VELU THAMPI AND PAZHASSI INSURGENCIES -- MYTH AND REALITY.

Curieux, à l'analyse d'événements dans l'histoire du Kerala   (Inquisitive analysis of events in Kerala History)

A reactionary movement advocates the restoration of a previous state of social affairs, while a progressive movement fights for a new social arrangement....When textbooks report fiction as fact, they do not represent a necessarily truthful depiction of history. Fact, fiction, and fantasy are intertwined; exaggerated truths and fictionalized events parade as history lessons. A series of hoaxes have been accepted as facts even in academic circles. In this paper, I have attempted to study in contrast the characteristics of political rebellions for a common cause and an ordinary agitation for selfish goals. Although the word 'rebellion' may be used by the protagonists, in reality it may be an agitation for selfish purposes. I am highlighting two 'rebellions' in Kerala -- Pazhassi Raja rebellion and Velu Thampi revolt -- which are interpreted by some pseudo- progressive writers as 'liberation struggle,' and 'war for independence,’ and by impartial historians as a parochial struggle of a reactionary clique to take back history to feudal times. . Some caste-intoxicated historians have now indulged in a systematic effort to distort the history of the rebellion of Velu Thampi and Pazhassi Raja with a view to jeopardizing the events of the period and to misinform the younger generation. Such blatant distortion is being carried out by religiously minded conservatives for personal popularity, caste bigotry and religious fanaticism. . They have been twisting, concocting, reconfiguring and rewriting historical antecedents only for caste- egos, regional pride and mental aggression. 

I am giving a brief account of these two rebellions without going into all details, focusing. only on the divergent trends of interpretation. Although there were some minor skirmishes when the British brought Kerala under their control early in 1799, the British had to face an insurrection in Malabar, led by Kerala Verma Pazhassi of the Kottayam royal family. Like Velu Thampi, Pazhassi also supported the British initially and did not exhibit any anti-British animosity when they first intervened in Malabar affairs.  When General Abercrombie landed at Tellicherry in 1790, Pazhassi joined him with his guerrilla army of Nairs from the mountains. As Woodcock says, “Undoubtedly he hoped that a British victory would reinstate the old feudal order in Malabar, and as soon as he saw that this was not to be so, and that the princes would become mere landlords drawing pensions from the British, he refused to submit.” [1] The British wanted to bring Wyanad under their control which was ceded to them by Tipu after the fall of Seringapatam. Pazhassi Raja opposed the British move and put forward his right over the district. He was a clever guerrilla fighter and the Bombay troops deployed by the British were incapable of countering his guerrilla tactics. Wellesley immediately took charge of operations and achieved some success by improving the line of communications and holding Pazhassi in the jungles. But, Pazhassi's men struck back and won a strategic victory by capturing the fort at Panamaram and brought the Wyanad passes under their control. The Bombay troops were not faring well and were also being ravaged by malaria. Wellesley replaced them with Madras troops and Pazhassi's men were restricted to the jungles. A new strategy of using kolkars (spies) instead of troops was a great success. Early in 1804 Thomas Harvey Baber, a young and energetic British officer, came as Sub-Collector of Tellicherry and he was entrusted with the responsibility of crushing Pazhassi revolt. Pazhassi's hideout was found and he was shot to death on November 30, 1805. In his letter to the Principal Collector Baber wrote; “The contest was but of short duration. Several of the rebels had fallen, whom the kolkars were dispatching, and a running fight was kept up after the rest till we could see no more of them…… I learnt that the Pyche (Pazhassi) Rajah was amongst those whom we first observed on the banks of the nulla, and it was only on my return from the pursuit that I learnt that the Rajah was amongst the first who had fallen”[2] But the legend of Pazhassi still stirs patriotic spirit and he is hailed as a martyr to the cause of freedom
 

