Developing multiperspectivity through history teaching: a case study of Mopla rebellion – II
Avinash Kumar
In the first part of this essay we saw how contesting interpretations of historical events as well as individuals/groups and their actions, often lead to the genesis, persistence and shaping of conflicts that can have wide-ranging and severe ramifications. It is thus critical that history classes not just teach students about past events, individuals and groups but also provide them the means to think historically about them.
We also saw how a good way of encouraging students to think historically about a past event is to use multiperspectivity in history teaching which is “a way of viewing, and a predisposition to view, historical events, personalities, developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives through drawing on procedures and processes which are fundamental to history as a discipline.” (ibid)
Taking the Mopla outbreaks and rebellion of the 19th and early 20th century as a case study, we began to explore how multiperspectivity can be used in the Indian context and in classrooms.
A commonly encountered perspective to interpret and explain the Malabar Outbreaks and the Mopla Rebellion is the Marxist view, which emphasizes the role of the material conditions of the Mopla rebels and the economic pressures that were prevalent in the region during this era. The religious perspective, on the other hand, stresses on the role of religious indoctrination and fanaticism in the violent outbreaks and rebellion. A third perspective, which is anti-colonial, highlights the role and failures of the British government as one of the primary cause for the rebellion. And related to this, though distinct, is the political perspective, which underscores the substantial role played by the Khilafat movement in the Mopla rebellion of 1921.
The Marxist perspective
Those who adopt this perspective generally interpret Mopla outbreaks as peasants’ resistance and revolt against the land-holding classes, and argue that the rebellion was “directly and solely a response to radical challenges induced in the agricultural economy of Malabar District” (Dale, 1975; p. 85) in the 19th Century.
In support of this position, they offer evidences from primary and secondary sources. For instance, in a report authored by William Logan (special commissioner of the district between 1881 and 1882), they note, it was recorded that “well over 90 per cent of the big landlords in the district were Nambudris or Nairs; while majority of the Moplas held their land on lease or mortgage.” He also showed that the landed class were using the British judicial system to evict the agriculturists (the eviction decrees rose from 1891 in the year 1862 to 8,335 in 1880) and that “the courts were used more frequently against the Moplas than the Hindus” – though the percentage of Mopla agriculturists was 27 per cent, more than 33 per cent of the eviction decrees had been issued against them.
Further, when Logan solicited petitions from Malabar agriculturists, almost three quarters of the petitioners were Moplas who were complaining against the evictions.
The Religious perspective
Others have argued that the participants were motivated by their religious fanaticism and that “participants conducted each attack as a religious act – as a jihad, a war for Islam.” (Dale, 1975)
To substantiate their claim they point to the well documented ‘ceremonial pattern’ of the attacks (which included visits to the mosques prior to the attack, rebels divorcing their wives, dressing themselves in a religiously sanctioned manner etc.) and the invariable climax of the attacks in virtual suicides to become shahids (martyrs of the faith). Of the 350 Moplas who participated in the outbreaks, they point out, 322 died in such suicidal acts. They also note that of the 33 outbreaks, at least 13 well-documented outbreaks have no obvious connection with agrarian disputes – two attacks were on British collectors (one for recovering a Hindu boy who had been forcibly converted), three attacks were on Hindu families who had apostatized from Islam, and in four cases, the primary motive clearly seemed to be the desire for martyrdom. And finally, they point to the strong connections between the rebels and a handful of relatively more fanatic local religious leaders.
Anti-Colonial perspective
Those who adopt this perspective, view the 1921 rebellion as a revolt against the British colonial government and their iniquitous policies, in particular; and the colonial rule in general. They stress that till the arrival of the Portuguese, the Hindus and the Mopla community lived in relative accord and point to the primary accounts of good trade relationships between the local farmers and the Moplas who dominated the inter-coastal and overseas trade in the region. Further, Moplas were also employed in the navy and the army of the local Hindu king – indicating the trust that existed between the two communities.
