Title: Musaliar King – Decolonial Historiography of Malabar’s Resistance
Author: Abbas Panakkal
Publisher: Bloomsbury, 2024 (First)
ISBN: 9789356409125
Pages: 280
The 1921 Malabar riots is a blood-stained chapter in Kerala history where a genuine agitation for independence from Britain unexpectedly changed track and hijacked by jihadi elements to kill, convert and rape Hindus en masse. A lot has been told about the episode and nothing more is intended as introduction to this book's review. Suffice it to say that hard-line Islamists still try to whitewash this Hindu genocide under the garb of 'freedom struggle', 'resistance to colonialism' and 'secular struggle' (citing the few Muslims who took sides with the British and were killed by the rioters). This book is one among them. This is especially alarming as the author is an academic faculty in an institution of higher learning in the UK. This book is a plain rebuttal of known facts in favour of a jihadi agenda to rewrite history according to them. It's no wonder that recently, the UAE significantly restricted government-funded scholarships for its citizens to study at UK universities, driven by concerns over Islamic radicalization and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on campuses. This book is about Ali Musaliar of Tirurangadi (1862–1922) who was a religious scholar and leader of the Khilafat movement who fought against the British and was arrested and hanged. He is said to have declared an Islamic state under his kingship when the countryside lay in his hands for a few days when the British power was temporarily stopped in its tracks. Abbas Panakkal is a historian affiliated with the School of History at the University of St. Andrews in the UK. Simultaneously, he holds a position on the advisory board at the Religious Life and Belief Centre at the University of Surrey. The author aims to provide a 'decolonial narrative' that represents the struggles of Malabar.
This book claims to rely on collective memory and oral narratives of those who witnessed the struggle, quite possibly that of the fighters themselves. How objective such a hotchpotch can get is anybody's guess. It's a totally one-sided perspective as it ejects colonial documentation and history as 'contrived', 'manipulative' and 'conferring legitimacy on British efforts'. In a stroke of breath-taking disingenuity, Panakkal discounts all of the British narrative and concludes that not even a word in them can be trusted! Not content with that, he then proceeds to denigrate the memoirs penned by Indians as well which do not agree with his narrative. He accuses them of adopting a linguistic style reminiscent of the colonial administration. This is because some of them use the term 'Moplah fanatics' which irritates the author. What else would you use to denote a crowd intent on achieving martyrdom by fighting for their religion, especially since the position of Hindus in 1921 Ernad-Valluvanad areas was akin to that of Yazidis in Iraq in the 2010s against the Islamic State terrorists? In the same vein, C. Gopalan Nair's memoir is accused of supporting the British line. K. Madhavan Nair's version is alleged to be fabricated by adding 'layers of intrigue'. M. Gangadhara Menon's narrative is 'ensconced within the colonial narrative'. What he finds agreeable are the accounts made by jihadi elements and Leftist Historians.
The book is very subdued in recollecting the violent incidents of the rebellion maybe because they are too stark to gloss over. Obfuscation begins the moment he sets the objectives of the riots. He claims that the instigators laid down their lives for the cause of their land. This itself is not factually correct. The agitation's casus belli was the dethronement of the Turkish sultan who was also the Islamic caliph. Hence the agitators laid down their lives to reinstall the deposed Ottoman sultan on his throne. On the British side, Panakkal practically exonerates the provincial and central governments and casts blame on Collector Thomas and district police chief Hitchcock who are said to be behind the provocation of the events. The author uses his 'decolonial analysis' to reach this conclusion which means that official narrative is negated as fabricated and lists out the opposite as true without any evidence, or even supporting fact. For example, one Vadakke Veettil Mammad, manager of Nilambur Kovilakam, was dismissed from service and his house raided on accusation of theft of a gun and Rs. 130. Author argues that this is not true and that the landlord — who was one of the richest landed magnates in the entire country — owed him thrice the claimed sum (p. 31). The preparations of the government in assembling men and material to counter a possible riot is portrayed as a pre-planned effort to cause mayhem. The District Magistrate (Thomas)'s expedition to Tirurangadi to apprehend Ali Musaliar and his associates is claimed to have marked a watershed moment that set in motion a comprehensive military intervention (p. 39). Thomas' report is alleged to have characterized 'common utilitarian knives employed for mundane purposes' as weapons of war made in a hurry. He also claims that the police fired without warning on unarmed peaceful protesters and killed 40 of them. Again, this appears as a falsehood as the crowd had attacked and killed two British officers. The author concludes his charges with the declaration that Thomas and Hitchcock exceeded their authority and used lethal force resulting in numerous fatalities. This was an active attempt to incite unrest which was a ploy to validate their earlier warning report (p. 50). This is representative of the tone of the book.
