V. KRISHNASWAMI AIYAR: A
TRIBUTE
By S. RAMASWAMI AIYAR
(Advocate,
Madras)
I
thank Sri K. Balasubrahmania Aiyar for giving me an opportunity to pay my
humble tribute to the great and good man whose memory we have met here to
cherish and honour.1 I value this privilege very highly, because I
had the good fortune of being V. Krishnaswami Aiyar’s apprentice and beginning
to learn professional work in his chambers. That was in 1909 when his fame as a
lawyer and as a public man had reached its zenith. In the latter part of that
year, his professional career came to an end by his elevation to the Bench. I
and my two fellow-apprentices, Sri N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Judge of the
Supreme Court, and the late Sri C. Padmanabha Iyengar, Advocate of the High
Court, were therefore his last apprentices. By honouring great men and
bestowing thought on their virtues, we keep alive their moral influence on our
life and conduct and thereby benefit ourselves. That is the purpose which
occasions like today’s function are intended to serve, and it is the duty of
those who had been associated with Krishnaswami Aiyar during his lifetime, or
had opportunities of knowing him, to pass on to others their knowledge of his
outstanding moral qualities.
He
had unusual abilities and intellectual powers besides striking physical
advantages with which nature had endowed him. His fine face, figure and voice
would distinguish him in any assembly of men. But the secret of his fame lay in
the combination of his intellect and personality with certain moral qualities
which, judged by the standards of his time, he possessed in a marked degree. He
was far ahead of many of his contemporaries in the pursuit of high ideals in
private, professional, and public life, in his patriotic fervour and in his devotion
of his energies and a considerable part of his earnings to all causes which
benefited his people. The common factor in all moral injunctions is the
subordination of our selfish ends and desires to the performance of our duties to others. This is very simple to
state, but we know how difficult it is to carry out such subordination. It is,
however, the basis and essential condition of all human relationships and it is
by that test that men and their work are judged by their fellowmen. In the
estimation of his countrymen Krishnaswami Aiyar was a great man because he
strove unceasingly, not for self aggrandisement, but to advance public welfare
and to perform what he conceived to be his duties to others. He did this as if
he had no other interest in life. It is because our land has produced men
imbued with this spirit of unselfish and disinterested public service that we
are on the whole better placed in individual and national affairs than people
of many other countries.
It is an interesting and elevating retrospect if we look back on our history of the last 50 or 60 years and think of the galaxy of great men who have, in various spheres and in different ways, applied their energies and talents for the benefit of their countrymen. We who are now citizens of an independent and sovereign Republic may find it difficult to imagine the condition of our people and their minds during the years following the assumption of the Government of India by the British Crown in the middle of the 19th century. The domination and control of the Indian people by the ruling power had become complete and effective–more so than during the disturbed and ill-regulated rule of the East India Company. Not a ripple could have occurred in the even course of the conduct of Indian affairs and administration by the rulers and their representatives. All people, educated or uneducated, thinking or otherwise, had accepted foreign rule with all its concomitants as if it was a permanent feature of the Indian landscape, like its mountains and rivers. Educated men had chances of obtaining success and preferment and of having a good life if they got on well with British officials. They could not secure any improvement, however small or petty, in the social or economic condition of the people, except with the knowledge and approval of official authorities and without prejudice to the many-sided interests of the ruling power. It was at such a time that, in different parts of India, great and noble men rose from time to time and applied themselves to the task of nation-building and political, social and economic emancipation. Dadabhai Naoroji, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Gokhale and Tilak in Bombay, Surendranath Banerjee, W. C. Banerjee and many others in Bengal, S. Subrahmania Aiyar, V. Krishnaswami Aiyar and G. Subrahmania Aiyar in Madras were among our pioneers in political work and too active part in the building up and development of our national organisation, the Indian National Congress. In this way the educated classes assumed their normal and legitimate role of leadership of the people–notwithstanding the contemptuous references to them by the rulers as the intelligentia who were a microscopic minority and did not really represent the people.
At
that time educated Indians were usually either lawyers or Government servants
and therefore the lawyers were in the forefront of the national movement. In
the first meeting of the Congress in Bombay in 1885 S. Subrahmania Aiyar (‘Mani
Aiyar’) was one of the principal organisers. Later on eminent lawyers like C.
