Mopla Rebellion of 1921 in Malabar | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Mopla Rebellion (1921)

• Mappila Riots Overview: The Mappila Riots were a series of uprisings by the Mappila (or Moplah) Muslims in the Malabar region of Kerala, primarily against Hindu landlords and the state authorities.

• Malabar Rebellion of 1921: This event is considered the peak of the Mappila Riots, representing a significant escalation in the violence and unrest.

• Early Outbreaks: The first outbreak of Mappila unrest occurred in 1836. Between 1836 and 1854, there were a total of 22 similar uprisings.

• Major Uprisings: Among the 22 uprisings, two major ones took place in 1841 and 1849, highlighting periods of intense conflict.

• Moplah Movement of 1920-21: This movement was characterized by a much greater scale of violence compared to earlier uprisings, marking a significant and tumultuous period in the history of the Mappila Riots.

Background

• Moplah Community: Origin and Evolution:

  • The Moplahs, also known as Mappilas, are descendants of Arab traders who settled in Malabar, Kerala. They intermarried with local Nair and Tiyar women.
  • Over time, their numbers grew through the conversion of lower-caste Hindus, like the Cherumars, who sought improved social status through conversion.
  • The Moplahs gradually became reliant on agriculture and transformed into a community of cultivating tenants, landless laborers, petty traders, fishermen.

• Malabar Land System and Social Structure:

  • In the traditional Malabar land system, the Jenmi, mostly Hindus, held land by birthright and leased it out for cultivation.
  • Other main sections of Malabar society included:
  • Kanamdar—mostly Moplahs.
  • Verumpattamdar(cultivators) and agricultural laborers—also mostly Moplahs.
  • The Jenmi, mainly Nambudiri Brahmins and Nambiar chieftains, were at the top of the hierarchy, holding hereditary land grants from the Naduvazhis(rulers).
  • Due to their priestly status, the Nambudiri Brahmins could not cultivate or supervise land directly, so they leased it out for a fixed share of the produce.
  • Traditionally, the net produce was shared equally among the Janmi(holder of janmam tenure),Kanamdar or Kanakkaran(holder of kanam tenure), the Cultivator.

• Power Shift and Social Background:

  • During the reigns of Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, when the Nambudiri Brahmins and Nayar chiefs fled, the Moplahs filled the power vacuum.
  • The social and economic background of the Moplahs was diverse:
  • Elites among the Moplahs made a living through petty trading and commerce.
  • The majority were small-scale farmers, tenants of large landlords who were mostly high-caste Hindus.
  • Despite their poverty, the Moplahs emulated the traditional ways of the Nayars and gained a reputation as warriors.

Under Mysorean Rule (1788–1792):

• Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan captured Malabar, leading to significant changes in the region.
• Atrocities were committed against Hindu landowners, forcing them to flee to neighboring states for safety.
• The Malabar government, under Tipu Sultan's Islamic Sultanate, expelled Hindu landlords and made agreements with Muslim peasants.
• A new system of land revenue was introduced for the first time in Malabar's history. The government share was fixed based on the actual produce from the land, marking a significant shift in land management practices.

Arrival of the British:

• When the British took over Malabar in 1792 following the Third Mysore War, they aimed to revamp land relations by establishing individual ownership rights in land.
• With the return of exiled Namboodiri Brahmins and Nayars, the British government reestablished and acknowledged their landlord rights.
• The traditional system stipulated an equal sharing of the net produce of the land by the janmi (holder of janmam tenure), the Kanamdar or Kanakkaran (holder of kanam tenure), the cultivator.
• The British system disrupted this arrangement by recognizing the janmi as the absolute owner of the land, with the right to evict tenants, a right that did not exist earlier.
• The other two categories, such as Moplah Muslims, were reduced to the status of tenants and leaseholders.
• The peasantry in Malabar lived and worked under conditions of extreme penury due to the overassessment, illegal cesses, renewal fees, high rents, other oppressive landlord exactions.
• There was a lack of security of tenure, the judiciary and police had a pro-landlord attitude, siding with the jenmis.
• A series of incidents occurred in Malabar throughout the nineteenth century, reflecting the protest and resistance of the rural poor against oppression and exploitation.
• When jenmi landlords, backed by revenue officials, law courts, police, tightened their hold on subordinate classes, the Moplah peasantry rose in revolt.
• The majority of janmi landlords were high-caste Hindus like Namboodri and Nair, while the peasants were mainly Moplah Muslims.
• This created a situation where religion and economic grievances intertwined, leading to open resistance.
• Moplah outbreaks became a class conflict with religious overtones, with mosques as centers of mobilization and targets being Hindu janmi, their temples, British officials.
• Many Moplahs believed it was religiously virtuous to kill oppressive landlords, who were also considered kafirs (non-believers).
• British armed forces were deployed to suppress the revolt after several serious incidents.
• Repressive measures restored peace for about twenty years, but the Moplahs rose again in 1870, following a similar trajectory.

