The long struggle to remove a British military officer’s statue from Chennai’s Mount Road

Several statues have, everywhere, been the sources of discontent. The satellite had witnessed that instantly aft the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) In 1991. Statues of heroes of the aged authorities were toppled successful parts of the constituent-states of the erstwhile USSR. Likewise, those of erstwhile President Saddam Hussein were brought down successful Iraq aft the conquest by the U.S. and allied forces of the westbound Asian state successful 2003 or those of Bangladesh’s archetypal President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman oregon Syria’s former President Hafez al-Assad in 2024. 

In India, astir the clip of Independence, a inclination caught connected among radical who had advocated the removal of statues oregon memorials viewed by them arsenic despicable remnants of the British past. However, what is not discussed overmuch is that Madras (Chennai) witnessed, adjacent astir 100 years agone — that too, erstwhile the British Raj was thriving — an aggravated agitation to region the statue of a British subject officer, James George Smith Neil.

Located astatine what is present called the Spencer’s junction - the intersection of Mount Road (now Anna Salai) and Binny Road, the statue had served arsenic an important landmark of Madras for implicit 75 years successful the aboriginal portion of the 19^th Century CE and the aboriginal portion of the 20^th Century CE.

Who was James George Smith Neil?

During the Great Revolt of 1857, Neil, who was attached to the Madras Fusiliers, played a relation successful putting down the rebels brutally but died successful service. However, for Indians, helium was the “Butcher of Allahabad [now known arsenic Praygraj].” As a people of his memory, a bronze statue, made successful Scotland, was installed successful August 1861, the outgo of which (₹18,953) was borne mostly by the British.

For 55-odd years, Madras metropolis did not protestation “Neil’s presence.” But, by the aboriginal portion of 1920s, patriotic fervour was connected a revival, aft a spell of inertia. Yet, the nationalists were divided into 2 camps: the Congress, spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi, and Swarajists had been adopting contradictory lines of reasoning with the erstwhile boycotting legislature and the second remaining members. Younger generations of radical successful India, similar their counterparts successful galore different countries, were progressively coming nether the power of Karl Marx. The request for implicit state from British regularisation was increasing louder.

As its effect to the enactment of an all-white commission, led by John Simon, to suggest law changes successful India and the changeless refrain of the past Secretary of State for India Lord Birkenhead connected Indians’ inability to formulate a factual law scheme, the Congress, astatine the Chennai league successful December 1927, decided to draught a ‘Swaraj’ Constitution. The result of this determination was the Nehru Report that was fundamentally authored by Motilal Nehru, aft holding a bid of meetings with different parties.

The opening of opposition

It was against this backdrop that the agitation against the Neil statue commenced successful August 1927. On the greeting of August 10, 1927, 2 youths from Madurai — Mohammed Saliah and Subbarayulu Naidu — clad in khadi and wearing Gandhi caps, came across, astatine the Spencer junction, Neil’s statue that had a hanging sword. Both were members of the Tamil Nadu Volunteer Corps. As they were “reminded” of the enactment of Neil [in 1857], stated a study of The Hindu next day, the two, equipped with an axe, a chisel and a ladder, were “determined to chopped disconnected the sword and deface the statue.”

A fewer days later, successful Madurai, the Corps held a gathering nether the chairmanship of Srinivasavarada Iyengar and “a ample gathering” had assembled, this paper reported connected August 16, 1927. Iyengar sought enactment and sympathy of radical to the “movement of Satyagraha,” which the volunteers hoped to commencement shortly. Gradually, the contented started acquiring steam.

At the Madras Corporation Council’s gathering connected August 17, M. Singaravelu Chettiar, who belonged to the sportfishing community, wanted to rise the substance but helium was disallowed. Chettiar came to beryllium famously known arsenic “first Communist successful southbound India” for having chaired the archetypal league of Communists successful Kanpur successful 1925. When 2 members of the Satyagraha committee, Angachi Ammal and Lokaiah Naidu, were arrested for their agitation, it was Chettiar who, connected his own, appeared connected behalf of them successful a tribunal and defended them, according to a biography authored by K. Murugesan and C. S. Subramanyam connected Chettiar.

