A three-member sub-committee appointed by the ICHR to review the entries in the fifth volume of the ‘Dictionary of Martyrs: India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947)’ recommended the exclusion on the plea – a specious one - that the 1921 rebellion was not part of the Independence struggle. The committee said the rebellion was a fundamentalist movement bent upon religious conversion. The slogans raised during the rebellion, the committee felt, were not anti-British.

The panel is said to be of the firm opinion that the rebellion was part of a plan to establish a Caliphate. If it had fructified, a Caliphate would have come up in the region. The rebellion was witnessed mainly in Eranad, Valluvanadu and parts of Kozhikode in Malabar. The sub-committee’s conclusion was that Haji was a rioter who established a Sharia court and killed many Hindus. A section of secular leaders, however, countered this view. They said Haji established not a Mopla raj but a Malayala rajyam. That itself is an eloquent proof that he was not a communalist. If he was a communalist he would have chosen to deportation to Mecca – an offer made by the British. But he rejected the offer and preferred to embrace martyrdom.

The ICHR’s move has triggered a raging controversy. Historians are sharply divided over the motive of the ICHR in taking the decision. According to Prof. C I Isaac, member of the sub-committee, there is no basis to treat the rebellion as part of the freedom struggle. The flag the ‘rioters’ carried was the flag of the Khilafat movement. Moreover, the people who participated in the rebellion tried to implement the Sharia law and established Khilafat rule in Malappuram for a brief period. “The names found a place in the dictionary as it was pushed by some vested interests,” said Isaac.

However, historian MGS Narayanan is of the view that the move could be politically motivated. The changed political circumstances in the country might have influenced the decision, Narayanan said, adding that such decisions would affect the credibility of the ICHR badly. They are neither right nor good, averred Narayanan.

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) general secretary P K Kunhalikutty accused the ICHR of rewriting history and erasing the records. But nothing can be erased from the hearts of the people, the IUML said. The martyrs of the freedom struggle, the party emphasized, would continue to live in the hearts of the people. IUML Malappuram district president Syed Sadikali Shihab Thangal said the ICHR was being ungrateful to those who fought for the freedom of the country. The organization is doing great injustice to the next generation by dealing dishonestly with history, he pointed out.

Kerala Muslim Jamaat also identified itself with the sentiments expressed by the IUML. Jamaat general secretary Sayed Ibrahim Khaleel Bukharu came down heavily on the ICHR move. The removal of the names of those who fought against the British will go down as the biggest shame for Independent India. It is a decision totally unacceptable to patriots, he further said.

Significantly, family members of Kunhamed Haji said the names had been included in the dictionary after a lot of research. What is notable is the fact that many Hindu leaders joined hands with Haji in the fight against British. This effectively knocks the stuffing out of the argument that the rebellion was anti-Hindu, as is claimed by Sangh Parivar leaders.

In its official reaction, BJP national vice-president AP Abdullakutty dubbed Kunhamed Haji as the first Taliban leader from Kerala! He said the Kerala Government’s move to set up a memorial glorifying him as a freedom fighter amounts to distorting history. Malabar Rebellion was neither a freedom struggle nor a peasant revolt. It was an act of Hindu genocide, he averred. RSS leader Ram Madhav also said the movement was a manifestation of the Taliban mindset in India.

Kerala Assembly Speaker MB Rajesh, however, strongly condemned the ICHR decision. The decision was part of the Sangh Parivar plan to rewrite history to suit the saffron brigade’s agenda. Kunhamed Haji, the Speaker pointed out, refused to apologise to the British. He preferred martyrdom to deportation to Mecca, Rajesh underlined. The Speaker also compared Haji with Bhagat Singh – a remark which drew heavy flak from RSS-BJP leaders. Incidentally, a film on Haji announced by actor Prithviraj had incurred the wrath of the Sangh Parivar organizations.

The ICHR sub-committee has, however retained the names of martyrs of the communist movement in Kerala, including the ones killed in the Punnapra-Vayalar, Kayyur, Karivellur and Kavumbayi uprisings. The names of 84 martyrs of the Punnapra-Vayalar uprising, who participated in the movement for a responsible government in Travancore and against the autocratic rule of Diwan CP Ramaswamy Aiyar are there in the dictionary.

The carefully-orchestrated decision of the ICHR to rewrite history to suit the saffron agenda has evoked strong condemnation in Kerala known for its secular ethos and pluralist polity. The move, the RSS-BJP must realize, cannot but further alienate the people of the State from the RSS-BJP. It will also cause a further erosion in the strength of the BJP in Kerala, which has suffered a serious decline as is clear from the pathetic performance of the party in both the local body elections and the Assembly polls in the State. The Sangh Parivar must reorient itself if it wants to retain its relevance in Kerala’s political landscape. Nefarious attempts to distort history will only result in the wilting and withering away of the lotus in Kerala’s secular waters. (IPA Service)