Sankaran Nair and C. Vijayaraghava Chariar of Salem had the distinction of
becoming Presidents of the Congress. V. Krishnaswami Aiyar presided over the
Provincial Conference held at Tirunelveli in 1906. Various other lawyers here
and elsewhere did similar work, and so it came to pass that Indian lawyers
usually became objects of dislike for the British Government. It is not by
political or social work alone that the lawyers of the time served their
countrymen. Many of them applied their talents and energies to the study of law
and the art of advocacy and played a great part in fashioning the legal
profession into an efficient instrument of justice and liberty. So it has
happened that, though the system of law and justice now in force in India was
in origin an alien institution, it has on the whole worked well and taken root
in Indian soil. It has now become a part of our Constitution. The importance of
this achievement for the Indian Nation can hardly be exaggerated. It provided
the common man–however poor and humble he may be–with legal remedies even
against powerful wrongdoers and against the State itself, and thus a vast
population became accustomed to the mode of settling disputes and conflicts
with the help of the State and not by ‘self-help’. In that way it made the
people law-abiding and fit for democratic government. The valuable traditions
thus built up in our Courts have been carried on by several able lawyers and
judges of our time. It is in this setting that the part played by eminent
lawyers like Krishnaswami Aiyar in the establishment of legal and judicial
institutions should be considered. The life-work of the great men of these days
was not confined to politics or law. The last quarter of the 19th century and
the first 15 years of the present century were truly the period of the Indian
Renaissance following upon the dark age of India which extended over centuries
of foreign rule and internal disorder. The renaissance was an all-round
efflorescence of the mind and spirit in various fields of national
regeneration–art, literature, drama, industrial advancement, social reform, and
religious revival. There were great workers, leaders, and apostles in these
spheres. This was truly India’s good fortune which has been in its upward trend
in her recent history.
On
the ground so well prepared by the leaders of the renaissance period a kindly
fate brought a super-leader, endowed with a phenomenal moral stature, intution,
and energy–Mahatma Gandhi. His work, teaching and achievement have no parallel
in the history of the world. By his practice and precept of moral principles
of great and eternal value–truth, love, non-violence, sacrifice and
surrender–he transformed the Indian scene. He converted
millions of his countrymen to new modes of thought and action and made them
seek their deliverance from foreign rule, not by violence but by sacrifice. So,
large numbers of men willingly sacrificed their lives, liberty, careers and
worldly possessions. He finally succeeded in converting the rulers themselves
to practise the principles of sacrifice and surrender. So it came to pass that
they gave up their Indian Empire. This course of action may have been
influenced by many considerations, but is ultimately traceable to their belief
in its moral value and indeed in its moral necessity for a nation commanding
great influence in the world. So the struggle for freedom from the yoke of
rulers who were at once more powerful and more able than previous rulers was
won by moral power and not physical. For transmitting this power to the people
the Mahatma was of course the immediate instrument, but his work was the
culmination of the work of the great men during the previous 40 or 50 years.
Without their influence and example the people as a whole would have been
without guidance and devoid of the moral restraints necessary for national
regeneration. Among such lawless people his doctrines of truth, love and
non-violence would have had little chance. During the period when the Indian
people had the benefit of the leadership of such men, many other peoples in
Asia and elsewhere were at the mercy of leaders who were no better than
bandits, brigands or free-booters, and passed through endless anarchy and civil
war.
How
different was the position of India during the last 75 years! The era of Gandhi
which followed on the period of the Renaissance has ended, and the era of the
Republic has begun. We the citizens of the Indian Republic owe our citizenship,
and all that it means to us by way of unlimited opportunity for high endeavour
and for material, moral and spiritual progress, to the noble work of the
Mahatma and of the great men who preceded him. Among these men Krishnaswami
Aiyar has an honoured place.
On
this occasion it is unnecessary to speak to you about the details of his life and
work, because they are well-known to most of you and also because they have
been carefully depicted by his son and biographer, Sri K. Chandrasekharan, who
by bringing out his biography2 has performed not merely a filial
duty but also a public service.
I
shall content myself with a brief reference to some aspects of his influence
which are of particular interest at the present day, and before I do so, I
would like to give you some of my recollections as I saw and heard him nearly
45 years ago.
I
entered Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar’s house and was received by him as his
apprentice in March 1909. Even before I did so, I had seen and heard him during
my student days in public meetings and in the High Court. I remember a meeting
held in the grounds opposite the old Pachaiyappa’s College to protest against
some arrests in Bengal of persons concerned in the agitation against the
partition of Bengal. He impressed the students very much and they spoke of him
as a great lawyer and orator. Some other speakers were P. Anandacharlu, Dr. T.
