CHAPTER - II

Land Reforms in Malabar: A Brief History

 42

An understanding of the history of Land Reforms that were

brought into being through tenancy legislations in Kerala in general and

in Malabar in particular would be relevant and appropriate as a preface to

this study, “Socio-Economic Dimensions of the Impact of Land Reforms:

A study of Malappuram District in Kerala”. Malappuram District was

part of the district of Malabar in the Madras Presidency before

independence. Madras Presidency was under the direct administration of

the British. Later, it became part of the Madras State. After India

became independent in 1947, Travancore-Cochin State, made up of two

princely states of Travancore and Cochin, was formed on 1st July 1949,

but Malabar continued as a part of Madras State. The State of Kerala,

which included the former Travancore-Cochin State, the Malabar district

and the Kasargod taluk of South Canara, was formed in 1956.

One important aspect of the land reforms in this part of the country

is that they were historical processes necessitated by prolonged peasant

struggles. Though the land reforms were brought in through tenancy

 43

legislations at various stages, they were not the gifts from Governments;

they were the outcome of the revolts of the peasantry against the

traditional feudal land system. There were a series of revolts and

struggles in Malabar during the second half of the 19th century and first

quarter of the 20th century by peasants, who were mostly Muslims

(locally called Mappilas). In fact, the great and the infamous Mappila

Rebellion in 1921 was rooted in the discontent of peasantry against

landlords, and the attitude of the ruling British.

Malabar had a very complex land tenure system. In the pre-British

days the land system in Malabar area was largely caste-based and was

dominated by the upper caste people. This was the situation not only in

Malabar, but also in other parts of Kerala. Most of the lands in Kerala

were owned by temples owned by Namboothiris (Kerala Brahmins),

Namboothiri ‘Mams’, Rajas and Nair ‘taravads’. They were the so called

upper caste people and the land owning class. At least there are three

views that explain as to how the land system in Kerala came to be

dominated by the upper class, particularly, the Brahmins.

According to tradition how the upper-caste Brahmins came to

dominate the land is explained by the myth that the sage Parasurama
 44

reclaimed the land of Kerala from the sea and handed it over to the

Namboothiris with all the rights of possession - Janmam. Though this

theory does not have any historical support, the British made use of this

myth and considered the janmam as absolute property right.

William Logan1, the father of tenancy legislations in Malabar, put

forward another view. The work entitled Malabar by William Logan

(1887) is the most authentic and exhaustive one as far as the Malabar land

system is considered. Though other British administrators, in general, did

not accept many of the observations of Logan in respect of Malabar land

system, none of them could offer a more logical and acceptable

alternative proposition about the historical aspects of the land tenurial

system in Malabar.

William Logan observed that in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. the

organisation of the state in this part of the country was in the form of

guilds or corporate bodies. For the purpose of administration the state was

divided into nadus and nadus into territories. The head of the state was

the Emperor or Perumal. Chieftains or Rajas headed nadus. Such

chieftains of those periods included Rajas of Valluvanad, Eralanadu,

1 William Logan., Malabar (Government of Madras 1951. First published in 1887).

 45

Nedumpuraiyumad and Venad.1 These nadus were divided into

territorial organisations or guilds of people. “These guilds or corporate

bodies had distinct functions to perform in the body politic and those

functions were in old times strictly hereditary”.2 Each guild had its own

subordinate guilds or corporate bodies performing different functions.

The land, the main source of production, was mostly held by Brahmins,

the upper caste people.

Logan observes that Brahmins were granted lands by kings of

different dynasties. He cites evidences to this from the records of a king

in the 5th century A.D.3 Quoting the king’s records, Logan observes that

the king gave some lands to certain Brahmins to enhance his spiritual

merit and for the sake of his welfare in this and the other world. “From

this time forward, grant after grant by different dynasties - western

chalukya, Kalinga, Gurjara, Mahavali, Rastrakuta, Ganga - records that

lands were given to Brahmins, with libation of water (the well-known

incident of Nirattiper tenure in Malabar), in order to increase the religious

merit of the grantors and of their diseased relatives”.4

1 William Logan., (1951), p. 266.

2 William Logan., (1951), p.596.
3 Ibid., p.260.
4 ibid., pp. 260-61.
 46

According to Elamkulam Kunhan Filial1 (1966), a famous Kerala

historian, the caste based, Brahmin centred and upper caste dominated

land system was the creation of Aryans. At about 6th century A.D the

landowners were the people belonging to the social groups now at the

lower strata of the Hindu society. It is relevant to note that in those days

there was nothing like caste distinction as lower and upper castes or

classes. However, with the coming of Aryans from the beginning of the

7th century A.D., things changed and the “Aryanisation” of the region

resulted in the emergence of class distinctions among social groups.

One of the consequences of the “Aryanisation” of the region was

the forceful transfer of lands to Brahmins. Later, during the 11th century

Chola -Chera war, Brahmins wangled vast areas of lands from other

social groups to emerge themselves as Janmis. One of the consequences

of the war was the disintegration of the united polity in Kerala and the

emergence of large number of small principalities. This situation also

helped Brahmins to get possession of large areas of land and to

consolidate their position as landowners.

1 P. Radhakrishnan., Peasants Struggles, Land Reforms and Social Change: Malabar, 1836-1982 (Sage
Publications, New Delhi, 1989), pp. 24-25.
 47

In order to make their status and position superior and powerful,

Brahmins created the caste system and made the janmi-centred land

system quite firm and highly complicated. Different systems and

procedures were practised in the transference of lands from the janmis to

different persons for the purpose of cultivation. The evolution of land

tenurial system in this part of the country is traced to these systems and

procedures followed in the transfer of lands from the land owners,

dominated by upper caste people, to lower caste people for the purpose of

cultivation.

A good amount of land was held by the Rajas or Naduvazhis also.

