How a thief named Kolappan saved V S Achuthanandans life
According to accounts carried by Deshabhimani, the mouthpiece of the CPI(M), this extraordinary episode took place in 1946, during the brutal aftermath of the Punnapra-Vayalar uprising in coastal Alappuzha against the alleged brutal suppression of people's movement by Diwan Sir C P Ramaswamy Iyer who served Travancore monarchy.
Achuthanandan had gone underground on party instructions as police cracked down on leaders of the undivided Communist Party.
He was eventually captured from a hideout in Poonjar in Kottayam district, betrayed by local rivals, and taken to Pala police lock-up.
What followed was nothing short of torture.
Policemen, led by a notorious officer, beat him mercilessly, demanding the whereabouts of other senior leaders like E M S Namboodiripad and P Krishna Pillai.
He refused to say a word. They tied his hands, beat his legs with sticks, and finally stabbed his leg with a bayonet. Bleeding heavily, Achuthanandan lost consciousness. Thinking he was dead, the police decided to dispose of his body quietly.
Since there was no official record of his arrest, they believed they could cover up his death. They wrapped his body in his mundu (dhoti) and placed him under the seat of a police jeep.
A thief named Kolappan, also in custody at the time, was made to assist them.
The plan was to bury the 'body" somewhere in the forest.
But as the jeep moved through the night, Kolappan noticed something — Achuthanandan was still breathing.
Kolappan alerted the police that the man they thought was dead was, in fact, alive.
The police then rushed him to the government hospital in Pala.
He survived — though it took weeks of treatment to recover from the injuries.
Soon after, he was re-arrested in connection with another political case and sent to Alappuzha sub-jail.
He later served time in Thiruvananthapuram's Poojappura Central Jail as prisoner number 8957.
He was released in 1949.
Achuthanandan, who died on Monday at the age of 101, carried the scars of this ordeal for the rest of his life — both physical and emotional. PTI TGB TGB KH
view comments
First Published:
July 21, 2025, 21:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
25 minutes ago
- First Post
Nimisha Priya death sentence: Doubts emerge over Kerala nurse getting relief; 'inaccurate,' say MEA sources
Sources from India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) have dismissed claims that the death sentence of Nimisha Priya has been reversed. read more Only blood money can save Nimisha Priya, the Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen. Image courtesy: Save Nimisha Priya Action council/CNN Sources in India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) have refuted reports that claimed the death sentence of Nimisha Priya, the Indian nurse facing murder charges in Yemen, has been overturned. The sources on Tuesday (July 29) called these reports 'inaccurate'. The 37-year-old nurse from Kerala was initially scheduled to be executed on July 16 for killing her business partner in Yemen, but it was postponed. Earlier on Monday, the office of the 'Grand Mufti of India", Kanthapuram AP Abubakar Musliyar, released a statement that Nimisha's death sentence had been overturned by Yemeni authorities. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD (More to follow)
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
No call between PM Modi, Trump during Operation Sindoor, trade not discussed: S Jaishankar
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Monday told Parliament that there was no phone call between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and United States President Donald Trump during Operation Sindoor. 'I want to make two things clear: one, at no stage in any conversation with the US, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on,' Jaishankar said during a debate in the Lok Sabha on the Pahalgam terror attack and the four-day India-Pakistan conflict. 'Secondly, there was no call between the Prime Minister and President Trump from April 22, when President Trump called up to convey his sympathy, and June 17 when he called up the PM in Canada to explain why he could not meet him,' he added. The external affairs minister's remark came against the backdrop of Trump repeatedly claiming that he helped India and Pakistan settle the tensions. The US president has also claimed that he pressured both countries into accepting the ceasefire by threatening to stop trade with them. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions. Jaishankar also said that Operation Sindoor had ensured that terrorists would no longer be treated as proxies, adding that the military action created a 'new normal' by conveying that cross-border terror attacks from Pakistan would draw an 'appropriate response'. All issues with Pakistan would be settled through bilateral means, the minister said. 'The challenge of cross-border terrorism continues but Operation Sindoor marks a new phase,' he added. The minister said that this 'new normal' had five points. 