A number of statues have, all over the place, been the sources of discontent. The world had witnessed that instantly after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) In 1991. Statues of heroes of the outdated regime have been toppled in elements of the constituent-states of the erstwhile USSR. Likewise, these of former President Saddam Hussein have been introduced down in Iraq after the conquest by the U.S. and allied forces of the west Asian nation in 2003 or these of Bangladesh’s first President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or Syria’s former President Hafez al-Assad in 2024.
In India, across the time of Independence, a pattern caught on amongst individuals who had advocated the elimination of statues or memorials considered by them as despicable remnants of the British previous. Nonetheless, what shouldn’t be mentioned a lot is that Madras (Chennai) witnessed, even about 100 years in the past — that too, when the British Raj was thriving — an intense agitation to take away the statue of a British army officer, James George Smith Neil.
Situated at what’s now referred to as the Spencer’s junction – the intersection of Mount Highway (now Anna Salai) and Binny Highway, the statue had served as an essential landmark of Madras for over 75 years within the later a part of the nineteenth Century CE and the early a part of the twentieth Century CE.
Who was James George Smith Neil?
Throughout the Nice Revolt of 1857, Neil, who was hooked up to the Madras Fusiliers, performed a task in placing down the rebels brutally however died in service. Nonetheless, for Indians, he was the “Butcher of Allahabad [now known as Praygraj].” As a mark of his reminiscence, a bronze statue, made in Scotland, was put in in August 1861, the price of which (₹18,953) was borne principally by the British.
For 55-odd years, Madras metropolis didn’t protest “Neil’s presence.” However, by the later a part of Nineteen Twenties, patriotic fervour was on a revival, after a spell of inertia. But, the nationalists have been divided into two camps: the Congress, spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi, and Swarajists had been adopting contradictory traces of pondering with the previous boycotting legislature and the latter remaining members. Youthful generations of individuals in India, like their counterparts in lots of different nations, have been more and more coming below the affect of Karl Marx. The demand for full freedom from British rule was rising louder.
As its response to the formation of an all-white fee, led by John Simon, to suggest constitutional adjustments in India and the fixed chorus of the then Secretary of State for India Lord Birkenhead on Indians’ lack of ability to formulate a concrete constitutional scheme, the Congress, on the Chennai session in December 1927, determined to draft a ‘Swaraj’ Structure. The end result of this transfer was the Nehru Report that was primarily authored by Motilal Nehru, after holding a collection of conferences with different events.
The start of opposition
It was in opposition to this backdrop that the agitation in opposition to the Neil statue commenced in August 1927. On the morning of August 10, 1927, two youths from Madurai — Mohammed Saliah and Subbarayulu Naidu — clad in khadi and sporting Gandhi caps, got here throughout, on the Spencer junction, Neil’s statue that had a dangling sword. Each have been members of the Tamil Nadu Volunteer Corps. As they have been “reminded” of the motion of Neil [in 1857], acknowledged a report of The Hindu subsequent day, the 2, armed with an axe, a chisel and a ladder, have been “determined to cut off the sword and deface the statue.”
On the Madras Company Council’s assembly on August 17, M. Singaravelu Chettiar, who belonged to the fishing neighborhood, needed to lift the matter however he was disallowed. Chettiar got here to be famously referred to as “first Communist in south India” for having chaired the primary convention of Communists in Kanpur in 1925. When two members of the Satyagraha committee, Angachi Ammal and Lokaiah Naidu, have been arrested for his or her agitation, it was Chettiar who, on his personal, appeared on behalf of them in a court docket and defended them, in response to a biography authored by Okay. Murugesan and C. S. Subramanyam on Chettiar.
Gandhi’s opinion
In the meantime, 20 representatives of the Satyagraha panel met twice with Mahatma Gandhi, who was in Chennai in September 1927, and sought his assist. On September 10, The Hindu revealed an exhaustive report with the statement, “with the approval of Mahatma Gandhi.” The members had a free-flowing dialogue and Gandhi conveyed to them bluntly to not count on public associations together with the Congress, to information them. He defined to them why the organisation wouldn’t be capable of assist them.
Calling the agitation “sectional,” which, he clarified, that he didn’t imply communal, Gandhi, nonetheless, mentioned “If the Congress is called up to help such movements, it will cut a sorry figure. The Congress has a status and a reputation to lose. Therefore, it is much better for you, young men, not to expect the Congress or other public bodies to immediately shoulder your movement.” On the identical time, he informed the youth that he would assist them “so long as I find you on the straight road.”
Mahatma Gandhi. File| Photograph Credit score:Getty Photos
Within the fourth week of the month, Chettiar had once more raised the difficulty of the statue elimination on the Madras Company Council’s assembly and needed the native physique to undertake a decision, which was “merely a request to the government to remove the statue from the place,” mentioned The Hindu on September 24, 1927.
Chettiar informed the Council the difficulty was “drawing the attention of the whole of India and it was tending to create a great crisis” within the metropolis. This time too, G. Narayanaswami Chetti, who was the president of the Company [which was how the post of Mayor was called then], didn’t allow the movement to be introduced in. One of many factors raised within the public discourse was that the statue was a “stumbling block” to visitors.
In November that yr, when the Legislative Council noticed a movement on the identical matter getting defeated, Gandhi noticed that “the innocent resolution asking for the removal of the offending statue was lost by an overwhelming majority.” Mentioning that the majority the Indian members, “except the stalwarts,” went in opposition to the decision, he acknowledged that “this vote and the debate are a fresh demonstration of the fact that Swaraj is delayed not so much by the obstinacy of the English rulers as by our own refusal to recognise and work for our status,” mentioned The Hindu on November 7, 1927.
Police safety
Because the years glided by, the statue challenge didn’t disappear. Every time protests have been organised publicly in opposition to the statue, the authorities had posted police to protect it. The Madras Company, in Might 1937, conveyed to the British authorities in regards to the shifting of the statue from Mount Highway. This was revealed by Mayor Okay. Sriramulu Naidu at a gathering of the Council on July 6, 1937 in response to a question by veteran Congress chief and a Councillor, S. Satyamurti.
The elimination
On July 14, the Congress regime, headed by C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji or CR), assumed cost. 4 months later got here the official announcement that “in deference to public sentiment as expressed from time to time,” the elimination of Neil’s statue had been ordered from the current web site and the statue can be preserved on the Authorities Museum [in Egmore], reported The Hindu on November 15, 1937.
C. Rajagopalachari. File| Photograph Credit score:The Hindu Archives
Matter reaches British Parliament
The statue elimination got here up for dialogue even within the British Parliament and there have been recommendations from residents of the western nation that the statue be despatched to London. Reacting to the event, Rajaji, throughout his go to to Visakhapatnam on December 3, defined to journalists why his authorities had needed to retain the statue, not essentially for public show.
He defined that there was “no contradiction” within the perspective of his authorities when they didn’t need it as “a continuing course of irritation but claim to hold it and intend to preserve it with care.” He added that “the statue which belonged to us should be preserved at Madras. We had become, even more than ever before, responsible for its keeping and cannot agree to the statue being sent away anywhere because it would then become a permanent focus of misrepresentation of our attitude in the matter.”
The place is the statue now?
The statue, which had as soon as aroused robust public emotions, has been remaining a “constant occupant” of a small house within the Museum for almost 90 years.