M. Nair, A. C. Parthasarathy Naidu. In 1906 he went to Tirunelveli to preside
over the Provincial Conference. I was at Ambasamudram and could not go on
account of illness, but my father and his friends who attended the conference
spoke of his eloquence and personality. In 1907 I saw him in the High Court
when he cross-examined Sir George Arbuthnot in the Insolvency Proceedings
before Justice Subrahmania Aiyar. In 1908 he went to Tirunelveli to argue an
appeal on behalf of the appellant, the Tiruvaduthurai Mutt, in an irrigation
dispute with the Government. He won the appeal and the Tirunelveli Bar was
amazed at his brilliant advocacy. Therefore when I passed the B. L. Examination
early in 1909 my great ambition was to become his apprentice but I doubted
whether he would take me. Fortunately he agreed to do so, when my
father-in-law, S. Annaswami Aiyar, whom he knew well wrote to him. It is only
natural that I should have entered on my apprenticeship with feelings of great
pride and hope, but the feelings were also mixed with fear because of his great
eminence on the one hand and, on the other, the diffidence and difficulty which
an inexperienced up-country youth like myself would feel in creating a
favourable impression on him. To be in his office and be simply a spectator of
his activities, his study of cases, or his conversation and discussion with
numerous visitors some of whom were distinguished men in professional, public
or official life–this by itself was a great education. I had also a few
opportunities of personal contact when I had read the papers in cases which he
was about to argue. On these occasions he was considerate to me and I did not
fare badly–for a beginner. I well remember distinctly one case–a criminal
appeal. After he had read the papers he sent for me and asked me a few
questions on certain points and appeared to be satisfied. The next day Sri T.
Subrahmania Aiyar, known as Salem Subrahmania Aiyar and a very senior lawyer
who had settled down here and who had gone and conducted the case in the lower
court, came to instruct him and fared rather badly, because he would not give
brief and direct answers which Krishnaswami Aiyar wanted for clearing his
doubts.
It
is no doubt true that lawyers who went to instruct him sometimes got rebukes,
but the rebukes were provoked by what he considered to be slackness, laziness
or slovenliness in preparation, or a failure to apply one’s mind to the task.
He was indulgent to beginners and recognised, their limitations. I do not
recollect any occasion when I or my fellow apprentices were taken to task for
any fault. A noticeable feature in his case was that when he saw any lawyer who
was able and hard-working he felt very happy and would not disguise his
happiness as he could not disguise his displeasure. Two men towards whom he had
a very receptive attitude were, among the younger lawyers, Sri Alladi
Krishnaswami Aiyar, whom he addressed as ‘Krishna Aiyar,’ and among the senior
lawyers, S. Srinivasa Iyengar whom he addressed as ‘Seema.’ He was always
appreciative and pleasant to them, and both of them owed a great deal to his
appreciation while he was in the Bar and afterwards while he was on the Bench.
In the case of Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar, he set out actively to help him in
various ways because he, like others at the time, was immensely impressed by
the phenomenal knowledge of law, the industry and self-denial of a young man
who had hardly put in then a year and a half in the profession but appeared
determined to seize success by storm. And so he did, as we all know.
In
1909 Krishnaswami Aiyar’s professional work had distinctly assumed in his
attention a subordinate place, and the first place was occupied by various
aspects of public and political work. At All times he would be dictating
letters and having discussions for such work. When he however attended to a
case, the striking thing was his quickness in getting up facts and law at home
and the brilliance and eloquence of his performance in court. He occupied such
a respected place in the Bar that judges listened to him quietly and with
attention and would usually not interfere with his argument, much less make any
uncomplimentary remark. They had far too much respect for him to do any such
thing.
In
October, 1909 he became a Judge and thereafter I had few occasions to meet him.
When his appointment had been announced, he wanted me to go to Sri S. Srinivasa
Iyengar for the remaining period of my apprenticeship and gave me a letter of
introduction, but Sri Srinivasa Iyengar who had already two apprentices said
that he had a conscientious objection to swear to an affidavit that he had
sufficient practice for three. Sri Krishnaswami Aiyar did not see much in this
objection and tried to persuade him when he met him, but Sri Srinivasa Iyengar
stuck to his view. He then sent me to Sri K. Srinivasa Iyengar who was in the
front rank of the appellate side practice and to whom most of Krishnaswami
Aiyar’s briefs were transferred. That he took interest in sending me to Sri S.
