An earlier preliminary version of this paper was presented at a symposium at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University in November 1973, and has been included in the collection edited by Crane, Robert I., Aspects of Political Mobilization in South Asia (Syracuse: Maxwell School, Syracuse University, 1976).Google Scholar Research for this paper was conducted in the India Office Library, London; the Tamil Nadu Archives, Madras; the Kozhikode Records Office, Calicut; and the Jawaharlal Nehru Museum, New Delhi. For their assistance in tracking down materials on the rebellion, I wish to thank Professor T. K. Ravindran, the University of Kerala; Dr. C. K. Kareem, Registrar of the University of Cochin; and C. H. Mohammed Koya of Calicut.

¹ Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), p. 523.Google Scholar

² See Memorandum Submitted to the Chief Minister of Kerala (Perintalmanna: Anti District Bifurcation Committee, 1968).Google Scholar For a discussion of Muslim politics in the post-independence period, with special note of Kerala, see Wright, Theodore P. Jr, ‘The Effectiveness of Muslim Representation in India,’ in Smith, Donald E. (ed.), South Asian Religion and Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp. 102–37.Google Scholar For a general account of the community, see Miller, Rolland E., Mappilla Muslims of Kerala, Bangalore: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, forthcoming.Google Scholar

³ For accounts of the origins of the community and the meaning of the word Mappilla, see Thurston, Edgar, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. IV (Madras: Government of Madras Press, 1909), pp. 456–61;Google Scholar and Innes, C. A., Madras District Gazetteers: Malabar and Anjengo (Madras: Government Press, 1915), pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

⁴ Innes, , Malabar, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁵ Dale, Stephen, ‘Islam and Social Conflict: The Mappillas of Malabar 1498–1922,’ unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1972, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid., p. 22. Also see pp. 54–82.

⁷ See Ali, Hamid, Custom and Law in Anglo-Muslim Jurisprudence (Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1938).Google Scholar F. Fawcett noted the distinction in inheritance and wrote that in contrast to the Mappillas of North Malabar, those of the South are wretchedly poor and ‘divide up their property in such a way that prosperity is impossible.’ ‘The Mopas of Malabar,’ The Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review, Third Series, Vol. IV (10 1897), p. 295.Google Scholar For a detailed discussion of the matrilineal system, see Gough, Kathleen, ‘Mappilla: North Kerala,’ in Schneider, David M. and Kathleen, Gough (eds), Matrilineal Kinship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961), pp. 415–42.Google Scholar

⁸ Hitchcock, R. H., A History of the Malabar Rebellion, 1921 (Confidential) (Madras: Government Press, 1925), p. 9.Google Scholar

⁹ Dale, , ‘Islam and Social Conflict,’ p. 23.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 81.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 84–109; Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

¹² Dale, ‘Islam and Social Conflict’, p. 109. See also Dale, Stephen F., ‘The Mappilla Outbreaks: Ideology and Social Conflict in Nineteenth Century Kerala,’ Journal of Asian Studies, XXXV (11 1975), pp. 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Dale, , ‘Islam and Social Conflict,’ p. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 52. For a discussion of the ideology of jihad, see Ibid., pp. 27–52.

¹⁵ The Census of India, 1871, notes that the Cherumars ‘have to a large extent, embraced Mohamedanism, and in so doing have raised themselves and their successors in the social scale. The tyranny of caste no longer affects the Mussulman convert, and under these circumstances it is no cause for surprise that the Mussulman population on the Western Coast should be fast increasing.’Google ScholarMadras (by Cornish, W. R.), Vol. I (Madras: Government Press, 1874), p. 71.Google ScholarSubsequent census reports recorded the continued Mappilla increases and actual declines in the numbers of Cherumars reported. Between 1871 and 1881, the Mappilla population of Malabar increased by 12.3 per cent, compared to only 3.4 per cent for non-Mappillas. Census of India, 1881,Google ScholarMadras (by Mclvery, Lewis), Vol. I, Report (Madras: Government Press, 1883), pp. 39–40.Google ScholarBetween 1881 and 1891, Mappillas increased by 18 per cent, in comparison to a 10 per cent increase for Hindus. Census of India, 1891,Google ScholarMadras (by Stuart, H. A.), Pt I, Report (Madras: Government Press, 1893), p. 67.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Wood, Conard, ‘Historical Background on the Moplah Rebellion: Outbreaks, 1836–1919,’ Social Scientist, III (08 1974), pp. 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Innes, , Malabar, pp. 82–3. The gazetteer was actually written in 1904–1905, although not published until 1915.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Two years later, the Collector, Conolly, H. V. was sitting on his verandah in the evening when he was attacked by a Mappilla gang and hacked to death in the presence of his wife.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Logan, William, The Malabar Manual, 1887, reprinted as Malabar, Vol. I (Madras: Government Press, 1951), pp. 570–1.Google Scholar

²⁰ Quoted in Ibid., p. 584. See Dale's discussion for a critique of Logan's argument, which he regards as being ‘as one-sided as Strange's earlier effort.’ ‘Islam and Social Conflict,’ pp. 156–60.

