THE TRUE HISTORY OF 1921

Foreword

Jihad and Genocide in Malabar

Ramachandran

This book has been written to put the record straight- there has been a sustained effort among the modern researchers to paint the Mappila rebellion of 1921 in Malabar as a peasant struggle or class war. The route to class war becomes easy if it is labelled as a peasant struggle. There had been better peasant struggles in Tambov and elsewhere, while Lenin was the Communist dictator in Russia. The Mappila rebellion was directed by the Muslim fanatic clerics, waged as a Jihad. This is evident in the official history written by R H Hitchcock, the Superintendent of Police in south Malabar in 1921. His work titled A History of the Malabar Rebellion 1921 has been published by a modern researcher with the misleading title, Peasant Revolt in Malabar: A History of the Malabar Rebellion 1921. Hitchcock has not termed it as a peasant revolt. He wrote it to prove that the rebellion had been religious fanaticism. But peasant revolts have a market in modern research. Hence the modern European interest in the Mappila rebellion.

Abani Mukherjee, a member of the Soviet Communist Party had given a note during the rebellion to Lenin, interpreting it as a class war. Modern European historians like Conrad Wood followed the hint and Indian Marxist historians like K. M. Panicker followed suit. The Muslim fundamentalists and Jihadists became very happy, and theses on the rebellion flourished. The Muslim gangsters and Jihadist clerics of 1921 have become Marxists now. The Marxists in Kerala recognized the Jihad as a freedom struggle, betrayed the Hindus and they rewarded the Jihadists with titles, rewards, and pensions.

Even the old Mappila outbreaks were fanatic in nature. According to British records, the excitement in the Muslim world over two events outside Malabar aided the spirit of unrest among the Mappilas: The state of Sudan in 1884 and that of Turkey in 1896. Sudan and Yemen are neighbouring countries, divided by the Red Sea. Yemen of course was the motherland of the Jihadists Mambram Alavi Thangal and his son Fazal Pookkoya Thangal, religious leaders of the Malabar Mappilas. The Mahdi revolution in Sudan was a Jihad against the British rule, and the communists were interested in that-the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels had been published in 1848, and the Paris Commune had happened in 1871. The Mahdist Revolution was an Islamic revolt against the westernised Egyptian government in Sudan. An apocalyptic branch of Islam, Mahdism incorporated the idea of a golden age in which the Mahdi, translated as “the guided one,” would restore the glory of Islam to the earth.

Turkey in 1896, through the Hamidian massacres, showed the way for the genocide of Christians by Muslims. Between 1894 and 1924, the number of Christians in Asia Minor fell from some 3-4 million to just tens of thousands—from 20% of the area’s population to under 2%. Turkey has long attributed this decline to wars and the general chaos of the period, which claimed many Muslim lives as well. But the descendants of Turkey’s Christians, many of them dispersed around the world since the 1920s, maintain that the Turks murdered about half of their forebears and expelled the rest. Turkey’s Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian (or Syriac) communities disappeared as a result of a staggering campaign of genocide beginning in 1894, perpetrated against them by their Muslim neighbours. By 1924, the Christian communities of Turkey and its adjacent territories had been destroyed. The systematic Armenian genocide happened during 1914-1916 in which 1.2 million Armenians were massacred.

This Armenian genocide became the guiding force for the Mappilas, driven by pan-Islamic forces. Mysterious people like the Lawrence of Arabia landed in Malabar. The Khilafat struggle, promoted by Gandhi came in handy for the extremist Islamic forces and the Congress in Malabar fell into extremist hands. M P Narayana Menon, a close friend of K Madhavan Nair dressed like a Mappila and addressed them in mosques. Former dacoits like Variyankunnath Haji found themselves in exalted positions. A Jihad was declared against the British; there was talk of an Afghan invasion of India and Mappilas were led to believe that the British have been defeated in the World War. A temporary Khilafat kingdom was established by Ali Musaliyar, where Sharia laws alone prevailed. A lot of Hindus, belonging to the proletariat were massacred. Hindu priests were attacked and temples desecrated.

I have tried in this book to go deep into the roots of the Mappila and the advent of Islam in Malabar; it is evident from records that Jihadi texts existed in Malabar from the Portuguese period onwards. This inner stream of Jihad was at work in 1921. It is important to understand this inner meaning to comprehend the true history of the rebellion.

© Ramachandran 

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA AND THE MAPPILA REBELLION

He was in Kerala Just Prior to the Rebellion

What was Lawrence of Arabia doing in Kerala,during the run upto the Mopah Rebellion of 1921? The lore is that he had been here for an ayurvedic treatment,at Trichur.It has to be remembered that Trichur was the place where the dress rehersal for the rebellion was actually held.A spy like T E Lawrence will never sit idle with Ashtavaidyan Thaikkattu Mooss,nor he is going to reveal wgatever design he has,to the Mooss,who was treating him.Lawrence then,was the guest of K Govinda Menon,Forest Conservator,who had been his classmate at Oxford.Lawrence was the person who instigated the Arabs to rebel against the Khalifa,the Turkish Sultan during the first World War;in Malabar,during the Khilafath movement,the Moplahs had risen in favour of the Sultan,whom Lawrence had toppled.Every reason for him to be here,in Kerala.

For movie buffs, who have seen David Lean’s classic Lawrence of Arabia, Thomas Edward Lawrence, immortalised by Peter O’Toole, is the dashing British leader dressed in white and gold Arab robes. But the real Lawrence was not exactly the heroic character of the 1962 film. He was certainly one of the most colourful figures of the First World War, but Lawrence was also controversial with strange fetishes.

Libraries across the world house comprehensive research and archival materials on Lawrence and much of his story is well known. What is not known and what the shelves in the libraries may not tell you is the record of a personal journey Lawrence undertook to Kerala sometime in 1920-21.

This trip was immediately after the first world War. Lawrence who played a leading role as adviser to Emir Faisal of Hejaz,(which is now Saudi Arabia ),during the Arab revolt against Turkish rule (1916–1918) was clearly torn between his British and Arab sympathies. He suffered a huge setback, 'a stinging humiliation that plunged him into a phase of depression'. To recover from this he accepted an invitation from K. Govinda Menon (Conservator of Forests, Cochin State), his classmate at Oxford, to travel to Trichur.The so called depression may have been an alibi.

T E Lawrence

“He stayed for 21 days in Trichur for an elaborate Ayurveda treatment which was supervised by the famous Thaikkattu Mooss. He went on his mandatory evening walks, ate home-made food and left a cheerful man. This must have been Lawrence’s only visit to India,” says V. N. Venugopal, grandson of Govinda Menon and the inheritor of those memories, rare photographs and an autographed book. They remain the only surviving link between ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and Kerala.Venugopal,who worked in Premier Tyres,had been Secretary of the Kerala Fine Arts Society,Kochi.

Venugopal first came to know about Lawrence when he was studying for his Intermediate at Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam. “We had an essay on ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ by Winston Churchill from his book Great Contemporaries. When I read this essay aloud at home my father (P. Narayana Menon) who was listening asked me what I was reading. He showed me a book that was autographed by the same ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and the other memorabilia connected with the man. I was stunned because I was reading about an icon and I come to know that my father knew this man, accompanied him on his evening walks when he came to stay at our ancestral home at Trichur. It was so surreal.”

It was Venugopal’s grandmother (Ammu Amma) who told him a lot about Lawrence’s Trichur visit. “She used to narrate stories graphically. One of them was about Lawrence. About how she and my grandfather travelled by the Boat Mail train from Trichur to Dhanushkodi and took a boat to Colombo to pick up Lawrence. He had reached there and the three of them travelled back to Trichur.”

Trichur was a small village in those days. A few Europeans had settled here, most of them planters. “There were rubber plantations at Pudukkad and Amballur managed by Europeans who used to stay at Trichur. They even had an English Club. So, Lawrence was not looked upon as a stranger here.”

On his return to England, Lawrence sent Govinda Menon an autographed copy of Letters of Lawrence. The book has a photograph of Lawrence with his four brothers and on one of the pages, yellowed by time, has the words, ‘In memory of happy days.’

Venugopal treasures photographs of his grandfather and Lawrence shot during their Oxford days (1910-1913). “My grandfather was very close to the Lawrence family. He was almost like a member of the family. After Lawrence’s death his mother sent my grandfather the Bible she had probably gifted to her son, and his brother Montague sent him a copy of Lawrence’s seminal work,Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence,  ( 1888 –  1935), a British archaeologist, army-officer, diplomat, and writer, became renowned for his role in the Arab Revolt (1916–1918) and the Sinai and Palestine Campaign (1915–1918) against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.He was born (out of wedlock) in August 1888 to Sarah Junner (1861 - 1959), a governess, and Thomas Chapman (1846 - 1919), an Anglo-Irish nobleman. Chapman left his wife and family in Ireland to cohabit with Junner. Chapman and Junner called themselves Mr and Mrs Lawrence, using the surname of Sarah's likely father; her mother had been employed as a servant for a Lawrence family when she became pregnant with Sarah. In 1896 the Lawrences moved to Oxford, where Thomas attended the High School and then studied history at Jesus College, Oxford from 1907 to 1910. Between 1910 and 1914 he worked as an archaeologist for the British Museum, chiefly at Carchemish in Ottoman Syria.

Soon after the outbreak of war in 1914 he volunteered for the British Army and was stationed at the Arab Bureau (established in 1916) intelligence unit in Egypt. In 1916 he travelled to Mesopotamia and to Arabia on intelligence missions and quickly became involved with the Arab Revolt as a liaison to the Arab forces, along with other British officers, supporting the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz's independence war against its former overlord, the Ottoman Empire. He worked closely with Emir Faisal, a leader of the revolt, and he participated, sometimes as leader, in military actions against the Ottoman armed forces, culminating in the capture of Damascus in October 1918.

After the First World War, Lawrence joined the British Foreign Office, working with the British government and with Faisal.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914, Lawrence did not immediately enlist in the British Army. He held back until October on the advice of S. F. Newcombe, when he was commissioned on the General List. Before the end of the year, he was summoned by renowned archaeologist and historian Lt. Cmdr. David Hogarth, his mentor at Carchemish, to the new Arab Bureau intelligence unit in Cairo, and he arrived in Cairo on 15 December 1914. The Bureau's chief was General Gilbert Clayton who reported to Egyptian High Commissioner Henry McMahon.

The situation was complex during 1915. There was a growing Arab-nationalist movement within the Arabic-speaking Ottoman territories, including many Arabs serving in the Ottoman armed forces. They were in contact with Sharif Hussein, Emir of Mecca, who was negotiating with the British and offering to lead an Arab uprising against the Ottomans. In exchange, he wanted a British guarantee of an independent Arab state including the Hejaz, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Such an uprising would have been very helpful to Britain in its war against the Ottomans, greatly lessening the threat against the Suez Canal. However, there was resistance from French diplomats who insisted that Syria's future was as a French colony, not an independent Arab state. There were also strong objections from the Government of India, which was nominally part of the British government but acted independently. Its vision was of Mesopotamia under British control serving as a granary for India; furthermore, it wanted to hold on to its Arabian outpost in Aden.

