindus are consternating the Mopla orphans and raping their mothers"(Malayala Manorama, 7 October 1922, NMML Delhi.).

Gandhi,in repentece, stated that "Moplas were never particularly friendly to the Malabar Hindus. They had looted them before. Their notions of Islam were of a very crude type (Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol.21)

Gandhi wrote to the editor of Vishala Keralam (Madras), "How to reach the Moplas as also the class of Hindus whom you would want to reach through your news paper, is more than I can say, but I know that Hindus should cease to be cowardly. The Moplas should cease to be cruel. In other words each party should become truly religious" ( Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 23 ).

The impact was not over even after 18 years.In 1939,Mathrubumi in its editorial titled, 'Communalism in the garb of Nationalism' wrote, "However, certain Muslim congress men held an exclusive meeting under the banner of Kerala Muslim National party to discuss the matter [secret circular issue]. To hold a communal meeting to discuss a common issue may be due to the fact that ( Muhammad) Abdurahiman is a Muslim. What will be the future of congress, if a communal group is formed within it... The Hindus, Muslims and the Christians within the congress have to be ready to address common issues without communal biases."(Mathrubhumi, 8 April 1939.)

_______________________________

NMML:Nehru Memorial Museum and Library

TNA:Tamilnadu Archives

© Ramachandran 

THE BRITISH SPY BEHIND CHEMPAKA RAMAN

He Took Chempaka Raman Pillai to Germany

A European Communist spy lived once in Travancore.

In a book he wrote, Travel Letters From Ceylon, Australia and South India ( B. Westermann Co., New York, 1931), he remembered Thycaud Ayya Swamikal, the spiritual Guru. He shared this story:

"One-day Ayya guru was very impatient and restless, walking round and round. The spy asked him what the matter was. The guru told him that he was expecting two of his disciples who had gone to meditate at Maruthwamala to bring a certain plant which he needed for some experiment. After some time two boys entered the scene. The guru eagerly asked, "Did you bring what I had asked you to bring ?"

"The senior of the two boys with some hesitation said "We have brought what you wanted" and took out something from his mundu and placed it on the table. It was a gold coin which probably they had purchased from the market. The guru's face became red with anger. Seeing this, the boys made a quick exit. The spy asked, "Sir, you should be happy since they have gifted you a gold coin. Why are you angry ?"

"Then the guru said, "They are making fun of me. They think I am greedy for gold. They do not understand my real purpose. What I need is a certain plant for an alchemical experiment which requires this plant. The plant is only for cleaning the brass coin. The real transmutation process is psychical". The spy grabbed the golden opportunity. He offered to bring the plant. The guru at first was reluctant, saying that being a foreigner he may not be able to converse with the local people and get the plant. But the spy was very enthusiastic and at last, the guru told him the name of the plant. The spy hired a horse-drawn carriage, went to Maruthwamala and brought a carriage full load of the plant. This pleased the guru and he included the spy in the experiment in place of the two boys who never showed up again."

If the two boys in this story are Chattampi and Narayana Guru, it may fail in chronology. So let us take it as just two boys. It is said that the British had sent a spy to keep a watch on Ayya's alchemy experiments. The spy was a man with anarcho-marxist views.

Walter Strickland, last portrait

The spy was Walter William Strickland, who found Chempaka Raman Pillai and sent him to Germany.

There lived a Vellala couple Chinna Swami Pillai and Nagammal in Trivandrum in a house where the present Accountant General office is situated. Chempaka Raman alias Venkidi was born to them on 15 September 1891. Even during his Model school days he rallied against the British and shouted 'Jai Hind' on the school campus. Fearing retribution, the Principal called in the police. A Constable, Chinnaswami Pillai was sent to investigate the misdemeanour of the erring student. It turned out to be his own son.