²¹ Quoted in Logan, Malabar Manual, p. 581.Google Scholar

²² See Varghese, T. C., Agrarian Change and Economic Consequences: Land Tenures in Kerala 1850–1960 (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1970), pp. 51–63.Google Scholar

²³ Fawcett, , ‘The Moplas of Malabar,’ p. 296.Google Scholar

²⁴ Mappillas or Maplahs, Class Handbook for the Indian Army (Calcutta: 1904).Google Scholar

²⁵ Innes, Malabar, p. 89.Google Scholar

²⁶ K. P. Kesava Menon served as secretary of both the Malabar District Congress Committee and the Malabar branch of the Home Rule League. See Menon, A. Sreedhara, Kerala District Gazetteers: Kozhikode (Trivandrum: Government Press, 1962), p. 175.Google Scholar

²⁷ Report of the First Malabar District Conference, Palghat, 05 8–9, 1916 (Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1917), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., p. xiv.

²⁹ Moberly, M., Report of the Settlement of Malabar District (Madras: Government Press, 1900), p. 9, quoted in Varghese, Agrarian Change, p. 81.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Minault, Gail (Graham), ‘The Khilafat Movement: A Study of Indian Muslim Leadership, 1919–1924,’ unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1972.Google Scholar

³¹ Quoted in Nair, G. Gopalan, The Moplah Rebellion, 1921 (Calicut: 1923), pp. 19–22. Nair was the retired Deputy Collector of Malabar.Google Scholar

³² Confidential Report, File No. 307, Tamil Nadu Archives, cited in Menon, P. K. K., The History of the Freedom Movement in Kerala, Vol. II (1885–1933) (Trivandrum: Government of Kerala Press, 1972), p. 84.Google Scholar

³³ Madras Mail, January 17 and 28, February 3, and March 14, 1921.Google Scholar

³⁴ Collector's Fortnightly Report, 1st half, January 1921,Google Scholar cited in Tottenham, G. R. F., The Mapilla Rebellion, 1921–22 (Madras: Government Press, 1922), p. 4.Google ScholarAlong with Hitchcock's history, this 436 page compilation by Tottenham, Undersecretary to the Government of Madras, is the major published official source on the rebellion. For a brief official summary in that same volume, see Tottenham's, ‘Summary of Important Events of the Rebellion,’ pp. 37–41, and F. B. Evans, ‘Note on the Rebellion,’ pp. 42–53.Google Scholar

³⁵ Madras Mail, January 20, 1921, p. 6. Fixity of tenure was, in fact, not guaranteed until the passage of the Malabar Tenancy Act of 1930.Google Scholar

³⁶ Shea, Thomas W. Jr., ‘The Land Tenure Structure of Malabar and Its Influence Upon Capital Formation in Agriculture,’ unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1959, p. 172.Google Scholar

³⁷ Collector's Fortnightly Report, 2nd half, February 1921, cited in Tottenham, , Mapilla Rebellion, p. 4.Google Scholar

³⁸ Quoted in the Madras Mail, Feberuary 9, 1921, p. 6. The Collector justified his action on the claim that one of the people behind the invitation was Variakunnath Kunjahammed Haji, who ‘comes from a family with outbreak traditions.’ The others involved, he said, were two ex-vakils (K. Madhavan Nair and U. Gopalan Menon) ‘who must, by their own act, seek a livelihood by agitation, regardless of what may be the results.’ Both gentlemen denied any acquaintance or connection with Haji. Madras Mail, Feberuary 9, 1921, p. 6.Google Scholar

³⁹ Madras Mail, Feberuary 8, 1921, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ As reported by the District Superintendent of Police, in Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, pp. 20–1.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Madras Mail, 02 18 and 21, 1921.Google Scholar

⁴² Reported in West Coast Spectator (Calicut), 08 18, 1921,Google Scholarquoted in Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

