PREVIOUS ​NEXT

See this QUOTE: The name by which the district is known to Europeans is not in general use in the district itself, except among foreigners and English-speaking’ natives. The ordinary name is Malayalam, or, in its shorter form, Malayam (the hill country). END OF QUOTE

As per this statement, the name Malabar was not known to the natives of the land. It is similar to the word ‘India’. There is nothing to suggest that the word ‘India’ was known to the natives of the subcontinent.

The words ‘Malayalam’ and ‘Malayam’ are mentioned as the name known to the people of Malabar about their own land.

The question then comes about Travancore and Cochin. Cochin being a small location does not matter much. However, what about Travancore? There might be some confusion about in the minds of the traders from afar about these locations. For, pepper could be procured from all the three locations. However, in the case of Malabar, there were two prominent locations. One was Cannanore in north Malabar, and Calicut in south Malabar.

But then the whole of the coastal areas that included north Malabar, south Malabar, Cochin and Travancore, there were a number of small ports from where pepper could be procured. If the nationality of a location can be fixed by the availability of pepper, then all these locations are quite easily mentioned as one and the same, from afar.

However, this is not way to fix a nationality. And seafaring traders’ opinion is not what creates a nation.

Now, look at this QUOTE: ....Malayalam uses in these and all similar cases the verbal participle adichu, having beaten, with the prefixed pronouns I, thou, he, etc. (e.g., nyan adichu, I beat ; ni adichu, thou didst beat ; avan adichu he beat). END OF QUOTE

From a very casual perspective, nothing amiss would be noticed in the above statement. But then, there are actually a few errors in what the statement purports to state. In fact, the statement points in a wrong direction. And the very attempt to connect the hidden verbal codes into the planar language English is also very questionable efficiency. In this regard, it might be mentioned that the writer of the statement is actually groping in the dark.

The first error is that the word adichu is not the word of have beaten or did beat in the native language of Malabar. It is true that in those contemporary periods, the language of Malabar was known as Malayalam. In that Malayalam, the word for have beaten or did beat might be thachu /thach . This is a claim which I cannot confirm with regard to the whole areas of north Malabar or of south Malabar.

Next is the word: thou. Actually there is no equivalent of thou in either newly-created Malayalam or Malabari (earlier name: Malayalam). This claim is a huge content to explain. I can mention it simply here that the word thou does not affect other words like he, him, his, she, her, hers etc. In this sense, it is a sort of standalone word. Any word form in feudal languages, if mentioned as equal to thou will look erroneous in that the change of indicant levels for ‘You’ will affect all other indicant word forms and much more.

There are other unmentioned items.

Like Avan അവൻ (he) in newly-created Malayalam is Oan ഓൻ in Malabari.

Aval അവൾ (she) in newly-created Malayalam is Olu ഓള് in Malabari.

Njangal ഞങ്ങൾ (we) in newly-created Malayalam is Njaalu ഞാള് in Malabari.

Avattakal അവറ്റകൾ (They) in newly-created Malayalam is Ittingal ഐറ്റിങ്ങള് in Malabari.

It is true that some kind of similarity can be found in the words. However, since the Malabari language seems to have been more traditional, how come a newly-created language can claim to be more right and correct? But then, there is the other side also. That the newly-created language of Malayalam did absorb words from Tamil. In fact, all these words mentioned in the newly created Malayalam are from Tamil.

Here the incredible bit of information is that the lowest castes of Travancore become the repositories and propagators of the newly-created Malayalam, which obviously is much more refined than the traditional language of Malabar.

In all the books, which I have mentioned, including Travancore State Manual, Native Life in Travancore, Malabar (this book) &c. there is no mention of how this creation of a new language was accomplished. It remains a fact that the lower castes who converted into Christianity did possess the newly created Malayalam.

And it remained their dedicated purpose to promote and propagate this language into Malabar. It gave rise to a very curious social mood. The traditional Malabari speakers of Malabar slowly were made to understand that they were an un-educated low-quality population group. While the people of Travancore were much developed because they spoke the ‘educated-version of Malayalam’. The people of Malabar were understood to speak the ‘uneducated version of Malayalam’.

The Malabari language of Malabar was quite rude and crude, especially to those positioned lower. In Malabari, there was a tendency that I had noticed in around 1970s. It was that any youngsters of any age would invariably be addressed as an Inhi ഇഞ്ഞി (lowest you in Malabari), and referred to as Oan ഓൻ (lowest he/him) or Oalu ഓള് (lowest she / her), even if the person is a stranger or unknown person.

