Talk:Malabar rebellion/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

This article needs re-writing. There is a lot of POV language and perhaps unverified information. Rama's Arrow 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikified

I did some wikification, but sources are still needed, and some copy-editing might be useful to help mitigate NPOV issues. JubalHarshaw 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbaised Account

I come from place where there was maximum effect of the riots and being hindu..our family fled to safe places.. with in the town .. i can tell you that many hindus were murdered and their bodies thrown into..wells...... turning the water into red... this is no imagination.. my grandfather was a witness to the events and .... many low caste hindus were forcefully converted.. being said that...let me tell you it was one of the muslim friend of my great grandfather who helped my family to fled to safety.... it was against the British.. no doubt about it.. but was used by fanatics to settle scores against the Hindus...which was more prominant than the anti-establishment protest... ebin viswanath 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite of this article: Please review

I have re-written this article to address POV issues and lack of citations. The edits are based on Malayalam Wikipedia article on Malabar revolt, and the treatment of the subject in the commonly approved encyclopedia on Kerala, Kerala Vijnana Kosam, Second Edition (published by Desabandhu Publications, 1988).

The proposed changes given below. Please provide comments within a week (by 2 Feb 2008), as I am planning to apply the edits by 3rd Feb.

The first change is to re-title the article as 'Malabar Revolt', and have titles 'Moplah Rebellion" and "Mappila Rebellion" point to it.

The proposed text is as follows:

Title: Malabar Revolt

Malabar Revolt (also called Mappila Rebellion or Moplah Rebellion), which broke out in August, 1921, and ended in February, 1922, is a rebellion that has been interpreted by Indian historians both as an agrarian revolt and as a communal riot. It started as a movement by Kudiyans (landless farmers) of Malabar against the exploitation of jenmis (landlords) and British Empire, and gained strength in Eranad, Valluvanad, Ponnani, Kozhikode, and Palakkad taluks of British Malabar. The British used their army to suppress the revolt, and hanged several revoltees, including Ali Musaliar, who led the revolt. Thousands were jailed in various parts of India, Andaman and Bellary being the most notable of the jails. One of the most remembered moments during the Malabar Revolt is the Wagon Tragedy, when 64 revoltees suffocated to death in sealed railway wagons into which they were packed for transportation to Coimbatore.

Section: Historical Background

The seeds for Malabar Revolt were laid by the increasing influence of Indian nationalist movement and Khilafat movement among poor farmers and labourers of Eranad and Valluvanad Taluks where Muslim Mappilas formed a major chunk of the Kudiyan population, and the landlords were mainly upper caste Hindus.

Many smaller agrarian riots had broken out in Malabar from 1836, and the revolt of 1921 was a continuation of these struggles. These riots, some of which were communal in character, were caused by the changes made to the agarian relationships by the British Government. Mappilas who held land ownership from the time of Haider Ali, were alienated when the ownership of the land and eviction rights were given to Hindu landlords. William Logan wrote that some influential Mappilas used this angst to fan communal tension, which was also fanned by Hindu janmis. These riots ultimately led to a climate of communal distrust in South Malabar.

The key distinction of the 1921 revolt that sets it apart from the previous riots is its political dimension [1]. Lawful struggles for land reforms had started in Malabar from the 1880s. From 1916, yearly political meetings saw with heated debates between landlords and leaders of Kudiyan movements. The landlords, who organized these meetings, continued to reject motions requesting land reforms. In 1920, Kudiyan Sangham, an organization for landless farmers, was constituted, and it gained strength quickly, gathering support for its opposition to practices such as 'Kudi Ozhippikkal' (evicting farmers from their homes at the will of the landlord), 'Melcharthu' (eviction of farmers just to rent out the land at a higher rate), 'Polichezhuthu', unilateral increase of land rents etc. Muslim Kudiyans participated actively in their meetings in many taluks. Leaders like M P Narayana Menon and Kattilasseri Muhammad Musaliyar tried to strengthen Kudiyan movement by organizing various such meetings.

In the First World War, the sultan of Turkey, who was also the spiritual leader (Khalifa) of world muslims, sided with Germany against Britain. This helped to align the Indiam Muslim population against Britain, which started protesting against the British war against Turkey. To assuage their feelings, Indian Viceroy, representing the British parliament, repeatedly announced that the war was only against the Turkish Government and not against the Caliphate (Khilafat), and promised that Muslim holy places and the Khalifa would be protected. But this promise was broken after the war, the Turkish Empire was broken apart, and the Khalifa was reduced to a puppet ruler as per the Paris accord. Indian Muslims started a protest movement requesting the restoration of the powers of the Caliphate, and the Khilafat Conference conducted on 30 June, 1920, at Allahabad announced non-violent non-co-operation against the British Government. Indian National Congress, led by Mahatma Gandhi, also offered its support to this movement, though key leaders like Motilal Nehru and Annie Besant opposed it.

In August, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi, Rajagopalachari and Maulana Naushad Ali visited Malabar as part of a campaign to support Khilafat movement, and this invigorated Khilafat-Congress committees across Malabar. The Khilafat Committee in Malabar was led by Kunji Koya Thangal, Hassan Koya Mulla, Melekkandi Moideen Koya, U. Gopala Menon, M P Narayana Menon, K Madhavan Nair, Kattilasseri Muhammad Musaliar, Variyam Kunnath Kunju Muhammad Haji, Edarakkunnam Ali Musaliar, and Muhammad Abdul Rahman Sahib. On 30 January, 1921, Congress committe met in Kozhikode and decided to set up Congress Khilafat committees in South Malabar. In response to this, the district collector banned Khilafat meetings, but Khilafat movement gained strength in spite of the ban and various suppressive measures.

Section: Revolt

On February 16, 1921, British police arrested the leaders Yakoob Hassan, Madhavan Nair, Gopala Menon and Moitheen Koya, and clamped curfew on Valluvanad and Eranad taluks. This led to simmering tension. In August 17, 1921, a major reception was given to Gopala Menon and Madhavan Nair who were released from jail, and it was attended by people from all parts of Malabar. In response, the government conducted an Army flag march from Parappanangadi to Thirurangadi. On 20th August, police surrounded East Mosque and houses of many Khilafat workers, raided the mosque and Khilafat committee office, and arrested three people.

Meanwhile, rumours that the British Army surrounded and destroyed Mamparam mosque spread over the countryside, and revolt started. Army fired at the revolting crowd, and many were killed. Some people were arrested and kept in custody in Thirurangadi Magistrate Court. Army blocked the crowd that rushed towards the court, and two British officers, some constables and many people were killed in the battle that ensued. Next day, revoltees attacked Tirur court and seized police revolvers. The treasury in Manjery was looted. Namboodiri Bank was looted, but the money was returned after intervention by Kunjahammad Haji. An ad-hoc committee consisting of Hindus and Muslims was formed to guide the struggle.

Section: Guerilla War

Around 3000 revoltees camped in Pookotoor, which has a hilly terrain, and was full of streams that could be used as trenches. They destroyed bridges in Kozhikode Malappuram Road and Vellur to deter progress of British Army.

The Army repaired the bridges and reached Pookotoor on August 26th. After 5 hours of battle, the revoltees who were armed with swords and spears were overwhelmed by British machine guns and grenades. 4 British officers, many British Indian soldiers and over 250 revoltees, including their leader Vadakke Veettil Muhammad, were killed.

More armed forces arrived on 30 August, and moved to Thirurangadi. The Juma-ath mosque was surrounded and attacked. The 114 revoltees inside the mosque retaliated, but were defeated. Ali Musaliar and 37 remaining revoltees were captured. They were tried by the trial court. Thirteen including Ali Musaliar were sentenced to death by the trial court and others were extradited. Ali Musaliar was hanged to death in the Coimbatore Jail on 17 Februray, 1922. Variyan Kunnath Kunjahammad Haji and Chembrasseri Thangal, who led the revolt, surrendered subsequently. They were shot and killed as per the Army court verdict.

More than 1000 mappilas (Malabar muslims) were killed, and more than 14000 were arrested during the revolt.

