Talk:Malabar rebellion

Needs Cleaning

This article is not properly referenced but the you cannot dispute the facts. The Moplah riots were as is described in the article - a combination of rebellion against British rule and massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus.

It was not the massacre of thousand of innocent Hindus.it was a riot against the antrocitis of British and landlords as the landlords became the owners of farm the actual farmers became tenants and so the landlords started to torture farmers the farmers had to pay tax even in the time of crop failure and so they had to mortgage their belongings to to people with high interest but the farmers who thought they could get back their belongings in next crop seasons couldn't do it so because of the antrocities of the lords and so the amount they had to pay to lords and tax payers ,as malabar was one of the region under the direct control of British in Kerala the brutality the farmers in malabar used to face from both British and landlords were severe ,and so the farmers in malabar protested against this ,mapillas ( majority of farmers from Malabar were Muslims so they are called mapilla) and other farmers reacted against this and this is known as mapilla riot ,this riot turned into a massacre when the British and landlords killed many of the farmers with their power, so the khilafat movement in Malabar also stood along with the farmers ,after this riot thousand of farmers were killed according to British records but the actual number is considered to be more than that,as the history is written by the British it is often said that Muslims killed Hindus in the riot to make an religion riot against each other ,as the British always ruled in India by religion wars ,after the riot the British appointed a committee to he reason of the riot ,the committee pointed out that it was because of the unfair tax system Ponnutddd (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Heavily biased

Malabar Rebellion is viewed from different historical perspectives. This article sticks to an extreme version of one perspective. There are authentic historical accounts by KN Panikkar, M Gangadara Menon and Conrad Wood. Unlike the historical accounts the articles sticks to the testimonies which later proved to be biased in academic discussions. Please consider revising it. I can provide materials and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.250.192 (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Worst article with no facts. Moolah riots were anti hindu genocide. This article says it's a rebellion against british. This article is full of lies and deciet. Needs to be removed AkhadBharat (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is controversial. Please refer to the following articles and use them as reference points.

Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/dont-strip-malabar-rebellion-off-its-layers-6490428/ The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/the-hindu-explains-why-is-there-a-controversy-over-a-film-project-on-the-protagonist-of-1921-malabar-rebellion/article31935304.ece Trucopy think forum https://truecopythink.media/dr-tt-sreekumar-on-malabar-rebellion-and-kumaranasans-duravasta All the above articles explicitly denies what the wikipedia articles presents. Please do mark the article as biased and rewrite it with proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.250.192 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Largely One Sided Presentation

The articles fails to produce a balance in the representation of historical events. A majority of historians considers Malabar Rebellion as an independence struggle despite having controversies on the nature and accuracy of representations. Wikipedia catagorises it as an 'attack', which is a grave mistake. Also article labels it as the 'Mappila Genocide' of Hindus, which contradicts with the article itself. Wiki article gives the name of the leaders of the rebellion including MP Narayana Menon who was a Hindu. This fact discredits the fanatic colour apparently painted by the wiki article. Please refer the following books for a more accurate perception.

Malabar Rebellion 1921 to 1922 M Gangadara Menon

KN Panikkar M Against lord and state religion and peasant uprisings in Malabar 1836 to 1921

The Moplah Rebellion and Its Genesis Conrad Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicsreads (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have relaible sources - do consider fixing the slant on the article. For now I have tagged the article. Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Must Change the title of this wiki.

The title of this page dose not do justice to the topic. The real title of this page should be "The Moplah (Malabar)Genocide Of Hindus" Aquaultimate (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

change the name to The Moplah Genocide Of Hindus 1.186.125.217 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME – Thjarkur (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mapilla riot

