“Gandhiji told me to work for the people”, Meet the 102-year old lawyer, K Ayyappan Pillai

“Everyone should know the law, every citizen should be aware of his/ her rights and duties”, Ayyappan Pillai’s voice may be meek but his spirit is not. A 102-year old veteran at the Trivandrum Bar – Pillai’s tales are nearly folklore.

It was an article about Pillai in Malayala Manorama that first caught my eye. The report spoke about Pillai’s role during the integration of princely State of Travancore into the Indian Union.

After efforts to get in touch with him over the phone failed, I decided to head to Trivandrum and try my luck. A friend had gathered some details about Pillai’s whereabouts and it was not long before I boarded the train to the State capital.

Locating his house proved easy enough and fortunately, Pillai was home and he greeted us. When we expressed the desire for a chat about his long career, he was more than happy to talk.

He began to speak, slowly but surely.

A God sent direction by Mahatma Gandhi

Ayyappan Pillai was born in 1914. His father was a government officer and Pillai was all set to follow in his father’s footsteps.

However, it was not to be.

The year was 1934. Ayyappan Pillai was a college student when Mahatma Gandhi visited Kerala. Pillai had the opportunity to usher Gandhi onto the dais during a public function; and the short conversation he had with Gandhi turned out to be a defining moment in his life.

“My father wanted me to join government service. I was groomed like that.

When I met Gandhi, he asked me what I was doing. I said I was a student and my father is in government service. ‘Don’t go for government service. Work for the people’, he told me. It was a God sent direction”, Pillai’s eyes shine brightly as he reminisces the episode.

Ayyappan Pillai then graduated in law from Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram and started his law practice in 1940.

Travancore and the freedom struggle

Travancore, which forms the southern chunk of the current State of Kerala, was then a princely State. Back then, it was one of the most advanced States in the Indian sub-continent, making rapid strides in the field of education and social equality.

It was, however, going through a tumultuous phase during India’s independence struggle. Ayyappan Pillai, who was embroiled in the freedom struggle, recounts those days vividly.

“One thing needs to be said – the freedom struggle in Indian (princely) States was not the freedom struggle that you find in British India. In the freedom struggle in British India, Indians were fighting against foreign rulers and asking them to go out. However, in Indian States, we were fighting Indian rulers. Princely States were governed by our own people – Maharajas, Nawabs or Nizams.

So, there was that fundamental difference!”

Initially, the Indian National Congress (INC) supported the demands for what was known as “Responsible government” in princely States. Although there was no direct intervention by the INC, the party did offer some support. Pursuant to that, District Committees of the INC were formed in many Princely States.

However, there was a disconnect with the freedom movement in British India because the agitation in princely states like Travancore for ‘Responsible government’ was more of a struggle for civil rights and less for freedom from the ruler.

In 1938, the INC took a very significant decision. It decided that the people living in the princely States will have to fight for ‘Responsible government’ under their own organisations and not under the banner of the INC.

The resolution read,

“Congress Committees in the States shall function under the direction and control of the Congress Working Committee and shall not engage in parliamentary activity nor launch direct action in the name and under the auspices of the Congress. Internal struggles of the people of the States must not be undertaken in the name of the Congress. For this purpose independent organisations should be started and continued where they exist already within the States.”[1]

This led to the formation of the Travancore State Congress.

In Pillai’s words,

“It was the concept of “Responsible government” which took shape in many Indian States. But the Indian National Congress under Subhash Chandra Bose took the decision that Indian States should have their own movements, they (Indian National Congress) won’t have anything to do with it. That was the reason why we formed the [Travancore] State Congress here.”

1947: Travancore – a country

One of the foremost issues confronting the leaders of the freedom movement was the integration of princely States into independent India. These States were culturally and geographically connected to the rest of the sub-continent but enjoyed a certain amount of political alienation. A number of these States also had a standing Army.

Travancore, in those days, had outrun British India in terms of social and economic development. The Maharaja, with Diwan CP Ramaswami Iyer at the helm, had introduced many social reforms including the popular temple entry proclamation which had granted all Hindus right to enter temples irrespective of their caste.

In addition, there was a drive by the Diwan to industrialise the State.

“At that time Travancore was the most advanced Indian State. There were three Committee reports which favoured independent status for princely States – Butler committee, Loathian Committee and Simon Commission.

So, Sir CP [Ramaswamy Iyer] alone cannot be blamed for the claim for independence. That was such an undercurrent in Travancore”, says Pillai.

When it was decided that the sub-continent would be divided into two dominions, India and Pakistan, the Maharaja of Travancore proclaimed independence. The proclamation was made by the Diwan on June 11, 1947. This ignited a political upheaval.

It is important to understand the historical background of the proclamation of independence.

Just a year earlier, in 1946, the Diwan’s Army and Navy had crushed a communist uprising in northern Travancore. The proclamation of independence and the Diwan’s role in it was viewed with suspicion. The State Congress and other political parties were strongly opposed to an independent Travancore.