Section: Wagon Tragedy

Revoltees arrested during Malabar revolt were transported to jails in sealed railway wagons to ensure that no one escaped. On November 17, 1921, around two hundred prisoners were packed into a wagon that started from Tirur to Coimbatore. Prisoners started to suffocate and cry out even before the train started, and cries were heard on the way too. Soldiers noticed the complete silence from the wagon when the train reached Podanur near Coimbatore, and opened it to find 64 revoltees dead inside. Most of the remaining had passed out, and some died after they were taken out.

Section: Analysis of Malabar Revolt

The Malabar Revolt was caused by the belief among Malabar Mappilas that their upliftment was possible only by upturning the government that supported the exploitative landlords. They adoped the Khilafat non-co-operation movement as their vehicle, and believed that they could be successful with help offered to them by Hindu majority organizations.

But the revolt did not have a clear plan or co-ordinated leadership behind it. Ali Musaliyar was a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi who believed in non-violence, whereas Kunju Muhammad Haji was a fiery leader who was captured and punished during the riots of 1894, 1898 and 1916.

After the revolt broke out, Congress-Khilafat leaders K P Kesava Menon, K Madhavan Nair, E Moidu Moulavi and Muhammad Abdul Rahman Sahib visited Pookotoor and Thirurangadi. But their efforts were prevented by the ongoing curfews, and they were unsuccessful in defusing tension.

The revolt was targeted against the upper caste Hindu landlords who supported the British government and its assault, and their families were attacked. Attacks on Hindu families at many places gave a communal color to the revolt, and led to the isolation of Muslim community and the Khilafat. This also made the Congress disown the revolt. Annie Besant, who opposed the Khilafat movement from the beginning, wrote, "They (mappilas) murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything...Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India."[3].

Citations:

1. K Gopalan Kutti, Malabar Kalapavum Desiya Prasthanavum (Malabar Revolt and National Movement), Malabar Kalapam Charithravum Prathyayashastravum (Malabar Revolt, History and Ideology), Chintha Weekly Publication, 1991.

2. K E K Namboodiri, Gathuvigathikalum Viparyayavum (same book as above).

3. Besant, Annie. The Future Of Indian Politics: A Contribution To The Understanding Of Present-Day Problems P252 (in English). Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 1428626050.

References:

1. Soumyendra Tagore, Malabar's Agrarian Revolt (translated to Malayalam by K K N Kurup), Sandhya Publications, Kozhikode.

2. K N Panicker, Against Lord and State, Religion and Peasant Uprisings in Malabar - Oxford University Press, Mumbai.

3. E M S Namboodiripad, Kerala - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, National Book Agency, Kolkatta.

4. Kerala Vijnana Kosam, Encyclopedia Of Kerala, Second Edition (published by Desabandhu Publications, 1988).

See Also:

Moplah. Khilafat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsiyavud (talk • contribs) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Review: Major rewrite of this article: Please review

Nicely rewritten. But there's a POV of whitewashing some incidents which reflect the communal flavor of these riots.

Most available literature and collective memory of the incident reveals it to have been hijacked by muslim fundamentalists. Khilafat movement itself had roots from outside India. Towards the end what started off as a socio-economic revolt, transformed into a fanatic driven religio-fundamentalist movement. If you are denying this fact and giving it a secular flavor, that is an inaccurate recording of the history.

Rgds, Unslung —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unslung (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ram Gopal source

Hi Arjun I'd dropped that sentence from the lead for a couple of reasons. The book does not cite any source or reference for that statement. No accurate numbers or sources. The author is not an established academic or historian as far as I could figure out. The wiki article on him is an unsourced writeup by someone. And the book/publication house don't seem to have any exceptional reviews/reputation. Still if the book had been on this subject itself, an unsourced statement could be considered as the author's research work probably. But this book certainly is not about the rebellion or the Malabar of the time. One more reason is that accurate numbers about the concerned issue has been given in the article elsewhere using authentic resources and its summarized version is there in the lead. So I don't feel a need for this sentence in there.NMKuttiady (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article title changed to 'Malabar Rebellion' from 'Moplah Rebellion'? This is rewriting of history by Wikipedia. We always grew up listening to the stories around 'Moplah Rebellion' which had a very strong 'Anti-Infidel' bias to it, including Hindus of all classes and British Christians. Imagine this, if the Sep 11 incidents were reclassed as a Saudi Arabian dissidents' plot to destablise West and US, specifically. Doesn't that color the real context of the incident? I am not taking a right-wing stance. Can't be bothered with it. But the reality can't be denied. Pretty much like the Germans not acknowledging that the Nazi attrocities were a creation of their own people. Or for that matter, Turks not acknowledging the Armenian massacre. I am just trying to draw parallels to drive home the point about obfuscating the reality behind 'Mapilla or Moplah Rebellion'. - Unslung — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.230.225 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Malabar Rebellion → Malabar Rebellion — User:Nmkuttiady 12:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This page has been named Moplah Riots but as cited below, the academic term for this incident is Malabar Rebellion or Mappila Rebellion. Riot differs from a revolt or rebellion. Riot is an act of violence by an unruly mob, while a revolt or rebellion is organized opposition to authority which is different from the former. Thats why the change of title is important. Listed below are some of the main historic and academic works related to this incident:

Historic sources

• Mappila muslims of Kerala : A study in Islamic trends, Miller, Roland E: (Madras: Orient Longman Limited, 1992) (Part III - Section C THE MAPPILA REBELLION: AN END AND A BEGINNING FOR MUSLIM RESPONSE)
• Encyclopaedia of Islam Volume 6 1988, Page 459 Mappila (..This course of events reached its final denouement in the Malabar Rebellion of 1921..)
• A Survey of Kerala History - Professor A. Sreedhara Menon (also known as the Father of the Kerala Gazetteer) - Heading on page 360 "Malabar Rebellion (1921)" -
• "Peasant Rebellion in Malabar" - Against Lord and State: Religion and Peasant Uprisings in Malabar 1836-1921 - K.N. Panikar, Oxford University Press
• "Peasant Revolt in Malabar: A History of the Malabar Rebellion 1921" ,R. H. Hitchcock,with introduction by Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. ( Hitchock explained why he did not call it Moplah riot - Refer Page 3)
• Malabar Rebellion, 1921-1922 - M. Gangadhara Menon, Allahabad, India : Vohra Publishers & Distributors, 1989.
• Moplah Uprising (1921-23)-- Choudhary, Sukhbir , Delhi: Agam prakashan, 1977.
• The Moplah Rebellion, 1921. Calicut - Nair, Gopalan C. 1921.: Norman Printing Bureau
• Malabar Kalapam, K. Madhavan Nair, Calicut, 1971,
• Dynamics of agrarian struggle - V. Muraleedharan Nair, Anmol Publications 1996 (Page 38 ".......Known as Moplah Rebellion in history......")
• Soumyendra Tagore : Agrarian revolt in the Malabar - 1921, (Translated by KKN Kurup - Sandhya Publications , Calicut)
• Banninga, J. J. “The Moplah Rebellion of 1921.” Moslem World 13 (1923)
• Conrad Wood, The Moplah Rebellion of 1921-22 and its genesis, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of London 1975 , later published as "The Moplah Rebellion and its genesis" People's Pub. House, New Delhi(1987)

The school textbooks of history in Kerala, (Towards Modern Kerala, Malabar Rebellion page 97) refer to the incidents as Malabar Rebellion. Even accounts with emotional communal overtones like the Ram Gopal book quoted in the article refer to the incidents as Malabar rebellion (Pg 103,104).

