The Myth of Velu Thampi’s Kundara Proclamation Curieux, à l'analyse d'événements dans l'histoire du Kerala (Inquisitive analysis of events in Kerala History) Author - Abraham Yeshuratnam

The Myth of

 Velu Thampi’s Kundara Proclamation

Curieux, à l'analyse d'événements dans l'histoire du Kerala (Inquisitive analysis of events in Kerala History)

Abraham Yeshuratnam                     

By the end of the seventeenth century almost all of India’s commercial activities with Europe were in the hands of the Dutch and the English East India companies. Political events in Europe brought Kochi under the control of the British. The Glorious Revolution, also called “The Revolution of 1688” and “The Bloodless Revolution,” took place from 1688-1689 in England. It involved the overthrow of the Catholic king James II, who was replaced by his Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband, William. William was also called prince of Orange and stadholder of the Netherlands. The title stadtholder is roughly comparable to England's historic title Lord Lieutenant. William, after becoming king of England used his position as the stadholder of the Netherlands, issued a proclamation to all Dutch commandants overseas ordering them to allow British troops to occupy their forts so as to keep them out of French hands. The British in Kochi took advantage of William’s proclamation and without wasting time sent a large force in 1795 to the island of Vypeen and demanded the surrender of Fort Cochin. Van Spall, the Dutch Governor, refused which made the British besiege until its relinquishment on December 19, 1795. This brought to an end of the Dutch power on the Malabar Coast.  

Over the next few years the British and French were to fight each other to establish commercial supremacy in south India. They supported political rivals for the succession both of the nawabs and of the nizams of the Deccan. The British were victorious by 1761, the nawab of Carnatic effectively becoming their puppet. This victory gave the British sovereign powers over the southern region, and authority to decide what rights the rajas and chieftains would be granted under the new dispensation. Travancore Raja’s position with regard to the Nawab of Carnatic was that of a feudatory. After the submission of the Nawab of Arcot, the British inherited suzerainty over Travancore also, and this vital change in the political scenario was not felt by the Travancore Rajah and later by Velu Thampi.  As a matter of fact, Travancore had virtually come under the British after the Nawab’s dominion came under their control. Not only had the submission of the Nawab of Carnatic but the defeat of Tipu also brought changes in the administration which had repercussions on the events which followed.  The Treaty of Seringapatam, 1792, made the East India Company sovereign over Malabar and suzerain over the native states of Cochin and Travancore. The civil administration was transferred from the Bombay Presidency to that of Madras in July 1800. It was decided to have military and civil administration in the hands of Madras authorities to have the “benefit of having undivided authority in the hands of the one presidency or the other, led to the choice of Madras, from the nearer vicinity to the province. [1] Travancore was brought under a separate Political Officer and Colonel Macaulay was appointed to the post. So, even without the knowledge and permission of the rulers, Travancore had already been brought under the East India Company. In addition to this de jure possession, chaotic state of affairs in Travancore also invited the intervention of the British to restore law and order. A 16-year old Raja, Bala Rama Varma, was controlled and guided by a clique of corrupt and notorious men who used their position to plunder the public funds. According to British authorities: “ The old Rajah was succeeded by his nephew, a young man whose character seems ever since to have been marked by imbecility, caprice and other qualities which shew him to be wholly unequal to the task of  government.” [2]  Rogue landlords exploited the vulnerable peasants and tenants.  There was no government or legal protection from retaliatory eviction of tenants, tax increases and harassment. This scene of political anarchy in the State prompted the Resident to work out a strategy for political and military intervention.  It was during this period, forced payments were demanded by the then Dalawa  Sankaran Namboodiri which made  Velu Thampi   retort sharply  by bringing an armed crowd of agitators to challenge the administration. The frightened Raja immediately agreed to dismiss and punish Sankaran Namboodiri and the vicious gang who aided his administration.
  

The outline of the events – submission of the Nawab of Carnatic , the retreat of the French and the fall of Tipu – established the dominance of the British in south India.  But frequent wars made the treasury empty and the British depended on revenue collections for the proper conduct of administration.  There were many objections to the overall goal of British supremacy in India. There were bitter critics in England who opposed the military adventures of the Company.   “While not questioning the necessity of the 1798 Mysore war, Dundas was full of gloom about the costs which he rightly feared, would add to the Company’s already large burden of debts.[3]   Lawrence James says, “Castlereagh had similar misgivings   about the 1803-05 Maratha war, and had vainly tried to restrain the Marques Wellesley.” [4] The Whigs in Parliament were also upset by the heavy cost in the conduct of wars. “When news of the outbreak of the war reached Britain, the Whig opposition was indignant and looking for a scapegoat. In a series of debates during the spring of 1804, the Marques was accused of having flouted the 1784 Act by declaring war on the Marathas without permission of Parliament and having squandered the Company’s revenues.”[5] James points out: “By 1806 the Company’s debts stood at £ 28.5 million, of which two-thirds had been run up by the Marques’s wars.”[6] It is against this background that we have to understand the urgency shown by Macaulay in getting the arrears from Velu Thampi who was acting as the spokesman of the Rajah. 

When reports of weak and lawless administration in Travancore reached Macaulay, he was very much concerned about the difficulty in getting the revenue. In these circumstances, he  agreed as an interim measure the appointment of Velu Thampi as  Dewan. The British could have brought Travancore directly under their administration as they did in Malabar. But the British at that time followed a policy of ‘indirect rule.’ As Elliott Frederick points out: “ For British empire-builders and administrators in the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, the basic problem of ‘indirect rule’ was to make local chiefs and princes – whether African, Indian, Arab or Malay – act largely as British governments wanted, but without the British having assume the entire burden or responsibility of  dministration.”[7] But attempts to maintain stable alliance with Travancore from a position of  military supremacy had subsequently foundered on the incapacity of the Rajah and the factiousness and corruption of the regime. Velu Thampi improvised the people, farmers in particular, by raising taxes. He was ruthless, paranoid and bloodthirsty and committed unimaginable atrocities. Thampi used torture and terrorist tactics to stay in power – his regime employed the discourse of terrorism as a weapon to maintain and further consolidate its authoritarian grip over the population. It was these fundamentally inhuman practices of Thampi and the consistent and widespread use of systematic torture that made some top bureaucrats and men in Rajah’s army conspire to murder him.British official papers point out: “Before the end of  that year, 1804, a formidable revolt took place among the Nair battalions in the service of the Rajah. Their original cause of disaffection appears to have been a reduction in their allowances; these the Rajah restored, and a short calm succeeded, but the

revolt burst again with increased violence; the ring leaders  liberated the conspirators in the former plot, increased their numbers to 10,000 men, as was asserted by the Rajah himself, at length extended their views to the subversion of the British power and influence in Travancore, and the assassination of both of the  Dewan and the British Resident. Intelligence was also received by