REVOLT IN TRAVANCORE 

The British had to face another formidable challenge from Velu Thampi of Travancore and Paliath .Achan of Kochi. Velu Thampi could easily challenge the weak king , Bala Rama Varma, because he had popular support on account of a successful revolt against the previous Dewan, Jeyanthan Sankaran Nambuthiri, Sankara Narayanan and a broker Mathoo Tharakan and his subordinates in the palace. Velu Thampi himself was a landowner and he fought for the cause of the jenmis when they were asked to pay additional tax to meet government expenditure. So his first appearance on the political stage was to fight for feudal rights. .In those days of caste oppression, untouchability and sight pollution, the crowd that accompanied Velu Thampi to challenge the Raja consisted only of Nairs and other upper castes, not peasants and labourers, as claimed by some perverted historians.. The 16-year old Raja, Balarama Varma , yielded to the threat of Thampi and, after dismissing the Dewan Nambuthiri, appointed Velu Thampi Dewan, on the advice of Colonel Macaulay. After becoming Dalawa, Velu Thampi started on reforms, aimed at strengthening the feudal forces . Biased historians attribute many reforms to Velu Thampi. As for instance,..Kandelutu (surveying and fixing the revenue of the land) and Kettulutu (fixing revenue after hearing) attributed to Velu Thampi may not be correct because Kesava Das had already arranged revenue assessment in a systematic manner. Kesava Das showed himself as a progressive, vigorous, if not always a suave administrator. He not only took steps to substantially increase the revenue but also widened trade enterprises and thereby geometrically increased the revenue stream and profitability.. K.M.Panikkar points out: " Raja Kesava Das pursued a particularly enlightened policy with regard to trade and built just outside the fortress walls a commodious bazaar where foreign merchants were encouraged to come and settle down." (Panikkar, K.M.,'A History of Kerala', Annamali University, 1959, p.302). But survey during Velu Thampi's rule would not be impartial in those days of nepotism and corruption and fixing revenue on the basis of oral hearing (ketteluttu) would never be accurate. These were arrogant measures to fleece money from frightened landowners to be used to increase the finance in the treasury. . Kesava Das had  already arranged a perfect system for tax collection and there was no revenue deficit. Keasava Das is credited with the revenue policy of  Kandelutu ( literally a record of what was seen and fixed i.e., a revenue settlement on the basis of personal survey). . Kettelutu is a settlement made generally by a personal conference with the ryots and on their declarations. (Travancore Land Revenue Manual. Vol. IV, pp. 167, 881-82.) But the process of economic development carried out by Thampi , unlike in the days of Dewan Kesava das, resulted in considerable hardship for farmers because of increased taxes, more severe methods for tax collection and the commercialization of agriculture. Agricultural labourers, plantation workers, tribal cultivators, and tenants could not raise their voice against the exaction of landlords, bureaucrats of the state, merchants, money-lenders, or their rogue agents during Thampi’s rule. He improvised the people, farmers in particular, by raising taxes. Terrified by Thampi's brutal exaction many farmers had given up cultivation  and the wealth and prosperity of Travancore  was waning. This was the primary reason for Thampi's inability to pay the dues to the Company.. , 
Thampi was also known for his exceedingly cruel treatment of people. The most excruciating, brutal and severe punishments such as sawing, hanging, chopping off ears, hands, crushing by elephants, nailing to trees and dismemberment were common during his rule.rule. Travancore Manual has recorded the following punishments. "If the accused was found guilty he would be hanged on the very tree under which the court was held and execution took place before he left for another village. In another instance at Edawa a Namboodiri was robbed of his betel box which contained his gold rings and a silver ornament. A Muslim was suspected for this theft. Velu Thampi “ordered the whole of the Mahomedan population to be brought before him, and when they as a matter of course denied the charge, he mercilessly ordered them one after another being nailed to the tree under which he held court." The Nayar troops revolted when Velu Thampi reduced their allowance. Velu Thampi reacted in a bestial manner. “The leaders were seized and dealt with in Velu Tampi’s usual fashion. Some were hanged, some beheaded; others were blown off the cannon’s mouth. One of them, Krishan Pillai, it is said, had his legs tied to two elephants and the animals were drawn in opposite directions tearing the victim to pieces." Thampi was  bloodthirsty.  