British records

• Mappila Rebellion (1921-1922) - G.R.F Tottenham, Government of Madras (Madras 1922)
• British Military records - ("The Malabar Campaign (Moplah Rebellion)-The Keep Military Museum, Dorchester, Dorset

Kerala official sources

• Official Web portal of Government of Kerala - History and Culture

Indian official government records

• Govt of India national portal

Based on all these I think the better title would be "Malabar Rebellion" or "Mappila Rebellion". Riot differs from a revolt or rebellion. Riot is an act of violence by an unruly mob, while a revolt or rebellion is organized opposition to authority which is different from the former. Thats why the change of title is important. NMKuttiady (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion: "Mappila Rebellion" or "Moplah Rebellion"; Thats very much in popular use, used very much in academics as well. Morever, it seems to be the best translation for the malayalam word "മാപ്പിള ലഹള" by which it is popular in malayalam. School textbooks rather use "Malabar Rebellion" in a good intentional way that the name of a religious community be avoided in combination with Riots or rebellion, which is very much like the self-imposed modern convention in Indian news media where during any sectarian or communal riots, the name of communities involved are not mentioned per se. Arjun⁰²⁴ 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• The Malayalam word transcribes as "māppiḷa lahaḷa". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Massacre of Hindus

I have removed the part where exaggerated number (30,000) of a Hindus killed in the riot in 1921 but in reality its below 100 and the riot was taken a communal form only in a few places.It was a rebellion against the Land lords and the British Govt backing them by the farmers ,and most of the landlords happened to be Hindus. Somebody with correct details pls help to improve this page.

Not an exaggeration ,but Hindus killed will account to around 30000 .more than malappuram district ,northern parts also affected. http://faithfreedom.org http://thereligionofpeace.com Islam is a cult! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.35.110 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense history

All modern Indian history writings are like loose bullets and whatever comes into the writers' head gets written as 'history'. As a person who was born and bred in Malabar, I can vouch for the fact that the Mappila lalaha had nothing to do with fighting with the British. British content in the society was quite removed from the common folks purview. Whatever they (the local people) reacted to was local issues, more or less based on caste or religious leadership.

The Mapilla lahala was only a communal fight between the Mappilas (Malabar Muslims)and the Hindus at various caste and social hierarchy. One of the major problems that can be connected to this was the liberation from caste suppression that happened to lower caste (mostly Thiyya) persons, when they jumped to Islam. This would not only allow them to reach a level of communication equality with the higher castes, but also make them seem quite above their own previous caste kinfolk. The second item can create enmity for them from their former caste fellowmen.

It may be understood that in India, there is no such thing as equality as understood in English, but only various levels of equality. No one can demand 'equality' as the Blacks do over there in England and the US.

The jumping over to a new social status would really create acrimonious problems in the local feudal language, wherein even addressing a person by name can provoke homicidal mania; if it is done by persons who are not acknowledged as superior or equal. Then one can understand the provocations that such words as Nee (lower You), Avan (lower He), Aval (lower She) etc. can create in a social system that is suddenly besieged by rapid change. When lower caste persons jump to Mappila side, they would provoke their ancient caste superiors with impunity. This can, and has created communal riots and killings.

The only blame that can be attributed to the British was the bringing in of English, and equality and liberal social communication connected to English. It may be noted that while the lower caste women were under statutory compulsion NOT to wear upper garments (their breasts were more or less uncovered by dress) in the South Kerala areas, in the Malabar areas, the British rule had removed this statutory compulsion. Such liberation as well as the liberation to jump to another religion without incurring royal wrath was the only contribution that the British did to this communal riot. The writer of the main article as well as the so-called historians should not feel that all people here are fools. Their aim is not to write history, but to feed people with nonsensical anti-British indoctrination, which really have no substance. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is indeed crap right now. 117.192.68.220 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

it is purely a biased writing? why there is no death of hindus and no religious conversion? HOW can we say it as an agrarian revolt when religious conversion conversion happened in it?--Kubamukundan (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The whole article reeks of agenda setting, with only one point of view being vehemently highlighted and pushed and, at some instances, blatantly stated to be the truth even when there's evidence s to prove otherwise.

The author has even credited sources which are either an exact duplication of this article or just selective quotes of the same, to justify their point of view. For instance, notes 7 and 10 are quoted in the first section 'Background', yet these are exact copy of paragraphs from this same article.

The sub-section titled 'Islamic Caliphate' is blatant attempt to draw parallels between the rebellion and the recent ISIS atrocities, thereby insinuating that the rebellion was inspired by the same ideology and thus, instilling communal hatred.

While there's no disputing that atrocities had been committed against the Hindu and Christian communities, the insinuation being persistently made in this article is just right wing propaganda.

Gruesomequesos (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malabar rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204115653/http://www.mlp.kerala.gov.in/places.htm to http://www.mlp.kerala.gov.in/places.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

it is purely a biased writing? why there is no death of hindus and no religious conversion? HOW can we say it as an agrarian revolt when religious conversion conversion happened in it?--Kubamukundan (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malabar rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119014326/http://www.prd.kerala.gov.in/stateawards2.htm to http://www.prd.kerala.gov.in/stateawards2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Slightly bias

Interesting in facts and historical importance but slightly bias. For eg in the above sentence if the word 'innocent' were to be taken out and a more generic 'many' included, it would be more nuetral.

The Moplah riots were a combination of rebellion against British rule and a subsequent massacre of many Hindus. The Mystic ~ 3rd april 2006

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malabar rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118031516/http://www.kerala.gov.in/ to http://www.kerala.gov.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

A kerala actor decided to do a film based on these events and a lot of bjp turned against him making edits in wikipedia to show that mappila rebellion killed lots of hindus. They are exagerating the story. 111.92.57.178 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is not an edit request. El_C 13:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

The Kalpathyram account proposes hatred and vandalism with no citations in the article. മയലാം മല്ലു (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What is your requested edit? – Thjarkur (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is controversial. Please refer to the following articles and use them as reference points.

Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/dont-strip-malabar-rebellion-off-its-layers-6490428/ The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/the-hindu-explains-why-is-there-a-controversy-over-a-film-project-on-the-protagonist-of-1921-malabar-rebellion/article31935304.ece Trucopy think forum https://truecopythink.media/dr-tt-sreekumar-on-malabar-rebellion-and-kumaranasans-duravasta All the above articles explicitly denies what the wikipedia articles presents. Please do mark the article as biased and rewrite it with proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.250.192 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Largely One Sided Presentation

The articles fails to produce a balance in the representation of historical events. A majority of historians considers Malabar Rebellion as an independence struggle despite having controversies on the nature and accuracy of representations. Wikipedia catagorises it as an 'attack', which is a grave mistake. Also article labels it as the 'Mappila Genocide' of Hindus, which contradicts with the article itself. Wiki article gives the name of the leaders of the rebellion including MP Narayana Menon who was a Hindu. This fact discredits the fanatic colour apparently painted by the wiki article. Please refer the following books for a more accurate perception.

Malabar Rebellion 1921 to 1922 M Gangadara Menon

KN Panikkar M Against lord and state religion and peasant uprisings in Malabar 1836 to 1921

The Moplah Rebellion and Its Genesis Conrad Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicsreads (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have relaible sources - do consider fixing the slant on the article. For now I have tagged the article. Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Must Change the title of this wiki.

The title of this page dose not do justice to the topic. The real title of this page should be "The Moplah (Malabar)Genocide Of Hindus" Aquaultimate (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

change the name to The Moplah Genocide Of Hindus 1.186.125.217 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME – Thjarkur (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs Cleaning

This article is not properly referenced but the you cannot dispute the facts. The Moplah riots were as is described in the article - a combination of rebellion against British rule and massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus.