the Resident, before this dangerous revolt was entirely suppressed, of a projected expedition from the French islands against one of the ports of Travancore.” [8] It was beyond the capacity of Velu Thampi to put down the revolt and he had to flee for his life to Macaulay. The mutiny of the army was crushed by  Company’s soldiers sent by Macaulay. Velu Thampi ‘obtained

not only his life, but the restoration of his power.’[9] Although the mutiny was put down with an iron hand, Macaulay now felt the urgency of retaining the Company’s army in the State to avoid future revolts. The British did not want to annex Travancore after the army revolt, but attempted, instead, to maintain stable alliance with the Rajah from a position of military superiority. “Their

prominent explanation of them was”, according to Marshall, “that  up to the 1740s and 1750s the British had existed in India as outsiders, detached from developments in the subcontinent, pursuing their own peaceful commercial activities within their coastal enclaves.”[10] But in Travancore, military and political intervention had been forced upon them by the breakdown of

administration. Externally, if the British had not protected Travancore, Tipu would have brought the State under his control. Internally, if the British had not crushed the Nair mutiny, the Rajah would have lost his throne. In these circumstances, Macaulay  negotiated with the Rajah and Dewan Velu Thampi to sign a treaty to retain the independent existence of Travancore without being annexed like Malabar. According to the provisions of the Treaty signed in 1805, the Company undertook to protect Travancore from internal and external aggression, and to maintain a force for that purpose, the State had to pay a tribute of 800,000 rupees a year. Travancore agreed to give up its right of foreign relations, but was guaranteed full and absolute internal sovereignty..  Velu Thampi was keen on keeping the Company’s troops in Travancore because his life was twice saved by the British troops. He brought pressure on the Rajah to sign the treaty without any delay. The Rajah also wanted protection from Velu Thampi and other conspirators. The mood in the palace was recorded in the files of the Company. “The ratification of the new treaty by the Supreme Government arrived at the Rajah’s capital in July 1805, and he and his whole court gave public demonstration of joy on that occasion.”[11]

After the Rajah had signed the treaty, a British force was kept in the State to protect him from internal and external aggression. Velu Thampi was well aware of the provisions of the 1805 Treaty and also the amount to be paid as tribute. Historical events in Travancore prove that Velu Thampi wanted the British troops stationed in Travancore for his own safety. Britsh intelligence knew about the estrangement between the Rajah and Velu Thampi. According to records kept in the Company’s office: “But so precarious was the possession of power in that State, that almost immediately after a strong conspiracy was formed against the Dewan, Vallay Tombi, in which the Rajah himself was supposed to be engaged. The Dewan was excluded from all confidence, his enemies openly triumphed, a near day was fixed on for his death without any trial …”[12] Although the Rajah was forced to retain Velu Thampi by Macaulay, the pervasive state of smoldering resentment had always remained in the minds of both. While explaining the various types of relationship which could exist among the ruler, minister and the Resident, Robin Jeffrey says” these relationships were not merely dependant on the personalities of the men involved; they were also dependent on the  aims and policies of British government and on the social and political circumstances of the area.”[13] Macaulay, although it was an imprudent step, had directed the Rajah to appoint Velu Thampi because of the ‘social and political circumstances of the area.’

Thampi probably would have strongly supported the Treaty with the firm belief that he could usurp the powers of the Rajah as Hyder Ali did in Mysore , and here in Travancore with the support of Macaulay,  Thampi probably would have thought that his friendship with Macaulay and the presence of British troops in Travancore would help him to seize power.  He had an incredibly strong relationship with Macaulay because he had saved his life twice.. But quite surprisingly, Velu Thampi could not get any sign of assistance from Macaulay to carry out his ghastly scheme. Thampi was ignorant of the fact that Macaulay had no independent powers to remove the Rajah and that he was guided and controlled by the Court of Directors and the Governor-general in Council. The real significance of the Treaty was to protect the ruler.“The establishment of a subsidized force within the territory of the Ruler was an important feature of these treaties. This force was ostensibly for the purpose of defending the ruler from external and internal enemies, and a subsidy was undertaken by the protected ruler for its expenses.”[14] 

Velu Thampi’s expectation that Macaulay and British troops which became a permanent feature after the Treaty could help him overthrow the Rajah misfired when Macaulay used the Treaty to bolster the power of the Rajah. The moment Velu Tahampi realized that Macaulay would not help him in his hideous plan, he turned against him to usurp power through other means. Although Velu Thampi forced the Rajah to send letters opposing the tribute amount and even for the removal of Macaulay, he had no intention to wage a war with the British. But Velu Thampi had spies in the palace. The World Heritage Encyclopedia says “His discontent was first given vent to by the assassination of the ambassador of the Resident in the court. The Maharajah had communicated his discontent with the Dalawa to this ambassador, a certain Subba Iyen, and this information was known to the Maharajahs wife, Arumana Amma, a noblewoman of the Arumana Ammaveedu family. She was a lady of influence, who apparently communicated Royal secrets to the Dalawa, and she informed the Dalawa of the Maharajah's intention to dismiss him, with support from the Resident. This increased the anger of the Dalawa against the British. First the Resident demanded for impossible amounts of money and now he had started interfering with the internal affairs of the state.”[15] For both political and personal reasons, Thampi wanted to eliminate Macaulay from the political scene of Travancore, waiting, if necessary, for the right moment. Thampi’s political activities in the past reveal his characteristic dogged determination to take revenge against an opponent even if it took some years. Although Sanghoonny Menon and some writers attempt to establish the fact that the Rajah was against the Treaty, sources inside the palace and British intelligence reveal that the Rajah was quite satisfied and happy about the alliance with the British. This Treaty gave him protection, especially from vicious and callous men like Velu Thampi.  Although some communal and prejudiced writers deflate history by projecting Thampi as a champion who challenged the Company for the excessive tribute amount included in the subsidiary alliance, historical records show that it was Thampi who repeatedly insisted the Rajah to sign the Treaty. He was not at all worried about the tribute amount because his sole intention was to get the support of Company’s troops, as in earlier occasions, to seize power with the approval of Macaulay. But he had never anticipated that the Treaty would give protection to the Rajah against his machinations and his vicious plan to seize power. Macaulay made it plain in his statement: “Why simply this — should any minister of this country be daring enough to resist his advice when sanctioned by Government — the Rajah and the Resident will lay hold of that minister and throw him into the VaJiatoray surf and proceed in the same manner towards every succeeding minister who should design the ruin of his master.” [16] Apparently this was the reason for Thampi to revolt against the Company. Complaints made by the Rajah against Macaulay to the British authorities in Madras and Bengal were forcibly dictated by Velu Thampi. Macaulay stated in a private letter to Buchan, Chief Secretary, that the Dewan was of late greatly changed in temper, having become ferocious, and that the Rajah was a “ a mere cipher, trembling at the very name of the Dewan.”[17] The Resident has also stated in a letter of the 16^th September, to Mr. Buchan, that the Rajah had several times conveyed to him his satisfaction in the subsidiary engagements, and his perfect reliance on the honour and liberality of the British Government.”[18] While Ram Rajah hesitated to publicly provoke Thampi out of fear in a foolhardy way, he had no hesitation in secretly opposing him and his crimes.