paranoid  and he  committed unimaginable atrocities.  Although it is claimed by some historians that he conducted a land survey and increased the income, there was no record to say there was an increase in land revenue, but there is evidence that there was not enough money in the treasury. That was the main reason for the Resident to intervene which led to many complications. Markets established by him in Changanasserry and Vaikom were only for the benefit of upper castes living in the neighborhood, for in those days the mass of the people were barred from entering markets. Nair army was the main prop of the Raja. Thampi’s relationship with the army was not cordial right from the day when he appeared before the palace to challenge the king. His plan to cut in the pay of the army triggered off a mutiny. Velu Thampi sought the help of Macaulay and the Company’s soldiers at Kochi were dispatched to help him. The mutiny was put down with appalling savagery. Velu Thampi’s motive in subduing Nair army is not clear. Probably, taking advantage of the weakness of the young Raja, he would have planned to usurp the throne as Hyder Ali did in Mysore. As Agur says, “ In the neighboring state of Cochin, Dewan Menon (Paliat Achan) in like manner reduced the Raja to a mere cipher and assumed the entire rule in his own hands thereby playing a very dangerous part.”[3] Like Marthanda Varma who suppressed the Ettuveettu Pillamars with the help of Madura Nayaks, Velu Thampi probably would have schemed to wipe out Travancore Nair army with the help of Company soldiers to usurp the throne for himself. Macaulay’s stiff resistance and the terms in the Treaty would have been the probable causes for the violent rupture between Thampi and Macaulay who were till then friends and the Treaty itself was signed at the insistence of Thampi. The ‘Treaty of perpetual friendship and alliance’, signed on 12th January 1805 dismantled the political, military and financial autonomy of Travancore, although outwardly the Raja was independent. The singular advantage of the treaty was the Company was given the full responsibility of defence of Travancore against all internal and external adversaries. . On the other hand, it virtually stripped the Raja of whatever residual autonomy had been conceded to him by the treaty of 1795 and increased the monetary obligation of the Travancore in the form of annual subsidy. It also authorized the Company to decide whether the British Subsidiary force should be stationed within the state or on its borders, which under the earlier treaty had been the prerogative of the princely state. Article V of the treaty authorized the Governor General to assume the administrative charge of Travancore directly if the state ‘defray from paying funds spent for the security of the state’. [4] As Woodcock says, “The price of this assistance was a new Treaty, signed in 1805, by which the Raja specifically accepted British protection, agreed to pay a tribute of 8000,000 rupees a year, and promised to be guided by whatever advice the Company’s representatives might give him in anything to do with the internal administration of the state.” [5] Velu Thampi,using his authority as Dewan, virtually surrendered Travancore to the British. . As Kusuman says ... the treaty of 1805 "raised a hue and cry and turned the then Dewan, Velu Tampi extremely unpopular with the masses as well as the sovereign. (.Kusuman, K.K., A History of Trade and Commerce in Travancore, Mittal, Delhi, 1987,p. 167). Marthanda Varma did not yield to the Dutch. But Velu Thampi  had no hesitation to get the help of foreigners just to remain power. He had no clear-cut plans and was a supreme opportunist, taking advantages as they came. Everything he did in service of his country was a perfidious, cynical contrivance in pursuit of power and money.

