THE BRITISH INDIAN JUDGE WHO SACKED INDIRA GANDHI

He Raised His Children as Hindus

The name Justice William George Broome may not ring a bell to many Indians today. Though British, he was the Indian Judge who started the proceedings in Allahabad High Court Against Indira Gandhi in 1971, which resulted in the declaration of the Emergency in 1975. Broome was the last British judge to remain in judicial service in India, and the only one to have been appointed to a High Court after independence. He came to India as an Indian Civil Service (ICS) officer, took Indian citizenship and assimilated into Indian life and society impressively.

His official biodata reads: Graduated in B.A. (Hons.). Born on 18th March 1910. Educated at Laytmer Upper School, Hammersmith and Caius College, Cambridge. Joined the Indian Civil Service on 10.10.1932 and served in Uttar Pradesh as Assistant Magistrate and Collector, Joint Magistrate. Became District and Session Judge on 16.4.1941, appointed Registrar of Allahabad High Court in December 1943, confirmed as District and Sessions Judge on 13th September 1945 and in the Selection Grade on 31.3.1953. Appointed Additional Judge, Allahabad High Court on 8.12.1958. Permanent Judge of Allahabad High Court on 18.2.1959. 

Broome came to India as an imperial official in 1932. During a period when British rule in India was still characterised by racial hierarchies and segregation, he defied British prejudices by marrying an Indian woman and devoting his life to India. He even raised his children as Hindus, learned numerous Indian languages and immersed himself in Indian culture. 

He served in what was then the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). In 1937, he married Swaroop Kumari Gour, the daughter of the lawyer, politician and academic Sir Hari Singh Gour. Hari Singh had married Olivia, the daughter of  Balwant Singh of Bhandara.

Hari Singh Gour

Sir Hari Singh Gour (1870 –  1949) was a distinguished lawyer, jurist, educationist, social reformer, poet, and novelist. Gour was the First Vice-Chancellor of the University of Delhi and Nagpur University, founder and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sagar, Deputy President of the Central Legislative Assembly of British India, an Indian Delegate to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, a Member of the Indian Central Committee associated with the Royal Commission on the Indian Constitution (popularly known as the Simon Commission), and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.

Hari Singh Gour was born on 26 November 1870 to a poor family near Sagar, in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The family had to be supported by Hari Singh's eldest brother who provided an allowance of 50 rupees per month. Hari Singh's father was a carpenter and farmer, but the young boy was not interested in this trade. At the age of ten, Hari Singh won a scholarship of two rupees per month which enabled him to attend a night school in Sagar. Later, with the help of another scholarship, he went to Jabalpur to undertake further studies. Mathematics was his favourite subject and for this, he received a special prize. In Jabalpur, he went for his matriculation but he failed the first time as he was deeply disturbed as someone stole his gold ring which he brought by saving 10 rupees from all his scholarships. But the second time he passed out with good marks. He passed his Intermediate examination from Hislop College, Nagpur, a free church institution, standing first in the whole province.

When he was 18 years old, Hari Singh Gour went to the University of Cambridge in England where he took Moral Sciences Tripos and Law Tripos. Unfortunately, the young Hari Singh experienced a great deal of racism as a student and throughout his life. He participated in a mathematics competition, of which the results were not declared. Some years after obtaining his LL.D. he learned that the scholarship that the competition awarded was not given to foreigners, especially "blacks," as Indians were referred to by the British. Since Hari Singh came first in the competition, the scholarship ended up not being awarded to anyone. He faced similar treatment in other situations and academic competitions, however, he never let this unfair treatment by the British discourage him. Instead, he began to write poetry. In fact, while in England he came to be known in literary circles as a promising poet, becoming acquainted with the likes of George Bernard Shaw. He wrote a book of poetry entitled Stepping Westward and Other Poems due to which he became somewhat of a celebrity and was thereby selected as a Member of the Royal Society of Literature.

He was admitted as a pensioner at Downing College, Cambridge on 5 June 1889. Gour received his BA in 1892; the MA in 1896; LL.M. in 1902; and finally the LL.D. in 1908. After his time at Cambridge, he read for the D.Litt. and LL.D. at Trinity College, Dublin. 

Young Hari Singh Gour

On his return to India, he became a successful lawyer in Raipur. He wrote two monumental works, The Law of Transfer in British India and The Penal Law of India. Another book entitled Hindu Law Code published later added to his reputation as a great jurist. In the Central Legislative Assembly in 1921, Gour denounced the sequestration and suppression of women. He was also a great social reformer and was successful in getting an act passed to enable women to be enrolled as lawyers, while his Civil Marriage Bill of 1923 showed him to be a reformer thinking ahead of his time. Gour was not only a progressive scholar; he demonstrated such forward-thinking in his personal life as well. 

The first bill for the abolition of untouchability was introduced in 1921 by Hari Singh Gour. Through his determination and industry combined with a gift of oratory, Sir Hari Singh Gour rose to an eminent position in the political scene. He became a Leader of the Opposition and of the Nationalist Party in the Indian Legislative Assembly from 1921 to 1934. He was a Member of the Constituent Assembly that framed India's Constitution.

Gour donated Rs 20 lakh on 6 December 1946 and 2 Crore in 1949 to establish the Dr Hari Singh Gour University in Sagar-it was the highest charity offering in Asia then. He gave off all his properties.

Gour and Family

Gour was not only a progressive scholar; he demonstrated such forward-thinking in his personal life as well. He married Olivia, daughter of Balwant Singh of Bhandara. In marrying Gour, Broome defied these prejudices. He raised his children as Hindus (Broome was an atheist), learned numerous Indian languages and developed a strong interest in Indian culture.

Broome was appointed as a district and sessions judge in 1941. His independence in that role was legendary. When the chief secretary of the United Provinces declared that too many detainees under the Defence of India Rules were receiving bail, Broome responded by threatening the chief secretary with contempt of court.
By 1958, Nehru was able to write of Broome that “I have seldom known any Englishman who has so Indianized himself in various ways as he has”, and that “he is as much as Indian as anybody can be who is not born in India and indeed probably more so than many people born in India”. 

In that year, with Nehru’s assistance, Broome renounced his British citizenship and became an Indian citizen. 