Although French links with Travancore were done officially in the name of the Rajah, it was Velu Thampi who had surreptitiously opened talks with the French. British intelligence had reports about secret negotiations with the French. The Rajah’s impotent status was known to the Resident through his agent shown as ‘Ramalingum Moodeliar’ in British records ( Ramalingam Mudaliar).Velu Thampi “now begins to appear the sole ruler of the Travancore State; the Rajah, though his disposition was deemed to be favourable to the British Government, is stated to have been incapable of following the course of his own wishes, he henceforth ceases to be seen in public transactions, and the Dewan exercises in his own person all the powers of government.”[19]. Events that happened in quick succession after the signing the Treaty landed Velu Thampi in a challenging situation. He took the initiative to sign the Treaty with the villainous plan to get protection from the powerful enemies in the palace and also to seize power with the assistance of his friend Macaulay. But quite paradoxically, the Treaty strengthened the power of the Rajah and the main duty of the British troops stationed in Travancore was to crush any revolt by any person against the ruling prince. So much so that Velu Thampi could not think of any possibility of getting the assistance of the British troops (unlike on two previous occasions when Macaulay saved his life) to punish his enemies in the palace and also to seize power. Through shrewd and calculated deceit, Thampi wanted to challenge Macaulay. How could he accomplish this Herculean task?

Velu Thampi knew, especially after the fall of Tipu, that neither in the Carnatic nor in Bengal, in spite of great disproportion of numbers, could Indian armed forces withstand the military expertise of the British. The question why on earth Velu Thampi challenged the British -- a military giant that even some of his supporters acknowledged would inevitably crush him?  Probably Velu Thampi would have calculated from a different angle. In Travancore, a well trained and equipped army was created from the days of Marthanda Varma. When Travancore faced threat from the Mysoreans,  Dharma Raja  rebuilt  the army by appointing Chempakaraman Pillai as the Dalawa and Kesava Pillai as the Sarvadhikaryakkar. Later Kesava Pillai was appointed Commander-in-Chief and he thoroughly reorganized the army.  He also increased the number of soldiers by adding thousands of able bodied men brought from different parts of kalari training centers in the State. Velu Thampi knew the strength of British regiments stationed in Cochin, Aleppey, Quilon  and Trivandrum. Although Travancore forces were massively outnumbered and perfectly equipped, Velu Thampi knew that it was not easy to defeat the British. Although Sanghunni Menon and other earlier writers stress Velu Thampi’s sheer grit and determination that goaded him challenge the British, past history   gives a good indication of how Thampi reacted when confronted with force. He was afraid of confrontation.  He had to rush twice to Macaulay to save his life when he was challenged by the Nair troops and later by the palace clique. Thampi was aware of the fact that the Beitish possessed highly advanced technology and enhanced military equipments. Some writers like Rajayyan speak of a grand alliance of Polygars, Pazhassi and Thampi to fight the British. [20] But it is not merely a fiction of their imaginations but also a deliberate attempt to pervert facts. After the fall of the Vijayanagar Empire, authority in southern regions got fragmented and a variety of claimants were able to carve out their own domains. There were regional and local powers and there was a wide variety of chiefs, rajas and clan leaders. These claimants were fighting among themselves for possession of regions. It is absurd to call these conflicts struggles for independence, as claimed by Rajayyan et al. In those days of poor communications and local rivalry, there was no possibility to form a grand alliance.  Thampi could not get even the support of the Zamorin. The Zamorin’s minister revealed to the British the confidential letter sent to the Zamorin by Thampi. If this was the political climate at that time, the formation of a grand alliance by Thampi was a mere fantasy of some historians. 

Velu Thampi being a cunning and shrewd strategist would not have dared to attack the British unless he had received an assurance of support from another strong European power.   Thampi’s tricky strategy was to get the help of the French to have the requisite military strength to face the British. Even after the defeat of Tipu, the belief among defeated rulers in south India was that if Napoleon had come, the British could have been easily defeated. For months Travancore region was buzzing with rumours that Napoleon would invade India at any moment. Travancore had indirect contacts with the French from very early times.  According to British intelligence, the French were having secret talks with the Rajah and other officers as early as 1802. The Records show: “Under this apprehension, the Resident between the month of August 1802, and March 1803, repeatedly represented in the Supreme Government the necessity of measures to check the symptoms of disaffection in the minds of the Rajah and counselors, and to prevent French influence, stating that he had reason to apprehend the Rajah was disposed to the French, and that a political negotiation had been opened with him by a French agent who landed there.”[21] Here the Rajah’s name is mentioned in the official communiqué, although the Dewan was arranging all secret negotiations. Velu Thampi knew how the Dutch had surrendered all their possessions in Kerala to the British when Napoleon captured Holland. There was great expectation that Napoleon would come to India through Egypt to defeat the British One of the greatest endeavors of Napoleon was the proposed march on India envisaged jointly with Russia. 

According to Andrews Roberts, a leading British historian, “Napoleon has not only influenced the course of European history but also of faraway India, where it was his talk of alliance with Tipu Sultan, that ensured a virtual death sentence for the Mysore ruler from the British colonial rulers … It was his letters to Tipu Sultan proposing an alliance that got Tipu into trouble.” [22] Napoleon’s image was moving like a Colossus across the Indian sub continent. In the absence of media in those days, gossip played a vital role in spreading true and fake news.  Napoleon dominated Europe, fighting and defeating a range of alliances involving combinations of Austria, Britain, Russia, and Prussia. While Velu Thampi was contemplating a rebellion, the French were in possession of Pondicherry,Karikal and Yanaon on the Coromandel Coast, Mahe on the Malabar coast and Chandernagore in West Bengal. French threat was looming large on the horizon from very early times. Many Indian kings had French soldiers. As Wheeler says: “In 1798 British India was confronted on all sides by France or Frenchmen. An army of sepoys, drilled and commanded by French officers, was maintained by the Nizam in the Deccan. Another French officered army was maintained by Sindia in Western Hindustan, between the Jumna and the Ganges. Napoleon Buonaparte was invading Egypt, and threatening to conquer the world.”[23] Despite the French losses in their wars with the British, the Peace of Paris restored the French factories to the French. This failure did not act as a deterrent and the French did not lose hope. French naval power was greatly improved—a base being recognized at Mauritius. When Thampi met the French agents in Travancore they would have given him the assurance that the French would help him. British intelligence also got reports about the attempts of Thampi and on 16th December 1808, Col. Macaulay wrote to Mr. Buchan, Chief Secretary of Fort. St. George, that two Mahomedans had been dispatched by Velu Thampi to Mauritius on a Maldives vessel to solicit a reinforcement of 500 artillery.[24]  Thampi was expecting French help from the Mauritius in sync with the anticipated arrival of Napoleon’s troops. As wheeler points out: “Meanwhile the war against France and Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the Mauritius had become a French depôt for frigates and privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java…”[25]  French offer alone buoyed up Thampi to challenge the British and not Thampi’s bravery and boldness, as claimed by some authors. 