In 1908, a British Biologist, Walter Stickland was camping at Trivandrum and he had claimed he had come to study butterflies that were found in the Western Ghats. He met a boy, T Padmanabhan Pillai, who had written a paper in a well-known science journal about the ability of spiders to change their colour, on one of his field trips. Strickland was impressed by the skills of the 18-year-old boy and took him to Europe for further studies. Along with him his close friend, cousin and neighbour, 17-year-old Chempaka Raman was also taken to Europe. He continued his education in Zurich and Germany. That he studied in Zurich, not Italy, and Strickland financed it, is confirmed by Harald Fischer-Tine, in the biography, Shyamji Krishnavarma: Sanskrit, Sociology, Anti-Imperialism.

This book also records: "Aldred's heroic act of solidarity directed the attention of another illustrious representative of British anarchism, Sir Walter Strickland, towards Krishnavarma's anti-imperial campaign. Strickland was a rather eccentric British aristocrat who had left his homeland in 1889 and stubbornly refused to return even after he had succeeded to the title of Baronet and the inherited family estates in Yorkshire in 1909. The 'anarchist Baronet", who was at least according to British intelligent sources, o of doubtful sanity' became something of a celebrity all over the English-speaking world. His anti-British activities were reported and humorously commented upon by the popular press of various countries. Strickland was a man of letters and had published translations of Latin and French classics as well as Czech poetry and fairy tales before he spent years in India and South East Asia. It was during his sojourn in the East that he came to the conclusion that 'The English and the despotism there...was nothing but a Camorra of infamous, bestial and obscene thieves, murderers, liars and worse' and turned into a staunch anti-imperialist. In the following years, he published a number of pamphlets and books containing trenchant attacks on British imperialism, one of which was extensively reviewed by Indian Sociologist*. When he read about Aldred's conviction, he sent him a telegram of congratulations and a cheque for 10 pounds...Together with Shyamji, the 'anarchist Baronet' was also one of the assessors of the pro-India committee founded in Zurich in 1912 his south Indian protege Champaka Raman Pillai."

Padmanabhan Pillai is referred to as Raman's brother in history-it doesn't matter.

It is said Raman and Padmanabhan studying in the same Model School, helped  Walter Strickland to collect samples of plants and trees and the English man was impressed with the young Chembakaraman and asked him to accompany him to Austria where he had contacts and facilities. Chempakaraman agreed to accompany him and left with him for Austria. Walter Strickland put him in a school in Vienna to complete his school education and later he joined a technical school in Vienna where he got his diploma in engineering. When World War I broke out he along with many other Indians formed the “India ProIndia Committee” at Zurich and he was its president in 1914 and then moved to Berlin.

In his 1992 book Europe and India’s Foreign Policy, Verinder Grover writes:

“When the first World War broke out, Indian revolutionaries abroad attempted to seize the opportunity to enlist German support for India’s fight for freedom… The emigre Indian revolutionaries in Europe, prominent among them a young south Indian called Chempakaraman Pillai, contacted the German embassy in Zurich. In September 1914, the International Pro-India Committee was formed, with Pillai as the president and Zurich as headquarters.”

From Zurich, Pillai ran the German/English monthly Pro-India, a magazine that put forward the Indian view of the world to the German people.

In October 1914, Pillai travelled to Berlin where a group of Indians had founded the Berlin Committee in support of the Indian cause. The following year, the International Pro-India Committee and the Berlin Committee combined to form the Indian Independence Committee.

Raman took a degree in Public Governance and  Economics from Germany. He lived in Germany for 20 years. He carried campaign against British rule in India, With Virendranath Chatopadhyaya, Lala Hardayal, Raja Mahendra Pratap, Dr Prabhakar, A R Pillai and A.C. N Nambiar he founded Indian Independence CommitteeA R Pillai was Novelist C V Raman Pillai's son in law; Nambiar was writer Vengayil Kunjiraman Nayanar's son. Armed with an Engineering diploma, Raman joined German Navy. He was an officer on the cruiser” Emden” and attacked British ships and shelled several places in India. On September 22,1914 Madras was shelled.

