HISTORY OF MAPLA MUSLIM REVOLUTIONS
KR Mahatma Gandhi did only a fair deal for the nation in GOOD FAITH.
Nehru was different. As Dharma was different from Krishna, so too was
Gandhi and Nehru. We all knew CHE GUEVRA REVOLUTION; for them it is a
freedom struggle but for USA it is revolt. 10,000 people were dead where
majority were Muslims. Hindu Jenmis returned back only after 5 years.
DIVIDE AND RULE PRACTICE OF THE BRITISH DEFINING JENMI AND TENURE WERE
QUITE GOOD INITIALLY; But TIPUSULTAN BEAT THE BRITISH AND MUSLIMS WERE
GIVEN THE HARNESS OVER THE JENMISLSS LANDS, WHERE JENMIS RAN AWAY BUT AFTER
THE BRITISH KILLED TIPU AFTER 5 YEARS RETUNED BACK. Now the jenmis,
reaction with the British were awful and trouble-shouted the reactions. So,
tenure raised their voice against the rulers which was a freedom struggle
as per Gandhi. Hindus took advantage of the losses in their absence when
Tipu was in which could have been avoided. It was a Kila fat movement
where many tenures were dead than the owners which we shall think over.
History was cru because of the British. Where M K Gandhi is to be blamed
who took the struggle against British and legal and not a Hindu muslim
revolution at all?
Land ownership in Malabar
Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon, Governor of Madras
during the Rebellions and later Viceroy and Governor-General of India
Malabar's agricultural system was historically based on a hierarchy of
privileges, rights and obligations for all principal social groups in what
British administrator William Logan sometimes referred to as the "Father of
Tenancy Legislation" in Malabar, describing it as a system of 'corporate
unity' or joint proprietorship of each of the principal land right holders
Jenmi
The Jenmi, consisting mainly of the Namboothiri Brahmins and Nair
chieftains, were the highest level of the hierarchy, and a class of people
given hereditary land grants (''janmam'') by the Naduvazhis or rulers. The
rights conveyed by this janmam were not a freehold in the European sense,
but an office of dignity. Owing to their ritual status as priests
(Nambudiris), the jenmis could neither cultivate nor supervise the land but
would instead provide a grant of kanam (a form of land tenure) to a
kanakkaran (holder of tenure) in return for a fixed share of the crops
produced. Typically, a Jenmi would have a large number of kanakkarar under
him.
Verumpattakkaran
The Verumpattakkarar, generally Thiyya and Mappila classes, cultivated the
land but were also its part-proprietors under the kanakkarar. These classes
were given a Verum Pattam (Simple Lease) of the land that was typically
valid for one year. According to custom, they were also entitled to
one-third or an equal share of the net produce.
The net produce of the land was the share left over after providing for the
cherujanmakkar or all the other birthright holders such as the village
carpenter, the goldsmith and agricultural labourers who helped to gather,
prepare and store produce. The system ensured that no Jenmi could evict
tenants under him except for non-payment of rent. This land tenure system
was generally referred to as the janmi-kana-maryada (customary practices).
Land reforms and Mappila outbreaks
During the Mysorean invasion of Malabar, the Jenmi took refuge in
neighbouring states. The tenants and the Nair army men who could not escape
were converted into Islam, as described in William Logan's Malabar Manual.
Thus, Tipu Sultan's Kingdom of Mysore, having driven the Jenmi out of
Malabar, reached accord with the Muslim Kanakkars. A new system of land
revenue was introduced for the first time in the region's history with the
government share fixed on the basis of actual produce from the land
However, within five years, the East India Company took over Malabar,
defeating Tipu Sultan and ending his reign over the region. This allowed
the Jenmi to return to their homes and regain the lands lost during the
Mysorean invasion, with the help of the Company administration and its duly
constituted courts. The Company introduced several Western juridical
concepts, such as that of absolute property rights, into the existing legal
system of Malabar. Up until then, such rights had been unknown in the
region and as a result all land became the private property of the Jenmi.