All these lands were actually cultivated by the lower and poorer sections

of the society. The produce was shared by many sections. The so called

land owner, by virtue of his ownership, had a share; the supervisors of the

territory, the Kanakkar1, had a share; the goldsmith, the blacksmith, the

carpenter, the washerman etc. of the locality also had a small share each

and, of course, the actual cultivator also had a share. According to Logan

the whole system worked as a corporate body in which each section had a

share of the proceeds of the land. He argued that in such a situation there

1 Note: Janmi- singular; Janmis- plural, Kanakkaran-singular; Kanakkar-plmal, Verumpattakkaran-

singular; Verumpattakkar-p 1 ural.
 48

could not have been ownership of land in the modem sense of the term.

It would rather be appropriate to refer to that system as “Joint

proprietorship or “Corporate Unity”.1

Mainly there were three land right holders - the Janmi,

Kanakkaran and Verumpattakkaran. *Janmam’ was a superior tenure.

The term was originally used to indicate life interest in the soil. Later it

assumed the meaning of ownership right. However, as observed earlier,

Logan did not accept this view of equating janmam with ownership right.

According to him, nobody had the absolute right of owning the land

though many had the hereditary right to share the produce. Nevertheless,

janmis were hereditary holders who were entitled to a definite share of

the produce. The share was determined by custom.

Two types of tenurial system prevailed in Malabar: a two-tier

system and a three-tier system. Generally in the two-tier system janmis

were holders of relatively small areas of land. Janmis holding larger areas

of land were mostly in the three-tier system. In the two-tier system, janmi

gave the land to someone for cultivation in return for a rent to be given in

kind. This rent was agreed upon by the customs and conventions

1 P. Radhakrishnan., (1989), p. 26.

 49

prevailed in the society. The person who cultivated the land and paid the

rent was called verumpattakkaran.

In the three-tier system there was an intermediary, called

tkanakkaran\ between ‘janmi' and verumpattakkaran. In this system,

janmi took a good amount of money from the kanakkaran in return for

giving him the land for cultivation. However, most of the kanakkar

would not cultivate the land by themselves. They would give the land to a

verumpattakkaran in return for a higher rent. The terms and conditions

between the janmi and kanakkaran would be such that the money given

by kanakkaran to janmi would be treated as a loan for which an interest

would be fixed and the kanakkaran had to give an amount of produce

from the land to the janmi as rent. Normally, a kanakkaran would give

the share of produce to the janmi after deducting the equivalent of the

interest. In this system, the produce from the land would go to three

hands - the cultivator, the kanakkaran and the janmi. In certain cases, the

kanakkaran himself would cultivate the land. In that case, the system

would be similar to the two-tier system except for the difference that the

kanakkaran would have advanced money to janmi.

 50

Under these systems of land tenure prevailing in the pre-British era

the agreements amongy'a«m/s, kanakkar and verumpattakkar were mostly

based on the local customs and conventions. More often than not, the

contracts were oral. In the two-tier system, janmis could not evict the

verumpattakkar except for genuine reasons like non-payment of rent. So

also in the three-tier system a janmi/kanakkaran could not evict a

kanakkaran/verumpattakkaran, as the case may be, except for genuine

reasons that were socially acceptable. It is precisely because of these

practices in the land tenure system that Logan was of the opinion that

nobody had an absolute right of ownership on land, though many would

share the produce of the land.

In the land tenure system prevalent in the Malabar area in the pre-

British period, one aspect that stands out was the distinction, particularly

on the basis of caste, among those who shared the produce of the land.

The ‘janmis' were mostly Namboothiris (the so called upper caste Kerala

Brahmins), royal lineages and a section of high-caste Nairs. The

kanakkar were mostly Nairs and the verumpattakkar belonged to the low-

caste Nair, Tiyya and Mappila (Muslim) communities. Besides, there

were artisans and service castes like barbers, washermen, carpenters etc.

The agricultural labourers belonged, mostly, to lower ‘polluting’ castes.

 51

All these classes of people, as observed earlier, had their own separate

entity in society and had their share of produce from land in varying

degrees. In fact, the peasantry of this period consisted of all classes of

people except the janmi class. Though agreements, transactions and

understanding in the matters relating to land were based on customary

practices, each section of the society was sure of its status, position,

power and rights. It may not be wrong to infer that though there was

clear-cut distinction among castes in the society caste conflicts were few.

The advent of Portuguese in Malabar area by the end of 15th

century disturbed the communal harmony in this part of the country. The

Mappilas (Muslims) of the region had a monopoly in the spice trade

during those days. The Portuguese attempted to take over the trade from

the Muslims with the help of certain local rulers. However, many local

rulers, particularly the Zamorin Raja of Calicut, did not oblige the

Portuguese and together with the Muslims opposed the Portuguese. In

the struggle between Portuguese and the local Muslims, the Muslims of

this region started emerging as militants. Not only that, they were very

conscious of their identity as a separate community but felt that their

importance in the society was decreasing.

 52

The real break of the social harmony in the Malabar region began

with the occupation of this region by the Mysore rulers Haider Ali and

Tippu Sultan in the latter half of the 18th century. At the time of their

arrival, Malabar region was ruled by small local rulers and Naduvazhis

who were invariably upper caste Hindus. Though many of these rulers

resisted Haider Ali and Tippu ultimately they had to surrender. A good

number of Brahmins, Chieftains and Nair landlords fled to Travancore for

fear of religious persecution.1 This created a peculiar situation that lands

were left with kanakkar and the cultivators.

The Mysore rulers had to deal with these kanakkar and cultivators

in matters related to land. Curiously enough, kanakkar, who had superior

positions in the absence janmis did not claim ‘janmam’ right over the

land. They were interested only to preserve their ‘kanam’ rights. This

attitude of kanakkar was cited by some to argue that janmam right was

not to be considered as absolute right over the land. If janmam meant

absolute right on the land kanakkar would have claimed it and it would

not have been difficult for them to assume such right when the janmis left

the place.2

1 P. Radhakrishnan., (1989), p. 43.

2 V.V. Kunhikrishnan., Tenancy Lagislation in Malabar (1880-1970).
(Northern Book Centre, New Delhi, 1993), p. 3.
 53

The Mysore rulers imposed land tax. Naturally, the kanakkar and

cultivators were asked to pay the tax. However, these people who did not

claim the janmam right, shifted the burden of the tax to janmis who were

not there at all. The Mysorean rulers collected tax from the share of

produce meant for janmis. It could be reasonably presumed that the

cultivators and kanakkar would have thought that in case janmis came

back the tax would fall on their shoulders. Many of the kanakkar and

cultivators took real possession of the land and property of janmis and

enjoyed the janmis’ portion of the produce (of course, after paying a

portion of that as tax). It is pertinent to note that during this period the

kanakkar or the cultivators, who held the lands, belonged mostly to the

Muslim community. The Muslim peasants experienced a sense of

freedom during that brief period of Mysorean occupation.