THAMPI REVOLTS 

Some writers sing paean to the sword of Velu Thampi. When Velu Thampi’s 248 birth anniversary was celebrated in Thiruvananthapuram, his sword of rebellion took center stage. “Experts said they found several notches and dents on the blade, indicating the weapon has seen combat. “ [6] Although Thampi would have used the sword for killing his personal adversaries in brutal manner and finally to kill himself, his military incompetence can be seen in every battle that he fought against the British. The main cause for his military incompetence can be attributed to his flawed organizational skill. Thampi does not appear to be a skilful military strategist or a man of .daring adventure on battle fields. As a student interested in military history, I waded through Thampi’s wars, and I found him to be miserably inefficient and incompetent. .In most battles, Thampi was avoiding the acute stresses and traumas of combat. Raising anti-Macaulay slogan does not make Thampi a hero. But acting heroically on the battlefield makes him a hero. The effective prosecution of any war requires a load of decisions at all junctures. Many times, Thampi had blundered through misinformation, faulty intelligence, a misreading of the tactical or strategic situation and even lack of personal valour on his part. No British commander had seen Thampi in the thick of battle. The rebellion broke out in Kochi on December 18, 1898, when a 600-men force, commanded by Achan and two of Thampi’s commanders stormed the Resident’s bungalow and miserably failed to kill him. Although it was projected as a well planned and secretly organized conspiracy by Achan and Thampi to attack Macaualay unawares which, if executed, according to their imagination, would be a fatal blow to the British, collapsed in disgrace exposing at the same time the terrible inefficiency that characterized the management of war by Thampi. And again on January19, 1809, the combined forces of Thampi and Achan were routed by Major Hewitt, and Thampi was seen fleeing for his life. The Kollam war, which Thampi planned to win with popular support after the Kundara Proclamation, ended in total failure and exposed his chicanery to get the support of the people with a communal Proclamation.. Kundara Proclamation was a deliberate challenge to lower castes, landless peasants, proletarians, slaves and non-Hindus living in Kerala, especially Christians and Muslims.. How could Thampi get the support of the masses when he says in the Proclamation, “… get low caste people to inflict heavy punishments for slight faults? How could Thampi get the support of the people when there was outright plunder of land revenue coupled with ruinous taxation of the peasantry?  Kundara proclamation exposes Thampi as a hypocrite who used religion to cover his most brutal murders. Although communal historians give lot of weight and importance to Kundara Proclamation terming it as ‘progressive’, ‘charter of liberty’ and all that, the proclamation itself was communal, conservative and fanatical. At Kollam War, the Proclamation would have enlisted only the support some Nair gentries and not the masses, as falsely claimed by caste-oriented and conservative   historians .. So at Kollam War, Thampi was isolated by the lower castes, peasants, slaves and the proletariat After Kollam, the greatest military blunder committed by Thampi was his brazen stupidity in allowing Lt.Col.Sgt.Leger enter Travancore through Aramboly Pass and that sealed the fate of Thampi. Velu Thampi failed militarily against the British even though he commanded a well trained army, armed with muskets and artillery organised on European military system with 3000 men and 18 guns. Large sections of the warrior Nair caste [which had nearly 80,000 males of conscription age in Travancore] and Nair gentry and bandits supported him. . In spite of all these resources, Velu Thampi  was seen fleeing from the battle field. It is recorded in the Asiatic Journal: "A large body of the enemy had taken post in the villages of Colar (Kottar)and Nagercoil, and the task of dislodging them was entrusted to a detachment under Lieut-colonel Macleod, of the King’s service. The country through which the detachment had to march was unfavourable, and the position which the enemy had chosen, strong and advantageous. Protected in front by a battery commanding the only point by which an assailant could approach, the defence was aided by the river, while in the rear were thick impassable woods. These advantages, however, were unavailing. The lines were attacked and carried, after a sharp action, and the enemy forced to retreat in confusion. At this place, the enemy had determined to make a resolute stand. The dewan himself had taken refuge there, and only fled on the approach of the British troops, whose proximity he naturally regarded with dislike."  (The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia, Volume 30, Wm. Allen And Co., London 1839, p..48)

IS IT A LIBERATION STRUGGLE? 