I do not want to go into all the details of Thampi’s wars, for this paper focuses specifically on Kundara proclamation. And yet, a summary of the wars is also given to show how the sequence of events led to the purported Kundara proclamation.  The revolt began when Thampi, with the assistance of Paliath Achen, attacked the Residency at Cochin to murder Macaulay. It was a plot planned with skill and dexterity, hoodwinking Macaulay by making him send the Residency troops to escort Thanpi to Calicut after his feigned retirement. But it was a massive failure and Macaulay had “a very narrow escape for his life, and was preserved only by the fidelity of a Portuguese servant.”[26] This preposterous strategy contrived by Thampi had two deleterious effects. (1) Macaulay considered this attack on the Resident as treason and a stab in the back. He felt insulted and was bent upon wreaking vengeance on Thampi. (2) The French remained on the sidelines waiting to see whether Thampi could dislodge Macualay so that they could contact Paris to send assistance to Thampi. Thampi would not have dared to attack unless he had the solid backing of the French.  Thampi had had secret negotiations with the French agents before he started the revolt, according to British intelligence.  Although the French power in India was on the decline at that time, France under Napoleon was emerging as a strong power in Europe. There was a strong French navy at Mauritius.  Thampi and Paliath Achan “established secret communication with the French on Mauritius and appear to have been promised the support of an invading force which would land in the middle of January 1809.”[27] When Thampi’s attack on the residency misfired, the French were nowhere to be seen. The attack on the Residency was Thampi’s worst mistake and it was a defining moment that isolated him from the British and the Rajah. Paliath Achan surrendered on February 27th. Now the only alternative to save him was to wage an all-out war. According to sources Thampi rushed to Quilon (Kollam) when he was informed about the disaster at Kochi. He immediately ordered Travancore forces stationed at Trivandrum to come to Quilon to attack the British. The Carnatic brigade known for its fighting capabilities was also summoned. Battle formation was ready for attack. Chalmers was at this time in command of the subsidiary force stationed at Kollam.  But what is amazing is that at this decisive moment of action in the battle field, British sources say that Thampi went to Kundara to make a proclamation.  How could he go to Kundara when his own house was targeted by the British?

According to British records, “The Colonel having received information on the 29th December that a number of armed men well supplied with ammunition, had assembled at the house of the Dewan in the immediate neighbourhood ordered the force to be on the alert, which had scarcely been done when he heard that a large body of Nairs was about to advance upon the cantonment from Paroor, a village on the coast about ten miles south of Quilon. …. Nothing further took place until next morning, when Captain Clapham, having been joined by Major Galbraith Hamilton with two companies of the ISth, the Dewan's house was attacked, and taken, together with six 4- pounders which had been mounted in front of it.” [28] It is inconceivable, beyond one’s imagination that the beleaguered Thampi left for Kundara at this critical juncture without defending his own house, but merely to issue a proclamation when the war had already started. It was something bizarre and it appears to be an interpolation to divert from the course of events. It now appears that the whole thing was a hoax, a false flag, sustained by political lies and disinformation.  I had skimmed through some records in the archives, browsed through history books related to that period, but could not trace Thampi’s alleged proclamation in Malayalam, for he could use only Malayalam and not English. While reconstructing complicated events from scattered historical sources, I had to wade and stumble through a swamp to recover an authentic manuscript relating to a major event like the Kundara Proclamation. But to my surprise, the original document or a copy of it could not be traced. It’s important to challenge this myth and misconception, not just to set the record straight, but    also to debunk a deeply-held myth regarding Kundara proclamation. Writers such as Sanghoonni Menon, Velu Pillai and others wrote about Kundara proclamation by taking profusely materials from British sources. Their views about the reaction of the public to the alleged proclamation were also mere imagination than actual facts.  Unfortunately that did not stop people from latching on to the rumour. When troops of both sides were ready to launch an attack at Kollam, it would have been an uncanny move by Thampi to go to Kundara , a small village, to make a proclamation. The situation at Kollam was highly critical. Thampi’s gunners were shot and bayoneted; Nair troops lost all life and energy, and were broken up into loose bodies of runaways. No military general would leave this major hotspot to go to a nearby village to issue a proclamation.

 An official proclamation was to be issued by Rama Rajah at Trivandrum and not by Velu Thampi at Kundara village. The proclamation should be worded in Malayalam and should have been issued by the Travancore government (sircar). In those days it was by tom-toming (beat of drums) a Proclamation was announced to the public.  More often than not the capital Thiruvananthapuram or Kollam was the place to issue a proclamation, not by Velu Thampi at  Kundara, a small coastal hamlet. There won’t be even

Tom-toming a proclamation.

enough people to hear the proclamation. Probably the British intelligence would have got information that Thampi was hiding in Kundara when the battle was raging at Kollam, and that probably was the reason invented by Macaulay to tag on Kundara to the proclamation. Suspicion arises about the authenticity of the proclamation because the public knew   about the Kundara proclamation only from British sources and not from the Rajah’s palace. It is only after the war that a full text of Velu hampi’s proclamation was dispatched to Madras by Macaulay and a copy of Macaulay’s Report was later released by Ballard, one of the British Residents in Travancore. This Report acknowledges Velu Thampi’s proclamation and Government’s counter proclamation to allay the fears raised by Thampi. Shangoonny Menon writes:  “The Resident lost no time in despatching a report to the Madras Government on the subject, and the following is an abstract of the report with which we were kindly furnished, together with a copy of the proclamation, issued under date the 15th January 1809, by the Government, by Mr. Ballard, the late British Resident in Travancore.”[29] Macaulay had made the Governor in Madras to issue another proclamation as a rejoinder to Thampy’s alleged proclamation sent by him.

