1950. Travancore Police-[they were called theekutti,means burning ember because of the red point at the back of the cap

Image may contain: 17 people
Photo taken on 7-01-1950. Travancore Police of Koothattukulam Police station on the occasions of send off to the sub Inspector..
Image result for travancore police           Image result for travancore policeother photos of Travancore police:-
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9D8sGlSnXGAeMwY0UOe6Tduvvi2DxG1q2FnxzoMrmhNTPnfts    Image result for travancore police  Image result for travancore police head cap conical

Image result for travancore police ORDINARY CONSTABLE
Image result for travancore policeHead constable
Image result for travancore police
Travancore King's special Policeman Uniform
Image result for travancore police
 the last dewan(prime minister) of Travancore king Chitira Thirunal
Image result for Travancore king Chithira Thirunal  was  (c.p.Ramaswami Iyer 1936 to 1947 -middle)had his own special armed police .some of them were Europeans and Anglo Indians .may be he never felt safe in Travancore
The Congress and the Muslim League accepted the British government's proposals for transfer of power to India and Pakistan on the very day it was made public, June 3, 1947, as for princely India the British simply declared that the Crown's Paramountcy over it would lapse. They would become sovereign. So, C.P. announced on June 11, Travancore's decision to declare itself independent state no sooner power was transferred to the two parts of erstwhile British India. On July 18, the ruler read out to the people, on Trivandrum Radio Station at 8-45 p.m., his Declaration of Independence: "On and from 15th August, 1947... Travancore will reassume its independence and sovereignty in full measure" (emphasis added throughout). But on July 30, he wrote to the last British Governor-General and Viceroy Louis Mountbatten, a letter intimating his decision to sign the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Union, "though not without hesitation".
A dastardly attempt had been made on C.P.'s life on July 25. It was a narrow escape. Only the angavastaram round his neck and his trained breath control saved his life. It is a matter of opinion whether a different decision would have been made but for that crime. Suffice it to say that while the ruler signed the instrument, C.P. signed the Standstill Agreement with the Government of India, to continue existing arrangements, on August 12. Two days later he resigned as Dewan, and left the State on August 19.
c.p. Ramaswami Iyer was a British stooge
noted historian Ramachandra Guha has written about how C. P., egged on by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had established secret ties with senior Ministers of the British Government, who encouraged him in the hope that he would give them privileged access to monazite, a material Travancore was rich in and which could give the British a lead in the nuclear arms race.[
The Viceroy Lord Wavell enquired of him about the deposits of monazite and thorium in the State (May 12, 1946).

Forgotten Events: How Travancore joined the Union - varnamvarnam

Aug 4, 2003 - CP Ramaswamy Iyer announced that Travancore would establish itself as ... CP represented India in the council of the League of Nations,
was ...

the unification of princely states. History books state "India became independent in the year 1947" but even many of my literate friends do not know the fact that no India ever existed before independence. While parts of today's India which were directly ruled by the british came to be known as India by default, the rest of India was divided into 550 princely states which were ruled by their kings and reported to the british government. During the initial months of 1947, these princely states were advised to either join the Indian or the Pakistani side after Independence is given. The huge work done by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (the Iron man of India) and V.P. Menon often goes unnoticed in the text books. They formed a team which resorted to completely customized tactics (some give and take, some by force) to bring each of these states into the Indian dominion. By August 15, 1947, some princely states were still pondering on which side to join - India or Pakistan. Probably the last of the Indian princely states which joined the Indian side after some real drama between India and Pakistan was Kashmir, after Raja Hari Singh acceded Kashmir to India in return of army support for fighting the Pakistani funded Pathan infiltrators.

A few other interesting cases -

* The state of Hyderabad (now in Andhra Pradesh/Telungana) declared itself an independent nation on August 15, 1947 !! India was under total confusion on this issue (imagine a separate muslim country right in the center of India !). Finally it needed an Operation Polo (Operation Polo) to bring Hyderabad to get annexed with India - remember, operation polo happened in September 1948!!