Like all insurrectionists,both Pazhassi Raja and Velu Thampy committed arson, murder, pillage and every kind of atrocity and brought serious damage to the lives and property of local people. Although Pazhassi and Thampi revolts are portrayed as ‘liberation struggle’ or ‘national movement’ by the so-called ‘progressive’ writers and reactionary caste bigots, in actual reality it was a rebellion by an upper strata reactionary clique in collusion with a decadent royalty .Pazhassi and Thampi were living in a jenmi (rowdy farm owners) era, decades away before the birth of the spirit and ideology of nationalism. As Rabindranath Tagore says, “India has never had a real sense of nationalism ….. In our early history, when the geographical limits of each country and also the facilities of communication were small, this problem was comparatively small in dimension. It was sufficient for men to develop their sense of unity within their area of segregation. In those days they combined among themselves and fought against others.”[7] How ridiculous it is to call Pazhassi and Thampi nationalists and ‘freedom fighters’ when both of them had not the slightest idea of nationalism? They had no moral scruples. Thampi who wanted to drive out the British was also negotiating with another colonial power -  France. . Lord Minto, Governor General, tells about the 'spirit of hostility on the part of the State of Travancore'  and it was 'deeply rooted' and therefore, Thampi was keen on seeking an alliance with the French. (Political Consultations, Letter from the Chief Secretary, Fort william to the Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, dated 10th April 1809, pp.788-97)  It is a clear evidence that Thampi was not stirred by the spirit of nationalism or patriotism, but was intoxicated  by  frothy avariciousness, based mainly upon ego, self-interest and  bloated .aggrandizement.  Pazhassi who wanted to free Malabar from Muslim rule was seen in Mysore negotiating with Tipu. So his feigned  assistance to   the Joint Commissioners to expel Tipu's soldiers was sheer hypocrisy. These unscrupulous men would be happy to sell their country in order to capture power. They had also committed gruesome murders for the sake of religion, caste and, above all, for their own personal power and authority. Pazhassi did not fight for his throne when Kottayam was under Hyder Ali and Tippu. Malabar was also subjected to heavy taxation during Mysorean occupation, and there was no opposition by Pazhassi, although there were intermittent rebellions by Nairs against the Mysoreans.  If the British had not intervened, the entire province of Malabar would have been annexed by Tippu.  It was only in the final phase when the British were in control of Malabar, Pazhassi  came forward to  assist General Abercromby by meeting him  at   Thalasserry in 1790  with his guerrilla army. 

Although some  opionated and pertinacious  writers claim without any evidence that Pazhassi was in Malabar during Mysorean invasions, British and Dutch records tell only about the attacks by  Eralppad (Second line Zamorin’s successor) and Ravi Varma against the Mysoreans. Even in the  organized attacks against the Mysore forces by the Kadathanad and Kottayam Nairs, Pazhassi was not sighted. Captain Thomas Henry, Colonel Humberstone, Major Macleod and Colonel Fullarton who were in Malabar fighting the Mysoreans do not mention the participation of Pazhassi. So in all probability Pazhassi woud have sought asylum in Travancore like all other Malabar Rajas. It was only after hearing about the defeat of Tipu that he would have probably  rushed to meet Robert Abercromby  with some Nairs to claim his right over his  uncle Kurumbranad Raja’s Kottayam kingdom pretending that he was aiding the British during the Mysorean Wars.

It is on record that during the Mysorean occupation of Malabar  the Chirakkal Raja and Kottayam Raja had fled to Travancore and the Malabar Commissioners granted  cowls to junior members who were available on the spot.  The Joint Directors were approached by the Kurumbranad Raja with valid documents to establish his legitimacy to Kottayam.  Kottayam province belonged to the Kurmbranad Raja. But Pazhassi thought that he could outwit his uncle, Kurumbranad Raja, by getting Kottayam for himself from the Joint Directors on the basis of his alleged support to the British. But the British knew that all the dispossessed Rjas of Malabar had supported them to be freed from Tipu's rule. The settlement worked out by the Joint Commissioners by giving his uncle authority to rule Kottayam was not liked by Pazhassi. So his opposition to Muslim rule was thrown overboard and he deputed Emmen Nair to Seringapatanam in 1797 to meet Tippu to forge an alliance. The New Indian Express, dated December 3, 2012 reported: “Kerala Charithram Part II’, the forthcoming book jointly authored by noted historians M R Raghava Warrier and Rajan Gurukkal, has sparked off a heated debate among historians regarding the relationship of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja with the British. Express on November 27 reported that, in the book, the authors had observed that the re-reading and re-interpretation of his letters to the East India Company officials in Malabar and Bombay revealed that Pazhassi Raja was loyal, submissive and subservient to the British authorities. Authors maintained that Pazhassi was more disturbed about his personal interests which were confined to the small hamlet of Northern Kottayam in Malabar.” When we recapitulate the events it becomes transparent that Pazhassi’s character is marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending to support the British and at the same time sending emissaries to Tippu.Both Thampi and Pazhassi initially allied with the British to get power for themselves and in this respect they were quislings and collaborators and not patriots.