At the Arab Bureau, Lawrence supervised the preparation of maps, produced a daily bulletin for the British generals operating in the theatre, and interviewed prisoners.He was an advocate of a British landing at Alexandretta which never came to pass. He was also a consistent advocate of an independent Arab Syria.

Lawrence with Govinda Menon

The situation came to a crisis in October 1915, as Sharif Hussein demanded an immediate commitment from Britain, with the threat that he would otherwise throw his weight behind the Ottomans. This would create a credible Pan-Islamic message that could have been very dangerous for Britain, which was in severe difficulties in the Gallipoli Campaign. The British replied with a letter from High Commissioner McMahon that was generally agreeable while reserving commitments concerning the Mediterranean coastline and Holy Land.

In the spring of 1916, Lawrence was dispatched to Mesopotamia to assist in relieving the Siege of Kut by some combination of starting an Arab uprising and bribing Ottoman officials. This mission produced no useful result. Meanwhile, the Sykes–Picot Agreement was being negotiated in London without the knowledge of British officials in Cairo, which awarded a large proportion of Syria to France. Further, it implied that the Arabs would have to conquer Syria's four great cities if they were to have any sort of state there: Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo. It is unclear at what point Lawrence became aware of the treaty's contents.

The Arab Revolt began in June 1916, but it bogged down after a few successes, with a real risk that the Ottoman forces would advance along the coast of the Red Sea and recapture Mecca. On 16 October 1916, Lawrence was sent to the Hejaz on an intelligence-gathering mission led by Ronald Storrs. He interviewed Sharif Hussein's sons Ali, Abdullah, and Faisal, and he concluded that Faisal was the best candidate to lead the Revolt.

In November, S. F. Newcombe was assigned to lead a permanent British liaison to Faisal's staff. Newcombe had not yet arrived in the area and the matter was of some urgency, so Lawrence was sent in his place. In late December 1916, Faisal and Lawrence worked out a plan for repositioning the Arab forces to prevent the Ottoman forces around Medina from threatening Arab positions and putting the railway from Syria under threat. Newcombe arrived and Lawrence was preparing to leave Arabia, but Faisal intervened urgently, asking that Lawrence's assignment become permanent.

Lawrence's most important contributions to the Arab Revolt were in the area of strategy and liaison with British armed forces, but he also participated personally in several military engagements.Lawrence made a 300-mile personal journey northward in June 1917, on the way to Aqaba, visiting Ras Baalbek, the outskirts of Damascus, and Azraq, Jordan. He met Arab nationalists, counselling them to avoid revolt until the arrival of Faisal's forces, and he attacked a bridge to create the impression of guerrilla activity. His findings were regarded by the British as extremely valuable and there was serious consideration of awarding him a Victoria Cross; in the end, he was invested as a Companion of the Order of the Bath and promoted to Major.

Lawrence travelled regularly between British headquarters and Faisal, co-ordinating military action. But by early 1918, Faisal's chief British liaison was Colonel Pierce Charles Joyce, and Lawrence's time was chiefly devoted to raiding and intelligence-gathering.The chief elements of the Arab strategy which Faisal and Lawrence developed were to avoid capturing Medina, and to extend northwards through Maan and Dera'a to Damascus and beyond. Faisal wanted to lead regular attacks against the Ottomans, but Lawrence persuaded him to drop that tactic. Lawrence wrote about the Bedouin as a fighting force:

The value of the tribes is defensive only and their real sphere is guerilla warfare. They are intelligent, and very lively, almost reckless, but too individualistic to endure commands, or fight in line, or to help each other. It would, I think, be possible to make an organized force out of them.… The Hejaz war is one of dervishes against regular forces—and we are on the side of the dervishes. Our text-books do not apply to its conditions at all.

Medina was an attractive target for the revolt as Islam's second holiest site, and because its Ottoman garrison was weakened by disease and isolation. It became clear that it was advantageous to leave it there rather than try to capture it, while continually attacking the Hejaz railway south from Damascus without permanently destroying it.This prevented the Ottomans from making effective use of their troops at Medina, and forced them to dedicate many resources to defending and repairing the railway line.

Trichur house where Lawrence stayed

It is not known when Lawrence learned the details of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, nor if or when he briefed Faisal on what he knew, However, there is good reason to think that both these things happened, and earlier rather than later. In particular, the Arab strategy of northward extension makes perfect sense given the Sykes-Picot language that spoke of an independent Arab entity in Syria, which would only be granted if the Arabs liberated the territory themselves. The French, and some of their British Liaison officers, were specifically uncomfortable about the northward movement, as it would weaken French colonial claim.

In 1917, Lawrence proposed a joint action with the Arab irregulars and forces including Auda Abu Tayi, who had previously been in the employ of the Ottomans, against the strategically located but lightly defended town of Aqaba on the Red Sea. Aqaba could have been attacked from the sea, but the narrow defiles leading through the mountains were strongly defended and would have been very difficult to assault. The expedition was led by Sharif Nasir of Medina.

Akbar Jehan

Lawrence carefully avoided informing his British superiors about the details of the planned inland attack, due to concern that it would be blocked as contrary to French interests. The expedition departed from Wejh on 9 May, and Aqaba fell to the Arab forces on 6 July, after a surprise overland attack which took the Turkish defences from behind. After Aqaba, General Sir Edmund Allenby, the new commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, agreed to Lawrence's strategy for the revolt. Lawrence now held a powerful position as an adviser to Faisal and a person who had Allenby's confidence, as Allenby acknowledged after the war:

I gave him a free hand. His cooperation was marked by the utmost loyalty, and I never had anything but praise for his work, which, indeed, was invaluable throughout the campaign. He was the mainspring of the Arab movement and knew their language, their manners and their mentality.

Lawrence describes an episode on 20 November 1917 while reconnoitering Dera'a in disguise, when he was captured by the Ottoman military, heavily beaten, and sexually abused by the local bey and his guardsmen, though he does not specify the nature of the sexual contact. Some scholars have stated that he exaggerated the severity of the injuries that he suffered, or alleged that the episode never actually happened. There is no independent testimony, but the multiple consistent reports and the absence of evidence for outright invention in Lawrence's works make the account believable to his biographers. Malcolm Brown, John E. Mack, and Jeremy Wilson have argued that this episode had strong psychological effects on Lawrence, which may explain some of his unconventional behaviour in later life. Lawrence ended his account of the episode in Seven Pillars of Wisdom with the statement: "In Dera'a that night the citadel of my integrity had been irrevocably lost.

Lawrence was involved in the build-up to the capture of Damascus in the final weeks of the war, but he was not present at the city's formal surrender, much to his disappointment. He arrived several hours after the city had fallen, entering Damascus around 9 am on 1 October 1918; the first to arrive was the 10th Australian Light Horse Brigade led by Major A. C. N. "Harry" Olden, who formally accepted the surrender of the city from acting Governor Emir Said. Lawrence was instrumental in establishing a provisional Arab government under Faisal in newly liberated Damascus, which he had envisioned as the capital of an Arab state. Faisal's rule as king, however, came to an abrupt end in 1920, after the battle of Maysaloun when the French Forces of General Gouraud entered Damascus under the command of General Mariano Goybet, destroying Lawrence's dream of an independent Arabia.

During the closing years of the war, Lawrence sought to convince his superiors in the British government that Arab independence was in their interests, but he met with mixed success. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain contradicted the promises of independence that he had made to the Arabs and frustrated his work.

Lawrence returned to the United Kingdom a full colonel. Immediately after the war, he worked for the Foreign Office, attending the Paris Peace Conference between January and May as a member of Faisal's delegation. On 17 May 1919, a Handley Page Type O/400 taking Lawrence to Egypt crashed at the airport of Roma-Centocelle. The pilot and co-pilot were killed; Lawrence survived with a broken shoulder blade and two broken ribs.During his brief hospitalisation, he was visited by King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.

Lawrence served as an advisor to Winston Churchill at the Colonial Office for just over a year starting in February 1920.He hated bureaucratic work, writing on 21 May 1921 to Robert Graves: "I wish I hadn't gone out there: the Arabs are like a page I have turned over; and sequels are rotten things. I'm locked up here: office every day and much of it".He travelled to the Middle East on multiple occasions during this period, at one time holding the title of "chief political officer for Trans-Jordania".

In August 1922, Lawrence enlisted in the Royal Air Force as an aircraftman, under the name John Hume Ross. At the RAF recruiting centre in Covent Garden, London, he was interviewed by recruiting officer Flying Officer W. E. Johns, later known as the author of the Biggles series of novels. Johns rejected Lawrence's application, as he suspected that "Ross" was a false name. Lawrence admitted that this was so and that he had provided false documents. He left, but returned some time later with an RAF messenger who carried a written order that Johns must accept Lawrence.

However, Lawrence was forced out of the RAF in February 1923 after his identity was exposed. He changed his name to T. E. Shaw (apparently as a consequence of his friendship with G. B. and Charlotte Shaw and joined the Royal Tank Corps later that year. He was unhappy there and repeatedly petitioned to rejoin the RAF, which finally readmitted him in August 1925.A fresh burst of publicity after the publication of Revolt in the Desert resulted in his assignment to bases at Karachi and Miramshah in British India (now Pakistan) in late 1926,where he remained until the end of 1928. At that time, he was forced to return to Britain after rumours began to circulate that he was involved in espionage activities.

The Note to Govinda Menon,after Trichur days

The one important aspect of Lwrence was that,he was a double agent.Hence,it has to be investigated whom he represented when he came to Trichur,in Kerala,if he came as a spy.M P Narayana Menon,who as a Congress,Khlafat leader of Manjeri,was then travelling dressed like a Mappila Thangal,imitating,Lawrence.People called him,Mappila Menon.When Variyankunnatth Kunjahammad Haji looted the Namboothiri Bank at Manjeri,on 24 August 1921,in a speech at the ceremony,Menon had promised Mappilas,'outside help",according to the judgement,deporting him for life.Out side help from where? The Indian Communist Party formed in Tashkent,just prior to the Moplah rebellion had Indian Muhajirs,as its founding members.The muhajirs had left India,and where on their way to Turkey,to fight for the Sultan and redeem the Khalifate.The Soviet Union had plans to use King Amanulla of Afganisthan to help transport weapons to India for a revolution,but Amanulla had gone back on his promise,at the intervension of the British.Cecil Kaye,the British Intelligence Chief in India,has recorded that,M N Roy,the founding father of the Indian Communist Party,had a role in the Moplah rebellion.Abani Mukherjee,who founded the party alongwith him,had been in India during the rebellion,and had given a document on the rebellion to Lenin in October,1921.Mukherjee was a member of the Soviet Party.