The objective of this paper is to debunk the belief that Velu Thampi issued a proclamation at Kundara.  As has been pointed out earlier the concurrence of well authenticated circumstances – debacle at Kochi in the plot to kill Macaulay, murder of British wayfarers who lost their way and the violent battle at Kollam targeting Thampi’s residence - would make no sane person to leave for Kundara at this explosive juncture just to publish a proclamation. Critical analyses of the events show that Macaulay had fraudulently prepared the proclamation in the name of Thampi and sent it to higher authorities. Macaulay had to bring to the knowledge of the Directors the necessity of a war with Thampi because he had given a good report about him to the Company and had even assisted him in quelling the revolt by the Nair troops. Apart from this, the policy of the Company was not to pursue wars. Public opinion in Britain, as expressed by Parliament and Ministers, was impressed with the necessity for maintaining friendly relations with the Indian rulers, and for abstaining from any measure which might tend to a renewal of hostilities. Macaulay had some critics on the Board of Directors of the East India Company. He was castigated in 1804 for making an ‘unguarded’ and ‘imperfect statement’ of a transaction concerning tobacco.[30] The Select Committee had also received complaints against Macaulay from John Hutchinson, commercial resident at Anjengo, for payment due to his estate. Velu Thampi was also involved in this dubious affair. 

Non-intervention was the buzz topic at that time on the agenda of the Court of Directors.  Wellesley’s brilliant record in the wars against the Marathas was not very much appreciated because of the heavy cost of wars.  Cornwallis who succeeded Wellesley  wrote to the Court of Directors that “ finding we were still at war with Holkar, and could hardly be said to be at peace with Sindia, he had determined to proceed to the upper provinces, and avail himself of the interval of the rains, when military operations were suspended, to endeavour, if it could be effected without a sacrifice of our honour, to terminate by negotiation a contest in which the most brilliant success could afford no solid benefit, and which, if continued, would entail pecuniary difficulties we should hardly be able to surmount" [31]If the Court of Directors were alarmed at the 'pecuniary difficulties' in the conduct of wars by Wellesley, how could they approve Macaulay's wars in Travan core and Cochin? Some of Macaulay's critics had fustigated him earlier for his policies. What is more Macaulay himself had pleaded for the appointment of Thampi as Dalawa, ignoring the advice of Rama Raja. It was to contovert this accusation that Macaulay invented the hoax of Kundara proclamation to project Thampi as a dangerous war criminaland it was only by liquidating him that the British colonial policy could be implemented. Macaulay projected the so-called Kundara proclamation of 29th December 1809 as a declaration of war by Verlu Thampi, ignoring the fact that he had already declared war on the night of December 28, 1807 when he stormed the Residency to assassinate Maculay and later by the cold blooded murder of three European military officers, including Surgeon Hume,   and twelve European soldiers of the 12th Regiment, and thirty-three sepoys . Attack on the Residency and the brutal murder of surgeon Hume and three military officers had made things radioactive and Macaulay’s stratagem was to flaunt Kundara proclamation as a call to arms by Thampi and to establish the fact that the Resident had no other option but to meet the challenge. In addition, Macaulay could not bear the shock and humiliation of Thampi’s sudden attack on the Residency while he was expecting Thampi leaving for Calicut and for that purpose Macaulay himself had given armed entourage as requested by him. 


A review of Macaulay’s activities in Travancore reveals how he had used deceptive tactics to mislead the Directors. Several complaints were sent against Macaulay to the Directors and the Governor by the Rajah on the instructions of Thampi. Probably to counter this, Macaulay might have drafted the proclamation to give an idea to the Directors about the dangerous situation created by Thampi. Macaulay’s activities in Travancore can be cited as a proof that he was capable of producing the fake proclamation. Although these incidents happened after the war with Thampi, they betray Macaulay’s true character.  As for instance, Macaulay was criticized severely in 1804 for making an ‘unguarded’ and ‘imperfect statement’ of a transaction concerning tobacco by the Directors.[32] He was also involved in the controversy surrounding the dismissal of George Vaughan Hurt, and, like the publication of proclamation, sought to vindicate his conduct in Two Letters to Lord Harris (1816).  And again in 1832 he gave evidence before the Select Committee inquiring into the claim by the descendants of John Hutchinson, commercial resident at Anjengo, for payment of the balance of a debt due to his estate from the Rajah of Travancore. He published, similar to the proclamation, a defence of his own part in the affair by publishing Desultory Notes. I am citing a reply prepared by some aggrieved members to establish the fact that Macaulay was capable of producing a fraudulent proclamation to escape the censure of the Select Committee. A reply to Macaulay's Desultory Notes was submitted by the petitioner and in this reply we get a vivid picture of Macaulay's tactics and how he could twist events to safeguard his position. He wrote to the Directors: " General Macaulay's attack on Mr Handley - his accusations against Mr. Smee- his charge against the Linguist - his vituperation of the Eliah Rajah - his statements that Mr. Handley had free intercourse at the Durbar - that Mr. Handley adressed him officially - that Mr. Hutchinon had a commission on Pepper - that penalties could never be recovered - and his observation that neither the Indian Government or the Court of Directors ever issued any restrictive regulation relative to the claim of the Travancore Petitioner - are all made ( in the language of the Government Dispatch) on the grounds not even warranted by a degree of probability." What were the motives of General Macaulay in publishing his Desultory Notes, we do not pretend to determine—but as, unanswered, they are evidently calculated to prejudice the case of the Travancore Petitioner, the observations and remarks which have been made in reply to the pamphlet of General Macaulay, will neither be regarded as uncalled for nor unjust.”[33] This reply confirms the objective of this paper that Macaulay had a malevolent design to interweave events to authenticate his deceptive dealings. The proclamation, in my finding, was also another upshot of this malicious design of Macaulay.