Unlike other British civil servants, he opted to stay in India as a judge after Independence. He was appointed to the Allahabad High Court, where he served until his retirement in 1972. His judgments in this role demonstrated a strong concern for civil liberties, even going further than the Supreme Court of that time.

Broome with Swaroopa

One of Broome’s final cases as a judge was to hear the early stages of Raj Narain’s challenge to Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election from Rae Bareli – the challenge that ultimately led to the Emergency. Broome had known Nehru and had once enjoyed a friendly relationship with Indira – he and his wife were even invited to Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi’s wedding reception. But he nonetheless made important procedural rulings in Narain’s favour. (Although Broome’s friendship with Indira Gandhi seems to have ended after this case, it is striking that no effort was made to delegitimise his decisions by referring to his foreign birth.)

1971 was a momentous year in our history. India was celebrating its silver jubilee. The general elections that took place a few months prior to the Bangladesh war had provided a battle cry that sounded as hollow as it was shrill: Garibi Hatao. Yet again, the nation got fooled, perhaps lulled into believing its progenitor – Indira Gandhi. She won a resounding victory. 

Raj Narain, her adversary for the keenly contested Lok Sabha seat of Rai Bareli, nearly lost his deposit. But the plucky, bandana-wearing socialist, born in the same year as Indira Gandhi, went to court alleging that Mrs Gandhi had deployed government jeeps during canvassing, thereby violating the code of conduct. The charge of appropriating a few jeeps – 23 to be precise – for the purposes of election canvassing seemed laughable.

Justice Broome thought otherwise. He inadvertently set in motion events that heralded the most shameful chapter in our young history.

 In the first week of March 1971, Raj Narain and Indira Gandhi crossed swords for the Rai Bareli seat. Mrs Gandhi won handsomely (with a margin of 1,11,810 votes). A month later, on April 24, 1971, Narain filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging Mrs Gandhi’s election on the grounds that she had indulged in corrupt practices. No, not for promoting her kin to positions of limitless power or indulging in shady arms deals, but rather for using official jeeps for canvassing.

Raj Narain alleged that Yashpal Kapur – a gazetted officer who claimed to have retired by the time his expert services were availed of by Mrs Gandhi – had shamelessly distributed quilts, dhotis and alcohol among the voters as an inducement. He had also hired and procured a number of vehicles for the free conveyance of electors to the polling stations.

It was this last allegation that changed the course of India’s history. 

On February 24, 1971, Dal Bahadur Singh, President of the District Congress Committee, Rae Bareli, wrote a letter to Yashpal Kapur, in which he commanded Kapur to ask the Electoral Officer to release some jeeps. Dal Bahadur was incensed as this gutsy officer had earlier denied Dal Bahadur’s request on the grounds that “it was not possible to release the vehicles in favour of any party for election purposes”.

Kapur duly obliged but made a grievous error while wording his letter – understandable as he was a gazetted officer. He not only asked the Election Officer to release the 23 vehicles without delay but also stated that the vehicles in question had already been taken by the District Congress Committee.

Tense confusion and truth blurtings aside, this time round the letter had come from none other than the Prime Minister’s election agent, and the poor election officer had no option but to “release” the vehicles that had already been released.

Back then our politicians thought it fit to act on their own advice and not their lawyer’s. Not to be outdone by her electoral agent’s gaffe, Mrs Gandhi gave it in writing to the court that indeed those 23 jeeps had been used by the District Congress Committee Rae Bareli for election purposes in the constituencies of Rae Bareli, Amethi and Ram Sanehi Ghat.

Raj Narain

Verdict: Allahabad High Court (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/689646/)

Date: September 14, 1971

Bench: Justice WG Broome

The first of many judges to have contributed to Indira Gandhi & Others’ downfall was Justice BN Lokur. The hearings began on July 15, 1971 and it wasn’t long before Raj Narain demanded that none other than Indira Gandhi should depose before the Allahabad High Court. Justice Lokur rejected Narain’s request outright. He also rejected Narain’s appeal for the many “incriminating” books and documents of the respondent (Mrs Gandhi) to be placed before the court. Before the issue could be taken further, there was a small matter of constitutional reading. Justice Broome swept in gladly to oblige.

“The petitioner”, said Justice Broome, “has applied for leave to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the respondent and for a direction to the respondent to make a discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in her possession or power relating to the questions arising in the petition. The arguments advanced on both sides have ranged over a wide field of both English and Indian law, but I shall endeavour to deal with them as succinctly as possible.”

Succinctness, wit, erudition – Justice Broome then went on to display each of these qualities in equal measure, quoting liberally from judgments delivered centuries ago.

“…After jurisdiction was conferred by the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, the court continued to follow the principles, practice and rules on which committees of the House of Commons had previously acted in dealing with election petitions; and as pointed out in Wells v. Wren, (1880) it is admitted that the exhibition of interrogatories to the sitting member by an election committee was a thing unheard of. When elections were introduced in India, however, there was a radical departure from this principle…”

“…The respondent says that the petitioner should not be allowed to supplement these particulars by resorting to discovery. But this argument is misconceived, for discovery has nothing to do with supplementing the petitioner’s pleadings; its object is to elicit admissions from the respondent that may obviate the necessity for producing lengthy evidence when the time comes to examine witnesses.”      

“…It is no doubt true that the Indian electoral law has been largely modelled on the corresponding English statutes, but that does not mean that English Common Law doctrines must be followed when interpreting the Indian Law. An objection that an order for discovery of documents might tend to incriminate the party ordered is not sufficient to give immunity from discovery. To sum up, I find that in India there is no warrant for following the English practice of disallowing discovery in the trial of election petitions.”

“…Accordingly I grant leave to the petitioner to deliver the accompanying interrogatories for the examination of respondent. I also direct the respondent to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in her possession or power. The affidavit in reply to this also shall be filed by October 4, 1971.”

It was too late-Smt Gandhi & Others promptly approached the Supreme Court that, much to their ire, sided with Raj Narain. In Allahabad, however, something else was brewing, something to do with a little blue book.

Raj Narain Vs Smt Indira Gandhi & Others

Verdict: Allahabad High Court (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/431532/)

Date: March 20, 1974

Bench: Justice KN Srivastava

It appears Mrs Gandhi was hell-bent on denying Raj Narain and the court a dekko at some documents that included, bizarrely, a “blue book”. The judge wasn’t too pleased with this stand.

