Malabar History journal

The broader connotation of community typically encapsulates a group bound by shared characteristics, experiences, or interests. However, within the historical context of the Mappila Muslims, community assumes a unique significance that transcends individual aggregation. The Mappila community’s identity was interwoven with cultural, religious, and social threads, forming a distinct fabric within Malabar’s broader socio-cultural landscape (Jones, 1991). The British colonial administration played a pivotal role in this, not only influencing self-perceptions but also shaping how Mappilas were perceived by others, extending the definition of ‘community’ to encompass external forces in its construction.

The 19th-century colonial census reports, such as the 1881 census, marked a pivotal shift in classifying Malabar’s people into distinct nationalities and castes. This categorization, driven by British preoccupation with creating categorical identities, significantly contributed to the formulation and delineation of communal boundaries among the Mappilas and other communities in the region (Abdul Razak, 2007; Jones, 1991).

Theoretical Perspectives on Community

In understanding the dynamics of community, scholars like Anderson have explored the constructivist perspective, challenging the primordialist notion of communities as natural groupings rooted in shared blood, language, history, and culture. According to Anderson (1991), the collective imagining of communities, whether ethnic or national, became feasible with the advent of print capitalism, providing a technological platform for the dissemination of shared identities over large populations.

Partha Chatterjee (1998) emphasizes the poor theorization of the concept of community in modern social thought, signaling a shift in recent years towards interrogating the genealogy and implications of ‘community.’ Sudipta Kaviraj (1992) adds to this by highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the category of community, challenging the foundational understanding and recognizing its constructed nature, especially during colonial times.

Dipesh Chakravarthy, a proponent of the Subaltern School of historians, contends that identities, including community identities, are not anachronistic survivals but emerged during the colonial period. He argues that colonial practices, such as census and information gathering, played a crucial role in freezing and fixating identities, transforming fuzzy pre-modern identities into categories of knowledge and power (Chakravarthy, 1995).

Francis Robinson, based on Anderson’s thesis, argues that print capitalism played a major role in fashioning Muslim identity in India (Robinson, 2000). Eric Hobsbawm is another historian who subscribes to the constructed nature of traditions involved in the formation of community and national identities (Hobsbawm, 1992). He argues that invented traditions, unlike customs, create claims of authoritative legitimacy on the part of some power-seeking groups, be it either a community or a state. In short, the notions of ‘invention of tradition’ and ‘imagination of community’ are probably the most widely cited theories today about community formations in history (Robinson, 1997), (Brass, 1997).

The difference of viewpoints between Primordialists and Constructivists has also found expression among historians specializing in Muslim ethnicity in India (Robinson 1997; Brass 1997). Francis Robinson holds a Primordialist view that religious differences between Hindus and Muslims in Pre-modern times were fundamental and created a basic antipathy between the two communities (Robinson, 1974). On the other hand, Paul R. Brass accepts an instrumentalist position and argues that Muslim separatism resulted from conscious manipulation of selected symbols of Muslim identity by Muslim elite groups in economic and political competition with each other and elite groups among Hindus. He recognizes the crucial importance of the attitude and policies of the colonial Government with its enormous capacity for distributing economic and political favors and patronage (Brass, 1979). This opinion is also shared by Asim Roy, who argues that the growing Government pre-occupation with special Muslim questions and problems related to education, employment, and political representation was integral to the policy of ‘balancing’ the communities (Roy, 2001).

Thus, the survey of existing literature on community as an analytical category reveals that the majority of modern scholars broadly follow a constructivist perspective about community. Almost all of them identify colonial administrative practices and ethnology as the major sources of modern ethnic identities. The primordialist argument that certain groups possess a collective conscience, rooted in some distant past, and not easily changeable but potentially available to ignition by new historical and political contingencies, is not acceptable to most of these modern scholars. As Sudipta Kaviraj rightly remarked, ‘precolonial communities, which had fuzzy boundaries, were replaced by discrete categories that could be enumerated exactly and claimed exclusive identification by their members. Modern governing practices thus reconstituted the meaning of community and ethnicity, producing a brand of modern ethnic consciousness in India in which politics of cultural difference is primary (Kaviraj, 1992). In other words, pre-colonial society was too fragmented by sub-castes and local loyalties to have larger alliances to emerge (Pande, 1996). At the same time, one has to admit the fact that modern community identities do not spring fully fashioned out of nowhere. ‘They commonly employ the myths and symbols of earlier forms of identity which may be less clearly formulated and more restricted in circulation but are nonetheless incipient cores of identity (Smith, 1986). It is to be noted that a problem common to much of the constructivist literature is the tendency to regard social identities as discursively constructed, ignoring the concrete economic or political structures within which such constructions take place. Very often, the constructivists ignore the ways in which the colonial discourses get played in real social life.