Srinivasa Iyengar whom he considered the ablest lawyer in the Bar appeared to
me to indicate that he perhaps thought well of me. He apparently wanted also to
help me as he told me that Sri S. Srinivasa Iyengar, though a difficult man,
was a generous man. He sent Sri N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar to Sri C. P. Ramaswami
Aiyar who was the leader of the original side Bar, and Sri C. P. Iyengar to Sri
T. R. Ramachandra Aiyar, a front rank lawyer on the appellate side.
I
believe that it is useful to reflect on some of the qualities for which
Krishnaswami Aiyar was respected and honoured.
As
a lawyer his success was due not only to his natural ability and eloquence but
also to hard work, thoroughness in preparation of his cases, care in presenting
them in court, and his legal learning and equipment. He, like other
distinguished lawyers of his time, aimed at a complete mastery of the facts and
law of the cases he took up. It is widely felt that this tradition of hard work
and thoroughness of preparation, though carried on by many of his successors in
the profession, is in danger of weakening. The Attorney General when he was
here a few days ago told the members of the Bar about this danger and the need
for their strenuous application to their work. Whatever may be the reason for
this lapse from older professional standards, they have to be restored in the
interests of the Bar and of the litigant and general public.
Krishnaswami Aiyar did not consider that a lawyer’s duty ended with reading the facts and law of his cases. He, like some other lawyers of his time, made a systematic study of the law, its principles and precedents. It is said that in his early years he had read in the original the ancient authorities of Hindu Law like the Mitakshara. He also interested himself in the development of law and in the problems relating to the administration of justice. The articles contributed by him and other lawyers to the ‘Madras Law Journal’ in the nineties of the last century would stand comparison in regard to learning and legal acumen with those in the best legal journals of the West. The importance which lawyers and judges of his time attached to the study of legal theory and to legal research is shown by a memorandum prepared by Justice Muthuswami Aiyar in 1890 for recommending the establishment of the Law College. In this memorandum he explained the need for such study with considerable force and felicity of diction. It was read out by the Principal, the Law College, in the course of his speech on the occasion of the Jubilee celebration recently when several other speakers also referred to that subject. The need has become far greater and more imperative at the present day.
This
is because of the vast and continuous expansion of legal principles, cases and
legislation in response to the growing needs of a complex society. Now that the
making and administering of our laws is entirely in our hands, the lawyers and
judges of our time have the great opportunity and responsibility–which our
predecessors eagerly desired but were denied by the political conditions of the
time–to see that the laws are made and carried out properly and to the best
advantage of the public. This can be done only by unremitting study and thought
on their part. In this respect we are very much behind the needs of our time
and the standards attained by the lawyers, judges, professors and jurists in
the U.K., U.S.A. and some Commonwealth countries. The quantity and quality of
the legal literature consisting of treatises, journals, compilations of codes
like the American Restatement in the U.S.A. indicate the high conception of
social duty and the enthusiasm of the men of the law of that country. By
comparison our contribution to our law is very poor and scanty. Here is an
opportunity for disinterested public service for which lawyers are specially
qualified, and it is also an opportunity for their leadership and influence in
the State. Incidentally, of course, the lawyer who engages in such studies
strengthens his own equipment and efficiency. It seems to me that a few senior
lawyers and judges might give a lead by their example in the study of law and
of legal problems and thereby furnish guidance to younger lawyers and law
teachers who may engage themselves in such studies.
I have mentioned certain attributes of Krishnaswami Aiyar as a lawyer which he shared with other distinguished lawyers of his time. He had another attribute which was unique in his case. He took interest in picking out talent and encouraging it wherever it was found–even outside the immediate circle of his office juniors and his relations. A conspicuous instance of this which I had the pleasure of observing was the case of Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar. Though he was a junior of P. R. Sundara Aiyar, Krishnaswami Aiyar took him as his junior in several important cases in the High Court and in mofussil courts and also gave him opportunities to appear and argue cases in court. There were also others who were similarly benefited. It seems to me that he did so because by instinct and insight he considered it his duty to his profession to select men of talent and give them opportunities of advancement; so that such men could in time take the place of older lawyers. It may be that in England and in other countries where the British system of justice prevails, professional opinion finds other ways of achieving this result. In the conditions that prevail here the method followed by Krishnaswami Aiyar appears to be the only one that is available for ensuring the succession of competent leaders of the profession. It seems to me that a far more general recognition of this important duty by men of large practice who had it in their power to provide opportunities for able young men, would have added largely to the efficiency, reputation and solidarity of the Bar. At the present day it would tend also to promote communal goodwill if they find out able and deserving young men from communities other than their own and help such men to acquire professional ability and skill.