After the discovery of oil in the middle east, the British were eager to break-up the Arab Islamic bloc. The ottomans had ruled a large area including the present Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Palestine for 400 years. Turkey sided with Germany in WW1. After its defeat the allies fell upon its carcass and divided it up between them. The British proclaimed Ibn Saud the ruler of Hejaz and by way of consolation Hussein's sons Abdullah and Faisal assumed the thrones of newly created kingdoms Jordan and Iraq in 1921.

By the mid-1920s Ibn Saud established Saudi Arabia in an orgy of murder. Numerous rebellions against the House of Saud subsequently took place, each put down in mass killings of mostly innocent victims, including women and children. The territory was divided into districts under the control of Saud’s relatives, a situation which largely prevails today.

When the British were desperate to topple King Anamullah they brought Lawrence in January 1927. He wandered around, disguised as an exiled Afghan Prince and cleric Pir Karam Shah and as TE Shaw at RAF base in Karachi. He became intimate with the tribes due to his knowledge in Arabic which tribesmen saw as divine language. During his stay, he fully naturalized with the local customs, dress and food habits. Subsequently he began to distribute money and arms among the tribes and provoked them against Amanulla.

Michael Adam Nedou was an architect from Dubrovnik (now in Croatia but was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during 1880s). Nedou opened smart hotels in Lahore (which is now Avari) and then in the Kashmiri ski resort of Gulmarg. Nedou’s hotel was the only premier hotel in Srinagar. The visiting British dignitaries, businessmen and maharajas of different princely states were regulars at Nedou’s in Kashmir. His son, Harry Nedou, married a Gujjar woman, Mir Jan. 

The black propaganda campaign with religious fervour among the more reactionary tribes provoked a civil war. In Srinagar, Lawrence started giving sermons in the Hazratbal mosque as Pir Karam Shah.

He flirted with the daughter of then famous Nedous hotel, Akbar Jehan. Her father insisted that they get married immediately; which they did. 

Three months later, in January 1929, Amanulla was toppled and replaced by a pro-British ruler. Within a few days, the imperialist Civil and Military Gazette, published comparative profiles of Lawrence and Karam Shah to reinforce the impression that they were two different people. Several weeks later, the Calcutta newspaper Liberty reported that Karam Shah was indeed the British spy Lawrence and gave a detailed account of his activities in Waziristan on the Afghan frontier. Because of this information leak, Lawrence became a liability and the authorities told him to return to Britain. 

Akbar Jehan (the desi version of Mata Hari) became alarmed about the secret movements of Lawrence and informed her father about the real identity of Pir Karam Shah. Henry Nedou called wrestlers Gama Pehlwan and his brother Imam Bakhsh Pehlwan from Amritsar to beat the impostor into pulp. They overpowered Lawrence of Arabia and forced him to write a Muslim talaq to Akbar Jehan. 

Nedous insisted on a divorce. Lawrence obliged. Karam Shah was never seen again.Akbar Jehan married Sheikh Abdullah,who became Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is evident from T E Lawrence Studies,Ouline Chronology that he was in Kerala during May-June 1921,because,these two months are missing in the chronology.It is the time of Idavappathi,suitable for ayurvedic treatment in Kerala.

The judgement deporting M P Narayana Menon is emphatic that the seed for the 1921 rebellion was sown in the 28 April 1920, fifth Malabar District Political Conference held at Manjeri presided over by S. Kasturiranga Iyengar, Editor of The Hindu. Annie Besant and her followers had walked out of the meeting,protesting against Gandhi's call for no co-operation.M P Narayana Menon,Secretary of the eranad Khilafat Committee, vehemently opposed and spoke against Ms Besant.

It was the Vadakra meet of the Indian National Congress,which took the decision to hold the next meet at Manjeri.C Achutha Menon,Pleader,represented Manavedan Raja of the Nilambur Palace at the Vadakara meet and requested for a meet at Manjeri.K Madhavan Nair,Secretary of the Congress,M P Narayana Menon and Kattilasseri Muhammad Musaliyar were given the responsibility to hold the Manjeri meet.This meet was distinct by the participation of hundreds of mappilas.Only the wealty had participated in the eralier meets.It was conducted at Palliyali Paramb,the Boys' High School ground.

Lawrence in 1919

Ms Annie Besant inaugurated the Malabar branch of the Theosophical Society,in the morning.Three reolutions were taken up at the Political meet:Montague-Chelmsford reforms,Tenancy issue and Khilafat issue.K P Raman Menon moved the on on reforms;Annie Besant opposed.C N ( Manjeri ) Rama Iyer,Nilambur Raja,M K Acharya and P A Krishna Menon supported Ms Besant.She walked out,when the resolution was passed with the crowding of the mappilas.17 members of the Nilambur royal family were massacred by the mappilas in 1921.

The Moplah rebellion broke out on 20 August 1921 at Manjeri.Its dress rehearsal was held in Trichur,in February.Yakoob Hassan,Khilafat leader of Madras,K Madhavan Nair,U Gopala Menon and P Moitheen Koya were arrested in Calicut on 16 February,for violating the prohibitary orders.A meeting to congratulate those leaders were held at Thekkinkad Maithan at Trichur on 20 February,organized by the Congress.This meet was attacked by the pro - British Christians.A fresh meet was held on 26 February,in which Paliath Kunjunni Achan delivered the non co-operation speech.The very next day the Christans held a loyalty procession,in which around 1500 Christians took part.This procession was blocked by the muslims,when it approched the mosque.The Muslims and Christians came to blows;some muslim houses and shops were burnt by the christians.C R Iyyunni addressed the christians,at the end of the processon.

Christians on the East and Congress Hindus and muslims on the West became two warring factions.Dr A R Menon led the Hindus.Dewan T Raghavachari reached the city.The christians attacked the hindus on 1 March,and houses and shops were destroyed.The Congress-Hindu leaders sought the halp of the Malabar mappilas-a large group of mappilas from Pokkottoor reached Trichur on 2 March and camped at the Devaswam inn.They held a procession,with loud calls of Takbir.The city was terrorized.British Resident H H Burkitt and the Dewan called the rival factions,in which both of them agreed for a cease-fire.The mappilas returned,after holding a victory procession.They rose after five months in Malabar.

There is an unconfirmed report which says T E Lawrence had been to Kerala twice;I could confirm only one.Maybe there is a lot more in classified British secret dossiers.

Later, Lawrence gave up his colonial title, joined the Royal Air Force as a messenger boy and changed his name to T.E. Shaw. It was an effort to disguise his celebrityhood, an attempt at anonymity,which all spies prefer. Still hounded by the limelight, he planned to retire to his dream home, Clouds Hill, when he died in a motorcycle accident.

That Lawrence was married to Sheikh Abdullah's wife,has been denied by Nyla Ali Khan,in her book on Akbar Jehan,The Life of a Kashmiri Woman.Akbar Jehan,incidentally,is her grand mother.But in the book,she has failed to counter certain perceptions about Akbar Jehan.Former Director of Intelligence Burau,B N Mullick,in his book,My Years with Nehru,projects Akbar Jehan as the main beneficiary of Pakistani fundsthat flowed in to support The Plebiscite Front from 1954 when she died.The xerox copies of the receipts signed by 'Zeeanatul Islam ' are part of Mullick's book and 'Zeenatul Islam' was Akbar Jehan's code name.Simmilarly,Ghulam Ahmad,a confidant of Sheikh Abdullah,in his book,My Years with Sheikh Abdullah,has accused Akbar Jehan of forcing her husband to throw open the doors for corruption,nepotism and favouritism.Nobody has discussed whether Sheikh Abdullah infact,was the son of Motilal Nehru.

© Ramachandran 

EDACHENA KUNKAN AND THE SIEGE OF PANAMARAM FORT

Captain Dickenson and Lt Maxwell Killed

After the slaying of Pazhassi Raja,while the Sub Collector Thomas Harvey Baber retained the dagger of Pazhassi,his clerk Karunakara Menon carried the sword and the single barrel fowling gun of Pazhassi on his shoulder,which he wrested from the Raja. Raja,in turn had seized the gun from Captain Dickenson,whom Edachena Kunkan,the Raja's Commander had slain,at the Siege of Panamaram Fort.

The capture of Panamaram Fort from the British by Kunkan and his force had been a decisive battle in which the British were taken by surprise and defeated.Such a battle by a Malayali force shoud be etched in golden letters,in  the history of Kerala.

The ruling British increased the taxes on farmers and more than half the rice produced was demanded as revenue, much to the dissatisfaction of the Wyanad people.One day, Edachena Kunkan happened to be in a house belonging to the Kurichiyar tribe when a belted British peon  came and demanded a rice paddy. In response, Edachena Kunkan killed him, after which 150 members of the Kurichiyar tribe under the leadership of Thalakkal Chandu joined Kunkan.With these additions and the support of his two brothers, Kunkan attacked the fort at Panamaram. The fort was guarded by 70 soldiers of I battalion of the Fourth Bombay Infantry under Captain Dickenson and Lieutenant Maxwell. The entire garrison, along with the Captain and Lieutenant were killed on 11 October 1802.After massacring the whole detachment, Kunkan acquired 112 muskets, six boxes of ammunition and Rs. 6,000, and the buildings were razed.This led to widespread revolt in Wayanad against British rule.

Order Attaching Kunkan's property

The Siege of Panamaram Fort

On 11 October 1802 followers of the Pazhassi Rajah attacked the East India Company garrison at Panamaram. Captain Dickenson and another European officer, together with about 50 Sepoys were killed and wounded during the fight.

Panamaram means Palmyra Fort; it appears that the garrison was stationed in a stockade built of palm tree trunks, to guard the point where the road from Sultan's Battery  to Mananthavady and the Peria Pass passes over the Kabani River. The Sepoy's were most probably living in the village along the street that runs down towards the site of the modern bridge. it is probable that Captain Dickenson's house was situated on the high point near the modern beaten earth sports field at the western end of the modern town.

Logan in his Malabar Manual records:

"The first overt act occurred at Panamaram (otherwise called Panamarattakotta, or Panamurtha Cotta, or still shorter Panorta Cota, literally the “palmyra tree fort”) in Wynad. Some five days previous to 11th October 1802, one of the proscribed rebel leaders, Edachenna Kungan, chanced to be present at the house of a Kurchiyan, when a belted peon came up and demanded some paddy from the Kurchiyan. Edachenna Kungan replied by killing the peon, and the Kurchiyars (a jungle tribe) in that neighbourhood, considering themselves thus compromised with the authorities, joined Edachenna Kungan under the leadership of one Talakal Chandu. This band, numbering about 150, joined by Edachenna Kungan and his two brothers, then laid their plans for attacking the military post at Panamaram, held by a detachment of 70 men of the 1st battalion of the 4th Bombay Infantry under Captain Dickenson and Lieutenant Maxwell.They first seized the sentry’s musket the sentry’s musket and killed him with arrows. Captain Dickenson killed and wounded with his pistols, bayonet and sword, 15 of the Kurchiyars, 5 of whom are dead and 10 wounded.The whole detachment was massacred, and the rebels obtained 112 muskets, 6 boxes of ammunition and Rs. 6,000. All the buildings at the post were destroyed."