With the British (English East India Company) taking over the

province of Malabar from the Mysore ruler Tippu in 1792, changes in

quick succession took place in the system of land tenure in Malabar. The

upper caste janmis started coming back and strove to regain their own
v/
rights, position and status in society in general and on land in particular.

The way the British handled the situation clearly shows that they obliged
 54

janmis} The janmis were given full ownership rights over land and

property that they had when they left at the time of Mysorean occupation.

Given these rights they were allowed to take legal possession of their land

and property held by the kanakkar and cultivators. This created utter

chaos and confusion in the land tenure system and paved the way for

peasant-landlord conflicts. The peasantry was dominated by the Muslims

and the home coming janmis, who were given absolute right over their

property, were mostly upper caste Hindus. Thus, the peasant-landlord

conflict turned to be a Muslim upper caste Hindu conflict.

It may be noted that one of the finest aspects of pre-British land

tenurial system that prevailed in the Malabar area was that the kanakkar

or the cultivators (verumpattakkar) could not be evicted except under

certain well defined exceptional cases. This had given a sort of security

to kanakkar and cultivators {verumpattakkar). But with the advent of

British, this basic aspect of security that was in-built in the custom-

oriented land tenurial system was disturbed.

1 P. Radhakrishnan., (1989), p. 43.

 55

With the absolute right over land and property conferred by the

British government on the janmis, they got legal right to evict kanakkar

or verumpattakkar. Janmis started demanding larger portion of produce

as their share from tenants. This imposed considerable hardship on

tenants because there were only two options for them: either pay a greater
.V] i v
share to the janmi or facp evirtinn The most affeeted arm in was the

actual cultivators.

For the first 50 years of the British rule in Malabar, ho significant

data regarding evictions are available. The data available thereafter

clearly indicate the gravity of the problem of eviction. The earliest data

relating to eviction suits filed in various courts are available for the

period from 1842 to 1852. According to those data, on an average, yearly

1140 cases were filed during that period.1 During the second half of the

19th century the number of eviction suits filed in various courts increased

steadily. The annual average number of eviction suits filed during period

from 1862 to 1880 are presented in the following table.

uiangM-AG*1

1 K.N. Panikkar., Against Lord and State ( Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1992), p. 40.
 56

Table 2.1

Progressive increase of eviction suits

(during the second half of the 19th century).*

Annual average
Period
number of eviction suits

1862-66 2039

1867-71 2547

1872-76 3974

1877-80 4983
■"Source: K.N. Panikkar., (1992), p. 40.

The conferment of absolute right on land and property to janmis and

the consequent evictions, together with the rack-renting, clearly paved the

way for bitter conflicts between the peasantry and the janmis. As pointed

out earlier, these conflicts had a communal dimension also. The most

affected people at that time were the actual cultivators. There were low

caste Hindus and Muslims among cultivators. The Muslim peasants out

numbered the Hindu peasants in South Malabar area. The low caste

Hindu peasants, for reasons of religious affinity and caste-subordination,

were passive sufferers. On the other hand, the Muslim peasantry was

militant in character and began to revolt against the janmis, who were

mostly upper caste Hindus.

 57

The peasant-y'awmz' conflict that began, mostly in South Malabar,

during that period had the character of both a peasant revolt and a

religious revolt. Between 1836 and 1859 there were as many as twenty-

two ‘Mappila out-breaks’ recorded in this region. This series of

outbreaks prompted the British to appoint a series of commissions to

probe into the causes of those out-breaks and suggest measures to contain

them. Between 1852 and 1887, four important Commissions - Strange

Commission (1852), Logan Commission (1881), Madhava Rao

Commission (1884) and Master Commission (1885) - looked into the

matter and submitted their reports.

The Strange Commission reported that the rebellions were mostly

because of religious fanaticism and that they had nothing to do with

agrarian discontent. However, he opined that there was need to

harmonise the relation between peasantry and landlord, and suggested

some important measures for that. They included:

(a) registration of deeds to prevent false litigation,

 58

(b) a provision that the kanam tenure should not be revoked within 12

years and an additional kanam tenure - ‘Melkanam’* - should not be

created when there was already a kanam, and

(c) solving the land tenurial disputes by executive action rather than by

judicial process.

More than talking about reforms in the land tenurial system

Strange’s report elaborated on the highly repressive and punitive

measures to contain the Mappila outbreaks. The Government accepted

the latter part of the report and meticulously implemented the suggested

measures to control the outbreaks but did nothing to harmonise the

agrarian relation. In spite of its efforts, the Government could not

achieve its objective of containing the Mappila outbreaks. In fact, they

continued unabated.

Then came Logan Commission and its report (1881-82). Logan

reported that discontent in the land tenurial system was the major cause,

though not the only cause, of the outbreaks. A very important point

* Melkanam or Melcharth is a second kanam or overlease either in favour of the first kanakkarzn or a

stranger to raise further money on the security of the same property by the janmi. The Holder of

this kanam was called Melkanamdar. He could evict the first kanamdar on the expiring of 12

years from the date of execution of the first kanam.