⁴³ Speech by Diwan, Bahadur M. Krishnan Nair, quoted in Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, Appendix, p. 32.Google Scholar Speaking for the Government in the Council of State, New Delhi, Craik, H. D. said, ‘There is probably no single person who has done more to excite the feelings of the Moplahs than Mr. Yakub Hassan.…’ Council of State Debates, 09 5, 1921, p. 107.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, p. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Madras Mail, August 1, 1921, p. 6. In that same issue, the Mail related ‘a curious story… of a Walluvanad jenmi who, having lost a brass vessel, adopted the device of indemnifying himself by fining all his tenants in sums equivalent to the value of the stolen article.’Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Mitavadi (Calicut), 7 02 1921, cited in Report of English Papers examined by the Criminal Investigation Department, Madras, and on Vernacular Papers Examined by the Translations to the Government of Madras (hereafter noted as Newspaper Reports), No. 8 of 1921, pp. 230–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Mappilla–Tiyya tensions erupted, as well, in traditional forms of communal conflict. The Mail reported that in the Mappilla fishing village of Vallayil ‘a large crowd of Moplahs, numbers of whom were armed with sticks, gathered this evening before the mosque… with the avowed intention of preventing a Tiyya religious procession from going past the mosque with music.’ Violence was avoided only when the Tiyyas took a different route. March 9, 1921, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 21.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Madras Mail, August 29, 1921.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Collector's Fortnightly Report, 1st half, April 1921, cited in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵² At the same time as the Ottapuram Conference, a rival Malabar District Conference of anti-Non-cooperators was held at Calicut, under the auspices of the Home Rule and presided over by Annie Besant.Google Scholar

⁵³ Madras Mail, April 27, 1921, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Madras Mail, April 26, 1921, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Madras Mail, August 8, 1921, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In making this point, Conrad Wood cites the comments of E.H. Colebrook that Hindus in Malabar have ‘small houses each with its own compound spread over the countryside with no communal centre,’ whereas the Mappilla ‘tends to live in close villages and hamlets centered on his mosque.’ Wood ‘Historical Background’, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ In his Fortnightly Report, Thomas wrote that he ‘was having a Malayalam pamphlet prepared by a learned Mussaliar by way of counter-propaganda’ against the Khilafat movement. February 1921, cited in Tottenham, , Mapilla Rebellion, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ As reported in the Collector's Fortnightly Report, 2nd half, May 1921,Google Scholar cited in Ibid., p. 6.

⁶⁰ Collector's Fortnightly Report, 1st half, June 1921,Google Scholar cited in Ibid., p. 6.

⁶¹ Madras Mail, July 27, 1921, p. 3.Google Scholar

⁶² Report of the District Superintendent of Police, August 8, 1921, cited in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁶³ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 21.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Report of Menon, K. P. Kesava, K. P. C.C. Secretary, June 11, 1921, cited in the Madras Mail, November 16, 1921, p. 8Google Scholar:

⁶⁵ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ As related in the Judgment in Case No. 7/21, quoted by Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, p. 19, and Hitchcock, Malabar Rebellion, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Madras Mail, July 7, 1921, p. 6. Part II appeared July 11, 1921.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Madras Mail, August 8, 1921, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Report, August 16, 1921, quoted in Hitchcock, Malabar Rebellion, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Letter from Thomas, E. F. to the Government of Madras, dated Calicut, August 7, 1921, quoted in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁷² Letter to the Government of Madras, dated Calicut, August 10, 1921,Google Scholar quoted in Ibid., p. 18.

⁷³ Dated August 17, 1921, quoted in Ibid., p. 12.

⁷⁴ Madras Mail, August 22, 1921, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Communiqué from the District Collector to the Government of Madras, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 27, 1921. India Office Records (hereafter cited as I.O.R.): L/P&J/6/1782, item 5303 (1921).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 32.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ ‘Report by General Rawlinson, Commander-in-Chief of India, on the Operations in Malabar, 20 August 1921, to 25 February 1922 (Confidential),’ to the Secretary to the Government of India, Army Department, dated Simla, October 6, 1922. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Letter from Thomas to the Government of Madras, dated Calicut, August 16, 1921, quoted in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Dated August 18, 1921, quoted in Ibid., pp. 32–3.

⁸⁰ Hitchcock, , Malabar Rebellion, p. 33. The plan is described in the report of the District Superintendent of Police, August 16, 1921, quoted in Hitchcock, p. 31. The actual operation involved a slight deviation from the original plan, which had involved the simultaneous arrival in Tirurangadi of the Leinsters and special police forces from Malappuram. The special police, however, were not relieved by British troops, as planned, and they had to remain on guard in Malappuram. Hitchcock notes that ‘this made no difference to the events that followed.’ p. 34.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid., p. 34.

⁸² Report of the District Superintendent of Police, August 16, 1921, quoted in Ibid., p. 31.