Captain Lewis,based at Cannanore, sent the following account of events to Governor of Mysore, Colonel Arthur Wellesley on  16 October, 1802 ( Supplementary Despatches and Memoranda of Field Marshall Arthur Wellington. Vol III, Dec. 14, 1801 – Feb.14, 1803. Page 325 & 326 ):

“Ere this reaches you, you doubtless are acquainted with the melancholy occurrence at Panacoorta Cottah. The perpetrators of this accursed act were supposed to amount to between four and five hundred, divided into three parties, one of which secured the barracks of arms, another surrounded the officers’ homes, and the third attacked the sepoys. The cantonments were srt fire to in several places at the same time, and the men cut down as they came out of their huts. Captain Dickenson and Lieutenant Maxwell were mangled in a dreadful manner, twenty sepoys were killed and thirty wounded, few of whom are expected to survive; only one servant of Captain Dickenson’s escaped; all his property (except his mare) was destroyed, and his horse keeper and his wife were found burnt to death. Major Macleod’s Brahmins (of the Cutcherry) are missing. It is said that the Rajah himself, with Coongan and Yemman Nair, were present; but this can be only mere conjecture, as every inhabitant in the vicinity of Pancoota Cottah had deserted their homes. The arms of the detachment were secured by the rebels, but the ammunition being in Captain Dickenson’s house, was fortunately blown up. After this business was over, they were seen on the same morning at the Cootioor Pass, where they robbed and severely mauled every traveller who was unfortunate enough to fall in with them. To what point they directed their course is not yet ascertained."

Arthur Wellesley

The headquarters of the 4th Bombay Infantry Battalion was at Pulinjal, a few miles west of Panamaram. Here 360 men under the command of Major Drummond* remained,without any action.More from Supplementary Despatches:

"An officer within nine miles of him suffers himself to be surprised, and with his whole detachment is cut off; and Major Drummond, instead of putting the battalion under his command into camp, and moving quickly upon the rebels, sits quietly in his cantonment and takes no one step to oppose or stop the insurrection, or for the security of the troops or district under his command. I declare that after such supine conduct, to say no worse of it, I should not be astonished if I were to hear that Major Drummond and the remainder of the battalion had been cut off likewise.

"This is not the mode in which the former rebellion in Wynaad and Cotiote was suppressed; it is not that in which this insurrection is to be stopped; but it is the certain mode of continuing it as long as a British Soldier remains in that part of India.

"Tell Major Drummond that the troops lately sent to his assistance are not to be kept in a fort or cantonment; they are to be in the field in one or more bodies, according to his information of the strength of the enemy; and let him know that whatever may be the enemy’s strength at present, I expect that when he will be joined by these reinforcements he will move out and attack him, and that by his future activity he will remove from my mind the impression which has been made upon it of the certain evil which the public interests will sustain from his late supineness."

Colonel Wellesley was very critical of Drummond.On 3 November 1802, he wrote that the Major was a “kyde”, derived from,Kaithi,a Tamil word for prisoner.( Captain Robert Drummond had sailed to Bombay from Portsmouth on 17 March 1783 on EIC ship,George Elliot,which was launched the previous year.The ship reached Tellicherry on 24 September,Anjengo on 4 October.)

A relief column had to be sent up the Ghats from Calicut consisting of 300 sepoys and 200 men from Captain Watson’s police.

Edachenna Kungan following his victory went on to issue orders from Pulpalli Pagoda calling the inhabitants to arms. About 3,000 men assembled.

The minutes of the Commander in Chief J Stuart on 25 October,said that on the morning of the 11th a detachment of Panoratta, consisting of about 70 men of the Bombay Native Infantry was attacked by a body of Nairs. The post was carried, the Cantonment and Cutchery were burnt and the detachment was cutt off. The commanding Officer, Captn Dickerson, Lieutn Maxwell with 24 Sepoys were killed and about the same number of native troops were wounded... The body of Nairs whose numbers did not exceed three or four hundred men are reported to have dispersed after the affair but it appears that the stockade at the pass of Cotiote was attacked soon after, and the latest accounts contain information that the communication between Cotaparamba and Moutana had been intercepted.The officer commanding in Malabar took immediate steps to reinforce the Troops in Cotiote and Wynaad, and to collect a Detachment for the purpose of acting in these countries should the insurrection prove to be general. He detached 5 Company’s of the 5 Bombay Regiment with two Hundred men of the Police Corps from Calicut to Wynaad, and agreeably to instructions from the Honble Coll Wellesley drew his Majesties 77 Regiment into Malabar from the Province of Canara. The latter Officer has likewise adopted the most active measures for the reestablishment of Tranquillity – he has ordered the first battalion 8th Regiment to proceed from Seringapatam to Kancencottah to escort the Collector Major Macleod** and co-operate with the Troops serving in the Wynaad, and he is preparing to support these troops with further reinforcements should circumstances require them.There will be already fifteen hundred men in Wynaad, exclusively of the force in Cotiote***, his Majesties 77th Regiment two companies of the 81st – and the Bombay European Regiment which Corps has been directed to be detained while its presence may be necessary, will be in readiness to enter this District by the side of Malabar and the Commander in Chief has authorised the movement of two battalions of Native Infantry from the Southern Division of the Army to Mysore should the Hon’ble Colonel Wellesley require their services.

Edachena Kunkan , was a Wayanad Nayar noble of Tirunelli, who had joined the war efforts of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja in the 1770s and soon rose to become the commander of Raja's army. His younger brothers, Edachena Komappan , Edachena Othenan and Edachena Ammu, joined him in war as junior generals. He became popular in Wayanad through his leadership, creating support among people of many classes for Pazhassi Raja's war against the British East India Company.

Kunkan proved to be an excellent commander and under his leadership, Pazhassi troops fought against Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan of Mysore as far as the outskirts of Mysore. This enlarged the sphere of influence of Pazhassi Raja, who laid claim to territories as far as Nanjangud, Mysore.

During Hyder's siege of Thalasseri with the help of Chirakkal and Kadathanad ( 1779–1782), Pazhassi Raja sent 1000 troops commanded by Kunkan, who successfully repulsed all assaults by the Mysore army. The siege was later broken by a joint British-Pazhassi attack in 1782.

Koli tree at the Panamaram Fort site

After the capture of Panamaram Fort, Kunkan went to Pulpally pagoda, where he made an appeal to the people to join the rebel ranks. The response was overwhelming, as three thousand men volunteered. From then until early 1804, Pazhassi rebels launched regular guerrilla attacks over British positions throughout Northern Malabar, reaching as far as the coastal towns of Kannur, Thalassery and Calicut.Kunkan confronted the British twice: in 1802 at Wayanad where he tried to block a British army en route to Mananthavadi and in 1803 when he tried to besiege an outpost at Pazhassi. Both ended in failure, but it helped him to revise his strategy as afterwards he concentrated only on guerrilla warfare. The British announced a reward of 1,000 pagodas for those who helped to arrest Kunkan.By November 1805, the rebels were on the run and after Raja's death, Kunkan, 'that determined and incorrigible rebel,' was killed by the British army at Mavilayi Thod  alongwith Pazhassi Raja in 1805.

Kalpully Karunakara Menon,the Kolkaran who betrayed Pazhassi Raja,recorded thus in his report to the Malabar Principal Collector F Clemenston in 1834:

"While I was patrolling the forests of Wayanad and Kottayam with my senior officer Thomas H Baber with the aim of relieving the woods of the scourge of Pazhassi Raja and his men, the revolutionary King himself landed in front of me. From point-blank range, Pazhassi Raja pulled his trigger at me thrice.But by fate or accident, the gun did not pump any bullets.I managed to save myself and eliminate Pazhassi Raja following this.At this juncture, Edachena Kungankutty Nambiar and around a hundred of his soldiers started firing at us.In the resulting crossfire, we managed to eliminate Kungankutty Nambiar and many of his soldiers.Several of his soldiers were also taken prisoners. This includes the late Pazhassi Raja's wife too".

Pazhassi Raja's end came close to Karnataka on the shore of a stream named Mavila or Mavila Thod, on 30 November 1805,not far from Pulpally.Raja and party were caught by surprise and an intense but short fight followed. Six rebels were killed.

Aralathu Kuttyappa Nambiar was the only one among Pazhassi followers,who tried to defend at the grave, then he also was killed by them.The Company army confronted at Pulinjal the agitators and killed Emman, the nephew of Edachena Kunkan. Kunkan was also killed with Pazhassi. The Company army tried to catch Pallur Rayarappan, but he killed one of the Company men then committed suicide.Edachena Komapan caught by the Kolkkaranmar and Mundottil Mootha Nair were also killed. Emman, once the friend of Colonel Arthur Wellesley and others caught by the army and condemned to exile to the Island Prince of Wales, North to Australia.

After the killing od Pazhassi Raja,the East India Company held military trials at Sreerangapatanam during March and April,1806 and tried the captured soldiers.Edachena Komappan was tried on 31 March 1809.He pleaded not guilty.Coondy Kambier who had been a Gomastah belonging to a Cutcherry at Panartocotta at the time, and who had made his escape on the night of the massacre, was called to give evidence for the prosecution,thus:

"Yadachen Compen [Edachena] with his two Brothers, Coongan [Edachena Kunkan] & Yamroo accompanied with three hundred men came to Parrartacottah in the middle of the night on or about Sept 1802 , set fire to the Huts belonging to the Sepoys and killed the Sentries: Captn Dickenson ran out of his House and called the Drummer to beat to arms. About this time he received a wound from an arrow, and fired a fowling piece at the assailant. No sepoys arriving to his assistance Captn Dickenson endeavoured to cross over to a small Guard posted over some treasure – Before he could reach the Guard, however he fell in consequence of his wound, after he fell the Prisoner Yadachen Comapen cut him about the head with a sword, at a small distance another European Officer was killed & about 50 sepoys."

Komappan had also laid an ambush of a detachment under Colonel Montresor, firing into this officer’s column from the flanks.Komappan in his defense,maintained that it was his brother Kunkan, a vakeel for the Pazhassi Raja, who had in fact led the attack. He said that he had been left in the rear because he had a sore foot.Montresor was an associate of James Hartley,who had been army Commander at Kochi,Palakkad and Kannur and later General,Supervisor and Magistrate of Malabar.

The Court Marshall found Komappan guilty. The court sentenced him to death by hanging.

Thomas Baber on 9 April 1807, instructed his vakeel Kulpilly Karunakara Menon to prosecute the case against Paleora Eman Nair,  Kariakaran to Pazhassi Raja. The prisoners were taken to Sreerangapatanam where they were taken before a Court Marshall.Since there is record of an earlier trial date of 7April 1806 for Eman,The Court Marshall found all the men guilty and sentenced them to hang, so it is possible, that the instruction of 9 April refers to an appeal. 

