introspecting the nambutiri reform in kerala: reflections on ulbuddhakeralam

Introspecting the

Nambutiri Reform

in Kerala: Reflections

on Ulbuddhakeralam

M R. Manmathan

Number 2

November 2006

history farook series

P.G.Department of History Farook College Kozhikode-673632, Kerala

Email: [email protected]

W O R K I N G P A P E R

mailto:[email protected]

Introspeting the

Nambutiri Reform

in Kerala: Reflections

on Ulbuddhakeralam

M R. Manmathan

Number 2

November 2006

2

history farook working paper series Number 2 November 2006

M.R.Manmathan, Lecturer in History, Farook College [email protected]

INTROSPECTING THE NAMBUDIRI REFORM IN KERALA: REFLECTIONS ON ULBUDDHAKERALAM

Social reform movements in modern India represented the Indian response to the

challenges of colonial modernity. Although considerable suspicion still looms large over

the so-called „Indian Renaissance‟,1 and though disagreement prevails over the question as

to whether it was „renascent‟ or „resistant‟,2 it was undoubtedly a great enterprise for

relieving Indian religion of the features most attacked by Christian missionaries and to

remodel Hindu religion in accordance with the Judeo-Christian conceptions of

monotheism and anti-idolatry. In the social domain, it was an attempt to recast Indian life

in tune with modern western ideals of rationalism and humanism. As most of these

movements were spearheaded by upper caste Hindus, they happened to be elitist in

character and Brahmanical in orientation. But these reform movements did not acquire

either spatial or temporal uniformity all over India. In the context of Kerala, the urge for

reform was manifested through caste-based movements rather than as attempts at the

„construction of Hinduism‟3 and found their articulation only at the close of the nineteenth

century. Among these movements, that of the Ezhavas under Sri Narayana Guru was the

earliest and the foremost and it had its sudden and sweeping impact on all other castes and

communities of Kerala. Caste movements, which had their principal focus on social

equality and upward mobility, struggled for a realignment of existing social relationships

through cultural and political interventions.

The urge for reform appeared among the Nambutiri Brahmins of Kerala rather late.

It coincided with the era of resurgent nationalism. The objectives and programmes of the

movement took its shape during the time when Gandhian ideals began to dominate

nationalist politics and culture. Hence the Nambutiri reform movement drew many

elements from the rising nationalist culture and politics in order to formulate its agenda

and programmes.4 This has also been explained in terms of the strong religious elements

explicitly expressed in the Gandhian ideology.5 The movement in the 1930s was thus

marked by persistent efforts to link community reform with nationalist politics and with

the constructive programme.

The Nambutiri reform movement has been of considerable interest to both scholars

and the common people. The nature of the movement also has been a subject of

contrasting perceptions. Some celebrate the movement for the „renunciation of privileges‟

3



hitherto enjoyed by the community and for leading the Nambutiris straight into the

mainstream social life. They hold that while other communities were frantically following

the narrow path of protecting partisan rights and were craving for concessions for their

own benefit, the Nambutiri movement has taken a wider and logical course towards the

well being of the society as a whole for the sake of the noble ideals of humanism and

social equality by sacrificing traditional rights and privileges in an attempt to patronize the

upcoming nascent civil society. Consequently, they continued to suffer in the emerging

new social order and ended up in themselves becoming destitute both in terms of

economic power and demographic strength. The movement is thus praised for its unique

revolutionary role of self-abnegation and for the positive part it played in averting the kind

of opposition their counterparts had to face in the Tamil country.6 A few others have

condemned the element of radicalism in the movement for bringing about the final

breakdown leading to destitution.7 Still, there prevails a near unanimity of opinion among

both critics and apologists in that it was a movement with few parallels and hence unique

in world history. The leaders of the movement are held in great esteem for this great

achievement because it was their ideas and their involvement that brought about this

unsurpassed reputation to the movement. The movement is also assumed to have crossed

its sectarian boundaries towards a truly universal ethic in the 1930s. This general tendency

notwithstanding, attempts to assume the Nambutiri reform movement as representing the

most desirable course of social action, to qualify it as a role-model for social movements

and to assign its leaders special respect and aura for their social ethic of self-denial may

not perfectly agree with historical realities.

The commune experiment, known as Ulbudhakeralam, pioneered by V.T.

Bhattathiripad (hereafter V.T.) in 1935 holds a significant place in the total programme of

action related to the Nambutiri reform. Though the colony couldn‟t last long and though

there prevails over a conspicuous silence on the episode in V.T‟s otherwise vivid

memoirs,8 it is briefly surveyed in some of the many studies on him,

9 and is generally

regarded as a noble experiment and a brilliant intervention in the contemporary social

system. While some glorify it as an attempt at the creation of a casteless and classless

society,10

a few others see it as a great endeavor towards building up righteous and

„organic men‟ along Gandhian lines and a prototype experiment towards the creation of a

role-model for the future social set up of Kerala.11

Its role in linking the Nambutiri reform

4



movement with the rising nationalist struggle has also been noticed.12

On another plane,

the failure of the project is reckoned as a great tragedy causing incalculable damage to the

prospects and progress of Kerala society and politics since this unfortunate collapse is

perceived to have terminated the possibilities of a healthy dialogue between the

Ulbudhakeralam, which represented the cultural aspect of Kerala, and Leftist Keralam

(under the leadership of E.M.S), which signified the political side.13

Keeping admirers

aside, the experiment had its severe critics. The commune has been evaluated as basically

a utopian project14

and its failure is attributed to VT‟s ideological inhibitions and his

inability to identify the realities of the times.15

An evaluation of political dimensions and

ideological underpinnings of this reformist venture may lead us beyond the established

notions developed on the phenomena. This paper is an attempt to study the Ulbudha

Keralam project of VT in the larger background of colonialism, reform and nationalism in

Kerala. The study tries to follow a cautious approach against projecting personalities like

V.T. as “deities and not actors circumscribed by history”.16

It may also help in hinting at a

possible coincidence between the launching of the colony with the whirlwind of leftist

politics in Kerala. As V.T. could never reconcile himself with the Marxian dogma, the

interconnection between the two may not be dismissed as accidental.

The concept of the Commune

The conscious separation of the self from the social has called forth attempts at

integrating human experience on commune lines so regularly and persistently. Commune

life, the idea of a withdrawn fellowship, is a principle of wide and diffuse appeal having

many different ends. In Durkheim‟s terms, they attempt to form a social cohesion in which

altruism and egoism are both simultaneously fully realized. To some observers they are

self-evidently absurd; Marx and Engels, for example, dismiss them in a well-known

passage as „duodecimo editions of the new Jerusalem‟.17

Ferdinand Toennies, the German

sociologist, who while trying to demarcate a community from society, demonstrated the

relative merit of commune life thus: the former signifies an organic, deep-seated,

emotionally pervasive and hence genuine form of living together and the latter is an

association more mechanical, temporary, purposive and hence artificial and ephemeral.18

A small community is also seen as an organic growth; it arises out of a life shared in

common and is capable of self-organization. Only in a small community can democracy

become real. It could be a unit in which production and consumption are conjoined.

5



Taken as a whole, commune life is very common as well as very old. The

beginnings of communes could be traced back to ancient India where the Buddhist monks

started to lead a commune life. Although the tradition of individual renunciation and

breakaway from the mainstream life which was very popular among Hindus necessitated a

sort of commune life, there were very few attempts at commune life as a social project. In

medieval Europe, with the establishment of monastic orders and societies of heretics and

outlaws, commune life acquired wide reputation. Ever since the publication of Moore‟s

Utopia, it made a great spurt. In the industrial society it gained unprecedented popularity

as an attempt at counter-culture or as a middle class reaction against the suffocating ethos

of individualism and the conjugal nuclear family. More specifically, it was a rebellion

against the withdrawal of the family from the outside world to the space of private life.

Communes were thus militant responses against both possessive individualism and the

loss of sociability.

Communes attained a new socio-political relevance in modern India when it was

got linked to nationalist politics. Far more than the romantic type European concept of

withdrawn fellowship or romantic resistance against capitalist social system, Gandhian

commune connected social life with a strong political enterprise. Wherever Gandhi started

his mass political projects, whether in South Africa or in India, his first step was to create

a centre, an ashram. Here the vanguard participants of his movement could live together.

Ashrams were retreats to those who wished to join a community of dedication, usually

with high norms of spiritual life and especially in Gandhi‟s case it envisaged wider

political interests and social service. The ashrams were evolved to undertake several tasks:

training in discipline of cadres for Satyagraha; exemplary enactment of the polity and

society to which the movement aspired; commitment to and practice of public service; a

site where political leaders met to deliberate on the next step in the movement. Gandhian

ashram at Sabarmati became the hub of Indian nationalism and the new cultural

consciousness. For Gandhi, commune was also the ideal form of human settlement, village

reconstruction and self-government.

Ashrams were Gandhi‟s variants of civil society and public sphere. “Civil society

is a space between family and the state where people associate across ties of kinship, aside

from the market, and independent of the state. It includes both relatively formal

organizations and the informal array of friendships and networks of social life outside the

6



community”.19

They were voluntary, not coerced; they were located in public spaces that

were explicitly separated from the sphere of house and home; they were marked by an

opposition between private and public that impugns the private as a realm of personal

interest; they were skewed toward the intelligentsia, not the plebeians, presuming literate

if not literary skills; they were grounded in rationalist forms of deliberation which

implicitly exclude the force of residual inherited identities _ ethnicity and religion

_ which

are seen to live in the arena of private interest.20

Voluntarism was a marked feature of the

ashram: “entry by merit, exit by choice”. The example set by the ashram was one of

simplicity, hardship, and political sacrifice which were meant to be publicly visible and to

educate the public. The more ambitious normative goal was to transform the world by

transforming the micro-context of everyday life. It enabled its indwellers to practice a

community of virtue: dedicated to the collective good; to the belief that all work is equally

worthy; to the conviction that the life of the tillers and the craftsmen is worth living.

But Gandhi‟s important ideals in general, and the social ethic enshrined in the

ashram in particular, perceived life in accordance with that typical reaction of the

intelligentsia in many parts of the world to the social and moral depredations of advancing

capitalism: romanticism. In Gandhi there seems to be the vision of a backward-looking

utopia and an idealization of pre-capitalist economic and social relations. Partha Chatterjee

observes that “in the theoretical sense Gandhian ideology would be „reactionary‟ since as

Lenin pointed out in the case of the Russian populists, not only is there simply a romantic

longing for a return to an idealized medieval world of security and contentment, there is

also an „attempt to measure the new society with old patriarchal yardstick, the desire to

find a model in the old order and traditions, which are totally unsuited to the changed

institutions‟.”21

In spite of conceding the „democratic points‟, the Gandhian model is based

on a false, indeed reactionary theory of the world historical process, or else that it refuses

to acknowledge a theory of history at all. In either case it would be a variant of

romanticism.22

The correlation of ashrams with the Constructive Programme, functioning

as the workshops and headquarters, should also be understood in the light of the

observation that the agenda of the Constructive Programme have been devised at a crucial

time when North India witnessed large scale Hindu-Muslim riots in the 1920s and ‟30s

and which resorted to a discourse that emphasized tolerance and the fundamental unity of

the Indian people.23

7



In course of time, however, Gandhian ashrams on the Sabarmati model began to

sprout up all over India. Closely associated with the temple entry agitation and the Harijan

upliftment programmes advocated by the Congress, there were attempts at starting similar

ventures in Malabar in the 1920s. Kelappan had founded a colony of Harijans at

Gopalapuram near his native place Moodadi in 1921, during the Malabar rebellion, where

he founded a school and a hostel for them.24

During the Vaikom Satyagraha, Kelappan

launched another settlement near Payyoli in an eight-acre land, which came to be called

„Pakkanarpuram‟, for Harijan welfare activities.25

Both were exclusive Harijan Colonies

designed to settle and educate them and to provide them a humane treatment; but the

launching of both coincided with crucial points of time in the history of modern Kerala. In

1932, just after the withdrawal of the Guruvayur Satyagraha, Kelappan attempted to invite

public attention through an article towards the founding of an ashram, a congregation of

individuals, who lay faith in Gandhian ideals, for the promotion of Harijan welfare.26

V.T.

enthusiastically reproduced this article in Unni Nambutiri.27

In addition, in his famous

speech at Alathiyur he stressed the need of starting a colony on similar lines laid down by

Kelappan and underlined the basic ideals of it thus: “I used to have a dream. Extensive

areas of arable land will be bought throughout the country. A farm and a workshop will be

established in every countryside. All people irrespective of religion, caste and creed will

be admitted to these establishments. Besides training them to be good farmers, they will be

given sound education in order to strengthen their mental and cultural faculties and to

improve their abilities in various arts. Education will be based on our ancient tradition _

venerable sages and their disciples living under the same roof and entering into informal

discussions on all conceivable matters of the universe. This method will be followed here

too, enabling teachers and pupils to be in constant communion. They will live and work

together in the farm. Thus their life as farmers will be integrated with their endeavor to

develop their mental and cultural faculties through proper education. Such establishments

are the need of the hour. Our young people should take the responsibility of starting such

institutions. This is the only solution for the serious problems we confront; such as the

economic crisis and our inability to work”.28

(emphasis added) Two years after this speech

V.T. attempted to put his dream project into practice, but in an altogether different context.

8



The Context

Though Malayali Brahmins called Nambutiris were migrants to Kerala, they could

hold considerable political and cultural authority and material dominance through their

sacerdotal powers and control over vast landed estates. Their hegemony was challenged

for a short while during the Mysorean invasion, but the establishment of the British power

helped them to recoup their authority and preserve it well until the dawn of the twentieth

century. Despite the patron-like role of the British, the Nambutiris vehemently resisted the

penetration of colonial ideas and institutions, which however caused to get them

marginalized in the emerging socio-political order. Adding substantially to this developing

social imbalance was the mounting discontent of the lower orders of the society which was

expressing itself strongly through caste-based reform movements and class-based tenancy

movements both of which were threatening the Brahmin claims of ritual superiority and

social privilege. Such a challenging situation left the Nambutiris with no other option but

to actively engage in community-building efforts in an attempt to safeguard their interests

in the changing material milieu.

The urge for activism found its expression in the founding of the

Yogakshemasabha (hereafter YKS) in 1908 with a special focus on acquisition of

necessary skills through modern education for the protection of community interests and

privileges threatened by the new forces. In that sense it was hardly „reformist‟ but chiefly

„defensive‟.29

There were very little efforts at either a restructuring of the scripture-

specific and routine-oriented pattern of life or at a revision of the feudal world view.

However, by the 1920, with the formation of the Nambutiri Yuvajana Sangham, radical

reforms were taken up both for internal reform meant for a realignment of family and

property relations and for socializing the community by putting an end to the Nambutiri

exclusivity mainly by declaring fraternity with the Nationalist Movement. While the first

part of this agenda embodied demands for the reform of the established customs, practices

and systems of alliance which were increasingly appearing to be anachronistic in the

modern world,30

the second agenda insisted on the Nambutiris to involve in Gandhian

politics, especially in the constructive programme, so as to alleviate the prevailing distrust

about the Nambutiris among the lower castes and also to mark a strong presence of the

Nambutiris in the emerging civil society. Pitched battles were fought between the

reformers and the conservatives over the viability of reform through the media and in the

9



annual meetings of the YKS, the radicals could create an environment for reform within the

community very soon. Non-Nambutiris were also invited to participate in the annual

conferences not only to prove its secular credentials but also to receive advice and

instructions on the course of action to be taken. The YKS supported the Vaikom and

Guruvayur satyagrahas and many Nambutiris like Kurur Neelakantan Nambutiripad,

Mozhikunnam Brahmadathan Nambutiripad, E.M.S. Nambutiripad and T.S. Tirumumb

became active political workers.

As has been noticed, in every detail the Nambutiri movement was strikingly

influenced by the methods and ideals of the National Movement. The course of action was

strictly non-violent and included varieties of forms like strong campaigning for the

mobilization of public opinion in favour of reform, within the community and outside,

through the print media, speeches, annual conferences and theatrical expressions; and

democratic and „constitutional‟ agitation for social change, that is, resorting to the consent

of the majority even for the most radical of the reforms; and attempts at legislation for

permanency of reforms.31

By the beginning of 1930 the environment for substantial

changes was almost evident. This was supported by the enactment of the Namboothiri

Bills in the Travancore, Cochin and Madras legislatures. These pieces of legislation, along

with other ones, ratified the demands for sajativivaham and partition of Illam property,

and made sambandam a criminal offence.32

But the fulfillment of the communitarian

demands was posing a new problem before the reformist section of the Nambutiris by

forcing them to find ways of fastening the movement with mainstream politics or to search

for new arenas of action elsewhere. Due to the impact of the Gandhian politics, there had

often been a strong tendency to link community-building efforts with the nation-building

process.33

Religious reformation was also not an end in itself, it was for social comfort and

political advantage.34

Gandhian constructive programme, including temple-entry and

Harijan welfare, now became the new arena of action.35

Those who were attracted by the

Nationalist Movement thus traversed between community reform and constructive work.

Meanwhile, some of the activists like E.M.S opted to work in Congress politics first and

Communist movement later. Community activities at this stage were focused mainly on

perpetuating the fruits of the reforms through collective action and radicalizing the

existing reform agenda by expanding it to incorporate fresh objectives like widow

remarriages. Cooperation with the Congress in Malabar, which was dominated by the

10



tenant classes and which had tenancy reform as one of its main planks, at the political

level was not possible without the stigma of withdrawing to the back stage in leadership

matters and without sacrificing economic interests.36

Among the Nambutiri reformers of the 1920s and 30s, the name of V.T

Bhattathiripad has been the most prominent. His interference in the movement happened

to be timely and radical, and acted as a catalyst in helping it to achieve a grand success

while simultaneously raising him to the position of one of the top leaders. Although

contemporary sources portrayed V.T. only as one among many leaders, such as

Moothiringot Bhavatradan Bhattathiripad, Pandam Vasudevan Nambutiri, Kanippayur

Sankaran Nambutiripad etc, later eulogistic literature on reform installed him as the central

figure and as the undisputed leader of the movement.37

However, around 1930, V.T. had

emerged as the most powerful ideologue of the movement and as a firebrand radical. Now

as almost all the declared objectives of the movement were achieved, V.T. started

demanding the YKS to be disbanded and the Nambutiris take up the larger task of creating

a united Kerala by relinquishing community sensibilities for humanitarian principles.38

But

still, he refused to associate himself with the political aspect of the freedom movement and

focused only on the Constructive Programme.39

Community reform programmes were

now alternated with participation in the Guruvayur Satyagraha and association with the

Harijan welfare activities. Even while strongly pleading for the dismissal of the

community reform movement, there was the absence of the concrete vision of social

reform or of a political agenda. In 1934, however, by preparing the stage for the first

widow marriage among the Nambutiris, he put into practice something which was thought

to be hitherto improbable and truly shocked the community. The wrath that the event

unleashed among the orthodox forced V.T. to find a safe asylum for Nambutiri radicals

suspended from the caste for their association with the event which finally found its

expression in the launching of the Ulbudhakeralam colony.

The Setting Up of the Commune

V.T. founded his colony at Kodumunda near Pattambi, on the model of the

Gandhian Phoenix and Sabarmati Ashrams, on a twenty five-acre-land taken on lease from

Kanjur Raman Nambutiri.40

The first settlers were five Nambutiri families including that

of V.T, and later some more individuals and families of Nambutiris as well as non-

Nambutiris joined it.41

All the activities, including farming, craft work and house

11



construction, were done as voluntary service. As the first step, a house with five rooms for

five families was built and later many houses and a few public buildings also were

constructed. The whole manual labour for construction was done by the inmates.42

All the

members of the colony were obliged to do some kind of work. Education for children and

classes for elders were provided. The press of Prabhatam was arranged for starting a

weekly journal named Ulbudhakeralam.43

V.T worked as the editor and the inmates

themselves did the printing work.

While we have a lot of evidences on almost all other aspects of V.T‟s public life

and personal career, there is a striking absence of them on the colony project. The silence

of V.T. on this episode is in fact surprising since he is a vociferous person and has written

elaborately on many other less significant aspects of his life. In the complete works of

V.T, which runs through more than 600 pages there is only a few brief references to the

Ulbudhakeralam project.44

Two of them are in the article which he wrote to justify his

sister‟s inter-caste marriage with Raghava Panikker. V.T. recalls that it was during his

engagements for the publication of one of the numbers of the journal that he came to

conceive the idea of this marriage. The second reference to the commune is related to the

occasion when he discloses that he took up the marriage proposal seriously while he was

leading an isolated and desperate life following the collapse of the colony and being

discarded by his former colleagues. It is important to note that his reference to the

commune experiment as a dismal failure corresponds with his private estimates on the

mixed marriage as an extremely sorrowful event.45

The third reference relates to a visit of

Nalapat Narayana Menon in the colony. Despite the commune being his dream project,

V.T. refused to retrieve his experiences of it. It is likely that he found an unbridgeable gulf

between the ideal and the real in experiencing both the events. In a very important

conversation about two years before his death, V.T. briefly referred to the commune, but

here again he stressed on the failure of the project and its impact on his life impelling him

to wind up his communitarian reform activities.46

V.T. seems to convince us that the

failure of the commune was crucial in bringing about an end to his public life. But his

refusal to assign the failure upon any other person(s) agrees perfectly with the element of

self-criticism evident in this disclosure. He also points to the fact that his staunch faith in

Gandhism and his ideological disputes with the Communists were decisive in the course of

12



his later life.47

Thus certain political and strategic points appear to involve in the commune

issue as its rise and fall corresponded with a very crucial period in the history of Kerala.

Unfortunately no single volume of the journal Ulbuddhakeralam has survived to

give evidence on any aspect of the programmes of the project. Almost all the comrades of

V.T. in the colony later turned out to be communists. As left-wing politicians, they were

generally opposed to the politics of the Gandhian constructive programme. The literature

emanating from that side either in the form of memoirs or of remarks, are conspicuously

silent over the issue. However, we get some scant references from among them.

Puthuppally Raghavan, the well-known Communist, in the first volume of his memoirs,

gives a very brief description of his stay there in the first two months of the colony. He

speaks about his enthusiastic participation in the construction works but, on the whole,

observes the project as a utopian venture and attests that it was founded as a shelter for

those refugee Nambutiris who were banished from the community for their participation in

the reform programme or for getting married against the will of the patriarchs.48

M.P.

Bhattathiripad (Premji), a Nambutiri radical and V.T‟s fellow-activist, makes a hint at his

stay at Kodumunda while recalling about his friendship with Puthuppally Raghavan,49

but

plainly refuses to give any other details of his commune experiences. In a touching story

of the pitiful life of Nhalur Sridevi Antarjanam, P.M. Narayanan quotes some of her life

experiences at Kodumunda and attests to V.T‟s attitude on the colony. V.T. is reported to

have told her that Ulbuddhakeralam was founded for victims like her.50

She recollected

that during her stay at Kodumunda with her father‟s brother Ramapphan, they could share

the neighbourhood of many progressive-minded Nambutiris like M.R.B, Kanjur, Kuthulli,

Thadam, Narippatta, etc. and that the relations with them helped expand their mental

horizon considerably.51

The silence of others like I.C.P. Namboothiri and M.R.B. are truly

striking. I.C.P, the brother-in-law of both V.T. and M.R.B. as also the brother of the

widow who remarried first, doesn‟t make any references to the episode.52

What is more

important is the silence of M.R.B. over the issue, as it was his marriage with the widow

that precipitated a situation which warranted the launching of the colony.

One of the very important pieces of information about Ulbuddhakeralam comes

from the writings of E.M.S. Nambutiripad. He links the founding of the colony with the

internal dynamics of the Nambutiri movement. He contextualized the starting of the

commune by writing that as the major objectives of the movement were already achieved,

13



some of the radicals began to demand the dissolution of the YKS so as to enable the

movement to get merged with nationalism: “…Social and cultural disparities have existed

for centuries between Nambutiris and the other castes. Haven‟t these disparities been

vanishing very fast? What about future social and cultural reforms? Won‟t they be

applicable to society as a whole irrespective of castes? Is it not time for us to discard our

old and narrow aim of working for the social and cultural upliftment of the Nambutiri

caste alone? Shouldn‟t we adopt the broader view of aiming at the creation of a casteless

society? Shouldn‟t we organize a new movement comprising of all social revolutionaries

of all castes who are prepared to wage an uncompromising war against all superstitions

and evil customs prevailing in the society? These were the questions raised by the younger

generation of Nambutiris. It was V.T. who gave a concrete form to their dreams and

aspirations. He waged war against caste system by organizing various activities such as

promoting inter-caste marriages. He encouraged people belonging to different castes and

religions to live together and to interact with each other. They led simple lives in cottages

resembling hermitages”.53

E.M.S. proceeds to account that despite the progressive

elements involved in the commune experiment and the causative role it played in arousing

new political forces, he didn‟t associate with it since his field and method of action

contrasted with that of V.T. He however refuses to explain the areas of disagreement

despite the fact that V.T‟s focus was on the individual and cultural plane and that other

equally important issues of social or economic concern were left unattended or sought to

be solved in the utopian way. The fact that E.M.S. doesn‟t highlight this aspect should be

understood in the context of his strong sympathies towards his former Nambutiri

colleagues.54

Neither does E.M.S. criticize V.T. for any of his ventures or for his basic

ideals. The reason for this strategic silence should also be sought in the kind of preceptor-

pupil relationship that had prevailed between the two.55

Apart from these primary data we have evidences on the colony from the

biographical sketches, some of which were composed with the help of information

acquired directly through discussions with V.T. But on the whole there is an element of

eulogy in them. The Ulbuddhakeralam project is described by them as an essentially

Gandhian programme designed to develop an ideal society: a casteless, classless, self-

sufficient, cooperative, social system with particular emphasis given to simple life, dignity

of labour, moral, ethical and humanitarian values and spiritual progress. It was also

14



conceived as a source of human values indispensable for social life: love and compassion,

harmony and equality.56

Panegyric works apart, even more serious studies put the

commune in terms of attempts towards the establishment of an egalitarian social order and

an Aikya-Keralam, comprising of all castes and communities.57

Disagreement prevails over the immediate circumstances leading to the founding

of the colony. It is argued that as the Nambutiri reform movement was in its final stage of

completion, V.T wanted to secularize the Nambutiris.58

He also wanted to uplift the

downtrodden. With success after success, he was widening his vanguard position for the

greater interests of the society as a whole. During the Guruvayur Satyagraha, he was on

the eight-member committee constituted for conducting a plebiscite among the caste

Hindus to feel their pulse on the question of permitting untouchables to enter temples. His

house at Tritala functioned as the office of the plebiscite. On the failure of the Satyagraha,

he made a highly controversial statement urging people to burn down temples.59

VT‟s

statement has been interpreted as a high point of social radicalism and democratic idealism

and as a step towards the espousal of strong secular and rational thought.60

Thus the

founding of the commune is supposed to represent the culmination of his growing secular

and democratic viewpoints which in other words was a natural and logical growth of the

reform movement beyond its narrow communitarian boundaries so as to encompass the

interests of the society at large.

A causal link between the widow marriage of 1935 and the starting of the colony

has been generally noticed—but it is seen only as a spark to ignite the larger cause. The

widow marriage had fallen on the orthodox Nambutiris like a bombshell. Widowhood had

been a great symbol of tradition and virtue among the Nambutiris and stood to prevail as

the strongest bastion of conservatism and male domination. By smashing the last vestige

of blind tradition, V.T. shocked the orthodox and the liberals alike and invited the wrath of

the whole community. But on another level, he was making a great service to his own

community by redeeming it of universal condemnation for the continuance of widowhood,

which from the point of view of modern values was the most inhuman and heinous

practice.61

In swift retaliation, the couple, along with all the Nambutiri participants in the

marriage, was excommunicated. The Zamorin declared all the participants of the marriage

unworthy of entry into the Guruvayur temple and the Cochin Raja forbade them from

entering the temples of the Cochin state.62

So great was the repercussion of the event that

15



even the radicals of the community and several comrades of V.T. dreaded to cooperate

with the outcasts. This was the critical situation which warranted an alternate home for all

the outcasts to stay over and stay together. Now though excommunication was no longer a

matter of „social death‟63

as has so often happened earlier, it was still a powerful weapon

at the hands of the ecclesiasts to deal with acts of heresy.64

The fact that the first five

settlers were well-known outcasts proves to show that the colony was envisaged as a

haven for the banished and the radicals _ that is, to protect the victims of ostracism. The

Nambutiris who were thrown out of their households for their involvement in community

reforms were not even able to earn their livelihoods; they were in great distress and needed

protection.65

The final words of V.T‟s speech at Alathiyur makes it clear that he had

anticipated a crisis-like situation within the Nambutiri reform movement fairly in advance.

We have to bear this point in mind while dealing with the supposed dimensions of the

commune experiment.

It is not much clear as to what kind of impact the colony had created upon the

contemporary society. The biographical sketches mention it as a great event having

produced considerable enthusiasm among the enlightened sections attracting many notable

figures of the period like Vallathol, Nalappadan, Kuttikrishna Marar, N.P. Damodaran, etc

and to maintain close and continuous contacts with the colony. Not only did they

frequently visit the colony but also they had blessed the pages of the weekly with their

remarkable articles.66

V.T also recollects that prominent figures of the time had assisted

him in the publication of the weekly.67

These scant evidences of course do not

satisfactorily attest to the heavy traffic that is believed to have occurred into the colony nor

to the impact had it produced on the contemporary society. Apart from having made an

impact on just a fraction of the intelligentsia, it appears not to have attracted many of them

and the common people, by and large, seem not to have shown any interest in it or were

not given a space in it at all.

The Downfall

V.T‟s colony lasted for less than three years. Its continued existence was noted to

have been interrupted by a series of internal and external pressures. Of these, the most

important factor was said to be the mounting financial crisis. It is reported that lack of

resources soon put the very existence of the colony in disorder making both the payment

of the rent -which had started falling into arrears- and the subsistence activities almost

16



impossible. V.T. was in sheer despair. He had to spend a major share of the income that he

had received in the meantime from the partition of his family property towards the

expenses of the colony.68

Some kind of internal strife also is noted to have surfaced. Some

of the inmates of the colony were slowly being attracted towards left wing politics. They

had lost faith in Gandhian ideals and hence, in the perpetuation of the colony. The colony

is said to have taken the shape of a communist camp and the weekly became a medium of

leftist propaganda.69

Disputes also began to arise over the ownership rights of the property.

V.T explains the situation thus: “Meanwhile the atmosphere was vitiated by internal strife.

All the assets were in my name. It was argued that these ought to be transferred to a

committee. I could not agree to this suggestion because during this period we had

witnessed the downfall of a large number of co-operative societies. I firmly believed that

only a man of strong character would be able to take up a noble endeavour. I was adamant

on this point, but I had to concede defeat”.70 The crisis took a new turn with the partition

of the Kanjur Illam. The land on which the colony was situated was transferred to Kanjur

Narayanan Nambutiri who was a radical among the Nambutiris and later became a well-

known Communist. He demanded the full clearance of the rent arrears overdue or the

termination of the existing contract. He also filed a legal suit against the colony.71

Finding

that his endeavour had come to a dead end, V.T. finally decided to dissolve the colony.

Although there is a slight unanimity among the biographers of V.T. over the

circumstances leading to the fall of the colony, there is an apparent disagreement over the

prime factor. While some refuse to emphasize upon a single factor,72

some others lay the

responsibility solely upon the play of the „common enemies‟ but refuse to point out who

they were.73

It has also been observed that as every ideal is utopian and hence destined to

fail, V.T‟s revolutionary utopia too would have no other fate.74

But it is interesting to note

that V.T. explains it as a dispute over the property rights, his refusal to convert it into a

common property and his insistence on the trusteeship doctrine that brought about the

collapse of the commune.75

The collapse of V.T‟s experiment is observed to have brought inestimable damage

to the society and politics of future Kerala. First of all, it led to the exit of an active and

uncompromising social worker from the public sphere. It is held that the failure of the

project and the overall hostile attitude, of not just the community but even of the larger

society, towards his radical ideas caused a sense of frustration in him. It had shattered his

17



mental and moral faculties, destroyed his faith in human virtues, ruined his economic

potentials and forced him to lead a secluded life. He appeared on the public scene only on

rare occasions.76

Secondly, the failure of V.T‟s experiment adversely affected the

development of social reforms along Gandhian lines in Kerala because with it perished the

first attempt to accomplish a socialist commune village.77

Though it was the model most

suited for the socio-economic structure of Kerala, social workers were deterred from

carrying on experiments on those lines because they feared that like V.T, they too would

end up in disaster.78

It has also been argued that the communists played a decisive role in

eliminating the Gandhian tradition in Kerala in general and the socio-political agenda of

V.T. in particular.79

These readings, by blindly idealizing the commune and by refusing to

evaluate it in its historical context, unnecessarily fabricated myths around it.

Concluding Remarks

A large many radicals of the reform movement had begun to step backward and to

find solace in tradition once the basic and male-oriented objectives of the Nambutiri

movement were attained.80

They began to warn against further radicalism or the limitless

emancipation of the female elements.81

In this context, V.T.‟s commune experiment seems

to illustrate the gradually developing crisis in men like him towards the essentials of

modernity.82

Even the Alathiyur speech reflects V.T‟s nostalgia for a supposed golden age

in the past and the idealized Gandhian vision of a peaceful, non-competitive, just and

happy society of the past.83

The context in which he started to think loudly of a break in

the tempo of the movement with a focus on constructive programme and idealistic life

interestingly coincides with the launching of his ashram.84

Thus his concern for a counter-

culture appears to mark a withdrawal from his earlier radicalism. Nor was his measure an

attempt to establish a new kind of civil society sufficient to militate against the existing

social injustices or caste disparities and to provide possibilities of social mobility to the

discriminated sections. Instead of being an attempt at solving the caste injustices or

economic inequalities at the social level, the colony project, by envisaging itself as a

congregation of the enlightened individuals, bypassed the popular and organized attempts

at restructuring the existing social order. At a time when the rights and demands of a

section of the Nambutiris were achieved, when caste-based movements were expanding

their agenda for gaining a more democratic space in the public sphere, and also when

18



tenancy movements were strongly demanding a restructuring of the existing property

relations, the formation of an idealistic social gathering had a special significance.

Despite its exalted ideals, V.T‟s commune experiment revealed his basic

ideological positions which in turn heavily contributed to its final breakdown. V.T‟s

primary concern was the rehabilitation of Nambutiri outcasts and radicals and to set up a

community where the writ of the clergy would not run. His lofty dreams such as the

creation of righteous men etc. through commune life were bound to fail because in the

meantime social changes in Kerala were gaining in momentum making Gandhian concepts

of social reforms obsolete and unacceptable to people at large. The 1930‟s were decisive

in Kerala as the period of transition towards left-wing politics. Not only the economically

depressed and socially discriminated sections of society but even a considerable section of

the Nambutiris was being attracted to it. All the erstwhile outcast Nambutiris were

traversing to left-wing politics, since it was seen as a new space for activism and power,

and hence they lost interest in or found no need of being protected in a commune-type

Gandhian shelter. Waning of the basic purpose combined with a steady erosion of support

from within made the continuance of the project almost impossible. As it was envisaged as

an affiliation of the enlightened strata only, and as the common people were by and large

kept away from or were not been fascinated by it, it had failed to gain any popular appeal

that would counterpoise the left-wing threat. Nor could V.T. link the commune with a

larger social or political cause _

apart from his concern for constructive programme.

Notwithstanding an Apphan Nambutiri, V.T nevertheless remained a Gandhian and a

namesake Congressman. For him the attraction to the left-wing was a natural reaction of

the Apphan Nambutiris owing to the lack of claims on ancestral property in the traditional

family structure.85

In the land question too V.T. held fast to the Gandhian trusteeship

doctrine.86

In this new situation V.T. looked like moving towards orthodoxy. The position

of V.T. was unappreciable to his fellowmen for, he who had fought valiantly for the

material prosperity of a section of the community now took an altogether different position

of favoring non-possessive life and the rearing of righteous men. This change of attitude

only led him to be sidelined. The collapse of the commune and its coincidence with the

upsurge of the left wing politics seems to have some kind of interconnection. A detailed

examination of the spread of leftist tendencies among the Nambutiris may furnish greater

clarity on this problem.

19



It is also important to note that the launching of the colony coincided with VT‟s

repeated call for the disbanding of the Yogakshemasabha. He was creating a temperament

against both the Nambutiri organization and all other caste associations of the time. The

outcry against caste associations has so often been linked with a disdain against caste

politics in general as playing an extremely reactionary role. In the grossly unjust

contemporary social situation it was natural that all caste associations seek upward

mobility at the cost of the privileges of the dominant social groups. But for the Nambutiris,

association on caste lines was a non-profitable affair except that it helped in bringing

about democracy within the community; in the emerging new era of mass politics where

numerical strength counted more than anything else, they were unable to make headway.

Moreover, the expansion of democratic principles beyond the limits of the community

meant renunciation or erosion of traditional rights and privileges. This was the context in

which V.T. found communal organizations as representing narrow partisan interests and

hence harmful to the progress of the society at large.87

Commenting on the same situation

E.M.S. remarked that though rapid changes were taking place in social as well as cultural

realms, he couldn‟t agree with the idea that there wasn‟t any relevance in the continuation

of a social reform movement; instead, there was still the need of an organization among

the Nambutiris in order to coordinate these changes.88

Nor does the denunciation of caste

movements correspond with V.T‟s later personal associations with the Nambutiri

revitalization movements, from 1944 onwards.89

He is also reported to have taken an

initiative role, around 1980, in bringing the Nambutiris together to discuss on the existing

condition of the community and to chalk out plans for the future progress.90

Nor is V.T‟s

attitude towards caste associations accurate, in the pragmatic sense, because its “role has

been seriously misunderstood and its positive contribution neglected”.91

Although they

press home the interests of their followers and they pursue a form of group selfishness

which is deplored in the name of social duty and discipline, and caste patriotism above the

public interest runs counter to both liberal and democratic values, caste associations

“organize the politically illiterate mass electorate, thus making possible in some measure

the realization of its aspirations and educating large sections of it in the methods and

values of political democracy”.92

V.T‟s denunciation of caste groupings in the name of

democratic values or public interest of course doesn‟t match with his occasional attempts

20



at associating with caste interests; nor does it merit an objective evaluation of the

contemporary social reality.

In the final analysis, we find that scholars who have studied about the

Ulbuddhakeralam project have much exaggerated its dimensions and revolutionary

potential. The images of V.T. both as a great figure who traversed the boundaries of caste

reform, repudiated community sensibilities and thus saved the movement from lapsing

into sectarianism and obscurantism93

or as a victim of an organized siege by reactionary

forces94

may not perfectly fit with evidences and contemporary realities. The primary

concern of the commune, as has already been noticed, appears to be the rehabilitation of

the outcast Nambutiris. Despite not being a withdrawn fellowship in the complete sense,

the commune failed to make a lasting impact and had only a short life because it lacked a

radical political perception and a sustainable political programme. It was elitist in

constitution and romantic in conception. V.T‟s refusal to convert the property into a trust

reveals his anxiety on the sanctity of private property and his obstinacy for a patron-client

relationship. The association of a secular forum with a strong Nambutiri tradition also

explains his nostalgic notions of a glorious past.95

The commune enterprise therefore fails

to qualify the merit of a viable model for future Kerala society, as has so often been

argued. This is neither meant to discredit figures like V.T. nor to devalue their role in the

awakening of modern Kerala but just to point out the limits of their ideas and

interventions. With the completion of the community-building measures, V.T seems to

have exhausted his progressive agenda. His ideology and programmes were far short of

taking the next step either towards a realignment of community relationships so as to

inaugurate a new era of secular politics or to replace the Nambutiris at the apex of the new

social environment.96

21



Notes and References:

1 Romila Thapar wrote: “If we are to use the analogy of the European Renaissance then it is questionable

whether in fact there was a renaissance in India in the nineteenth century. Quite apart from the fact that the

catalyst came from outside and not from within the society in India, the major ideological contribution of

the Renaissance, the notion of humanism which pervaded the approach to every aspect of life, was based

primarily on a rejection of the dominance of the church even though this rejection sought legitimacy by

going back to what were interpreted as the institutions of the Greco-Roman civilization, prior to and

antithetical to, the Christian Church. In India we are now seeking legitimacy from the past in attempts to

build institutions which would be conducive to the powers of a church should there have been a church in

India. For instance, by insisting on the historical existence of a Hindu community, or other communities

defined solely by an overarching religious identity, we endorse the idea of an ecclesiastical infrastructure

even where it did not exist before. The idea that the religious community was a basic identity of Indian

society was fostered in the nineteenth century. By accepting it we have moved a long distance away from

the predispositions of a renaissance.” Romila Thapar, “Nation Building, Development Process and

Communication: Towards a Renaissance-Some Historical Perspectives Drawing on Early Times”, in In

Search of India’s Renaissance, Vol. II, Chandigarh, 1992, pp.22-23. 2 Richard Fox Young, Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit Sources on Anti-Christian Apologetics in Early

Nineteenth Century India, Vienna, 1981, p.15. Young deems it appropriate to term the developments in

India as resistant Hinduism. 3 For details see Gowri Viswanatahn, “Colonialism and the Construction of Hinduism” in Gavin Flood ed.,

The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Oxford, 2003, pp.23-44. 4 Veluthat Kesavan, “Nambutiriyum Manushyanum”, Sahityalokam, March-April 2003, pp. 22-25.

5 V.T. Bhattathiripad, Sampoorna Kritikal (Complete Works), Kottayam, 1997, p. 526. V.T. explains that

when he was attracted to Gandhian politics, it was expressed through strong religious symbols. 6 Madamb Kunjukuttan, Abhivadaye, Kottayam, 1989, pp.224-29; M.R. Manmathan, “Charitram Oru Piriyan

Koniyanu” (Interview with Akkitham Achuthan Nambutiri), Madhyamam Weekly, 9: 34, August 25, 2006,

p.38. 7 T.S Bhattathiripad, “Samudayadrohi”, DeshabhimaniWeekly, 27:22, Nov. 12-17, 1995, pp. 47-48.

8 V.T. Bhattathiripad, Sampoorna Kritikal (Complete Works), Kottayam, 1997.

9 A.P.P. Nambutiri, V.T. Oru Yugapurushan, Calicut, 1992, pp.148-51; Mathramkot Asokan, V.T.

Ethirpilude, Kottayam, 1982, p.56; Madamb Kunjukuttan, op. cit.,, pp.224-29; M.G.S. Narayanan, “VT:

Communisathinappurathekkulla Yathrayile Margadarsakan” in VT: Studies and Memoirs, edited by A.V.

Sreekumar, Mezhathur, 1997, p. 79. 10

M.G.S. Narayanan, op. cit. 11

Civic Chandran, “Enthukondu VT?” Mathrubhumi Weekly, Dec.26, 1999- Jan.1, 2000. (Also see his VT

Ivideyundu, Vatakara, 1999, which reproduces the article.) 12

M.R. Manmathan, op. cit., p.38. 13

Civic Chandran, op. cit. It is also observed that although Leftist Keralam thrived at the cost of

Ulbudhakeralam, what the Leftist legacy left behind was just empty claims and a fragmented soul. 14

Puthupally Raghavan, Ente Viplava Smaranakal, Vol. I, Kottayam, 1992, p. 217. 15

I.C.P. Nambutiri, “V.T-yude Karmakandam” in VT Oru Itihasam, edited by Palakkizh Narayanan,

Kottayam, 1996, pp. 132-33. 16

J. Devika, “En-gendering Individuals: the Project of Nambutiri Brahmin Reform in Kerala”, Journal of

South Indian History, 1:2, March-August 2004, p.81. 17

Philip Abrams & Andrew McCulloch, Communes, Sociology and Society, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1976, pp.1, 199. 18

Parag Cholkar, “Making of a Village Community: Gandhian Concept of Human Settlement” in P.K. Misra

and K.P. Gangrade ed., Gandhian Alternative Towards Gandhian World Order, New Delhi, 2005, p. 292. 19

Carolyn. M. Elliot, “Civil Society and Democracy: A Comparative Review Essay” in Carolyn. M. Elliot

ed., Civil Society and Democracy: A Reader, New Delhi, 2003, pp. 7-8. 20

Susanne. H. Rudolph & Lloyd. I. Rudolph, “The Coffee House and the Ashram: Gandhi, Civil Society and

the Public Sphere”, in Carolyn. M. Elliot ed., op. cit., p. 386. 21

Partha Chatterjee, “Gandhi and the critic of civil society”, in Ranajit Guha ed., Subaltern Studies III, New

Delhi, 1984, p.173 22

Ibid.

22



23

Dick Cooiman, Communities and Electorates: a Comparative Discussion of Communalism in Colonial

India, Amsterdam, 1995, p.45. The same motives are identified to have moved Gandhi to make temple-

entry one of the main planks of his socio-political platform. See, Louis Onwerkerk, No Elephants for the

Maharaja: Social and Political Changes in Travancore 1921-47, New Delhi, 1994, p.56. Many

Nambutiris seems to have been attracted by the anti-untouchability movement because of community

interests. The customs of avoidance of lower caste persons‟ pollution by high caste persons seems to be

inapplicable in modern occupational contexts or would affect the progress of themselves in the adverse

manner. The need for „ritual neutrality‟ in the public places and of the relaxation of pollution restrictions

for communitarian interests may have forced many to cooperate with the constructive programme as part

of the community reform. 24

C.K. Moossath, Kelappan Enna Mahamanushyan, Kottayam, 1982, p.104. 25

Ibid. 26

APP. Nambutiri, op. cit, pp. 148-49. 27

Ibid, p. 149. 28

Unni Nambutiri, April 28, 1933, reproduced in V.T. Bhattathiripad, op. cit., pp.548-49. The italicized part,

though appear not to agree with the main body of the speech, may provide a possible link between the

commune concept and the emerging crisis in the Nambutiri reform movement. 29

J. Devika, op. cit., p. 84. 30

Which were to be replaced by sajativivaham (as against the existing practice of the eldest son (moos)

alone marrying from within caste (often many times) while all junior sons engage in conjugal relations

(sambandam) with lowly ranked savarna castes) and bhagam, the right of individual property through

partition of the joint holdings which would materially enable the junior males (Apphan) to sustain

individual families. It was also an attempt to underline the importance of individual enterprise to the

rejuvenation of the community. 31

But other acts of reform like violation of ritual practices through breaking of the sacred thread, cutting of

the tuft, disregarding of daily rituals or attempts at Parivedanam appear not to be perfectly non-violent. 32 The Madras Nambutiri Act of 1933 legalized Sajathivivaham and made Adhivedanam a punishable

offence. Whereas the Madras Marumakkathayam Act of 1933 allowed the offspring of Sambandham to

inherit their father‟s property. It is observed that the clamour for legislative intervention arose at such a

dangerous situation when no other alternative to total extinction was visible. See, Vasantha Kumari, “The

Madras Nambutiri Act (XXI of 1933)- A Study of the Nambutiri Customs of Malabar in Light of the

Judicial Findings Antecedent to the Act”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 60th

Session,

Calicut, 1999, p.753. 33

Recasting the image of the Nambutiri according to the new ideal of civil society and the modern concept

of citizenship was slowly gaining currency. It envisioned the eradication of irrational practices and blind

superstitions. 34

K.N. Panikkar, “From Revolt to Agitation: Beginning of the National Movement”, Social Scientist, 25:9-

10, Sep-Oct. 1997, p. 33. 35

The attraction towards the anti-untouchability movement may have been due to community interests. It

was not only practically impossible to keep up pollution rules in modern occupational contexts but it

would also affect the progress of the community in an adverse manner. The need for „ritual neutrality‟ in

the public places forced many to strive for relaxation of pollution restrictions. Cooperation with the

constructive programme was thus an extension of the community reform agenda. See Pauline Kolenda,

“Caste in India Since Independence” in Dilip. K. Basu and Richard Sisson ed., Social and Economic

Development in India-A Reassessment, New Delhi, 1986, p.116. 36

Herring observes: “As importantly, the nationalist movement in Malabar necessarily included opposition

to landlords and their agents who utilized the colonial state to enforce their power”, Ronald. J. Herring,

Land to the Tiller: the Political Economy of Agrarian reform in South Asia, Delhi, 1983, p.159. 37

Even more wonderful is statements like the following: “In 1909 …VT Bhattathiripad, a nambutiri angered

by the ills prevalent in the community, founded the Nambudiri Yogakshemasabha”. See Geetha

Krishnankutty, “Introduction” in Lalitambika Antarjanam, Cast Me Out if You Will: Stories and Memoirs,

translated by Geetha Krishnankutty, Calcutta, 1998, p. xviii. 38

V.T‟s speech in the silver jubilee meeting of the YKS held at Karalmanna in 1932, cited in A.P.P.

Nambutiri, op. cit., p. 138. 39

P. Chitran Nambutiripad, “V.T: Keralacharitrathile Oru Itihasam”, Vivekodayam 14:5-6, May-June 1982,

p. 15. It is important to note that men like V.T. entered into the Nambutiri movement after being attracted

to Nationalism. Yet, he repeatedly declares that his life mission was social reform (and not political

23



activity). Complete Works, pp. 406, 427, 526. V.T‟s autobiographical or other writings are noted by the

striking absence of a critique of colonialism. However, men like him considered their work to be

„nationalist‟ in the sense of preparing the members of their castes to become subjects of the nation, full

participants in a pan-Indian culture. See Devika, op. cit, p.85. 40

The ruins of the colony are still visible on the site with a house constructed during the time in which the

wife and son of Kanjur Narayanan Nambutiri now lives, the debris of the complex of buildings

constructed there are seen as a small mound and the locality still is known as „Colony‟ at least among the

members of the old generation. 41

The five families were those of V.T, M.R.B, Kummini Parameswaran Nambutiri, Kuthulli Narayanan

Nambutiri and Penangalluru. See A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit.,p. 150. 42

Ibid, pp.150-51. 43

E.M.S. Namboothiripad, Atmakatha, Thiruvananthapuram, 2005, pp.210-11. It was the mouthpiece of the

Congress Socialist party, and was edited by E.M.S. It had started publication from Shornur from January

1935. It was banned by the government seven months later for publishing seditious articles. The hiring of

the press for Ulbudhakeralam is referred to only in Mathramkot Asokan, op. cit., p. 56. 44

V.T. Bhattathiripad, op. cit., pp. 307, 309, 407. The Complete Works is not complete since some of his

early writings, which reveals the pulls behind his entry into the movement, are not included in it. For

instance, “Chila Kudiyanmarude Kroorakrityangal” (The Atrocities of Some Tenants), Yogakshemam,

15:54, April 1, 1925; “Nambutiri Kudumba Regulation” I, II, III, IV, V & VI, Yogakshemam, 15:75, June

17, 1925; 15:76, June 20, 1925; 15:77, June 24, 1925; 15:79, July 1, 1925; 15:80, July 4, 1925 & 15:82,

July 11, 1925; “Nambutirimarum Tozhilillaymayum” (Nambutiris and Unemployment), Yogakshemam,

17:60, April 30, 1927. 45

V.T. Bhattathiripad‟s Diary, May 20, July 14 and August 3, 1940. Raghava Panikkar‟s unpublished

autobiography, now kept by his son P.K. Aravindan, Puthuppariyaram, Palakkad, substantiates V.T‟s

perception on the marriage as a sad event. V.T. quarreled with Panikkar for his Vedantic ideals and his

unconcern for material pursuits. 46

K. Gopalankutty, Veluthat Kesavan and D.D. Nambutiri, “Mukhamukham”, in A.V. Sreekumar ed., op.

cit, p. 244. 47

Ibid, p.245 48

Puthupally Ragavan, op. cit., pp.216-217. 49

M.P. Bhattathiripad, “Premjiyude Ormakal”, Patabhedam, Nov. 1992. 50

P.M. Narayanan, “Oru Antarjanathinte Katha”, Kalaveekshanam, Nov. 1997, p.11. 51

Ibid, p.12. 52

I.C.P. Nambutiri, Viplavathinte Ulthudippukal, D.C. Books, Kottayam, 2002. 53

E.M.S. Nambutiripad, op. cit., pp. 177-8. 54

It has also been argued that he had negotiated his Nambutiri identity at a time when Brahmins were under

siege in South India and this may be due to his involvement with the reform movement within the

Nambutiri community before his encounter with Marxism. Dilip Menon, “Being a Brahmin the Marxist

Way: E.M.S. Nambutiripad and the Pasts of Kerala”, in Daud Ali ed., Invoking the Past: the Uses of

History in South Asia, New Delhi, 1999, p. 61. 55

See M.R. Manmathan, op. cit., p. 38. Akkitham points out that V.T. had the role of an elder brother in his

relationship with E.M.S. 56

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., pp. 148-151; Mathramkot Asokan, op. cit.,pp. 55-56; Madamb Kunjukuttan, op.

cit., pp. 224-227. 57

I.V. Babu, “M.R.B-yude Pravarthanam Oru Vilayiruthal” in M.N. Vijayan ed., M.R.B: Jeevitam, Kritikal,

Darsanam, Trissur, 2004, pp. 89-90. 58

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., pp.136-42 59

Unni Nambudiri, April 28, 1933 cited in V.T. Bhattathiripad, op. cit., p. 609. 60

Mathramkot Asokan, op. cit., pp. 47-48. But in the light of his later glorification of temples and

idealization of the feudal village culture, there have been attempts at explaining the statement against the

background of the existing political reality. It is argued that the statement should be seen as a backlash

against the disturbing domination of the Nair middle class in the Nationalist Movement, in which the

Nambutiris could find just a marginal space, and as a protest against the idolization of temples by the

nationalist leaders which might lead to the erosion of the command of the Brahmins in the domain of

religion. (See T. Muhammedali, Social Life in South Malabar (1921-47): Relief, reform & Nationalism,

PhD Dissertation, Calicut University, 2003, pp. 216-17.) Apart from this, the juxtaposition of a deep faith

24



in Gandhian ethic with a strong aspiration for Hindu unity appears to have captivated V.T. during this time

and which caused despair in him due to the failure of the Satyagraha to make such a statement. 61

V.T‟s analysis of widowhood appears to have been determined by strong humanitarian sympathies as is

understood from his speech at Alathiyur on 14 November 1930 (VT, op. cit., pp. 580-82) but it is not an

unmitigated ideal of plain human love anyway. Though he had noted the gap of more than a century

between Bengal‟s efforts at solving the plight of the widows and that of Kerala and had taken up the point

of obvious inequality between the sexes, which prohibited widows from remarrying but allowed men to

marry again and again, his refusal to acknowledge women‟s freedom beyond the limit of choosing a

suitable life-partner reveals the boundaries that the reformers had set on female emancipation. As a strong

upholder of female chastity, V.T. was advocating widow marriage probably as an efficient safety valve

against unchastity or other immoralities associated with it. In his private memoirs, he justifies his efforts

for the remarriage of Mrs. Nhalur Sridevi as a restraint against such disasters. He also has argued that had

Kuriyedath Tatri been allowed to select a life-partner of her own choice, all that disgrace imposed on the

community could have been avoided. VT, op. cit., p. 627. 62

Madamb Narayanan Nambutiri, Yogakshemasabha Charitram. (Unpublished document, referred from