⁸³ Telegram from the District Collector, Calicut, to the Government of Madras, August 23, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, 25, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, Item 5224 (1921). Also see Gopalan Nair, Moplah Rebellion, p. 26. For a discussion of the Mambram mosque, see Innes, Malabar, p. 417.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Telegram from the District Collector, Calicut, to the Government of Madras, August 23, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 25, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5224 (1921).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ A Brief Sketch of Work Done by Mr. Mahmud Schamnad, M.L.A., during his Three Years' Tenure in the First Legislative Assembly, 1921–1923, Mangalore: Kohinoor Press, 1925, pp. 96–7.Google Scholar Another Mappilla account of the Tirurangadi incident was provided by a young Khilafat volunteer to Andrews, C. F.. See ‘The First Days of the Moplah Rising,’ The Modern Review, XXXI (04 1922), pp. 469–72.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ C.I.D. 20 September 1921. STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. Copy of a letter from Mohammed Abdul Rahman, Provincial Khilafat Committee, Calicut, to the Secretary, Central Khilafat Committee, Bombay, no date. Government of Madras, Secret. Under Secy's Safe. File 327-A, November 2, 1921, Moplah Rebellion. Tamil Nadu Archives. In giving evidence on a case before the Court, K. Madhavan Nair said that what infuriated the Muslims of Tirurangadi was the police action in pulling down the Khilafat flag and trampling upon it. ‘Ali Musaliar admonished his followers that when such slightings of their religious beliefs grieved their hearts, it was the duty of Muslims to vindicate the honour of their religion, even resorting to force.’A. K. Pillai, Kerala and Congress (originally published in Malayalam in 1938). Extract translated by Mrs Mary Samuel David in Charitham, Special Issue on the Malabar Revolt, edited by C. K. Kareem, No. 4 (October–December 1971), p. 179.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The events of that morning in Tirurangadi are among the most disputed of any during the rebellion. One version has Ali Musaliar leading the crowd, but F.B. Evans writes that there is no evidence that Ali Musaliar or any of the other accused had any part in the incident. He emerged from hiding only the next day, whereupon he proclaimed himself King. Evans sees Ali Musaliar as ‘an energetic advocate’ of the rebellion. ‘I think it improbable that any definite date had been settled for a general rising or that any detailed plan of campaign had been drawn up; but I think that by the middle of August at least Ali Musaliar and other leaders thought that their organization was sufficiently advanced to enable them to be sure that when a message was sent round there would be simultaneous outbreaks on uniform lines throughout Ernad and most of Walluvanad and Ponnani.’ Evans further assumed that the rumor that the Mambram mosque had been destroyed and that the Collector had been killed were of deliberate design—perhaps as the Chembrasseri Tangal later testified, by Ali Musaliar himself. E. B. Evans, ‘Note on the Rebellion,’ dated 15 March 1922, in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, pp. 44–6.

⁸⁸ Menon, K. P. Kesava, ‘Crusading for a Cause,’ in 1921 Movement: Reminiscences (New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, Government of India, 1971), pp. 159–60.Google Scholar Also see Menon's, autobiography, Kazhinja Kalam (Malayalam) (Calicut: Mathrubhumi Press, 1969).Google Scholar Menon's report was carried in the Malayali press. See, for example, Swarat (Quilon), 09 1, 1921,Google Scholarcited in Newspaper Reports, No. 37 of 1921, p. 1080.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Puran (Kayamkulam), 09 3, 1921,Google Scholarcited in Newspaper Reports. No. 37 of 1921, p. 1081.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See, for example, the various papers quoted in Newspaper Reports, No. 36 of 1921, pp. 1045–8.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Kistnapatrika (Masulipatam), 09 3, 1921, in Newspaper Reports, No. 37 of 1921, pp. 1074–5.Google Scholar

⁹² Communiqué from the District Collector to the Government of Madras, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 27, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5303 (1921).Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid.