 59

Logan made in his report was that the conferment of absolute right on

land and property to janmis by the British was based on wrong

understanding of the land tenurial system prevailed in pre-British period

and, therefore it was a wrong step. He observed that property right

conferred on janmis deprived others, particularly the actual cultivators, of

their rights. “.... it is evident that the recognition by the courts of the

janmi as dominus and the enforcement by them of contracts have

wrongfully benefited the janmis and have deprived the others of their just

rights. These others were in effect CO-PROPRIETORS with the janmis,

and the action of the courts has virtually expropriated them.”1

Logan stated in his report that the ‘Mappila outbreaks’ were really

instigated by some disgruntled and influential fanatics who found the

discontentment among the peasantry a good opportunity for them to use

Muslims against the Hindus. “The real fact seems to have been that the

janmis, influenced partly by the rise in the prices of produce and partly by

the novel views of the courts as to their real position, had at last begun to

feel their power as LORDS OF THE SOIL and to exercise it through the

courts. The Mappilas who had been peacefully in possession of the lands

1 William Logan., (1951), p. 608.

 60

since the time of Hyder Ali’s conquest, felt in no doubt as a bitter

grievance that the janmis should have obtained power to evict them - a

power which did not intrinsically belong to them - and the influential

men among them, looking about for means to protect themselves, set

fanaticism in motion and at first experienced great benefits from it”.1

Logan stressed the need to establish, in order to eliminate the

ambiguities and uncertainties, clear-cut legal systems and provisions to

control and regulate land tenure system and the absolute power given to

janmis over land and property. He strongly put forward a case for giving

occupancy rights to actual cultivators to protect them from eviction

proceedings and to provide them a sense of security. This was necessary,

contended Logan, both from the economic and social points of view. The

substance of the observations, in respect of land tenures, in the report of

Logan is as follows:

“I. The original Malayali system of land tenure was a system of

customary sharing of the produce, each customary sharer being

permitted the free transfer of his interest in the land.

1 William Logan., (1951), p. 616.

 61

II. Under British rule one of the customary sharers has been exalted

into the position of a European proprietor holding the plenum

dominium as the Romans called it.

III. The other customary co-sharers have consequently been

gradually pushed to the wall and do not now receive their

customary shares, and their right of free transfer of their interests

has been virtually expropriated.

IV. The insecurity to the ryots thus occasioned has resulted in

fanatical outrages by Mappilas and in great increase of crime”.1

As could have been expected, Logan’s report met with severe

criticism, particularly from powerful janmis and even from the

Government. The legal opinions sought by the Government were against

the points stressed by Logan in his report. In addition, the Government

took no significant action on Logan’s report except appointing another

commission, the Madhava Rao Commission in 1884, for further detailed

study on the subject.

i William Logan., (1951), p.621.

 62

Within six / seven months the Madhava Rao commission prepared

its final report and two bills related to land tenure system: (a) The

Malabar Stay of Execution Bill, and (b) The Malabar Tenancy Bill.

Though the Madhava Rao Commission did not concur with the

suggestions of Logan that the actual cultivators should be given

occupancy right, the commission agreed to the opinion of Logan that

conferment of absolute right of property to janmi was not right and

opined that janmi’s right should be restricted. The Commission also

suggested that, pending the introduction of appropriate legislation, the

operation of eviction-drive should be stayed. It was for this purpose that

“The Malabar Stay of Execution Bill” was drafted by the commission. In

the other bill, “The Malabar Tenancy Bill”, it was proposed to confer

occupancy rights to tenants holding land directly from janmi for a

continuous period of 30 years. The Bill also provided that no tenant who

held land directly from janmi should be evicted except for denial of

janmi’s title, non-payment of rent, non cultivation of land or illegal

transfer of the holding. It also contained a provision for the payment of

compensation to the tenants, in the event of their eviction, for

improvements made by them on the holdings.

 63

The fate of Madhava Rao Commission Report was in no way

different from that of the earlier ones. The Government was not prepared

to enact any legislation which would affect janmis' rights. In September

1885, a new commission - ‘Master Commission’ with C.G. Master as

president - was appointed to review all the aspects of land tenure system.

The important observations in the Master Commission report submitted

in 1887 were:

a. granting of occupancy rights to tenants could not be justified

both from historical point of view and from the point of

political necessity,

b. the tenant deserves security and should not be subjected to

indiscriminate eviction, and

c. tenants should be properly compensated for the improvements

made by them in the land and properties.

The Master Commission proposed two bills: one for providing

compensation for improvements referred to in point ‘c’ above and another

for regulating the right to evict. The Government accepted the Master

Commission’s recommendations partially and enacted the “Malabar

Compensation for Tenants’ Improvements Act of 1887” providing for the

compensation to tenants for the improvements made by them on land and

 64

properties. The second bill - Tenancy Bill - suggested by Master

Commission was kept in the cold storage. Nevertheless, the

Compensation Act was the first state legislation in the history of land

tenurial system and land reforms in Malabar.

The Compensation Act, in fact, did nothing to change the

prevailing land tenure system. The Act was opposed by both the janmis

and tenants. Janmis opposed it because they felt it infringed their

absolute right on land. The tenants opposed it because the legislation not

only failed to check eviction but in fact, also paved the way for effecting

large number of evictions. The increased number of evictions and the

frustration of tenants further aggravated the janmi-tenant animosity.

Nothing significant and important happened for over another one and half

decades except an amendment, in the form of clarifications to certain

provisions and terms, to Compensation Act brought in 1900.

By about 1911 the then Collector of Malabar, Innes was asked to

report as to whether a tenancy legislation was feasible and, if feasible to

suggest the nature of legislation, the classes of people to be covered by

and the nature of protection to be given to them under the legislation.

Innes submitted his report in 1915 and suggested that from both the
 65

economic and social points of view there was a necessity for

comprehensive legislation conferring fixity of tenure to tenants.

The Government passed on the Innes’s Report to his successor

Evans for his opinion. Evans reported that there was absolutely no

economic and political need and justification for a land legislation as

suggested by Innes. The Board of Revenue also rejected the propositions

of Innes and concurred with the opinion of Evans.

The late 19th century and early 20th century years witnessed the

emergence of English-educated middle class Nair society in Malabar area.

Because of their educational status, many of them joined the bureaucracy,

which enabled them to influence the administration. They were also

gathering sufficient political strength by being in the Indian National

Congress.

In the land tenurial system in Malabar the kanakkar, who were the

middlemen, mostly belonged to the Nair community. They detested the

social and economic supremacy of Brahmin landlords and, by slowly

organising themselves, began to claim and assert occupancy rights in

land. In the initial stages, the actual cultivators (verumpattakkar) also

joined the movement because they found the movement anti-feudalistic.

