Several statues have, in all places, been the sources of discontent. The arena had witnessed that straight away after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) In 1991. Statues of heroes of the common regime had been toppled in parts of the constituent-states of the erstwhile USSR. Likewise, those of weak President Saddam Hussein had been brought down in Iraq after the conquest by the U.S. and allied forces of the west Asian country in 2003 or those of Bangladesh’s first President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or Syria’s weak President Hafez al-Assad in 2024.
In India, across the time of Independence, a model caught on among of us who had advocated the elimination of statues or memorials considered by them as scandalous remnants of the British past. Nonetheless, what is not mentioned noteworthy is that Madras (Chennai) witnessed, even about 100 years ago — that too, when the British Raj became once thriving — an intense agitation to do away with the statue of a British navy officer, James George Smith Neil.
Situated at what is now known as the Spencer’s junction – the intersection of Mount Avenue (now Anna Salai) and Binny Avenue, the statue had served as a mandatory landmark of Madras for over 75 years in the later segment of the 19th Century CE and the early segment of the 20th Century CE.
Who became once James George Smith Neil?
At some stage in the Nice Revolt of 1857, Neil, who became once connected to the Madras Fusiliers, done a feature in putting down the rebels brutally but died in provider. Nonetheless, for Indians, he became once the “Butcher of Allahabad [now known as Praygraj].” As a ticket of his memory, a bronze statue, made in Scotland, became once save in in August 1861, the worth of which (₹18,953) became once borne largely by the British.
For 55-irregular years, Madras metropolis did not dispute “Neil’s presence.” But, by the later segment of 1920s, patriotic fervour became once on a revival, after a spell of inertia. But, the nationalists had been divided into two camps: the Congress, spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi, and Swarajists had been adopting contradictory lines of pondering with the weak boycotting legislature and the latter final people. Younger generations of of us in India, love their counterparts in many other international locations, had been more and more more coming below the affect of Karl Marx. The inquire for total freedom from British rule became once rising louder.
As its response to the formation of an all-white payment, led by John Simon, to indicate constitutional changes in India and the fixed chorus of the then Secretary of Instruct for India Lord Birkenhead on Indians’ inability to formulate a concrete constitutional design, the Congress, on the Chennai session in December 1927, made up our minds to draft a ‘Swaraj’ Constitution. The of this circulation became once the Nehru Tell that became once if truth be told authored by Motilal Nehru, after keeping a series of meetings with other parties.
The starting of opposition
It became once in distinction 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, found, on the Spencer junction, Neil’s statue that had a putting sword. Each and every had been people of the Tamil Nadu Volunteer Corps. As they had been “reminded” of the action of Neil [in 1857], stated a story of The Hindu subsequent day, the two, armed with an axe, a chisel and a ladder, had been “certain to slash off the sword and deface the statue.”
A couple of days later, in Madurai, the Corps held a gathering below the chairmanship of Srinivasavarada Iyengar and “a successfully-kept gathering” had assembled, this newspaper reported on August 16, 1927. Iyengar sought enhance and sympathy of of us to the “circulation of Satyagraha,” which the volunteers hoped to launch quickly. Progressively, the disaster started shopping steam.
On the Madras Company Council’s meeting on August 17, M. Singaravelu Chettiar, who belonged to the fishing neighborhood, wished to rob the matter but he became once disallowed. Chettiar came to be famously customarily known as “first Communist in south India” for having chaired the first convention of Communists in Kanpur in 1925. When two people of the Satyagraha committee, Angachi Ammal and Lokaiah Naidu, had been arrested for their agitation, it became once Chettiar who, on his procure, seemed on behalf of them in a court and defended them, primarily based on a biography authored by K. Murugesan and C. S. Subramanyam on Chettiar.
Gandhi’s conception
Within the intervening time, 20 representatives of the Satyagraha panel met twice with Mahatma Gandhi, who became once in Chennai in September 1927, and sought his enhance. On September 10, The Hindu published an exhaustive narrative with the squawk, “with the approval of Mahatma Gandhi.” The people had a free-flowing dialogue and Gandhi conveyed to them bluntly now to not request public associations together with the Congress, to files them. He defined to them why the organisation would not be in a living to enhance them.
