At the age of 91, Karadan Moideen Haji’s memory is sharp and unshakable. Born 10 years after a predominantly Muslim peasant revolt in the Malabar region of Kerala, he recounts the abject poverty that surrounded him as a child. Haji says, “The revolt of 1921 was against the British rulers and their laws which gave full ownership of land to the feudal zamindars, but even after the revolt there was no change in the condition of agricultural workers and poor peasants.” He reads an excerpt from his father’s memoir on the events of August 20, 1921. That day, a group of policemen surrounded his house to arrest Haji’s grandfather, Karadan Moideen.
A volunteer of the Khilafat Movement (1919–24)—a campaign by Indian Muslims demanding the restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate, which became part of the non-cooperation movement led by the Indian National Congress—Moideen managed to evade arrest. In the following days, he witnessed bloodshed on the streets of his hometown Tirurangadi and neighboring areas of Malappuram, Manjeri, Perinthalmanna, Pandikad and Tirur. On 31 August, the police raided the Mambaram mosque in Tirurangadi to arrest Ali Musaliar, the leader of the Khilafat movement. Haji says that his grandfather was in the mosque where a huge crowd had gathered. The police opened fire on Moideen and others who refused to surrender. Haji says, “According to my father, my grandfather was hit in the chest and he was martyred.” Musaliar later surrendered and was arrested.
By the time the rebellion was suppressed, about 10,000 people had been killed and about 45,000 were in prison. Known in British colonial records as the Moplah Rebellion, or in Malayalam as Mappila Lahla, the identity and politics of its heroes such as Haji’s grandfather reflected the disputed territory of the historical interpretation of the rebellion. While some call it an anti-imperialist movement and agrarian rebellion, its religious dimension has always attracted much debate. Now, with the 1921 rebellion back in the eye of a storm in its centenary year, the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) has decided to drop the names of 387 participants who lost their lives. Dictionary of Martyrs of India’s Freedom Struggle (1857–1947), including prominent leaders such as Variyamkunath Ahmed Haji, who was shot dead on 20 January 1922, and Musaliar, who was hanged in Coimbatore on 17 February 1922.
“1921 was not a communal riot. Rebel leaders, including my grandfather, opposed forced conversions, looting and attacks on non-Muslims.
Ali Musliari’s grandson CP Mohammad Moulvi
According to CI Isaac, a member of the ICHR sub-committee, which submitted a report on the deletion of names, the Mappila rebellion was a “communal riot” and the rebels do not deserve to be included in the list of freedom fighters. Both Musaliar and Variyamkunnath were fanatics. How can we include communalists and jihadis among freedom fighters? The rebels wanted to convert Hindus in the Malabar region to Islam,” says Issaq, who is also the vice president of Bharatiya Vichar Kendram.
The move to remove the names has drawn criticism from several quarters, including historians and other scholars, who have conducted extensive research on the rebellion. Many argue that the rebellion had multiple layers and should not be evaluated through a contemporary lens. However, Issac maintains that the rebellion was led by “radical Muslims” and that if they were successful, Malabar would have become “another Pakistan”. “The rebels set up Sharia courts and Hindus from the lower strata of the society were forced to convert. Those who refused were brutally executed, including women and children. Their bodies were thrown into wells. I prepared the report on the basis of archival material and evidence in court records,” says Issac.
Historian and former ICHR chairman MGS Narayanan disagrees with this view. “The rebellion of 1921 cannot be called a ‘communal riot’, although it had a communal angle. Despite being from a religious point of view, it was against the imperialist government. As most upper class Hindus supported the British, the anger of the leaders was directed at Hindus as well,” says Narayanan, who believes the ICHR move was unnecessary and without any immediate provocation.
Not unexpectedly, the dispute has taken a political turn with leaders of the BJP, CPI(M) and the Indian Union Muslim League. Senior BJP leader Ram Madhav called the insurgency “the first manifestation of Taliban mentality in India”. Pointing out that the Directory of Freedom Fighters published by the Government of Kerala in 1975 does not name the Mappila rebels (four years after they were recognized as freedom fighters), Minister of State for External Affairs V. Muraleedharan says, “If the Kerala government Doesn’t recognize the rebels as freedom fighters, how can they expect the ICHR to do so? The freedom struggle was against the British, but what happened in 1921 was a genocide. They killed poor, helpless Hindus. ” According to Muraleedharan, it was all about the Khilafat (caliphate) and had nothing to do with India’s independence.