Gandhi’s opinion

Meanwhile, 20 representatives of the Satyagraha sheet met doubly with Mahatma Gandhi, who was successful Chennai successful September 1927, and sought his support. On September 10, The Hindu published an exhaustive study with the observation, “with the support of Mahatma Gandhi.” The members had a free-flowing treatment and Gandhi conveyed to them bluntly not to expect nationalist associations including the Congress, to usher them. He explained to them wherefore the organisation would not beryllium capable to enactment them.

Calling the agitation “sectional,” which, helium clarified, that helium did not mean communal, Gandhi, however, said “If the Congress is called up to assistance specified movements, it volition chopped a atrocious figure. The Congress has a presumption and a estimation to lose. Therefore, it is overmuch amended for you, young men, not to expect the Congress oregon different nationalist bodies to instantly enarthrosis your movement.” At the aforesaid time, helium told the younker that helium would enactment them “so agelong arsenic I find you connected the consecutive road.”

In the 4th week of the month, Chettiar had again raised the contented of the statue removal astatine the Madras Corporation Council’s gathering and wanted the section assemblage to follow a resolution, which was “merely a petition to the authorities to region the statue from the place,” said The Hindu on September 24, 1927.

Chettiar told the Council the contented was “drawing the attraction of the full of India and it was tending to make a large crisis” successful the city. This clip too, G. Narayanaswami Chetti, who was the president of the Corporation [which was however the station of Mayor was called then], did not licence the question to beryllium brought in. One of the points raised successful the nationalist sermon was that the statue was a “stumbling block” to traffic.

In November that year, erstwhile the Legislative Council saw a question connected the aforesaid substance getting defeated, Gandhi observed that “the guiltless solution asking for the removal of the offending statue was mislaid by an overwhelming majority.” Pointing retired that astir each the Indian members, “except the stalwarts,” went against the resolution, helium stated that “this ballot and the statement are a caller objection of the information that Swaraj is delayed not truthful overmuch by the obstinacy of the English rulers arsenic by our ain refusal to recognise and enactment for our status,” said The Hindu on November 7, 1927.

Police protection

As the years went by, the statue contented did not disappear. Whenever protests were organised publically against the statue, the authorities had posted constabulary to defender it. The Madras Corporation, successful May 1937, conveyed to the British authorities astir the shifting of the statue from Mount Road. This was revealed by Mayor K. Sriramulu Naidu astatine a gathering of the Council connected July 6, 1937 successful effect to a query by seasoned Congress person and a Councillor, S. Satyamurti.

The removal

On July 14, the Congress regime, headed by C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji oregon CR), assumed charge. Four months aboriginal came the authoritative announcement that “in deference to nationalist sentiment arsenic expressed from clip to time,” the removal of Neil’s statue had been ordered from the contiguous tract and the statue would beryllium preserved astatine the Government Museum [in Egmore], reported The Hindu on November 15, 1937.

On the nighttime of November 21, the statue removal was effected by a fig of workmen nether the supervision of an serviceman of the Public Works Department. The full cognition took astir 5 hours to complete. The statue was placed connected a four-wheeled cart and taken to the Museum, which was reached by 3 a.m,” stated this paper connected November 22, 1937.

Matter reaches British Parliament

The statue removal came up for treatment adjacent successful the British Parliament and determination were suggestions from citizens of the occidental state that the statue beryllium sent to London. Reacting to the development, Rajaji, during his sojourn to Visakhapatnam connected December 3, explained to journalists wherefore his authorities had wanted to clasp the statue, not needfully for nationalist display.

He explained that determination was “no contradiction” successful the cognition of his authorities erstwhile they did not privation it arsenic “a continuing people of irritation but assertion to clasp it and mean to sphere it with care.” He added that “the statue which belonged to america should beryllium preserved astatine Madras. We had become, adjacent much than ever before, liable for its keeping and cannot hold to the statue being sent distant anyplace due to the fact that it would past go a imperishable absorption of misrepresentation of our cognition successful the matter.”

Where is the statue now?

Ten days later, the authorities had announced that the statue would beryllium kept successful the verandah adjoining the Arms assemblage of the Museum. A report, published by this paper connected November 24 successful 1940, stated the statue “stands successful the archaeological conception of the Museum, betwixt the Connemara Library and the Museum Theatre.”

The statue, which had erstwhile aroused beardown nationalist feelings, has been remaining a “constant occupant” of a tiny abstraction successful the Museum for astir 90 years.