However, before long they found that the movement was just for the
 66

protection of the interests of the kanam tenants only and was against the

interests of cultivating tenants.

The early 20th century years witnessed certain socio-political

developments among the Muslim polity also. The Khilafat movement *

had the effect of Muslim community turning against the British and

expressing their affinity towards Congress Party. Certain Congress and

tenant leaders persuaded the Muslim peasantry to join the tenancy

movement also. When the khilafat movement started gaining momentum,

the British Government adopted all possible measures to suppress it. The

more the British administration persisted in suppressing the Khilafat

movement, the more militant the movement became. The Khilafat

movement, the tenancy movement and the nationalist movement, all

inspired and instigated the already frustrated poor, illiterate Mappila

peasants of South Malabar to openly challenge the authority of landlords

and the state.

* At the end of the World War I, the Treaty of St. Sevres, by which the war with Turkey

came to an end, provided for the dismemberment of the Caliphate. This had deeply hurt

the feelings of the Muslims all over the world. The Khilafat Movement In India was

started by the Ali brothers - Mohammad Ali and Showkat Ali - as a pan-Indian political

agitation, for the restoration of the Khalifa and his temporal powers.
 67

“The motives and perspectives which influenced the participants of

khilafat meetings were not necessarily identical”.1 To the Congress

leaders khilafat movement was part of the broader non-violent, non­

cooperation struggle against the British rule. “But for religious leaders

who played a crucial role in mobilising the Mappilas and for their

followers at lower levels, the khilafat movement was basically a religious

question and its anti-imperialist character was only incidental”.2

Many political and social events which took place in various parts

of Malabar during this period created an anti-establishment, anti-British-

feeling among the different sections of the masses. But it was the

Muslims, because of their fundamentalist character, who expressed

themselves violently. This culminated in the infamous Mappila

Rebellion of 1921. The rebellion broke out in August, 1921 and

continued for about 8 months.

The rebellion took a violent turn in its course. Instigated by

fundamentalist Muslim leaders, the illiterate Muslim masses participating

in the rebellion at first targeted the British offices and officials, and then

1 K.N. Panikkar., (1992), p. 126.

2 Ibid.
 68

the landlords, whom the Muslims dubbed as the supporters of the British.

Making use of this opportunity the recalcitrant Muslims, who belonged to

the peasantry, plundered the properties and destroyed the records and

belongings of many of the landlords. Though all these incidents were the

result of Muslims grabbing the opportunity to take revenge against or

settle scores with unscrupulous landlords, they had in them the peasant’s

expression of anger against feudalistic system of land-tenure in this area.

It may be recalled that during those days there were large number

of eviction proceedings pending against, mostly, Muslim tenants. For

such tenants the rebellion was a good opportunity to show their might to

the landlords. Many socio-political events and varied interests of various

social and political groups conspired to ignite the rebellion. But the

rebellion eventually assumed more of a communal colour and turned into

a Muslim riot against Hindus. By the time the British succeeded in

suppressing the rebellion using both army and police, much damage in

the form of loss of property and life had already been caused. In the post­

rebellion years South Malabar region, particularly, witnessed bitter

enmity between Muslims and Hindus. The Muslims alienated themselves

from public life.

 69

What one observes in the posX-Mappila Rebellion period in

Malabar was a tug of war between landlords and kanakkar. The landlords

were socially prominent and supporters of the Government. The kanakkar

by this time, because of their political involvement, had become a force to

be reckoned with. The kanakkar succeeded in getting a bill, with

provisions giving occupancy rights to kanam tenants, introduced in the

Madras Legislative Council in 1921. But, because of the dissolution, in

the meantime, of the Legislative Council, the bill did not see the light of

the day. In the election to the new Council, though the kanakkar used all

their might to get two of their representatives elected, they could manage

to get only one candidate elected because of stiff opposition from janmis.

Nevertheless, the member elected could succeed in introducing in the

Council a bill, the ‘Malabar Tenancy Bill’, in 1924, which had the

following three important provisions:

(a) occupancy rights to all kanakkar irrespective of the period of

kanam tenancy,

(b) occupancy rights to all ordinary tenants (verumpaitakkar)

holding tenancy rights for not less than 6 years; and

 70

(c) prohibition of creating a second kanam tenancy, referred to as

Melkanam or Melcharthu, on a land which was already under a

kanam tenancy.

All these provisions were basically aimed at restricting the absolute

right of janmis over land and property. No wonder that the Bill was

totally opposed by the landlords. The Government favoured the views of

the landlords and was not in favour of passing the bill. The law member,

Sir C.P.Ramaswamy Iyer, gave his opinion disfavouring the bill.

However, because of the tough attitude of the kanakkar and the political

support they could manage, the bill was passed in the Council in 1926. In

spite of all this, the Bill did not come into force because the Governor,

noting that it was not right to take away the right of landlords, did not

give his assent to the Bill.

The Madras Government appointed another committee - The

Raghavayya Committee - in 1927 to report on the issue of tenancy

legislation. This committee adopted a reconciliatory approach between

the absolute right of the landlords and the tenancy rights of the kanakkar

and ordinary tenants. Both the landlords and kanakkar expressed, though

for different and opposing reasons, their strong reservations on the views
 71

of the committee. The committee recommended that occupancy rights

should be given to both kanakkar and ordinary tenants - verumpattakkar

- subject to certain conditions and that the janmis should be given the

right to resume the land for self-cultivation.

During this period tenancy movements sponsored and backed by

Congress were emerging and becoming great forces. To counter the

tenant movements landlords also organised themselves. Taking into

account the emerging socio-political developments and the accelerating

momentum of the nationalist movement the Government relaxed its

traditional stiff attitude against liberalised land legislation. This attitude

was reflected in the Government’s introduction of a bill in the Council in

1929.

It is relevant to note that it was after more than four decades since

1887, when the Government introduced the Compensation Act, that the

Government initiated the introduction of a bill relating to land legislation

in the Council in 1929. The Bill - The Malabar Tenancy Bill, 1929 -

introduced in the Council was referred to the select committee which

suggested certain modifications. Accepting these modifications, the Bill

was passed in October 1929. However, the Governor returned the Bill

twice withholding his assent. The Viceroy also withheld his assent. In the
 72

mean time, many dramatic events happened. The janmis put pressure on

the government and used their influence to see that the Bill was not given

assent by the Governor and the Viceroy. The kanakkar, on the other

hand, did their best to get the assent of the Governor and Viceroy. In the

end, the Act saw the light of the day; it was implemented in December

1930.