“In this election petition”, said Justice Srivastava, “privilege has been claimed [by the respondent, ( Mrs Gandhi ) regarding three sets of documents, including copy of a blue book with the title Rules and Instructions for the Protection of Prime Minister when on Tour or in Travel. It shall hereinafter be called as the blue book…The Union Government itself disclosed a part of this blue book, on the top of which the word Secret is printed. The blue book is not an unpublished official record. The State cannot be permitted to have two yardsticks for two different individuals.”

“…Unless the blue book is made available to him, the petitioner cannot be in a position to efficiently cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses. It is, therefore, just, equitable and in accordance with the principle of natural justice that the claim of privilege regarding the blue book and other papers which are correlated with the blue book be rejected.”

Yashpal Kapur with Indira

Mrs Gandhi would hear none of it. She approached the Supreme Court again, demanding that the blue book not be shown as evidence during the trial. The year was 1974 and having purged her dissenters, rebuffed Nixon, broken Pakistan in two, and exploded an atomic bomb, she was invincible. Indira was India and India was Indira.

A five-judge bench heard her plea and, unexpectedly, disregarded all previous judgments. Mrs Gandhi had won the right to hide the blue book. Her victory, though, was short-lived. The Supreme Court, while pronouncing its verdict, also directed the case to be heard afresh by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court.

It was Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha.

On June 12, 1975, in a jam-packed courtroom, under long-stemmed ceiling fans that pretended to bring relief from the unbearable heat, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha found the sitting Prime Minister of India Mrs Indira Gandhi guilty. He declared her election “null and void” and forbade her from fighting elections for six years. The concluding words of Justice Sinha: “I regret my inability to accept her evidence, on one point; her plea has no legs to stand on, on another; and that it does not bear any scrutiny, on a third.”

Years later, Mrs Gandhi would call Justice Sinha “a petty judge”.  On that hot June day, however, after expressing her dismay and anger to BBC’s Mark Tully in a rare interview, she promptly trundled off to the Supreme Court yet again. This was because Justice Sinha had stayed his judgment for 20 days to allow the Congress party to elect a successor. Exactly the window Mrs Gandhi needed. Her appeal to the Supreme Court was for an “absolute stay” on the judgment.

Jagmohan Lal Sinha

The Supreme Court was on vacation. Only one judge was available

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs Raj Narain & Another

Verdict: Supreme Court (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1240174/)

Date: June 24, 1975

Bench: Justice VR Krishna Iyer

“While the right to appeal is statutory”, said Justice Iyer, “the power to stay is discretionary. But judicial discretion – indeed, even executive discretion – cannot run riot. Judicial power is dynamic, forward-looking, socially lucent and aware. The Court is the quiet of the storm centre and views with an equal eye the claims on each side. The High Court and its finding, until upset, holds good, however weak it may ultimately prove.”

“…I hereby pass a stay of the order of the High Court under appeal. The petitioner will remain a Member of the Lok Sabha, will be entitled to sign the Register kept in the House for that purpose and attend the Sessions of the Lok Sabha, but she will neither participate in the proceedings nor vote nor draw remuneration in her capacity as Member of the Lok Sabha.”

This was anything but the “absolute stay” Mrs Gandhi had wished for. Her anger was palpable. Fascism beckoned her, and at midnight, June 25, 1975, she declared a state of Emergency. We got freedom at midnight and lost it another midnight.

Yashpal Kapur, the one who started it all by providing the jeeps, went on to become, just like his nephew RK Dhawan later on, a member of the Rajya Sabha.

Broome died in Bengaluru in 1988. Having come to India in the service of imperial power, he died an Indian.

Broome’s decision to seek Indian citizenship, and the nation’s willingness to accept his faithful service, highlights interesting aspects of ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationalism’ in the young Indian republic. 

He was retained as a judge by the independent Indian government partially through pragmatism: despite the long struggle for independence, free India kept many of the institutions and officials that had governed (even subjugated) colonial India. But his life also reflected important, idealistic aspects of the new Indian state. But the fact that Broome brought up his children as Hindus underlines his belief in the Indian tradition and culture, unlike Nehru.

B N Rau

Broome's son Ashok lives in the Pune farmhouse, Broome Farmstays in Marunji village, with his wife, Leela Gour Broome. They built the farmhouse in 1989. Leela's Dutch mother was married to a Maharashtrian. Earlier, they had lived in a tea estate, High Wavy Hills,90 km away from Madurai.

Broome was not the only civil servant to serve in the high court. 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. There were many like Broome, the majority being Englishmen. 

It will be apt to remember B N Rau here. He was an eminent jurist and served as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court from 1939. He was also a judicial ‘lateral entrant’.B.N. Rau was a member of the International Court of Justice Bench at The Hague, and the first from India. Earlier, he was also the constitutional adviser to the Constituent Assembly of India. 

He was the most important person after B.R. Ambedkar in drafting the Constitution of India. The draft Constitution debated in the Constituent Assembly, later amended to become the Constitution of India, was his brainchild. The Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly had accepted his draft virtually without any change. But, B.N. Rau was not an advocate or member of the judicial services. He was a civil servant. He entered the Indian Civil Service in 1910 and served with distinction until his elevation to the high court.

He was also closely involved in drafting key provisions of the Government of India Act, of 1935, which later became the template of the Constitution of India. B.N. Rau was also a prolific author and wrote on many aspects of law and jurisprudence.

-----------------------------

Reference: Indira, Jeeps and Blue Books/Anand Ranganathan

© Ramachandran 

ഉള്ളിൽ വിങ്ങുന്ന മഗ്ദലന

ടി എം അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ നാടക ജീവിതത്തിന് 50 

ടി എം അബ്രഹാമിൻറെ ആദ്യ നാടകം ഞാൻ കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ട് -1979 ൽ ഏലൂർ ഉദ്യോഗമണ്ഡലിൽ ആയിരുന്നു,അത്.പെരുന്തച്ചൻ' ഐതിഹ്യം ആധാരമാക്കിയുള്ള 'അഹം,അഹം'.എബ്രഹാം തന്നെ സംവിധാനം ചെയ്ത ആ നാടകാവതരണം ഉജ്വലമായിരുന്നു.രണ്ടു താരങ്ങൾ അന്ന് എൻറെ മനസ്സിൽ ഉദിച്ചു;എബ്രഹാമും പെരുന്തച്ചൻ ആയി അഭിനയിച്ച ബാബു നമ്പൂതിരിയും.