A proclamation will be authoritative, short and precise highlighting the importance of the order of the government. But this proclamation is quite lengthy using the literary style of the 18^th century English political literature. Prima facie it was a fake document prepared by Macaulay with a view to building a plausible justification to wage a war on Thampi. Macaulay had his own spies in the palace and from them he was fully aware of the mindset of Velu Thampi. Sthanapathy Suba Iyen, Ramalinga Mudaliar and the English Interpreter, D'Veigas were in constant touch with Macaulay giving him all the details of the activities of Velu Thampi. Suba Iyen was later strangled to death by Thampi because he knew that he was a spy of Macaulay and the Rajah. He was sent by the Rajah to meet Velu Thampi at Alapuzha, probably to scrutinize his activities. Macaulay used these three men, especially Suba Iyen to gather through covert means Thampi’s political views and they were incorporated in the proclamation to make the Directors believe tat it was drafted by him. The proclamation declares, inter alia, that the British would “suppress the Brahminical communities and worship in temples ….get low-caste people to inflict punishments for slight faults, put up crosses and Christian flags in temples, compel intermarriages with Brahmin women without reference to caste or creed, and practice all the unjust and unlawful things which characterize Kaliyuga” This would make the Court of Directors feel that Thampi was telling flagrant lies because up to this time the British had never interfered with religious practices or with the caste system anywhere in India. To show Thampi was totally against the British administrative policy in India, events in other parts of India are also included, though irrelevant, but Macaulay’s intention was to cause intense hatred against Thampi by the Directors. “ They gradually curtailed the power of the Nabob who gave them shelter and helped so much towards attaining their present importance, till they had destroyed his dynasty entirely and taken away his territories; next they laid hold of the neighbouring countries which were enjoying peace and comfort until at last the lights of their dwellings were extinguished, and themselves plunged into misery …” This statement grotesquely reflects Macualy’s astuteness in drafting the proclamation to prejudice the Directors against Thampi. Travancore public in those days without newspapers had never heard about the British dealings with the Nabob. The proclamation concludes using the literary style of 18^th century England: “Let us therefore exert ourselves to keep off impending calamities such as those we have sketched above, and endeavour as far as lies in our power that no disparagement may be imputed to us in guarding homes, the charitable institutions, and the manners and customs of our land.” What could the illiterate people of Kundara , and for that matter Travancore, know about the political situation in India? In a caste ridden Travancore society where the majority of people were ignorant, illiterate and living in poverty, the proclamation with high sounding words and perverted political views was, it is quite obvious, meant to influence the Directors and not the man on the street. Macaualy’s agents Suba Iyen and Mudaliar gave a complete picture of Thampi’s religious fanaticism, political ideology and caste superiority and this platform was cleverly enshrined in the proclamation to give a façade of authenticity. Macaulay had to take such precautionary steps because some members on the Court of Directors were biased against him. Governor-General Lord Minto was one of the managers appointed by the House of Commons to conduct the impeachment of Warren Hastings and the prosecution of Sir Elijah Impey. Macaulay was aware of this and he was prepared to go to any length to impress upon Minto the necessity of suppressing Velu Thampi’s revolt. 

Macaulay had to device such shifts  and subterfuges to escape censure and even punishment because he was mainly responsible for appointing Velu Thampi as dalawa, in spite of opposition by the Rajah and his coterie in the palace and also by some members in Governor’s office in Madras. The Select Committee had received complaints against Macaulay from John Hutchinson and in this transaction Velu Thampi’s dubious role was also known to the authorities. But what Macaulay feared was the antagonistic reaction of the Governor-General for his earlier autonomous decision to support Thampi and the sudden volte face to wage a battle against him.  As has been pointed out earlier, Ram Rajah had no faith in Thampi and he and his trusted men in the palace conspired to get rid of him.   The Rajah declared Thampi persona non grata and his request to meet him was also declined. But Thampi got the help of Macaulay and with the help of the British subsidiary force stationed at Kollam, the loyal men who stood with the Rajah were defeated and punished in a savage manner.  At this point, Travancore politics had become tumultuous, the monarch was made powerless, Thampi was using his regained power as a cruel autocrat and Macaulay seized upon the vacuum in the administration to increase his influence and consolidate his position as Resident. Deeply humiliated and frustrated, Ram Rajah took the bold step of writing to the Governor-General to recall Macaulay. Macaulay was summoned to Calcutta by Wellesley, Governor-General, to discuss the issue, and after getting Macaulay’s explanation about the state of affairs in Travancore, Wellesley could not find any fault with Macaulay. Wellesley wrote to the Rajah that Macaulay “being an able and energetic officer was sent to Travancore in the hope that he should conduct all affairs to your satisfaction. I am sorry to hear so from you. Major Macaulay by our order came to Calcutta and fully related matters. He says that there are no differences between you and him, and I am very glad to hear this. Valu Thamby's appointment as Dewan was a source of great pleasure to the Government, because he is able and energetic.”[34] Macaulay also wrote to Ramalingam Mudaliar from Calcutta on April 20, 1802 that he had thoroughly briefed Wellesley about the state of affairs in Travancore, especially about the appointment of Velu Thampi as dalawa and also about his reliability and skill. Wellesley believed Macaulay’s account of Thampi and sent through him “present of a pair of valuable shawls, gold dresses and kincob, according to the formality observed at the installation of Chiefs in India.”[35] It is against this backdrop that it is to be viewed that the intent of the proclamation was to rationalize Macaulay’s decision to wage a war, although he had given earlier a clean chit to Thampy. It is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances that prevailed in Travancore at that time, the proclamation was a fake document prepared by Macaulay with a view to building a credible rationalization for the war with Thampi.

But Minto was not satisfied with the military action of Maculay. “His Lordship in Council cannot reflect without repugnance and concern upon the vindictive extremity which in his judgement has unnecessarily characterised the proceedings of the state of Travancore. The ends of justice and the purposes of public security were attained in the death of the Dewan. The prosecution of the dictates of vindictive policy when the object of it had ceased to exist by exposing to public insult on a gibbet the dead body of the Dewan is a proceeding so adverse to the common feelings of humanity and to the principles of a civilized government that the Governor-General-in-Council must deeply regret the adoption of that measure and especially the imputation of the concurrence and even the participation of a British authority in the execution of it.”[36] 

My findings in this paper are (1) Travancore Government (sircar) knew about the proclamation from British sources since no such proclamation was published from the office of the Rajah of Travancore. A close textual analysis suggests that the proclamation was drafted by Macaulay. It has all the nuances of a political essay.  Thampi’s earlier orders were sharp and pointed. Macaulay had prepared the proclamation by including matters which were decidedly out of sync with the prevailing political times in Travancore but ostensibly to show how Thampi was a sworn enemy of the British policy in India and for this purpose he had included  events that had happened outside Travancore …” They gradually curtailed the power of the Nabob who gave them shelter and helped so much towards attaining their present importance, till they had destroyed his dynasty entirely and taken away his territories.” It is quite obvious that such political events happened outside Travancore  were included in a local proclamation just to convince the Governor-General that Velu Thampi was a dangerous element  to the British colonial policy and that his elimination was an urgent necessity.   At the same time to confirm it was Thampi’s proclamation, Macaulay had cloaked it with Hindu religious ideas such as Padmanabha Swamy, rights of Brahmins, emerging  lower castes to abuse Hindu sacred rites ,  kaliyuga etc’ --- the fanatical ideas  of Thampi revealed to him by  Subba Iyen, Ramalinga Mudaliar  and others who were reporting every action of Thampi to Macaulay. (2)   Circumstantial evidences also show that Thampi could not leave Kolllam when his own house was attacked and the battle was in full gear. (3) An official proclamation should be published from the Rajah’s palace at Trivandrum, and not at Kundara, a sleepy village. This leads academics wonder about the reliability and veracity of the Kundara document. (4)  Fake intelligence as well as plagiarized statements had been slipped into the proclamation to convince the Governor-General about the sine qua non of the war with Thampi. .

