Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair was an acclaimed Indian lawyer and judge in the Madras High Court and one of the early builders of the Indian National Congress where he also served as its president in 1987. Filmmaker Karan Johar has recently announced his decision to make a biopic on him.
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair was also known for being passionate about social reforms and a firm believer in the self-determination of India. But what stood out in his long, illustrious career is the courtroom battle he had with the Lieutenant-Governor, Michael O'Dwyer.
Nair had accused O'Dwyer in 'Gandhi and anarchy' of being primarily responsible for the atrocities in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Subsequently, he was fighting against an Englishman in an English court presided by an English jury. In all honestly, the case was bound to make history.
Johar announced that his film would "unravel the legendary courtroom battle" that Nair fought. The adapted film is from the book, 'The case that shook the empire' written by Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair's great-grandson Raghu Palat in 2019 with his wife, Pushpa Palat.
Read More: ISRO, SpaceX and NASA; How ISRO in leaving everyone behind
The rebellious lawyer
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair was born in the year 1857 in Mankara village of Malabar's Palakkad district. He belonged to an aristocratic family, and the East India Company employed his great grandfather to enforce peace in the Malabar region. His grandfather was hired as a chief officer under the Civilian Divisional Officer. He was drawn towards Law while he was completing his bachelor's from Presidency College in Madras.
On completing his degree in Law, he was employed by Sir Horatio Shepherd, who became the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court later on. From his early days as a lawyer, he was known for his defiant attitude. There is an instance in the book where he went against a resolution passed by Indian advocates of Madras stating that no Indian advocate would work as a junior to an English barrister. He firmly opposed the resolution on the principle that no lawyer should be denied the right in choosing a senior that is liked by his client. His stance on the issue made him unpopular to an extent where other advocates boycotted him, but he refused to bother him.
Similar experiences became the norm throughout his career. He always stood by things he believed in, whatever be the opposition he faced. When the 1908 Montague-Chelmsford reforms were being in discussion, he wrote an entire article in the Contemporary Review scrutinizing the English jury for being partial towards Englishmen. It infuriated the Indian community, who petitioned and objected to his appointment as high court judge the first time.
The Brahmins equally despised him in Madras. Raghu and Pushpa wrote in the book,
"Even though he was once a president of the Congress, Nair, initially, took a lukewarm interest in the organisation as it was filled with Brahmins and found his position not agreeable."
Consequently, after being nominated to the Madras Executive Council, the Brahmin community in Madras wrote to the Viceroy, asking him not to appoint Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair since he was anti-Brahmin.
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair's fearlessly blunt and outspoken nature also made him unpopular among his colleagues and peers, as he was once described by Edwin Montague, the secretary of state for India as an 'impossible person.' He is known to have said.
"He shouts at top of his voice refusing to listen to anything and anyone when one argues, and is absolutely uncompromising,"
In spite of his many critiques, Nair's existence as a lawyer and social reformer in Madras was formidable. Let's look at a timeline:
- 1897: Nair became the youngest president of the Indian National Congress in the party's history and the only Malayali to hold the post.
- 1902: Lord Curzon appointed him as a member of the Raleigh University Commission.
- 1904: Appointed a Companion of the Indian Empire by King George V.
- 1908: Appointed as a permanent judge in the Madras HC.
- 1912: He was knighted.
- 1915: He became in charge of the education portfolio as a part of the Viceroy's Council.
Nair's best-known judgments as a Madras High Court judge indicated his commitment to social reforms. In the Budasna v Fatima case in 1914, he passed a radical judgment when he ruled that the ones who converted to Hinduism cannot be treated as outcasts. In many other cases, he upheld inter-religious and inter-caste marriages.
As a passionate freedom fighter, Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair believed in India's right to self-government. In 1919, he played an essential role in the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms for the expansion of provisions. It introduced a system of dyarchy and increased the participation of Indians in administration work. In a biography written by his son-in-law, KPS Menon, the eminent diplomat and the first foreign secretary of India, latter noted that the 1919 reforms were far more liberal than the government initially proposed in 1916. Menon wrote the credit for this, lay primarily with Nair and his uncompromising stance as a part of the Viceroy's Executive Council.