It
is by reason of the qualities I have mentioned, combined with public spirit and
interest in public affairs, that some of the lawyers of an earlier generation
acquired influence and leadership among the people. It is not now so
easy, as it was then, for members of one class or profession to do so. The
obvious result of democratic government is the diffusion of opportunity for
political influence among various classes and grades of the people, and a shift
of power to members of the legislatures and of political parties. But even so
the members of the legal profession have always a great advantage over others
in guiding public opinion and leading it. This advantage is due to the very
nature of their work which involves, far more than work in other walks of life,
continuous, serious reading and a practical acquaintance with problems arising
from human behaviour and relationships. Therefore the study and examination of
various matters of public interest by men, with minds trained by such work,
cannot fail to win the regard and esteem of the people. Some matters of interest
at the present day are, for instance, the operation of
the criminal laws, administration of criminal justice, detection of crime, the
growing mass of administrative law, the regulation of
labour, rent control, land laws, civil liberty, relations between Government
and citizens, the working of the Constitution, international law and so on. It
is necessary for our lawyers, to note that their predecessors who evidenced
such an interest in law and legal studies had far less opportunities for
professional advancement and public service than are available now. Then, only
a few could obtain a large practice and only one or two could, by waiting
sometimes for long periods of time, get a seat on the Bench. Now lawyers have
within their reach the whole of the judiciary in a vastly expanded hierarchy of
courts, rich prizes in the profession by reason of increase in the quantity and
types of litigation, numerous openings in the administration such as tribunals,
special officers, legal advisers, legislative draftsmen, opportunities for
advice of business interests and so on. I am sure that the lawyers of the
present day will recognise the great opportunities that have opened out for
them and follow the standards of learning and service set for us by their
distinguished predecessors.
Sri
Krishnaswami Aiyar’s contribution to the high traditions of the Bar was
therefore very great. But his popularity and fame were due largely to his
activities outside the court. These activities were many-sided and showed that
he sensed the all-round renaissance and awakening preparatory to the birth of a
great nation. So besides engaging in political work, he was the founder of many
institutions which benefited the people and made large benefactions for some of
them such as the Mylapore Sanskrit College. By these activities he set up a
high standard of public service and patriotic devotion to his people. Within a
few years of his unfortunately premature demise, momentous changes had
occurred, and large numbers of men under the noble influence of Mahatma Gandhi
reached standards of patriotic devotion and dedication of their lives and
fortunes to the service of the nation that were not known before. Lawyers and
men in other professions and walks of life–some of them with fabulous
incomes–gave up their wealth, careers and comforts and chose jail life without
any prospect of reward or success in the near future. Therefore we, the people
of this generation, have gone through a process of moral purification and
renovation and have benefited by it. We have not merely attained independence
but are well on the way to turn it to the great uses for which we sought it. We
are enjoying the benefits of civil order and are in various ways planning the
achievement of national consolidation and prosperity. But how does it happen
that we have often occasion to deplore our deficiencies and failures at the
present day? The explanation is that while on the one hand the social and moral
sense of the people has been developed by the influence of great leaders, on the
other their attainment of freedom and assumption of control over the whole
range of their affairs has immeasurably increased the sphere of opportunity
open to individuals and groups to advance their own interests, as it has also
widened the sphere of opportunity for public service arid co-operative
endeavour by subordination of selfish desires and interests to the common good.
So we have over a vast arena a continuous conflict between interest and duty to
which millions of men in various walks of life are now exposed. The exercise of
his vote by the voter, the candidate’s decision to put himself forward as a
representative of the people and his subsequent conduct, the manner in which
myriads of public officials of all ranks get appointed to their offices and
discharge their responsibilities, the methods of carrying on the expanding
volume of trade and business, the extent to which the common man co-operates
with his fellowmen and with the State for the general welfare,–all these are
matters which expose so many people at the present day to trials and
temptations to which earlier generations were strangers. When we see things
going wrong, we deplore them but it will be an untrue picture of the present
position to overlook the extent to which things do not go wrong. That on many
important and essential matters things are not going wrong and are on the whole
going well, will be clear on an objective view of Indian affairs at present.
That this is so is a matter to the credit of the Indian people and is due not a
little to the moral example and influence of our great men of the past and the
present. It is our duty to maintain ‘this moral heritage and, without tempting
to squander or run through it, do all we can to improve and replenish it. If we
do so, our deficiencies and failures will diminish. We cannot do this better
than by adhering to the high standards set by Krishnaswami Aiyar in hard work,
rectitude, integrity, independence, and public service.
1 Founder’s
Day celebration at the Sanskrit College, Mylapore, on April 7, 1952.
2 In
Tamil.