Raman Pillai

 

A free Government of India was established in Afghanistan on 1 December 1915 with Raja Mahendra Pratap as President Barkatulla as Prime Minister and Chempaka Raman Pillai as Foreign Minister. After World War 1 he formed an association with the “League of Oppressed People” In 1933 he met Subash Chandra Bose. They organized INA outside India. The Azad Hind Government was based on Pillai’s experience during World War I. In 1933 Pillai married Lakshmi Bai. Unfortunately, they had short life together. Pillai soon fell ill. 

The mentor of Chempakaraman Pillai, Walter William Strickland (born Westminster 26 May 1851- died Java 9 August 1938 ) was the son of Sir Charles Strickland, 8th Baronet (1819–1909). He was the eldest son and the only child of his first marriage to Georgina, daughter of Sir William Milner, 4th Baronet, He was educated at Edinburgh Academy and Trinity College, Cambridge. He was the 9th Baronet, known as the Anarchist Baronet because he wandered around the world for much of his life espousing radical causes. The family estate was at Hildenley Hall in Yorkshire.

He married Eliza Vokes (1860–1946) in 1888. They had no children and the title passed to a cousin once removed, Sir Henry Strickland-Constable.

He wrote several books and pamphlets and translated works of the Czech poet Viteslav Halek, Moliere and Horace. He has been linked with the Voynich manuscript. He may have met Voynich during his first years in London, when Voynich was directly involved in the political activities of Russian refugees in London, under the leadership of Stepniak - Kravchinskii, who founded the SFRF (Society of Friends of Russian Freedom) and the RFPF (Russian Free Press Fund).

Wilfrid Voynich

Wilfrid Voynich (born Michał Habdank -Wojnicz; 1865 New York-1930) was a Polish revolutionary, antiquarian and bibliophile. Voynich operated one of the largest rare book businesses in the world, but he is best remembered as the eponym of the Voynich manuscript.

He attended a gimnazjum in Suwałki (a town in northeastern Poland), and then studied at the universities of Warsaw, St. Petersburg, and Moscow. He graduated from Moscow University in chemistry and became a licensed pharmacist.

In 1885, in Warsaw, Wojnicz joined Ludwik Waryński's revolutionary organization, Proletariat. In 1886, after a failed attempt to free fellow conspirators, Piotr Bartowski (1846-1886) and Stanisław Kunicki (1861-1886), who had both been sentenced to death, from the Warsaw Citadel, he was arrested by the Russian police. In 1887, he was sent to penal servitude at Tunka near Irkutsk.

Whilst in Siberia, Voynich acquired a working knowledge of eighteen different languages, albeit not well.

In June 1890 he escaped from Siberia and travelling west by train got to Hamburg, eventually arriving in London in October 1890. Under the assumed name of Ivan Kel'chevskii at first, he worked with Stepniak, a fellow revolutionary, under the banner of the anti-tsarist Society of Friends of Russian Freedom in London. After Stepniak's death in a railway crossing accident in 1895, Voynich ceased revolutionary activity.

Voynich became an antiquarian bookseller around 1897, acting on the advice of Richard Garnett, a curator at the British Museum. Voynich opened a bookshop at Soho Square in London in 1898. He was remarkably lucky in finding rare books, including a Malermi Bible in Italy in 1902.

In 1902 he married a fellow former revolutionary, Ethel Lilian Boole, daughter of the British mathematician George Boole, who Voynich had been associated with since 1890. Voynich was naturalised as a British subject on 25 April 1904, taking the legal name Wilfrid Michael Voynich.

Voynich opened another bookshop in 1914 in New York. With the onset of the First World War, Voynich was increasingly based in New York. He became deeply involved in the antiquarian book trade and wrote a number of catalogues and other texts on the subject.

Voynich relocated his London bookshop to 175 Piccadilly in 1917. Also in 1917, based on rumours, Voynich was investigated by the FBI, in relation to his possession of Bacon's cypher. The report also noted that he dealt with manuscripts from the 13th, 12th, and 11th centuries and that the value of his books at the time was half a million dollars. However, the investigation did not reveal anything significant beyond the fact that he possessed a secret code nearly a thousand years old.

