Irish father of Indian cardamom, rubber and pepper planting

The old man, past eighty, was ailing when the letter came from a friend to whom he had expressed a desire to buy a new sophisticated wireless set. The friend had written to say that only one such equipment was available.

From what was considered to be his death bed, the old bachelor replied, “Thank you for your letter. I suppose that at my age and in my condition I should be ordering a harp, not a wireless set.” He would have been reasonably certain about his place in heaven because he was a staunch Catholic and Pope Pius XI had, in 1927, conferred on him the Papal honor Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice for the services he had rendered to the Catholic Church and for his philanthropy.

But the man had great resilience. On this occasion he came back from the jaws of death, so to speak, and immediately sent a telegram to his friend: “cancel harp send wireless.” That was the kind of indomitable spirit he had.

Who was he? An Irishman named J. J. Murphy (1872-1957).

He was born in Dublin into a family of Shippers and Bankers, a seventh month baby who was rather delicate and asthmatic. After private education with Marist Brothers, a Catholic Educational Brotherhood in Europe, and Trinity College, Dublin, J.J. (as he was popularly known) set out to the East. He joined a tea plantation company in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) but shifted to South India to join another. In spite of his independent nature he survived on that job for a few years before being sacked.

That, in a way, set Murphy free, at the age of 29.

And there was the whole wide, wild world before him. How he faced it is a saga, which, unfortunately, has not found its rightful place in history. It would be a worthwhile thesis material for a serious researcher.

The first niche Murphy formed was at Pambadampara in the Cardamom Hills. It was virgin forest. There he did something that no body else before him had tried. Till then cardamom was obtained from wild growth in the forests, or from small peasants. The Irishman cultivated cardamom at Pambadampara on an organized plantation basis. It was the first such estate in India and perhaps the world. An interesting aspect was that since cardamom requires heavy shade, it was not necessary to cut down the trees.

Murphy’s interest turned to rubber. Since 1872 the India Office in London had been trying to introduce hevea rubber plants in India without any success. But Murphy, along with three associates, established the first rubber plantation in the country at a place called Alwaye. Then, in 1904, the man went for his own private rubber plantation at Yendayar, the place that was to be his home till death. When I last visited Yendayar Estate, a couple of decades back, a few of the rubber trees planted by Murphy were still standing.

Murphy’s success attracted major Sterling companies to the field. They closed down, at least temporarily, during the depression years. But with uncanny foresight Murphy held on and replanted the old rubber area with high yielding Malaysian clones. When the demand for the strategically important natural rubber spurted during the World War II, the Irishman was right up there on top.

At Yendayar Murphy planted tea as well, and scored another first by organizing pepper cultivation on plantation pattern. Till the, like cardamom, pepper too was procured from wild growth and small farmers.

The Irishman was an enlightened employer. Once he told the Planters' Association of which he was the Chairman, "So long as we pay fair rates and look after our coolies well, we need not worry much."

At one time I used to visit the Mundakayam Club, which Murphy established, rather frequently. I heard the following story there.

When the First World War began, Murphy went to Madras (now Chennai) to enlist. The officer concerned pointed out that the age limit for recruitment was 40. The Irishman was around 42 then. He was upset, but there was nothing any one could do about His Majesty’s regulations.

Murphy told the officer, “Very well, but don’t blame me if you lose the bloody war”, and walked out.

J. J. Murphy died on May 9, 1957. He was buried at Yendayar.

Ends.

Note: For details I have depended on an article “J. J. Murphy 1872 – 1957”, which the late K. L. Kershaw, an eminent planter himself, wrote for the Planters’ Chronicle. This collectors’ item was sent to me by my maternal uncle, Michael A. Kallivayalil, who, among other things, owns the Yendayar Estate.

Cross posted to Song of the waves.

Some Clubs of India

Last week I received a copy of the Platinum Jubilee Souvenir of the prestigious Lotus Club, Cochin. The Committee that brought it out deserves high compliments for the excellent production, which is not only about Lotus but also a good reference book on the history of Cochin.

Though a member of this club for decades, I didn’t know that W. Somerset Maugham was one among the several illustrious visitors to the club including the Maharajas of Cochin and Mysore, and Lord Linlithgow when he was the Viceroy of India.

Linlithgow actually played tennis at Lotus during a visit to Cochin during the early 1940s. Tennis always had a prominent place in the activities of this family club, which used to conduct an All India ranking tournament. By 1990s the interest in tennis waned, but it has been revived recently with the laying of a synthetic court. Last week I was happy to see a group of young children being coached by an expert.

