‘Pradhaana Shiromani’ T. Ananda Rao (Part 1)
[[‘Pradhaana Shiromani’ T. Ananda Rao (Part 1) Source: prekshaa]]
After V. P. Madhava Rao, Thanjavur Ananda Rao came to power as the Diwan. He was rich by birth and also possessed all the great attributes that a wealthy person should have. His father, Raja Sir. T. Madhava Rao, had been the Diwan of Baroda (Vadodara) and Travancore; He was well known as a person of remarkable intellect and competence. ‘Raja’ and ‘Sir’ were the titles conferred on him by the British Government. Sir. T. Madhava Rao served as the president of the Reception Committee at the first ever Congress session held in Madras.
Many of Anand Rao’s ancestors were those who rose to great positions and earned repute. One of their names has achieved permanence in Bangalore. He is Raya Raya Raya R. Venkata Rao. He got the title ‘Raya Raya Raya’ from the British Government. Diwan Bahadur R. Raghunatha Rao, a person who rose to eminence having been the Diwan of kingdoms such as Baroda (Vadodara), is yet another famous forefather of Ananda Rao.
Thus, Ananda Rao’s is a lineage of those who earned glory. He was a man of honour and dignity.
He started his career in Mysore as an assistant, known as an ‘Attaché’, to Diwan Rungacharlu, elevated to the positions such as that of a Deputy Commissioner, gradually became a councillor and thus a colleague of Madhava Rao and Krishnamurti. With an experience so vast and over such a long period of time, he went on to become the Chief Minister of the state. Anand Rao’s tenure as the Diwan was for a period of about three and a half years.
‘Mandi Pete Bandh’
Notifying a protest was not a completely new idea during those times. An incident occurred when Ananda Rao was the Assistant Commissioner in Mysore. At Santepete there, the goods carriages from rural areas, apparently, used to be haphazardly parked on the road, allowing no space for people to move about. They wouldn’t even make way to clear up garbage. In order to correct this disorder, the municipal authorities supposedly thought about a few new arrangements and brought them to effect. This allegedly inconvenienced the carter of goods and the marketeers; thus, it appears that they were upset. The authorities did not care about it. Therefore, deciding ‘Mandipete Bandh’ as the most appropriate retaliation, the merchants observed a ‘Bandh’. Then, the matters went to the notice of higher authorities and the merchants were explained to. I have heard that Ananda Rao was one of the most instrumental in explaining the people thus and consoling them.
* * *
All in all, there was nothing extraordinary that can be told about Rao’s governance. It went on rather ordinarily. There was neither growth nor decline. His tenure of three and a half years was like a moderately paced bullock cart smoothly journeying on an even road without any ups or downs, rises or falls, lethargy or cheer.
When Ananda Rao came to power as the Diwan, his friends suggested him to relocate to a bigger house sensing that his place was not sufficient for his residence and to meet the people visiting his office. During the initial conversation, the king had apparently approved that. However, Ananda Rao seemingly communicated his decision not to have a bigger house and told that his house was convenient enough. He had got a small enclosure erected for visitors near the building of his residence. Ananda Rao, by nature, believed that grandeur was unnecessary.
Orderliness
Ananda Rao was a meticulous person. He used to be particular about time and methodical in his actions.
He was suffering from an eye condition. At a certain point of time, when it aggravated, it became impossible for him to move about to perform physical exercises. Without proper exercise, digestion of food as well as sleep would suffer. Consulting his doctor, he made arrangements for walking at his own house. Right beside the compound to the North of his house, he got a three foot wide lane, from east to west, ready. Green plants were supposed to be planted on either side of the lane. Holding a stick in his hand and wearing a pair of green coloured glasses, he had to walk from east to west and west to east on that lane. This, in fact, was well measured walk. Four such strolls would apparently be equal to a mile. This way, he used to walk a mile in the morning and a mile in the evening. Such measurements and calculations were certain traits of his nature.
I can quote an incident or two which occurred during Ananda Rao’s tenure as the Diwan.