The most famous of Voynich's possessions was a mysterious manuscript he said he acquired in 1912 at the Villa Mondragone in Italy, but first presented in public in 1915. The book has been carbon-dated, which revealed that the materials were manufactured sometime between 1404 and 1438, although the book may have been written much later. He owned the manuscript until his death.

A page from Voynich's manuscript

The Voynich manuscript is an illustrated codex hand-written in an unknown writing system. The vellum on which it is written has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century (1404–1438), and it may have been composed in Italy during the Italian Renaissance. The manuscript is named after Wilfrid Voynich, a Polish-Samogitian book dealer who purchased it in 1912. Some of the pages are missing, with around 240 remaining. The text is written from left to right, and most of the pages have illustrations or diagrams. Some pages are foldable sheets.

The Voynich manuscript has been studied by many professional and amateur cryptographers, including American and British codebreakers from both World War I and World War II. The manuscript has never been demonstrably deciphered, and the mystery of its meaning and origin has excited the popular imagination, making it the subject of novels and speculation. None of the many hypotheses proposed over the last hundred years has been independently verified. In 1969, the Voynich manuscript was donated by Hans P. Kraus to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

In his correspondence preserved in the Beinecke Library, Voynich reveals that he has been introduced to the Jesuits of Villa Mondragone by one "Father Strickland", who lived here. It credits the origin of the manuscript and the purchase to Villa Mondragone.Villa Mondragone was built in 1573-1577 by Cardinal Marco Sittico Altemps.Cardinal Altemps enlarged the existing villa Tusculana, a work done in 1571. One of his guests was Cardinal Ugo Boncompagni, who became pope Gregorius XIII a few months later. He suggested building a new villa on the hill overlooking the villa Tusculana, on the Roman ruins of the Qunitili's villa. The Villa is called Mondragone referring to the coat of arms of the family Boncompagni (a dragon). The Villa received the Pope and his court for a long time.

In 1613, Cardinal Scipione Borghese, nephew of pope Paul V, bought villa Mondragone and villa Tusculana, together with other properties of duke Gian Angelo Altemps, nephew of cardinal Marco. In 1621, at the death of Paul V, the decline of villa Mondragone began.

In 1865, the owner of Villa Mondragone, Don Marcantonio Borghese, signed an agreement with the Jesuits in order to use the Villa as a college for the Italian nobility. The "Nobile Collegio Mondragone" opens its doors on February 2, 1865. The Jesuits bought Villa Mondragone in 1896.

Since three fathers with the name Strickland were associated with the Villa, the relationship between the anarchist Strickland to Voynich needs further research. Rev W Strickland, a Jesuit was Military Chaplain in India for 12 years and wrote the book, Catholic Missions in Southern India to 1865.

Strickland spent some time in Russia and in 1923 became a citizen of Czechoslovakia, renouncing his British citizenship and the Baronetcy. Encyclopedia of Literary Translation Into English states:

"The virtually unknown English eccentric was a traveller and free thinker with a taste for anarchism and Buddhism, but he managed to find time to learn Czech and to translate poems. The quality of the translation is rather good but again the impact on the British public was nil and they are long out of print".

He had libertarian, socialist and atheist ideas. He helped Guy Aldred, founder of the Glasgow Anarchist Group.

As related by Albert Meltzer: " After the publication of Hyde Park in 1938 support for Aldred in London fell off and he had burned his bridges in London and Glasgow, but then an extraordinary chance ended his days of poverty. Sir Walter Strickland, a millionaire whose family practically owned Malta, had during the First World War taken to him and was disgusted with the British Government after the Versailles Treaty. In acknowledgement of the newly created State of Czechoslovakia, the first fruit of League of Nations liberal idealism, Strickland became a naturalised Czech (1923), though he never went to that country. In 1938 Strickland died and left a fortune to Aldred, who promptly formed the Strickland Press, bought a hall, bookshop and machinery and proceeded to reprint all his old pamphlets, before actually getting the money. Then the Strickland relatives brought a suit saying the will was invalid. Strickland had said in his will he left the money to Aldred "for socialist and atheist propaganda", illegal under Czech law. There was a complicated legal case which ended as such things usually do, with the money in the hands of the lawyers. Aldred, used to defending his own cases personally and handling courts with ease on matters of obstruction and sedition, found himself outgunned among the moneyed lawyers ".