It was not the massacre of thousand of innocent Hindus.it was a riot against the antrocitis of British and landlords as the landlords became the owners of farm the actual farmers became tenants and so the landlords started to torture farmers the farmers had to pay tax even in the time of crop failure and so they had to mortgage their belongings to to people with high interest but the farmers who thought they could get back their belongings in next crop seasons couldn't do it so because of the antrocities of the lords and so the amount they had to pay to lords and tax payers ,as malabar was one of the region under the direct control of British in Kerala the brutality the farmers in malabar used to face from both British and landlords were severe ,and so the farmers in malabar protested against this ,mapillas ( majority of farmers from Malabar were Muslims so they are called mapilla) and other farmers reacted against this and this is known as mapilla riot ,this riot turned into a massacre when the British and landlords killed many of the farmers with their power, so the khilafat movement in Malabar also stood along with the farmers ,after this riot thousand of farmers were killed according to British records but the actual number is considered to be more than that,as the history is written by the British it is often said that Muslims killed Hindus in the riot to make an religion riot against each other ,as the British always ruled in India by religion wars ,after the riot the British appointed a committee to he reason of the riot ,the committee pointed out that it was because of the unfair tax system Ponnutddd (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mapilla riot

It was not a riot which killed thousand innocent Hindus ,instead it was riot against those who supported British and the British officials ,with the support of khilafat movement ,a part Indian freedom fight, farmers in malabar fought against the atrocities of British and landlords, it took place in malabar as Malabar was a region under the direct control of British, and the atrocities against farmers were more severe in there than any part of Kerala ,as the majority of farmers in Malabar were Muslims the riot was called mapilla riot but in the riot also had farmers from different religion and caste who wanted freedom, it never were against a particular religion it was against those who supported British and those who tortured farmers for centuries Ponnutddd (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Heavily biased

Malabar Rebellion is viewed from different historical perspectives. This article sticks to an extreme version of one perspective. There are authentic historical accounts by KN Panikkar, M Gangadara Menon and Conrad Wood. Unlike the historical accounts the articles sticks to the testimonies which later proved to be biased in academic discussions. Please consider revising it. I can provide materials and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.250.192 (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Worst article with no facts. Moolah riots were anti hindu genocide. This article says it's a rebellion against british. This article is full of lies and deciet. Needs to be removed AkhadBharat (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Is Mahatma Gandhi's support important enough to be included in lead?
• What does majority of recent scholarship state on the issue of "communal violence against Hindus"? Why is M G S Narayanan, however good/bad he is, quoted in the first paragraph?
• What role is served by the table?
• What role is served by the extensive quotes over reactions-section? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I took care of the first two issues. The lead still needs to be cut down to something like a third of the current size. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Some idiots has written the article

QUOTE: There were a series of clashes between the Mappila peasantry and their landlords, supported by the colonial government, throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. END OF QUOTE.

Some idiot Indian academic genius has written the article. That much is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.172.162 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This article needs to be purged and written from scratch

As a descendant of a victim of the Mappila riots, it boils my blood to see this article: it is clearly written from a heavily Islamist perspective. The Malabar massacre was nothing more than the calculated murder and ethnic cleansing of thousands of innocent Malabari Hindus and Christians. There were voices even within the Muslim community that spoke deeply critically of these events in the 1920s.

The Indian government is in the process of removing depictions of the so-called Malabar 'rebellion' from its institutions. For example, https://www.deccanherald.com/national/south/tirur-wagon-tragedy-mural-702199.html

Otherwise, I beg of a talented Wikipedian to read up on the 'Tuvvur Well' and add the same story to this article.

Indielov (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Supported by Walrus Ji

The Malabar rebellion in 1921-1922 started as resistance against the British colonial rule in Malabar region of Kerala, India. The popular uprising was also against the prevailing feudal system controlled by elite Hindus and in favour of the Khilafat Movement. The British had appointed high caste Hindus in positions of authority to get their support, this led to the protest turning against the Hindus.

Supported by BhaskaraPattelar

The Malabar rebellion of 1921 (also known by the names Moplah riots, Mappila riots) started as resistance against the British colonial rule in Malabar region of Kerala, India, but later turned into communal violence against the Hindus. The popular uprising was also against the prevailing feudal system controlled by elite Hindus and in favour of the Khilafat Movement. The British had appointed high caste Hindus in positions of authority to get their support, this led to the protest turning against the Hindus.

References

Walrus_Ji, Please justify your use of word "alleged" in the lead. The source doesn't allege anything, seems to be WP:OR. Also, were does the source call Hindus as "pro-British"? The whole sentence seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS -BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@BhaskaraPattelar:, your edit summary did not explained properly why you had removed the content. So it was reverted. Now that you have made your objection clear, I have removed the lines added by Fact Checker 987 that you had objected to. Please check it again. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, I questioned the use of the term "alleged" to describe the persecution against Hindus and not the complete sentence itself, please stop being disingenuous. Since you are unable to provide any valid justification I will be reinstating the content. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You questioned the word alleged and I removed it. What is there to be disingenous? I suggest that you focus your comment on the dispute at hand if you want to reach a consensus. @TrangaBellam and Kautilya3: Can you please share your opinion on the more appropriate version of the opening paragraph. BhaskaraPattelar seems to be focussed in pushing his preferred version without getting a consensus first. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is clear to me. Which edit? Which source?

In my view, the rebellion/riot was both communal violence as well as a class struggle. There is no consensus regarding it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, You are being disingenuous again, you didn't just remove the word "alleged", you removed the whole sourced sentence. Please justify why you did that? STONEWALLING is not going to help you here. [This ] was how the page was before some drive by user, Fact Checker, decided to break it. That didn't have consensus and you are using that version, please tell me why? Also how am I POV pushing? I have used what's in the source, nothing more. The source don't use the word alleged and even then you have reverted the whole content? Why? Please give a direct answer, Justify your removal of sourced content. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Simply remvoing the word alleged and leaving the rest of the statement changes the meaning. Hopefully a consensus will be achieved in this thread, please have patience. For now I have removed the entire section and moved to the talk page. It can only be added back after consensus.Walrus Ji (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, It's now obvious that you are POV pushing. You seems to have no justification for your action. No answer to any of the any of my question. Now you have blanked the lead. You can't hold content hostage like this. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@BhaskaraPattelar: And neither can you hold content hostage like this. This is a WP:Content Dispute and it will be resolved as per the established procedures. You can have patience till it gets resolved or you can move away and edit other pages. You cannot however edit war on this article. It will lead to blocking. Now please wait while others respond. --Walrus Ji (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, I am not the one holding the content hostage, you are the one who blanked it. You are the one who removed long time stable sourced content with no justification. You can't shift the burden of achieving consensus on to some hypothetical future editor since you are the one who remove the content. Provide provide your reasons.

Still not answering my question BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, The source doesn't say it "ended in" communal violence. you have added your own original research and now restored the text back. You should self revert now or else I am reporting you as you have already made 4 reverts and broken WP:3RR Walrus Ji (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, Please read WP:LEAD, it's the summary of the article. In fact, there is no need for lead to quote any source. The source is just there to accentuate the point. You still haven't answered my question BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, You have added original research into the first paragraph. Something that is not supported by the source. You have refused to self revert despite breaking the 3RR rule. Can you tell me why I should not report your edit warring behavior on WP:ANEW? Walrus Ji (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, Again Read the WIKI:LEAD, it's meant to be summary of the article, not an Introduction.

But anyway, It's clear that you have not read the source. So will quote some parts here:

The roots of the outbreak in Malabar were related to long-standing agrarian and economic tensions that were exacerbated by the wave of unrest that swept India, as the Great War came to an end.

When age-old landlord– tenant conflict was combined with the growth of nationalist feeling and the rise of discontent, an atmosphere of disorder and unease began to grow

In August 1921, Muslim peasants (known as Moplahs or Mappillas) from Malabar in the Madras Presidency rose up in revolt against their imperial rulers

The fighting was also accompanied by extensive communal unrest, including the killing and mass rape of Hindus and the destruction of temples.

BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, What is the source of this line? and where does it say "Ended in" Communal violence Walrus Ji (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, This diff shows BhaskarPattelar's version while this diff shows the one I had edited. Please share your comments on your preferred version. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comparing the current version with the Anomiebot [3], I notice that one sentence of explanation was removed and another added. Neither of them belongs in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph should only focus on facts, not interpretations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your proposal for the first paragraph?--Walrus Ji (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, This is the stable version being broken by a drive-by editor. The lead statement: ... ended in communal violence against the Hindus. is sourced, it's not an interpretation. Can you tell why you think it's an interpretation, have you gone through the source?

From the source: The Malabar Rebellion of 1921–1922 is a little studied and poorly known Indian insurgency that deserves wider attention. Not only was it the bloodiest outbreak of disorder in southern India for generations, it also witnessed extensive communal violence against the Hindu population, and was only put down after a series of major operations conducted by the Indian Army.

Tell me why this should not be added? Walrus Ji have provided no justification, no explanation. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, but the source doesn't say it "ended in" communal violence. It was communal violence all the way through.