It was not a riot which killed thousand innocent Hindus ,instead it was riot against those who supported British and the British officials ,with the support of khilafat movement ,a part Indian freedom fight, farmers in malabar fought against the atrocities of British and landlords, it took place in malabar as Malabar was a region under the direct control of British, and the atrocities against farmers were more severe in there than any part of Kerala ,as the majority of farmers in Malabar were Muslims the riot was called mapilla riot but in the riot also had farmers from different religion and caste who wanted freedom, it never were against a particular religion it was against those who supported British and those who tortured farmers for centuries Ponnutddd (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Is Mahatma Gandhi's support important enough to be included in lead?
• What does majority of recent scholarship state on the issue of "communal violence against Hindus"? Why is M G S Narayanan, however good/bad he is, quoted in the first paragraph?
• What role is served by the table?
• What role is served by the extensive quotes over reactions-section? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I took care of the first two issues. The lead still needs to be cut down to something like a third of the current size. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Supported by Walrus Ji

The Malabar rebellion in 1921-1922 started as resistance against the British colonial rule in Malabar region of Kerala, India. The popular uprising was also against the prevailing feudal system controlled by elite Hindus and in favour of the Khilafat Movement. The British had appointed high caste Hindus in positions of authority to get their support, this led to the protest turning against the Hindus.

Supported by BhaskaraPattelar

The Malabar rebellion of 1921 (also known by the names Moplah riots, Mappila riots) started as resistance against the British colonial rule in Malabar region of Kerala, India, but later turned into communal violence against the Hindus. The popular uprising was also against the prevailing feudal system controlled by elite Hindus and in favour of the Khilafat Movement. The British had appointed high caste Hindus in positions of authority to get their support, this led to the protest turning against the Hindus.

References

Walrus_Ji, Please justify your use of word "alleged" in the lead. The source doesn't allege anything, seems to be WP:OR. Also, were does the source call Hindus as "pro-British"? The whole sentence seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS -BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@BhaskaraPattelar:, your edit summary did not explained properly why you had removed the content. So it was reverted. Now that you have made your objection clear, I have removed the lines added by Fact Checker 987 that you had objected to. Please check it again. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, I questioned the use of the term "alleged" to describe the persecution against Hindus and not the complete sentence itself, please stop being disingenuous. Since you are unable to provide any valid justification I will be reinstating the content. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You questioned the word alleged and I removed it. What is there to be disingenous? I suggest that you focus your comment on the dispute at hand if you want to reach a consensus. @TrangaBellam and Kautilya3: Can you please share your opinion on the more appropriate version of the opening paragraph. BhaskaraPattelar seems to be focussed in pushing his preferred version without getting a consensus first. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is clear to me. Which edit? Which source?

In my view, the rebellion/riot was both communal violence as well as a class struggle. There is no consensus regarding it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, You are being disingenuous again, you didn't just remove the word "alleged", you removed the whole sourced sentence. Please justify why you did that? STONEWALLING is not going to help you here. [This ] was how the page was before some drive by user, Fact Checker, decided to break it. That didn't have consensus and you are using that version, please tell me why? Also how am I POV pushing? I have used what's in the source, nothing more. The source don't use the word alleged and even then you have reverted the whole content? Why? Please give a direct answer, Justify your removal of sourced content. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Simply remvoing the word alleged and leaving the rest of the statement changes the meaning. Hopefully a consensus will be achieved in this thread, please have patience. For now I have removed the entire section and moved to the talk page. It can only be added back after consensus.Walrus Ji (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, It's now obvious that you are POV pushing. You seems to have no justification for your action. No answer to any of the any of my question. Now you have blanked the lead. You can't hold content hostage like this. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@BhaskaraPattelar: And neither can you hold content hostage like this. This is a WP:Content Dispute and it will be resolved as per the established procedures. You can have patience till it gets resolved or you can move away and edit other pages. You cannot however edit war on this article. It will lead to blocking. Now please wait while others respond. --Walrus Ji (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, I am not the one holding the content hostage, you are the one who blanked it. You are the one who removed long time stable sourced content with no justification. You can't shift the burden of achieving consensus on to some hypothetical future editor since you are the one who remove the content. Provide provide your reasons.