Ms. Tennent
Around 1910–11, Ms. Tennent, an evangelist from America came to India and made a visit to Bangalore. Her purpose, supposedly, was to have the society improved in India. Most importantly, her primary objectives, it seems, were to end child marriage and to expand women’s education. Staying in Bangalore for a month’s period, she was flittering about to raise funds for her cause. A few people used to ask her, “Is there nothing good that needs to happen in your country? Shouldn’t you serve your own people? Instead of spreading your vision amongst your own people, why did you have to come this far?” and many such questions. Without any dejection, she went on with her tour.
One day, there was a lecture of Ms. Tennent arranged at the Shankara Matha on the subject of her concern, most importantly regarding the evils of child marriage, and it was to be presided by V. P. Madhava Rao. However, when people went to listen to the lecture – at around five thirty in the evening – the entrance to the hall was closed. It was learnt from the police personnel present there, that the evening’s congregation had been cancelled in obedience to the Government’s Hukum.
In the history of Mysore, that was perhaps for the first time ever that a public programme had been prohibited by the government. No one was strong enough even to speculate the reason. Surprised and curious, people we talking about it wondering what might have happened.
This is the first part of a three-part English translation of the seventh chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.
‘Pradhaana Shiromani’ T. Ananda Rao (Part 2)
[[‘Pradhaana Shiromani’ T. Ananda Rao (Part 2) Source: prekshaa]]
Cancellation of Sastri’s Lecture
It had been announced that V S Srinivasa Sastri—member of the Servants of India Society—who had come to Bangalore, would be delivering a lecture on the subject of ‘Education’ the very next evening (of the previous incident) or perhaps it was three days later. A thousand people came, in batches, to listen to that lecture – I was a witness to it.
Even this programme was revoked upon the orders of the government. After being informed of the programme’s suspension, I vividly remember how Srinivasa Sastri, Madhavayya—a giant scholar in Tamil and English—and our circle of friends went to Lal Bagh, enjoyed a humorous chitchat, and returned home. What amazed me the most that day was the fact that Sastri never spoke a word about the government or that evening’s event. He neither criticized nor speculated the cause. When somebody amongst us asked, he said thus – “Since our guru Gokhale has ordered us to ‘neither display resentment nor independently criticize in times of such political oddities. If the concern is related to democracy or justice, it can be carefully analyzed and an appropriate action can be taken over time. At that immediate instant, the concern can be left to be managed by the prominent members of the Society.’ I am not supposed to say anything. Even I will need some matter and evidence to hypothesize. Won’t I? I haven’t yet gathered any such thing. And so I too am as baffled as you are!”
In this manner, Ananda Rao unintentionally became the cause for political turmoil among the people.
The commotion that resulted spread all across the State. Neither was Ananda Rao hasty by nature nor did he hold extreme views. For such a person to act like this, people suspected that the British Resident must have persuaded him. The reality, however, still remains hazy.
Upon learning about the details that led up to the cancellation of Srinivasa Sastri’s lecture by the government as well as the subsequent events, Gokhale must have decided that there was nothing that we could so. Sastri had once mentioned to me the facts that Gokhale had asked him, which he had possibly communicated with the British government by means of a letter.
We can recollect a few things about Indian politics from that period in time.
The Three Parties
It had been twenty-five years since the establishment of the Congress party. During that time [c. 1910], there were three parties in the political arena –
1. We are supposed to ask only a few concessions and facilities from the British Government. We should not do anything that will make the British feel that Indians are their opponents. We should gradually achieve – a larger share of opportunities for locals in the highest positions of the government such as the Civil Services; reduction of duties and taxes; development of industries; and improvement of tanks and lakes, and things that result in the country’s prosperity. We shouldn’t strike at the roots of the British. This was Ananda Rao’s father, Raja Sir T. Madhava Rao’s party.
2. Small concessions and facilities alone are not sufficient for us. Most essentially, we need the power to govern the state. The British Empire should even give us ‘Dominion Status’ – the position of a vassal power just like it has been provided to their colonies such as Canada and Australia. The British Government must give an oral commitment to this effect and gradually create the opportunity for India to rise to that level. This was the party of Gokhale and others.