Here is a two-paragraph summary from a history text book:

Along the Malabar coast, there were other outbreaks of rural violence by Muslim tenants and small cultivators against Hindu landlords and money-lenders. Muslim farmers, who were called Moplahs, developed a high degree of self-conscious identification as the descendants of the sixteenth-century soldiers who had fought holy wars against the enemies of Islam: Hindus and Christian Portuguese. They recreated their roles as militant religious martyrs during the middle decades of the nineteenth century and again in risings between 1882 and 1896. They courted death at the hands of the police in the belief that they would be immediately spirited to paradise.

But behind the religious fervour there were worldly causes, in this case the indebtedness of Muslim farmers to landlords; debt collection was enforced by the courts and led to large-scale evictions. The Moplah actions against Hindu landlords destroyed property, including temples, and their violence continued into the 1920s. While the active fighters never numbered more than a few hundred, they enjoyed the sympathy and support of other Malabar Muslims.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, So what's your recommendation? There are some historian like K. N. Panikkar who think it began as peasant movement that devolved into communal violence. There are others (a lot), who sees it as the continuation of several small scale communal riots that happened in late 19th century. There was this one historian, I will update his name later, who described it as planned riot designed to drive away Hindus and Christians from Malabar. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Panikkar is a Keralite and a Marxist. Too close to home. We need to rely on WP:THIRDPARTY scholars, who are as distant from the events as possible.

I already stated my recommendation. The first couple of paragraphs should only focus on the facts and events, both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency. Then we can devote two paragraphs for the "peasant revolt" focus and the "communal violence" focus. They come later. Both of you are trying to sell your favourite interpretations and edit-warring. You are on your way to getting blocked. Take a break and go read the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I can't see your proposal yet. You have only quoted from the book. "The first couple of paragraphs should only focus on the facts and events, both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency." yes this sounds good. What Lead para does this lead to ? Walrus Ji (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Once again, I am not pushing anything, I am just reinstating the content removed. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we are beyond the stage of applying band-aid. The old lead was poor and the sources were practically non-existent. So a new lead has to be written and it can only be done by a thorough study of the best quality sources. By best quality, I mean, high-level history books published by University Presses. No newspapers, not even journal articles unless they are review articles that survey the field. And, once again, the facts have to be covered first, and interpretations later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• I have not much idea about what is the scholarship consensus on this event. But I agree with Kautilya3 on what shall be the general approach. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The communal violence aspect should definitely be included in the lead section as it is a major theory agreed upon at least by some major historians. But the article should in no case begin with such a sentence as BhaskaraPattelar is trying to push. It clearly violates the neutrality policy. Most major hostorians view the rebellion as peasant revolt against the British. I also agree with Kautilya3 on the general approach. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Malayala Sahityam Kautilya3 TrangaBellam . Another sock of BhaskaraPattelar is writing the same propaganda of BhaskaraPattelar.2402:3A80:501:3E14:0:60:8A8A:A901 (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

It is the Moplah massacre of Hindus, not a Malabar rebellion Kcparmar (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Moplah rebilion

I come from Malabar region and from my grandmother I have heard of hi of these rioting Moplah rioters did to Hindus, by raping, brutal killing not heard of, forced conversions to Islam how Hindu women flew to forest and southern part to escape these 4th century savages. This article is dead opposite to it.. It is distortiin of history needs change. The headline should say "Moplah genocide in Hindus" Sreenathpg74 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I came from Malabar too. My grandparents were displaced during the incident from Southern Kozhikode to Thalassery were we reside now. But the title is based on the fact that the rebellion started as an rebellion against landlords (who were mostly Hindus) and the British. The slaughter of Hindus is an aftermath of the movement. Those murder, plunder and loot etc has been documented in the article itself. There is no need to change the title. — Chandler Minh

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

1)The headlines should read Mappila Riots. 2)The article always says the rioters as rebels. Instead it should Rioters and killers. The names mentioned are all criminals who butchered thousands of Hindus for there religion. 3) There no mention of Khilafat for which these Muslims murdered Hindus for establishing the khilafat empire in line with the establishment in Turkey at that time. 3)The article is totally fake and distorting actual events, as the mappila riots were actually slaughtering of Hindus by muslims Either the Fake article should be deleted or updated with Real facts Sreenathpg74 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Malabar Rebellion

The main article is only half truth, need more detailing. Granny21 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021 (2)

Please read the introduction that mentions this riot as being started as part of freedom struggle against British India. It is completely wrong to say it, even the cited source for those lines clearly mentions khilafat movement related to Ottoman Empire and caliphate as the cause, and not what is mentioned here in article.

Wikipedia is clearly losing its established credibility by locking articles filled with misinformation. As a student of history, I don’t think I can recommend anyone to refer Wikipedia, not only information passed is different from generally accepted books of history but even the cited sources say differently from what is written in the introduction of this article. 27.62.186.214 (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello IP user, and thank you for giving voice to your concerns! If you feel this is the case, a good way to gain traction in correcting this information would be to start a discussion on this page about it, and provide explanations and rationale. In your case, provide specific examples of the article and cited sources being in conflict. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and so if someone believes an issue is present, generally speaking, the burden is on the user to prove it and a provide a possible way it can be corrected - presuming the user cannot do so themselves, which would apply in this case due to this page's protection. I wish you well in future endeavors. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is totally fake and seems to be written by the people who orchestrated these riots against Hindus. Coming from Malabar have heard lot of stories from my granny who died at the age of 95 in 1992 and suffered and lost many lives of her relative in brutal manner and women brutally raped. The heading should be read a Mapplia genocide of Hindus. This was indeed to establish Khilafat, where at the same time in Turkey the Islamic caliphate was established. Hence these mappila rioters killed lakes to establish a Islamic caliphate in Malabar. The article is totally misleading as it refers to these killers as rebels and mentions only there death and not the brutal murder and rape of Hindus. The article should be updated with facts. Sreenathpg74 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is good as it is most of the people who are complaining might have vested interest because a few weeks ago a BJP member goes by the name of Ram Madhav tried to misconstrue the facts and present them in a communal manner in an event in Kerala because BJP lost the election in Kerala which were held this year. (Link to the article)[4] DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sreenathpg74: Here we cannot correct the article solely based on some mouth spread facts. If you have authentic records mentioning the holocaust as you said above you can discuss them here and can try to achieve a consensus. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Imperfect Interpretation of Citations

Although the overall information presented in this article appear to be all right , some parts in this article appear to incorrectly or incompletely interpret citations. For example "The British had appointed high caste Hindus in positions of authority to get their support, this led to the protest turning against the Hindus" . This Line from Para 1 last line only mentions 1 type of interpretation of the cited article even though the article clearly presents 2 sides of the conflict and don't draw conclusions , hence either this citation is invalid or there must be an addition in the Para 1 which mentions that this Rebellion can also be said to have Religious motivation to kill Hindus of the region. Moreover there is no dedicated section talking about the Massacre which took place , it only has a response section which assumes reader already knows that this included killing of 10k Hindus on Religious Grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

@Extorc: Hi. If you mention specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and submit an edit request, there is probably a significantly higher likelyhood that someone will take a look at it. — LauritzT (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Malabar War or Malabar Anti-Holocaust War

It was a war against the British. It started by thrawting holocaust attempt by Collector Thomas at Thirurangadi when the British started firing at them. A successful war was carried out against the British using forests. So the British had to get the help of Gurkhas etc to fight Malabar War. They conducted so many holocausts against Mappillas. In these holocausts conducted by the British it's reported even Hindus were killed for mistaking them to be Muslims. The agents and spies of the British attaked Hindus to distroy Hindu-Muslim unity who were given capital punishment by Variyankunnathu Kunjahammed Haji. Later the army was abolished by Variyankunnathu Kunjahammed Haji at a time when the other leaders Malabar War asked him to abolish the army and when his military plans were leaked. Later Variyankunnathu Kunjahammed Haji was captured through a planned operation. 2402:8100:391B:E037:5C13:2188:71BA:813B (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Events of Malabar war/Malabar rebellion

Involvement in the events of war Leadership

Haji was not active in anti-British activities for some years. RH Hitchcock says "for six years he lived an irreproachable life". It was during the rebellion began after the firing incident took place in Thirurangadi by Collector Thomas at a large group of people gathered there that he again became active in the struggle against the British. Unlike Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919, the Thirurangadi firing got suppressed. The firing occured when Ali Musliyar approached the British requesting to release the people arrested and at a time when he became ready to stop the protest. The firing was resisted effectively though casualties occured. The rebellion began bringing some area of South Malabar under the control of the leaders of the Rebellion started after suppresing the Thirurangadi firing on August 20, 1921. Next day of the Thirurangadi firing incident Haji took the leadership of the rebellion against the British.