യാദൃച്ഛികതകൾ പല തരത്തിൽ സംഭവിക്കും.നാടക കൃത്ത് കെ എസ് നമ്പൂതിരിയുടെ അടുത്ത ബന്ധു എൻ എസ് നമ്പൂതിരിപ്പാടിൻറെ വീട്ടിൽ താമസിച്ചാണ് ആ നാടകം കണ്ടത്.അദ്ദേഹം ഫെഡോയിൽ ഡോകുമെൻറേഷൻ മാനേജർ ആയിരുന്നു;അദ്ദേഹത്തിൻറെ മകൻ സനന്ദകുമാർ എൻറെ കൂടെ അന്ന് മഹാരാജാസ് കോളജിൽ പഠിച്ചിരുന്നു.ഇരുവരും ഇന്നില്ല.നമ്പൂതിരിപ്പാട് മരിച്ചു ഒരു വർഷം തികയുമ്പോഴേക്കും സനന്ദനും വിട വാങ്ങി.ഇക്കണോമിക് ടൈംസിൽ ആയിരുന്നു,സനന്ദൻ.

നമ്പൂതിരിപ്പാട്,ബാബു നമ്പൂതിരിയുടെയും ബന്ധുവായിരുന്നു.നാടകം കണ്ട് വൈകിട്ട് അദ്ദേഹവുമായി സംസാരിക്കുമ്പോഴാണ് അദ്ദേഹം സി ജെ തോമസിൻറെ കൂട്ടുകാരൻ ആയിരുന്നു എന്നറിയുന്നത്.നമ്പൂതിരിപ്പാടിൻറെ രാമപുരത്തെ വീട്ടിൽ സി ജെ ചെല്ലുമായിരുന്നു.രാമപുരത്തെ ആ വീട്ടിൽ വേറൊരു ഇതിഹാസം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു -ലളിതാംബിക അന്തർജ്ജനം.

ഈ നമ്പൂതിരി കുടുംബത്തിൻറെ ചില വിവാഹ ചടങ്ങുകളിൽ വച്ചാണ് കെ എസ് നമ്പൂതിരിയുമായി അടുത്തത്.ഞങ്ങൾക്ക് പൊതുവായ ചില ശീലങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു.നമ്പൂതിരിയുടെ നാടകങ്ങളിൽ മാർക്സിസത്തോട് അടുപ്പമുള്ള ചില വിപ്ലവ അംശങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു.സമസ്യ,സമാവർത്തനം തുടങ്ങിയ നാടകങ്ങൾ ഞാൻ കണ്ടിരുന്നു.ഒന്നിൽ നമ്പൂതിരി യുവാവ് വിഗ്രഹ മോഷ്ടാവാണ്.അക്കാലത്ത് കേശവൻ നമ്പൂതിരി എന്നൊരാൾ വിഗ്രഹം മോഷ്ടിച്ചിരുന്നു.

കെ  എസ് നമ്പൂതിരി ഫാക്ട് സ്‌കൂളിൽ അധ്യാപകൻ ആയതിനാൽ ടി എം അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ സുഹൃത്തായിരുന്നു.അബ്രഹാമിനെപ്പറ്റി ഞാൻ നമ്പൂതിരിയോട് സംസാരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടാകാം.അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ അദ്‌ഭുതാങ്കണം,പ്രോമിത്യുസ് തുടങ്ങിയ ഏകാങ്കങ്ങൾ തൃപ്പൂണിത്തുറ അത്തച്ചമയ നാടക മത്സരങ്ങളിൽ വന്നിരുന്നു.

ബാബു നമ്പൂതിരിയുടെ അനുജൻ കെ എൻ ആർ നമ്പൂതിരി പിൽക്കാലത്ത് മനോരമയിൽ എൻറെ സഹപ്രവർത്തകനായി.യാദൃച്ഛികതകൾ ഇങ്ങനെ അവസാനിച്ച ശേഷമാണ്,അബ്രഹാം എൻറെ ജീവിതത്തിലേക്ക് വരുന്നത്.അദ്ദേഹം സരമാഗുവിന്റെ Gospel According to Jesus Christ എന്ന നോവൽ പരിഭാഷ ചെയ്തു.അതിൽ സരമാഗു വർണിച്ച യേശു -മഗ്‌ദലന മറിയം ബന്ധം അബ്രഹാം പരിഭാഷയിൽ ഒഴിവാക്കിയത് ഞാൻ റിപ്പോർട്ട് ചെയ്തു.അത് അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ മനസ്സിൽ നിന്നത് കൊണ്ടാകാം,കൊച്ചിയിൽ ഞാൻ സ്ഥിരമായ ശേഷം അടുപ്പമുണ്ടായത്.

പരിഭാഷയിൽ യേശുവിനെ അബ്രഹാം രക്ഷിക്കാൻ ശ്രമിച്ചതിൽ ഒരു സഭാവിശ്വാസിയെ കാണാം.നമ്പൂതിരിക്ക് മാർക്സിസത്തോട് ഉണ്ടായിരുന്ന ചായ്‌വ് അബ്രഹാമിന് തീരെയില്ല.നാടകത്തിൽ സ്വന്തം രാഷ്ട്രീയം കലർത്താതെ നാടകത്തെ പൂർണമായും നാടകമായി കാണുന്ന അബ്രഹാമിനോടാണ് എനിക്ക് മതിപ്പ്.ഇത്രയും വിദേശ നാടകങ്ങൾ വായിച്ച വേറൊരു മലയാളി എൻ എൻ പിള്ള മാത്രമായിരിക്കും.പിള്ളയുടെ ഒരു നാടകം,ഡാം,അമേരിക്കൻ നാടകകൃത്ത് Thornton Wilder ൽ നിന്ന് ചൂണ്ടിയതാണെന്ന് അബ്രഹാമാണ് എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞത്.ജി ശങ്കരപ്പിള്ള എഴുതിയ നാടക ചരിത്രത്തിൽ ഇത് പിരാന്തലോയുടെ Six Characters in Search of an Author ൽ നിന്ന് പകർത്തിയതാണെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞത് അബദ്ധമാണെന്ന് പറയുകയായിരുന്നു,അബ്രഹാം.ശങ്കരപ്പിള്ള ഭാവിയിൽ ഓർക്കപ്പെടാൻ ഇടയില്ല എന്ന കാര്യത്തിൽ അബ്രഹാമിനോട് ഞാനും യോജിക്കുന്നു.