Albert Mezler was an English anarcho-communist and contributor to the anarchist paper Freedom, who wrote, Anarchism, For and Against.

According to John Taylor Caldwell: "Walter was an eccentric. He preferred books to the pursuits of normal young men of his class and had no interest in sport, drink, gambling or women. His father was disappointed and disgusted. One day when he was having it out with Walter (probably not for the first time) about his unsatisfactory lifestyle, and the fact that he was nearing forty and still not married, Walter rose from the table and, so the story goes, proposed to the first girl he met, who happened to be the kitchen maid."

Caldwell was a Glasgow-born anarchist communist and biographer of anarchist, Guy Aldred.

In the early 1890s, Strickland went to live abroad.

After 1912 Strickland did not live in England. Eventually, he settled in Java and became a strong opponent of imperialism.

He gave Sun Yat Sen £10,000 "to help him start a revolt against the Emperor of China".During the First World War, Strickland donated £10,000 to his friend Tomáš Masaryk's Czechoslovakian Independence Movement. He left Guy Aldred £3,000 and with this money he bought some second-hand printing machinery and established The Strickland Press. Over the next 25 years Aldred published regular issues of the United Socialist Movement organ, The Word and various pamphlets on anarchism. Thomas Masaryk ( 1850 – 1937), was a Czechoslovak politician, statesman, sociologist and philosopher. Until 1914, he advocated restructuring the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a federal state. With the help of the Allied Powers, Masaryk gained independence from the Czechoslovak Republic as World War I ended in 1918. He co-founded Czechoslovakia together with Milan Rastislav Štefánik and Edvard Beneš and served as its first President, and so is called by some Czechs the "President Liberator".

In 1909 Guy Aldred was sentenced to twelve months of hard labour for printing the August issue of The Indian Sociologist, an Indian nationalist newspaper edited by Shyamji Krishnavarma. Strickland heard of Aldred's action and sent him a telegram of congratulation to the prison and a cheque for £10.

Guy Aldred

Guy Alfred Aldred (often Guy A. Aldred;  1886 – 1963) was a British anarchist communist and a prominent member of the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF). He founded the Bakunin Press publishing house and edited five Glasgow-based anarchist periodicals: The Herald of Revolt, The Spur, The Commune, The Council, and The Word, where he worked closely with Ethel MacDonald and his later partner Jenny Patrick.

The Indian Sociologist was an Indian nationalist newspaper edited by Shyamji Krishnavarma. When Krishnavarma left London for Paris, fearing repression by the authorities, the printing of the newspaper was first taken over by Arthur Fletcher Horsley. However, he was arrested and tried for printing the May, June and July issues. (He was tried and sentenced on the same day as Madan Lal Dhingra, who was convicted of the assassination of Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie). At Horseley's prominent trial the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, indicated that anyone printing that sort of material would be liable for prosecution. Nevertheless, Aldred, as an advocate of the free press, published it, bearing his own name. The police obtained a warrant and seized 396 copies of the issue. At the trial, the prosecution was led by the Attorney General, Sir William Robson, at the Central Criminal Court. Robson highlighted parts of TIS that Aldred had himself written, particularly focussing on a passage which touched on the execution of Dhingra:

In the execution of Dhingra that cloak will be publicly worn, that secret language spoken, that solemn veil employed to conceal the sword of Imperialism by which we are sacrificed to the insatiable idol of modern despotism, whose ministers are Cromer, Curzon and Morley & Co. Murder - which they would represent to us as a horrible crime when the murdered is a government flunkey - we see practised by them without repugnance or remorse when the murdered is a working man, a Nationalist patriot, Egyptian fellaheen or half-starved victim of despotic society's bloodlust. It was so at Featherstone and Denshawai; it has often been so at Newgate: and it was so with Robert Emmett, the Paris communards, and the Chicago martyrs. Who is more reprehensible than the murderers of these martyrs? The police spies who threw the bomb at Chicago; the ad-hoc tribunal which murdered innocent Egyptians at Denshawai; the Asquith who assumed full responsibility for the murder of the workers at Featherstone; the assassins of Robert Emmett? Yet these murderers have not been executed! Why then should Dhingra be executed? Because he is not a time-serving executioner, but a Nationalist patriot, who, though his ideals are not their ideals, is worthy of the admiration of those workers at home, who have as little to gain from the lick-spittle crew of Imperialistic blood-sucking, capitalist parasites at as what the Nationalists have in India.