Military

His military included a group of previous members of military who fought in the First World War. They had weapons those were seized and those were manufactured after the rebellion started. Most of his military were Khilafat Movement members His forces against the British included uniformed members and a certain number of ex-sepoys

Escape of adversaries

As the rebellion helmed by the Haji and others began to spread across the Ernad and Valluvanad taluks of erstwhile Malabar district, British officers and the local police loyal to them escaped From the first day of war those fled to Kozhikode from Eranad include some pro-British Mappilas besides Jenmis. In South Malabar, especially Walluvanad, many Hindus along with Muslims attacked government institutions. At this time even some Nambudiris were with Khilafat Movement members

Plot by British loyalists

From the first day of war, looting also started. Looters include even CI Narayana Menon who participated in the looting wearing Mappila dress. CI Narayana Menon used criminals and prisoners to loot. One of the main looters of Thirurangadi was Kizhakan Mukari who was pretending as Variamkunnan. Fifteen looters including Mukhari was caught by on very August 21, 1921. All of them were militant employees of Khan Bahadur-Khan Sahibs. Those who tried to loot Namboori Bank were Mappilas loyal to the British Thus the loot was carried out by those who are loyal to the British. The main people who tried to thrawt the war against the British were the Mappilas loyal to the British. Intervention by Ali Musliyar and Variamkunnan stopped their attempt to an extent

Manjeri proclamation

Around August 25, 1921 he declared an independent state in Manjeri with Haji it's undisputed ruler. Later on its own passport, currency, and its own system of taxation were introduced Even in the Manjeri proclamation which was made within few days after the rebellion started he said he knew it is propagated in the outside world that it's a war between the Muslims and Hindus. He also blamed Mappilas loyal to the British similar to Khan Bahadur Chekkutti and Jenmis for propagating this. He also said he did not intent to make it a Muslims' only country.

Battle of Pookottur

He set up an armed force to attack the British force at Pookottur on their way to rescue the British military personnel stuck in the area ruled by Variamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji. And the Battle of Pookottur was fought on August 26 ,1921.

Surrender of Ali Musliyar

On August 30, 1921, A firing occurred at Thirurangadi mosque in which 114 people including Ali Musliyar were present between the British force and those inside the mosque. A huge casualties occured on both sides. Seven people managed to escape. Ali Musliyar and 39 followers surrendered when he became certain that the mosque will be distroyed. Immediately after this Variamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji asked his soldiers to move to forests.

British martial law

Immediately after the surrender of Ali Musliyar, Variamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji asked his forces to move to forests. On September 1, 1921, martial law was declared specifically targeting Mappilas by the British. Those who would allow Mappillas who come from certain area to live were to be punished and in case Mappillas come to live nearby, it was to be reported to the nearest police station to avoid punishment. Because of the law Mappilas could not go outside or shop or moque. But Mappilas loyal to the British got pass so that they could move freely.

Massacres of Mappilas

Even a vast number Mappilas who did not take part in any protest were also tortured. The British conducted a series of massacres against Muslims, in several places. Women were raped. Mappilas' houses were burnt. On September 2, 1921, the British force which arrived at Manjeri attacked all Mappila houses. Then came an order from the British to shoot all Mappillas seen outside. A group of lower caste Hindus would shave their head like Mappilas. So even many lower caste Hindus as well as Mappillas were killed because of this.

Divide and rule policy

Some Jenmis betrayed Mappilas. Under the pretext of revenge, militant employees of the Mappilas loyal to the British unleashed cruelty. They looted houses. Some ordinary Mapilas joined them for vengeance thereby causing the goal of Mappillas loyal to the British, to destroy Hindu-Muslim unity, to be fulfilled. Hindu-Muslim enemity grew. This was part of divide and rule policy of the British. They propagated it was a Hindu-Muslim riot through newspapers. All this happed after the British marshal law was declared. And the British brought almost all area under their control.

Guerrilla war

On 13 September 1921, guerrilla war was started by Variamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji. They carried out guerrilla war with separate small groups of 50-500 people. They began to seize the food for the British force. The British would not succeed.

Martial law and passport

On 16 September 1921, he declared martial law in Nalambur. As per the martial law orders a pass was required to leave the area under his control. Moreover the British and people loyal to the British were not allowed to come outside after afternoon ; if seen violating they may be fired at. He issued passports for that purpose. With his martial law the people denied freedom to move were the people loyal to the British. The most important thing he did after declaring martial law was punishing those who helped the British and carried out riot.

Coming of Gurkhas

From October 12, 1921, force including Gurkhas, Chins and Kachins came to Malabar. Important reason for the failure of the First War of Independence was Gurkhas. They were more interested in conducting massacres of ordinary people than fighting war directly. The Mappilas were becoming unsuccessful in the fight while the number of Gurkhas was more in number and with so many modern weapons.

Battle of Areekode

There were six or seven people who left from the Variamkunnan's movement.They made some violence in Areekode.Variamkunnan restored peace there. Knowing this, force from the British side reached there and made a fight. In the fight seventeen people from the Variamkunnan's force and as per the witnesses all from the British side got killed. Later Gurkhas threw bomb on the Variamkunnan's force who were hiding in the shrubs and a large number of people got killed.

Battle of Pandikkad

Variamkunnan decided to revenge Gurkhas, who killed children and raped woman. Thus on November 13, 1921, the Battle of Pandikkad was fought. Variamkunnan's force made a pre-emptive attack on Gurkha regiment camp in which there were 150-300 Grurkhas, at night. 75-120 of the Gurkhas were killed. Thus they revenged Gurkhas.

Genocide of Mappilas

Again a great series of massacres were unleashed against innocent Mappilas. There was no a day without the massacre of 200-300 Mappilas. This led to weakening of the fight against the British forces and started to surrender.

Surrender of soldiers

The soldiers of Variamkunnan began to surrender when genocide against Mappillas countinued.

Karuvarakund Meeting

To avoid the genocide of the innocent, people including the leaders began to think of surrendering. Chembrasseri Thangal, Seethi Koya Thangal and Unneen Kutty Haji suggested surrender. Though it shocked Variamkunnan, he did not express it.

Abolishment of military

He abolished the army after he could not make military operation at Palemad. He could not move to Palemad because he was surrounded by the British force. It's said that 25000 of Variamkunnan's forces had reached Palemad on December 18, 1921.

Surrender of leaders

Leaders Chembrasseri Thangal and Seethi Koya Thangal surrendered.

Capture of Variamkunnan

On January 5, 1922, through a planned operation, Variamkunnan was captured.Variamkunnan wrestled for half an hour and he was chained

Destroying of evidence

The British burned his body and all records related to his rule .They destroyed all records through raids in all houses and by offering rewards.

Last wish

When asked about his last wish by Humphreys he said shooting should be from front with the eyes are unfolded and hands are free. His last wish was accepted by Humphreys. 2402:8100:3915:BF62:4D1C:B714:AFAA:A460 (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Alleged spying for the British

The people allegedly killed in Thuvvur incident alleged to be conducted by "Chembrasseri Imbichi Koya Thangal" as written under sub-heading "Punishment of rebel leaders" under main heading "Background" were allegedly spying for the British even according to by Madhavan Nair ( who was anti-British Malabar War). So please add that alleged spying for the British too. According to Madhavan Nair Imbichi Koya Thangal did Thuvvur Incident, not Chembrassery Thangal. Moreover there are different opinions about number of deaths occurred in Thuvvur incident. 2402:8100:391B:E037:6EDF:8DAF:8A32:6F1 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia article "Malabar rebellion" lacks how the Malabar rebellion was happened. Please include all events of the war. Wikipedia articles says about background and responses, not events of the war.

Please include that too.