അബ്രഹാമുമായി അടുപ്പം ഉറയ്ക്കാൻ കാരണം,വിദേശ നാടക വായനയിൽ എനിക്കുള്ള താൽപര്യമാണ്.സോഫോക്ലിസ് നാടകങ്ങൾ   വായിച്ചതിനാൽ,'അഹം, അഹം' നാടകത്തിലെ കോറസ് എന്നെ അദ്‌ഭുതപ്പെടുത്തി.മലയാള നാടകത്തിൽ കോറസ് വരുന്നത് വരുന്നത് ആദ്യമായിരുന്നില്ല..കാവാലം നാരായണപ്പണിക്കരുടെ 1976 ൽ അരങ്ങിലെത്തിയ 'അവനവൻ കടമ്പ ' മഹാരാജാസിലെ നടുപ്പറമ്പിൽ കണ്ടിരുന്നു.അതിൽ ഗായക സംഘം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു.

എന്നാൽ,'പെരുന്തച്ചൻ'എന്ന ഏകാങ്കം ആലുവ യു സി കോളജിൽ അരങ്ങേറാൻ അബ്രഹാം 1975 -1976 ൽ എഴുതി കൊടുക്കുമ്പോൾ അതിൽ കോറസ് ഉണ്ട്.അതിൻറെ വികസിത രൂപമാണ്,'അഹം,അഹം' എന്ന പൂർണ നാടകം.

'അഹം,അഹം' ക്രിസ്ത്യൻ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തിൽ നിന്ന് വരുന്ന ഒരാൾ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്നത് 'കൊഴുത്ത കാളക്കുട്ടി' പോലെ സ്വാഭാവികം അല്ല.അതിൽ അബ്രഹാം വ്യാഖ്യാനത്തിനൊന്നും മുതിർന്നില്ല.നാടകാവസാനം പെരുന്തച്ചന് ചുറ്റും കോറസ് കൈകൾ വിടർത്തി നിൽക്കുന്ന ഒന്നാന്തരം വിഷ്വൽ ഉണ്ട്.തിരുവനതപുരത്ത് നാടകം കണ്ട ഒ എൻ വി,ഇത് കുരിശായിട്ടാണ് കണ്ടത്.കൂടെയിരുന്ന വൈക്കം ചന്ദ്രശേഖരൻ നായരോട് ഇത് അദ്ദേഹം പങ്കു വച്ചു,വൈക്കം പറഞ്ഞു:"ക്രിസ്ത്യൻ പശ്ചാത്തലമുള്ള ഒരാൾ എഴുതി സംവിധാനം ചെയ്തത് കൊണ്ടാണ്;അത് അങ്ങനെ തന്നെയാണ് വേണ്ടത്."

തനത് നാടകം കേരളത്തിൽ കുരവ ഇട്ടപ്പോൾ അബ്രഹാം കുരുത്തോല വാങ്ങാൻ പോയില്ല;കുരുത്തോലപ്പെരുന്നാളുകൾ ഏറെ കണ്ട സംസ്കാരം അദ്ദേഹത്തിനുണ്ട്;'അഹം,അഹം',തനത് നാടക പ്രയോക്താക്കൾ പറയുന്നത് വച്ച് നോക്കിയാൽ,മലയാളത്തിലെ ആദ്യ തനത് നാടകവുമാണ്.

കൊച്ചി ഭാരതീയ വിദ്യാഭവൻ ഹാളിൽ 1975 ൽ ടി ആർ സുകുമാരൻ നായർ രാവണനായ,സി എൻ ശ്രീകണ്ഠൻ നായരുടെ 'ലങ്കാലക്ഷ്മി' അരങ്ങേറിയത് ഞാനും അബ്രഹാമും കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്.നിന്ന നിൽപിലാണ് സുകുമാരൻ നായർ സംഭാഷണങ്ങൾ ഉരുവിട്ടത്.ചലനം തീരെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല.വേദിയിൽ ചലനമില്ലാതെ നാടകമില്ല.എൻ കൃഷ്‌ണ പിള്ളയുടെ നാടകങ്ങൾ മെച്ചമല്ലെങ്കിലും, അദ്ദേഹത്തിൻറെ നാടക പ്രബന്ധങ്ങൾ ഇഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നയാളാണ്,അബ്രഹാം.സാഹിത്യ പ്രധാനമായ നാടകങ്ങൾ വേദിയിൽ പരാജയപ്പെടുന്നത് എന്ത് കൊണ്ട് എന്ന് കൃഷ്‌ണ പിള്ള ഒരു പ്രബന്ധത്തിൽ ആരാഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്.അഭിനയത്തിൻറെ പരിമിതിയാണ് അതിനു കാരണം എന്നദ്ദേഹം പറയുന്നു.അതായത്,നടൻ സാഹിത്യത്തോളം ഉയരുന്നില്ല.അതേ സമയം,അഭിനയത്തിന് പറ്റിയ സാഹിത്യമേ നാടകത്തിൽ പാടുള്ളു എന്നും കൃഷ്‌ണ പിള്ള നിരീക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.

അബ്രഹാം ഇതിനോട് യോജിക്കുന്നു.

നേരത്തെ പറഞ്ഞ സനന്ദനും ഞാനും പണം മുടക്കി നടൻ മുരളിയെ കൊച്ചിയിൽ കൊണ്ട്' വന്ന് പിൽക്കാലത്ത് 'ലങ്കാലക്ഷ്മി ' അരങ്ങേറി.മുരളി ഒറ്റയ്ക്കു സംഭവം ഉജ്വലമാക്കി.രാവണൻറെ സംഭാഷണങ്ങൾ മാത്രം എടുത്ത് ഒറ്റയ്ക്കായിരുന്നു,അഭിനയം.വേദി മുഴുവൻ ചലനമായിരുന്നു.