“Suddenly, people were afraid of Sir CP Ramaswami Iyer’s government. They thought that if Travancore remains independent and Sir CP continues as Divan, there will be absolute dictatorship. That was the basic reason, according to me, why [people of] Travancore opposed independence.”

The opposition was met with force by the Diwan.

Interestingly, Travancore also sought to enter into treaty relations with Pakistan (which had not yet been formed). Discussions were held with Mohammed Ali Jinnah on possible trade relations between Pakistan and Travancore.

These developments were certainly not to New Delhi’s liking.

Attack on the Diwan; Ayyappan Pillai speaks to Pattom Thanu Pillai

Lord Mountbatten, who was then the Viceroy, began negotiations with Travancore. Pillai remembers even the minute details.

“Sir CP met Lord Mountbatten who said that absolute independence is impossible in the prevailing circumstances. He sent a letter to the Maharaja on July 22. As per that letter, Travancore was offered internal independence. Only defence, foreign affairs and communication would be with New Delhi.

But the Maharaja was reluctant to sign the letter of accession despite CP Ramaswami Iyer’s advice that he should sign the letter of accession immediately. CP Ramaswami Iyer met the Maharaja 5 times in three days – from July 22 to July 24. But the Maharaja was hesitant [to accede to the Indian Union]. And then CP Ramawami Iyer was attacked on July 25.”

The Diwan was attending the Swati Thirunal Centenary Celebrations when an attempt was made on his life. He was stabbed multiple times but survived. Less than a month later, he resigned from the post of Diwan.

As retribution, several leaders of the Travancore State Congress and Communist leaders were arrested.

“On July 28, Sir CP wrote a letter to Maharaja. He said that ‘till now the attack was aimed at me but next time the attack could be on members of the royal family. So we should sign the instrument of accession.’” 

Maharaja, then decided that he would consult Pattom Thanu Pillai who was in prison. Congress leader Thanu Pillai was a prominent figure in Travancore politics, and was also amongst those imprisoned after the attack on Diwan.

This is where Ayyappan Pillai’s role assumes significance.

Ayyappan Pillai was very close to Thanu Pillai.

“Maharaja inquired about who was the confidante of Pattom Thanu Pillai. It turned out I was the only available person. I met the Maharaja and he told me that the draft of instrument of accession is before him. ‘Sir CP will be leaving once he recovers. The next head of the government will be Pattom Thanu Pillai. So I want his opinion before I sign the document.”

Ayyappan Pillai along with his uncle went to meet Thanu Pillai. Thanu Pillai was clear that accession was the only way out.

‘Southern State’ would have been better

“If an existing system is being changed it should serve some concrete, useful purpose”, says Ayyappan Pillai when asked whether joining the Union was a good decision or not.

Ayyappan Pillai feels that the current State of Kerala does not have enough bargaining power at the Centre and a united ‘Southern State’ comprising Travancore, Cochin and Madras Presidency would have been better.

“When the question of integration of Travancore and Cochin came up, our Bar association was looking for an alternative – a larger State. Both Travancore and Cochin were small States. If we had a Southern state consisting of Travancore, Cochin and the Madras Presidency, then it could have been an economically independent State with sufficient bargaining power at the Centre.

Currently with 20 Members in the Parliament, no one hears the voice of Kerala. What is 20 in a house of over 500? Nothing. Except big States like Uttar Pradesh etc, many of these small States can be totally ignored. But if it was a Southern State, then it could have been an effective voice in controlling the voice of Government of India.”

Politics

Ayyappan Pillai has been very active in politics; he was a member of the Congress party and later joined the Praja Socialist Party.

He contested elections once after independence but was defeated. In 1982, he joined the BJP.

“I agree with Gandhi when he said in 1947 that the Congress should be dissolved. It was a national party but later became a political party. But Pandit Nehru and Vallabhai Patel were reluctant [to dissolve the Congress].

So, the Indian National Congress continued [to exist] and it has deteriorated to such an extent that it has nothing similar to the old Indian national Congress.”

An admirer of AB Vajpayee, Pillai left his law practice after joining the BJP.

“For the last many years I am not practising [law]. When I joined BJP in 1982, I thought clients will suffer if I am absent in court. So I stopped practice. I visit the Bar Association hall often to spend time with my friends”.

It is time for me to leave.

“Have I bored you with my stories?”, asks Pillai. I assure him that he has not. As I leave, Pillai shows me his injured leg. “This happened while campaigning for elections” (the Assembly Elections which concluded recently), he says. It is clear that it has not dampened his spirits; there is still a lot of energy left in this man, to share a lot many more tales.

Bar & Bench would like to thank Raghul Sudheesh, Editor at Kochi Post for his assistance in arranging this interview.

[1] Emergence Of The Travancore State Congress And Early Activities Of The Party, M. Sumathy “From Petitions to Protest – A Study of the Political Movements in Travancore 1938-1947” Thesis. Department of History , University of Calicut, 2004.

Image of Pattom Thanu Pillai taken from here.