War between Tipu and the British brook out in 1790 and in the most decisive battle fought by the two sides at Thirurangadi, thousands of Moplas fighting for Tipu lost their lives. The bitter memories of the massacre of their people by the British was still afresh in their collective memory when, having taken control of the Malabar region in 1792, the British government changed the ancient landholding arrangement in the region – strengthening the position of the land-holders and elevating them to the legal status of land-owners and reducing the agriculturist who worked the land to the legal status of mere leaseholders who were liable to be evicted from the land at the expiry of the lease. The revenue rates were also pegged quite high by the British administrators who, further, had given the revenue collection rights to the Hindu rajas and chieftains (Dhanagare, 1977). In addition to this, the British police, law courts and revenue officials too were seen as biased against the Mopla community.
The Political perspective
The Khilafat movement emerged out of the First World War (1914-1918) in response to the attempts of the Allied Powers to dismember Turkey (Dhanagare, 1977). There was a fear among the Muslims that the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire would mean the end of the Caliphate (the Caliph being the spiritual head of the faith) and this had led to a nation-wide political agitation. People who attempt to interpret the Malabar rebellion of 1921 using this perspective view the Khilafat movement and the associated political agitation in the region as the primary coalescing and driving force behind the rebellion and argue that the primary and immediate goal of the rebellion was political – which included not just the “restoration of the Caliph and his temporal powers” but also the setting up of an Islamic state in the region.
As evidence, they point to the speeches of the local Mopla leaders such as Mampratti Thangal (a saint revered across Malabar) which contains claims such as, “In all our Muslim States there will be no expensive litigation…” Furthermore, available primary records indicate that the public meetings held in the district as part of the movement were well attended and that the majority of the audiences at these meetings were from the Mopla community; while the participation by the Hindus was almost negligible. There are also records of public protests and processions and pamphlets distributed in some of these meetings to exhort the community to agitate for the Khilafat; as well as records of the arrests of Mopla leaders who were leading these protests.
A synthesized perspective
The question that one is faced with, thus, is – which of these perspectives, if any, is/are correct? Or are all of them correct? This section will present a summary of the Mopla history, and in doing so, will attempt to present a view which synthesizes the perspectives discussed earlier.
Though conclusive evidence on the issue is hard to come by, Moplas generally trace their ancestry to 9th century Arab traders who brought Islam to South India, married local women, and settled down in the Malabar. They were known to be a mercantile community who dominated the inter-coastal and overseas trade and mostly lived in segregated settlements along the coast and in urban centres – enjoying considerable autonomy and the patronage of the king of Calicut.
After the arrival of the Portuguese – who saw the Moplas as competitors and engaged in frequent wars with them for the domination of trade and trade routes – many Moplas started moving inland looking for new economic opportunities (Hardgrave, 1977; p. 60). By the 16th century, the majority of the community (“through the interrelated processes of immigration, intermarriage and conversion” (ibid.) had become agricultural tenants. The Moplas of the interior parts, especially, were converts from Hindus of the lowest castes – many of whom had embraced Islam to escape the oppression of the existing caste system. Moplas in these regions were thus often very poor, of low social status and with little opportunity for education.
During the invasion of the region by Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan in the late 18th century – and their persecution of the Nairs and Nambudris – the social structure of the Malabar region was deeply shaken. On the one hand, many of these upper caste landlords had to flee the region leaving the land in the hands of the Mopla cultivators; and on the other, the weakened social and political position of these castes allowed the growing Mopla community (with the newfound Islamic ‘freedom’ of many of its members) to attack the upper castes with much less restraint than ever before. Tipu’s defeat at the hands of the British, and the British land settlement of the 1790s which not just reinstated the Hindu landlords but also strengthened their position as the original ‘owners’ of the land severely affected the Moplas of South Malabar (who were mainly dependent on agriculture). To make matters worse – because of the strain in the relationships between the two communities caused during the Haider-Tipu era, and the over-zealous use of their newfound rights by the Hindu land-owners; as well as the high rates of taxation and eviction during the first decades of the British rule – the community found itself being pressed from all sides. It is in these contexts that one must look at the Mopla outbreaks.
