‘Simply because Government have undertaken management of these lands’, a former Dewan had stated, ‘it does not follow that the revenue derived from them belongs to the sircar or that the rules applicable to sircar lands can be applied to them.’37 He also stated that the government could only act as per directions received from the Attingal Rani. Similarly, yet another Dewan also affirmed that the Sripadam lands ‘are the property for Her Highness the Senior Rani’ though the ‘management being in the hands of our officials, it proceeds practically on the same lines on which the administration of the Government land revenue proceeds’.38 Enfranchisement of the Erayali lands had in fact commenced in the early years of the twentieth century when it was summarily stopped because the government felt that their position was that of ‘a trustee for Her Highness’ and it was not justified, therefore, ‘in making any material changes, during Her Highness’ minority’.39 This suspension, interestingly, was at the instructions of Mulam Tirunal, for he felt that it would prejudice the minor Sethu Lakshmi Bayi and could wait until she reached majority and took a decision in this regard on her own.40 It was thus that in the 1930s she continued the process.
But the present Maharajah took a different view of matters. In 1935 a revised version of the Travancore Land Revenue Manual was published and in this the very definition of the Sripadam Estate was wholly modified to suit the new regime. Thus while the previous manual of 1915 had stated that Sripadam lands were the ‘private domain’ and ‘private property’ of the Attingal Rani,41 the new publication defined the lands as ‘private property of the Sovereign, the Attingal Ranis having only the right to appropriate the revenue from the lands’.42 Overnight, thus, the Sripadam went from belonging to the Senior Maharani, whose ancestral claim over it was repeatedly affirmed in the past, to the ownership of the Maharajah.
The Maharani had objected to this new definition but then the Sripadam dispute petered out for a while, before making a fresh appearance in 1939. In February that year her manager received from Kowdiar Palace a new letter, with extracts from the legal opinion of Sir Krishaswami Iyer, the Advocate General of Madras, and a notice that the Maharajah had, in its light, been pleased to suggest an amount for the First Princess’s allowance.43 The Maharani, having perused the dossier, requested the Maharajah’s office to forward the full legal opinion of the Advocate General, as opposed to snippets and extracts, and also the records and documents that had been supplied to him in reaching his conclusions.44 But the palace manager was unwilling to oblige, and wrote back stating that the Maharani’s request to see relevant documents was ‘somewhat unusual’ and could not be entertained.45 In the face of the Maharajah’s refusal to let her have records so as to prepare a proper rejoinder, the Maharani had to make do with whatever she could gather from the extracts.
Her manager wrote to Kowdiar Palace, then, pointing out that when Attingal was amalgamated with Travancore, the Rani resigned sovereignty but retained fiscal control of the tract, along with a condition that only the children of the Attingal Ranis could succeed to the throne of Travancore.46 That is how the Sripadam came into existence and remained under the control of the eldest female member in the family. The claim of the Advocate General that all female members had an equal right in the Sripadam was dismissed, with the explanation as before, that in that case the previous Maharajah, ‘who was eminently qualified to appreciate at once the obligations of Sripadam and the rights of the members of his family’, would have taken an initiative and given instructions, which were not done in the case of the First Princess and then again the Second Princess.47 It was also telling that Mulam Tirunal had left absolute control of the Sripadam with Sethu Lakshmi Bayi in spite of their personal differences at the time, and even as difficulties were created for the latter, her ancestral estate was never touched, with respect for her position as the matriarch of the royal house.