Madanlal Dhingra

Aldred also remarked that the Sepoy Mutiny, or Indian Mutiny, would be described as The Indian War of Independence. Aldred received a sentence of twelve months of hard labour. His involvement with The Indian Sociologist brought him into contact with Har Dayal, who combined anarchism with his Indian Nationalism, based on his view of ancient Aryan culture and Buddhism.

Disaffected with Britain, in 1911, Strickland sold the family home, which became a convent. After 1912, he did not live in England. On August 15 1913 The Argus of Melbourne reported:

ANARCHIST BARONET

Sir Walter Strickland

Scholar and Gipsy

LONDON, Aug. 14.

Sir Walter Strickland, the "anarchist
baronet," who has been missing from his
accustomed haunts on the Continent for
sometimes, and for whom his friends have
been searching, is reported to be living
quietly at Geneva. He took a prominent
part in the recent formation of a committee
to promote freer trade for India.

Sir Walter, who is the ninth of his line,
and whose title dates from 1641, was born
62 years ago, and succeeded his father four
years ago A scholar and savant of undo
repute, he is called a gipsy and an anarchist,
owing to his wandering habits and politi
cal theories He is a linguist of ability,
verged in both ancient and modem lan
gauges, and won wide fame by his transía
lions of Moliere and Horace.

It is said that during his 62 years he
has spent only 1 week in London
Sir Walter once declared that he had
hidden on the Continent because 

he had received a warning "from an
absolutely reliable source" that powerful
officials were plotting his assassination. In
Vienna the baronet was arrested because
he was thought to be Ugo Schenek, a 

murderer .' This was a great compliment,"
commented the baronet, ' for Schenek was
described as extremely handsome and 

aristocratic looking ". Upon succeeding to the
title, Sir Walter announced his intention of
removing every scrap of his property to the
Continent, and for the future to have as
little as possible to do with England and
its people.

In a letter to a London newspaper Sir
Walter wrote -"The vulgar, ungentle
manly, and, indeed, murderous 

persecution to which I have been subjected is ex
exclusively British " The 'anarchist baronet"
comes of an ancient family that had its seat
at Strickland, in Westmoreland, before the
Conquest, and one of Sir Walter's ancestors,
carried the banner of St George at Agincourt.

Archive box no 27 of Aldred Collection: Socialist pamphlets by Strickland; the photo seen is Strickland, just out of Cambridge

After receiving Czechoslovakian citizenship in 1923, he renounced his British citizenship and in 1931, moved to Java, where he died on 9 August 1938. His two works of some interest are Sacrifice; Or, the Daughter of the Sun (1920), a tale with Lost Race implications, and the more ambitious Vishnu; Or, the Planet of the Sevenfold Unity (1928), in which a distant planet, whose inhabitants are divided into seven Sexes, is visited.

William A Stricklin in the book, Family Secrets, writes that Strickland willed his vast wealth to print communist pamphlets. The information comes under the subheading, Family Idiots. Though Strickland had become a neutralized Czech, he never went to that country. When he died, he left his entire fortune to Aldred who promptly formed the Strickland Press, bought a hall, bookshop, and machinery and proceeded to reprint all his old pamphlets, before actually getting the money.