3. The British government should vacate the country lock, stock, and barrel. There is no room for any intermediate system. Let them leave. This was the party of people such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
Ananda Rao’s Behaviour
When such was the situation, being a staunch supporter of his father’s party, did Ananda Rao sense a lack of compassion from members of the second party and therefore did he behave in this manner with Gokhale’s disciple Srinivasa Sastri? We don’t have any demonstrable evidence to prove this theory.
The following are the possible reasons for Ananda Rao’s conduct –
1. He might have behaved thus because of the Mahārāja’s persuasion.
2. The British Resident might have persuaded him to do what he did.
3. Assuming that to have been the intention of the British, Ananda Rao might have acted in such a manner (as a pre-emptive step).
4. Consulting neither the British nor the Mahārāja, Ananda Rao might have taken the decision independently.
The third or the fourth possibilities seem to have greater weight. There’s absolutely no reason why the Mahārāja should be dragged into this. Even the British Resident could have not intervened in this matter all by himself. Gopal Krishna Gokhale and V S Srinivasa Sastri were from the British India [as opposed to Mysore, which was a princely State]. There were umpteen opportunities for political activism in British India itself. Why would the British Resident have interfered in a matter that had been left unrestricted by the government there?
Sir. T Madhava Rao—Ananda Rao’s father—had once said that ‘the grace of the British Government should be earned by pleasing them through ordinary arguments and not posing any opposition.’ Ananda Rao cancelled the programme either because he was afraid, perceiving Sastri’s lecture as a possible danger for the British Empire, or with the intent of assuring the British Government that he was not sympathetic towards its rivals. This is one of my inferences. I can’t provide any evidence stronger than this.
~
I suspect that Ananda Rao did not have any sense of great admiration for V S Srinivasa Sastri.
Sometime during 1912–13, Gandhi started the Satyagraha movement in South Africa to give voice to the displeasure of the Indians towards the whites. Gokhale made an appeal to the people of India, asking them to express their solidarity towards the cause and to support it with monetary contributions. To mobilize funds, a meeting took place in Bangalore and a committee was formed. One fine morning, representing that committee, Rao Bahadur B K Garudachar, K S Krishna Iyer, and I went to Ananda Rao’s residence seeking a contribution. By that time, he had retired from his position. To our misfortune, just a day before our visit, a copy of Indian Review—an English monthly from Madras—consisting of a prominently published article written by Srinivasa Sastri, had reached Ananda Rao’s hands. We were explaining our request to him and his facial expressions turned rigid. During our explanation, he used to interrupt us by saying things like, “Why does this gentleman…,” placing his fingers on the line printed on the cover page of the Indian Review, which read “By Mr. V S Srinivasa Sastri.’ For some reason, he had made up his mind never to speak out Sastri’s name aloud!
Pensioner
Sastri’s article [in the Indian Review] was also about our purpose. The subject of the article was an analysis of the history and the consequences of injustice and humiliation suffered by Indians residing in South Africa, inflicted upon them by the whites. Ananda Rao was enraged further and argued, “Why did our people go to South Africa in the first place? Who asked them to go? And if they went at their own risk, taking responsibility for their own actions, let them suffer. Or let them return home!”
None of us retorted. Asking me not to reply, my elderly companions—Garudachar and Krishna Iyer—shut my mouth. “What you’re saying is debatable. We have come here seeking contributions towards a crisis relief. People are suffering, aren’t they?” I said. In response, he said, “I am a pensioner now! What do I have?”
We returned from there, empty handed.
First Meeting
I first met Ananda Rao circa 1910. I had visited him seeking his suggestions for my book about Dewan Rungacharlu. I have spoken about this incident elsewhere. On that occasion, apart from treating me with a lot of regard, Ananda Rao said thus – “I had your book read out and listened to it. I enjoyed it. Soon after the printed copies of the book are ready, you shall have the first hundred copies sent to me along with a bill.”
The amount he paid me as per my bill was my first ever earning from writing a book. It was dispensed towards partial payment of the loan I had taken, by signing a bond, to get the books printed.
