Mappila Mutiny: Theory and Practice -Role of the Khilafat Movement in promoting communal polarisation in Malabar

The Muslims in India were not that much happy with the functioning of Indian National Congress from the beginning of the formation of that organization as a political outfit to fight for the cause of Indians. Despite the earnest efforts of the leaders of the I N C to ensure the unity of Hindus and Muslims as a political force, the Muslims in India campaigned for a separate political outfit for them as they were not ready to join Hindus to fight for political rights. Sir Syed Ahamed Khan organized Mohameden Educational Conference to propagate British education among the Muslims in India in 1886. He decided to keep the conference as a politically neutral entity and established Alegar Muslim University to meet the goals intended by the organization. Muslim League was established in 30th of December, 1906 at the culmination of the thought of a separate political outfit to represent the Muslim-interests, under the presidentship of Nawab Khawaja Salimullah later it was dissolved in 14th of August, 1947 for the formation of Muslim League in Pakistan, Awami League in Bangladesh and Indian Union Muslim League in India. It was formed to protect the religious, political, social and economic interests of those who believed in Islamic faith. As a political party, it dreamt of pan-Islamism to be implemented in India and the world and the practice of conservatism as philosophy to protect the purity and the spirit of Islam. The Muslim League propagated the two-nation theory from the very beginning of its formation and it openly campaigned for a separate nation for the Muslims on the basis of the theory that India is not a single nation in 1930 itself.

In spite of all the negative factors prevailed against the unity of Hindus and Muslims, Mahatma Gandhi had never thought of giving away his favorite idea of Hindu- Muslim unity. He relentlessly campaigned for the cause of religious unity and he declared that his Hinduism provides sufficient space for every other religion in it. He believed in the uniqueness of every religion but he could experience the identity of the essence of all religions amidst the plurality which was not acceptable to Islam as the Islamic faith considers uniqueness as separateness and Islam is the only religion of truth. But Gandhi on the contrary believed that there is truth in every religion. Maulana Mohamed Ali wrote The Green Book, the constitution of Muslim League, in 1907 in which it has been clearly narrated that Islamic religion is the core theory of the party and it declared that the Muslim League had been formed to promote loyalty of the Indian Muslims to the British Empire. The Indian National Congress on the contrary aimed at the freedom of India as an indivisible entity.

The Ottoman empire was a state and caliphate that controlled much of southeast Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa between 14th and early 20th centuries. Absolute monarchy was the nature of statecraft and Sunni Islam was the central religion. The empire was divided into three parts after the end of the world war 1 by the winners and the major shares of the empire had been taken over by the winners and the Caliph of the Turkey was forced to confine to a small area. The Muslims evaluated it as an injustice and they expressed their displeasure against the Britain and other European countries. The Muslim leaders in India made unsuccessful attempts to submit representation to the British authorities to restore the sultan as the ruler of undivided Ottoman empire. The British authorities were not ready to admit the role of Indian Muslims in the issue related to the sultan of Turkey. A delegation led by M. A. Ansari submitted a representation and explained that “Islam does not recognize geographical and racial barriers such as nationalism……to the Muslim of India a Turk is not only a man but a brother with whom he shares common outlook on life and common institutions of law.” Gandhi took up the cause of the khilafat movement and he called for the full cooperation of the Hindus for the Muslim cause to pledge the unity of Hindus and Muslims. Maulana Abdul Bari was the spiritual force, Ali brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were the active participants in the Khilafat movement while Mohamed Ali Jinnah kept away from it because, he thought that it was an issue related to the Sunni group of Muslims.

The Mappilas of British Malabar were the active participants in the Khilafat movement. They formed a militant group and rebelled several times against the Hindus and the British in the 19TH century. The Tipu sultan and his invasion of Malabar, which was instrumental for the forceful mass conversion of the Hindus to Islam, really infused over-confidence among the Muslims and they led mutiny against Hindus several times before the Khilafat movement. Though the congress leaders tried their level the best to establish harmony between Hindus and Muslims, the rift between Hindus and Muslims had been widening and deepening. The Muslims were not at the command of the Congress leaders, rather, they were commanded by religious leaders. Naturally they perceived the Khilafat movement as a Jihad, that is, a religious war in the name of God against those who disagree with Islam. Those who agree with Islam have to admit the following statement as unquestionable truths: 1, Koran is the only text that contains the revelations of god. 2, human beings do not have the right either to add or delete any syllable from the text. 3, Mohammed is the last prophet of god. 4, the unalterable faith in ALLAH and his judgement on the last day of human life. He who refuse to admit any of the above statement would be treated as a Kafir.

It was a war against the British, the land lords and the Hindus. The majority of the revenue administrators and land owners were Hindus and the fight against them really turned to a religious mutiny of the Muslims against the Hindus. Since, it was a holy-war for the Muslims then, they obeyed only the commands of god revealed through the last prophet in the Koran. Koran sanctions war in the name god against those who disobey the commands of god. Polytheists and idolaters commit blasphemy and Koran permits the Muslims to “Slay them wherever you catch them”. Since Jihad has been prescribed for them by god, they have no other go but to fight and finish them. Koran assures that “He who fights in the name of god whether he is slain or gets victory, god gives him reward of great value”. Hence, they did Jihad in the Khilafat movement.

