Malabar Rebellion: Conspiracy Behind the Curtains

The recommendation to remove the names of the martyrs associated with the Malabar revolution of 1921 from the dictionary of martyrs of the independence struggle has triggered a controversial discourse on political and social sectors while the Malabar revolution celebrates its centennial. Hereby, it is a humble attempt to revisit the history of the Malabar revolution and its political motives and also it will seek how much the ICHR's (Indian Council of Historical Research) arguments are justifiable to the history of revolution.

History beyond the controversy

1921 is evaluated as a remarkable year in Indian freedom movements. The main events of the Malabar revolution took place in the same year. Those struggles and uprisings are generally interpreted as indigenous society's resistance against imperialist invasions of the British government. Meanwhile, it is also a rebellion of lower castes and working classes against the landlords and the social hierarchy which keeps a Brahmanical hegemony and varna vyavastha. 

According to many historians, the Malabar revolution was commenced as a peasant war. The peasants who had discontented with the draconian laws of landlords led a joined uprising against the feudal system and it also affected the British rulers who were getting revenue from landowners in the shadow of the ryotwari system. This problematic situation induced the British government and landlords to oppress the agitators and to encroach on them. This social environment led the peasant war into an anti-imperialist war called the Malabar rebellion.

From the historical context, the arguments which depict the Malabar revolution as communal violence appear to be invalid. The revolution was led by the joint leadership of Islamic scholars and community leaders. Islamic scholars and leaders were leading the Muslim populated Malabar region intellectually. Ali Musliyar, Variyan Kunnathu Kunjahammed Haji, Chembrasheri Thangal, Konnara Thangal and Sithi Koya Thangal were the mainstream leaders of the Malabar revolution. Ali Musliyar was an active orator of the Khilafat movement, and he centralised the works of the Khilafat movement in Thirurangadi Masjid which became a spiritual and martial resort of warriors until he was executed from Coimbatore.

Variyan Kunnathu Ahammed Haji is also an indispensable factor of the Malabar revolution. He founded a state in Malabar as open defiance of British rulers and landlords for more than six months in most parts of the Eranad and Valluvand Taluks. He seized control of a large area from British rule and set up a parallel government of Malayalam state in Malabar, named Malayala Rajyam with his political and spiritual mentor Ali Musliyar. He was boasted as Amirul Mu'minin of the Muslim community and King of the Hindu Community. The communist leader A. K Gopalan also endorses this viewpoint.

Variyan Kunnath is the most controversial person in the Malabar revolution's history. He is alleged for the Hindu genocide and accused of lynching against Hindu landlords. But the unbiased reader of history can find these allegations utterly preposterous. One of the most misconceptions is the death well of Thuvvur. Before delving into the fabricated arguments, we have to understand its context. The incident of the death well of Thuvvur happened on 25 September 1921. Before this incident, there was a British ride on Thuvvur backed by some Hindu and Muslim ‘shoe lickers’ who betrayed the freedom fighters and raped the women and killed children. This incident made the freedom fighters more furious, and they captured all traitors and trailed them, and at last, proved the 34 Hindus and 2 Muslims as offenders and they took revenge. Unfortunately, the backdrop of Thuvvur Well is not discussed by historians and academicians and made it the fabricated history dominant on our historical discourses and many people still believe these blunders.

Malabar revolution was not only a Muslim participated rebellion, but it was an associated uprising of all communities including Hindus. Mozhihikkunanath Nambuthirippad, Kappad Krishnan Kutty Nair, Pandiyatt Narayana Nambhishan and MK Menon were vanguards of the revolution. These names are enough testimonials to assure that the ‘1921 rebellion’ was not unilateral and communal violence as narrated by fascist historians.

Narratives and constructing public opinions

Anti-Mappila narrations have travelled the world before the Pro-Mappila writings wear their shoes. The anti-Mappila rebellion made a huge audience who have neutral or extremist mindset believers of fabricated stories by their Goebbelsian tactics. The motion from the Indian Council Of historical research is part of such a political game to brainwash the new generation from a truthful history and to sow anti-Muslim resentment since their childhood. This is also part of fascist power's conspiracy against history which started in the age of imperialist rule.

As we foresaid, the Mappila rebellion was not only a struggle against British regiments but also landlords and the feudal system. It made a huge amount of landlords antagonists of rebellion and they became supporters of British rule. So, many writings which were merely done by British historians and Brahmans kept a terrible bias on historiography while some narrations kept more justifiable to history. 

The Hindutva narrations based on colonial historical records and Hindu Maha Sabahas, Aarya Samajam, Hindu purity movements pinned blame on the Malabar revolution for forced conversions and robberies and portrayed the deaths of Hindu landlords as genocide. These Hindutva interpretations don’t agree with the claims of national fighting analyses, and it also denies the historical facts that there were some uprisings against Brahmanical hegemony and feudal system from lower castes and working classes. Unfortunately, this fabricated deception got prevalent attention in northern states and some Hindu belts. 

Another interpretation is on behalf of elite Congressmen. They considered the Malabar rebellion, Mappila’s resistance and martyrdoms as deviation from Indian freedom struggles. However, there was a minority comprising M. K Gandhi, MP Narayana Menon and their Co-workers who understood the political relevance of the revolution and Gandhi even supported the Khilafat movement as part of the non-cooperation movement. On other hand, the Hindutva stands which approach the Malabar revolution as riot or rebellion have developed from such elite Congress men's narrations. Meanwhile, Communists interpret the Malabar revolution as anti-British and anti-feudal struggles and many of the communist leaders from Soumendhra Tagore to E. M. Shankaran Namboothirippad also endorse this opinion.

What's happening today is a replica of what was happening at the time of occupation. The B. J. P government is using the idea of ‘divide and rule’ in a pragmatic manner and they also won in implementing their idea of injecting communalism in the society.

Measures to be taken

Most of the responses of the Muslim Community after the controversial recommendation of ICHR were very emotional, not prudential. It is time to scrutinise the contemporary situation with the spectacle of foresight. ICHR is a government institution that claims the authenticity of Indian history writing. That's why, ICHR 's findings will be recorded and transmitted through generations whether it is true or not and this will be a catastrophe for the upcoming generation, and they will be taught the deconstructed history.

The only solution to survive this unprecedented situation is only to reconstruct and restore the historical facts in their sense. There are so many ways to record our history in government institutions like filing a petition against this issue in court and this petition will be recorded on the court's case file and the court will also consider this petition when a similar case files.

 Another way is to speak and write loudly about the true story of the Malabar revolution. As well as they try to deconstruct history we should restore and reconstruct the history and it should influence our academic discourses. Thus, we can provide the upcoming historians and students with a well-documented, unbiased, and factual source of history. In short, reconstructing and restoring history is the second Malabar revolution in this era of prevailing deconstruction of history.