However, can poverty and economic exploitation alone explain the facts related to the outbreaks and the rebellion? As Dale (1975) points out, though 73 per cent of the agriculturists were Hindus, who too suffered eviction decrees, they rarely resorted to violence and never at the scale of the Moplas. Second, even though Moplas were settled in almost all taluqs of the district, the outbreaks were centred in a small area in the southern taluqs. And finally, an increased rate of eviction did not lead to an increased incidence of outbreaks.
Dale then points to the central role played by the religious leaders such as Mambram Tangal – who acted as religious ideologues to incite and support the community to rebel against the Hindu landlords as well as to oppose the British administration. He highlights Tangal’s decree forbidding the Moplas to plough on Fridays as an example of the intertwining of the social and religious strains; and to the sudden and significant drop in the frequency of the outbreaks after the leader’s deportation from the district. Similarly, the indescribable horrors that the Hindu men, women and children were subjected to and the planned and conscious desecration and destruction of many temples, during the Mopla rebellion, as recorded in multiple primary sources makes it impossible to rule out the role of some degree of religious fanaticisms and indoctrination.
Similarly, the role of the British colonial government – their callousness in addressing the genuine grievances of the Moplas, the failure to understand the traditional relationships between the landlords and the agriculturists and to initiate land reforms despite repeated petitions and violence (even after the neighbouring states of Travancore and Calicut had initiated land reforms), the real/perceived biases of their judicial system etc. too would have clearly contributed to worsening the situation.
And finally, as Dhanagare (1977) mentions, the Khilafat movement came to Malabar at a time (1920) when the tenancy issue had already become a serious cause of social discontent in the region. The linking of, and later, the merging of the tenancy issue with the broader Khilafat-Non- Cooperation movement gave the tenancy movement a political form and organizational strength and momentum that it had hitherto not known.
In summary, we see that while none of the perspectives (and the related arguments and evidences) may be sufficient in themselves to interpret and explain the Mopla outbreaks between 1836 and 1920, and the Mopla rebellion of 1921; an attempt to synthesize the various perspectives and to carefully use the arguments and evidences put forward by them, may be a productive endeavour and help bring one closer to the truth.
Using multiperspectivity in the classroom
As mentioned earlier, a multiperspetive approach can help students develop a predisposition to view historical events from different perspectives through drawing on procedures and processes which are fundamental to history as a discipline.
It is generally useful to start the class by providing some basic information on the event/historical issue that is to be discussed using the multiperspectivity approach. This should primarily comprise facts that are commonly agreed upon and are relatively less controversial. Thereafter, students can either be encouraged to come up with explanations to the problem on their own or be divided into groups and given the outlines of one particular perspective – with the suggestion that they build on that perspective further.
All the groups can then present one by one to the rest of the class; and students should be encouraged to question the use of facts and evidences by the group which is presenting. Once all the groups have presented, students could be encouraged to reflect on whether the discussion of other perspectives have helped them better understand the historical issue at hand. They can also be advised to develop afresh their own explanation of the historical problem under discussion, drawing from the various perspectives discussed as well as from primary and secondary evidences.
Using this approach it can also be highlighted how history is not a ‘product’ or a ‘given’ – but a process – something which is always being negotiated and in the making. However, it is important to keep the process grounded in sound arguments and evidences – for only that can prevent us from slipping into the mire of ‘everything goes’ relativism; and may help us inch, however tentatively, towards the truth.
References
Please see Part 1 of this article, published in the January 2016 Issue of Teacher Plus, for the list of references.
The author works at Wipro where he manages an initiative called Wipro Applying Thought in Schools (WATIS), which partners with a network of civil society organizations to build capacities for school education reform in India. He can be reached at avinash.kumar@apu.edu.in.