The Impact of Census on Mappila Identity

The census reports of 1871 and subsequent years played a pivotal role in shaping the Mappila Muslim community. The categorization of Mappilas as a distinct nationality alongside Hindus and Christians created a communal consciousness, influencing self-perception as members of a defined community bound by religious and cultural tenets (Census Reports, 1871; Jones, 1991). However, these reports also fueled communitarian narratives, emphasizing differences between Hindus and Muslims, contributing to a bifurcated understanding of Indian society (Census Reports, 1871; Jones, 1991).

The colonial-era census reports played a pivotal role in perpetuating a narrative surrounding religious conversions, with a specific focus on the conversion of lower-caste Hindus to Islam among the Mappila community. The enumeration process, as observed in reports such as those from 1871, contributed to framing the increase in the Muslim population as a result of conversions. This portrayal suggested that Mappilas, driven by their distinct communal identity, were perceived to have advantages that led to a rise in their numbers (Census Reports, 1871; Jones, 1991).

Furthermore, the census reports, spanning successive years, actively contributed to the stereotyping of Mappilas as uneducated and fanatical. These portrayals, notably found in the 1874 census report, further solidified communal distinctions. The lasting impact of such characterizations extended beyond statistical enumeration, influencing both internal and external perceptions of the Mappila community. This historical lens reveals how colonial methodologies not only recorded demographic changes but also actively shaped perceptions, contributing to the complex construction of communal identities during this period (Census Report, 1874; Jones, 1991).

Educational Policies and Communitarian Politics

During the colonial era, British educational policies, as highlighted by the establishment of separate ‘Mopla schools,’ were ostensibly designed to address perceived challenges in Muslim education. However, the unintended consequences of these policies were the reinforcement of communal divisions by physically segregating Muslim students from their non-Muslim counterparts. The establishment of separate educational facilities not only perpetuated a physical divide but also contributed significantly to the entrenchment of communal identities, fostering a growing divide between Hindus and Muslims (Abdul Razak, 2007).

The discourse surrounding the perceived necessity of separate schools also had a palpable impact on political demands and initiatives within the Mappila community. The colonial government’s increasing focus on addressing what it deemed as specific Muslim problems in education was integral to its broader policy of balancing communities. This emphasis inadvertently fostered a sense of separate communal interests, contributing to the complex landscape of political dynamics within the Mappila community (ibid).

Furthermore, British policies aimed at preventing Mopla outbreaks by promoting education within the caste had unintended consequences. Instead of mitigating communal tensions, these policies inadvertently contributed to the perpetuation of orthodoxy and communalism within the Mappila community (Innes, 1903/1951; Abdul Razak, 2007). The intersection of educational policies and political initiatives reveals a layered impact on the formation and perpetuation of communal identities during the colonial era.

Media Narratives and Communal Identity

Beyond official documents, media narratives played a crucial role in perpetuating stereotypes and influencing communal perceptions. Newspapers like Naveena Keralam and Manorama highlighted the divisive impact of separate schools on Hindu-Muslim relations. Naveena Keralam, in particular, criticized the establishment of separate schools, emphasizing that it widened the gulf between the two communities (Naveena Keralam, 1992). Manorama echoed similar sentiments, suggesting that separate schools intensified communal cleavage (Manorama, 1922). This media discourse mirrored broader societal concerns about the ramifications of communal policies, shedding light on the intricate interplay between public opinion and colonial initiatives.

1921 Rebellion and Perpetuation of Stereotypes

During the 1921 Rebellion, British officials perpetuated old stereotypes about Mappilas in their accounts. The remarks of a judge of the Malabar special tribunal trying the rebels in 1921 reveal that British authorities had not altered their opinion about Mappilas even after a century. The judge stated that, “for the last 100 years at least, the Mappila community has been disgraced from time to time by murderous outrages. In the past, they have been due to fanaticism. The Mappilas of Ernad and Walluvanad have been described as a barbarous and savage race, and unhappily, the description seems appropriate at the present day” (Hasan, 1997).

The judge’s statement during the 1921 Rebellion indicates a continuity of colonial perceptions regarding the Mappila community. Despite a century passing, there was no visible change in the character attributed to Mappilas. They were still considered a violent community prone to outbreaks of violence for no apparent reason. This reinforces the lasting impact of colonial stereotypes and their influence on the perception of Mappilas (Pandey, 1989).