⁹⁴ Reported in a telegram from the Government of Madras to the Viceroy, August 22, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 24, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5222 (1921).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Rawlinson Report, p. 3.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 27, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5302 (1921).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Gopalan Nair, , Moplah Rebellion, pp. 76–9; Sreedhara Menon, ,Kozhikode, pp. 179–80.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Madras Mail, December 17, 1921, p. 7, and December 19, 1921, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Report on Malabar Affairs, August 18, 1921, in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, p. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Hitchcock writes that in certain areas of Ernad, Mappillas remained loyal— in Mampal and Kondotti and to some extent in Edavanna and Wandur. ‘Now these are purely Mappilla centres, by far the most flourishing and important ones in Ernad with the exception of Arikkod. The attitude of Mampal, Edavanna and Wandur was due entirely to the influence of a few leading Mappillas in those places; they would have nothing to do with the agitation and when the rebellion came they were strong enough and bold enough to oppose it.’ In Kondotti, the Mappillas have their own Tangal and practice a slightly different form of worship from the ‘Ponnani Mappillas,’ as those of South Malabar are generally called. Other Mappillas consider them to be Shiahs, although they hold themselves to be Sunnis in common with other Mappillas. Writing in 1887, Logan recorded an agreement by the Tangal with the Company for exemption of revenue payments in exchange for a promise of loyalty—‘a promise which they have ever since very faithfully fulfilled,’ Logan said, and Hitchcock continues, ‘throughout this rebellion the Kondotti Mappillas remained loyal.’ Malabar Rebellion, p. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Madras Mail, September 20, 1921, p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰² In his presentation to the Viceroy, October 5, 1921, Schamned wrote: ‘This disturbance as usual, originated in Ernad and is still confined to the two Taluks of Ernad and Walwanad… The Moplahs of other districts and also of other Taluks of South Malabar are as loyal as any body could be and they ever have been. Even in these two Taluks, here are many Moplahs who are loyally co-operating with the Government.’ Brief Sketch, p. 94. In response to a question raised some months later by Schamnad in the Legislative Council, New Delhi, Sir William Vincent answered for the Government: ‘The Collector reports that North Malabar and other taluqs of the south cannot be described as loyal… He has had no assistance from any Mappilla except in a very few instances in the apprehension of rebel fugitives in Calicut and the northern taluqs. With very few exceptions, the Mappilla population is in sympathy with the rebels.’ Legislative Council Debates, February 11, 1922, p. 2345.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Sreedhara Menon, ,Kozhikode, p. 181. The author of the Kozhikode gazetteer relates the case of M. P. Narayana Menon, who was the Secretary of the Ernad Taluk Congress Committee at the time of the rebellion. ‘When the lives of Englishmen were in danger during a critical phase of the rebellion, he had used his influence with the Mappilas and saved them. By a strange irony of fate Narayana Menon was later accused of treason and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment by a military court…. Menson served his full term and was released only in September 1934.’ Sreedhara Menon argues that ‘the Government's policy of arresting Congress leaders and preventing them from using from their influence with the Mappilas on the side of moderation and non-violence only helped to worson the situation,’ p. 181. In a slightly varied account, Saumyendranath Tagore writes that Narayan prevailed on the rebel leaders to surrender, and those who followed his advice were executed. ‘…[S]uch is the irony of historical justice that as a reward for his faithful services to the government, Narayan Menon was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment on the strength of the accusation by the same Police Inspector whose life he had saved from the hands of the rebels.’Google ScholarPeasants Revolt in Malabar: 1921 (Bombay: 1937), pp. 27–8. Tagore was a Bengali Trotskyite. The volume is frequently highly inaccurate as well as polemical.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ C.I.D., September 20, 1921, STRICTLY SECRET. Copy of a letter from U. Gopala Menon to Yakub Hassan, no date. Government of Madras. Secret. Under Secy's Safe. File 327-A. November 2, 1921, Moplah Rebellion, Tamil Nadu Archives.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ C.I.D., September 20, 1921. STRICTLY SECRET. Copy of a letter from Abdul Rahman to Yakub Hassan, dated Calicut, September 7, 1921.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ August 27, 1921. I.O.R.: Euro. Mss. F. 93. No.4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Madras Legislative Council Debates, September 1, 1921, p. 628.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Telegram from Madras to the Viceroy, August 22, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 24, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5222 (1921).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Madras Mail, August 31, 1921, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Telegram from Madras to the Viceroy, August 22, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 24, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5222 (1921).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ The form of martial law imposed upon Malabar during the rebellion gave rise to bitter controversy between the Government of India and that of Madras. In a personal letter to the Governor-General, Lord Reading, the Governor of Madras, Lord Willingdon, wrote: ‘You may think me a brutal and militant person; you may feel we are not to be trusted with summary powers; but I am certain that in any other country the chief offenders would have been dealt with in summary fashion after such an outbreak; I suppose this excessive caution is due to the trouble over the Punjab, but I am sorry, very sorry you found it necessary to water the original ordinance down.’ ‘The extremist is loud in his abuse of me and I shall go down to posterity as a 2nd O'Dwyer! “Sic transit gloria mundi”!’ September 6, 1921. I.O.R.: Euro. Mss. F. 93. No.5. The difficulties between Madras and Delhi were revealed with the Government's decision no longer to publish the telegraphic correspondence. In December 1921, the British government had published a Command Paper of the telegraphic correspondence relating to the Mappilla rebellion. [East India (Moplah Rebellion), Telegraphic information, &c., regarding the Moplah Rebellion, 24th August to 6th December,Google ScholarCommand Paper 1552, London: 1921, 54 pp.]Google ScholarIt was to have been followed by a second Command Paper, which was prepared in proofs but never released. [East India (Moplah Rebellion), Telegraphic information, &c., regarding the Moplah Rebellion, in continuation of Cmd. 1552, London: 1922 (proof only), 20 pp. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1774, item 6428 (1921).] In a telegram to the Secretary of State for India, the Governor-General wrote, ‘We see no advantage and some danger in publishing,’ as it indicates ‘some differnces of opinion between Local Government and ourselves and between Local Government and Military Authorities.’ March 30, 1922. I.O.R.: P&J 1953 [1922, as corrected 1949 (1922)].Google Scholar