This legal recognition gave them the right to evict tenants, which was in
turn enforced through the colonial civil courts] In the words of William
Logan:
The [British] authorities, recognised the Janmi as absolute owner of his
holding, and therefore free to take as big a share of the produce of the
soil as he could get out of the classes beneath him... (Gradually) The
British Courts backed up by Police and Magistrates and troops and big guns
made the Janmi's independence complete. The hard terms thus imposed on the
Kanakkaran had, of course, the effect of hardening the terms imposed by the
Kanakkaran on those below him, the Verumpattakkar. The one-third of the net
produce to which the Verumpattakkaran was customarily entitled, was more
and more encroached upon as the terms imposed on the Kanakkaran became
harder and harder. (Government of Madras. 1882, Vol. I: xvii, xxxi–ii)
As conditions worsened, rents rose to as high as 75–80% of net produce,
leaving the Verumpattakkar cultivators largely "only straw". This caused
great resentment among the Mappilas, who, in the words of Logan, were
"labouring late and early to provide a sufficiency of food for their wives
and children". Resentment among the Muslim tentant population due to being
vulnerable to rack renting, insecure tenancy, and eviction at the hands of
Hindu landlords (jenmi) sustained by British courts, the Mappillas
responded in a series of outbreaks, in which they wanted their own death,
29 in number, between 1836 and 1919 were suppressed. These usually involved
the violence against Nambudiri and Nair landlords. During the nineteenth
century conversions to Islam heightened dramatically as the backward caste
Cheruman serfs embraced Islam so that they got liberation from the caste
system and support from fellow Muslims to protest against jenmi tyranny.
The colonial government referred to the outbreaks as "Moplah outrages", but
modern historians tend to treat them as religious outbreaks or expressions
of agrarian discontent. The outbreak of 1921–22 sustained this tradition of
violence in Malabar with one crucial difference: this time it had also a
political ideology and a formal organization.
Khilafat Movement
Diwan Bahadur C. Gopalan Nair in his book, The Moplah Rebellion 1921,writes
thus:
...it was not mere fanaticism, it was not agrarian trouble, it was not
destitution, that worked on the minds of Ali Musaliar and his followers.
The evidence conclusively shows that it was the influence of the Khilafat
and Non-co-operation movements that drove them to their crime. It is this
which distinguishes the present from all previous outbreaks. Their
intention was, absurd though it may seem, to subvert the British Government
and to substitute a Khilafat Government by force of arms.(Judgement in Case
No. 7 of 1921 on the file of the Special Tribunal, Calicut.) ...
Nair noted Ali Musliyar rose to prominence at the instance of a Khilafat
conference held in Karachi. Furthermore, Musliyar was not a native of
Tirurangadi. He had only moved in 14 years earlier. So, according to Nair,
there was not class revolt he was handling. It was a Khilafat edifice
prepared and passed from distant Karachi, possibly controlled by spiritual
leaders of Islam.
The Khilafat movement was introduced into the district of Malabar on 28
April 1920, by a Resolution at the Malabar District Conference, held at
Manjeri, the headquarters of Ernad Taluk. On 30 March 1921, there was a
meeting at which one Abdulla Kutti Musaliar of Vayakkad lectured on
Khilafat, in Kizhakoth Amsom, Calicut Taluk. And at a second meeting held
the next day at Pannur Mosque, there was some unpleasantness between the
Mappilas on one side, and Nairs and Tiyyar, who resented the Khilafat
meeting, on the other. The Mappilas mustered the strength to attack the
place of worship belonging to the Hindu Adhigari of the village
Nature of attacks
The Malabar Rebellion witnessed many attacks on British officers in the
region. The Madras High Court, which adjudicated in this matter, had passed
judgements on each of the cases against the various Mappila rioters who
were captured. The Madras High Court said on the matter,
It appears also that on the night of the 20th of August, at Nilambur 16
miles from Manjeri a police constable at Edavanna, were murdered and at
Tiruvangadi in addition to Mr. Rowley and Lieutenant Johnston nine other
persons were murdered. The police station at Manjeri was attacked on the
night of the 21st; public officers at Manjeri on the 22nd. On the 24th of
August Variyamkunnath Kunhahammad Haji who is described as the rebel leader
arrived at Manjeri. All these incidents had occured when the respondent
made the speech already referred to, and it was in such dangerous
surroundings that he made it and the reference to Tiruvangadi in that
speech has a consequence, a particular significance. Subsequent events are
that on the 26th of August a retired police inspector was murdered at
Anakayam near Manjeri by Variyamkunnath Kunhahammad Haji and his followers
and on the 25th of August his head was paraded on a spear; and it was
common ground that the respondent was at Manjeri from the morning of the
21st of August until the 30th of August.