This story has its counter. Musaliar’s grandson CP Mohammad Moulvi, 75, says his grandfather had returned from Saudi Arabia to fight against the colonial government and strongly advocated against harming Hindus. “History should not be distorted for political gains. 1921 was not a communal riot. If Congress leaders like KP Keshav Menon were fanatics, why would they join the rebels? he asks. “My late mother Amina and grandmother Pathumma used to share good memories about my grandfather. He was a disciplined person. He left his wife and daughter to dedicate his life for the country.
“The rebels set up Sharia courts and Hindus from the lower strata of the society were forced to convert. Those who refused were brutally put to death.”
CI Issac, Member, Indian Council of Historical Research
agricultural roots
Historian KN Panikkar, writing in detail on the ‘Malabar Rebellion’, has highlighted the interplay of economic and religious factors that contributed to it. According to PP Abdul Razak, executive council member of the Kerala Council of Historical Research, the origins of the rebellion need to be traced back to the tenancy movements of the 19th century, which emerged from the context of agrarian distress. “When the British took over Malabar in 1892, they brought about major structural changes in the traditional system of agriculture,” says Razak. The new laws deprived Muslim tenants and laborers of their customary rights, with legal ownership of land to predominantly privileged-caste Hindu landlords. “The new laws pushed tenants into a precarious position and perpetuated poverty. Due to excessive exploitation, the tenants turned against their masters, leading to rural revolts. There were 32 such rebellions in the 19th century, and the process culminated in the Mappila rebellion in 1921,” says Razak.
However, by the 1920s, the character of the movement had changed with other significant political developments contributing to the rebellion. Along with the agrarian crisis, the Khilafat movement and the non-cooperation movement added more layers to the rebellion, which took several months for the British to subdue. The Malabar Special Police was formed to quell the rebellion. “There are very few records on the heavy-handed approach of the British, which included the imposition of martial law,” says Srividya Vattambath, a historian researching the history of the aftermath of the rebellion. “Even the ‘wagon tragedy’ (67 people died of suffocation in a closed railway goods wagon while being taken to jail) has not been exposed much.”
“The freedom struggle was against the British, but what happened in 1921 was a genocide. They killed poor, helpless Hindus.”
V. Muraleedharan, Minister of State for External Affairs
religious edge
The religious character of the rebellion and its central figures have always been the subject of debate. While there are records of forced conversions, killing of cows, desecration of temples and other atrocities by rebel leaders, scholars say that the course of the rebellion changed after the murder of Variyamkunath and the arrest of Musaliar. According to Srividya, divergence was bound to happen because the rebels lacked an organized structure. She divides the rebellion into two phases – the first under leaders like Variyamkunath, and the second where discipline was largely missing. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders condemned the violence of the later period and distanced themselves from it. “After the arrest of leaders like Musliar, there was a void in the leadership. There was no organized form of rebellion. The Congress should also be blamed as it failed to understand the multi-layered complex nature of the riots,” she says.
According to Sunil P. Ilayidom, professor of Malayalam literature at Sri Shankaracharya Sanskrit University, the rebellion was three-pronged. “It was inspired by a religious ideology, but arose out of anti-imperialist struggle and agrarian crisis. These three dimensions cannot be separated from each other. Religion was used by the Moplah rebels as a means to unite against the British. We can’t deny that there were limitations and problems, ”says Ilayidom.
Quoting historians Panikkar and M. Gangadharan, the cleric says that Mappila leaders, including his grandfather Musliyar and Variyamkunath, opposed forced conversions, looting and attacks on non-Muslims. “Some evil elements abused the rebellion at one point, but Musliar never spared such miscreants,” he says. Srividya says the lack of records from the “oppressed side” turns history into an “unfair game”.
(It appeared in the print edition as “Subaltern Rebels or Communal Rioters?”)
.