The Maharani’s manager also rejected the Advocate General’s suggestion that matrilineal law, under which all members of a family had claims on its estate, applied to the Sripadam. The claim of the Maharajah essentially was that the royal family was the Sripadam. But, in return it was pointed out, if the Sripadam were a matrilineal taravad, as claimed, its management would have always vested with the Maharajah and not the eldest female constituent of the house. In reality, then, just like the eldest male member of the dynasty had 20,000 acres of Crown lands, the eldest female had the 15,000 acres of Sripadam. Similarly, Sir Krishnaswami’s claim that all females had an equal share was negated, as precedents demonstrated convincingly that Junior Ranis throughout history received only a small portion, with the vast majority of the revenues going to the Senior Ranis who were the principal Attingal Ranis and whose ceremonial status and attendant expenses were upheld by the Sripadam.48
It was at this juncture in July 1939, while the matter was still disputed, that the Maharani received a notification from Kowdiar Palace, stating that the audit of the Sripadam’s accounts showed irregularities, proving its management to be inefficient, and that in the interests of the other female members of the royal family, the Maharajah had decided to appoint a new manager.49 It was also informed that this new person would report to Kowdiar Palace and not to the Maharani, and that he would take over from her manager, none other than old Kulathu Iyer, on 17 August, i.e., the Malayalam new year.
By now the Maharani had already broached the issue with the Resident, one Mr G.P. Murphy, but had not raised the subject formally. With the receipt of this notice, she finally wrote to him, pointing out that the Sripadam was ‘a comprehensive term for an institution which administers my ancestral estates, controls my domestic and office staff and has charge of all the moneys I receive in my capacity as Senior Rani’, i.e., the Sripadam was basically her establishment, the control of which if passed to the Maharajah would mean that her ‘personal servants, money for current expenses and provisions’ would all rest in ‘unfriendly hands’ and ‘completely paralyse’ her ménage.50 She also brought up the question of the ownership of the Sripadam lands, before registering some other long-standing complaints.
From the time of the termination of the Regency, the treatment I have received from the State has not been of a kind which one might expect by virtue of my standing in the Ruling family, the position I occupied during the minority administration and, above all, the recommendation contained in His Excellency the Viceroy’s letter to His Highness the Maharajah. I have suffered much, and once or twice I made an attempt to obtain redress by seeking the intervention of the British Representative, but the times were peculiarly unpropitious for the purpose and I had resolved to possess my soul in patience unless and until conditions were made intolerable. I am afraid that stage is being reached now.51
Sethu Lakshmi Bayi listed some of the troubles she had been facing with the Maharajah. One irritant was a change in the arrangement of guards provided for her. It was customary for every member of the royal family to receive, wherever they stayed, a guard of four men and one NCO. These used to be changed every week and the Maharani paid for the conveyance of the guard from Trivandrum to Vellayani or wherever she was residing. That is when the Maharajah issued new orders that the guard would need to be changed every day and that she would have to pay a daily fee for their transport.52 The Maharani’s objections had no effect and in fact an additional bill was inflicted upon her, because now an officer would also come every day in order to ‘inspect’ the guard, for which also she was to pay daily.53
She then wrote to the Maharajah’s office requesting them to cease providing a guard altogether, even though it was an obligation of the state, because she could not afford to spend money every day on their conveyance. But this was also not acceded to and her personal finances were bled continuously.54 Similarly, while the state was obliged to provide a guard to Princess Lalitha who was living at Kovalam, by virtue of her membership in the royal family, this was not done, and instead soldiers from the Maharani’s permanent guard were removed and placed at Halcyon Castle, the
ir daily fare, along with that of the inspecting officer, also being charged to the Maharani.55 The Maharajah, in other words, had become determined ever since she rejected his Temple Entry Proclamation to drain not only her finances but also harass her in general till she submitted to his ruling.