There is one thing that should be kept in mind. During that time, Ananda Rao hadn’t yet learnt about my political leanings. My introduction to Srinivasa Sastri happened only after 1910 – at the time when Ananda Rao’s government cancelled Sastri’s lecture. Thereafter, Ananda Rao must have somehow learnt that Srinivasa Sastri had developed admiration for me and that I had immense respect for him.
~
Around the year 1914, the British Government appointed a sovereign war committee called the ‘Imperial War Council’ [or Imperial War Cabinet] and nominated Sir Ganga Prasad Varma [Sir Ganga Singh], the Mahārāja of Bikaner, as a member representing India.
To be concluded…
This is the second part of a three-part English translation of the seventh chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.
‘Pradhaana Shiromani’ T. Ananda Rao (Part 3)
[[‘Pradhaana Shiromani’ T. Ananda Rao (Part 3) Source: prekshaa]]
An Open Letter
Keeping the glory and successes achieved by the Mahārāja of Bikaner as a pretext, I wrote and published around ten or fifteen open letters concerning the politics of the indigenous provinces addressing them to him. (‘Problems of Indian Native States: Open Letters to His Highness The Maharaja of Bikaner’ – By A Mysorean.)
A compilation of these open letters published as a small book had been reviewed in the newspapers.
A yuvarāja of Palanpur State was one of the people who had reviewed it. Apart from reviewing it in The Times of India newspaper and appreciating it, he also wrote a personal letter to me, in which he had written – “You have quoted instances from the discourses by someone called Sir T. Madhava Rao. You must do me a favor and kindly send the collection of those discourses.”
Files of the Lectures
I did not have any book that contained Sir T. Madhava Rao’s lectures. I didn’t even know if such a book existed. In fact, that book wasn’t available in a printed form. Whatever may be the case, if I enquire with Ananda Rao, I would accurately know the fact. I must respond to the letter only after I learn about it. Thinking thus, I went to Ananda Rao. Like always, he respectfully welcomed me and said, “Even I was meaning to meet you. I’m glad that you came yourself.”
“What was the matter?” I asked.
“You have quoted instances from my father’s lectures in your book. Haven’t you? Where did you find those lectures?” asked Ananda Rao.
“I got it from a close friend. I cannot, however, reveal his identity.” I replied.
“Asking his name wasn’t my purpose. Have you seen all the lectures by my father? Merely this was my question.”
“I haven’t seen them completely. I have only seen fragments and flickers – whatever was given to me by somebody. I completely trust the person who gave it to me as being an honest man. Since Madhava Rao’s statements were filled with essence, I quoted them.”
“Do you wish to see those lectures?”
I said, “Absolutely! Of course I wish to. But I don’t see a path to that end!”
“I could give them to you for your perusal. It consists of around twenty-four or twenty-five discourses. Twelve of them cover the most common of subjects concerning the fundamental principles of politics such as what a state means and how its structure should be. This is the first part. The second part explains governance. This has twelve discourses. It contains topics such as the different departments of a government, their formation, their purposes, and programmes. In this manner, the subjects were categorized and delivered as lectures to the Mahārāja of Baroda. Look here, I have got those lectures scribed in these two bundles.”
Saying thus, he placed two large bundles in front of me. I picked them up and glanced through the contents. Somebody had neatly hand-written it on thick foolscap sheets.
“This is a matter of great fortune for me!” I said.
“Take one file with you and go through it. Once you return it, take the second one.”
“As you say! You have done me a huge favour,” I said with gratitude.
~
I brought the files, read them, and returned them within the agreed time. After I gave back the second file, Ananda Rao asked me, “How are the lectures?”
“They are immensely informative. The most essential tenets and opinions have been covered with great clarity in a heart-touching manner. This is an important treatise to be perused by politicians and students of political science. Especially, if the kings of our native states reach such a treatise intently, it will be exemplary not just for their future but also for the future of their subjects.” I said.
“How much would it cost to print and publish this?” asked Ananda Rao.
“The first volume may cost a thousand rupees and the second volume could cost another thousand. If you permit me, I will take care of all the work such as proofreading the rough draft and so forth. I will not take any remuneration. I shall undertake this task for my own happiness.”