Still not answering my question BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, The source doesn't say it "ended in" communal violence. you have added your own original research and now restored the text back. You should self revert now or else I am reporting you as you have already made 4 reverts and broken WP:3RR Walrus Ji (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, Please read WP:LEAD, it's the summary of the article. In fact, there is no need for lead to quote any source. The source is just there to accentuate the point. You still haven't answered my question BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, You have added original research into the first paragraph. Something that is not supported by the source. You have refused to self revert despite breaking the 3RR rule. Can you tell me why I should not report your edit warring behavior on WP:ANEW? Walrus Ji (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, Again Read the WIKI:LEAD, it's meant to be summary of the article, not an Introduction.

But anyway, It's clear that you have not read the source. So will quote some parts here:

The roots of the outbreak in Malabar were related to long-standing agrarian and economic tensions that were exacerbated by the wave of unrest that swept India, as the Great War came to an end.

When age-old landlord– tenant conflict was combined with the growth of nationalist feeling and the rise of discontent, an atmosphere of disorder and unease began to grow

In August 1921, Muslim peasants (known as Moplahs or Mappillas) from Malabar in the Madras Presidency rose up in revolt against their imperial rulers

The fighting was also accompanied by extensive communal unrest, including the killing and mass rape of Hindus and the destruction of temples.

BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, What is the source of this line? and where does it say "Ended in" Communal violence Walrus Ji (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, This diff shows BhaskarPattelar's version while this diff shows the one I had edited. Please share your comments on your preferred version. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comparing the current version with the Anomiebot [1], I notice that one sentence of explanation was removed and another added. Neither of them belongs in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph should only focus on facts, not interpretations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your proposal for the first paragraph?--Walrus Ji (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, This is the stable version being broken by a drive-by editor. The lead statement: ... ended in communal violence against the Hindus. is sourced, it's not an interpretation. Can you tell why you think it's an interpretation, have you gone through the source?

From the source: The Malabar Rebellion of 1921–1922 is a little studied and poorly known Indian insurgency that deserves wider attention. Not only was it the bloodiest outbreak of disorder in southern India for generations, it also witnessed extensive communal violence against the Hindu population, and was only put down after a series of major operations conducted by the Indian Army.

Tell me why this should not be added? Walrus Ji have provided no justification, no explanation. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, but the source doesn't say it "ended in" communal violence. It was communal violence all the way through.

Here is a two-paragraph summary from a history text book:

Along the Malabar coast, there were other outbreaks of rural violence by Muslim tenants and small cultivators against Hindu landlords and money-lenders. Muslim farmers, who were called Moplahs, developed a high degree of self-conscious identification as the descendants of the sixteenth-century soldiers who had fought holy wars against the enemies of Islam: Hindus and Christian Portuguese. They recreated their roles as militant religious martyrs during the middle decades of the nineteenth century and again in risings between 1882 and 1896. They courted death at the hands of the police in the belief that they would be immediately spirited to paradise.

But behind the religious fervour there were worldly causes, in this case the indebtedness of Muslim farmers to landlords; debt collection was enforced by the courts and led to large-scale evictions. The Moplah actions against Hindu landlords destroyed property, including temples, and their violence continued into the 1920s. While the active fighters never numbered more than a few hundred, they enjoyed the sympathy and support of other Malabar Muslims.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, So what's your recommendation? There are some historian like K. N. Panikkar who think it began as peasant movement that devolved into communal violence. There are others (a lot), who sees it as the continuation of several small scale communal riots that happened in late 19th century. There was this one historian, I will update his name later, who described it as planned riot designed to drive away Hindus and Christians from Malabar. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Panikkar is a Keralite and a Marxist. Too close to home. We need to rely on WP:THIRDPARTY scholars, who are as distant from the events as possible.

I already stated my recommendation. The first couple of paragraphs should only focus on the facts and events, both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency. Then we can devote two paragraphs for the "peasant revolt" focus and the "communal violence" focus. They come later. Both of you are trying to sell your favourite interpretations and edit-warring. You are on your way to getting blocked. Take a break and go read the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I can't see your proposal yet. You have only quoted from the book. "The first couple of paragraphs should only focus on the facts and events, both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency." yes this sounds good. What Lead para does this lead to ? Walrus Ji (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Once again, I am not pushing anything, I am just reinstating the content removed. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References