Analysis Chapter 1

Some Recollection of My Days in the Annamalai University on the

Occasion of Doctorate

Analysis of the chapter: In this Chapter, Justice Dr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, talks about his stay at
the Annamalai University from 1933-1935 and how it shaped him as an orator and an
academician. In the first paragraph of the chapter, the mood of the author can be observed to be
very nostalgic of the years he spent in the aforementioned university as he seems to recall the
library, professors and most importantly, the University Union, to which his extreme affection
can be deduced with the help of a paragraph seen ahead in the text of this chapter. The author
further remembers that he had delivered a speech on the day when he was bestowed with his
Doctorate, on the Alumni Day address. The reason why the author shared the same is because he
was very fond of the oratorical excellence he delivered that day and indeed cherished the
memory of the same. Following the first paragraph of the chapter, the chapter includes only the
authors’ speech on the Alumni Day address.

The author began his speech by addressing the Vice-Chancellor of the University as Mr. Vice-
Chancellor, which is the most formal way of addressing someone in a seat of power, for
example, the journalists refer to the President of the United States, as Mr. President.
Furthermore, the author addressed to the fraternity of the Annamalai University as his brothers
and sisters, which simply mean that he treats them as his equals; by the usage of the words ‘far-
flung yet affectionate’, the author implies that the students of the University are spread all over
the world yet are very dear to the author as they share the same thread of being a part of the said
University. Moving further the author said that he wishes not to bore the crowd by sharing the
anecdotes of his younger days and not come off as an old person, but then proceeds further to
share quiet a lot of the same in the later part of the speech. The author, in very contrasting words
acknowledged the fact as to how the literal temple of education in his age has now become more
of a disgrace because of goofs and goons. He further claims that he is not indeed interested and
nor his listeners (here, readers) would be to hear him banter over how the next generation is a
scapegrace, but then, very poetically excused himself to share a few instances as “old forgotten
things and battles long ago”.
He began talking about two kinds of millionaires and didn’t hold back to show his contempt of
the first kind which he said were the ones to have wealthy coffers but penurious coffins and also
called them miserable misers. In the second category, the author included the founder of the
Annamalai University, Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar and claimed this category to be the one who
provides for the public by using its resources. He heartily praised the founder and called him an
instrument of proud Tamil enlightenment and also a philanthropist. It can be concluded that just
like other Tamillians, who take immense pride in their native state; Justice Dr. V.R. Krishna Iyer
is also one of them. The author furthermore, explains how easy education was in his student days
in the Annamalai University, as it was cheap, teaching was good, courses offered were diverse
and individual attention was given to students. It should be observed that the ease of getting
education, then, was easier than how it now. Education is way costlier now and teaching has now
fallen from being a responsibility to a mere profession and mode of making money. Majority of
teachers now just consider that completion of syllabus is sufficient for them to be able to be
called a good teacher, whereas, inculcating values or being an overall groomer of the student is
now just virtues found in teachers of old ideologies.

Furthermore, the author then recalls the time when Mahatma Gandhi visited the institute. It was
an episode to remember and left a mark in the memory of the author. When Gandhiji arrived, the
author remembers that there were many who came to listen to him from far off places, were rich
or poor, high-placed or low-placed, teachers and students. He then recalls how Gandhiji spoke in
a simple fashion in order to maintain the reach of his ideologies. It can be observed that the way
how Gandhiji spoke and the oratory skills of the author are quite different. Gandhiji adopted a
simpler style whereas; the author adopted a very ‘eye candy’ style of presenting what he had to
say. Even though it made his writing as that of a polished literate but altered the reach of the
same to the people with either a wide vocabulary or who have a dictionary within the reach of
their arms length. He explained the image and personality of Gandhiji very fondly and called him
“frail but firm’. He recalled how people wouldn’t bid for the garlands of Gandhiji back then but
now are fighting for anything which Gandhiji had even touched in his lifetime let alone held dear
to him. He asked such tycoons to be shooed away from his possessions who try to invest in these
possessions for political dividends. He took a jibe at the current public morals saying that since
Gandhiji after being assassinated, safely rests in Rajghat, public morals have been buried with
his bones or set aflame with his body. The author remembers that during the struggle of
independence, it was a sin for anyone to wear jewellery as Gandhiji said, “Give me your gold
and I will use it for freeing this country.” The author is disheartened when he says that today, a
somewhat similar practice is done but with the intent is of a selfish motive. He then further
remembers the visit of Sri Satyamurthi’s peroration in the university. The author seemed very
impressed with the witty quips of the personality and was fond of the same too. He remembers
Satyamurthi, on the famous saying of the British Empire that the sun never sets on the empire,
saying that even the sun didn’t trust the Britishers. Such quips prove that Satyamurthi indeed was
a witty person and that the authors adornment of the same person was justified. He further
remembers Satyamurthi repeated a thought provoking question which was originally said by
Jawaharlal Nehru: “Who lives if India dies? And who dies if India lives?” which was basically a
call to rally Indians in the fight to the last in defense of their mother land. The first part is a spine
chilling thought which was said to awaken the sleeping Indians who were helping the colonial
Raj (not particularly) and the follow up was a question merely invoking the thought of do or die.
The author then further contrasted the mood of patriotism which arose from this question to that
of disdain and sadness with a presumable answer of a public official or a legislator to the same
question as “I shall live if India dies because I have made enough and it is in Switzerland” and
then further said that such officials must be asked who lives if the Swiss franc or American
Dollar is devalued? The author then made a spine-chilling sad statement that the old patriotism
has died down and India Private Limited is coming to stay.