In the early 1930’s the landlords and tenant-cultivators were a

disgruntled lot. The Government increased the tax levies, which imposed

a heavy burden on the landlords. The landlords, in turn, demanded more

share of the produce from the tenants, which was opposed by the tenants.

The kanakkar, having gained occupancy rights, were a relatively happy

lot.

Certain social and political developments during this period

changed the course of agrarian movements in Malabar. In the political

front, within the National Congress, a leftist group with socialistic

leanings was slowly becoming a force. This group was anti-feudalistic

and pro-peasant. In fact, this group started organising the peasants and

even formed an association of peasants, the ‘Karshaka Sangham’, in

North Malabar in 1935. Thereafter, the peasant movements in Malabar

had more of political overtones in their organisations. The Peasant

 73

Association (‘Karshaka Sangham’) expanded its wings and by 1937 it

grew into the ‘All Malabar Karshaka Sangham’ (AMKS). Its agenda

included:

(1) abolition of feudalistic levies and illegal exactions;

(2) ceiling on rent; and

(3) amendment of the Malabar Tenancy Act of 1930.

In 1936, the Congress, realising the growing strength of the

socialists group that was spearheading the cause of peasants, included

agrarian reforms as an important item in its manifesto. In 1937, when a

Congress ministry headed by Rajagopalachari came into power in Madras

Presidency, peasantry was hopeful of getting an appropriate agrarian

legislation to be passed by the Government. However, to their great

disappointment, nothing happened except that the government passed an

Act named The Agrarian Debt Relief Act, 1938. This Act was not

concerned with tenancy or occupancy rights; it only provided a temporary

relief, that too only to superior tenants, in the matter of repayment of

debts.

The peasant movement began to take a militant character. In certain

places the activists boycotted janmis and agitated against the illegal and
 74

unjust activities of the janmis. As days went by, the relationship between

janmis and tenants got strained. Because of the pressure from the

peasants, who were backed by the socialist group in the Congress, the

Congress ministry was forced to appoint a committee, ‘The Malabar

Tenancy Committee’ in July 1939, with K. Kuttikrishna Menon as

Chairman, to look into the agrarian problems and suggest remedial

measures.

The Kuttikrishna Menon Committee had representations from

landlords, kanakkar and legislators. All the legislators were leftists. The

veteran communist leader E.M.S. Namboothiripad was a member of the

committee. Though the peasants were unhappy for not including their

representatives in the committee, they did not protest much because they

were happy that the Government did appoint a committee to look into the

agrarian problems.

By the time the committee submitted its report in 1940, the

Congress ministry went out of power. Though the report did not serve

any purpose, it was significant in two ways. The report was a majority

report with the legislator-members registering their dissent because

many of their pro-tenant suggestions were rejected. Another important

 75

thing was the dissenting note of E.M.S. Namboothiripad in which he

suggested the total abolition of the system of landlords.

Before the Tenancy committee submitted its report, a major

political development happened in December 1939. From the Congress

the radicals in the socialist group left the party .In the early 1940s they

formally proclaimed themselves as Communists. E.M.S. Namboothiripad,

who wrote a strong dissenting note in Malabar Tenancy committee

Report, was a prominent personality among the radicals. Between 1940

and 1946, the period of Second World War and just after, there was no

significant administrative or legislative action relating to agrarian

relations. However, there were many powerful peasant uprisings mainly

directed and controlled by the Communists who had been gaining a

strong foothold among the peasantry, especially in North Malabar.

In 1946 again a Congress ministry headed by Prakasham came to

power in Madras. That ministry too did not do much except passing a

bill, as a temporary measure, to protect the ryots and tenants from in­

discriminate eviction. Between 1947 and 1956 two amendments, one in

1951 and another in 1954 were brought to the Malabar Tenancy Act of

1930. These amendments, among other things, provided for:

 76

(a) the abolition of kanam renewals which automatically

eliminated the practice of creating a second kanam (melkanam

or melcharth) while a kanam contract already existed, and

(b) the refixation of the shares of landlord and tenant from 2:1 to

1:1. (In the first amendment, the tenants were asked to pay 1/2

of the revenue payable by the landlord. In the second

amendment this was withdrawn).

The real peasants were thoroughly dissatisfied with these

amendments for the reason that they benefited only the kanakkar and not

the real cultivators. Apart from the Communists, a section of Congress

with socialist views criticised the Government for not coming out with a

comprehensive and wholesome agrarian legislation.

In 1956, as part of the process of the reorganisation of the states,

the State of Kerala, consisting of Travancore, Cochin, Malabar, and

Kasargod areas was formed. In the first general elections, after the

formation of the Kerala State, the first-ever elected Communist Ministry

in the independent India, headed by E.M.S. Namboothiripad, came to

power in the state on 5th April 1957. This Communist ministry had a

political commitment and a moral obligation to the peasantry in the state.

As a political party with socialistic ideals ‘agrarian reforms’ was part of

 77

the political agenda of Communist party. With this agenda, the party was

able to entice the peasantry and it was with their support the party could

come to power. Obviously, agrarian reform was at the top of the agenda

of the ministry.

Immediately after coming to power, the Communist ministry

issued an ordinance staying the evictions and this ordinance was later

passed in the form of a bill. True to the party’s commitment and

philosophy, the ministry came with a very comprehensive agrarian

reforms bill named ‘The Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill (KARB) 1957’.

The Bill was so comprehensive that never before such a legislation was

contemplated. The Bill covered almost all aspects of land tenure and

agrarian relations. The important provisions included in the Bill were:

(a) fixity of tenure to all types of tenants;

(b) fixation of fair rent;

(c) relief from payment of rent arrears;

(d) nullification of the evictions effected earlier to the formation of

the Government;

(e) tenants’ right to purchase ownership from the landlord;

 78

(f) fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings (For a family of 5

members a maximum of 15 acres and 2 acres for each

additional member subject to the maximum of 25 acres);

(g) distribution of surplus lands to the landless and poor;

(h) fixity of tenure to hutment dwellers (kudikidappukar);

(i) establishment of Land Tribunals consisting of officials as well

as people’s representatives to implement the provisions of the

Act and

(j) vesting with the Government the rights of janmis and

intermediaries on tenanted lands for transfer to tenants on

payment of a fixed purchase price.