The District Magistrate stated that reliable information had been received
about 180 forced conversions of Hindus and the actual total may run into
thousands.[36] Roland E. Miller estimates forced conversions as in the
range of 200 and 2500 In the aftermath of this violence, the Suddhi
Movement was created by the Arya Samaj. They converted over 2,000 Hindus
who had been forcibly converted to Islam by the Mappilas. Sumit Sarkar in
Modern India quotes an Arya Samaj source that claimed about 600 Hindus were
killed and 2,500 forcibly converted during the rebellion. Variyankunnath
Kunjahammad Haji claimed to have killed the alleged British agents and
spies responsible for the forced conversion of Hindus to Mohammadanism and
killing others. However, their leader, Swami Shraddhananda was stabbed on
23 December 1926 by an Islamist at his Ashram. Some newspapers reported
that certain districts were 'empty of Hindus.'
Punishments of rebel leaders
The following were the various leaders of the movement, who were sentenced
to death following the Malabar Rebellion:
Ali Musliyar, leader of the rebellion
Kunhi Kadir, Khilafat Secretary, Tanur
Variankunnath Kunhammad Haji
Kunhj Koya, Thangal, President of the Khilafat Committee, Malappuram
Koya Tangal of Kumaramputhur, Governor of a Khilafat principality
Chembrasseri Imbichi Koya Thangal, notorious for his alleged killing of 38
men by slashing their necks and throwing them into a well
Palakamthodi Avvocker Musaliar
Konnara Mohammed Koya Thangal\
In its magnitude and extent, it was an unprecedented popular upheaval, the
likes of which has not been seen in Kerala before or since. While the
Mappilas were in the vanguard of the movement and bore the brunt of the
struggle, several non-Mappila leaders actively sympathized with the rebels'
cause, giving the uprising the character of a national upheaval In 1971,
the Government of Kerala officially recognized the active participants in
the events as "freedom fighters".
K RAJARAM IRS 28825
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 12:28, N Sekar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Sir.
>
> M K Gandhi, Nehru were worse compared to even Jinnah.
>
> Hindu Drokis.
>
> Just read what M K Gandhi advised Hindus to do when the Mopla massacre of
> Hindus happened (it was distorted as freedom struggle) - M K G said to
> kill, maim and rape is in their religious teachings and we, Hindus, should
> understand it and offer no resistance.
>
> Just listen to Sai Deepak / Anand Ranganathan read from his writings to
> prove what a Hindu Droke he was.
> Pity is so many of us still vote for the INDI Alliance even though they
> pour venom on Hindu religion and deride Bharat. Kashmiri Pandits, the
> recent happening in West Bengal are all forgotten because it did not happen
> to us. But that day is not far off.
>
> S C castigated Nupur Sharma (when she asked ONLY for clubbing of the cases
> in one court) but others get ready bail and lecture to Hindus. Because our
> voice of muffled the S C hears ONLY the Left's voice and they are scared.
>
> Wakf Act verdict is still in abeyance. What is there to hear? Just say
> without proper documents of Title no property can be claimed by any one,
> including the Waqf. But we vote for the party which brought in the Waqf
> Act.
>
> We are our own worst enemies Sir. We will die preaching secularism even
> at the cost of destroying ourselves. I know there will be no support for
> this as we need to be seen to be " secular" while others ahve no such
> compulsion.
>
> N Sekar
>
>
>
> N
>
>
> On Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 07:41:29 AM GMT+4, Suryanarayana
> Ambadipudi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Just watch full Video and understand true face of #Gandhi and how गांधी
> who was made #జాతిపిత_ మహాత్మా by British न #Congress pittoos contributed
> to #Hindus n #Bharat !? The same गांधी gave #GandhiDynasty and
> Nation_Hindus is facing the left over sufferings in the hands of
> #నెహ్రూगांधी Dynasty!!??
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZop4gE7QsuLQdqUfQZ7KD_ewLBXyH0V%2Bxt3FjiTwSO9sOA%40mail.gmail.com.