Following are some of those events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3915:BF62:4D1C:B714:AFAA:A460 (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is silent about the events of the rebellion? Why Wikipedia says only about Background and responses, not evrnts? Here are few events of the rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralhappy (talk • contribs) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

== Why Wikipedia is silent about the events of the rebellion? Why Wikipedia says only about Background and responses, not evrnts? Here are few events of the  rebellion. ==

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

The number of deaths of Hindus is mentioned as 10,000. A reference to (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1922/feb/14/india-1) is provided as the source of this information. I checked with the source information and what I found was that the source referred to mentions 1000 Hindu deaths. I want to make the necessary change. OdiaManas (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done (courtesy ping PantomathGrv) — LauritzT (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox also needs update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.52.171 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The 10,000 death figure is supported by a citation, and is even supported by a separate paragraph in the above source. — LauritzT (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This might be a case of misinterpreting the words from the reference. As per this source, the then official account of total civilians killed were up to 600. There may be other reliable sources that has a slightly higher number around 1,000 as previously mentioned by OdiaManas. Whereas the 10,000 casualties cited from the following article appears to be talking about death toll under rebel casualties or at the least total death toll inclusive of the larger rebel death count with the aforementioned civilian counts. The statistics given in Malayalam Wikipedia can be crosschecked here [[5]]. Below is another quotation which talks about the rebel causalities;

According to official sources including memos between the secretary of state and the viceroy, the final death toll of the 1921 uprising was 2,337 rebels killed, 1,652 wounded, and 45,404 imprisoned. Unofficial sources put the figures at about 10,000 dead with 252 executions, 50,000 imprisoned, 20,000 exiled and 10,000 missing, along with hundreds of deaths in police confinement and losses in armed skirmishes, according to Roland E. Miller in his 1976 book, Mappila Muslims of Kerala: A Study in Islamic Trends.

Another commonly used source 'Pg 361, A short survey of Kerala History, A. Sreedhara Menon, Vishwanathan Publishers 2006', which is unavailable online, may also be referred to make a conclusion. In the light of above discussion, the number of civilian deaths mentioned need to be changed to 600-1000 instead of 10,000 based on the sources provided above. 10,000 can be included under the unofficial death count of rebels. --Humblemortal (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Humblemortal, thanks for helping in making this article more verifiable. On checking the references that were available online, they all seem to be saying the same thing as quoted above. So, I've implemented the necessary fixes in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a case of misunderstanding and erroneous comprehension. The source quoted mentions that at least 1000 Hindus perished during the "Mopplah Rebellion/Revolt". The same source later puts the total death toll around 10000. Combining the two figures, the logical inference is that while around 1000 Hindus lost their lives, around 9000 others were killed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.111.16 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Number of Hindus killed

Sumit Sarkar in Modern India quotes an Arya Samaj source that claimed about 600 Hindus were killed during the rebellion.

Please add what Arya Samaj said about the number of Hindus got killed. Otherwise people would misunderstand that most people killed were not Muslims.

So please quote Arya Samaj's above number as well. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Criticism by Sangh Parivar or Just "Criticism"

The Wikipedia articles contains so many quotes which avoid the British plot of killing Hindus and forcibly converting them to Islam. So kindly rename the section "Criticism" or "Statements against rebellion" or "Criticism by Sangh Parivar". They are apparently the only people who propagate the idea that it was a riot against Hindus. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/malabar-rebellion-of-1921-explained-7462838/lite/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralhappy (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

At least it should be named "Quotations" since it contains apparently only quotations. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Section "Rebellion and Response"

The section "Rebellion and Response" appears to contain 8 mistakes. So a radical change change is needed in this section. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Record seized and section "Rebellion and Response"

Where is the proof that records were seized by the British force on 20th August 1921 as given in section "Rebellion and Response"? Neutralhappy (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes in section "Wagon Tragedy"

Where is the proof that the deaths occurred during the RETURN journey. No proof has been cited here. Moreover it is said among the 64 died, four were Thiyyas 60 were Mappilas. Six more deaths occurred after hospitalisation , hence the total death toll is 70. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing religious genicide

How has wikipedia allowed an Islamist murderous mobs spree of killing Hindus of Malabar (Kerala) get declared as it being part of Indian independence movement ? 68.14.49.41 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Many incidents in the Indian independence movement were brutal and cruel. The 'Revolt of 1857' included the murder of nearly 6,000 European officers and the rape of several British women.

That being said, I have added the 'Persecution of Hindus' template to this page because it is rightfully the case. That does not discount the fact that it was part of an anti-British struggle. Indielov (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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 Neutralhappy (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It was a series of genocides against 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 Neutralhappy (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Persecution of hindus

Even though this page os largely ignorant of the persecutions and oppressions of Hindus during these riots I would request you to at least mention that Hindus were indeed murdered, pillaged, and forcibly converted in the numbers of thousands. So I would like the addition of the text

"During the Mallabar Rebbellion , Thousands of Hindus were murdered, pillaged, and forcibly converted to Islam."

And just so you know , this is already mentioned in the Wikipedia Page : on Religious Violence in India

Extorc (talk)

What did the British do was series of genocides against 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.

Even that 600 Hindus were killed as said by Arya Samaj is while even forced conversions reported by one is only around 200.

Moreover Wikipedia has added that many sentences that can be cited as the attack was against Hindus.

First Wikipedia need say that Genocide of Mappilas was around 10 times or 100 times more than the killing of Hindus.

Moreover, the Variyamkunnan said about "a few conversion" in a cablegram he is reported to have sent on December 6, 1921. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc I have added the relevant template 'Persecution of Hindus in pre-1947 India' and rewrote several opinions in the intro. Do note that I have not called the region Kerala because no such widespread idea of a Malayalam homeland existed at the time, and the region where this happened was a district in the Madras Presidency. Indielov (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

This is a wrong argument every thing should be included YS...232 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits reverted

A rewriting of the intro I did on 21/03/22 IST was reverted. Reason given: 'Older intro restored because of Indielov writeing his personal opinions. Sources are not using genocide.'

Let me make it clear that the incident meets all five criteria for a genocide. Even then, exactly one sentence in my rewriting contained the word 'genocide'. It would have been better then to simply remove or rewrite that one sentence. I can confidently say that I have not used any opinion-based language elsewhere in that edit. The version to which the page has been reverted now contains tens of grammatical, syntactical and factual errors that I had corrected. On top of that, it itself is infested with opinions from various authors (some obscure) and non-professional language. I am tempted to think the reason given isn't really the reason for this revert.

A well-cited piece of info that I added to the intro was also removed. Indielov (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You need WP:RS to use terms like "genocide". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya I agree that was an error on my part. It was still unnecessary to revert as there were a number of other issues in the intro that I resolved (including highlighting opinions as opinions, some factualities and names of main leaders). Removing that one sentence in my version would have been enough. Indielov (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edits show a lot of content being deleted, including sourced content. I haven't looked through them in detail, but I don't see how you could possibly justify the deletion of such valid content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please look through them in detail. I do not think I have deleted any valid content. Indielov (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I made another edit in which I did not remove any sourced info or add any unsourced info. It, too, was reverted by the same red-linked user for a falsified reason (that I added the word 'massacre', whereas I have not; it has already been in the paragraph for the past ten or twenty revisions). Please look into this. Indielov (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That means your edits don't have WP:CONSENSUS. Explain the changes you want here, one by one, and obtain consensus or them. Do not make the same edits again until you have consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hardgrave citation

Neutralhappy, you have added a citation for page 16 of Hardgrave. But the page numbers for the article are 57-99. Which page do you mean? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/24252/Hardgrave_RobertL_1977.pdf?sequence=1

Sorry for the mistake. The page number is 82. It happened due to citing reference not from the original source. However the page number is 82. You can make changes accordingly. Neutralhappy (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Why shorten the period of the rebellion to 1921 rather than 1921-1922, in intro?