Kurichiyars 

The so-called peasant revolt, Kurichiyar revolts etc., are fantasy of academicians who had never studied the ground reality. There was no organized, politically educated and socially advanced Kurichiyar tribal association in the jungles of Wyanad. They were mere mercenaries, coolies and they would fight for the British if they had offered them money or rice or huts.The Kurichiyars were subservient to Tipu when Wayanad was controlled by his men. So they were not a militant, rebellious tribe. Edachenna Kungan Nair got the support of the Kurichiyars because he had killed a peon who went to a Kurichiya house to demand some paddy. Although Kurichiyar tribes were given military training by Edachenna Kungan, the British could easily defeat a trained Kurichiya leader, Talakal Chandu. Time was not ripe for such peasant revolts, for they were under the iron grip of jenmis. They lacked political consciousness and organisation. The hill tribes were instigated by Pazhassi to shoot arrows from hideouts in jungles. But they could not continue the resistance. Baber wrote to the Collector: " The Kooramars (Kurumbar) a numerous race of bowmen by far the most rude of all the Wynadians, had to a man deserted their habitations and estates and betaken themselves to the strongest parts of the country, where they had removed thir families and were dragging on a miserable existence, labouring under the dreadful impression that it was he intention of our Government to extirpate the race." (Logan, p.545).

 Some writers have wrongly interpreted Kurichiyar unrest as peasant agitation for autonomy. The trouble arose when the Kurichiyars were asked to pay the land revenue in money. There was no demand for their produce in market. and they had to sell their grain 'at ruinous prices ' to pay the revenue. It was not an agitation by an organized group but a spontaneous opposition to be relieved of the revenue burden. The trouble was quickly solved by establishing a chain of posts in the forest areas. Some left-leaning intellectuals have attempted to interpret the Kurichiyar unrest as peasant rebellion.Traditional Marxist thinking relegated peasants to a class which Marx believed represented "barbarism within civilization" — people who were unable to develop revolutionary consciousness and only wanted land and bread (food)..In a series of newspaper articles published in the 1850s in the New York Daily Tribune, Marx specifically discussed the impact of British colonialism in India. His analysis was consistent with his general theory of political and economic change. He described India as an essentially feudal society experiencing the painful process of modernization. Wayanad peasants - Kurichiyars and Kurumbars - had some similarities with the Chinese peasants of the pre-Mao revolution. The social structure of China was obsolete. In particular, the gentry class (landlords who sometimes were also local officials) was an obstacle to modernization. They dominated the peasants, who made up the vast majority of the population. Almost all of them lived in abject poverty, dying like flies in the recurrent famines. In Wayanad, tribal peasants were under the control of Nayar gentry or tribal leaders. There were no peasant associations in Wayanad, and it is ridiculous to call .community (Kurichiyar)  or tribal (Kurumbar)  unrest due to poverty or starvation as 'peasant rebellion.'  Marx's call in 1848 for the workers of the world to unite, to realise in union their enormous social potential, had not reached the illiterate and ignorant masses of Kurichiyars. It was only in the mid-1930s that we see the beginnings of peasants and labour unions in Malabar when the Communist Party was in an embryonic stage. They were not labour unions in the real sense of the term but loose caste or tribal or paddy field workers claiming with humility more grain or some privileges. It was only in 1939 that communists under the leadership of A.K. Gopalan, E.M.S. Nambuthiripad and P. Krishna Pillai met in secret conclave at Pinarayi and formed the Communist Party of Malabar. Malabar peasants in the pre-colonial period were not like the serbs of pre-Bolshevik Russia. Kathleen Gough argues that the limitations of Indian peasant revolts have sprung more from broader political forces at the level of the province and the colonial and post-colonial state than from the caste system or from peculiarities of village structure.[8]. 
After bringing Malabar under their control, the British wanted to maintain law and order and their policy was not to allow native princes to disturb the peace of the land (Pax Brittanica). . The Joint Commissioners got complaints from the Mappillas that the Pazhassi Raja not only allowed but encouraged the Nayars “to oppress and maltreat the Mappillas and to injure their mosques … in revenge for former molestation of a similar nature by the Mappillas.”[9] The Commissioners got another report that Pazhassi killed a Mappilla who attempted to build a mosque, without giving him the customary gifts. When the British questioned him, he expressed surprise at his not being “allowed to follow and be guided by ancient customs” in the execution of an erring Mappilla”[9].In another case, as Logan puts it: “Two Mappillas were suspected of having committed a robbery in the house of a Chetti. The Raja explained afterwards that they committed the crime; they were certainly kept in confinement for some months. Then they were tried according to the ancient usage of the country, it was alleged, and on their own confessions were sentenced to death. Their execution was carried out on or about the above date ( 28th June 1795) at Venkad by impalement alive according to ancient customs.” (Logan, p.503). The Company authorities got intelligence about this murder early in July and they felt that Pazhsasy should not be allowed to take law into his own hands after the entire Province had been ceded to the British. Again, in September 1793, in a scuffle between Pazhassi’s men and the Mappillas, six Mapillas were killed.[10] The Joint Commissioners found Pazhassi to be “the most untractable and unreasonable of all the Rajahs.”[11] 