പടിഞ്ഞാറൻ നാടക സിദ്ധാന്തങ്ങൾ നന്നായി പഠിച്ച അബ്രഹാം,ലോക നാടക വേദി എന്താണോ,അതിനൊപ്പമാണ് നില കൊണ്ടിട്ടുള്ളത്.അദ്ദേഹം സംവിധാനം ചെയ്ത നാടകങ്ങളിലും പരിഭാഷകളിലും അത് കാണാം.സോഫോക്ലിസിൻറെ ഈഡിപ്പസ്,സാമുവൽ ബെക്കറ്റിന്റെ വെയ്റ്റിങ് ഫോർ ഗോദോ,ചിലി നാടക കൃത്ത് ഏരിയൽ ഡോർഫ്‌മാന്റെ Death and the Maiden  എന്നീ നാടകങ്ങൾ അബ്രഹാം അവതരിപ്പിച്ചത് കണ്ട അനുഭവം എന്നെ പഠിപ്പിച്ചതും അതാണ്.സാർത്ര് എഴുതിയ Respectable Prostitute അബ്രഹാം പരിഭാഷ ചെയ്തു.ചിലി നാടകത്തിലും സാർത്ര് നാടകത്തിലും ഒന്നാന്തരം രാഷ്ട്രീയമുണ്ട്.എന്നാൽ അബ്രഹാം ആ രാഷ്ട്രീയമല്ല കാണാറുള്ളത്,അവ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കാൻ മറ്റോ എന്താണ് അദ്ദേഹത്തെ പ്രേരിപ്പിക്കുന്നത് .ആ നാടകങ്ങളിലെ രാഷ്ട്രീയം ഞാൻ സംസാരിക്കുമ്പോൾ അബ്രഹാം കാണുന്നത് വേറെ ചില തലങ്ങളാണ്.

അബ്രഹാമിനെ പ്രചോദിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്,ജീവിതത്തിലെ അടിസ്ഥാന തത്വമാണ് എന്നാണ്. നന്മ,തിന്മകൾ തമ്മിലുള്ള പോരാട്ടം എന്ന ബൈബിൾ തത്വവും ആണ് അത്.

അക്രമിയായ ഒരു ഡോക്ടർ നേതൃത്വം നൽകിയ ബലാൽസംഗത്തിന് ഇരയായ പോളിന എന്ന ലാറ്റിനമേരിക്കൻ രാഷ്ട്രീയ തടവുകാരിയാണ് Death and the Maiden -ലെ നായിക.ഇതേ ശീർഷകത്തിൽ ഓസ്ട്രിയൻ സംഗീതജ്ഞൻ ഷൂബറുടെ സംഗീത ശിൽപം നേരത്തേയുണ്ട്.

വർഷങ്ങൾക്ക് ശേഷം,ആ ഏകാധിപതി വീണ ശേഷം, പോളിന ഭർത്താവ് എസ്കോബാറിനൊപ്പം ഒറ്റപ്പെട്ട ഒരു ഗ്രാമത്തിൽ കഴിയുന്നു.പ്രസിഡൻറിനെ കണ്ട് മടങ്ങുന്ന എസ്കോബാറിൻറെ കാറിൻറെ ടയർ പഞ്ചറാകുമ്പോൾ ഡോ മിറാൻഡ എന്ന അപരിചിതൻ സഹായിക്കുന്നു.മിറാൻഡയുടെ ശബ്ദം,ചേഷ്ടകൾ എന്നിവയിൽ നിന്ന് പോളിന അയാളെ ബലാൽസംഗിയെന്ന് തിരിച്ചറിയുന്നു.അവൾ കുറ്റസമ്മതം വാങ്ങാൻ അയാളെ ബന്ദിയാക്കുന്നു.മിറാൻഡയുടെ അഭിഭാഷകനായി ഭാവിച്ച എസ്കോബാർ,മിറാൻഡയുമായി ഒത്ത്,പോളിനയെ ഉന്മാദത്തിൽ നിന്ന് വിടർത്താൻ  കുറ്റസമ്മത മൊഴി തയാറാക്കുന്നു.ഒടുവിൽ അയാളെ മോചിപ്പിക്കാൻ നേരം,അയാൾ ഒട്ടും പശ്ചാത്തപിക്കുന്നില്ല എന്ന് അവൾ അറിയുന്നു.നാടകം അവസാനിച്ചിട്ടും,മിറാൻഡ കുറ്റവാളിയാണോ എന്നോ പോളിന ഭ്രാന്തിയാണോ എന്നോ വ്യക്തമാകുന്നില്ല.എന്നാൽ,അബ്രഹാം നാടകം അവതരിപ്പിച്ചത്,മൂല നാടകത്തിൽ  നിന്ന് ഭിന്നമായി വ്യക്തമായി തന്നെ ആയിരുന്നു.അക്രമിയെ കൊണ്ട് കുറ്റം ഏറ്റു പറയിക്കുന്ന ഇരയെയാണ് അബ്രഹാം കണ്ടത്.

പുരുഷൻ ചൂഷണം ചെയ്ത സ്ത്രീയുടെ കഥയാണ്,അബ്രഹാം വേദിയിൽ എത്തിച്ച ഭീഷ്മ സാഹ്നിയുടെ 'മാധവി'.

വിശ്വാമിത്രൻറെ അടുത്ത് പഠനം കഴിഞ്ഞ ഗാലവനോട് മഹർഷി ഗുരുദക്ഷിണ ചോദിച്ചപ്പോൾ,അദ്ദേഹം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത്,ഒരു ചെവിയിൽ മാത്രം വെളുത്ത പാടുള്ള ആയിരം കുതിരകളെയാണ്.ഗാലവൻ കാട്ടിൽ യയാതിയുടെ അടുത്ത് പോയി യാചിച്ചു.എല്ലാം ദാനം ചെയ്ത് സന്യാസത്തിന് കാട്ടിൽ എത്തിയ യയാതി,മാധവി എന്ന മകളെ ഗാലവന് ദാനം ചെയ്തു.അവൾക്കുണ്ടാകുന്ന സന്താനങ്ങൾ ചക്രവർത്തിമാരാകും,അങ്ങനെ'കുതിരകളെ കിട്ടും.