It was around this time that the Maharani decided to go to Peermade on her usual tour and requested the conventional three men and one NCO for her escort. But the Maharajah’s office insisted that she take an exorbitant posse of two NCO’s, one officer, and nine soldiers, or else the tour would be prohibited. Once again the Maharani proposed that an escort be cancelled altogether, since the costs to her would prove cripplingly extortionate, and she would go without protection, which was, on this occasion, readily accepted. ‘This I think,’ she later wrote, ‘is the first time a member of the Ruling Family of Travancore has been refused a military escort.’56
After her tour when she returned to Vellayani, she found that a new guardhouse had been constructed there, despite it being her private property, and that costs, as was usual by now, were debited from her account. Once again, her objections were not entertained in the name of security and the money was charged.57 ‘It passes my comprehension’, an exasperated Maharani wrote to the Resident, ‘why they should be so frightfully anxious that I should have a guard when I am at Vellayani or Kovalam, while very determined not to let me have it while on tour. The only difference I see is that the former is more expensive to me.’58 Having thus given instances of the difficulties she faced in her dealings with Kowdiar Palace, and requesting Mr Murphy to prevent the Maharajah’s imposition of his own manager to control her establishment, the Maharani concluded as follows:
You can easily imagine how distasteful should be the role of a petitioner to one in my position. I have endured much ill usage these years in the fond hope that, with the lapse of years, either through a change of heart or for want of new openings, the present policy of the authorities might undergo some change. But that was not to be … I have no desire now to fight for right for right’s sake. When aggressions on my rights and privileges occasioning loss of dignity and prestige, and material loss assume unconscionable proportions and continue with impunity, I feel obliged to resort to the last and only course open to one in my position, namely an appeal to the Paramount Power … I have stated my case. I have the unique distinction of receiving, among non-Rulers, from incoming and outgoing Viceroys kharitas in which I am assured of their interest in my prosperity. I cannot therefore think that when I am subjected to such indignities and humiliations as to make life a hideous nightmare, my appeal for redress would fall on deaf ears. My request is that if an enquiry establishes that I have been badly treated, I might be assured conditions of life, which would enable me and my children to live in peace without fear of constant victimization.59
Mr Murphy promptly despatched the Maharani’s representation to Delhi and secured an assurance from the Dewan that while the matter was sub judice, no action would be taken by the Maharajah.60 An assurance was also sent from the Viceroy’s office that the matter was being studied. But while the authorities did not take over the Sripadam on 17 August as planned, they initiated a new policy that was meant to coerce the Maharani into accepting their stand on matters, and to chastise her into submission, no matter what the Viceroy or anyone else had promised her.
On 30 August the Maharani wrote again to the Resident complaining that since the new year, the Maharajah’s office were refusing to have any dealings with the Sripadam. Letters sent from the Maharani’s establishment were, for instance, returned unopened. In more real terms, the Rs 2,500 she was supposed to receive that month for religious and other expenses had not been given; her daughters’ allowances were withheld; provisions supplied for day-to-day consumption had been stopped; and provisions for certain daily religious rites, being conducted for Princess Lalitha, had all been discontinued.61 The Maharani could not comprehend this malicious attitude and appealed to Mr Murphy to ensure that the status quo that existed before the dispute began should be restored, and she should not be dragooned in this manner by the powers in Kowdiar Palace.
Whether the Resident attempted to correct matters is not known, for a month later, on 25 September, the Maharani wrote to him once again stating that the Maharajah’s manager continued to withhold allowances, and that communications from the Sripadam were still ‘taboo in the Palace Office’.62 More importantly, the government and its officials now refused to collect Sripadam revenues, and from the lands in Trivandrum, nothing had been received so far.
The bulk of my estates lies in the Taluk of Chirayinkil. Here the revenue officers, since my writing to you last, like their confreres in Trivandrum Taluk have been displaying a mysterious attitude of non-possmus in regard to the collection of revenue due to Sripadam. With my income from one source wholly, and from others partially, cut off and my own obligations regarding disbursements remaining intact, the difficulties of my position have been increasing. The suspension of my daughters’ allowances is also creating difficulties since the salaries of their establishments are paid out of these.63
Interestingly, at this point the Maharajah, despite assurances to the contrary to the Resident, appointed his nominee, T.S. Sankaranarayana Iyer, as Sripadam manager. On 26 September his secretary wrote to this gentleman, addressing him with that title, stating ‘notwithstanding the removal of Mr Kulathu Iyer from his position as Sripadam Manager under commands, the late Sripadam Manager, Mr Kulathu Iyer, is still retaining the keys of the Sripadam Treasury. This is an irregularity which may be pointed out immediately and rectified.’64 In keeping with these instructions, Mr Sankaranarayana Iyer visited Vellayani and sought an interview with the Maharani to ‘rectify’ the error. But she refused to see him, and did not recognise his appointment, which was in complete contravention of the Dewan’s promise.65 On hearing of this, the Resident promptly took up the matter and was once again assured that the status quo would be maintained, and the Maharani needn’t worry.66
But barely a day after this reassurance was given, military officers who were in charge of the Sripadam office in the fort received orders to prevent Kulathu Iyer from entering and opening the Maharani’s treasury, and to permit only the new Mr Sankaranarayana Iyer to do so.