'One, terrorists will not be treated as proxies; two, cross-border terrorism will get an appropriate response; three, terror and talks are not possible together – there will only be talks on terror,' he said. This would also entail not yielding to 'nuclear blackmail', Jaishankar said. Reiterating comments made by Modi after Operation Sindoor in May, Jaishankar added: 'Finally, terror and good neighbourliness cannot co-exist, blood and water cannot flow together. This is our position.' Earlier during the debate on Monday, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told the Lok Sabha that it was ' absolutely wrong ' to claim that India halted Operation Sindoor under any pressure. Singh said that India decided to pause its action against the terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as it had achieved its political and military objectives. The defence minister also said that nine terror camps were destroyed at the start of the operation of May 7, and that India has proof of damage caused inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad escalated on May 7 when the Indian military carried out strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on what it claimed were terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The strikes were in response to the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 persons on April 22. The Pakistan Army retaliated to Indian strikes by repeatedly shelling Indian villages along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. At least 22 Indian civilians and eight defence personnel were killed in the shelling. India and Pakistan on May 10 reached an 'understanding' to halt firing following the conflict. New Delhi had announced the decision to stop military action minutes after Trump claimed on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to the ceasefire. The US president had claimed that the ceasefire talks were mediated by Washington. However, the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had said that the decision to stop the firing was 'worked out directly between the two countries', a position that New Delhi has maintained. Ahead of the Parliament session, the Congress had demanded discussions on a range of matters, including Trump's repeated claims of having brokered the ceasefire.
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Literature, icons, history: How Indian nationhood was built through local languages
Earlier analyses by political scientists tended to emphasise the compulsions of electoral mobilisation and factional power conflicts within the ruling Congress Party or the masking of communal or ethnic demands by those of language. A spate of recent research on the emergence of reading publics in the different regions of India – which came about as a result of the proliferation of printed literature in the modern Indian languages in the 19th and 20th centuries – has given us an entirely new perspective for understanding the cultural foundations of mass nationalism. We can now see that the imagination of the nation as a community of millions of people unrelated by kin or face-to-face proximity was enabled by the circulation of printed texts in newspapers, magazines, novels, government circulars, and textbooks. Poets, novelists, and playwrights performed a crucial role in creating the emotional attachment of masses of people to something they learnt to call their nation. The printed text was supplemented by the performance of songs and plays as well as the circulation of printed images. This was possible only through the medium of the standardised print vernaculars. Consequently, the consciousness of large democratic solidarities was grounded in the regional languages. This was the reason why the Congress, at the moment of its transformation into a mass movement of nationalism, realised the importance of organising itself into monolingual provincial organisations. The same force was active after Independence in the demand for linguistic states. But if the proximate community of national solidarity was built around the regional languages, how could there be a sense of Indian nationhood? This is where the Indian experience has produced a unique historical example. This book will set out the argument that the description of the Indian nation varies according to the language formation in which one is positioned. The nation is imagined and contested in different ways in Tamil, Marathi, Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi, Assamese, or Bengali, and different genres of prose and verse literature, music, art, and theatre participate in this project of imagination. But even when the entity may be called the Indian nation, it actually looks different from each regional perspective. This is reflected in the fact that the terms 'nation' and 'state' often have different equivalents in the regional languages. Thus, Assamese and Odia use desh, and Telugu and Tamil desam and tecam, to mean nation, while in Bengali the word is jati. The word for state in Bengali is rashtra and in Telugu rashtram, which are completely different from the way the word is used in Hindi. Tamil uses arasu or maanilam. These differences are not merely nominal, because each of these words have different conceptual and affective histories in each language. My argument, therefore, is that we can only, and necessarily, get a relativist view of the Indian nation – relative to the linguistic region from which one