VELU THAMPI'S SWORD
There has been a lot of talk about Velu Thampi’s sword. As the Hindu reports, “The 200-year-old weapon is a double-edged straight sword, which tapers towards the end and has shallow grooves on its flat side… Conservation experts at the Kerala State Archaeology Department said the ‘blood grooves or fullers’ helped lighten the sword without compromising its strength. It also prevented the blade and hilt from getting slippery with blood during combat. [12] But this strong sword in the hands of Velu Thampi could not kill Macaulay or Canju (Kunju) Krishna Menon. But it killed innocent, unarmed civilians, women and children. An unarmed party of European military officers and soldiers, including Surgeon Hume, 32 Europeans of H.M.s 12th Regt. and another party of 30 Indian sepoys were at that time proceeding from Kollam to Kochi. A sudden storm and hostile weather drove the British officers into the Port of Alappuzha. Velu Thampi and Pulpoo Pillay pretended to offer shelter and later butchered them in cold blood. Their bodies tied to their necks with stones were put in sacks and consigned to the bottom of the Pallathurthi river.[13] A sick European lady who was in their company was allowed to proceed to Kochi. Wilson in his History of British India (1805 -1835 A.D.) says, " During this interval they ( the Nayar troops) disgraced their cause by acts of atrocity, which served no purpose except that of provoking retribution. An assistant surgeon of the name of Hume, travelling at night on the 30th of January was seized on his route, and led into the presence of the Dewan, who, although he knew the young man personally, and had benefited by his professional advice, commanded him to be conducted to the sea-side where he was put to death and buried in the sand. About the same time, a small vessel with some of the soldiers of the 12th regiment on board, having touched at Alepi for supplies, the men were induced to land by the appearance of cordiality among the people, and assurances that part of the subsidy force was in the neighbourhood. Unaware that hostilities had commenced, the men, thirty in number, disembarked. and as soon as they landed were made prisoners, and shortly afterwards, murdered. This was also done by order of the Dewan, who thus effaced by his perfidy and cruelty, whatever credit he might have claimed for zeal in the cause of his country and his prince."(quoted in Travancore manual). Thampi’s killing spree of innocent persons did not end with the bloody massacre of about unarmed 70 persons at the beach at Poracaud. When Thampi and Achan could not win any major victory, they, like bloodthirsty hyenas, targeted civilians, mostly Christians. One is sickened by the raw brutality of the shooting and the craven attempts for the cover-up of this bloody massacre by the so-called ‘progressive’ writers. As Agur says: “Now the enemies in Cochin pursuant to orders received pillaged the houses of Christians demolished their gardens, and even cruelly murdered many Christians the whole way to Travancore.... True to his professed hatred against Christians the Dewan now commenced to perpetrate a series of atrocities against them, secretly planned and most villainously carried out. The dreadful massacre of Travancore Christians was conducted under the authority of the Dewan by an Officer of the Travncore