There is a slightly different version: Strickland left most of his money to peace causes of which Guy was the executor. Due to Strickland's hatred of Imperial Britain most of his money was invested in countries that would be at war with Britain before the will was probated. Guy received £3,000, and with this, he bought some second-hand printing machinery and Bakunin Press - renamed Strickland Press in memory of Sir Walter - moved into 104-106 George Street Glasgow. Strickland Press set about republishing many of Guy's pamphlets and the Word, which would appear every month for 25 years, for 22 years of this period a free copy of the Word was sent to every Labour MP.

The Strickland relatives brought a lawsuit saying the will was invalid. Strickland had said in his will that he had left the money to Aldred "for Socialist and atheist propaganda", illegal under Czech law. There was a complicated legal case which ended as things usually do, with the money in hands of the lawyers. Aldred used to defend his cases personally and handle courts with ease on matters of obstruction and sedition, found himself outgunned among the moneyed lawyers. Strickland disregarded Lincoln's admonition not to represent himself. Aldred was left out of pocket only to be saved, financially, by the Marquis of Tavistock. Through Tavistock's support, Aldred was able to begin work on his monthly The Word - a periodical of the United Socialist Movement which was one of the key publications produced by the Strickland Press.

The Marquis of Tavistock - who became the Duke of Bedford - committed suicide after the Second World War, making no provision for Aldred in his will. Nevertheless, Aldred continued to publish The Word until his death in 1963 supported by Ethel MacDonald and Jenny Patrick. MacDonald acted as manager and bookkeeper of the company until her death in 1960, setting type and printing alongside Patrick who continued working at Strickland Press until its dissolution. The George Street premises had to be vacated in 1962 when they were demolished to make way for the expansion of the Royal College of Science and Technology, which later became the University of Strathclyde which now hold Aldred's archive. The Strickland Press was continued by John Taylor Caldwell until its closure in 1968.

Chempaka Raman, after the first world war, continued to work in a German company but kept his efforts for Indian independence alive. In 1930 he became the representative in Berlin of the Indian Chamber of Commerce. He was the only white in the National People's Party that supported the Nazis. In a press meeting on 10 August 1931 Hitler said that if non-Aaryan Indians were ruled by the British, it is their fate. This irritated Raman. On 4 December, Hitler said: "Britain losing India would not augur well for any nation, including Germany".

Raman wrote to Hitler: "You seem to attribute more importance to the colour of the skin than to the blood. Our skins may be dark; not our hearts".

Hitler sent his Secretary to Raman to apologize but expressed his irritation at being attributed with a black heart. Their friendship came to an end. In January 1933, Hitler became the Chancellor. Nazis raided and arrogated Raman's house in Berlin; he was manhandled and bundled out. He moved to Italy for treatment. Blood had clotted in his brain. He had no money for treatment. He died on 28 May 1934, in an ordinary nursing home. Hitler killed him.

My enquiries at the University of Strathclyde Archives and Special Collections and the Glasgow Mitchell Library reveal that in the Aldred collection there, "bundle 49 dated 08/08/1939, contains a letter from the wife of Chempaka Raman Pillai, adopted by Sir William Strickland, about her husband’s disappearance enclosing an article about Strickland."

His wife, Lakshmi Bai from Satara in Maharashtra returned to Mumbai with his ashes in 1935. She had valuable documents on Raman. She lived alone in a flat in Church Gate allotted to her by Morarji Desai. She died in December 1972 in St George Hospital, due to starvation. The unidentified body was identified by Journalist P K Ravindranath. Her famished fingers still clenched 17 keys that protected her husband's documents. The documents were transferred to the National Archives.

Padmanabha Pillai returned to Trivandrum and became a Curator with the help of the royal family. During this period, he went to the University of Bern to present a paper on frogs. On his way back, he disappeared without a trace, but his coat was retrieved from a beach in Thailand; his belongings reached Colombo. His father-in-law burned all his remaining documents. Butterflies, spiders and frogs do exist.

____________________________

*Pagans and Christians

Note: I am indebted to Carol Stewart, Senior Library Assistant, and Dr Anne Cameron, Senior Archives Assistant, University of Strathclyde Andersonian Library, Glasgow, UK for providing me with the last portrait of Strickland, by digging deep into the archives.

© Ramachandran