When the author opens up a little, his ultra-religious outlook exposes itself. Before any confrontations in which government troops were likely to be killed, the rioters exhorted the Muslim soldiers to leave the field for their own safety (p. 52). Even though the author denies it, Ali Musaliar is said to have assumed kingship of the 'liberated' areas when the forces temporarily retreated. But when they regrouped and hit back with full force, Musaliar meekly surrendered. Loot and pillage are justified in this book. Rioters looted homes which the author characterizes as 'seizing funds from landlords'. Participation of Hindu Congress leaders in the early part of the agitation is arrayed as certifying to the secular nature of the struggle. The sad truth is that as the jihadis took over and started rampaging, the others backed out of the endeavour. In Malabar, the military and the police responded with a harsh and punitive stance, resorting to violent measures resulting in fatalities. Conversely, within the provincial headquarters, a more conciliatory strategy was employed, avoiding confrontations that led to human casualties. The author accuses the British of not respecting the 'human rights' of the rioters. He does not pause to examine whether the assailants respected the human rights of those they captured. Also, judgments of tribunals are claimed to be 'dictatorial and lacking humanitarian considerations'.
A striking contrast is seen in the valiant spirit of the rank and file and the leaders. Ali Musaliar and Variamkunnath Kunjahmed Haji's abject surrender to the British was humiliating for his supporters as many of them had fought till death. If Musaliar and Haji had desired to save their own skin, they were painfully mistaken. Musaliar was tried and hanged in Coimbatore Prison while Haji was summarily shot! Panakkal presents a fantastic tale that a miracle had happened inside the prison. He claims that Musaliar prayed fervently to avoid gallows and passed away in deep prayer on the morning of his day of execution (p. 85). Despite this, the authorities hanged his dead body. This is the story told to the author by the Musaliar's grandson and this yarn is admitted at face value! This is the level of research in the book. Panakkal quotes from the diary of a poet in Vengara as evidence of Muslim women's empowerment and independence in 1921. They are said to have dabbled in business and wealth management. However, this is such an obviously fraudulent take on reality that readers won't be misled. A French magazine 'Sciences et Voyages' had published a photo of Ali Musaliar and two of his accomplices on the centenary of the rebellion. One of them was claimed to be Variamkunnath Haji by a section of social media, even though their names were not divulged by the magazine. This book completely debunks this claim. It also contains several false claims on religious harmony in statements such as 'many non-Muslims participated in a shared jihad' (p. 126), even though he admits that Khilafat was a 'pan-Islamist' political campaign (p. 126). Listing two prominent Muslims opposing Tipu, he concludes that support for Mysore stemmed from shared political objective, rather than religious affiliations.
Panakkal does not appear to be much comfortable with the Khilafat Movement itself, which he claims to have no resonance with Malabari Muslims. Instead, it was introduced in Malabar through the efforts of Gandhi who in turn was influenced by North Indian Muslims. However, in another part of the book, we read about Muslims in Malabar donating money directly to the Ottoman sultan for his war effort (p. 45). So it cannot be said that Malabar was not in thrall to the Ottomans. Besides, the book describes about Sayyid Fazal Pookoya Thangal ending up in the court of Istanbul after his transportation for life from Malabar. The author argues that the Khilafat issue became a tool for the British to instigate the non-Muslim's aversion to Muslims (p. 144). He does not explain why the non-Muslims should harbour an aversion to them. The British had instituted harsh legislations like the Mappila Outrages Act 1859 and the Malabar War Knives Act 1854 to quell sectarian violence to good measure. In spite of this, there was a channel of support among them to the colonial power. A military contingent called the 77th Moplah Rifles was part of the British army till its disbandment in 1907.