The major portion of the remaining part of the speech was a major comparison between how the
ideologies have changed and how politics is corrupted and how corruption is politics and how
self proclaimed revolutionaries flooded the pious temple the following batch after he had left the
University.

Another considerable anecdote which the author shared was of his visit to the University library.
He exclaimed in a poetic joy how he loved being there and could feel the books to be windows to
a window to the soul more than the minds of great people, irrespective of whether they were
dead or whether they were alive.

He then remembered the great University Union where he discovered his gift of gab. University
Union in his words was a place where students gathered of all courses and debated in a very
civilized manner mostly. He recalled even though there were notorious elements who heckled,
abused and goofed, the good and composed speakers/learners maintained their poise and calm
and continued to put forth their point of view with full confidence. He remembers that at times,
there were plenty of ridiculous topics of debate, but the same were very few as compared to the
serious ones. He quiet fondly remembers one of his Union Presidents and remember him being
appraised by the Vice Chancellor who had said “Send him to a hell of babble and he will
command a silent crowd.” This basically is a compliment to its oratory excellence and his ability
to make people listen to the speaker. The author, rightly so, frowns and looks down upon the
current scenario of parliamentary debate which is just a case of verbal assault and violent
tantrums. In a personal addition, I would also like to let the fact be known that the quality and
values of debating has been forgotten in today’s modern era of MUNs and PDCs etc. where
debating has just become more of a gimmick where you just have to oppose the idea of another
and blow your own horn however right the other person maybe. The basic idea of debates and
discussion was civilized people coming together and discussing over a particular issue on which
there was a disagreement fully acknowledging the fact that there maybe people with opposite
views trying to come down to a workable solution for everyone. Alas, such is nowhere to be seen
anymore as, debates, as being promoted by the so-called debaters of the news media; They can
be seen promoting values like howling, insulting, fighting, abusing, etc. which is completely
against the spirit of debating.

At the end of his speech and this chapter, the author, appreciated the values promoted by the
Annamalai University saying that a University which cultures the heart more than it cultures the
head, which teaches the art of living and the science of being and demands nothing in exchange
for precious learning creates an Indian. He states that education is not with books while
coexisting with crooks whereas something quite opposite to the same. In the closing remarks he
talked about the basic idea of a democracy and what makes it so beautiful yet complicated, that
each and every vote matters.

The author then ends with a note of thank you and a reference to Jawaharlal Nehru’s first speech
after the independence- tryst with destiny, by saying “I close with the profound wish that it be
given to the Annamalai University to contribute its portion to the nation’s redemption of its
cultural tryst with ultimate destiny.”
Analysis of the Author: Throughout the text, the first thing which can be observed is that the
author was a religious person with Hindu as his orientation. The same can be observed with all
the knowledge that he poured on the paper with words like “Satvic” and “Satyuga”. The same
can be further deduced from what he said about Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar, that he is an
instrument of enlightenment sent doing god’s work. It can also be deduced that the author had
the gift of gab and was indeed a well-read man since he had so many references to make of
different authors and had such an enormous and commendable vocabulary. He can also be
considered to be a little bit, to some minor extent, hypocritical from the way how he excused
himself to talk about his anecdotes right after saying that he has no mood to do so.

The author is a person who remembers with respect, the great fight of independence and how so
many sacrificed their lives and exhausted their resources to the best of their capacities for the
independence of everyone and despises how today people are so selfish, self-centered, greedy
and corrupt and how politics is all about filling their own coffers rather than helping the ones in
need. It can also be observed in the early part of his speech that the author showed the signs of
having communist ideology. The same can be proved as how he condemns misers who sit on
their coffers and refuse to spend. He said that those resources must be liquidated as it is
demanded by “social justice”. Now principle of Social justice is considered a leftist ideology and
demanding something as radical as liquidation of someone else’s assets (obviously against his
will which is why the person was not spending it in the first place) is something of a far left
ideology. The same can also be confirmed that the author indeed was a communist from the
preface of the book where he took pride to mention that he was a minister in the first communist
ministry in Kerala.