Government named Coonjee Cootty Pillay (Kunju Kutty Pillay)) having the rank of Sarvady Kariakkar. ... From detailed accounts it would appear that nine(9) priests and upwards of three thousand (3000) Christians, men, women and children were maimed, tortured and butchered and thrown into the backwater. In the same manner Travancore's ally, Cochin Dewan Paliat Achan also wreaked his full vengeance on the poor Christians of Cochin. Some were mangled, and some with their hands and feet tied together were thrown into the sea. When the Residency was burnt down and pillaged and Col. Macaulay escaped to the sea, he says that his heart yearned when he saw the bodies of thousands of Christians with hands and feet tied together floating on the sea." [15] An impartial survey of the events will show that Velu Thampi and Palith Achan marginalized and targeted Christians to wipe them out of Travancore and Kochi. It is what the jihadists have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pazhassi-Thampi rebellion was not a liberation struggle as falsely projected by 'progressive' and 'rabid communal' writers, but it represents the reactionary Taliban insurgency which wanted to turn the clock back to the days of sati, female infanticide and caste oppression. They wanted to return to a real or imagined old order of things, and they were not hesitant to use coercive means to do so. Certainly, the Taliban represents reactionary, tribal policies for the population, and it would certainly impose a despotic regime with its own version of shariah law. Similarly, Thampi and Pazhassi strove hard to establish the ancien regime. In fact it was a revolt of the rulers whose territories had been annexed to create a united province, rapacious chieftains who were bleeding the tenants, bandits who had lost power and prestige, traditional Nayar aristocracy cherishing the memory of vanished glory, protesting against modernization and westernization that was growing up around them. These reactionaries were shipwrecked in their bid to block the march of history and yet they watched  with horror the currents of modernity sweeping  everything down a course they despised. Pazhassi and Thampi could be termed as fossilized reactionaries or die-hard traditionalists, or quislings depending on what paradigm one applied to interpret their actions..


 Dr.A.Yeshuratnam Former Principal and HOD Malabar Christian College, Calicut

. [1] Woodcock, George, Kerala ,Faber and Faber, London, 1967, p. 186
 [2]Correspondence relating to Pychi Raja’s Rebellion, 1805, pp.409-433.
 [3] Agur, C.M. Church History of Travancore,Asian Educational Services, Delhi, p.533.
 [4] . C.U. Aitchison, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, relating to India and neighboring countries. Vol. X, p. 135
 [5] Woodcock, George, op.cit. p.189
[6] The Hindu, May 12, 2013
 [7] From Rabindranath Tagore’s Lectures on Nationalism,1917 tags: India Independence day, Nationalism in South Asia
 [8] Gough, Kathleen, Indian Peasant Uprisings, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol.8, No.3: July-September 1976
 [9] Joint Commissioners’ Report, p.87
 [10] Logan, William, Malabar, Vol.I.Government Press, Madras,1951, pp.497f
 [11] ibid
12] Wilson, J.A. Report on Malabar, October 15, 1801, pp.1-3
 [13] The Hindu, May 12, 2013
 [14] Agur, C.M., op.cit., p.529
[15] Ibid