Bridge is another favorite at Lotus. Prof. Robins Jacob, Honorary Secretary of the Kerala Bridge Association writes, “Lotus Club is credited with the unique distinction of hosting the oldest uninterruptedly conducted Duplicate Tournament in India, perhaps in the whole world.”

The souvenir contains an interesting article titled ‘The Club Culture in India’ by David T. Mookken who has the rare distinction of having been President of Cochin Club and Lotus Club. David traces the origin of clubs in India and the transition of the club culture from British times to post-Independence days.

The first club outside Britain was perhaps Calcutta Cricket and Football Club (1792). A year later Calcutta Racket Club was established. Cochin Club was formed in 1821. Some of the other old clubs in South India are Madras Club (1832), Bangalore Club (1868), Coimbatore Club (1873), Secunderabad Club (1878), Coonoor Club (1885), and Kodaikanal Club (1887).

These were known as ‘English Clubs’. No Indian was allowed entry to them. This exclusiveness led to the formation of the Lotus Club by Lady Gertrude Bristow. Her husband, Sir Robert was a representative of the British Government who was entrusted with the task of developing a modern port at Cochin, a job which he completed admirably. But the Bristows were denied admission to Cochin Club because Lady Gertrude was not English born!

The lady was not disheartened, though. With the cooperation of some prominent families of Cochin, she had a suitable piece of land assigned by the Maharaja of Cochin and started the Lotus Club! The Maharaja himself attended the first Club Night of Lotus on September 9, 1932 as Chief Guest.

Lady Gertrude Bristow was the Founder President of the Club, and remained in that position from 1931 to 1941.

Ends.

Some memories of WW II, Cochin and the 1940s.

The Yad Vashem Controversy

The Inside the Vatican Newsflash of May 7, 2007 carries a staff written article titled ‘Nuncio Battles for Truth’ about the Yad Vashem controversy that erupted last month. This piece is scheduled to be published in the May issue of the magazine.

Yad Vashem is Israel’s Holocaust Museum. The problem arose with the rather dramatic protest by sixty-nine-year-old Archbishop Antonio Franco, Papal Nuncio in Jerusalem against ‘inaccurate’ statements displayed at the Museum on role played by the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII during the genocide. The nuncio announced that he would not attend the memorial service for the Holocaust victims on April 15 unless the offending exhibits were removed.

This immediately became a full blown dispute. Earlier, Franco’s predecessor had also protested against the Yad Vashem display in a milder and more diplomatic manner. But the salvo by a seasoned diplomat like Franco surprised many. It also generated apprehensions about the future of the Catholic - Jewish dialogue and the Pope’s to visit to Israel on invitation by their government.

The Yad Vahsem authorities handled the situation admirably. They insisted that the disputed exhibits represent verifiable facts according to ‘current research’. But they were willing to examine any new documents made available (it is said that there are several secret documents relating to this in the Vatican Archives) and were prepared to go by the evidence. Graciously accepting this as fair enough, the nuncio decided to attend the function on April 15 and the storm blew over.

Was this a conviction based action-reaction situation or is there something more to it? One assessment by Inside the Vatican is: “Franco made a wise choice to try to deal with the Pius issue immediately. As serious as prejudice against Pius is, it does not compare to some of the other complications in the Jewish-Catholic relationship. The injustice against Pius is a manageable problem -- for impartial, fair-minded scholars.” This could very well be true.

The journal presents several points to establish that Pius XII and the Church did, in fact, help in many ways the cause of the Jews under persecution by the Nazis, and that the details are known to the Israelis. If that is so, why did Franco concede to the demand by Yad Vashem for fresh documentation for further study?

The Pope Pius XII-Nazi matter seems to be the greatest PR fiasco ever by the Catholic Church. The accusations against the former Pope have been going around for decades. For some strange reason, Vatican has been apparently defensive on the subject.

Given here is a quote from an article this author wrote some time back: “Notwithstanding all these, terror, undoubtedly, was Hitler’s main weapon for enforcing the kind of control that he desired. Many Germans genuinely supported him. They appreciated the socio-cultural stability that was established. The Church was maneuvered into doing a tightrope act, but retained a considerable degree of independence. When severe practices like euthanasia and the gassing of the Jews came into light the Church did protest. But an unsavory feeling that the Church could have done more to prevent the outrageous events that occurred, remains. This is accentuated by the fact that those who suffered most were not very friendly to the Church.”

