Moplah Revolt (1921): Agrarian Struggle Beyond Religion

Explore the Moplah Revolt of 1921 in Malabar—agrarian roots, Khilafat link, leaders, British repression, communal fallout, and its lasting impact on India’s freedom struggle.

Context:

A new book release “Musaliar King” by Abbas Panakkal, sheds light on the Malabar Revolt, an important but often overlooked resistance movement in Kerala. It re-examines the Malabar Revolt’s significance, not just as a local peasant outburst, but as a part of the broader freedom struggle.

What was the Event of Moplah Revolt?

The Moplah Revolt broke out in August 1921 in Malabar, present-day Kerala. 

• Who vs Who: Tenants (mainly Mappilas Muslims and some Thiyyas) vs Janmi landlords (mostly upper-caste Hindus) and British forces.
• Time & Place: August 1921 – February 1922; concentrated in Malabar region.
• Severity: Around 10,000 killed, tens of thousands imprisoned, forced conversions, property destruction, and massive British reprisals (notably the Wagon Tragedy).

How Did the Regional Landscape Shape the Revolt?

• Historical Resistance

• • • Malabar had a long tradition of anti-colonial struggle, including Zamorin-led defiance and memories of Tipu Sultan.
    • Hindu–Muslim collaboration in defending local kings created a tradition of syncretic resistance.

• Hindu–Muslim Collaboration and Fracture

• • • Initially, many lower-caste Hindus (Cherumans, Thiyyas) joined Mappilas against landlords. R.N. Hitchcock (Police Superintendent, Malabar) acknowledged Hindu participation in Valluvanad.
    • However, British repression and propaganda communalised the movement, highlighting forced conversions and property destruction, driving a wedge between communities.

• Zamindar–Peasant Divide

• • The revolt starkly revealed the Janmi (landlord) vs Verumpattakar (tenant) faultline.
  • Congress leaders (largely upper-caste landlords) failed to support peasants fully, creating a vacuum later filled by Communists and Muslim League.

• Emergence of Malayala Rajyam:

  Ali Musaliar and Variyamkunnath Kunjahammed Haji established parallel peasant rule, collecting revenue and administering villages, showcasing a vision of alternative governance free from colonial authority.

Who were the prominent leaders of the resistance?

• • Ali Musaliar (Uppapa): Revered as a spiritual and political leader of the 1921 uprising, he was labelled ‘Ali Raji’ of Tirurangadi by the British. His leadership gave a unifying religious and anti-colonial thrust.
  • Variakunnath Kunjahammed Haji – Joined the Khilafat agitation and became the unquestioned leader of the movement. His execution in January 1922, marked the end of the rebellion. 
• Seethi Koya Thangal – Another leader who set himself up as ‘King of Mannarghat.

• Associated Congress leaders: K. Madhavan Nair, U. Gopala Menon, Moideen Koya

What Factors Caused the Revolt?

• Agrarian Exploitation

• • • The Janmi–Kanakkaran–Verumpattakar system, a hierarchical traditional land tenure system, created multiple intermediaries between the landowner and the cultivator, with each level receiving a share of the land’s produce, leading to economic inequalities. 
    • High renewal fees, arbitrary evictions, and rack-renting (noted in the Malabar District Collector Innes Report, 1915) worsened peasant misery.
    • Moplah peasants (tenants-at-will), along with Thiyyas, faced disproportionate exploitation.

• Colonial Land Policies

• • • The British reinstated Hindu landlords post-1792, reversing gains made under Tipu Sultan.
    • The Moplah Outrages Act (1855) criminalised their protests.
    • Weak implementation of the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act (1887) failed to protect tenants (as noted in Logan’s Malabar Manual).

• Political Movements

• • • Non-Cooperation Movement (1920): Malabar District Congress Committee at Manjeri demanded tenancy reforms.
    • Khilafat Movement: Mobilised Muslim peasants around pan-Islamist solidarity; merged with agrarian discontent.

• Immediate Triggers

• • Rumour of mosque desecration at Tirurangadi (Aug 1921) by British troops, which transformed discontent into violence.
  • Arrest of Khilafat leaders → direct confrontation.

Thus, the revolt was a product of structural agrarian oppression + political awakening under nationalist and Khilafat campaigns + immediate colonial provocation.

What Were the Impacts of the Moplah Revolt?

• Human and Material Loss

• • • Over 10,000 lives lost, widespread displacement, and property destruction
    • Wagon Tragedy (1921): 67 Moplah prisoners suffocated in a railway carriage en route to prison.

• Political Consequences

• • • Congress Weakening: Failure to defend peasants alienated Mappilas; loss of Muslim support in Malabar.
    • Rise of CPI: Communist Party tapped peasant radicalism in the 1930s–40s, framing it in class struggle.
    • Muslim League Growth: Gained ground by mobilising identity politics where Congress failed.

• Legislative Reforms

  • • The Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 introduced limited tenancy rights and rent protections, under pressure from the rebellion’s legacy.

• Communal Fallout

• • • The British highlighted communal aspects (forced conversions, Hindu deaths) to divide Hindus and Muslims.
    • Left a shadow of mistrust in Kerala’s Hindu–Muslim relations, though later Communist land reforms (1950s) mitigated divisions.

• Anti-Colonial Legacy

• • Demonstrated how agrarian discontent could converge with pan-Indian nationalist and religious movements.
  • Inspired later movements where peasants became central to freedom struggles (e.g., Telangana Peasant Revolt, 1946).

What was the Character of the Event?

The nature of the Moplah Revolt has remained deeply contested in historiography:

• • Colonial View: British officials classified it as a communal riot or “fanatical outbreak,” seeking to delegitimise it. Terms like Moplah Outrages were deliberately used.

• Nationalist Historians: Historians like Bipan Chandra and Sumit Sarkar view it as a peasant uprising driven by agrarian discontent and opposition to landlords.

• Left Historians (E.M.S. Namboodiripad): Highlighted agrarian oppression but acknowledged Khilafat’s influence.
• Recent Scholarship (Abbas Panakkal, 2021): Demonstrates it was a fusion of agrarian, religious, and anti-colonial factors, with Hindu–Muslim solidarity initially strong but later fractured under British suppression and communal rhetoric.

Thus, its character cannot be narrowly reduced—it was a multi-dimensional revolt shaped agrarian grievances, religious mobilisation, and anti-colonial aspirations.

How Does It Compare with North India?

Unlike Malabar, Muslims in North India during the Khilafat era largely participated through political mobilisation (meetings, petitions, protests) but did not combine it with agrarian revolt. Reasons:

• North Indian Muslims were more urbanised and tied to ashraf leadership, less to tenant struggles.
• Agrarian structures in UP and Bihar were different, with zamindari but not tenancy insecurity of Malabar’s intensity.
• Thus, Malabar Moplahs uniquely fused Khilafat with agrarian class struggle, creating one of the fiercest peasant uprisings in colonial India.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH