The sleepy village of Anchathengu (“Five Coconut Palms”), formerly called Anjengo by the British, has attained fame for various reasons. Situated a few kilometeres south of Varkala in Kerala, it was the first trade settlement of the East India Company in the south-west of India, gradually gaining in importance. Anjengo Fort, built by the British, served as an important military centre for suppressing minor revolts and the Attingal rebellion of 1721.
Yet, one transformative incident is missing from the official tale of Anchathengu. On January 19 1905, a new Malayalam language newspaper, The Svadesabhimani (Patriot) began publication from the settlement. Its owner, publisher and managing editor was Vakkom Abdul Khader Moulavi (1873-1932), a hitherto unknown young man of 32 years. The newspaper was started with his own resources and with a modern printing press imported from England.
It is now recognised that this double sided, single page, weekly newspaper, with its provocative name, launched the era of critical journalism in the princely state of Travancore and more broadly in Kerala. In its opening issue, it stated “We will not conceal public grievances for fear of any calamity that may befall us. For certain.” The statement was prescient. Five years later, the princely government banned the newspaper in September 1910, with the confiscation of the press and exile of its then editor, Ramakrishna Pillai. Justifying this action, the first case of press suppression, the Dewan wrote, as reported by the historian Robin Jeffery, “the most serious thing against the Swadeshabhimani has always been the remarkable persistency with which it preached the gospel of government by the people, and the exhortation which it held out to the people of Travancore to unite and demand self-government”. (Dewans Note 1912, as quoted by Jeffery)
Mystique and Mystery
The Svadesabhimini (we have retained the original English spelling as it appeared in the newspaper masthead) has achieved an eminent status in the history of Indian journalism. Still, it is often lauded in abstract without being read widely, as it is hitherto been inaccessible except through secondary sources and mainly in Malayalam. This is now being rectified through the digitization of the Malayalam articles as well as through their translation into English. The historical digital collection, though incomplete as several issues are missing, is now available in fully searchable format (www.svadesabhimani.com ). For the first time, the astonishing range of issues covered by the newspaper is available to the general public, a sample of which is reviewed below.
Svadesabhimani focused its attention on exposing the corruption and misdeeds of the Travancore rulers, but it also wrote about the important issues of the period, including education reform, representation in government, debates on social and cultural reform in various castes and the reform of the legislative council. Straddling a period of intense national ferment, instigated in part by the partition of Bengal in 1905, of convulsive international developments such as the defeat of Russia by Japan, the first Russian revolution of 1905 and the anti-colonial awakening in the Muslim and Arab world, the newspaper brought to its audience the picture of a world undergoing transformative changes. In a period of relative political inactivity in Kerala, Svadesabhimani helped to mould the political consciousness of the intelligentsia, sowing the seeds for mass mobilization for democracy and political action.
Scholars have highlighted the role of print and newspapers in developing the public sphere and public action in Kerala. Jeffery notes that theorizing at this level has often “neglected the workings of newspapers, the economics that drove them, the technologies that bind or free them, the personalities that produce them, and the readers to whom they must relate”. The mystique of Svadesabhimani as a trailblazer in Indian journalism has been accompanied by a neglect of these important issues. Indeed, Jeffery himself is guilty of such omissions. In his 2009 article on print, newspapers and politics in Kerala, where he discusses Svadesabhimani at length, Jeffery refers only to the second editor Ramakrishna Pillai. The owner, publisher, managing editor, the man who conceived of the project, formulated its approach and philosophy, invested in it, implemented it and bore the consequences of its suppression – Vakkom Moulavi - finds no mention. Another authoritative commentator and theorist of Kerala society, E.M.S Namboodiripad, the leader of the communist party, also highlights the contributions of the newspaper and its editor, without mentioning the person who was responsible for launching it.
Indeed, the mystery of Vakkom Moulavi’s invisibility in Kerala’s public sphere (until recently) is intriguing. What prompted this young man to invest his inheritance in the risky adventure of establishing a newspaper? What inspired him to choose a title such as this and a slogan about promoting public welfare, when the Swadeshi movement in Bengal was still not yet fully developed? With no formal education, yet educated by tutors in multiple languages and subjects, he was exposed to the writings of the leaders of the anti-caste, social reform movements in Kerala (including contemporaries such as Sree Narayana Guru), of the Indian national movement and of the Islamic modernist thinking centred around Egypt. Print media had become the weapon of choice in the intellectual and political battles for identity, self-determination and progress, not only in India but across many colonies. The patent free Stanhope press, which lowered the cost of printing, and the opening of the Suez canal facilitated the import of presses. According to one report, by 1905, there were 1359 registered newspapers and journals in India (Harper, 2021). These developments undoubtedly shaped the vision and zeal of the young reformer.
Nevertheless, the leap from thought to action, required marshalling of personal financial resources, importing the press, procuring the materials, mobilization of editorial expertise and skilled workers, detailed logistical planning for news gathering and distribution channels, and a passion and commitment for the mission of the newspaper – a story that remains to be told in full detail. Vakkom Moulavi reportedly imported the most modern press from Britain, possibly the offset press which had just come into operation at the beginning of the twentieth century. Unlike other presses, the Svadeshabhimani press did not cover its costs by printing textbooks and government documents. While it generated some revenue from its classifieds (which themselves provide a view of changing cultural and social mores), the paper must have been funded largely from his personal funds.
A remarkable intellectual partnership between Vakkom Moulavi and his second editor, Ramakrishna Pillai, two men from differing backgrounds, sustained the newspaper. Standing firmly behind the newspaper and his editor, as it continued its audacious exposure of the princely government for five years, he neither recanted nor begged for pardon despite the threats, warnings and final action against the newspaper and the press.
Surprisingly, the Svadesabhimani press does not figure in the list of 28 printing presses that were functioning in Travancore in 1905, as reported in the Travancore State Manual of V. Nagam Aiya (and as listed in the Department of Culture’s website). Perhaps it was the remoteness of Anjengo. In 1906, the press and the newspaper were shifted to Trivandrum (with its office on M.G. Road – though no plaque has been placed there), to accommodate its second editor, Ramakrishna Pillai. It is not clear whether the newspaper figured in the Vernacular Newspaper Reports, prepared by government translators across India every fortnight, which put together a summary of articles in Indian language newspapers, to understand seditious trends across the country. Perhaps the decision to suppress the paper was taken jointly with the British resident or perhaps it was taken by the Dewan acting on his own. The reasons for its suppression, however, are clear from an analysis of its contents.
Public education of quality – A duty of government towards society
Svadesabhimani was particularly scathing about the state of public education in Travancore, considering the failure to get all children educated as a grave abdication of government responsibility. Indeed, the newspaper’s relentless analysis calls into question contemporary views about the positive efforts of the Travancore government to provide universal free public education. In numerous articles, the paper interrogates whether any education is being provided in the government primary schools: “Sheds built by farmers for keeping their cattle are better than these elementary schools. No primary school is adequately equipped with essential teaching aids… Unless the living conditions of the teachers are improved, this ‘exercise of education’ will be of no use to the people”. An article called “Expensive Education” argues cogently against the introduction of school fees: “The people need to know that the new fee arrangement will be more disruptive for the public welfare than one of the major changes in the country’s university education reforms, which proved harmful to the higher education in English for Indians, during Lord Curzon’s rule.” It points out that the fee hike is particularly detrimental for girls’ education, and that only officials and people with high incomes can afford to send girls to school. Further, raising fees for a poor quality education is completely unwarranted. The paper warns “Many schools are dangerously unhealthy. A hundred, 200 or even 300 students are crammed into a place where is only enough room to seat 50, and with no clean air to breathe, no light to see and with no bench to sit on …. The primary and middle schools are chicken-coop like buildings that receive rainwater during the monsoons and sun in the summers. Most of the teachers … are neither trained, qualified or self-involved. They only consider and act according to the whims and fancies of certain bosses”.
In an editorial aptly titled “Exam Frenzy” (26 December 1906), the newspaper sharply critiques the proposal of the Travancore Department of Education to introduce written examinations for primary school students, arguing that such exams will push children to “function like machines… they are bound to recite mechanically certain words and sentences, failing to actualise the real meanings contained in them… It is not fair to put the scissors of the examiner to use without allowing the intellect of young children to grow”. Emphasizing the purpose of education, the paper states “If students are to give reasoned answers based on acquired knowledge and power of thinking, they must have satisfactorily completed primary education, at least…” These comments could apply to our contemporary system over a hundred years later.