These fresh bans [have] put the cope-stone [sic] on my trials … It was inevitable that the normal functioning of my ménage should be rendered impossible with the sources of income stopped and access to available money [in the treasury] cut off, and that business in my office should be paralysed with the Palace and State officials either refusing to receive or taking no notice of communications from my office. Payments to my servants and contractors, which are already due, could not be made owing to the ban on the opening of the treasury. There are many menial servants and pensioners on my establishment who are clamouring for payment of their dues, which it is impossible to disburse in the present circumstances.67
An urgent telegram was sent to the Resident to which he did not respond, after which another reminder was despatched a week later in which the Maharani called for immediately ceasing ‘the latest phase of the campaign’ against her, ‘namely the employment of naked force’.68
How mortifying my present position is you can well imagine, since you must by now be thoroughly conversant with all the facts. Any one of the coercive and other measures directed against me during the last few years would ordinarily have been regarded as worthy of condemnation, if it had been an isolated case. But the fact that there has been a succession of these seems to have given to the aggregation an air of normality, though each is bolder in conception and more stinging in its effect than its predecessor, with the result that its inherent iniquity is likely to be lost sight of … I do not know what further steps designed to bring me to my knees are in contemplation [but the] present situation is imposing a terrible strain upon me, not to speak of the inconvenience it involves.69
By now the Maharajah had consulted more lawyers and the opinion of Sir
Tej Bahadur Sapru, the famous advocate who had great clout in Delhi, was forwarded to Satelmond Palace, in order to let the Maharani prepare her defence. This gentleman rejected statements made by previous Dewans and others regarding the ownership of the Sripadam, pointing out that those were not legal in nature and were untenable, therefore, even as he relied on similar statements by others that fit the Maharajah’s argument. He also noted that in the last century there were precedents to show various Maharajahs directing Sripadam affairs, demonstrating that they could indeed go over the head of the Attingal Rani and take unilateral decisions, the last instance being in 1914 when Mulam Tirunal intervened to determine the Junior Maharani’s allowance.
He also affirmed that the Sripadam was a matrilineal entity and not the Attingal Rani’s Crown lands, and that both male and female members had a corresponding claim on its resources, although the Maharajahs had traditionally permitted females to control revenues derived from it. The present Maharajah was moreover justified in his intervention because the accounts of the Sripadam had errors. Finally, Sir Tej Bahadur concluded that the Senior Maharani was subordinate to the Maharajah in all family matters and could not ‘ignore or disregard’ his rulings, which ‘must be treated as final so far as such family matters are concerned’.70 This was despite the fact that under matrilineal law the eldest member, male or female, was the head of the family; and in this case it was Sethu Lakshmi Bayi who presided over the dynasty. It was also completely contrary to Sir CP’s promise to Lord Willingdon during negotiations in 1931 that she would remain head of the dynasty and enjoy all her revenues as Attingal Rani.
One repeated argument against the Maharani’s position pertained to the so-called irregularities in Sripadam accounts. Already in August Sethu Lakshmi Bayi had told the Resident that the Maharajah should have sent her the auditor’s report, in which there was damaging testimony to her management, and sought an explanation before taking the decision to appoint a new person as manager.71 When this report was finally sent in October, Kulathu Iyer had answered each of the concerns one by one. The principal offence was that from 1924 onwards, until 1933, the annual accounts of the Sripadam had not been written up. This was indeed true but Mr Iyer pointed out that as soon as he had taken over as manager in 1933, the mistake was corrected. It was also informed that although annual accounts were not kept, daily and monthly accounts were in order, which is why the annual audits could be completed after 1933 without any problems.
Ivory Throne Page 58