* The state (presidency) of Travancore (many parts of Kerala today) declared itself independent in June 1947 under the advise of it's dewan Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer. After talks between India and Travancore failed, one assassination attempt on CPR changed the story - Travancore joined India soon. More on this: C. P. Ramaswami Iyer

Indeed at one point the British even thought of retrieving Kashmir for themselves to make it part of British India. The Secretary of State for India Lord Kimberley wrote to the Viceroy in 1884: "As to the urgent need for reforms in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, there is, unfortunately, no room for doubt. It may, indeed, be a question whether, having regard to the circumstances under which the sovereignty of the country was entrusted to the present Hindoo ruling family, the intervention of the British government on behalf of the Mahommedan population has not already been too long delayed."
Shortly before the transfer of power in 1947, the doctrine was given a dangerous corollary in the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum on States' Treaties and Paramountcy dated May 12, 1946, four days before their proposals for independence for a British India. Britain "could not and will not in any circumstances transfer paramountcy to an Indian government... all the rights surrendered by the States to the paramount power will return to the States". Paramountcy will lapse and the States will become independent - which they never were.
Most of the leading Indian constitutional lawyers held well-paid retainers for one or the other ruler. One lawyer and scholar stood up to speak the truth - B.R. Ambedkar. In a brilliant statement to the press in late 1946, he tore the State's case to the shreds. He recalled Prof. William Holdsworth's defence of the doctrine in the Law Quarterly Review (October 1930) and regretted that "no Indian student of constitutional law has ever bothered to controvert his views with the result that they have remained as the last and final word on the subject". Ambedkar raised a new point, which was fatal to the Princes. Paramountcy was admittedly one of the prerogatives of the Crown. The law says that these prerogatives should be exercised only on the advice of the Ministers of the Dominion concerned; be it the U.K., Canada or India. Since they concerned India alone, "independent India can, therefore, make valid claims for the inheritance of Paramountcy" (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches; edited by Vasant Moon; Vol. 12; pages 197-203).
But which Dominion would advise the Crown in respect of a State like Kashmir which shared borders with both? Nehru propounded a fair democratic principle which was offered to Pakistan twice on November 1 and 8, 1947: "There should be acceptance of the principle that where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State's, the question whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the two Dominions should be ascertained by reference to the will of the people" (White Paper on Kashmir; 1948, page 627). The All India Congress Committee had said in a resolution on June 15, 1947 that "the people of the States must have a dominating voice in any decisions regarding them". But, on July 30, Jinnah supported the States' claim to "independent status". He rejected the Nehru formula because he had an eye on Hyderabad. His stand was based on bad law and bad morality.
To recall this background is to appreciate the enormity of the peril which C.P.'s gamble posed to India, to the royal family and to himself. Nehru would have marched the army into Travancore as he was about to in Junagadh within a fortnight after August 15, 1947. The people would have risen in revolt. Even C.P.'s sons and friends were opposed to his venture. Nehru plainly told the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1952: "It was inevitable that the princes and others, whoever they might be - whether they acknowledged it or not, whether they wanted it or not, it is immaterial - must acknowledge the suzerainty, the sovereign domain of the Republic of India. Now, if that was so, even if Kashmir did not, as it so happened, decide whether to accede to Pakistan or India and we allowed the matter to be postponed for a while, that did not make Kashmir independent for the time being. It was not independent and our responsibility even then continued as the continuing entity if anything happened to Kashmir. I wish to say this because our duty to come to Kashmir's help was there, whether Kashmir acceded to India or not. On account of that continuing entity, India's responsibility to other parts continued, expect to those parts which had definitely and deliberately parted company" (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; Vol. 19, pages 302-3). Curzonian pretensions are for small men, Nehru was his own man.
He met C.P. on September 25, 1945 and they had a good talk. But C.P.'s mind began to wander as the Congress-Muslim League rift widened. In a note to the ruler (January 11, 1946) he warned that if he declined to join the Union, support of the British army would be necessary. But "English character in general and Englishmen in particular will always swim with the tide. To rely upon British help and assistance would be unwise". Yet, he met Sri Conrad Corfield, Political Adviser to the Viceroy, on February 24, 1946 and claimed an independent status for Travancore (S. Menon, pages 233-4). The Viceroy Lord Wavell enquired of him about the deposits of monazite and thorium in the State (May 12, 1946).