Order attaching Kunkan's Property

The Court Marshall found all the men guilty and sentenced them to hang, which resulted in the men having their sentences commuted to transportation to Prince of Wales Island.

The Nilagiri Special assistant Collector on 17 April 1888 attached the properties of Kunkan.The order was found in the collection of Edachena E P Kunjikrishna Nair by his son K Madhusoodanan.The order says that since Kunkan had fought the British,he committed sedition and his family have no right to own properties in the country.The British,following this,denied land even for the cremation of dead bodies to the family and as a result,the bodies were thrown into river.The members of the family were denied government jobs.Why it took more than 80 years for such an order? No idea.

The Edachena family had migrated to Wynad,during the administrative expansion of the Kottayam dynasty.Kunkan was born at Pannichal,Edavaka in Mananthavadi.

The families, Edachana Kulangara, Edachana Puthenveettil and Edachana Koovammoola are still residing in Wayanad, and are third generation descendants of Edachena Kunkan.

Thalakkal Chanthu, also spelled Thalakkal Chandu, was an archer and commander-in-chief of the Kurichya soldiers of the Pazhassi Raja.Chanthu began his career under Edachena Kunkan.The British forces launched a retaliatory attack and trapped Chanthu on 15 November 1805.He was executed under a Koli tree.The Kerala Government installed a memorial to Chanthu on 22 September 2012, near Panamaram Fort on the banks of the Kabaniriver. In the form of a museum, the memorial displays weapon models used by Chanthu and his tribesmen, the Kurichiya archers and the tribe's traditional agricultural tools.

Failure of Wellesley

Arriving in Calcutta in February 1797 Arthur Wellesley spent several months there, before being sent on a brief expedition to the Philippines, where he established a list of new hygiene precautions for his men to deal with the unfamiliar climate.Returning in November to India, he learnt that his elder brother Richard, now known as Lord Mornington, had been appointed as the new Governor-General of India.In 1798, he changed the spelling of his surname to "Wellesley"; up to this time he was still known as Wesley, which his eldest brother considered the ancient and proper spelling.

Records say that, Colonel Wellesley, (1769-1852), brother of the then British Governor General of India, Richard Wellesley (Marquees Wellesley), was appointed as the Commander of the colonial forces of Malabar, South Canara and Mysore to suppress the growing aggression posed by Mysore ruler Tipu Sultan and Pazhassi Raja of Wayanad."The military control of the province was placed under the Madras government, which appointed Colonel Arthur Wellesley as Commander of the forces in Malabar and Canara as well as in Mysore," says the Malabar Manual.According to the manual, the British commander had made elaborate arrangements to strengthen the military posts and the army presence in the area and ordered the construction of roads to suppress the rebel uprising.

In a letter to his fellow army man, Lieutenant Colonel Kirkpatrick, dated 7 April 1800, Wellesley described Wayanad as a country "well calculated for turbulence"."There never was a country which, from its nature, its situation, the manners of its people, and its government, was so well calculated for turbulence," he had said.Expressing displeasure over the complicated geography of Wayanad which made the military operations difficult for the British troops, he described the whole place as a "jungle"."The whole country is one jungle, which may be open in some parts, but in others is so thick that it is impossible to see objects at the distance of two yards; and till roads are made, the country is impracticable for our troops," he said.Wellesley also called the native people as "savage and cruel" in the letter.However, records showed that despite his meticulous planning and strategies, Wellesley could not catch Pazhassi Raja as he wished.The commander had to return to his home country before Raja was defeated by the East India Company.

Both Arthur Wellesley and his brother were asked to return to England in 1805 before the Wayanad mission was completed.He was given the prestigious title of the Duke of Wellington in 1814 for his services and later assigned with the task of taking on Napoleon.As a military commander, Wellesley rose to the zenith of fame by defeating Napoleon in 1815.He was invited by King George IV to form his own government, following which he became the Prime Minister in 1828.

_________________________

*Major Drummond:Probably it was Robert Drummond of the Bombay Medical Establishment of the Company,who wrote Grammar of the Malabar Language in 1799.In its preface,he speaks of his visit to Bishop Luis of Uzula,who presided over the Carmelite mission at Verapoly ( Varapuzha ).He has listed names of other officers who learned Malayalam in Malabar:John William Wye,Affillant Surgeon of Bombay Medical Establishment,Lt Joseph Watson,Hay Clephane of the civil service.

** Major William Macleod,Principal Collector of Malabar

*** Cotiote:Kottayam

Wellesley:Arriving in Calcutta in February 1797 he spent several months there, before being sent on a brief expedition to the Philippines, where he established a list of new hygiene precautions for his men to deal with the unfamiliar climate.Returning in November to India, he learnt that his elder brother Richard, now known as Lord Mornington, had been appointed as the new Governor-General of India.In 1798, he changed the spelling of his surname to "Wellesley"; up to this time he was still known as Wesley, which his eldest brother considered the ancient and proper spelling.

© Ramachandran 

THE KILLING OF RAMA SIMHAN BY MUSLIMS

The Congress Helped to Destroy the Case

While Kerala is discussing Variyamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji and the Hindu genocide of 1921 on the eve of the centenary of the Mappila Rebellion, the story of the conversion of Unneen Sahib to Hinduism has to be remembered. As a result, the fanatic Muslims killed him and his family. It is known as the Ramasimhan episode since Uneen Sahib became known as Ramasimhan after his conversion.

I had read the name of Ramasimhan in the book, Khilafath Smaranakal by Mozhikunnath Brahmadathan Nambudiripad and had searched for the details in the library of the newspaper where I had worked. Unfortunately, the daily, established in 1888, had been banned for nine years from 1938 and thus had not reported the incident.

The conversion

In the book, Brahmadathan speaks negatively of Cherumukk Kunjan Othikkan who converted Kilimannil Unnian from Islam to Hinduism and made him Ramasimhan Nambudiri. Brahmadathan had been declared an outcast by his own Nambudiri community, after the Maappila revolt of 1921. Brahmadathan, Congress President of Cherpulassery in Palakkad was arrested by the police in a case in September 1921. He was given a life sentence and was imprisoned at the Bellary jail. He was declared an outcast for eating along with people belonging to other castes. He had gone to the high priest Cherumukk Somayajippad then seeking pardon. His entreaties were rejected then. After his death, his brother Kunjan Othikkan inherited the position of the high priest-he had been running a bank and had no knowledge of the rituals. But, according to Brahmadathan, he made his position an office of profit.

Kiliyamannil Thekke Palliyayali Moidu of Chemmankadavu village in Malappuram district of Kerala, had two sons namd Unneen and Alippu.Moidu or Kiliyamannil Moideen, hailing from Chemmankadav near Kodur in Malappuram, had made some money, managing the British rubber estate at Palipilly near Thrissur. He acquired land and a rubber estate himself, which were inherited by his son, Uneen or Unniyan.

Unneen was a rubber estate owner near Malaramba, Angadippuram, Perinthalmanna. The British government conferred the title of ‘Khan Sahib’ on Unneen as he was a landlord loyal to them. Unneen married the daughter of a prominent timber merchant Khan Bahadur Kalladi Unni Kammu of Mannarkadu in Palakkad district. Unneen had an Ettukettu bungalow at Angadippuram called the Malaramba bungalow and had leased for 90 years the 600-acre Malaramba estate from Kundrakal Nair, and had named it KM Moidu Rubber Estate. He drove an American Ford car. He had two brothers, Ali Bapu and Kunjahammed.

Unneen reached Angadippuram around 1905, to plant rubber following the British methods. He leased the 600 acres at Pariyapuram, and the land had a dilapidated Narasimha temple.

Unneen was very much attached to Western culture and was following their lifestyle. Being a rich landlord, he maintained local mosques, a madrasa and used to insult Hindus and their places of worship. He used the ruins of a nearby temple for building a latrine in his house. But all of a sudden he became sick and affected severe stomach disease. No treatment found to cure his illness. On seeing his pathetic condition some elders of nearby locality advised him to consult an astrologer and some Hindu Sannyasins for his recovery as they feared that it was a curse of God. They advised him to refrain from insulting Hindu deities and the Vedic literature. 

Ramasimhan

During the campaign of Tipu Sultan in the Malabar region of Kerala, hundreds of temples were destroyed and plundered by the Muslims. Prominent among them were Tali Shiva Temple at Kozhikode and Shri Narasimha Moorthi Temple at Malaparamba.

The Narasimha temple came into existence nearly 350 years ago. But it had lost its prominence due to neglect by the family who owned it. Afterwards, one Kundrakkal Nair took up the reconstruction work. With Tipu Sultan’s entry into the Malabar region in 1779, this temple was also got destroyed along with others. Then, Unneen Sahib's family got a lease of 100 acres of land around this temple for a rubber plantation.

A dream

One night in 1944, Uneen had a dream of a fierce face shouting and screaming at him. He got very much afraid. The dream continued for several nights. His Hindu friends advised him to consult an astrologer. One of his friends was the lawyer Manjeri Rama Iyer, who was Dewan of the Nilambur Raja. Rama Iyer had converted himself to Buddhism. He was supportive of the Uneen family in 1921 and was critical of the trials of the Mappilas then. Iyer's family had disowned him.

The astrologer found out that it was Lord Narasimha who had appeared before Uneen in his sleep. He was demanding Unneen resettle Him in his old temple. The astrologers told Uneen to do it. He agreed to the proposal to reconstruct the temple in all its glory. His nightmare got over. He began to visit the temple site. He saw a number of Namboodiri pujaris, granite stone cutters, and the Narasimha idol being brought by the architects. It became a very busy pilgrimage centre for people from different professions. The mantras being recited influenced him very much.

He realised his mistakes and became repentant about his past actions. His painful stomach disease was also got relieved shortly. He changed his living style and eating habits. He took a special interest in Yoga, meditation and charitable works for the well-being of the Hindus. But the sudden change in Unneen Sahib infuriated the orthodox Muslims. The Muslim clergy tried their level best to change the mind of Uneen but were unsuccessful. He became more attached to Hindu religious texts and beliefs. He went to the Arya Samaj at Calicut along with his brother, sons and many other family members and got re-converted into Hinduism the shuddhi ritual conducted by Arya Missionary Buddha Singh in 1946. Unneen held Dayanand Saraswati's 'Satyarthprakash' in his hand. The incident was splashed in dailies and published in Fort St George Gazette.

On becoming a follower of the Vedic religion, Uneen got the name, Ramasimhan. One of his brothers, Ali Bapu, became Dayasimhan. Dayasimhan later became Narasimhan on his conversion into a Namboothiri Brahmin. Ramasimhan’s two sons changed their names to Fateh Singh and Jorwar Singh, the names of Guru Gobind Singh’s two valiant sons who were murdered on the orders of Aurangzeb during Mughal Rule for refusing to accept Islam. Former RSS Malabar pracharak Shankar Shastri had made all the necessary arrangements for the conversion of Unneen and his family.