Brahmadathan Nambutiripad, Meppazhur Mana, Mulanthuruthi, Ernakulam). Also see P.R.G. Mathur,

“Caste Council among the Namputiri Brahmans of Kerala”, The eastern Anthropologist, Vol. 22, No. 2,

1969, p.213. 63

Robert. M. Hayden, “Excommunication as Everyday Event and Ultimate Sanction: the Nature of

Suspension from an Indian Caste” Journal of Asian Studies, XLII: 3, 1983, p. 292. 64

But it is important that I.C.P. takes the issue of bhrasht rather casually. He and his family, as also E.M.S,

were ostracized for their association with the event but he writes that they in turn treated the other party

too as ostracized. See, I.C.P, op. cit., p. 49. Despite the fact that Widow Marriage was legalized in India

long ago in 1856 by the central government and the YKS had passed a resolution to the effect in 1934,

there was no attempt to resort to legal action. Madamb Narayanan Nambutiri, op. cit. 65

Puthupally Raghavan, op. cit., pp. 216-17; Madamb Kunjukuttan, op. cit., p. 225. 66

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., p. 151; Mathramkot Asokan, op. cit., p. 56. 67

V.T. Bhattathiripad, op. cit., pp. 307, 407. V.T. writes that N.P. Damodaran and Nalappat Narayana

Menon had closely association with the Colony. 68

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., p. 150; Mathramkot Asokan, op. cit., p. 56 69

V.T. Vasudevan, Interview, 25th

April, 2006. 70

K. Gopalankutty, et. al, op. cit., p. 244. 71

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., p. 150. The court files of this suit would be a very important historical

document, if they could be traced out. 72

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., p. 150. 73

Mathramkot Asokan, op. cit., pp. 55-56. 74

Madamb Kunjukuttan, op. cit., pp. 226-227. 75

K. Gopalankutty, et. al, op. cit., p. 244. 76

A.P.P. Nambutiri, op. cit., p. 151. 77

Madamb Kunjukuttan, op. cit., p. 227. 78

Civic Chandran, op. cit. 79

Civic Chandran, Interview, 5th

March 2003. 80

It is observed that a note of caution always ran alongside the commitment to reform. The moral heroism of

individuals would be wasted if it did not also take a serious note of social constraints or practical

compulsions. See Amiya. P. Sen, Social and Religious Reform: The Hindus of British India, New Delhi,

2003, p.22. 81

“While there was wide agreement on the need to educate the woman, most men in fact appear to have

taken education as a means to reinforce traditional patriarchal values”, Ibid, p.39. 82

Sumit Sarkar has argued that the „renaissance‟ reformers were highly selective in their acceptance of

liberal ideas from Europe. Fundamental elements of social conservatism such as the maintenance of caste

distinctions, patriarchal forms of authority in the family etc were conspicuous in the reform movements.

He suggests that the concern with the social condition of women was far less an indicator of an ideological

preference for liberalism and more an expression of certain „acute problems of interpersonal adjustments

within the family‟ on the part of the early generation of Western-educated males. Sumit Sarkar, “The

Women‟s Question in Nineteenth Century Bengal”, in Kumkum Sangari and Suresh Vaid eds., Women

and Culture, Bombay, 1985, pp.157-72. In the case of the Nambutiri reformers like VT, the problem was

not just a matter of selection of liberal ideas but a clear departure from the earlier radical points. V.T‟s

25



attitude on the women‟s question, his approach to caste and tradition and his position on the tenancy issue-

all would make it explicitly clear that his fascination towards modernity had started to enter into a stage of

„caution‟. It is also important to note that the collection of articles (“Vedivattam” and “Sathyamennathu

Ivide Manushyanakunnu”, Complete Works, pp. 431-541), though they are written in the post-reform days,

contain themes related to Nambutiri reform movement and his reflections on them and are noted for their

rejection of various ideals of modernity which were high-prized during the time of reform. Glimpses of

the beginning of this trend are perceptible right from the early 30s. See Ibid, pp.548-49, 578-79. 83

He develops his concept of the golden age and explanations of “the fall” even more clearly and forcefully

in some of his later articles. See VT, Complete Works, pp.457, 520; “Bahujanahitaya”, pp.521-23;

“Adhamare”, pp.529-531. 84

In his Alathiyur speech V.T. quotes Parvathi Nenminimangalam lamenting over the slow departure of

leaders like V.T. from the community reform activities. More importantly, in another speech V.T. openly

attacks the radical urge for reform articulated by the Antarjanams. Ibid, pp.547, 578-79. 85

K. Gopalankutty, et. al, op. cit., p. 244. Elsewhere Zagoria has argued that the combination of landlessness

and literacy is the major factors for attraction towards communism. Donald. S. Zagoria, “A Note on

Landlessness, literacy and Agrarian Communism in India”, Archives europeenes de sociologie, Vol. XIII

(1972), p.328 cited in Robin Jeffrey, “Governments and Culture: How Women Made Kerala Literate”,

Pacific Affairs, Vol. 60, No. 3, Fall 1987, p. 468. 86 K. Gopalankutty, et. al, op. cit., p. 245. For a glance at V.T‟s severest defense of landlordism see

Complete Works, p.457. Jeffrey observes that in the 1930s ritual status roughly coincided with economic

power and caste with class. (Robin Jeffrey, “Matriliny, Marxism and the Birth of the Communist Party,

1930-1940”, Journal of Asian Studies, XXXVII: 1, Nov. 1978, pp. 80-82.) Elsewhere V.T. argued that

Gandhism was not different in its basics from the ideals put forward by the ancient rishis (Arshadharmam).

Complete Works, p.479. 87

See V.T, op. cit., pp. 251, 309. He made this statement forcefully in the meeting held to congratulate the

Nambutiri couples of the first widow marriage. 88

E.M.S, op. cit, p. 178. 89

He even collaborated with the Communists, despite all his ideological disagreements with them, in 1944

when the YKS was revived under E.M.S. Some of the articles he wrote at the close of his life reflect his

serious concern about the well-being of the Nambutiris. V.T, op. cit., pp. 625, 629, 633. 90

C.K. Nambutiri, Ormakkurippukal (Reminiscences), unpublished document, now kept by his daughter

C.K. Parvathi, Kulakkat Kurissi, Cherpulasseri. The memoirs were written in between 8-8-1984 and 29-8-

1984. C.K. Nambutiri recollects that V.T. had suggested that they meet together to discuss on

strengthening the YKS. But in the meantime he fell ill and hence the meeting could not be conducted. 91

L.I. Rudolph and S.H. Rudolph, “The Political Role of India‟s Caste Associations” in Immanuel

Wallerstein ed., Social Change: The Colonial Situation, New York, 1966, p. 452. 92

Ibid, p. 449. 93

K.C. Narayanan, “Verunangatha Vakku”, in V.T, op. cit., p. 29. 94 Civic Chandran, op. cit.; Civic Chandran, Interview, 5

th March 2003.

95 “The Nambutiri title to property was not absolute ownership, but more in the nature of trusteeship,

entailed to the performance of certain sacred duties.” T. Madhava Menon ed., A Handbook of Kerala, Vol.

II, Thiruvananthapuram, 2000, p. 789. V.T. justified later that may be due to his attachment to tradition, he

had come to believe in Gandhian ideals like the Trusteeship doctrine. See K. Gopalankutty, et. al, op. cit.,

p. 245. He confirms this point with more precision in an article written somewhat later by stating that a

kind of trusteeship mentality had prevailed here in the past. He also vehemently criticized land reforms as

it was based on „undemocratic‟ principles. V.T, “Swatantryam Arkku, Enthinu?”, Complete Works, p.520. 96

Retaining of a vague sense of Nambutiri-ness and pride; strong element of cultural revivalism and feudal

nostalgia evident in his later writings; self-criticism over his own „immature‟ radicalism; all would

persuade an observer to arrive at this conclusion. More striking is the use of contemptuous language

towards the lower castes while referring to certain events of the reform days in his recollections. See V.T,

op. cit., pp. 262, 311.

introspecting the nambutiri reform in kerala: reflections on ulbuddhakeralam

Documents