ഗാലവൻ, മാധവിയെ മൂന്ന് രാജാക്കന്മാർക്ക് കാഴ്ച വച്ചു.അവരിൽ കുട്ടികൾ ഉണ്ടായി.അവളെ ഉപയോഗിച്ച'രാജാക്കന്മാരിൽ നിന്ന് ആയിരം കുതിരകളെ'കിട്ടി ;ഗാലവന് മന്ത്രി പദവും.അപ്പോൾ അയാൾ മാധവിയെ ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചു.അവൾ വനവാസത്തിലായി.മനസ്താപം വന്ന് അയാൾ കാട്ടിൽ എത്തിയപ്പോൾ,മാധവിയെ വൃക്ഷങ്ങൾ മൂടി.ഇനി നിങ്ങൾക്കൊപ്പം ഞാനില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് മാധവി അയാളെ നിരാകരിക്കുമ്പോൾ,നാടകം പൂര്ണമാകുകയും,ഫെമിനിസം നമ്മുടെ പൈതൃകമാണ് എന്ന് വ്യക്തമാകുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു.



അബ്രഹാം പരിഭാഷ ചെയ്ത സാർത്ര് നാടകവും ബലാൽസംഗം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ട സ്ത്രീയുടെ കഥയാണ്.

പാപ ബോധവും സ്നേഹവും വ്യക്തി സത്തയിലേക്ക് വളരാനുള്ള ശ്രമവുമൊക്കെ ഉൾക്കൊള്ളുന്നതാണ്,സാർത്രിന്റെ നാടകം.അസ്തിത്വ ദർശനത്തിൽ ഉറച്ച്,കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ് പാർട്ടികളുടെ കമ്മിസാർ ഭരണത്തിന് എതിരെ കലഹിക്കുമ്പോഴും,മാർക്സിസത്തിൽ ഉറച്ചു നിന്ന്,ആ ദർശനം വിശദീകരിക്കാനാണ്,സാർത്ര് നോവലും നാടകവും എഴുതിയത്.അമേരിക്കൻ കഥാപാത്രങ്ങളെ വച്ച്,അമേരിക്കയിൽ നടക്കുന്ന ഒരു\നാടകമാണ്,ഇത്.രണ്ടാം ലോക യുദ്ധത്തിൻറെ നായകനായ അമേരിക്കൻ പ്രസിഡൻറ് റൂസ്‌വെൽറ്റ്,സി ജെ തോമസിൻറെ 'ക്രൈം 1128 ൽ 27' എന്ന നാടകത്തിൽ എന്ന പോലെ ഇതിൽ പരാമർശിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു.അമേരിക്കൻ സാമ്രാജ്യത്വത്തെപ്പറ്റി കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റുകൾക്കുള്ള വിമർശനവും അസ്തിത്വ വാദവും കൂടിക്കലർന്നതാണ്,നാടകം.

വേശ്യയായ ലിസി,അവളെ ഇരുട്ടിൽ പ്രാപിച്ച അമേരിക്കൻ സെനറ്ററുടെ മകൻ ഫ്രെഡ്,അയാളുടെ സുഹൃത്തുക്കളായ ജോൺ,ജെയിംസ് എന്നീ പൊലീസുകാർ,തീവണ്ടിയിൽ ലിസിക്ക് നേരെ നടന്ന ബലാൽസംഗത്തിന് ദൃക്‌സാക്ഷി ആയ നീഗ്രോ,സെനറ്റർ ക്ളർക് എന്നിവരാണ് കഥാപാത്രങ്ങൾ.നീഗ്രോ,നീഗ്രോ ആയതിനാൽ,പേരില്ല.

സാർത്ര് നാടകത്തിലും ഒടുവിൽ നായിക വഞ്ചിക്കപെടുന്നു.അവർ ധനികർ പറയുന്നിടത്ത് ഒപ്പിടുന്നു.അവസരം കിട്ടിയിട്ടും നീഗ്രോ വെള്ളക്കാരനെ കൊല്ലുന്നില്ല.

അങ്കിൾ സാമിനെ ഇതിൽ  യേശുവിനെ പോലെയാണ് സെനറ്റർ അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്;ലോകമാകെയുള്ള കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റുകൾ അമേരിക്കയെ കളിയാക്കി വിളിക്കുന്ന പേരാണ് അത്.

സാർത്ര് അങ്ങനെ നാടകത്തിൽ ബലി കഴിച്ചത്,അദ്ദേഹത്തിലെ മാർക്സിസ്റ്റിനെയാണ്.ലിസി നീഗ്രോയ്ക്ക് ഒപ്പം നിന്നാലേ,മാർക്സിസ്റ്റ് രാഷ്ട്രീയം ശരിയാകൂ.അവൾ നിൽക്കുന്നില്ല.അവൾ എപ്പോഴും ബൂർഷ്വയ്ക്ക് വഴങ്ങുന്നു.അമേരിക്കൻ പൈതൃകം വരുമ്പോൾ ബൂർഷ്വയുടെ കൂടെയാണ്.അവൾക്ക് ഫ്രഡിനെ കൊല്ലാം,നീഗ്രോയെ കൊണ്ട് കൊല്ലിക്കാം.നീഗ്രോ പോലും വെള്ളക്കാരനെ കൊല്ലില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്ന പ്രോലിറ്റേറിയൻ ദൗർബല്യത്തിലാണ് നാടകം ഒടുങ്ങുന്നത്.പാവം വേശ്യയെയും കറുത്ത വർഗക്കാരനെയും സാർത്രും വഞ്ചിച്ചു.മാർക്‌സിസം ആഗോളമായി തൊഴിലാളിയെ വഞ്ചിച്ച് ചങ്ങാത്ത മുതലാളിത്തത്തിന് ഒപ്പം നിന്നതിൻറെ ആദ്യ മാതൃകയായി ഈ നാടകം.