¹¹² Telegram from Madras, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 29, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5335 (1921). Also see Rawlinson Report, p. 3.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, p. 37. In the forepages of the book, Nair pays eulogistic tribute to Captain P. McEnroy, who led the march, ‘for the conspicuous gallantry displayed by him at Pookkottur… On behalf of myself and my Hindu countrymen of Malabar, I offer to the HERO of POOKKOTTUR and his small force our grateful thanks for their services on that memorable day.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Rawlinson Report, pp. 3–4; Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, pp. 36–7, 76. In a brief biography of the rebel leader, it is claimed that he died a natural death, on February 17, 1922, before the sentence was executed. K. A. Mohamed, ‘Ali Musaliar,’ Charitham, No. 4 (October–December 1971), p. 112.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Telegram, August 30, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, August 30, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5364 (1921).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Madras Legislative Council Debates, September 1, 1921, p. 628.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Sir Meneckji Dadabhoy, September 5, 1921, p. 89. I.O.R.: P&J 6646 (1921).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Telegram, August 30, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5364 (1921).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Rawlinson Report, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ibid., p. 1.

¹²¹ Telegram from Major General J. T. Burnett-Stuart, the General Commanding Officer, Madras District, September 26, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, September 28, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P/6/1782, item 6000 (1921)A later report prepared by the Malabar Force Headquarters described the principal leaders and their gangs. Ten gangs were listed, ranging in size from that of the Chembrasseri Tangal, with approximately 3,000 men, to bands as small as 30 to 50 in number. Report to Army Headquarters,Delhi, from J. T. Burnett-Stuart, Major General, Commanding, Madras District,November 14, 1921, Wellington. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 7717 (1921)..Google Scholar

¹²² Telegram, September 26, 1921, quoted in the telegram from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, September 28, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 6000 (1921).Google Scholar

¹²³ Rawlinson Report, p. 3.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Indeed, in response to a favorable account of military action against the Mappillas in early September, someone at the India Office in London had noted that it looked as if the rebellion ‘had burnt itself out.’ Below the note, Malcolm C. Seton, Assistant Under Secretary of State for India, wrote: ‘The next step will, if precedent is followed, be an unofficial Committee of Enquiry, which will find that the Moplahs would never have touched Hindus but for the provocative actions of some subordinate police-officers.’ Minute paper, September 14, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782, item 5614 (1921).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Tottenham, G. F. R. , ‘Summary of the Important Events of the Rebellion,’ in Tottenham, Mapilla Rebellion, p. 38.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Letter, October 24, 1921. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1782 (1921).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ It is appropriate here to relate what became the subject of scandal and regret— the Mappilla train tragedy. The large number of arrests had led to an accumulation of prisoners at Malappuram. A portion of prisoners were transferred to Tirur, but the jail there was also full. It was then decided to send them on to Bellary by rail. A van was unloaded, cleaned out and disinfected. The prisoners—97 Mappillas and 3 Hindus, who were also implicated in the rebellion—were loaded in the van after having been provided with food and water. The doors were shut and fastened, and the train left Tirur at 7:15 p.m., November 19. At 12:30 that night, the train arrived at Podanur, and the van doors were opened to give the men water. ‘On opening the first compartment the prisoners were all found lying down in a state of collapse. Some of them were groaning and it was evident that a disaster had occurred.’ Doctors were called in. Fifty-six of the men died that night. Of the 44 survivors, another 26 died soon after. A total of 70 were dead. The investigation found asphyxiation the cause of death, with heat exhaustion as a contributing cause. Examination of the van revealed that the fixed venetians on the upper part of the doors had been covered inside by a lining of fine wire gauze, which had been painted over and was clogged with paint and dust—with the result that the van was ‘practically airtight.’ The use of such vans had been normal for transporting prisoners, but the gauze had turned this van into a death trap. The investigative commission appointed to inquire into the deaths held the railway company responsible, but the sergeant accompanying the van was held ‘negligent in failing to take note of the condition of the prisoners while on the journey, as evidenced by the exceptional clamour which they made.’ Report of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the Death of Certain Mappilla Prisoners, 35 pp. I.O.R. L/P&J/6/1774, item 1534 (1922), with 6428 (1921).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Rawlinson Report, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, p. 57.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ March 7, 1922. I.O.R.: L/P&J/6/1769, item 5891 (1921).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Rawlinson Report, pp. 9–10. K. P. Kesava Menon estimated that as many as 10,000 may have died in the rebellion. Kazhinja Kalam, p. 116:, cited by Menon, Sreedhara, Kozhikode, p. 182.Google Scholar

¹³² Secret, No. 5/250/766/6.3, March 14, 1922 (in Government of Madras. Secret. Under Secy's Safe. File No. 358. July 26, 1922). Tamil Nadu Archives, Madras.Google Scholar