Interestingly, on December 18, 1946, C.P. wrote to the Maharaja: "If Mr. Jinnah stands out of the Constituent Assembly and continues to stand out until and unless Pakistan is created, that is no ground in my opinion for the non-cooperation of the States with the Constituent Assembly." Menon adds this fatuous comment: "Evidently, he changed his stand after having taken up the active advocacy of the cause of independent Travancore in the interests of the Royal Family after his return to the State."
The Cabinet Mission's Plan for an Indian federation collapsed. On February 20, 1947 London declared its intention to transfer power by June 30, 1948 "whether as a whole to some form of Central Government for British India or in some areas to the existing provincial governments... " The Princes would be free. In March the Congress demanded partition of Punjab and Bengal; tacitly accepting the partition of India.
Now, C.P. nailed his colours to the mast. After a visit to Delhi, he wrote to Corfield (March 21, 1947) that unless an all-India Union was formed, his State would become an independent Kingdom. He said publicly on March 16: "We are dealing as an independent State which can remain independent if the people and the sovereign work together and give us room for outside interference." The people were already lost to him, though they were for the Union. Yet, the ruler lauded him for the "impending recovery of a lost page in the history of Travancore" (March 19).
C.P. met Mountbatten on March 26 and on May 2. He, as well as the British Resident in the State, were kept informed of C.P.'s plans till his public announcement of independence on June 11. So was Jinnah. On June 22, C.P. appointed an envoy to Pakistan. The Travancore State Congress opposed the idea tooth and nail. Savarkar supported C.P. (June 20; S. Menon; page 244).
Meanwhile, in July events began to move at a fast pace in Delhi. Mountbatten and Vallabhbhai Patel skilfully persuaded most rulers to accede to India; to C.P.'s dismay. He wrote to his third son C.R. Sundaram on July 14, 1947: "I can say with personal knowledge that Lord Mountbatten was sent to Kashmir for forcing that State to come into the Indian Union, a course, which having regard to the internal condition and character of its population, would be fatal." Sample Menon's apologia: "Whether this is true or not, it cannot be denied that Kashmir has been a running sore in the relations between India and Pakistan ever since Independence."
On July 20, C.P. met V.P. Menon, Secretary to the Ministry of States, who pleaded with him to accede to India. On July 21 and 22, he met Mountbatten. Before he did, V.P. Menon advised George Abell, the Viceroy's private secretary, that "the impression left in my mind was that he was favourably disposed to the approach we are making now" (The Transfer of Power; Vol. XII; page 276). In his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States, V.P. Menon claimed that "at first he (C.P.) was adamant, but after a further interview with Lord Mountbatten, he agreed that accession was inevitable" (page 111). But, Mountbatten's report (July 25) does not claim that (ibid; pages 335-7).
C.P. left Delhi with the Instrument of Accession and Mountbatten's letter to the ruler and promptly reported to him. Note what Sundararajan writes: "From a letter that C.P. wrote the Maharaja five days later, it was clear that even as he handed him the Viceroy's letter, on 23 July, he (C.P.) deliberately advocated `the case of accession, subject to the conditions and concessions made by the Viceroy'. He told the Maharaja in the clearest possible language that he had to choose between accession and independence as there was no middle course. If he acceded, he would get some advantages; if he did not, he would have to fight a hard battle with some help from Jinnah in the civil war that India would surely face within six months. `I expect the rise of half a dozen principalities in India (as in the 18th century) after the massacre of the Congress leaders (in November or December). Those who can fight out the terrible battle will emerge as rulers but the risk of life and property is 75 to 25. I realised this some months ago and made it clear to Your Highness and you then decided to fight it out'.
"That C.P. had a talk with the Maharaja and his mother soon after he reached Travancore is further confirmed by a scribbled note of the Maharani in lead pencil to C.P. wherein, referring to a certain conversation, she stated, `... our fight as originally contemplated was based on the certainty of an Indian Union Republic. Since it is to be a Dominion, the whole situation has changed as you rightly observed on the day you came back from Delhi'" (pages 602-603).
This account gives the reader a completely false impression that C.P. advocated accession when he met the ruler on July 23. But at the concert on July 25, however, just before he was assaulted, he publicly spoke of "a new era of sovereign independent status for Travancore" (page 604).