After thinking for about two minutes, he said, “Will it cost two thousand rupees? I don’t have so much money. I am a poor man!”
The instant I got this response, I had no patience to stay there for a second more. “You may deliberate upon it,” I said with folded palms and took my leave.
Was it Miserliness?
I never had a reason to believe Ananda Rao was tightfisted. I was aware of the fact that he had donated his money to many public organizations such as the Christian institution ‘YMCA’ [Young Men’s Christian Association] and the temple of Lord Srinivasa. In my own experience, he was a generous human being.
What does it mean if someone who showered such munificence towards me in the year 1910 suddenly lacks that trait in 1914? I suppose that something must have caused it during those four years.
My Hypotheses
There are two incidents that are the reasons for my suspicion –
1. During the year 1910, Ananda Rao didn’t know my political leanings as yet. By 1914 it had become evident to him. I believed in democracy.
2. In the year 1910, I had not been acquainted with V S Srinivasa Sastri yet. By 1914, it was pretty apparent that I was, in a way, a fellow-traveller of his. Ananda Rao must have learnt that.
These are entirely speculations of mine. Whether or not this has basis in truth is something I am unable to say.
~
Ananda Rao was a benign, humble and dignified gentleman. As the Dewan, when he was the president of the Legislative Assembly, I have seen him conduct the agenda of the session. I used to sit in the segment meant for newspersons called the ‘Press Gallery.’ On one such occasion, the subject of debate was a draft of the bill called ‘Hindu Religious Disabilities Bill.’ According to the law prevalent during that time, if anyone born in the Hindu community converts to another religion, he shall not be entitled to a share in his ancestral property. This has basis in the smṛtis of Manu and others. They wanted to amend the law in such a way that a person’s right over his ancestral property would not be affected even if he converted into another faith.
There was a strong opposition to this law all over the kingdom. The person who tabled this bill was Sir K P Puttanna Chetty, a senior councillor during those days. Those opposed to the bill – A Rangaswamy Iyengar, who had recently retired from the position of a High Court Judge; Advocate A Ramanna (Bhikṣānnada Rāmaṇṇa) of Mysore; and Advocate D Venkataramayya of Bangalore – strongly criticized it. Since the opposition party was immensely powerful, that bill didn’t proceed further is what I remember.
Although the Mahārāja of Mysore did not agree with the contents of the bill and nobody in the Government of Mysore were enthusiastic about the bill, succumbing to the pressure of the Christian missionaries and owing to the compulsion of the British Resident, the government pretended to deliberate upon the bill and the fact that the popular opinion was against the bill was not disliked but rather appreciated by the eminent personages in the government – such was the talk of the town.
Since I was a mere reporter then, there was no chance for me to criticize either the bill or Ananda Rao. I didn’t have any reason to cast aspersions against Ananda Rao’s governance.
During Ananda Rao’s tenure, the politics across the Indian subcontinent was not so thickly related to the administration of Mysore. Around that time, there was no pressure to bring up the question of democracy either. Purely keeping the Mysore administrative in sight, if we look at Ananda Rao’s work, he deserves to be counted amongst those who accomplished all that they undertook.
Rao was a great man in all aspects. His manner of treating people, his generosity in matters of public concern, his respect for people in power, and in all such matters, the path he trod was a great one. He was someone who never forgave atrocities and never tolerated pettiness. He was someone who upheld justice and truth. He had developed a grasp on method and procedure. In him, everything was gentle, everything was decent, and everything was upright.
He was a deeply fond of literature. He idolized the political genius W E Gladstone. He was someone deeply interested in studying good treatises. Most important of all, he was a person who had realized the threshold of his strengths and capabilities. Although he didn’t venture into great adventures, he never fell short when it came to fulfilling things that were necessary. The well in our house might not have as much water as that in the lake of the townsfolk. But it suffices to take care of our household needs and we don’t have to depend on our neighbors. Even this is a matter of joy, is it not?
Concluded.
This is the third part of a three-part English translation of the seventh chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.