March 21, 2024

From the perspective of some psychologists and sociologists, the terrorist human bombers are more courageous than many other people. This conclusion is not easily acceptable to a large number of thinkers. These people are driven by some belief systems and the associated goals. They are also influenced by others to sneak into otherwise unreachable places and with self-will and determination kill themselves for a cause or an attainment. They are neither winners nor losers because they don’t exist to feel either after the incidents.

Probably, far back in 1780, India as a nation has the credit of making the first female human bomb which did not get much attention for several reasons. History did not give much of an importance to the event and history text books do not speak about this female human bomb and the success it made against an all-powerful British in the local war between the British and a small army of women soldiers in a small town then in the state of an Indian petty kingdom.

Kuyili (left) and Velu Nachiyar

It was during a workshop associated with the study of Fifty Great World Leaders of the Past Twenty-five Centuries where professors from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala were participants, numbering about hundred and sixty that an unusual subject came for discussion outside the workshop itself. It was a two day workshop at Ocean Pearl and as usual had an evening session before dinner. During dinner five professors from Tamil Nadu, Dr James from Loyola College, Chennai; Dr Urmila from Queen Mary’s College, Chennai; Dr Dhanam Xavier from Government College, Trichy; and Dr Pugazhenthi from SASTRA Deemed University, Tanjavur, all intelligent professors with doctorates in their subjects from Tamil Nadu, discussed together and brought an issue to me to be clarified. We had had plenty of discussions during the day about leadership as Virtual Presence and in several of its steps the idea, rather a concept, of courage came up. They were in need of an actual definition of courage as a value or competence or a part of an ability or simply a background for a behaviour. It is in these discussions that the name of Kuyili, a courageous woman and the first human bomb in the world, from Shivaganga in Tamil Nadu who sacrificed her life in the later part of the eighteenth century, came up. Subsequently, several times I tried to get as much information as possible about Kuyili and her unbelievable sacrifice. Dr. Narayan Rajendran former Vice Chancellor of Alagappa University who was introduced to me by Dr. Arumai Raj, formerly Professor of History at St. Joseph’s College, Trichy, sent me a document on Kuyili written by one of his students for her M.Phil. thesis. Unfortunately it was in Tamil and I tried getting it translated and in the process it was lost. I also happened to read another scholarly presentation by a Ph.D. scholar from Manomaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli.

Since then there had been plenty of search on Kuyili and her exceptional courage. The fact that her origins were from humble backgrounds and that she was a member of a scheduled caste, rather unimportant in a place like Shivaganga in Tamil Nadu attracted the attention of some of us. Till then, the thoughts of courage of terrorist freedom fighters were about Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki, very young freedom fighters of West Bengal who were involved in the Muzaffapur Conspiracy Case of 1908 in which two women were killed when the youngsters threw a bomb at a carriage expecting Douglas Kingford, a Britisher and the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to be in it. For the death of the two women, both the freedom fighters were sentenced to capital punishment. However, Prafulla Chaki killed himself before the arrest. Kudiram Bose was later hanged to death when he was in his mid-twenties. In fact, the Mahatma denounced the act of the young freedom fighters whereas Tilak defended the act and the latter was arrested for sedition.

The studies and associated discussions came up because of the exceptional courage of the two young freedom fighters. There was not much of an appreciation or large approval for the act of Kudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki. During the discussions, some went to the extent of comparing them with Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian Pilot who flew flight No. 11 of the American Airlines, to the North Tower; and Marwan Ashihhi who flew flight No. 35 of the United Airlines, to the South Tower in the tragedy of an attack on the American Trade Centre. Some were of the opinion that Kudiram Bose, Prafulla Chaki, Mohammed Atta and Marwan Ashihhi, are irrespective of the number of their victims must be classified as terrorists. Therefore, they are desperate people whose courage cannot be approved of, instead, they are, in simple terms, like any other murderers even though traces of pragmatic leadership and courage may be detectable in them. Of course, the nationalists among the participants did not approve of the clubbing of the two pairs into one quality of courage, may be, because of their own affection for their people.

However, when it comes to Kuyili and her bombing of a British armory inside a palace that was forcibly taken over by the British army was not against any humans. It was a strategic act that she executed as the commander of the women’s wing of the army of Velu Nachiyar, the native queen of Shivaganga, one of the larger seventy-two units domain in Tamil Nadu then. Velu Nachiyar was defeated by the British by the assistance of the Nawab of Arcot in a war in 1772 despite she being a very powerful queen with the backing of loyal soldiers and the general public. She and her soldiers escaped into the thick forests where they prepared themselves for warfare for eight years, till 1780.

In the present day Shivaganga, the palace is an attraction, for internal tourists particularly. There is a statue of queen Velu Nachiyar in the city and the Ramanathpuram temple is still preserved as it was during her days. All who come to the temple, on the special occasion of the Vijayadashami day, visit the statue of Velu Nachiyar also. Of course, there is no statue of Kuyili to be seen in Shivaganga except that in recent times, the Government of Tamil Nadu has erected a memorial slab for her.

When people study Indian history, the books refer to the first war of independence and bring up the courageous fight Rani Laxmibai and Jhalkaribai in 1857. They hardly have a chance to know that another Rani, Velu Nachiyar in the south defeated the British seventy-seven years earlier and had to be considered the first Rani to fight against the British. However, either because the text book writers, under the British rule, were from northern India or they knew only about Rani Laxmibai and Jhalkaribai and hence wrote only about them gloriously. They did not give any importance to a south Indian queen who fought and defeated, unlike Laxmibai and Jhalkaribai, the British and ruled her kingdom for sixteen years. The British could not touch her during those years. Velu Nachiyar was a very great commander of her army and a great defender of her kingdom, apart from being a strategist who waited for eight years in thick forests and built an army to fight the British.

Kuyili lost her mother when she was hardly eight years old and her father moved to a new place and brought up the young girl all by himself. During her childhood, Kuyili heard the courageous acts of her mother and was always willing to be a capable woman once she would grow up. It was a bad chance that she lost her father also when she was a few years older after her mother’s death. She became a member of the women’s army of queen Velu Nachiyar when she was in the forest. In fact, she killed an enemy agent who came to kill Velu Nachiyar. Her courage attracted the queen who made her the commander of the women’s wing.

When the British won the 1772 war against Velu Nachiyar they not only took over the palace but also used it as an armory. They did not allow any visitor to the palace except on Vijayadashami day, and that too, permission was granted only to women. Kuyili hatched a plan. She and many other women warriors dressed up like pilgrims who carry flowers and lamps to the temple inside the palace and reached the spot on Vijayadashami day. However, they carried small weapons in the baskets. Once they were all inside, they took out their weapons and started fighting with the British soldiers. Kuyili was aware that the superior weapons of the British would defeat them. Women of pilgrimage in the temple carried with them ghee and oil for consecration of idols. Kuyili smeared herself with ghee and oil on her, lighted herself from a lamp and jumped into the armory while the others were fighting. The entire armory was blown up and the British soldiers had to run away in front of the army of Velu Nachiyar. Kuyili’s courage saved the Shivaganga petty kingdom and Velu Nachiyar ruled for sixteen years thereafter.

Probably, the first female suicide bomber in the world, as far as available records are concerned, could be Kuyili. She showed exceptional courage and that too at a young age. Her dedication to the cause of freedom for her kingdom and the loyalty to her queen drove her to the extent of sacrificing her own life for the sake of freedom from the subjugation by the British. She was young and uneducated. She did not have a family to support her. However, she had the full support of a queen who recognised her courage and talent and appointed her the commander of the women wing of the army.

There is no doubt that Kuyili’s story needs to become a part of the history of the struggle for the independence of the country. It ought to be a part of the syllabi of history as a subject for school children.

In any discussion of the courage of Kuyili and her being the first suicide bomber in the country, may be in the world itself, has to be seen with difference from those others who are suicide bombers with similar courage. Kuyili’s act was not against the British soldiers but against the British arms and ammunition. Her plan was to deprive the British who had superior weapons to fight against her queen. Her objective was not to kill every Britisher who was fighting against her queen but it was a strategy of depriving the enemy of superior military technology so that they could not continue to fight. From this perspective, any study or evaluation or assessment of Kuyili’s courage has to be seen differently.

In any study of leadership, several clades of virtual presence can be listed in favour of each leader. All the same, when it comes to courage, it has to be seen, according to many researchers, in its perspective of personal functioning with courage as a support at the back. It needs to be said that the personal functioning of a leader with courage as a presence in her or him needs to be understood from an analysis of the amount of human-centredness in the processes of the functioning of the courage as a presence in the person. What matters most is the expression of courage with a view to ameliorate human suffering or protect human dignity or support humane processes as courage becomes a base for various functions and activities of an individual.