The rebels of 1921 were no longer solely driven by fanaticism but also by a desire for insurrection, suggesting a compounded nature of their motivations. This narrative, emphasizing fanaticism compounded and unreason multiplied, underscores the persistent characterization of Mappilas as a community inherently prone to violence (Hitchcock, 1983; Hasan, 1997). Even crimes were considered to be performed without agency and merely as a function of habit or usage, reflecting a deep-seated bias in colonial perceptions (Dirks, 2002).

Incorporating these historical events and perceptions into the broader narrative of Mappila identity reveals the enduring impact of colonial encounters on shaping communal consciousness. The 1921 Rebellion serves as a poignant example of how colonial stereotypes persisted and influenced the understanding of the Mappila community, contributing to the perpetuation of communal identities in Malabar.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the intricate interplay between external influences and British colonial methodologies significantly shaped the emergence of the Mappila Muslim community. The categorization, stereotyping, and educational policies employed during this period unintentionally fostered communitarian sentiments, leaving an indelible mark on socio-religious, educational, and political aspects in Malabar. The enduring impact of colonial encounters, evident in the lasting legacy of communal identities, highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of the complex processes that contributed to the formation and perpetuation of the Mappila Muslim community’s identity during the colonial era (Abdul Razak, 2007; Census Reports, 1871; Appadurai, 1994).

In this narrative, the intersections of colonial practices, theoretical perspectives on community, and localized impacts provide valuable insights into the intricate dynamics of communal identity formation. The enduring stereotypes and biases, exemplified by the perpetuation of colonial perceptions during the 1921 Rebellion, underscore the lasting influence of colonial encounters on shaping communal consciousness. As we reflect on Malabar’s history, it becomes clear that the multifaceted legacies of colonialism continue to reverberate through the socio-cultural fabric, offering a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in the construction of communal identities in the region. The persistent themes of categorization, stereotyping, and unintended consequences thread through the historical tapestry, connecting the various facets of Mappila identity formation during the colonial era.

References

Abdul Razak, P. P. (2007). Colonialism and Community Formation in Malabar: A Study of Muslims of Malabar (Doctoral dissertation). University of Calicut.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Appadurai, A. (1994). Number in Colonial Imagination. In C. A. Breckridge & P. Van der Veer (Eds.), Orientalism and the Post-Colonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia. Oxford University Press.

Brass, P. R. (1979). Ethnic Communities in the Modern State. In Taylor, P. M., & Yapp, M. E. (Eds.), Political Identity in South Asia. London.

Brass, P. R. (1997). A Reply to Francis Robinson. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 15(3).

Chakravarthy, D. (1995). Modernity and Ethnicity in India: A History for the Present. Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), 30.

Chatterjee, P. (1998). Communities in the East. EPW, 33(6).

Cohn, B. S. (2001). The Census, Social Structure and Objectification in South Asia. In Anthropologist among Historians and Other Essays. OUP. Delhi.

(Census, 1871). Report on Census 1871, Appendix by Cornish, Vol. I (Madras 1874).

Census of 1871 Vol. I. (1874). Madras: K.R.A.

Dirks, N. B. (2002). Castes of Mind. Permanent Black.

Hasan, M. (1997). Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims Since Independence. OUP, Delhi.

Hitchcock, R. H. (1983). A History of Malabar Rebellion 1921. Delhi. (Reprint).

Hobsbawm, E. (1992). Inventing Traditions. In E. Hobsbawm & T. Ranger (Eds.), The Invention of Traditions (Cambridge Canto Edition).

Innes, C. A. (1951). Malabar District Gazetteer. Madras: Govt. Press. (Original work published 1903).

Jones, K. W. (1991). Religious Identity and Indian Census. In N. Gerrald Barrier (Ed.), The Census in British India: New Perspectives. New Delhi.

Kaviraj, S. (1992). The Imaginary Institution of India. In Subaltern Studies VII (ed) P. Chatterjee and G. Pandey. OUP, Delhi.

Manorama. (1922, July 21). Calicut edition. MNNPR.

Naveena Keralam. (1992, July 24). MNNPR.

Pande, G. (1996). Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India. Oxford University Press. Delhi.

Pandey, G. (1989). The Colonial Construction of Communalism: British Writings on Benares in the 19th century. In R. Guha (Ed.), Subaltern Studies IV. Delhi.

Robinson, F. (1974). Separatism among Indian Muslims: The Politics of United Province’s Muslims, 1860-1923. London.

Robinson, F. (1997). Nation Formation: The Brass Thesis and Muslim Separatism. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 15(3).

Roy, A. (2001). Being and Becoming a Muslim: A Historiographic Perspective on the Search for Muslim Identity in Bengal. In Bandhopadhyaya, S. (Ed.), Bengal: Rethinking History: Essays in Historiography. Delhi: Manohar, ICBS.