Except a very few Hindus, the people who participated in the rebellion were mostly Muslims – those who belonged to some parts of Eranad, Valluvanad, Kozhikode and Ponnani Taluks. As such it was a Moplah rebellion in the eyes of the common man. But this is not a perfect explanation even as per the views of Hitchcock. First because of the major role played by some Hindus in organizing the revolt and secondly a large number of Muslims had kept themselves away from it. (K.N.Panicker, Malabarkalapam Charithravum Prathyaya shasthravum)
The 1921 revolt was different from the earlier rebellions. No earlier revolt had received such massive public support like the one of 1921. Hindus had also participated in the conflict of 1921. Attacks which had the nature of a religious duty and the readiness of rioters to face death were characteristics of conflicts of the 19th century. These later subdued as local events only. But the 1921 revolt was wide spread and more extensive. In this, the attacks assuming the form of a religious duty or accepting death by standing firm on an issue at a particular place were rare. Large scale surrendering was a unique feature of 1921 rebellion.
(K. Gopalankutty in “Malabar kalapam charithravum prathyayasasthravum” page no: 19)
All those who studied the history of this revolt had looked at it in apparently two conflicting ways. Soumyendranatha Tagore (1882-1937) had viewed it as an agrarian uprising against feudalism and its supportive imperialism. Almost same opinion is shared by Sarvashri. D. N.Danagare (1977), Conradwood (1976) Catheline Gaf Abarli (1977) E M S Nambudiripad (1968) etc. On the other hand, Stephan F Del, (1980) observed their peculiar religious and ritualistic factors and their ideological postulations as the reasons for this rebellion. Mr. K.N. Panicker (1989) has taken a different view from all this and analyses the conflict on the basis of a multiple affiliation of the rebels.
A peculiar feature of the Eranadan Moplah community that attracts everyone’s attention is that it was well organized even before 1921. According to Miller (1976- p. p 223-303) there were 5350 mosques in Malabar in 1970s. That is almost one each for 500 Moplahs or 70 Moplah families. Apart from this there were about 2500 Madrasas and 25000 religious teachers in this community. There is a well-organized group of people under the control and responsibility of each of these Moulavis. In short, the social organization of Moplahs was well comparable if not almost equivalent to that of Christians. There are strong indicators to show that this type of well-organized social structure pre-existed even during the 19th century. In 1851 as per government records, there were 1058 mosques for the use of 930000 Muslims. (Robison F 1948-P.P.157-161) Though the growth in the ratio between number of mosques and believers were not as high as it turned out to be later, we can see that it was not bad even then.
Many analysts have noted that the massive growth in Moplah population is appalling and un-explainable in the ordinary course. According to the statistics given by Miller,(1976 Vol.11,Page 316) it was 42.8% during 1831-1851 and during 1891-1921 when the total population growth was 18% the growth in Moplah population was 35%. One important factor that worked behind this increase might be the large scale religious conversions. There are several sociological connotations arising out of such conversions in addition to the demographic and relative economic implications.
(P.K. Michael Tharakan –“Malabar Kalapam- Charithravum prathyaya sasthravum” Pages 26, 27, 30, 35)
Knowledgeable persons say that the word “Khilafat” has no connection with the title “Khalifa”. The meaning of the word “Khilaf” is “Against”. Khilafat was actually an anti-imperialistic movement. Nationalist and liberation movements were active in Afghanistan, Turkey and other Muslim nations of West Asia, after the First World War. It resulted in Amanulla Khan declaring independence in Afghanistan and the successful democratic revolution staged in Turkey under the leadership of Kamal Pasha, Ataturk.
(C.Unniraja –“Malabar Kalapam, Charithravum prathyayasasthravum” Page 57)
The most similar upsurge to Moplah rebellion that took place in 19th century was not the Sepoy mutiny of 1857. On the other hand, it was the efforts of Ahamad Badeli during the end of 1820, to establish an Islamic regime in Punjab. To achieve a similar end, the mutiny staged by Malabar Moplahs in 1921 was also totally unorganized. Not only that, the mutiny that took place in Malabar a century after the failed attempt in Punjab, was carried out in a more crude and primitive style.
(Stephan F Dale “Malabar kalapam Charithravum prathyayasasthravum” page 69)
On the one side, the new definition given by the British to the Jenmi system of Malabar and the resultant oppression of the tenants by the landlords – On the other side, when the tenants selectively reacted violently, unable to put up with such cruel oppression any more, the imperialistic forces using their administrative machinery to mercilessly torture and suppress an entire religious group in the name of maintaining law and order. The Eranad Moplah cultivators, who were silently suffering the adversities contributed by these two forces, got attracted to the slogans of Swaraj and wholeheartedly and excitedly jumped into the Khilafat – Noncooperation movement and became very active in it. Was this a fault of theirs?
(K.E.K. Nambudiri -“Malabar Kalapam – Charithravum Prathyayasasthravum” page 97)
It is well known that this mutiny had started as one against the British. As a result it was possible for the insurgents to end British rule in some areas for some time at least and establish revolutionary regime which is supportive of this argument. In these matters at least it will never be improper to paint Malabar rebellion as part of freedom struggle.
(Dr.C.K.Karim, “Wagon Tragedy Smaranika” page 71)
Even to know the meanings of the incidents that take place around us, it takes untiring efforts. There will be several aspects even to a seemingly simple matter. As such, for our people, it became impossible to understand even the recent Moplah riots due to sheer lethargy. The spears that the ordinary peasants who were illiterate and rough had risen against the feudal land lords and their British masters had sometimes missed the targets and fell on the heads of their own people and countrymen, which is not altogether impossibility.
(Dr. M.G.S. Narayanan “Wagon Tragedy Smaranika”. Page: 166)