Calling the agitation “sectional,” which, he clarified, that he did not indicate communal, Gandhi, alternatively, stated “If the Congress is called up to reduction such actions, this is succesful of perhaps well slash a sorry establish. The Congress has a region and a reputation to lose. Therefore, it’s critically better for you, young males, now to not request the Congress or other public bodies to straight away shoulder your circulation.” On the identical time, he suggested the childhood that he would enhance them “see you later as I obtain you on the straight avenue.”
Mahatma Gandhi. File
| Photo Credit ranking:
Getty Photography
Within the fourth week of the month, Chettiar had all over again raised the disaster of the statue elimination on the Madras Company Council’s meeting and wished the native body to adopt a resolution, which became once “merely a ask to the authorities to do away with the statue from the living,” stated The Hindu on September 24, 1927.
Chettiar suggested the Council the disaster became once “drawing the glory of all of the of India and it became once tending to build a considerable crisis” in the metropolis. This time too, G. Narayanaswami Chetti, who became once the president of the Company [which was how the post of Mayor was called then], did not allow the motion to be brought in. One in every of the aspects raised in the public discourse became once that the statue became once a “stumbling block” to visitors.
In November that one year, when the Legislative Council seen a motion on the identical matter getting defeated, Gandhi observed that “the harmless resolution requesting the elimination of the offending statue became once misplaced by an overwhelming majority.” Declaring that nearly regarding the total Indian people, “other than the stalwarts,” went in opposition to the resolution, he stated that “this vote and the controversy are a recent demonstration of the truth that Swaraj is delayed not so noteworthy by the obstinacy of the English rulers as by our procure refusal to recognise and work for our region,” stated The Hindu on November 7, 1927.
Police protection
As the years glided by, the statue disaster did not proceed. At any time when protests had been organised publicly in opposition to the statue, the authorities had posted police to guard it. The Madras Company, in Could perhaps perchance perchance 1937, conveyed to the British authorities regarding the shifting of the statue from Mount Avenue. This became once revealed by Mayor K. Sriramulu Naidu at a gathering of the Council on July 6, 1937 primarily based on a rely upon by outmoded Congress chief and a Councillor, S. Satyamurti.
The elimination
On July 14, the Congress regime, headed by C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji or CR), assumed worth. Four months later came the first rate announcement that “in deference to public sentiment as expressed every so incessantly,” the elimination of Neil’s statue had been ordered from the account for living and the statue will likely be preserved on the Government Museum [in Egmore], reported The Hindu on November 15, 1937.
C. Rajagopalachari. File
| Photo Credit ranking:
The Hindu Archives
On the night time of November 21, the statue elimination became once effected by a preference of workmen below the supervision of an officer of the Public Works Department. The total operation took virtually 5 hours to total. The statue became once placed on a four-wheeled cart and brought to the Museum, which became once reached by 3 a.m,” stated this newspaper on November 22, 1937.
Matter reaches British Parliament
The statue elimination came up for dialogue even in the British Parliament and there had been recommendations from citizens of the western country that the statue be despatched to London. Reacting to the enchancment, Rajaji, all the map thru his talk over with to Visakhapatnam on December 3, defined to journalists why his authorities had wished to establish the statue, not basically for public account for.
He defined that there became once “no contradiction” in the point of view of his authorities after they did not desire it as “a continuous course of irritation but claim to withhold it and intend to establish it with care.” He added that “the statue which belonged to us wants to be preserved at Madras. We had change into, even bigger than ever ahead of, accountable for its keeping and can not comply with the statue being despatched away any place since it might well well then change into a permanent focal point of misrepresentation of our attitude in the matter.”
Where is the statue now?
Ten days later, the authorities had announced that the statue will likely be kept in the verandah adjoining the Arms gallery of the Museum. A narrative, published by this newspaper on November 24 in 1940, stated the statue “stands in the archaeological fragment of the Museum, between the Connemara Library and the Museum Theatre.”
The statue, which had once wrathful powerful public emotions, has been final a “fixed occupant” of a limited home in the Museum for virtually 90 years.