Ramasimhan's two children renamed Udaya Simhan and Satya Simhan were sent to Delhi Arya Samaj school for education and joined the Birla College.

Accepting the request of Ramasimhan, the learned Namboodiri Brahmins agreed to convert Dayasimhan, brother of Rama Simhan into a Namboodiri Brahmin and his name was changed to Narasimhan Namboodiri. They even arranged the marriage of him with a Namboodiri girl named Kamala, daughter of Puzhakkattiri Kottuvadi Mangalathu Manaykal Narayanan Nambudiri.

Muslim protest and murder

When a Maulavi criticised the re-conversion as a great mistake on the part of Ramasimhan, he retorted: "I have not committed any mistake. It was my grandmother who, on being captured by Muslims, committed the fault of converting to Islam. I am re-converting to Hinduism to rectify the fault and atone for the sin of my grandmother."

But the reconversion of the wealthy and prominent Muslim family of Uneen caused a tremor in the Muslim-dominated Malabar region. They feared that it may create an exodus from Islam to the Vedic religion. On coming back to Hinduism, Ramasimhan became a peace-loving person. He returned his guns and licensed revolvers to the government which he was using earlier for hunting. He told the government that he no more need guns since now he believed in non-violence. He became a vegetarian and brought a cook, Raju/Ramu Iyer from Thrissur. The Muslim clergy spread the rumour that Uneen has become mad. His father-in-law Unnikkammu took away his daughter.

Dressed up as a Brahmin, Unneen converted the mosque in front of his home, into his visitor's room, for Hindu saints and priests, who frequently visited his home and performed pujas. He stopped gifts to mosques and began contributing to temples.

Things took a new turn when Kunjahammed, Uneen's younger brother decided to reconvert into Islam, in 1946. He held a meeting of prominent Muslims and clerics, to persuade Uneen to revert back. About 30 attended. Ramasimhan, who had thoroughly studied Hinduism by then, debated successfully with the Muslim clerics. The clerics announced that Ramasimhan was possessed by a Kafir Jin and he need to consume 14 oranges, which were ritually blessed. Ramasimhan refused. This act of Ramasimhan was counterproductive and encouraged the Islamic fundamentalists to brutally assassinate him and his family. Things became worse when Dayasimhan decided to marry a 15-year-old Nambudiri girl, Kamala, daughter of Mangalath Manaykal Narayanan Nambudiri, after his sacred thread ceremony, or upanayana. After the wedding, Narasimhan became a priest at the Narasimha temple.

The Muslim clerics held a secret meeting, declared Ramasimhan an apostate and decided to inflict the death sentence on him, according to the Sharia. The then IS, Izzatul Islam, which was formed to help the new converts, was assigned the killing job. Seven people from Pookottur, formed the death squad-Paramban Mammad, Kunyatkalathil Moideen Kutty, Puliyan Muhammad, Muttayilkaran Aymutty, Nanath Kunjalavi, Kalathinkal Kunhamu and Illikkappadi Ayamu. They met at the estate of Abubakar Haji, prayed and began their journey with a gun and 20 bullets.

The Muslim fundamentalists attacked the house of Ramasimhan at 2 am on 3 August 1947 armed with deadly weapons and slaughtered the sleeping Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan Namboothiri, his wife Kamala Antarjanam and their cook Raju Iyer, in cold blood. A large force of Muslims had come in two trucks with all types of arms, and they demolished the house of Rama Simhan. They desecrated the nearby temple, killed the holy cows and threw the meat and entrails there. Kamala's mother and her other children, who were in the bungalow, escaped.

The assailants destroyed the Narasimha temple; looted the bungalow. The idol was thrown into the pond. They filled the temple well, with the debris of the compound wall.

The Hindus of the whole locality got afraid and hid in their houses. Nobody was there to claim the dead bodies of Rama Simhan and his family. RSS was not a mature organisation then. The bodies were unceremoniously buried by the police on the hillock. Only one Hindu, the RSS pracharak from Nagpur, Sankara Shastri, was present.

The whole incident didn't get the attention it deserved, since the country had plunged into the independence celebrations.

The police arrested the assailants of Ramasimhan and his family. Ramasimhan's younger brother Kunjahammed, father-in-law Unnikammu and an accomplice Haneefa were arrested on the seventh day. Perinthalmanna SI Kesava Menon led the police team.

The weapons used for the murder were retrieved from the Kulathur Muthalakkot pond in which they were dumped. Four of the murderers were sentenced to death by the District and Sessions Court at Palghat.

Acquittal

The Muslim fundamentalists rallied behind the marauders and raised a huge sum of money for their legal assistance on appeal in the High Court of Madras. It was ironic that the Justice Lionel  Clifford Horwill ( ICS) of the Madras High Court, in a judgement on January 19, 1949, acquitted all the accused of want of credible evidence. He also observed  that “it is unfortunate that such a grave crime organised by the Moplah Muslims against the Hindus of the area has not been detected; if the police were unable to obtain more evidence it was because the Moplah community largely succeeded in maintaining secrecy.”

The pseudo-secular politicians of the then Madras Government were bribed by influential Muslim businessmen for supporting the convicts in fighting the case in the Madras High Court. In the PS Kumaraswami Raja cabinet of 1949, Kozhippurath Madhava Menon was the minister from Malabar, with a Courts and Prisons portfolio, apart from Education. The evidence was destroyed and prosecution witnesses were threatened and coerced into silence. As a result of such actions, the case was dismissed on the grounds of lack of evidence. Thus the murderers of this heinous crime were set scot-free. Many confidants of Rama Simhan like his Manager were bribed and were compelled to hand over the guardianship of his sons to his father-in-law Unni Kammu who forcibly reconverted them to Islam later. Even though the rule of the land could not punish the assailants and their supporters, many of them had a tragic life in their later part of life. Few of them became insane and destitute.

Madhava Menon

As a result of the Congress's support for the Mappila rebellion as well as the Ramasimhan murder 25 years later, the Hindus welcomed Communism to Malabar. The RSS had no foothold then. The RSS never forgot the incident in Malaparamba and their own helplessness at that time. They prepared themselves to redeem what they could not do in 1947. With great difficulty, the Mattummal Narasimha Moorthi Temple Trust went to the court to get an order for handing over the temple lands to the remaining dependents of Rama Simhan. His two children who were in Delhi were brought back and brought up as Muslims again. The Court allowed the Trust to reconstruct the temple. The members of the Trust began the reconstruction with very strong black granite stones. It took five years for the temple work to be finished. After elaborate religious Vedic rites, the temple complex, consisting of the main Lord Narasimha Moorthy, Lord Ganesha, Devi Durga, Lord Ayyappa and Lord Subramania, was been opened to the devotees again. After 60 years, the self-respect of the Hindus could be redeemed.

Today, the MES Medical College stands at the place where Ramasimhan's bungalow stood.MES claims that the estate was transferred to them by his descendants of him, after his murder. But the claim is said to be baseless since it was leased out by the Kundarakal Nair family to Unneen for 90 years. The lease agreement got expired in 1995; hence, the estate should be transferred back to the family or should be attached by the government. Even if the descendants had transferred the lease rights, it was illegal. The temple and the 60 cents around it have been handed over to the Hindus, after a prolonged legal battle.

The Verdict in the Appeal:

Madras High Court

Paramban Mammadu And Ors. vs The King on 19 January 1949

Equivalent citations: (1949) 2 MLJ 544

Author: Horwill

JUDGMENT Horwill, J.

1. The four appellants and three others who were acquitted by the lower Court were charged by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of conspiring with P.W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under section 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons and rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, and one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found the first accused only guilty of conspiracy and the four appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 34, read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on all the four counts. He sentenced the four appellants to death and, as already stated, acquitted the other three.

2. The motive for the offence is said to have been the enmity borne by the Moplah community in general and the seven accused and P.W. 10 in particular against Ramasimlhan and his brother, the second deceased because they had renounced Islam and allowed themselves to be converted to Hinduism. Narasimhan had subsequently been elevated to Nambudiri rank and had been accepted by the Nambudiri community as one of their numbers; and to him in marriage was given the daughter of P.W. 26, a girl of 15 years of age, who was with her husband at the time of the murder and shared his fate. After the first deceased had been converted from Islam to Hinduism, he diverted the large sums of money that he was accustomed to contributing to Muslim charities and spent them on Hindu charities. In particular, he renovated a Hindu temple in the vicinity and was responsible for restoring regular worship there. He began a diligent study of the Hindu scriptures and was studying the Bhagavad Gita, and had perpetually with him P.W. 25, a Nambudiri, to teach mantrams to the second deceased. He had moreover sent his two sons to Delhi to be instructed and brought up in the Hindu religion. All this, the prosecution says, gave rise to a great deal of enmity against him among Muslims; and specific instances have been spoken to in the evidence in which Muslims were heard denouncing very severely the first deceased and even threatening his life.

3. Exhibit P-60 gives an accurate idea of the bungalow of Ramasimhan, by the name " Malaramba Bungalow ". The main entrance to the bungalow was on the eastern side. To enter the house one has to pass through a door situated on the eastern side of a porch, which is the entrance to the bungalow. Just inside that door were lying the first deceased and P.W. 24, a boy kept by the first deceased to massage him. This witness was lying on a mat (M.O. 17), which assumes some importance because on it was found a footprint, and P.W. 25 lay on another mat (M.O. 18), which is important for the same reason. From the verandah, one can enter the room marked " B " on the plan and from that central room, one can pass to rooms north and south. Immediately to the north of that central room was a room in which was lying a child of P.W. 26, the mother of the third deceased. Still north of that room again on a cot were lying the second and third deceased. To the south of the central room were lying P.W. 26 and two of her children. To the west of this series of rooms which run north to south is a verandah, from which is a passageway to the west leading into the dining hall and the kitchen. The western verandah of the main building was separated from this passageway by a door which was said to have been fastened on the night of the offence, as was the main entrance at the east. If those doors were secured, then, apparently, the house could only be entered by breaking open those doors. If one passed through the door separating the western verandah from the passageway, one passed first into the dining hall, where were sleeping the fourth deceased and his assistant, P.W. 22. To the west of the main hall was a kitchen in which P.W. 22 subsequently took refuge.