Though Menon shares her view, he has published the full text of C.P.'s letter of July 28 to the Maharaja from the sick bed. It bears quotation in extenso: "On my return from Delhi and after reading the narrative, I deliberately advocated the cause of accession subject to the conditions and concessions made by the Viceroy so that you may not hear only one side. The next day, I gave my own point of view. The alternative is either accession, i.e., becoming a part of the Dominion or treaty or alliance or being independent. There is no middle course and no face saving formula. This was clear from my talk with the Viceroy. If you accede you get some advantage but are not different from Baroda, Gwalior and Patiala except as to customs and some financial matters. If you do not accede, you will have to fight a hard battle with some assistance from Jinnah in the forthcoming civil war in India (which is certain within six months). I expect the rise of half a dozen principalities in India (as in the 18th century) after the massacre of the Congress leaders (in November and December). Those who can fight out the terrible battle will emerge as rulers but the risk of life and property is 75 to 25. I realised this some months ago and made it clear to Your Highness and you then decided to fight it out". Accession did not represent C.P.'s "own point of view".
"The events that have happened must have made a great impression on you. They have not changed my mind but made me fully realise that your lives are in jeopardy and those of persons near and dear to you. It is either death or victory.
"If you consider that your people are not ready for a fight and that they are not worth fighting for, the path of compromise is inevitable. Such compromise or concession should, if it is to be effective, be wholehearted. Accession as suggested by the Viceroy with the concessions made by him is the first essential" (pages 388-389).
Clearly, far from advocating accession he urged its rejection: "It is impossible for me to continue except on the basis of an out and out fight." On this, evidently, the ruler differed. The tone of C.P.'s letter suggests that he offered to quit on July 28, yet stayed on. V.P. Menon sent two finalised drafts of the Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement on August 4. C.P. wanted further talks to elicit clarifications. Since he could not go to Delhi, he deputed Travancore's Representative in Delhi, G. Parameswaran Pillai, for the talks (Sundararajan; page 607).
This brings us to a grey zone which explains why V.P. Menon formed the impression he did. Evidently, as a fall back position, C.P. posed sharp queries on safeguards in the event of accession. The ruler's wire to Mountbatten on July 28 was "in general confirmation of the terms discussed with my Dewan".
Sreedhara Menon records: "Sir C.P. wanted further clarifications on such issues as the control of State Forces, currency and coinage, customs, export and import control, irrigation and electric power, railway, police etc. In a telegram dated July 8 (sic. August 8?) he raised these issues with V.P. Menon. It ends as follows: "The State will of course be prepared to come to special agreement so as to come into line with all India policies and to prevent unfair practices or smuggling but the State's inherent rights to fiscal autonomy and to levy and to retain export and import duties must be guaranteed and ensured. They must be regarded as conditions precedent to accession as already agreed during discussions.
"G. Parameswaran Pillai took up these issues with V.P. Menon, C.C. Desai and other concerned officials in the States Department. On August 9, he sent telegraphic intimation to the Dewan of the various clarifications received by him. A key sentence in the telegram is as follows: `While the States Department insists that the form of Instrument of Accession and Standstill Agreement should remain intact, they are prepared to give assurances regarding all fundamental points covered by your telegrams and other matters discussed today'." S. Menon also publishes the text of C.P.'s report of his talks in Delhi on July 21-22 to the ruler. It records the assurances he had sought in Delhi.
C.C. Desai, Additional Secretary in the States Ministry, wrote to C.P. on August 10 recording the concessions (vide S. Menon, pages 391-3 for the text). They were substantial. The documents were signed on August 12. C.P. resigned two days later and left Travancore on August 19. No Dewan secured or could have secured better terms.
Had C.P. but taken the Unionist avenue, instead of the false path he did, he would have emerged as a formidable champion of federalism in the Constituent Assembly as K. Santhanam and B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya tried to. He had shot himself in the foot; having also shot his mouth off.
The safeguards he had won in July 1947 were washed away by the Constituent Assembly. Federalists could not stand up to Nehru and Patel. Nehru never forgave him for cabling Prime Minister Attlee on July 6: "Travancore cannot be found to join a Dominion whose leaders have at this critical juncture in world history established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Republic" (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; Vol. 3; page 293). Patel missed the point when he urged Nehru to use C.P.'s services as a diplomat. Their world-views clashed. But Nehru did use his services in other fields. C.P. emerged as an educationist of first rank.
A biography to be fair, must view his life and record in their entirety shorn of sentiment. This was not an easy article to write. The writer came to know C.P. in his last years and has warm memories of him.
In a letter dated January 10, 1965, commenting on the writer's analysis of Jinnah's role, C.P. wrote: "I am glad that you have remembered and quoted Sir Chimanlal Setalwad with reference to the failure of the negotiations with Jinnah. Having known him personally and fairly intimately from the days of the Home Rule movement, I agree that Jinnah was a man of great realism and courage but he was, as you indicate, deficient in historical imagination and was too temperamental and touchy wholly to put aside the personal equation."
It is neither unjust nor disrespectful to add that that was a fair judgment on C.P. himself.