It may be due to the influence of the English evangelists who might have helped develop the newly-created Malayalam, that this kind of crudeness was not there in the newly created Malayalam. The more acceptable Ningal നിങ്ങൾ (middle-level You ) and Ayaal അയാൾ (middle level he/she) was more in usage in Malayalam.

However, at the higher levels of communication, Malabari had comfortable word. That of Ningal നിങ്ങൾ or Ingal ഇങ്ങൾ (there is a slight code difference between them). There is no other higher word in Malabari. However, in the newly-created Malayalam, the Ningal നിങ്ങൾ word is highly objectionable, if used to a senior person.

I will leave all this now. For it is leading to another location. Readers interested in this subject can pursue it in my writing : An Impressionistic History of South Asian Subcontinent. CLICK HERE

In this book, Malabar, there is a general tendency to impose the language name Malayalam and the population name Malayali. However the urge behind this endeavour is connected to the vested interests of the groups I had mentioned earlier.

QUOTE: Kollam .—This is the Northern Quilon, as distinguished from Quilon proper in Travancore, which is styled Southern Kollam by Malayalis. END OF QUOTE.

What is this ‘Malayalis’? People of Travancore or the people of Malabar? Both did not have much information on the other, other than those who had official powers and travelled here and there beyond the boundaries of the locations.

QUOTE: The Hindu Malayali is not a lover of towns and villages. END OF QUOTE

Here again, the word Malayali is a very cunning insertion. The actual people mentioned in the context is mainly Nayars of Malabar and to some extent the Brahmins and such. However, using this word can again enforce the idea of a Malayali population that existed in Malabar, Cochin and Travancore, in a time when Malabar was part of another country. In fact, in Travancore State Manual, people who came from the Madras Presidency areas are mentioned as from ‘foreign country’.

See the character of this Malayali: QUOTE: His austere habits of caste purity and impurity made him in former days flee from places where pollution in the shape of men and women of low caste met him at every corner ; and even now the feeling is strong upon him and he loves not to dwell in cities. END OF QUOTE.

QUOTE: The chief difference between them, and indeed between Malayalam and all the other Dravidian tongues, lies in the absence in Malayalam of the personal terminations of the verbs. END OF QUOTE.

It is more or less obvious that the Malayalam that is mentioned in this book ‘Malabar’ is not the language of Malabar, but the language of the Converted Christian populations who were slowly entering into the Malabar location. They would have created a feeling that they were creating education by setting up vernacular schools wherein this new language was taught. This would give an enormous boost to their social image. For, they would exist as the ‘educated’ persons in a land filled with persons who did not know their own language.

QUOTE: both—a condition nearly resembling the Mongolian, the Manchu, and the other rude primitive tongue of High Asia. END OF QUOTE.

Could this statement be about Malabari? Or is it a reference of the general rudeness in almost all the established languages of the subcontinent?

QUOTE: it being admitted that verbs in all Dravidian languages were originally uninflected—is derived from ancient poetry and ancient inscriptions, and these did not necessarily correspond with the spoken language. END OF QUOTE

This statement is a very fabulous information about the language of the subcontinent. The poetry and the film songs are of wonderful content and beauty. However, there is no such beauty or content in everyday spoken language.

This is a grand issue. I have discussed this in my book An Impressionistic History of South Asian Subcontinent Part 1 – Chapter 83. The mystical beauty in feudal languages

I will give a very brief idea about this. The everyday spoken language is feudal and degrading to the lower positioned persons. The words do have a jarring effect as they rub on a human being’s psyche to intimidate and crush him down to a midget personality.

However, in poetry, the words are in a filtered form. The presence of the varying indicant word codes does give a lot of words to create a 3-dimensional virtual-world effect in the human mind. Such an effect cannot be created easily by planar-coded English words.

Beyond this the very presence of higher indicant words can induce a sort of Brahmanical effect. That of inducing a kind of divine aura on emotions, words, feelings, persons, and incidences. Actually, a very studied mixing up of the varying levels of indicant words can create an effect that cannot be contemplated in pristine-English.

QUOTE: The most probable view is that the Vedic Brahman immigration into Malabar put a stop to the development of Malayalam as a language just at the time when the literary activity of the Jains in the Tamil country was commencing. END OF NOTES.

This could be some kind of nonsensical contention to confuse the issues. That there was no Malayalam of Travancore (current-day Malayalam) in existence in the ancient world. What existed then in Malabar could be the Malabari languages (which is seen to have been actually called Malayalam in those days. The ancient language of Malabar was the real Malayalam). In Travancore, the traditional language is seen mentioned as Tamil.