4. According to the story of the persons who were in that bungalow on the night of the offence and who survived the murderous assault, the first inkling that any strangers were trying to enter came from a banging on the front door. P.W. 24, deposed that the door had not been securely fastened. Although there were three bolts, only the bolt on the top had been secured; and so when the door was knocked that bolt fell and the door opened. P.W. 24 does not give evidence of any great value; for as soon as he saw a person enter, he ran through into the middle room and there joined P.W. 26 and her children. P.W. 25, on hearing cries, hid behind an almirah situated close to where he was lying. From there he was able to see something of what was taking place. He deposed that a little after midnight (2 a.m. was that time generally agreed upon), he heard a sound of a battering of the front door. Before he hid behind the almirah, the first deceased came saying " Who is it, Eda " and then crying out " Boy, I am cheated ", referring to the second deceased. He saw somebody cutting the first deceased with a weapon about a cubit long. He was able to see what was happening, not only by the moonlight shining through the door but by the light of a torch that was being shown by the assailant. The second deceased then came running and flashed a torch to see what was happening. He ran back when she saw the assailant. The witness saw a person chasing the second deceased but is unable to say whether or not that person was the same man who had attacked the first deceased. A little later, when things had become a little quieter, he made his escape. When the fourth deceased and P.W. 22 heard the door separating the verandah of the main building from the passage being broken open, P.W. 22 ran into the kitchen before anyone entered there; but he saw a person attacking the fourth deceased. Subsequently, somebody flashed a torch into the kitchen; but as he was hiding behind the door, he was not seen. The fourth deceased, though severely injured, was able to escape and give two statements, Exhibits P-24 and P-7, before he died. Exhibit P-24 is a statement recorded by a Head Constable. Later on, he was taken to the hospital, where the Sub-Magistrate (P.W. 6) recorded the other statement, Exhibit P-7. The earlier statement was a simple one in which he said that at about 2-30 a.m., he saw somebody flashing a torch and heard him kicking at the door of the bungalow. The man kicked open the door, flashed the torch in his face, and immediately began to attack him. It would seem from this statement that only one person came into the dining room where he was sleeping, but he saw a number of persons running away after attacking the second deceased. Then somebody fired at him with a gun and wounded him in the hip. Exhibit P-7 is to the same effect and is clear that he saw only one person, and that that man incited another to shoot him. It is of importance that in Exhibit P-7 he stated that the man whom he saw was a Moplah. P.W. 18 was sleeping in a Ford Car in a shed that had been erected against the southern wall of the bungalow, and when some persons ran there and set fire to the car, he escaped without identifying anybody. He said that he was able to make out from the accent of the assailants that they were Moplahs. There is other evidence that the persons who were attacking there were Moplahs; and we find no reason for thinking that the persons who made these statements were unable to say to what community the attackers belonged; for the dress and speech of the Moplahs are distinctive.

5. The offence was committed on the 3rd August 1947, and for a long time, no clues were obtained. A person by the name of Haneefa was later arrested and identified by P.W. 25 as one of the assailants. On the day of his arrest (14th October 1947) was arrested also Kunhammad, a brother of the first and second deceased, who had been converted upon the persuasion of his brothers, but later, reverted to Islam. Another person arrested at the same time was Kutti AH, the father-in-law of Kunhammad. In the meanwhile, the police had been examining the bungalow very closely and a number of blood-stained foot-marks were found in the bungalow on the mats M. Os. 17 and 18 and in the portico. One of these impressions was thought at one time by the Footprint Expert (P.W. 33) to be that of the right foot of Haneefa. Soon after these persons were arrested and one of the footprints identified to be that of Haneefa, a charge sheet was filed against these four persons. 6 or 7 weeks later, on 2nd December 1947, another charge sheet was filed, this time against 13 persons, including the four who had been charge-sheeted earlier, but not including any of the present accused of P.W. 10, the approver.

6. On the 14th October 1947, a special investigating officer (P.W. 45) had been sent to investigate, and he had come to the conclusion that the murder had been committed out of religious fanaticism; and since he had found some hair adhering to a door frame with broken glass in the room in which P.W. 26 was sleeping with two of her children, he sent out constables to make a diligent search in all the neighbourhood for persons who had been injured. The first man with scars to be found was apparently the seventh accused, who was arrested on 14th December 1947. His arrest was followed on 17th December 1947, by the arrest of the sixth accused. The fifth accused was found with scars and arrested on 26th December 1947. On 28th December 1947, the second and fourth accused were arrested, the latter having scars. P.W. 10 had been arrested on 24th December 1947 and gave a statement implicating himself and others on 30th December 1947, whereupon the first and third accused were arrested almost immediately on 1st January 1948. Footprints of the arrested men were taken and examined and provisional charge sheets filed; but it was not until 22nd March 1948, that the final charge sheet was filed against these seven accused, and these accused alone.

7. No special reason has been given by the prosecution why these seven accused and the approver P.W. 10. should have participated in this murder. It has not been shown that these eight persons bore any greater enmity towards the first deceased than any other member of their community, except possibly the fourth accused, who is the President of the Izzathai Islam Sangham, the principal objects of which are said to be to relieve needy Mussalmans and to send converted men to Ponnani for training. He is a leather merchant; but all the other accused seem to be men of humble status, though of independent means, with the exception of the seventh accused, a coolie. Accused 1 to 3 are ryots. The fifth accused is a cart driver and the sixth accused a tea shop-keeper. With the exception of the fourth accused, these men do not occupy any position either in society or in the religious life of the community that would make it likely that they would plot a murder of this kind.

8. The principal evidence against the accused is that of the approver., P.W. 10. One generally expects the evidence of an approver to be rich in detail and colour, consistent within itself and not having any important contradictions when compared with other statements made by him earlier. Such evidence carries conviction to the mind; so that a court feels that very little other evidence is necessary to satisfy it beyond all reasonable doubt that the approver's story is true. The evidence of the approver, in this case, is not however of that kind. It is thin and bare and does not carry with it an air of conviction. After stating that he and other numbers of the Moplah community felt hatred towards the first deceased, he described very briefly the conspiracy, which he said took place on a Saturday about the 14th or 15th of the month of Ramzan, about a week or so before the plot was executed. The plot was hatched quite by chance. At Konapparamukku, a place where people gather together in their leisure time to have a chat, the witness chanced to meet accused 4 and 5, and later accused 6, and discussed with them the enormity of the first deceased's lapse into heresy. At the actual conspiracy were also present accused 1 and 2. Then, after giving a very short account of the conspiracy, he went on to describe the events of the day of the murder and said that at about 4 p.m. on that day (Saturday) he went to Kavattuparamba and there met the sixth accused. They were joined sometime later by accused 2 to 5 and 7. From there, with the exception of himself, these persons left in ones and twos, apparently, agreeing to meet at Abu Baker Haji's rubber estate at 10 p.m. or so. The witness waited behind until 7-30 p.m. for the first accused, who had been observing the Ramzan fast and intended to set out only after he broke it. They then went to the place of assignation and assembled there at 10 p.m. They had with them some unlicensed guns and, as agreed amongst themselves each one of them had a knife. They then proceeded to the Malaparamba bungalow of the first deceased and while the witness kept: watch, the others went inside the compound over the southern wall. He then heard the sound of striking the door and human cries. About ten minutes later, all the seven accused returned. He fired a shot at somebody who was running away, presumably the fourth deceased. They then went on towards a tank about four miles away and there washed off the blood on their persons and either there or in the neighbouring jungle threw away their weapons and bloodstained clothes.

9. One thing that strikes one about this story apart from its bareness, in the open, is the manner in which the accused and P.W. 10 met together on the day of offence prior to its commission. One would have expected that they would have adhered to their original plan of proceeding secretly to the place of assignation in Abu Bucker Haji's rubber estate and not being seen together before that. We find, however, according to the story of this witness, that they met together as early as 4 p.m. and' openly waited for one another until all but the first accused had come. When one compares the evidence of P.W. 10 in the Sessions Court, with his confessional. the statement, one finds material discrepancies relating to the circumstances under which the murder was planned. Exhibit D-7 series are extracted from his statement made to the police. There he stated that they first planned the murder on a Monday about 2-1/2 weeks or so before the murder was committed. Then they, i.e. P.W. 10, and accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 decided to murder the first deceased on the following Sunday. On that Sunday they received information that the first deceased was not in his bungalow; and so it was postponed to the following Friday. They then arranged that himself and accused 1 to 3 and 6 should meet at 10 p.m. that night and that accused 4 and 5 should join them after they had left the tope on their way to Malappuram. They however found that it was again impossible to execute their plan that night; and so the murder was postponed until the following day, with the slightly different arrangement that they should meet together at the Kottapadi maidan at 5 p.m. This seems to us a very different story from, what was given by P.W. 10 in his evidence. One cannot say upon reading through the evidence of P.W. 10 that it is necessarily false; but failing as it does to carry conviction, we feel that very substantial corroboration of his story would be necessary before it would be possible to bring home the guilt of this offence to the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. The learned Sessions Judge relied principally on the corroboration of P.W. io's evidence on the evidence of P.W. 33, the footprint expert. In paragraph 38 of his judgment, the learned Judge stated:

So far as accused I, 3 and 5 are concerned, their complicity is established because their footprints were found at the scene. As regards the 4th accused, P.W. 16 proves that the 4th accused was on his way to the scene along with P.W. 10 and the 5th accused. This is sufficient corroboration for P.W. 13's evidence, as it is manifest that the 4th accused could not have had a destination different from his companions.

That is to say, assuming the guilt of accused 1, 3 and 5 because their footprints were found in the bungalow, the fourth accused must have been guilty, too, because he was associated with men whose footprints had been proved to be that of the murderers.

11. The opinion of a footprint expert is not admissible as evidence. If the court is to make any use of all of the footprint impressions, it must be satisfied from a comparison of the various footprints that they are those of the persons whom the expert says they are. The value of evidence with regard to footprints is obviously very much less trustworthy than evidence with regard to fingerprints. In a fairly good impression of a finger or even in an impression where only a portion of the finger is shown, there is a wealth of detail available to the expert and to the Court for comparison. One sees in a fingerprint a large number of ridges and sweat pores situated along with them.

In examining a fingerprint, therefore, one not merely compares the general configuration of the finger and all the lines on it, but one is able to study such minute details as the bifurcations and junctions of the ridges and the relative positions on those ridges of the sweat pores.

With regard to footprints, on the other hand, it would seem from the evidence and from what we have been able to read from Dr Hans Gross's book on Criminal I Investigation that one can only compare the general shape of footprints found ' with the shape of impressions taken from the feet of the. person suspected. Even in this limited comparison, one has not the same certainty as one would have in. comparing fingerprints; because foot impressions vary considerably according to the circumstances under which they are made. Footprints made when a person is walking slowly or fast, or running slowly or fast or jumping, all create differences that are material. Moreover, a footprint taken after a person has walked a considerable distance, as was the case here when the murder was committed., is larger than a footprint taken when a person has been at rest, as was the case when footprints were taken from the various persons in the Sub-Jail, including some of the accused and P.W. 10. On page 497 of John Adam's translation of the above book, the learned author says:

One may then say with Massen, and rightly, that the details of all the impressions of a barefoot are in each particular case so distinctive and so characteristic that it is always possible to differentiate them, one from another, and recognise again the same impression. This is wholly true only when the impressions in question have been produced under identical conditions...

If then the last and the first impression thus produced be compared, one will see how difficult it is to find this famous ' characteristic resemblance.