The Bill, as expected, was opposed tooth and nail by many vested

interest groups. Organisations of landlords, like The Kerala Land Owners

Association, The Kerala Small Land Owners Association and North

Malabar Land Owners Association, communal organisations (mostly

dominated by middle class and upper middle class land owners) like Nair

Service Society and Yogakshema Sabha (an organisation of Kerala

Brahmins), organisations of advocates, doctors, charitable trusts and

 79

religious endowments, private Devaswom Boards, who owned large

extent of lands, raised their voice against the bill.

The main opposition political party, the Congress, though

ideologically committed to land reforms, opposed many of the provisions

in the Bill mainly because of the pressure from the landed group within

the party. In fact no political party, except the Communist party, whose

Government initiated this bill, supported the bill fully. It is curious to

note that the educated class, particularly the doctors, lawyers and other

professional groups, opposed the bill questioning the wisdom of

abolishing landlordism. (It may be recalled that the early part of the 20th

century witnessed the emergence of an educated class mostly belonging

to the upper caste Nair community. Later, the upper caste Brahmins also

joined the band of educated elite. All of them belonged to the landed rich

polity. Because of the socio-economic powers and advantages that these

people enjoyed, their succeeding generations emerged as socially,

economically and educationally dominant groups. Since they could get

these advantages and status only because of their hereditary rights to the

property and land which were the important sources of social and

economic power, the opposition of the educated professional group to the

Agrarian Bill was nothing but natural).

 80

In spite of opposition from various quarters, the Communist

Government in power, because of their (simple) majority in the

legislature, was able to pass the Bill on 10th June 1959 and sent it on 27th

July 1959 for the assent of the President.

The Communist Government in its enthusiasm to declare its

commitment to progressive socialistic ideas put its nose in the field of

education also, which was mainly dominated by Christian churches. The

Government initiated a legislation, the Kerala Education Bill, with

provisions to restrict and remove many of the rights and powers enjoyed

by the managements of private educational institutions. The churches in

Kerala organised a revolt against the Government on the issue of

educational reforms.

The Nair Service Society (NSS), who could not resist the

introduction of the Agrarian Relations Bill, found a good ally in the

churches, who where agitating against the Government on the Education

Bill. The NSS and churches jointly organised a ‘Liberation struggle’ to

topple the government. It was a comic irony that NSS joined with

Churches in the ‘Liberation Struggle’. An enquiry into the origin of NSS

would reveal that it was founded in the first half of the 20th century as a
 81

Nair communal group with the blessings of the government to make use

of it against Christians who were at that time detested by the ruling

power.

On 12th June 1959, the 2nd day after the passing of the Kerala

Agrarian Relations Bill in the Assembly, the opposition groups joined

together to observe the day as “Liberation Day”. The ‘Liberation

Struggle’ quickly took a massive dimension and soon turned violent and

the Government could not quell it. Citing the law and order situation as

very grave the Central Government, for the first time, used the special

power under article 356 of the constitution and dismissed the Communist

ministry on 31st July, 1959.

During the next seven months the state was under the President’s

rule. After a mid-term poll in February 1960, Praja Socialist Party (PSP)-

Congress coalition ministry came to power. Six months later, in July

1960, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill (KARB), which was pending

with the President for assent for nearly one year, was returned by the

President with certain recommendations for modifying the Bill. It was

now the turn of the Communist party and the tenants to agitate against the

move for amending the Bill. However, the Government made the

recommended changes and sent the Bill again for President’s assent.
 82

The important changes effected include:

(a) provision for payment of annuity to religious and such other

institutions in respect of the lands vested with the Government.

(b) removal of the provision that nullified evictions effected after the

formation of Kerala State but earlier to the passing of the Act.

(c) redefining ‘small holder’ as one with rights in less than 10 acres of

double crop paddy land, but possessing only less than 5 acres.

(d) exclusion of not only plantation proper from ceiling provisions but all

other lands adjoining, and within, plantations including agricultural

land which were considered necessary for the maintenance of the

plantations.

(e) removal of the provision invalidating the land transfers after 18

December 1957.

(f) inclusion of the provision for eviction of kudikidappukar (hutment

dwellers) within plantation areas.

(g) the removal of the peoples’ representatives from the constitution of

the Land Boards and Land Tribunals.

 83

The Bill was given assent by the President on 21st January 1961.

“The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act (KAR Act) I960”, came into force

on 15th February 1961. But owing to legal hurdles, caused by different

individuals and institutions challenging the various provisions of the Act

in the courts of law, the Act could not be implemented. The provisions

related to ceiling on land and the tenant’s right to purchase the land he

cultivated were withheld from operation. In effect, the implementation of

the Act was suspended.

In order to protect the Act from being questioned in the courts of

law there was pressure from peasants and the Communist party to include

the Act in the Ninth Schedule of the constitution. (As per the Indian

constitution, legislations included in the Ninth Schedule of the

constitution are not subject to judicial review). For this purpose a series

of agitations were launched by the “Kerala Karshaka Sangham” (Kerala

Peasants’ Association), and the Communist Party. The only other

political party which supported the Communist Party in its agitations to

protect the KAR Act of 1960, was the Karshaka Thozhilali Party (KTP:

Agricultural Labourer Party) formed by Fr. Vadakkan, a radical catholic

priest. However, they could not achieve their objective of getting the Act

included in Ninth Schedule.

 84

In the meantime, in 1962, the PSP-Congress ministry collapsed and

a new Congress ministry came to power. The Congress ministry desired

to bring another legislation and piloted an entirely new bill, The Kerala

Land Reforms Bill. This Bill was a diluted version of the KAR Act of

1960. The Bill did not provide for invalidation of evictions effected prior

to the implementation of this Act.