¹³³ Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India During the Year 1921, No. 57 (New Delhi: Government Press, 1922), p. 18.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ O'Donnell, S. P., in the Council of State Debates, March 28, 1922. I.O.R.: P&J 2771 (1922), with 5891 (1921).Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Nair, Gopalan (Moplah Rebellion) devotes 21 pages of the appendix to itemized atrocities allegedly committed by the Mappillas against Hindus. Appendix, pp. 52–72. Tagore writes in his account of the rebellion that Arya Samajists took photographs of the few Hindus who were killed by the Mappillas and displayed these as ‘the horror of Moplah atrocities’ in order to fan the flames of communalism (Peasants Revolt, pp. 22–3).Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Menon, Sreedhara, Kozhikode, p. 183. The activities of the Arya Samaj were also directed to those few families who had suffered conversion at the hand of Tipu Sultan and who, while relapsing to Hinduism after Tipu's deafeat, had never been accepted to full Hindu status. Known as ‘Chela Nairs’ and ‘Chela Namburduris,’ they were regarded as polluted and were restricted in their associations with caste fellows. Innes, Malabar, pp. 190–1. The Samaj, Gopalan Nair notes, brought them fully back into the Hindu fold. Moplah Rebellion, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ The requirements were as follows: ‘1. Cutting the tuft, repeating the kalima, ear-boring of women and wearing Moplah jackets:— The victims in these cases are to take “panchagavya” [five products of the cow—milk, ghee, curd, urine, and dung] for three days at any temple, to make whatever offerings they can and to repeat “Narayana” or “Siva” at least 3,000 times every day. 2. Circumcision or co-habitation:—The remedy to be the same as mentioned above, but for 12 days the prayers are to be repeated 12,000 times every day. 3. Eating food cooked by Moplahs:—The victims in this case are to wash their sins off in the holy Sethu and to obtain a certificate to that effect from the temple authorities or the “purohits” and then observe the ceremonies prescribed in (1) and (2) for 41 days repeating the sacred names 12,000 times a day. 4. Sins not specified above are to be expiated by adopting the ceremonies for 21 days repeating “Narayana” or “Siva” 12,000 times a day.’ The Council required that the performance of these ceremonies must be validated by a certificate from appropriate religious authorities and ‘submitted on the Zamorin who in his turn is to certify formally that the sins above described have been properly expiated and that the persons concerned are restored to the condition which they have been occupying before the rebellion.’ The Council offered one limitation— that ‘the rules mentioned above are inapplicable to the Brahmin converts.’ There was only one reported Brahmin convert, and apparently, he could never be fully cleansed. Details of the Council were reported in the West Coast Spectator (Calicut), 08 22, 1921,Google Scholar and quoted in Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, pp. 117–18. Also see Hitchcock, Malabar Rebellion, pp. 1623.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Although the rebellion was among the most traumatic events experienced by the Raj from the time of the Mutiny to the Quit India movement, surprisingly little has been written on the subject. Beyond official reports, notably that of Hitchcock and Tottenham, publications on the Mappilla rebellion in English are scant. The dissertation by Stephen Dale and the important work on Mappilla violence by Conrad Wood, now in progress, make significant contributions toward filling that gap. The fiftieth anniversary of the rebellion, 1971, marked the appearance of a number of publications in Malayalam as well as a renewal of bitter controversy.Google Scholar The most important book on the rebellion is Nair's, K. MadhavanMalabar Kalapam (Calicut: Mathrubhumi Press, 1971). Written soon after the rebellion, but published only after Nair's death, the account is balanced and is the most complete of any available.Google Scholar An anti-Mappilla tract was published by ‘Dasaradhi,’ Malabarile Mappilalahalakal (Calicut: Jayabharath Publications, 1971)Google Scholar and a pro-Mapilla compilation by Alikunhi, M., Malabar Kalapam Oru Padanam (Elathur: Rahma Book Stall, 1972).Google ScholarA special issue of the quarterly Charitham, No. 4 (October–December 1971), edited by C. K. Kareem, was devoted to the Malabar revolt. The issue included a number of personal accounts of the rebellion, and references were made to the following books by participants: Koyatti Moulavi, Irupathonnile Malabar Lahala; Moulavi, E. Moidu, My Friend; and Brahmadathan Namboodiri, Khilafat Samaranakal.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Sitaramayya, Pattabhi, History of Indian National Congress, Vol. I, p. 216,Google Scholarquoted in Menon, Sreedhara, Kozhikode, p. 183.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Address by Acting President Hakim Ajmal Khanji Saheb, 36th Indian National Congress, Ahmedabad, 1921. From A.I.C.C. File No. 3/1921, Jawaharlal Nehru Museum, New Delhi.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Resolution of the 36th Indian National Congress, Ahmedabad, passed December 27, 1921. From A.I.C.C. File No. 3/1921, Jawaharal Nehru Museum, New Delhi.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Kazhinja Kalam, p. 117, quoted in Menon, Sreedhara, Kozhikode, p. 182.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ January 12, 1922, cited in Newspaper Reports, No. 4 of 1922, p. 94.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Madras Mail, November 14, 1921, p. 5. In the next installment, November 15, he ‘explained’ the Calicut Mappilla's lack of involvement. They are not less clannish and fanatical than their brothers, but ‘a good many of the Calicut Moplahs are wealthy and prosperous merchants…All these are shrewd enough to known that they would stand to lose by giving sinister play to their innate religious fanaticism. The provisions of the Moplah Outrages Act as to the confiscation of property are plain and unmistakable,’ p. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Satidas, B. L., in the introduction to Shastri, Vishnu, Mopla Rebellion of 1921, (Letters by Shastri to Satidas from Malabar) (Nagpur: B. L. Satidas, 1922), p. iii.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Judgment in Case No. 7 of 1921, Special Tribunal, Calicut, quoted in Nair, Gopalan, Moplah Rebellion, pp. 7–8. The Mail correspondent concurred in the judgment and argued that agrarian discontent is a ‘myth.’ He asked, ‘If agrarian discontent was the cause of the trouble, how can we account for the fact that the rebels are lightheartedly decapitating tenants and more coolies as well as landlords and capitalists?’ Madras Mail, November 16, 1921, p. 8. Rawlinson, in his report, wrote: ‘The rebellion of 1921 was directly due to the influence of the Khilafat propaganda. Political agitators, in many cases directly connected with the Congress Committee, had for some time been trading on the religious fanaticism of the Moplah… The outbreak, when it occurred, took a very formidable shape from the start. The rebels aimed at the complete overthrow of law and order and intended to establish an independent Khilafat kingdom in Malabar.’ p. 1. In the Legislative Assembly, New Delhi, a motion was brought by a Muslim member from the Punjab for a committee of inquiry, with a non-official majority, to look into the causes of the Mappilla outbreak. Sir William Vincent responded for the Government: ‘I think this Assembly must really have got a little tired of Malabar this session.’ It was the third time that such a motion had been raised. ‘There has never been any indication of any local demand for such an inquiry…In fact, the causes of the rising were taken for granted, because to those who live on the spot there is no room for any inquiry; they know the facts… (That) the Khilafat movement was the cause of the rising is well known.’ The motion was defeated. Legislative Assembly Debates, March 9, 1922, pp. 2939–40.Google Scholar Annie Besant shared the official view. She viewed the ‘ghastly misery’ and the ‘heart-breaking wretchedness’ caused by the rebellion as due directly ‘to the violent and unscrupulous attacks on the Government made by the Non-Cooperators and the Khilafatists…’ Quoted in Menon, P. K. K., The History of the Freedom Movement in Kerala, Vol. II, p. 95.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Tagore, , Peasants Revolt, p. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ A Short History of the Peasant Movement in Kerala (Bombay: People's Publishing House, 1943), p. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 10.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 11.

