“It has now been made painfully clear that the Moplahs have been guilty of unthinkable excesses, of arson, looting, murder and, worse, forced conversions of Hindus. They may plead provocations in respect of their attacks on Government property – a plea which would carry no weight with non-co-operators as well as the general public – but they have absolutely no excuse for having laid violent hands on their non-Muslim brethren, Europeans included, to such an extent as they have done. The mad acts of violence they have been guilty of were incredible in their brutality… Any attempt made to palliate or condone these acts would constitute an irreparable blow to Hindu-Muslim unity – shattered as it has probably been so far as Malabar is concerned”.
SEPTEMBER 7, 1921
The Moplah riots and after
TO THOSE WHO CAREFULLY STUDIED IT, LORD READING’S ADDRESS to the Indian Legislature must have been a deep disappointment. Lord Reading virtually proclaimed that the era of concessions must be reckoned, even by the Moderate Legislature, as having ceased, giving way to caution which, in the light of Sir William Vincent’s speeches on the Moplah outbreaks as well as that of the Viceroy himself, must be taken to mean repression. In any case, the official speeches in the Legislature are no harbingers of peace. On the other hand, they are marked by a subtle but scarcely mistakable gesture towards repression. The tone and tenor of these speeches are significant. Lord Reading expressly recognised Mr. Gandhi’s anxiety to keep out violence, but as expressly singled out his followers, especially a section of them on whom he fixed the responsibility for actual as well as potential disorders. “There are signs”, said Lord Reading, “that the activities of those in the movement, or at least one section of it”, may take a “form of even a more direct challenge to law and order.” Lord Reading then referred to the attempts made by some fanatical followers of Islam to seduce troops and the police” and stated that his Government could not tolerate these attempts. Sir William Vincent, who elaborated this policy in the Moplah debate, significantly stated regarding the non-cooperation movement, that “although the political situation was dangerous, the Government’s policy towards that movement could not be changed by an isolated disturbance in Malabar.” Indeed, Sir William almost exonerated the non-cooperation movement from all blame in the matter. “There was no sympathy as such” for the non-cooperation movement among the rebels, said Sir William, “because the Moplahs had little feeling for Mr. Gandhi’s personality. Judging from the recent events there was certainly no sympathy for non-violent non-cooperation”. “The whole Moplah rising seemed to be due”, Sir William said, “to the preachings of extremist Khilafat agitators” and added, in a repentant tone, that Mahomed Ali, who he evidently considered as one such preacher, was not prosecuted at Erode owing to the intervention of Mr. Gandhi.
The Government of India’s policy will, we think, be easily gathered from the above statements of their responsible members. That policy, one may reasonably deduce from the above, is to be one of masterly inactivity, born of amused pity perhaps, towards non-violent noncooperation which Government seem to regard as solely a Hindu movement. On the other hand, it will treat as disastrously dangerous the Khilafat movement which is purely a Muslim one and which that Government severely dissociate from the (Hindu) movement of non-violent non-cooperation. The Government of India would appear to have determined ruthlessly to put the latter movement down by taking repressive measures against its leaders. If our interpretation of the Government’s policy be correct, we hope they will not put it into force. In the first place, they are wrong in their appreciation of the facts of the situation. The suggestion that it is the Khilafat organisations that are responsible for the Moplah trouble has little foundation in fact. It is significant that in the localities in which the trouble was most intense. Ernad and Walluvanad, there were the least number of Congress and Khilafat organisations. After all, so far as may be gathered from the reports in the Press it does not appear that Khilafat agitators if by that term is meant members of Khilafat Committees, were prominent in Malabar. On the other hand, where there were effective Khilafat and Congress organisations, as there were at Ponnani, they stood for law and order. It may be, as Sir W. Vincent said, the Moplahs are under the thumb of a priesthood proverbially fanatical and Mr. Thomas’s ill-considered attempt to search the mosque for weapons and arrest priests is sufficient by themselves to account for the outbreak of Moplah violence. There is neither need nor justification to bring in the non-cooperation or even Khilafat worker in general who, so far as they could, really hold in check the violent tendencies of the Moplah. The fact is that the Moplah outbreak is the result of the recrudescence once again of the periodical outburst of Moplah fanaticism of which Ernad was in the past an unfortunate, victim. If the present outbreak has proved more disastrous than those in the past, it is due to the general rise in the level of popular ingenuity and resources in which the rebels have freely shared. To mistake this for a signal of a general determination on the part of the Muslims to resort to violence is to make a serious error. To proceed against Muslim leaders on the strength of this “isolated disturbance” as Sir William termed it, is, we think, to be guilty of a provoking blunder. Any illconsidered and precipitate action on the part of Government may lead to serious and unpleasant consequences. Mahatma Gandhi is feeling the situation at every stage and has wisely advised the postponement of the offer of civil disobedience. It would be unfortunate if Government fail to recognise that he has succeeded to a marvellous extent in instilling ideas of non-violence and disciplined action in the minds of what Government would regard as ill-balanced and inflammable material prone to violence. Would it be wise to obstruct the progress of this educative propaganda by grave acts of provocation such as the arrest of leaders which, far more than in action, would lead to violence?
There is a lesson here to our Muslim brethren as well. The Hindu-Muslim unity is being challenged on all sides and attempts are made to point the uncomplimentary moral to the Hindus in the Moplah outburst. It has now been made painfully clear that the Moplahs have been guilty of unthinkable excesses, of arson, looting, murder and worse, forced conversion of Hindus. They may plead provocation in respect of their attacks on Government property – a plea which would carry no weight with non-cooperators as well as the general public – but they have absolutely no excuse for having laid violent hands on their non-Muslim brethren, Europeans included, to such an extent as they have done. The mad acts of violence they have been guilty of were incredible in their brutality, but, unfortunately, making all allowances for exaggeration they have been reported to be true. Any attempt made to palliate or condone these acts would constitute an irreparable blow to Hindu-Muslim unity – shattered as it has probably been so far as Malabar is concerned. Our profound sympathies must now go to the nonMuslim population of Malabar and the measure of earnestness with which our Muslim brethren join in this expression of sympathy will be the measure of the strength of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I