The dream of Gandhi to strengthen the Hindu Muslim unity shattered like a glass mansion. The observation of the district commissioner in his report on the Khilafat that, ‘The talk of Hindu Muslim unity was a non-sense. It was a struggle for the Mappilas and Mappilas alone is true” is absolutely true. The optimist in Gandhi forced him to console that “no sane Muslim approves what a few Mappilas have done”. What they had done? They did genocide of Hindus. The Hindus captured by the Muslims were offered the choice of Islam or death. Thousands of Hindus were forced to embrace Islam. Those who refused to convert to Islam were brutally killed. The Hindu women were raped to death. Hundreds of women were raped and left to endure pain, shame and suffering. The land holdings of the Hindus were captured and kept under the custody of Muslims. Ambedkar was astonished by the behavior of the Muslims and he condemned it. It is a surprising fact that not a single leader of the Islamic clergy including Ali Musliar, the other Hajis of great importance of that period, the religious leaders of Islam and the present-day secular leaders ever said a single word to condemn the sub-human actions in the name of god and religion. The left historians on the contrary glorified the genocide of Hindus as a class war concealing the hard facts.

Pan-Islamism and conservatism are the two theories subscribed by Muslims all over the world because the Koran insisted to follow these theories by those who lay faith in the revelations of the last prophet. Since, all the utterances compiled in the Koran are messages given by the God then, human beings have no option but to obey the commands of God because whatever is spoken by God should never be altered by man. Pan-Islamism is illogical, impractical, inconsistent with the order of nature, and against democratic way of life. The primary defect of Pan-Islamism is that, it never admits the basic human right to dissent with the authority and the majority. The utterances compiled in the Koran might have been given by God to prophet Mohammed but, that does not mean that everyone in the world should  take them for granted.

The Koran pronounces the judgement that any effort to violate the rules prescribed by God amounts to blasphemy and death sentence is the minimum punishment for blasphemy is against the very concept of unconditional mercy which has been conceived as the essential quality of God. A God who pronounces death sentence against the one who disobey his command is inconsistent with the basic democratic principles. Plurality is the order of nature. It is not the uniformity but the multiformity which constitutes the universe. Therefore, diversity in life patterns, including the faith and the religious practices, is the basic character of man and nature. Pan-Islamism on the contrary moves against the order of nature to establish uniformity of life pattern, that is, to establish the authority of a single God, a single text and the only one prophet. Since, man is a contextual being, man and his mode of life would be changing in tune with the context in which he lives. The Koran and its revelations may be suitable to human beings born and brought up in the Arabian context. But it is inconsistent with the Indian context because in India, blasphemy has not been considered as a punishable offence and the co-existence of diversities has been the way of life. Hence, India could welcome and assimilate divergent faiths and systems of thoughts from all over the world. So, any effort to issue commands against the views prevail in the Indian context to accept uniformity rejecting multiformity is not consistent with it. Hence it is impractical in India.

Conservatism is a dogma that refuses to change traditional religious and customary moral practices and it insists to follow a text of religion or morality in a verbatim manner. Since, everything in space and time are subject to change, then, everything including religion and morality have to change in tune with the changing time and space. If, anything refuses to change in tune with the changing space and time then, that would become obsolete and useless. Such things could only be kept as a museum piece. Religion also is not an exception to the general law. But conservatism in any religion is incapable to accept change. This is one of the reasons why the young generation of Islamic terrorism and extremism moves to Syria to lead the primitive life of a Muslim who has not been polluted by modern way of life. They consider the modern democratic life-pattern is a pollutant and it is Haram, the way of life which is prohibited by Koran. They believe in the theocratic dictatorship as the ideal form of state craft and life pattern. They believe that a Muslim can lead a meaningful religious only in a state being ruled by Islamic theocracy. The leaders and rank and file of the Khilafat movement believed in the Islamic theocracy and they did Jihad. They converted people to Islam, they killed those who refused to get converted and they declared Malabar as Mappilasthan governed by the Koranic rules.

The draconian norms and utterances revealed in the Koran is one of the reasons for the growth of Islamic extremism among the Muslims in the world. As the Koran warns that anyone who partially accepts or rejects the revelations in the Koran, commits blasphemy and death penalty is the minimum punishment for blasphemy. So, no man of Islamic faith ever dares to edit the text though, he is fully aware of the sub-human illogicity of Some of the utterances. This is one of the reasons for the establishment of theocratic dictatorship in the Islamic states all over the world. Islam needs a process of democratization in the religion and society. But it needs audacity, honesty and commitment to fulfil the mission. Change is so fast and the world becomes more and more democratic thanks to the fast development of technology. Indian Muslims are more competent to take the mantle of change as they have the experience of living in a democratic society and that would be the great contribution they can give to the world as a whole. As the first step to the process of democratization, they have to give strict instructions to the teachers of the Madrasas to abstain from the teaching of negative and sub human statements of the Koran. The children who have been taught to kill the idolaters and polytheists whenever and wherever they met them would easily be driven to the theory and practice of Jihad. It would be very difficult to regain those who have already been driven to Jihadism.