¹⁵¹ ‘Note by Mr. T. V. Anantan Nair,’ Enclosure No. 2 to Appendix F(f), Malabar Land Tenure Committee Report (Madras: Government Press, 1887), p. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Conrad Wood, in a seminar presentation on his doctoral research, ‘An Interpretation of Moplah Violence,’ University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, May 22, 1973.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Traditionally, the unique event of rebellion or revolution has been ‘explained’ by a retrodictive procedure: moving from the event backward to the cause or causes behind it. More often than not, this has been in the form of a Procrustian model to which the data, having been carefully sifted, are neatly fitted. In self-fulfilling prophesy, the theory is validated by the fact that the rebellion did occur—the point at which we began. It is true by definition. The retrodictive power of the model, however, is not accompanied by predictive power. The conditions of rebellion and revolution are identified only after the fact. Whether we are talking of Johnson's system-dysequilibrium, Gurr's relative deprivation, Davies's J-curve, or Wolf's intrusion of the market economy, similar conditions at other times or in other places may not produce similar results. See Johnson, Chalmers, Revolutionary Change (Boston; Little, Brown, 1966);Google ScholarGurr, Ted, Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969);Google ScholarDavies, James C. (ed.), When Men Rebel and Why (New York: Free Press, 1971);Google Scholar and Wolf, Eric, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1969). For a superb critique of the literature on revolution,Google Scholar see Tilly, Charles, ‘Revolutions and Collective Violence,’ in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (eds), Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975, Vol. 3). ‘It is not enough to show that these things happen sometimes,’ writes Tilly of the explanatory factors identified by various authors. ‘At the very least, they must happen more often than chance would predict.’ Rebellion, like revolution, ‘almost certainly depends on the convergence of different conditions.’ The probability that revolution (or rebellion) is a complex process, as Tilly suggests, ‘should encourage us to break it up into its parts before reconstructing a single model of the revolutionary process.’ (pp. 483–555.)Google Scholar