ഭീഷ്മ സാഹ്നിയുടെയോ ചിലി നാടക കൃത്തിൻറെയോ സാർത്രിന്റെയോ രാഷ്ട്രീയം അന്വേഷിച്ചിട്ടല്ല,അബ്രഹാം മൂന്ന്  സ്ഥലങ്ങളിൽ നിന്ന് സ്ത്രീകളായ  ഇരകളെ തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തത്.മാർക്സിസം പോലെ ലോകത്ത് തിന്മകൾ വിതയ്ക്കുകയും ഏകാധിപതികളെ സൃഷ്ടിക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത വേറൊരു പ്രത്യയ ശാസ്ത്രം,ഫാഷിസം മാത്രമേയുള്ളു.ആ പ്രത്യയ ശാസ്ത്ര അസംബന്ധങ്ങളിലേക്കും അബ്രഹാം കടന്നില്ല.രാഷ്ട്രീയ നാടകങ്ങളല്ല,ജീവിത നാടകങ്ങളാണ്,നാടകീയ മുഹൂർത്തങ്ങളാണ്,അദ്ദേഹം തിരഞ്ഞത്.പ്രപഞ്ച നാടകത്തിലെ നന്മ'തിന്മകളാണ്,അദ്ദേഹത്തെ പ്രചോദിപ്പിച്ചത്.പ്രപഞ്ച നാടകത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ മുഹൂർത്തം രചിച്ച യേശു,വിനെ രാഷ്ട്രീയ നേതാവായി എനിക്ക് കാണാം.അന്നത്തെ രാഷ്ട്രീയ നേതൃത്വത്തോട് കലഹിച്ചയാളാണ് യേശു.അത് കൊണ്ടാണ്,അദ്ദേഹത്തെ വധശിക്ഷയ്ക്ക് വിധിച്ചത്.അത് കൊണ്ടാണ്,ഹീബ്രു,ലാറ്റിൻ,ഗ്രീക്ക് എന്നീ മൂന്ന് ഭാഷകളിൽ INRI എന്ന് എഴുതി വച്ചത്.അതിൻറെ പൂർണ രൂപം Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum.ഇത് ഇംഗ്ലീഷിൽ,Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.
ജൂതന്മാരുടെ രാജാവ് എന്ന് മുദ്ര'കുത്തുകയായിരുന്നു.പരീശന്മാരെ യേശു കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്തപ്പോൾ അത് കൊണ്ടത്,രാഷ്ട്രീയ നേതൃത്വത്തിൻറെ നെഞ്ചിലായിരുന്നു.

എന്നാൽ,അബ്രഹാം എന്നെപ്പോല ഈ രാഷ്ട്രീയം കാണുകയില്ല,അതിൻറെ ആവശ്യവുമില്ല.എന്നാൽ,യേശുവിൻറെ പ്രപഞ്ച നാടകത്തിലെ തിന്മയുമായുള്ള പോരാട്ടം,സാത്താനും ദൈവവും തമ്മിലുള്ള സംഘർഷം,അദ്ദേഹം സദാ കാണുകയും ചെയ്യും.അങ്ങനെ യേശുവിൻറെ രാഷ്ട്രീയമാണ്,അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ നാടകങ്ങളിലെ രാഷ്ട്രീയം;ഉള്ളിൽ മഗ്ദലന മറിയം വിങ്ങുന്നതു കൊണ്ടാണ്,അബ്രഹാം സ്ത്രീകളായ മൂന്ന് ഇരകളെ വേദിയിൽ കൊണ്ടു വന്നത് എന്ന് ഞാൻ കാണുന്നു.മഗ്‌ദലന സത്യത്തിൽ മേരി ജീവിച്ച'സ്ഥലമാണ്.വേശ്യകളെ കല്ലെറിഞ്ഞു കൊന്ന പാപികൾ ജീവിച്ച സ്ഥലം.അവിടെ ഒഴുകിയ നന്മയുടെ തെളിനീരുറവ ആയിരുന്നു,യേശു.അതിനാൽ,സരമാഗുവിന്റെ ആരോപണം വെട്ടിയ അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ പ്രവൃത്തിയും ശരിയായ രാഷ്ട്രീയമാണ്.പോർച്ചുഗീസുകാരനാണ് ഹോസെ സരമാഗു.കേരളത്തിൽ കൂട്ടക്കൊല നടത്തിയ വാസ്കോ ഡ ഗാമയുടെ നാട്ടുകാരൻ.ഗാമയെയും എതിർക്കുന്നതാണ്,ശരിയായ രാഷ്ട്രീയം.

രാഷ്ട്രീയം അതായി തന്നെ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്ത ഒരു നാടക കൃത്ത് നമുക്കുണ്ട് -സി ജെ തോമസ് .അതു കൊണ്ട് 'വിഷ വൃക്ഷം' കൂടിയുണ്ടായി. അദ്ദേഹത്തിൻറെ പരിഭാഷകളിൽ  ഗ്രീക്ക് ഹാസ്യ  നാടകമായ അരിസ്റ്റോഫനീസിന്റെ 'ലിസിസ്ട്രാറ്റ'കൂടി വന്നതും അത് കൊണ്ടാണ്.ഗ്രീക്ക് ഹാസ്യ നാടകം നിലവിലുള്ള ഭരണത്തിൻറെ വിമർശനമായിരുന്നു.എന്നാൽ,നാടക രാഷ്ട്രീയം അന്തർ നാടകമാവുന്നതാണ് എപ്പോഴും നല്ലത്.മലയാള'നാടക വേദിയിൽ അബ്രഹാമിന്റെ സ്ഥാനം അതിനാൽ,സി ജെ യിൽ നിന്ന് ഭിന്നമാണ്. അകാലത്തിൽ വിടവാങ്ങിയതിനൊപ്പം,സി ജെ  പ്രായോഗിക രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിൻറെ ദൈനം ദിന ചന്തയിൽ അവസാന കാലം സർഗ്ഗ ശേഷി ധൂർത്തടിച്ചതും അതിന് കാരണമാണ്.അടിയന്തരാവസ്ഥക്കാലത്താണ് അബ്രഹാം 'പ്രോമിത്യുസ്' എഴുതിയത് എന്നതിനാൽ,ആ രാഷ്ട്രീയം കാണാതിരിക്കാനും കഴിയില്ല.

© Ramachandran 

BOMBAY HC VERDICT IN TNQ BANK CASE

Judgement By a British Judge

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

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

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

Bombay High Court

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

Equivalent citations: (1939) 41 BOMLR 1119

Author: Thankerton

Bench: G Lowndes, Porter, Thankerton

JUDGMENT Thankerton, J.

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

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

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

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

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

Herein fail not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C P Mathen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TNQ Bank HQ at Kollam,now hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iv) that they were undated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young Sir CP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C P Skrine book

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

C P Skrine

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

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

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

The Court verdict ends here.

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

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

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

© Ramachandran