Revolts of Moplah

• First Phase of Uprisings (1836-1854):

  • 22 revolts were recorded, with significant ones in 1841 and 1849.
  • The uprisings had messianic overtones, with the faithful believing that as Ahadis, they would go straight to heaven by sacrificing their lives.
• Second Phase of Uprisings (1882-1885 and 1896):
  • Recorded a new wave of revolts, similar in pattern to the first phase.
  • Pattern of Rebellion:
  • A group of Moplah youths typically attacked a Brahmin jenmi, a Nayar official, or a jenmi's servant.
  • Incidents often involved burning or defiling a temple or attacking a landlord's house.
  • In response, the police would crack down on the rebels.
  • Rebels often sought refuge in a mosque or a temple following these confrontations.

The causes of Moplah Rebellion of 1921:

• The Moplah rebellion of 1921 was driven by two main grievances: the ongoing oppression of Moplah Muslims by landlords and the British government's anti-Khilafat policies.
• Moplahs were Muslim peasants, while their landlords, known as Jenmis, were mostly Hindus.
• Historically, the relationship between Jenmis and Moplahs was marked by economic and religious antagonism.
• Since 1835, Hindu landlords had suppressed Moplah tenants, leading to deep-seated animosity.
• The land tenure system in Malabar was highly unfavorable to Moplah tenants, who faced insecurity of tenure.
• They could be evicted from their land without appropriate notice, creating a constant threat to their livelihoods.
• The immediate trigger for the Moplah agitation in 1920 was the renewal of fees at an exorbitant rate set by the Jenmis.
• This increase was unbearable for the Moplahs and fueled their anger.
• Jenmis imposed high exactions on Moplah tenants, often discriminating against them compared to Hindu tenants.
• This discriminatory treatment added to the grievances of the Moplahs and contributed to the rebellion.

Moplah Rebellion of 1921:

• In August 1921, there was a significant uprising in the Malabar district of Kerala.
• This rebellion involved Mappila (Muslim) tenants who were unhappy with their treatment by landlords.
• Their main issues included:
  (i) Uncertainty about their right to stay on the land.
  (ii) High fees for renewing leases.
  (iii) Excessive rents.
  (iv) Other harsh demands from landlords.
• The Moplah movement of 1921 was marked by intense violence.
• It was influenced by the ongoing Khilafat movement, which aimed to secure rights for Muslims.
• The initial push for Mappila resistance against landlords came from a 1920 meeting organized by the Malabar District Congress Committee.
• This meeting advocated for tenant rights and called for laws to improve landlord-tenant relations.
• Previously, landlords had successfully blocked Congress support for tenants, making this shift important.
• The Manjeri conference led to the formation of tenant associations across the district, uniting Mappila tenants.
• The Khilafat movement, part of the broader struggle for Indian independence, also spurred the 1921 Moplah agitation.
• The Khilafat movement gained traction in Malabar, with local conferences promoting its goals.
• The Khilafat movement and Moplah tenants became closely intertwined, leading to government crackdowns on their meetings.
• Prominent leaders of the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation Movement, such as Gandhi and Maulana Azad, addressed Mappila gatherings.
• After the arrest of national leaders, local Mappila leaders took charge of the movement.
• The British government, weakened by World War I, struggled to suppress the Moplah uprising.
• The Moplahs, inspired by their participation in the Khilafat movement, became more vocal about their grievances.
• As the Khilafat movement grew more violent, the Moplah uprising mirrored this shift, with peasants rising against Hindu moneylenders and the state.
• The Majlis-ul-Ulema, a militant Muslim organization, called for a jihad, further radicalizing the Moplahs.
• Allegations of forced conversions of Hindus intensified during this period.
• The turning point came on August 20, 1921, when the district magistrate raided a mosque in Eranad taluka to arrest Khilafat leader Ali Musaliar.
• This raid triggered widespread riots, with police firing on unarmed crowds, leading to many deaths.
• Government offices were attacked, records destroyed, treasuries looted.
• The rebellion quickly spread to other Moplah strongholds.
• The government responded by deploying the army to restore order.
• Initially, Moplah attacks were directed at symbols of British authority such as courts, police stations, treasuries.
• Unpopular landlords, mostly Hindus, were also targeted, although lenient Hindu landlords were spared.
• However, as the British imposed martial law and repression, the nature of the rebellion changed.
• Many Hindus were viewed by the Moplahs as collaborators with the authorities.
• What began as an anti-government and anti-landlord movement took on communal aspects.
• This shift towards communalism alienated the Moplahs from broader support.
• The communalization of the peasant agitation ultimately harmed the Moplah cause.