He then goes on to say that the difficulty increases if the foot is turned or moved. On page 499 he points out the necessity for making a number of trials in order to ascertain the circumstances under which an impression was made. He says that it is, therefore, necessary to find each time (when conducting the expert meat of taking a number of impressions without adding any fresh colouring matter) a footprint resembling the original in the quantity of colouring substance, when, alone impressions from the same foot might be expected to be similar. On page 510,. the learned author says:

Another result flowing from these conclusions is that the deductions made are only relative;. they can never be expressed by pre-cited data and have only comparative value. It is impossible to give measurements or fixed sizes; for the numerous factors-the size, the weight, and the other corporeal singularities of the individual walking, his burden, his gait, and the variable nature of the oil differ in every case, and maybe combined in so many diverse ways that it is absolutely impossible to give precise indications on this matter.

Malaparamba Mattummal Narasimha Temple

After discussing the matter further the author says:

If one has but one indistinct footprint and no clue therefrom, another must be searched: for.

The only other passage that needs to be set out is found on page 532:

Much prudence must here be exercised (in taking measurements) and nothing was undertaken which shows no chance of success. On the one hand, the foot itself varies considerably, e.g., it is much smaller in cold weather or after a long rest than during hot weather or after a long march; on the other hand, it is difficult to measure, inasmuch as it is not a regular body and must be measured differently according to the parts dealt with.

If we bear all these facts in mind, then we are far from satisfied that the prosecution has proved that the foot impressions seen by the police on M.Os. 17 and 18 and on the portico are the foot impressions of accused 1, 3 and 5. The process adopted by the expert for comparison was, first of all, to lift the impression by placing over it a glass plate. Through that glass plate, he would see the impression and make its outline on the glass with dots. He would then place the plate so marked over a plain sheet of paper arid mark the dots on the paper. Finally, he compared that with an impression made directly from the foot of the person suspected.

12. Ex. P-4I is said to have been taken from M.O. 17, which is not a very good impression; and we do not think that the dots showing the outline of the toes follow very closely the outline on the mat. Then again we find in examining the angles of the toes on the tracing taken from the impression on the mat and comparing it with the impression taken directly from the feet of the fifth accused that the angles at which the toes meet the ball of the foot are different in the two cases. In discussing these impressions the footprint expert stated that in general the size and contour of the pad were the same, as were the relative positions of the toes and the contour of the heel. That is true, but we cannot attach any importance to the; an inward curve in the lower portion of the pad, which is given as a special characteristic. That inward curve, however, was not very well emphasised in the print taken directly from the foot of the accused; and the inward curve might well be due to the fact that blood did not cover that particular portion of the pad.

13. The impression on M. O. 18 is also not very clear. The lifted impression in Ex. P-42, the expert stated, is in general of the same length as the impression in Ex. P-55, i.e., the impression of the foot of the third accused; the outer line of the pad is similar; and the relative positions of the big toe, second toe, and third toe are similar, as is the size of the big toe and of the heel. When we examined these, we found that the relative positions of the big toe, second toe, and third toe are anything but similar. In fact, they are so dissimilar as to lead us to conclude, not merely that the resemblance between the impression of the third accused's feet was not the same as the impression on the mat, but that the impressions must have been by different persons. We also did not find that the outlines and sizes of the heel and big toe and the length were very nearly the same in the two impressions compared.

14. With regard to the impression, Ex. P-54, of the first accused, the expert gave six general characteristics and two special characteristics which he found common to Ex. P-54 and the impression, Ex. P-35 lifted from the footprint in the portico. The second special characteristic is that there is a depression on the pad between the first and second toes. This, as we have stated with regard to other peculiarities in the outline, may have been due to the fact that that portion of the feet was not sufficiently covered with blood to leave an impression, especially as the corresponding depression is not seen to anything like the same extent on the impression taken directly from the first accused's foot. In trying to ascertain whether the footprint in the portico was that of the first accused, we are handicapped by not having been able to compare the outline marked on the glass with the outline on the portico itself; and we feel that it will not be safe for us to come to any conclusion against this accused in the absence of the original impression.

15. The learned Sessions Judge, for demonstration purposes, had several impressions taken of the feet of two peons in the Court. These we compared with those taken from the mats and the portico, and we found a reasonably close agreement between Ex. G-4 and Ex. G-5, taken from a foot of one of the peons, and Ex. P-35, which was attributed by the expert to the first accused. This is perhaps some indication that one must be careful not to draw too hasty a conclusion from such similarities as were pointed out by the expert. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Mr Jayarama Aiyar has emphasised the evidence that only one assailant was present in the portico; and so even if we assume that one of these three accused was present in the bungalow that night, the other two footprints could not have been those of the other two, and might have been the impressions of the first and second deceased, whose footprints could not be taken. We do not want to over-stress this point; because the observation of P.W. 25 might have been faulty, and he ran away before the assailants left the bungalow.

16. The learned Public Prosecutor, finding that the evidence with regard to the footprints is far from conclusive, has relied on the fact that accused 4, 5 and 7 were found, when examined by various doctors, to have had scars on their persons which could have been the result of injuries sustained on the night of the offence. If there is evidence that an assailant has received any injury on some particular part of his person and a corresponding injury is found on the body of the suspected person shortly after the offence is committed, and there is medical evidence that that injury was probably caused at or about the time when the offence was committed, the evidence of the injury would be strong corroborative evidence against that person. But such evidence becomes increasingly weak as the time between the examination of the injuries or the scars and the date of offence increases. These accused were examined five or six months or more after the offence was committed; and so it was impossible for the doctors who gave evidence to say precisely that these injuries were caused on the day when the murder was committed or even within a short period before or after. They could not even be sure to within a month or so of the offence when the injuries were caused. Further, there is no evidence that any of the assailants met with injuries at the time when the murder was committed, except that when the police officers were examining the bungalow they found some hair adhering to some broken glass. That would indicate that on the person of one of the assailants on a part of his body normally covered with hair, one could expect to find an injury. The learned Public Prosecutor has stated that since there was a lot of broken glass strewn about, some of the assailants might have cut their feet walking over it. That may be true; but it is a curious circumstance that while many scars were found on the bodies of these accused persons, none was found on the feet of any of the accused. The seventh accused had no less than nine scars on his person, the fifth accused had three scars and the fourth accused had one scar and a number of scratches. The learned Public Prosecutor has been unable to suggest how so many injuries could have been caused to these three persons on the night of the offence. We are therefore unable to attach any value to this evidence.

17. P.W. 41, a tailor, deposed that he made a shirt for the fifth accused about eight months before the offence. When the tank spoken to by P.W. 10 was searched, a number of pieces of cloth were found there; and P.W. 41 claimed to be able to identify a piece of cloth about 15 inches long as a portion of a shirt that he had made for the fifth accused. We have examined that fragment, and we can scarcely believe it possible that P.W. 41 could identify it as a part of the shirt he had made so long before for the fifth accused.

18. P.W. 13, a keeper of tea shops at Kodoor and Chattuparamba, deposed that at about 8-30 p.m. on the night of offence he met a man whom he thought to be P.W. 10 and another. If it really was P.W. 10 that he saw, it would be in accord with the evidence of the approver; for he and the first accused might well have been where P.W. 13 said he saw them at about that hour. But P.W. 13 is unable to say with any certainty that it was P.W. 10, and so his evidence is of no value and the learned Sessions Judge very rightly did not place any reliance on it.

19. P.W. 12 deposed that he saw P.W. 10, whom he had known for a very long time, and the first accused, who was then a stranger, but whom he afterwards identified as the first accused, together in Malappuram at 4-30 p.m. on the evening preceding the offence and again at 7 p.m. in a tea shop. This evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W. 10, who deposed that the first accused did not arrive there until 7-30 p.m. and that it was for him that he had remained behind after the other accused had left for Abu Bucker Haji's tope. Moreover, if P.W. 12 had seen P.W. 10 at 4-30 p.m. one would have expected if P.W. 10's evidence is true, that he would have seen the other accused who were with P.W. 10 at that time.

20. The only other witness whose evidence needs discussion as P.W. 16. In the absence of any definite conclusion to be drawn from the footprints, the learned Public Prosecutor relies very strongly on the evidence of this witness. He deposed that on the evening preceding the offence he was taking tea in a shop at Paha.-paramba and left it at about 8-30 p.m. He had not gone very far when he saw P.W. 10 coming along. Behind him in a group were five other persons whom he did not identify. Behind them again, at a distance of 12 yards, were the fourth and fifth accused, whom he had known from boyhood. The place at which he saw these persons was only about a quarter of a furlong from Abu Bucker Haji's plantation, which was the place of assignation. This evidence does not accord very well with the evidence of P.W. 12 who saw P.W. 10 and the first accused together on the other side of the plantation at the same time; and it conflicts still more definitely with the evidence of the approver, who stated that at 4-30 p.m. all the accused, with the exception of the first accused, left singly or in pairs, agreeing to meet in Abu Bucker Haji's plantation at 10 p.m. As he left with the first accused three hours later, he was unlikely to have been with these persons at 8-30 p.m. P.W. 16's evidence, if true, shows that they were leaving the plantation, presumably on their way to commit the murder. These differences in time between the evidence of P.W. 10 and the evidence of P.W. 16 can hardly be due to a mere misjudging of the time. The object of the conspirators was to proceed to the place of assignation singly or in pairs and not to be seen together, and so it is not likely that P.W. 10 would have been mistaken into thinking that he left the plantation at 10 p.m. if, in fact, he left it at 8-30 p.m. Moreover, their attempt at secrecy would have been frustrating if they had left the plantation as early as 8-30 p.m. when they would have expected to meet people on the road, who would see them all together. Nor could P.W. 10 very well have been mistaken as to the time; for he had just finished taking a cup of tea in the neighbouring tea shop and would have had a very good idea of the time in relation to his mealtime; and it is not likely that he would have thought that it was 8-30 p.m. if in fact, it was 10 p.m. The learned Public Prosecutor has asked us to accept the evidence of P.W. 16 on this point in preference to that of P.W. 10, and he has argued that we should not reject the evidence of P.W. 16 merely because we think it unlikely that the accused would have been in the open at about that time. If however, we accept the evidence of P.W. 16 as true, then it is most unlikely that at the time they were on their way to the scene of the offence, which was only eight miles away, and which they did not reach until 2 a.m., the next morning. If he did see them, it would seem more probable they were bound on some peaceful errand or were going for shikar, as the fourth accused is reported to have stated to this witness.

21. It is seen from the above discussion that the evidence of the approver receives no corroboration of any importance from the evidence of any of the other witnesses and has, therefore, to be rejected, as not being sufficient to bring home the offences to the appellants.

22.It is unfortunate that such a grave crime has not been detected; but the failure of the prosecution to prove the offence against the appellants was not due to any defect in the investigation, which seems to have been most carefully-and certainly very honestly conducted. No attempt was made to make evidence, where none was naturally forthcoming; and if the police were unable to obtain more evidence it was because the Moplah community largely succeeded in maintaining secrecy. It was almost impossible without their cooperation for the police to obtain any more evidence relating to the crime.

23. The appeals are allowed and the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants are set aside. They are ordered to be set at liberty.

© Ramachandran