The bill, apart from the exemption from ceiling already provided,

further granted exemptions from ceiling to cashew estates of 10 or more

acres, pure pepper and coconut gardens of more than 5 acres and

‘Kuttanad Kayal lands’. The ceiling limit was increased by the

introduction of a concept of ‘standard acres’. The Bill provided for

fixation of uniform rates of fair rent throughout Kerala. It granted fixity

of tenure to tenants, but at the same time allowed limited rights of

resumption to landlords and small holders. Non-payment of rent for two

consecutive years was made a sufficient ground for eviction. But later,

due to stiff opposition, this provision was deleted before passing the bill.

The Bill was severely criticised by the peasants and the Communist

Party. An important provision in the earlier bills that rights on the

tenanted lands would compulsorily vest in Government was conspicuous

by its absence in the new bill. The new bill redefined small owners very

loosely as those having interest in land up to 8 ‘standard acres’ or 24

 85

ordinary acres. The Bill also fixed higher rates of fair rent, and increased

the ceiling to 12 standard acres for a family of 5 members. V.R. Krishna

Iyer, one of the members of the select committee from the opposition,

remarked that “In short the Bill passed through the select committee is

solicitous of the landlord’s interest and is sensitive to what is called

justice to the landlord. This is land reform in reverse gear.” 1

The Congress ministry managed to get the Bill passed and got the

assent of the President and succeeded in getting the Bill included in the

9th schedule. Thus, the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act) 1963, came

into force on 1st April 1964. However, before getting the full credit of

implementing the Act the ministry collapsed in September 1964. For

another (nearly ) three years the state was under the President’s rule and

the administration was in the hands of bureaucracy. For obvious reasons,

the Act was implemented at a snail’s pace.

In the 1950s and 60s peasant movements, agitations and revolts of

different dimensions were very frequent. The Communist Party

politically organised the peasant movement in Kerala in general and in

Malabar in particular. All the legislative attempts were invariably

preceded and succeeded by peasant movements. The pre-legislation

movements were to pressurise the ruling power to introduce pro-peasant

1 V.V. Kunhikrishnan., (1993), P. 148.

 86

legislation and post legislation movements were mainly for non­

introduction or non-implementation of pro-peasant provisions in the act

or against the anti-peasant, pro-landlord attitude of the rulers. This

process was very evident in the late 1950s and 60s after the formation of

Kerala State.

The first ministry, led by the Communist party, initiated in 1957 a

very comprehensive, pro-peasant / pro-tenant land legislation which in

effect was aimed at completely abolishing landlordism. This raised the

hopes of the peasants that they would get what they had been aspiring for

a long time. But, because of frequent changes of ministries in Kerala,

with different parties coming to power for short periods, land reforms

became a non-starter. Delay in getting the legislations passed, legislation

not getting the assent of the President, legislations with more provisions

favouring landlords, legislation not able to be implemented because of

legal hurdles, and bureaucratic apathy in properly implementing the

legislations frustrated, at various points of time, the peasants. On all these

counts, the state witnessed a series of small and big, regional-wise and

state-wise, peasants’ agitations.

In the assembly elections held in 1967, a coalition ministry (United

Front), in which Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI (M)],

Communist Party of India (CPI) and Indian Union Muslim League

 87

(IUML), were the major partners, came to power. (Before this general

election, in 1964, the Communist Party of India was split into CPI (M)

and CPI). The new ministry was a leftist ministry headed by

E.M.S.Namboothiripad as Chief Minister and it had its commitments and

obligations to the peasantry of Kerala.

This ministry came with drastic amendments to the Kerala Land

Reforms (KLR) Act, 1963 (which had diluted many of the pro-peasant

provisions in the KAR Bill, 1959 and KAR Act, 1960). The amendments

to the Act initiated by this ministry in effect amounted to re-writing the

whole Act to make it more or less the bill that was first attempted by the

first Communist ministry in 1957, also headed by

E.M.S.Namboothiripad. The amendments made explicit the abolition of

landlordism and prohibition of creation of tenancy with retrospective

effect (from April 1964). Another major provision was the onus of proof

of tenancy was shifted from tenant to landlord.

Though the Bill was passed on 17th October 1969 and assented to

by the President on 16th December 1969, the ministry, due to conflicts

among the constituents of the coalition (the United Front), went out of

office immediately after the passing of the Bill. But within one week

after the fall of the United Front ministry, a new coalition ministry with

C. Achyutha Menon, belonging to the CPI, as Chief Minister, came to

 88

power on 1st November 1969. Though this ministry was dominated by

the CPI, it had the support of the Congress. CPI (M) did not participate in

the ministry and sat in the opposition.

The new Government implemented with effect from 1st January

1970, The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 passed by the

earlier Government. In fact, this was the first and the last most

comprehensive agrarian legislation ever enacted in India.

The Achyutha Menon ministry collapsed within six months. But

in the election held immediately, again the CPI led coalition ministry with

Congress as a major partner came to power in September 1970. The

Communist Party of India (Marxist) again became the major opposition

and had to content by organising series of agitations like the ‘Land-grab

Movement’ pressurising the Government to implement the Act, which

was passed by them when they were in power.

Three schemes were envisaged for the implementation of the Act:

(1) conferment of ownership rights to the cultivating tenants;

(2) fixation of occupation right to the hutment dwellers (kudikidappukar)

and conferment of the right to purchase, at concessional rate, a small

extent of land in and around their hutment; and

(3) fixation of ceiling on land holdings and acquisition and distribution of

surplus lands.
 89

Over a period of twelve years (1970-1982) the first two schemes

were implemented fairly successfully. This changed the entire socio­

economic environment of the state in general and the agricultural sector

in particular. Since the implementation of 1969 (Amendment) Act, there

were further amendments now and then, but the basic structure of the Act

has not been changed. It is to be mentioned that the implementation of

the third scheme, acquisition and distribution of surplus land, is lagging

behind the first two.

Now, it is more than three decades since the face of agricultural

sector has been changed by comprehensive legislative action, which

became a reality only after a number of social, economic, political,

communal and regional forces exerted their pressures in various forms,

for and against the state action, for more than 150 years.