Governance before Independence

The System of Governance before Independence (Part 1)

[[The System of Governance before Independence (Part 1) Source: prekshaa]]

According to the Hindu calendar, a span of sixty years is counted as a paryāya. From the start of the Prabhava saṃvatsara till the end of the Akṣaya saṃvatsara is a period of sixty years. ¹ We can imagine these to be sixty spokes in the wheel of kāla-puruṣa’s chariot. ² From one Prabhava to the next Prabhava is one complete rotation of that wheel. Or from Vibhava to Vibhava, Śukla to Śukla, and so on. A cycle of sixty saṃvatsaras is what makes up a ṣaṣṭyābdi. Consider this span of sixty years to be a meaningful segment in a human life-time, our people made it a tradition to celebrate the occasion with the festive ritual of ṣaṣṭyābda-pūrti ³.

A Golden Epoch for Mysore

It’s been close to thirty years since such a ṣaṣṭyābda-paryāya in the history of Mysore came to an end. To my knowledge, labelling those sixty years—from the Vikrama saṃvatsara of 1881 to the Vikrama saṃvatsara of 1940—as a Golden Epoch cannot be an overstatement.

The story of India can be broadly classified into two periods – 1. Paurāṇika Yuga [The Era of the Purāṇas] and 2. Cāritrika Yuga [The Era of History]. Purāṇas are the rumours, history, speculations, and imaginations of an ancient period. These things don’t have external or material evidence. History is more about dates, places, human circumstances, and things that demands external or physical evidence. We may classify the Purāṇic Era as the ‘Ancient Age’ and the Historical Era as the ‘Modern Age.’ If we see through the lens of the Modern Age, the sixty years (1881–1940) of Mysore’s history can be easily considered as the period of immense progress of the kingdom. The State’s resolve, its efforts, its achievements—from all three of these aspects the story of modern Mysore is worth recording.

The Five Stages

The last five hundred years of the history of the Kingdom of Mysore can be classified into five stages –

1. From the day of Yadurāya’s installation until Nawab Haidar Ali’s invasion (c. 1760).

2. From 1760 till the death of Tippu Sultan (1799).

3. From the day of coronation of Krishnaraja Wodeyar III (30^(th) June 1799) till the time the British assumed power (1831).

4. The fifty years of British rule (1831–81).

5. From the time the royal family resumed power (25^(th) March 1881) until the demise of Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV (3^(rd) August 1940).

It is the story of the sixty years of this fifth stage that has been recorded in this series of writings through the Dewans.

~

The Kingdom of Mysore was re-established for the third time in the year 1881. Since then until 1941, these eleven people were the Dewans or the Chief Ministers –

1. C V Rungacharlu (25^(th) March 1881 – 20^(th) January 1883) 2. Sir K Seshadri Iyer (12^(th) February 1883 – 10^(th) August 1900) 3. T R A Thumboo Chetty (11^(th) August 1900 – 17^(th) March 1901) 4. Sir P N Krishnamurti (18^(th) March 1901 – 29^(th) June 1906) 5. V P Madhava Rao (30^(th) June 1906 – 31^(st) March 1909) 6. T Ananda Rao (1^(st) April 1909 – 9^(th) November 1912) 7. Sir M Visvevaraya (10^(th) November 1912 – 9^(th) December 1918) 8. Sardar M Kantaraj Urs (10^(th) December 1918 – 5^(th) March 1922) 9. Sir A R Banerjee (6^(th) March 1922 – 30^(th) April 1926) 10. Sir Mirza M Ismail (1^(st) May 1926 – 31^(st) May 1941) 11. Sir M N Krishna Rao (20^(th) April 1933 – 31^(st) August 1933) (Acting)

Starting from V P Madhava Rao, the fifth of these eleven, until Sir M N Krishna Rao, I have personally seen them, either closely or from a distance. Their memories might help some future historian.

Importance of the Local Officer

Before delving into the history of individuals, an important trait of the government of that era must be established. That trait was the same across the tenures of all Dewans and quite removed from what we see in the democracy of today; in fact, we can say that it was quite contrary. If this one characteristic trait is grasped, one can fathom, at least to a certain degree, the workload and responsibilities of the Dewans.