There is a section on resistance to colonial aggression played out by the Mappilas right from the arrival of the Portuguese. It recounts some noted Mappila outbreaks in the nineteenth century, but is insistent that only landlords and their supporters were killed and economic reasons are attributed to the atrocities. But the fact was that all of the killed landlords were Hindus. No Muslim landlord was killed anywhere by his Hindu tenants. Besides, the author denigrates the victims by accusing them to have 'a penchant for intoxication', 'domineering and abusive nature', 'usury' and 'land encroachment upon religious institutions' as if to create the impression that they deserved to get killed! British newspapers are castigated for spreading propaganda that the rioters coveted the 'virtue of eliminating idolators and thereby securing a distinct reward in afterlife'. Thanks to the burgeoning works of ex-Muslims in social media, we now know that this is not propaganda at all and the jihadis were only trying to live up to the tenets of their religion. Rape of women, forced conversions and desecration of temples are not colonial resistance. The Moplah Outrages Act 1854 levied substantial collective fines, seized the assets of those found culpable and deportation for life. These were harsh but very effective and the bulldozer tactics we read about in North India are emulating the spirit of these prescriptions. The assassination of Connolly, district collector, finds mention in the book. Connolly was an efficient administrator but fell foul of the Mappilas with his handling of violence with an iron hand. He orchestrated the banishment of Pookoya Thangal. Connolly was killed on an evening in his bungalow's portico when he was relaxing with his wife. He was hacked to pieces in front of her eyes. As a political assassination, this is not extraordinary, but the author romanticizes the incident stressing on the 'bravery' of the murderers describing about the settings of the scene as if it was a candle-lit dinner. It reminded me of the eulogization in jihadi Palestinian media of the terrorists who shot dead 11 Israeli athletes during 1972 Munich Olympics.
The book is written in a clumsy style with heavy academic jargon. After a few pages, you feel like being in a swamp with no other way than going forward wading through the muck. The book assumes that the readers are well familiar with the causes of the conflict. It does not explain what was the spark that ignited the Khilafat agitation but claims that it was a struggle against colonialism while in fact it was only a failed effort to resuscitate the Ottoman colonialism. The book is divided into two parts, the first being the visit of Gandhi to Malabar, the setting up of Khilafat committees and the events associated with it. The second deals with resistance to the Portuguese and British from 1498 to 1900s. The research methodology lacks academic rigour and one wonders how such a loosely organized piece of mostly unverified information passed through peer review. Acts of resistance and British atrocities were collected from the author's 'field study' which seems to be a euphemism for collecting hearsay and embellished legends. Panakkal collects reports on Mappila riots from newspapers in Australia and New Zealand, but provincial and nationalist newspapers in India are omitted entirely, probably because it does not suit or support his narrative. A passage in the book refers to the Governor of Madras as ‘Lord Wellington’ (p. 107) instead of Willingdon. These are two distinct statesmen separated by a century between their lifetimes and even a silly schoolboy is not expected to falter under confusion on their names. The book quotes Left historians such as Romila Thapar and K. N. Panikker to buttress his argument that Muslim invaders such as the Mughals or Tipu Sultan were interested only in material gain. It also includes several historical falsehoods and half-truths such as the British persuaded the Raja of Cochin to renounce allegiance to Tipu (p. 161). The fact is that Tipu extracted this offer of allegiance from the raja under extreme coercion.
This book is totally unappealing for an interesting read, serves only jihadi propaganda and fails to provide a fresh outlook on the riot and hence not recommended.
Rating: 1 Star