When the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh happened, Nair resigned from the Viceroy's Council in protest. His resignation shook the British government. In the aftermath, press censorship in Punjab was lifted, and also martial Law terminated. Furthermore, a committee was set up under the supervision of Lord William Hunter to examine the disturbances in Punjab.
During this same period, Nair wrote 'Gandhi and Anarchy,' published in 1922. In the book, Nair spelled out his critique of Gandhi's methods, especially non-violence (ahimsa), civil disobedience, and non-cooperation. He thought that any of these movements was predestined to lead to riots and bloodshed.
In the same book, 'Gandhi and Anarchy,' he also accused O'Dwyer of his methods that led to the death of hundreds of blameless men and women at Jallianwala Bagh. After that, O'Dwyer sued Nair for defamation in England to expect that the English court would side with him. A large section of the English people firmly believed that General Dyer's act at Jallianwala was justified and was responsible for saving Britain's Empire.
Read More: The Flying Sikh Flies to Heaven
A historic courtroom battle
Before the King's Bench in London, the trial went on for more than five weeks. It was the longest-running civil case at the time and received extensive press coverage. From the early trial period, the courtroom remained crowded and prominent people would come to witness the proceedings.
The 12-member English jury was presided over by Justice Henry McCardie. He did not attempt to hide his bias towards O'Dwyer since the beginning and few other judges because of their unfamiliarity with India and the Indians.
O'Dwyer was defended by Ernest B. Charles upheld his client as a paragon of men who had successfully averted a mutiny. Ragul and Pushpa wrote,
"Charles' words were meant to kindle the sympathy of the English jury for their own people. He exaggerated perils the English bore to protect the Empire. Indians, well of course, were portrayed as rebels, extremists and seditionists."
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair's lead counsel was Sir Walter Schwabe, who recently returned to England after serving as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. A couple of days after the trial began, instead of calling the defendant's witnesses, he was interrogated by McCardie. He asked if he intends to prove whether Dyer was right or wrong in firing at the crowd at Jallianwala. McCardie pointed out to the jury; as quoted by Nair in his autobiography,
"The safety of the Indian Empire was an issue and the safety of a wider Empire to which we all belong. It may have been that a man is bound under certain critical circumstances to what appear to us in Britain to be repellent steps which are necessary in the wider stages of the world."
Similar interjections on the part of McCardie were common throughout the trial, much to the surprise of Nair, who has served as a judge himself, was well aware that the role of a judge was to ensure a fair trial and influence his own opinions. Eventually, though, O'Dwyer won the case with a majority of 11 against one. The only dissenting judge was Harold Laski.
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair had lost the case and was held guilty for defaming O'Dwyer.
He had to pay £500 and the expense of the trial to the plaintiff. O'Dwyer said that he would be willing to forgo the penalty, provided Nair tendered an apology. But Nair remained undeterred as he was ever. He would rather pay the damages than apologies for writing the truth about Jaliianwala Bagh.
As the verdict was not a unanimous decision, he had the option for another trial. However, Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair reasoned,
"If there was another trial, how am I to know if twelve other English shopkeepers would not reach the same conclusion?"
Even though Nair had lost, the trial had a resounding impact on the British Empire in India. When the nationalism movement gained momentum, Indians saw that the judgment as an apparent bias by the British government and an effort to cover those who committed atrocities against their people. The verdict was momentous as it strengthened the determination of the nationalists to fight for self-government.
Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair passed away at the age of 77 in 1934. His legacy was carried forward by his family of nine children, most of whom were renowned names in their fields. His eldest daughter, K Parvathi Ammal, became Lady Madhavan Nair upon marrying an eminent lawyer and judge of Sir Madhavan Nair's privy council. Her name and her children's have been given to many streets in Chennai. His son R M Palat was also a lawyer and a politician in the Justice Party. His grandson Kunhiraman Palat Candeth played a commanding role in the liberation of Goa from Portuguese control in 1961 as a senior army officer. Nair's nephew, VMM Nair, is the oldest surviving Indian civil servant currently.