is looking – since there is no available linguistic perspective from which we can obtain an invariant view of the object. Academic histories produced in English by professional historians only give us the history of the Indian nation-state built around an imperial state apparatus. The history of the Indian nation as a solidarity of the people can only be imagined in a vernacular print language: of these, there are several and each produces a different description of the Indian nation. Consequently, only a relativist view can reconcile the history of the state with that of the people. Thus, in Maharashtra, the memory of the Maratha Empire frames the imagination of a sovereign people, united by Maharashtra Dharma, fighting a prolonged war against the Mughals under the leadership of the warrior-king Shivaji. This nation, portrayed mainly by Brahmin writers, is male, militant, and imperial, in which Maharashtra leads the rest of India. But this vision was challenged by anti-Brahmin intellectuals who rejected the inheritance of the Peshwa-dominated Maratha Empire and instead held up the devotional congregation of the Varkari sect of Pandharpur as the living soul of Maharashtra Dharma. By contrast, the imagination of the nation in Bengal is that of a mother, insulted and injured by foreign rulers, seeking protection and sacrifice from her children. The image of the mother goddess came to dominate this representation of the nation, iconically symbolised in the song Vande Mataram. Soon, this representation of Mother Bengal was transformed into the image of Bharat Mata and circulated all over India. This showed that signifiers of the nation could be used interchangeably for the regional as well as the pan-Indian community, depending on the context. But this vision of the nation in Bengal, constructed mainly by Hindu upper-caste writers, with its strong association with the iconography of the warrior mother-goddess, was contested by Muslim intellectuals. Interestingly, when Bangladesh was created in 1971, it adopted as its national anthem a song by Rabindranath Tagore that represented Bengal as a homely mother who loves, shelters, feeds, and plays with her children – yet another transformation of the same signifier familiar in Bengal's literary imagination. In the Tamil region, the language itself was deified as the iconic maternal image of Tamilttāy. Tamil acquired the status of a classical but living language that rivalled Sanskrit. When the first generation of Brahmin nationalists identified the Indian nation with Aryan Hinduism, they were challenged by the non-Brahmin movement in the mid-20th century. The public register of the Tamil language in the theatre, cinema, and political oratory was classicised by replacing Sanskrit with pure Tamil words. This was the reverse of what happened with most North Indian languages, which produced a modern vocabulary for public use by adopting or coining neologisms out of Sanskrit words. Further, the historical imagination of the state was stoked in Tamil Nadu by memories of the glory of the Pallava, Chola, and Pandyan kingdoms, rivals to the empires of the North. The Dravidian movement was launched by the Justice Party which was anti-Congress and pro-British. Later, EV Ramasamy sustained the critique of mainstream Indian nationalism by pointing to a series of real and imagined overlaps between the Hindu religion, the Brahmin caste, the Sanskrit language, the Aryan race, the valorisation of unproductive occupations, and the patriarchal subordination of women. This reached a critical point in the anti-Hindi agitations of 1937–40 and the early 1950s when the Dravidian movement demanded freedom from Hindi imperialism by separating from India. The legacy of Dravidianism and the anti-Brahmin movement in Tamil Nadu continues to this day, even though there is no separatist political demand any more. The imagination of the Indian nation in Tamil is thus quite distinct. The role that secondary education plays in grounding the imagination of the nation in a language is dramatically shown in the large swathe of North India where Urdu was the language of bureaucracy and education in the colonial period. In Punjab, the modern high literary culture of the province was built through the medium of Urdu. But the regional and cultural identity signified by Urdu was much larger than Punjab. When the Arya Samaj tried to build a reformed Hindu identity in Punjab, it preferred to use Hindi as its chosen language which occupied an equally large cultural space. Ironically, therefore, Punjabi, which was the ordinary spoken language of most Punjabis, did not become a modern print vernacular before the partition of the province in 1947. The imagination of the nation in Punjab, split between three languages – Urdu, Hindi, and Punjabi – finally acquired three distinct demographic categories tied to three religious groups – Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. These divisions were resolved politically not merely by the bloody partition of Punjab between India and Pakistan, but also by the later separation of Haryana from Punjab. Nevertheless, the relation between regional solidarity and the pan-Indian remains problematic because of the continued resonance of a distinct Sikh nationalism.