“Are U.S. history textbooks still full of lies and half-truths?” asks Ray Raphael.  The reasons that nineteenth century mythologies are still perpetuated in twenty-first century texts are deeply rooted in both narrative structures and American nationalism.   [37]

 In this paper I have also attempted to dismantle many myths enshrouding Velu Thampi. The military – political situation in Travancore after the attack of the Residency at Kochi and the chronological table of events vividly prove that Velu Thampi would not have gone to Kundara to make a lengthy proclamation.  Writers such as Nagam Aiya, Shangoony Menon and Velu Pillai  say emphatically that  the reaction of the people was instantaneous and that all Travancoreans rose against the British . Nagam Aiya says: “This remarkable document had its desired effect …. The whole country rose like one man.” [38]   It is really a fancy to claim   mass uprising when there was no such proclamation.. In the absence of newspapers and media channels in those days, even if a proclamation was announced, for argument sake, in a remote and desolate village like Kundara, how could the whole State of Travancore come to know about it? What is more, Thampi was hated not only by the Rajah and other officers in the palace, he was also loathed by the mass of the people for his malicious and tyrannical acts. As for instance, when the British troops entered Travancore through Aramboly, people were happy to know about the defeat of Thampi.    “The news soon spread, and ere we had advanced much further, we could distinguish white flags flying on trees and sticks, when the whole head-quarter gentlemen passed us, preceded by some troops to explore the way. Shortly afterwards the road led us on a sudden, within musquet-shot of a stone bastion and curtain, mounting several cannon pointed on  the road, and we found this to be part of the Fort of Oodagherry, with white flags flying, and not a soul within.” [39] At Paravur also, local people guided the British to the location where Thampi’s forces were camping.

Another fake story is about Thampi meeting Ram  Rajah during the course of the war. Shangoonny Menon, in his eagerness to show Thampi’s loyalty to the Rajah, says that he left Aramboly when the British Sergeant Leger entered Aramboly lines on February 10, 1809.  “Being a patriotic minister and a faithful subject of Travancore, and conscious of his own guilt and wrong doings, he resolved honestly to take the blame upon himself and save his sovereign and the country, and requested that all the blame may be clearly and distinctly imputed to him, when the British Government would question His Highness. Valu Thamby then took final leave of his sovereign master, and leaving the palace, he stole away, through the jungles to the north.” [40] There is nothing on record to show as an exhibit that Thampi met Ram Rajah after his abortive attack at the Residency to assassinate Macaulay in Kochi. In Wilson’s History of the Madras Army where he gives a timeline of the military operation against Thampi, there is absolutely no reference to Thampi calling off military activities after Leger reached Aramboly.  Thampi’s troops could be seen all along the way from Aramboly.  Major Welsh and Colonel Sentleger had to bulldoze their way from Aramboly to Nagercoil.  “Colonel Sentleger, having been joined on the 16th by a company of royal artillery from Ceylon with six three- pounders, and a wing of the 8rd Ceylon native regiment, marched about 3 o'clock a.m. on the 17th for the contiguous villages of Nagercoil and Cotaur, distant about eight miles south-west of Arambooly, and where the enemy had assembled in some strength. The advance, composed of a strong picked detachment, led by Colonel McLeod of the 69th, came upon the enemy at daybreak in a strong position, defended by cannon, and with a river in their front. Colonel McLeod immediately attacked, and compelled them to retreat in confusion with the loss of nine guns. “[41]   These military actions of Velu Thampi’s men in different places invalidate Shangoonny Menon’s statement that Thampi left Aramboly to meet the Rajah when he saw Leger and his troops.   Moreover, Thampi was not a welcome guest at the palace.   He would have been arrested and handed over to the British for his anti-State activities, if he had ventured to meet the Rajah . Even before the British troops entered Trivandrum, Ram Rajah had sent a deputation headed by Ummany Thampi, his close confidante, to meet the British colonel camping at Pappenemcode expressing his regret for Velu Thampi’s insurrection and his willingness to hunt for him to be handed over to the British.   An impartial analysis of the military activities after Leger entered Aramboly will show that Shangoony Menon has diffused falsehood about Thampi’s meeting with Ram Rajah and this fake narration has been parroted by other writers in all history text books.

George Santayana says:  “History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.” Nagam Aiya gives another fable of Velu Thampi’s visit to Kilimanoor. But Kilimanoor was the most dangerous choice for Thampi and he would not have dared to go there.   After crushing Thampi’s trusted Nair troops at Kollam, Chalmers moved towards Trivandrum and encountered Thampi’s forces at Kilimanoor. Wilson has recorded: “Colonel Chalmers having been joined on the 19th February by H.M/s 19th regiment under Lieutenant-Colonel the Honorable P. Stnart, felt himself sufficiently strong to attack their position at Kilimanoor which was protected by batteries having a deep nullah full of water in their front, and defended by about 5000 men”. [42]

As pointed out earlier, at the Papanamcode meeting prior to this conflict, Ummany Thampi had assured the British military officers that he would monitor the movements of Velu Thampi and capture him. As events unfolded, Ummany Thampi was more interested than the British to track down Velu Thampi. Native spies who knew every part of the country were dispatched to pursue Velu Thampi. Kilimanoor had become a politically  sensitive region after Chalmer's encounter with Thampi's forces. Ummany Thampi's local spies were spread out everywhere. Apparently, it was impossible for Velu Thampi to go to Kilimanoor palace which was situated in a conspicuously visible place. 

Kilimanoor palace 

If we give credence to Nagam Aiya’s story, it is quite astonishing that people in Kilimanoor palace, especially Nambudiripad, could not recognize Velu Thampi. Velu Thampi was a defacto ruler till then and he was not a stranger to Kilimanoor royal family. Velu Thampi did not disguise himself in mask when he was alleged to have gone to the palace.  Nambudiripad could recognize Thampi from his voice, body shape and height.  Viewed from this perspective, Velu Thampi’s Kilimanoor visit was also a fable. Another unconvincing narrative is that Velu Thampi gave his sword to Nambudiripad. Every palace in those days had swords of different size and pattern. If Thampi had given the sword to Nambudiripad as claimed by him, he would not have had a sword to kill himself at the Mannadi hideout. Nagam Aiya’s conclusion of this story itself sparks off our suspicion: “Three months later, the Nambudiripad knew that the distinguished visitor was no other than the brave Velu TampiDalawa.” Why three months? It was all an invented story without any evidence in military archives of the British and political records of Travancore government. Propaganda created by State Manuals to influence public perceptions is another form of historical forgery. Another weird mystery is that the sword was lost to history for nearly 150 years. Then in 1957, quite incredibly and surprisingly, the Kilimanoor family acknowledged its possession and gifted it to President Rajendra Prasad. These are manipulations of real historical events to create a false narrative. Why this silence all these years? Why its existence was not revealed in 1947 when India attained its independence?