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/34036/1/11015837.pdf shows the period of the rebellion is 1921-1922

So is this by M Gangadaran on cover page: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54864505-1921-22-malabar-kalapam-1921-22

@Kautilya3 

Neutralhappy (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change anything. Not sure why you are pinging me. Anyway, I changed it to 1921-1922. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

On the intro

1. There was no place called 'Kerala' in 1921. The Malabar rebellion occurred in the Malabar District in the Madras Presidency of British India, which is now part of the Indian state of Kerala.
2. In 2021, the Indian government removed the names of 357 or so participants in the Malabar rebellion from a dictionary of freedom fighters. It was met with both criticism and approval from different quarters, but mostly criticism. This, and the reason the agency cited for it (i.e. it was anti-Hindu) are important and belong in the intro as it is the stance of a country's government.
3. The intro is poorly written in terms of language. Certain sentences are incomplete, while other facts are needlessly broken up into many sentences making comprehension difficult. Please allow me and other editors to work on this.
4. Opinions are stated as facts. Words like 'upheaval' and 'popular uprising' are used very loosely and are not present in the sources. Opinion-based articles are also invoked, such as a certain Sumit Sarkar.
5. It must be discussed whether local American newspapers, far from Malabar or British India, are a reliable source of information regarding the incident.

Some particular suggestions.

• The popular uprising was also against the prevailing feudal system controlled by elite Hindus. The British had appointed high caste Hindus in positions of authority to get their support, this led to the protest turning against the Hindus

may rather be

The Malabar rebellion is widely believed to have been against the prevailing feudal system controlled by upper-caste Hindus, whom the British had also appointed in various influential positions.

• In its magnitude and extent, it was an unprecedented popular upheaval, the likes of which has not been seen in Kerala before or since ...

This is a highly subjective statement. Also note that there was no Kerala in either common parlance or political maps until 1956.

• The 'main leaders' of the rebellion are mentioned twice in the intro: each list is different. The names of Chembrashery Thangal, Narayanan, Brahmadattan Nambuthirippadu etc. are excluded the second time.

@Kautilya3 @AuamladoC Indielov (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1. You may think of making it "the Kerala region" or find any other solution. 2. It has not been removed from the Dictionary of Martyrs. It's still there. It available online. https://www.indiaculture.nic.in/sites/default/files/pdf/Martyrs_Vol_5_06_03_2019.pdf However attempts against the fifth volume fully was obvious. 3. In my opinion the ideal intro must contain the fact that the rebels, who were mostly Khilafat Movement supporters, were against the British colonial rule abd those who sided with the British during the rebellion started after the Thirurangadi firing incident. And the rebels turned against the Jenmi system/feudal system also.

As I know MP Narayana Menon did not part in the rebellion at all. However he sided with Mappilas.

I believe that what is news report about the cablegram from Variankunnath Kunjahammed Haji is clearly related to that reported to The Hindu. Moreover the content in the newspaper report is in agreement with findings of historians and researchers.

I think Moreover the the cablegram cited fully in the section "Rebellion and aftermath" in Malabar rebellion is not as part of history,but part of response.

As for the Sumit Sarkar's opinion, it should be reported as his opion. It is absolutely necessary because the number of Hindus killed is in my knowledge is no where is available except in his reporting while the number of apparent forced conversions are 2500 as per Arya Samaj as said in C Diwan Gopalan Nair. Citing the estimate of Hindus killed during the rebellion will help people avoid misunderstanding that thousands of Hindus or ten thousand Hindus were killed in the rebellion.

The Sangh Parivar's narrative about the rebellion being against Hindus has already been acknowledged in the section "Reaction and afetermath".

Now we need to include so many events related to the rebellion including different encounters, including the Battle of Pookottur, and Pandikkad attack etc. Also we need to include large scale massacres of Mappilas during the rebellion to put an end the rebellion.

Neutralhappy (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The PDF on the Martyrs' Dictionary you have attached here is from 2019, published before the alleged removal in 2021. Indielov (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the ideal intro must not anything that suggests it was against Hindus,rather it was against those who sided with or loyal to the British. And anything suggests anti-Hindu angle should attributed to the Sangh Parivar stance because only they maintain that stance.

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/malabar-rebellion-of-1921-explained-7462838/

http://englisharchives.mathrubhumi.com/news/columns/view-from-my-window/mappila-revolt-variyamkunnath-kunhahmed-haji-1.5951116

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/india-independent-abvp-malabar-rebellion-1.6112667

Neutralhappy (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Their names have not been removed from the Dictionary of Martyrs.

The decision has been deffered. Neutralhappy (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The 'Mapla Outrages Act' is the law brought by the British to imprison the Mappilas. According to this, who is the freedom fighter other than Mappila who was imprisoned for 14 years?

Super 2409:4073:28A:FC9E:0:0:187D:18A5 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Name is misleading

Malabar is a place consisted of present day kasargod,kannur,kozhikode,wayanad , malapuram, palakkad, and some parts of northern thirishur or kerala state.This was the area during biriths rule what was termed as Malabar, and even today people and writngs use malabar to represent these areas.

The revolt occurred only in a small area inside present day malapuram district - in only few small units called panchayath, like tanur,kottakkal and manjeri.Malapuram district has 94 panchayath , out of these only in 20-30 panchayaths witnessed the revolt.

So The place where revolt occurred will be just 5% of entire malabar in terms of geography and people.

britishers , and the writings when the revolt occurred never mentioned this revolt as Malabar revolt, but termed as Mappila rebellion or Mappila revolt.The revolt was conducted by Mappila muslims as a outbreak of khilafath movement , and 95% of people from malabar never participated in the revolt.

Even the writings of Mahatma Gandhi,E. M. S. Namboodiripad and B. R. Ambedkar called this as mappila revolt or mappila rebellion and not as malabar rebellion.

This is by BR Ambedkar on his book:

The Moplas were suddenly carried off their feet by this agitation. The outbreak was essentially a rebellion against the British Government The aim was to establish the kingdom of Islam by overthrowing the British Government. Knives, swords and spears were secretly manufactured, bands of desperadoes collected for an attack on British authority. On 20th August a severe encounter took place between the Moplas and the British forces at Thirurangadi. Roads were blocked, telegraph lines cut, and the railway destroyed in a number of places. As soon as the administration had been paralyzed, the Moplas declared that Swaraj had been established. A certain Ali Musaliar was proclaimed Raja, Khilafat flags were flown, and Ernad and Walluvanad were declared Khilafat Kingdoms.

As a rebellion against the British Government it was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the treatment accorded by the Moplas to the Hindus of Malabar. The Hindus were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplas. Massacres, forcible conversions, desecration of temples, foul outrages upon women, such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction- in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, were perpetrated freely by the Moplas upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order through a difficult and extensive tract of the country. The number of Hindus who were killed, wounded or converted, is not known. But the number must have been enormous'' - Pakistan or Partition of India

Even the indian government owned NCERT text book which are used by the schools in india refer the revolt as Mappila revolt or Mappila rebellion.

I can see that page name was Mappila rebellion in 2006, and someone redirected this in 2015 [6]

Requesting to change the misleading title to Mappila rebellion or Mappila revolt. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the citation given for the title on the first line, you will find several sources in the citations calling it "Malabar rebellion". You will find a lot more if you search among books and journals. So I can't accept that the title is "misleading".

I agree that there is a "tradition" of calling it the "Mappila rebellion", but the contemporary sources have moved away from it, or are moving from it, basically because it is branding a community. Just like you argued that only a "small part" of Malabar was involved in the rebellion, only a small part of the Mappila community was involved in the rebellion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

branding a community ? it was 99% Mappilas who took part in the rebellion. So it was termed as such and not targeting a particular community.It is the reality that 99% of people involved are mappilas and started with Muslim khilaphat movement.Why can't we accept the reality as such and need to white wash some thing as branding as 'Malabar rebellion' ? Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References

MP Narayana Menon and leaders of rebellion

It is needed to remove MP Narayana Menon from list of leaders of the rebellion since he stood for non-violence during the rebellion.

See : The Mappilla Rebellion, 1921: Peasant Revolt in Malabar], Robert L Hardgrave Jr., footnotes -- pages 83–84. -- link : https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/24252/Hardgrave_RobertL_1977.pdf?sequence=1 Neutralhappy (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is done. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Jihad Template

The telegraph called this as jihad in 1921 itself, and the rebellion started as khilaphat, killed non Muslims, converted them, and finally established a Islamic state. What else is jihad. This is added here just to see if others has another opinion Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We do not care about what The Telegraph called it, in 1921. Please see WP:HISTRS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)