What is striking about its analysis of the poor quality of education is the link with poor governance of the administration. In many articles, Svadesabhimani points out the corruption in the Education Department, the selection of poor quality textbooks written by relatives of officials, the poor quality of the inspectors, the lack of rigorous inspection to maintain standards, the recruitment of teachers without qualifications, the low pay of the teachers and the subservience of teachers to their superiors. The lack of concern of the education officials for students and teachers arouses some of the most indignant articles in the newspapers. The aforementioned exams for primary students suggests that “ that some inspectors are under the delusion that conducting written examinations for primary school students on a par with university exams will help enhance the importance of the work being done by the education managers or will go on to prove that the system of education being followed is far from defects. They might even think that this ‘exam fever’ could be used as a yardstick for measuring the performance of the school teachers as well. “
Refashioning society - Contesting customs and traditions
Another important arena of public debate relates to the caste and religious reforms which were shaking Travancore society to its foundations. Many editorials and articles are devoted to the proceedings of the Marumakkathayam Commission, established to reform the laws relating to marriage and inheritance of those following the matrilineal system, which eventually led to the Travancore Marumakkathayam Act of 1912. A senior journalist was appointed as a special representative of the Svadesabhimani to prepare and send the witness trial proceedings of the Commission every day. The newspaper invited comments from its readers as well. Apart from bringing out the issues relating to the reform, which it does with great thoroughness, the newspaper argues for setting the criteria for the appointment of the members of the Commission. “We do not know for sure whether the three people who have been selected are equally smart, have accepted the rituals of Marumakkathayees as a subject of study, investigation, and discussion, or if they have read the histories of other communities and understood the new opinions in community, science, and jurisprudence, and know the future course.” The ability and willingness to stand up to undue political influences, not caste or religion, should be the main criteria for selection of members: “ If we consider the impartial and stern actions expected of a commissioner, it is necessary that he be unaffected by the influence of the dominant nobles or even the kings themselves, and or to be adept at the maneuvers of those influential people without succumbing to their influence.”
The tensions and conflicts over reforms of a most sensitive nature, relating to traditional customs, marriage, inheritance, caste status and religious and cultural identity are reflected in the pages of the newspaper, as it opened the debates over these questions to public scrutiny.
Re-imagining government – Putting the people at the centre
Through its exposure and critique of government policies and programs, and the corruption of its functionaries, including the highest ones, Svadesabhimani planted the idea of government as an
institution that should be accountable and responsive to the public. In an era when the king had the halo of divine sanction and authority, and all those acting in his name were protected, such ideas were profoundly troublesome.
“ The administrative machinery of a land must endeavour, most importantly, to satisfy the will and pleasure of the subjects”, declared the newspaper. Its genius lay in exposing in great detail the specific ways in which the wellbeing of the people was being subverted. Svadesabhimani carried news on every aspect of public policy and scrutinized what lay behind it – from irrigation to education, forests and roads, the actions of individual officers, the police and the judges. In an article on a newly introduced water tax, it pointed out that the project for newly constructed canals “is the result of an intentionally devised plan, considering the fact that officials have lots of land in the area”. As senior officials met with local people who were opposed to the tax, the newspaper notes that “the natives were not swayed by these statements and the fact that they encountered them with courage is indeed a pointer of the changed times”. Reacting to public complaints received about a district revenue collector, it states “What the government is expected to do in moments like this is that it must immediately initiate steps for removing..inefficient officers without giving them any more opportunity to harm the people who approach them innocently for resolving their problems.”
The efforts of the government to pressure a newspaper and its editor who are critical of its actions are the target of special ridicule. An editorial entitled “The Editor’s Litterbin” notes that “Their style is to punish or harm those subordinate government officials who are either the relatives of the editor or his friends” Citing a letter from a reader, who suggests that “If you criticise the Survey Department, it is not the corruption that will go; rather it will be your elder brother’s job that goes”, the editor’s response is “It is not to get his brothers or relatives promoted in their jobs or to ensure salary increments for them that an Editor does his job. One must, on his own, block whatever harm comes his way. Relationships count at home.”
The newspaper was critical about other papers who refused to take a stand on matters of public interest. “Those who run newspapers to make money in utter disregard of the need for highlighting people’s problems with the aim of solving them will not be willing to operate within established journalistic norms and standards.”
While never openly contesting the authority of the king or the British authorities – indeed, on many occasions, the loyalty of the people of Travancore to both are highlighted – Svadesabhimani brought the mighty and the powerful to be judged by one standard, that of promoting the people’s well-being. Small wonder that the Dewan was worried about the possible impact of the new gospel. Without doubt, the arguments and debates, especially on social issues, reflect the outlook, biases and prejudices of the time and the principal protagonists, as is true of all epochs. Understanding them is essential to understanding how history shaped the present. The unique contribution of this paper was to elevate reasoned debate into the public space, as a means of constructing a new social reality.
If Anchathengu entrenched a new era of colonial domination in India, it also heralded the downfall of empire, privilege and unaccountable political authority. The man and the newspaper that contributed to this deserve to be remembered, celebrated and understood.
(The writer is the Vice Chairperson of Vakkom Moulavi Foundation Trust, former Manager, Education, World Bank)