The characteristic trait of the government of that era may be indicated just by the phrase ‘Importance of the Local Officer.’ During the fifty years from 1831 to 1881, the British government ruled the Mysore State. In that period of five decades, a system had been established. What tasks had to be handled by which officer and an officer of which position could decide what – this had been firmly ascertained. Shekdar, Amaldar, Sub-Division Officer, Deputy Commissioner – this was the hierarchy of authority. A work that was assigned to a Shekdar had to be carried out by none but him; and he simply must complete it. An Amaldar was not supposed to interfere in the affairs of a Shekdar unless there were special reasons for it. An Amaldar was completely responsible for a Taluk’s administration and all the citizens of the Taluk accepted him as their leader. Whatever might be the need of the people at a given time –renovation of a temple, the repair of lakes and ponds, cleaning of the town, prevention and eradication of epidemics, arrangement of anna-satras [choultries], organizing processions in town – all these were dependent solely on the Amaldar. The Amaldar’s respect was taken care of by the Sub-Division Officer and the Deputy Commissioner. Nobody would ever demean him in public. If somebody went to the Deputy Commissioner and poured out their grievances, he would reply, “Meet the Amaldar and speak to him!” Before taking any decision, they would unfailingly consult the Amaldar. The word of an Amaldar had great value.

Respect for Authority

It was due to such importance that the Amaldar was capable of directly helping people. This reverence accorded to his position used to always keep him responsible and conscientious. He was also invested with the political power necessary to fulfil his responsibilities. In this manner, the Amaldar used to be the sūtradhāra [principal actor, stage manager] of all activities of public welfare.

So also the case with the Deputy Commissioner. Typically in all matters pertaining to a district, the Deputy Commissioner had the final say. Even the government would never roll out a hukum [order] that would contradict the Deputy Commissioner. For a common citizen, the Deputy Commissioner used to be synonymous with the government. Since a Deputy Commissioner held the great powers of nigraha [control] and anugraha [grace], he was capable of undertaking any welfare measures he desired.

Just like the adage –

dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ
[Dharma protects those who protect it]

if the citizen protect the respect of a man of authority, he will in turn develop into one who protects their interest; that respect further inspires strength in him to serve the citizens better. This is the manner in which the people of yore—the government and the citizens—managed the dignity and capabilities of local officers.

This is the first part of a two-part English translation of the first chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.

Footnotes

The System of Governance before Independence (Part 2)

[[The System of Governance before Independence (Part 2) Source: prekshaa]]

The Beginning of Fragility

This idea is now crippled. A few people opine that the pride of the local officer (i.e., the officer in charge) was first pricked during the tenure of Sir Mirza Ismail. I can’t say that it was an absolutely baseless accusation. Citizens who deemed themselves prominent would call upon the Dewan at the drop of a hat, complain about the local officers, on occasion get the Government to roll out hukums without seeking the counsel of the local officers – such things began, little by little. One or two councillors, amaldars, and even the Deputy Commissioner, were ridiculed in public. This way, the hands of the amaldars began to weaken. The Deputy commissioners also became enervated.

After gaining complete independence in 1948 and with the ‘Responsible’ Government coming to power, I have heard and known about the state of administrative control and discipline in governance. I can’t offer any proofs or documents. In case the reports heard by the readers are in contrast with what I had heard and if they can establish their version, I will be ready to correct my opinion.

~

During the pre-Independence era, there used to be three positions of the State’s authority in Mysore – 1. The Mahārāja [king], 2. The British Resident, and 3. Public Services – a circle of officials who were drawing salaries, such as those employed through the Civil Services. Of these, the third category is familiar even to this day. We can recall a few details about the departments overseen by the Mahārāja and the British Resident.

The Mahārāja

The Mahārāja’s authority was merely in name. It was simply that of a rubber stamp, not real, and of no real value – holding such opinions is wrong. Such a view can be termed prejudiced and impertinent. When observed pragmatically, we can notice that all those who ruled from the throne made a tangible impact on the administration. Amongst them, Chamaraja Wodeyar X during the early days of gaining power was still in his childhood and Rangacharya [Dewan Rungacharlu] held the position of his guru; thirdly, the British resident used to be right beside. These were the reasons why we might have not noticed any significant interventions by Chamaraja Wodeyar during the early few years of his rule.

During the later days, the more aware Chamarajendra Wodeyar keenly supervised Dewan Seshadri Iyer’s style of administration.

I heard that after Him, Her Majesty Vanivilasa Sannidhana had quite a powerful influence on administration during her regency. I have even heard that Sir K Seshadri Iyer was unhappy with the queen’s excessive interference in the matters of the state. Whether or not it is true, Sir Seshadri Iyer never made any big decisions without the queen regent’s consent. The people from that period even used to say that her respect for him grew over time.

Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV, who came after her, was an ideal king who followed Constitutional Monarchy. He used to personally analyze each and every important concern. He used to closely note the comments and debates during the Citizen Representatives Assembly and Legislative Assembly with curiosity, and later deduce the direction people’s views. He would travel across the state and learn the public concerns and happenings interacting with the local representatives of people. ⁴

The king had many such ways of knowing the people’s mindsets. Gaining enough knowledge through these means, he had developed the capability to value suggestions and directions. He would ruminate about the agreeability of the government’s decision and the extent of its benefits to people, make decisions in its regard, and instruct his ministers periodically. In certain instances, he would also stay the recommendations made by the government. The council of ministers would thus be extremely alert in fear of such stays. The council of ministers would always be anxious, wondering what criticisms at which meeting or what commentary on which newspaper had come to his notice that had caused dismay.

Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV can never be branded as a ruler only in name. Although he was someone who was part of an already established system and one who never defied his ministers, he was an influential ruler. That is exactly what a ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ means. The minister will be accountable for governance. But it is the job of the monarch to keep that minister alert and in control. This was the system prevalent in Mysore from 1881 to 1948.

Resident

A ‘Resident’ was a representative of the British Government. This sort of official never existed in Mysore prior to 1881. In other native provinces there used to be one such official appointed for a big kingdom or for a cluster of small provinces. A few people would go to the extent of labelling him a ‘Political Agent.’

Among the responsibilities of the Resident, three kinds were important –

1. Are the native rulers abiding by all the treaties, pacts, and regulations in a manner desirable? – making sure these are in order.
2. Is the ruler’s administration in agreement with his subjects? Is the king working for the progress of the province? – Supervising these aspects.
3. Is there any effort in the province which can inflict losses or pose dangers to the British? – Keeping an eye on this.

Reporting all the details concerning these three questions to the Viceroy (Governor General) periodically was the responsibility of the Resident. In the pretext of fulfilling his duty, it was not uncommon for the officer to pose autocratic questions to the king, display impertinence, or write a complaint to the Imperial Government. Occasionally, there were Residents who shared good camaraderie with the king and his officers. But Residents typically grumbled and threatened [the kings].

Connecting closely with such officers, it was not unusual for the locals to complain about trivial things and gain personal favours from them. There were snitches, even in Bangalore, who used to meet the Resident or his associate at least once every week without fail. Managing these trifles was an unspeakable embarrassment to the Dewans of Mysore.

The Brave Conduct of Visvesvaraya

It was during Visvesvaraya’s tenure that this difficulty came to an end and people could breathe freely. The petty-minded ones were not finding opportunities; the prestige and fame that Visvesvaraya commanded through his success all over began protecting him like a diamond armour. Neither Resident nor any other British officer took liberties with him. Everyone would conduct themselves out of their fear of him.

At the Durbars in the Mysore Palace, during birth anniversaries and Dusshera, there was a peculiar practice. While all the locals sat on the floor cross-legged and spoke [i.e., participated in the event], the Europeans alone would adorn the chairs. “If this is how it is going to be, you cannot come to the Durbar,” Visvesvarya told them clearly. In response the foreigners said, “We come wearing trousers, we are not used to wearing dhotras; uttarīyas are not part of our tradition. The only appropriate seating for us is a chair.”

Giving this some thought Visvesvaraya said, “Let there be a separate Durbar for the Europeans. During that event, the local people too shall be seated on chairs. The respect and dignity for both the locals and the foreigners should be the same. Our traditions must be followed only in an event purely attended by the locals.”

The king heartily agreed to this. On many such instances, Visvesvaraya curbed the arrogance of the foreigners. The Residents posted during his tenure were humbled by the intentions of this great man. The pettiness and malice of the British Residents ended there.

Until then the State’s raise and fall were at least faintly under the influence of the British Resident. The Dewans lacking in mettle would fear the Resident. And with personal glory and gain on their agenda, the Dewans were ever-ready to flatter the Resident.

The position of the Dewan was certainly not a bed of roses.

This is the second part of a two-part English translation of the first chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.

Footnote

[The king is a juvenile leader (nāyaka)
The minister is the leader of gluttony
The councillor is the leader of officers
The state is without a leader
Take a look yourself, O Vināyaka!]

In the history of England, a certain writer was apparently popularizing his writings under the pseudonym ‘Junius.’ Even to this day we haven’t come to know who he was. That is public spirit!