 Crushing of the Rebellion:

• The rebellion's communalization further isolated the Moplahs from potential allies.
• British repression was crucial in quelling the uprising, by December 1921, all forms of resistance had effectively ceased.
• The militant Moplahs were so thoroughly defeated and demoralized that their participation in politics remained minimal until India gained independence.
• Ali Musliyar and several other leaders were tried and sentenced to death, with Musliyar being executed at Coimbatore Prison on February 17, 1922.
• Kunjahammed Haji, another prominent Mappila rebel leader, was shot dead by British police on January 20, 1922.

Analysis of the Moplah Rebellion:

• Perception of Failure: The Moplah movement is often seen as a failure due to its communal shift and reliance on violence, contrasting with the non-violent approach of the Khilafat movement.
• Landlord Dynamics: The Moplahs struggled to gain support from the local peasantry because their landlords were Hindu, a unique situation not seen in other movements of the time.
• Agrarian Discontent: The 1921 uprising was rooted in deep agrarian discontent, intensified by religious, ethnic, political alienation. It was primarily a 'pre-political' expression of frustration.
• Historical Context: Peasant movements in the 19th and early 20th centuries were part of a broader national struggle, influenced by and influencing the freedom struggle.
• Methods of Protest: Most of these movements, except for Moplah, were characterized by non-violence and were experiments in satyagraha and non-cooperation, as advocated by Gandhi.
• Participation: Intellectuals and educated individuals actively participated in these movements, which were driven by causes such as increased land tax, security of tenure, exploitation of the poor peasantry by landlords. Big and middle peasants also took part.

Reactions on Moplah Rebellion 1921

Criticism of Gandhi and the Khilafat Movement:

• C. Sankaran Nair, a prominent figure in the Indian National Congress, criticized Gandhi's support for the Khilafat Movement, calling him an anarchist.
• Nair condemned the “sheer brutality” of the atrocities committed against women during the Moplah rebellion, describing them as “horrible and unmentionable.”

Annie Besant's Observations on the Moplah Rebellion:

• After the Moplah rebellion in 1921, Annie Besant visited the affected areas in Malabar and wrote impactful articles about the violence perpetrated by the Moplah Muslims.
• Besant's writings alerted both the Indian and British governments to the severity of the situation.
• She remarked that Malabar demonstrated the implications of Islamic rule and expressed a desire to avoid another instance of Khilafat Raj in India.

Reports of Atrocities by Mappilas:

• Besant reported that many Hindus were forcibly converted by Muslim Mappilas, with numerous instances of rape and murder against those who resisted conversion, affecting over one lakh Hindus.
• She recounted a specific instance where a Nair lady was brutally raped in front of her family, emphasizing the extreme nature of the atrocities committed during the rebellion.
• Besant noted that such instances of violence and rape were not widely reported, highlighting the severity of the situation.

Underlying Causes of the Moplah Rebellion:

• The 1921 Moplah rebellion was fundamentally rooted in long-standing agrarian discontent, which was further exacerbated by religious and ethnic identity issues.