 

The alleged sword of Velu Thampi given by Kilimanoor without showing any authenticity.

  The sword’s hilt is made out of brass and silver strips to adorn it. Obviously, the sword was specifically made for a person, may be for a member of Kilimanoor family. But there is no proof to show that it was Velu Thampi’s and his initials വേ.ത. for (വേലുത്തമ്പി ) were not inscribed on the hilt to  prove authenticity, particularly when it was made for a person. Information gathered in this way seems to many as tainted with bias than remembered history. These made up facts about the sword have been passed down through subsequent generations which may have distorted the original event even further by adding more lies. As Siddhartha Mishra says whimsically : “Interestingly, its scabbard has not yet been found.”[43] In all probability, Thampi’s sword would have been taken by Ummany Thampy’s men when they stormed his hideout at Mannadi. My finding is that Velu Thampi and his brother were hiding at Mannadi probably after the catastrophe at Kollam without going to any other place fearing arrest by Ummany Thampi, although his men were fighting in different places. Travancore government’s (sirkar) civilian intelligence agents conducted eavesdropping operations and by this strategy they detected Thampi’s hiding place at Mannadi which led to his suicide.

The difficulty in distinguishing a fabricated fake event occurs when partisan historians publish such stories, providing some semblance of objectivity. Propaganda created by the state to influence public perceptions is another form of fake news. As David Hare says: “The difference between fiction and nonfiction is quite reasonably assumed to depend on whether stuff is invented or factually reliable. Now, in some kinds of writing – history, reportage and some species of memoir or true adventure – there is zero room for manoeuvre. Everything must be rigorously fact-checked.”[44]  Rumours, fraudulent stories and hoaxes about Thampi’s meeting with Ram Rajah, his visit to Kilimanoor and about the presentation of his sword are to be fact-checked with reliable sources before they are published as real history.

---

[1] Logan, Treaties, etc., II, CCXII

[2] Papers Relating to East India Affairs, (ordered by the House of Commons to be printed), 22 June 1815, p.125.

3 India Office Library, LPS, 5/363, Memo of Colonel Alexander Walker, 28 January 1810

[4] James, Lawrence, Raj, The Making And Unmaking of British India, Little, Brown And Company, London, p. 76

[5] House of Commons Sessional Papers etc., 58, 12

[6] James, Lawrence, op.cit., p. 77

[7] Elliott, Frederick. 1897. ‘The Native States of India’. Edinburgh Review, 186: 190, [Google Scholar]

[8] Papers Relating to East India Affairs, op.cit.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Marshall, P.J., The Eigteenth Century in Indian History, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003, p. 20

[11] Papers Relating to East India Affairs, op.cit., p. 128

[12] Ibid.

[13]  Jeffrey, Robin, The Politics of ‘indirect rule’: Types of relationship among rulers, ministers and residents in a native state’, Te Journal of Commonwealth& Competitive Politics, Vol. 13, 1975, Issue 3

[14] The British Crown & The Indian States By The Directorate Of The Chamber's Special Organisation. P. S. King And Son, Limited, London. 1929.  

[15]  World Heritage Encyclopedia, http://www.worldebooklibrary.org/articles/eng/Velu_Thampi_Dalava

[16] Menon, Shangoonny, P,  A History of Travancore from Earliest Times, Higginbothams, Madras, 1878, p.327

[17] Letter from the Court of Directors 20 September 1809, on Political state of Travancore territory, Papers relating etc., p. 129

[18] Ibid., p. 129

[19] Ibid., p.128

[20] Rajayyan, K., South Indian Rebellion – The First War of Independence.(1800–1801)

[21] Papers Relating to East India Affairs, op.cit., p.127

[22] Roberts, Andrews, ‘Contact with Napoleon a death sentence for Tipu Sultan' Business Standard, January 22,2017

[23] Wheeler, James Talboys, India under British Rule from the Foundation of the East India Company, Macmillan & co., London. 1886, p.70

[24] Sen, S.N., Off The Main Track, Mitra and Ghosh, Calcutta, 1944, p.46

[25] East India Company, op.cit.,

[26] Welsh, James, Military Reminiscences Extracted from a Journal of Nearly Forty years Active Service in East Indies, Vol.1, Smith Elder & co., Cornhill, MDCCCXXX

[27] Woodcock, George, Kerala, Faber & Faber, London, 1967, p. 190

[28] Wilson, W.J., History of Madras Army, Vol.III, Madras, Government Press, 1883,p.207

[29] Menon. Shangoonny, op.cit.,  p. 338

[30] Macaulay, Colin Campbell, Published in the History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1820 –  1832, ed. D.R.Fisher, 2009    

[31] Marshman, John Clark, The History of India From the Earliest Period to the Close of Lord Dalhousie’s Administration, Vol.2, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, London,1867, p.185MCAULAY,

[32] Fort William-India House Corresp. ed. H. Heras, xviii. 529, 533; Wellington Despatches, i. 6, 1362; Lady Knutsford, Zachary Macaulay, 282, 284; Macaulay Letters, ii. 224; iii. 51.

[33] A Reply to Lieutenant General Macaulay’s Desultory Notes on the Travancore Petition, Printed by George Taylor, 7, Little James Street, 1832, p.41

[34] Extracted by Shangoony Menon from official records. Op.cit. p.337

[35] Ibid.,

[36] William to the Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, dated 10th April 1809, pp. 788-97.

[37] Ray Raphael https://historynewsnetwork.org/  History News Network Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington University

[38] Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual,  Government  Press, Trivandrum, 1906, p. 486

[39] Welsh, James, Military Reminiscences Extracted from a Journal of Nearly Forty years Active Service in East Indies, Vol.1, Smith Elder & co., Cornhill, MDCCCXXX. P. 294

[40] Menon, Shangoonny, op.cit.,  p.347

[41] Wilson, W.J., History of Madras Army, op.cit., p. 214

[42] Aiya Nagam, op.cit., p.216

[43] Mishra, Siddhartha, The News Minute, August 9, 2015

[44] Hare, David,  Based on a true story’: the fine line between fact and fiction,  The Guardian, December 6, 2015.