When criticism about the role of Pope Pius XII in the unprecedented tragedy surfaced, the Church tried to ward them off by ineffective measures like accusing the Russians of false propaganda to help the expansion of Communism in post-war Europe. These tactics proved futile and we find a strange situation where the man whom the Nazis once denounced as ‘the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals’ being accused by the Israelis for abetting the genocide.

Perhaps the Church’s initial reaction to the accusations was influenced by the words of Pius XII himself. Inside the Vatican Newsflash quotes the former Pontiff: "We owe no greater debt to our office and to our time than … 'to give testimony to the truth'…We shall not be held back by mistrust or opposition, by rebuffs or lack of appreciation, nor yet by fear of misconceptions and misinterpretations." -- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 1939. These words were spoken long before the Holocaust.

Rather belatedly, the Church is taking a more forceful stand on this question. In 2005 Inside the Vatican started an ‘oral history’ project to record accounts by Jews whom the Church had helped to escape the Holocaust. By then most of the refugees involved had died. In the present article the journal comes out with convincing arguments against the display at Yad Vashem. But how many people get to read them?

Archbishop Franco’s protest brought the issue back to public attention and now it is left to the academics to sort out the matter with support from both sides. Fortunately, a stand off like the one between Turkey and Armenia on the 1915 tragedy has been avoided. If Yad Vashem had taken an uncompromising stand on the issue, the nuncio would have been in an unenviable position.

This leads one to think that the whole episode was, perhaps, choreographed with consensus from both Israel and Vatican to pave the way for the Pope’s visit. Inside the Vatican mentions that according to a high ranking Vatican official the Pope may decline the invitation from Israel if the offending exhibits are still on display at Yad Vahsem. This possibly was an impromptu reaction.

Let us objectively analyze the situation. Pope John Paul had visited Yad Vashem but that was before the statements about Pius XII were introduced. If the present Pope were to call at the museum without any publicly known mutual understanding about the exhibits it would have been not only highly embarrassing but also could have led to a major controversy damaging the Jewish-Catholic dialogue.

Franco has changed all that. He has registered his protest, Yad Vashem has agreed to look into the matter positively and the Pope can see for himself what exactly the Holocaust Museum has displayed about Pius XII. May be the Israelis would be more generous during the Papal visit. In any case the dialogue can and would continue effectively and meaningfully.

Strange sometimes are the ways of diplomacy!

Ends.

Also see:

Nazi Era - Looting of Cultural Treasures.

Twin Churches

Read

Back to the twin churches.

at Song of the waves.

Church demolition - addenda.

Three pertinent questions have been raised by ‘anonymous’ about my post Churches on demolition line.

- Is there any chance whether the Cardinal in Cochin will be able to prevent the demolition?

- Who is funding these activities?

- Can these funds be used for more appropriate purposes like teaching the priests the value of cultural heritage?

The Cardinal who is the Major Archbishop and Head of the Syro-Malabar Church can certainly prevent demolitions of old church buildings. Being a learned priest, he certainly would be aware of the importance of preserving the heritage landmarks.

But does he have the will or the capability? The Ernakulam Archdiocese, the seat of the Cardinal, is already involved in court cases regarding attempts to demolish two Parayil built churches - the family’s private oratory (1869 - see A Kerala Tharavad.) and the beautiful St. Rafael’s Church (1859) at Ezhupunna. There could be more such litigation relating to other churches.

Once the Cardinal came out with a strong statement deploring the construction of chapels and other structures flush by roads and disruption of traffic by church processions. An admirable stand. But nothing really happened.

Now, about the funds. Some of the churches like Ramapuram, are rich because of large number of offerings by devotees/pilgrims. Many Non Resident Indians also contribute generously. For them it is a payback to their home church, which of course is noble. But unfortunately, instead of restoration of old churches, the concept of building anew came up. Can the priests escape the responsibility for this? Can anyone conceive of old temples being replaced by modern structures?

The money can certainly be used for much more worthwhile purposes. When incompetent people play architect, cost of construction escalates and concrete monstrosities result. It is a pity that the Syro-Malabar Church (as far as I know) does not have design parameters for its churches. A classic example of the approach of the Church authorities is described in Laurie Baker - A Tribute.

A place of worship, like liturgy, should reflect the hopes, aspirations, ethos and history of the people who are to use it.

Ends.