Sir C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar: A Biography by Saroja Sundararajan; Allied; pages 778; Rs.490.
Triumph and Tragedy in Travancore: Annals of Sir C.P.'s Sixteen years by A. Sreedhara Menon; Current Books, Kottayam; pages 414; Rs.395.

but he was an able administrator alsofrom wiki pedia


C. P. was acknowledged for his talent as a lawyer, administrator and visionary.[11] Edwin Samuel Montagu, who served as the Secretary of State for India from 1917 to 1922, described him as "one of the cleverest men in India". He is credited with having transformed Kanyakumari district into the rice-bowl of Travancore and is acclaimed for being the first person to envisage the industrialization of Madras Presidency. He is also regarded as an egalitarian[11] and the first caste Hindu lawyer to admit a Dalit, N. Sivaraj as his junior.[54] Under his leadership, Travancore became the first princely state to abolish capital punishment, first to introduce free and compulsory education and the first princely state to be connected to the rest of India by air.[55] M. G. Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu recollected at C. P.'s birth centenary celebrations in 1979 that C. P. was the first to introduce the midday meal scheme in the form of the Vanchi Poor Fund in Travancore.[55][56] C. N. Annadurai remarked at a speech in 1967 that C. P. was the first person in India to suggest a plan for interlinking the nation's rivers.[57][58] However, his greatest achievement is believed to be the Temple Entry Proclamation which for the first time, permitted Dalits to enter Hindu temples which he introduced despite a severe threat to his life.

Economic and industrial reforms

During C. P.'s tenure as Diwan, Travancore made rapid strides in industrial development. The Indian Aluminium Company was invited to set up a factory in the town of Aluva.[31] The first fertiliser plant in India, the Fertilizers and Chemicals of Travancore Ltd. (FACT) was established by C. P. to manufacture ammonium sulphate.[31][32] This was established with American collaboration in open defiance to the hostility of the Viceroy of India.[32] C.P. also established a plant to manufacture cement and another to manufacture titanium dioxide.The Travancore plywood factory at Punalur[33] The Travancore Rayons Limited was established in 1946 with a plant at Perumbavoor.[33] The first plant to manufacture aluminium cables was opened at Kundara.[33] By the time, C. P. stepped down as Diwan in 1947, the revenues of the state had increased fourfold from the time he had assumed charge.[citation needed]

Irrigation works

C. P. wished to establish a hydro-electric power project on the Periyar river.[31] However, his efforts were opposed by the Government of Madras.[31] C. P. argued as a lawyer on behalf of Travancore and won.[31] As a result, the Pallivasal hydro-electric power project was established on the Periyar river.[31] He initiated[citation needed] the Pechipara Hydro-electric Scheme (present Kodayar Hydroelectric Power Project in Kanyakumari District), the Periyar Game Sanctuary and other irrigation projects.

Other reforms

C. P. carried out a great deal of pioneering work for the Vivekananda Rock at Cape Comorin and built guest-houses at Kanyakumari. He renovated the Padmanabhapuram Palace of Marthanda Varma's days (in present-day Kanyakumari District) and expanded the Trivandrum Art Gallery. In 1937, C. P. started the University of Travancore with the Maharajah as Chancellor and himself as Vice Chancellor. In 1939 he was awarded an honorary L.L.D. Degree by the University of Travancore In 1940 under his Dewanship Travancore became the first state to nationalise road transport in India. The first cement highway in India was constructed between the capital Trivandrum and Kanniyakumari covering a distance of 88 kilometres. The same year capital punishment was abolished and adult franchise introduced. He was also the first to appoint a lady as District Judge (Mrs. Anna Chandy later became the first Indian woman High Court Judge). Iyer introduced for the first time the midday meal scheme to prompt poor children to attend school.