QUOTE: It was no less than a revolution when in the seventeenth century one Tunjatta Eluttachchan, a man of the Sudra (Nayar) caste, boldly made an alphabet—the existing Malayalam one—-derived chiefly from the Grantha— END OF QUOTE

This is a location I have no information about. However, could Ezhuthchachan be from Malabar? Could he have simply picked up the script from what was already there in Malabar? But then there is the issue of how he came to be well-versed in the newly-created language of Malayalam of Central Travancore. Or could he have contributed to the commencement of this language by importing certain contents of Malabari languages, and mixed it with Sanskrit and Tamil I do not have specific arguments with regard to all this, other than the fact the there was a language in Malabar, which seems to have escaped the attention of almost all writers who had some connection to the Christian Church. If the Nayar officials of Malabar also missed mentioning it, it might that they also felt the local language of lower castes was some kind of barbarian tongue, while the language promoted by the converted Christians was a more noble one. For, the newly created Malayalam simply brims with Sanskrit words, if used for poetic and other literary compositions.

As to studying about Ezhuthachchan from writings in Wikipedia and such other sources is simply a waste of time, if deeper contents are aimed for. For, all these kind of ‘scholarly’ writing have the tone mentioned by Al Biruni. That, the protagonist is a superhuman.

The next point in the above-quote to be noted is the rabid caste claim. It more or less lends credence to the idea that the Nayar writers who must have written many of the text parts in this book were actually not seeing a nation-state, but a mix of populations, each one of which had its own claims and repulsions.

QUOTE: Mr. F. W. Ellis : "The language of Malayalam poetry is in fact a mixture of Sanskrit, generally pure, with Sen and Kodun Tamil ; END OF QUOTE.

I think this quote actually is relevant only about the newly created language of Malayalam. It might be totally wrong when it is mentioned about Malabari (the original language of Malabar).

QUOTE: This remark, however, applies more to Keralam proper than to Mushikam or Travancore END OF QUOTE.

I do not know what to make of the above statement. In an age when the conceptualisation of a land called Kerala is basically the vested interest of people from Travancore, what is this ‘Keralam proper’, and how come Mushikam and Travancore are not inside it? The writings inside this book seems to go into different directions, depending on who wrote the specific text. May be Logan did not get time to go through the immense pages of manuscripts and correct the incongruities.

QUOTE: Mr. Ellis: “There exists in Malayalam, as far as my information extends, no work or language, no grammar, no dictionary, commentaries on the Sanskrit Amarakosha excepted. The principal work in prose is the Keralutpati, which is also said to be translated from the Sanskrit, though the original is now nowhere to be found.”

NOTEs: This was written some time before 1819, the year in which Mr. Ellis died. These complaints exist no longer, thanks to the research of Dr. Gundert. END OF NOTES.

It seems that the Sanskrit original of Keralolpathi is available. If so, it might be interesting to know more about its antiquity. For, Parasurama’s creation of Kerala is mentioned elsewhere as not mentioned in the Sanskrit works of the northern parts of the peninsula.

QUOTE: Dr. Burnell styles the Vatteluttu “the original Tamil alphabet which was once used in all that part of the peninsula south of Tanjore, and also in South Malabar and Travancore.”

The Vattelultu alphabet “remained in use” in Malabar, Dr. Burnell wrote, “up to the end of the seventeenth century among the Hindus, END OF QUOTE.

The above again is quite an interesting observation. In that, South Malabar and Travancore are clubbed together as being of Tamil linguistic heritage. This seems to keep north Malabar separate.

There is another hint that might be missed. See this: “among the Hindus”. What is this supposed to mean? Who were the Hindus? Naturally the lower castes did not most probably have any writing experience or learning. The ‘Hindus’ might mean the Nayars and higher castes possibly. Then what about the others like the Syrian Christians, and Jews and Muslims of Travancore? What was their script?

QUOTE: It will be seen from the above account that there is but little of interest or of importance in Malayalam literature, and the scholars who have of late years studied the language have been attracted to it rather by the philological interest attached to it than by anything else. END OF QUOTE.

The quote is ostensibly about the newly-created language of Malayalam. And not about the Malabari. But then, it is a quite a curious assertion. For, a few years back, the Malayalam lobby in the state of Kerala has very successfully claimed and acquired a Classical Language status for Malayalam. It would be most interesting to know what the great classical literary creations that could be attributed to a newly created language, were.

Or it be that Malayalam would try to simply jump upon the ancient heritage of Malabari to assert its claims to Classical Status. For, it is very much possible that Malabari had a history dating far back, at least, to the times when the Shamanistic spiritual worship systems arrived in north Malabar.

QUOTE: There is hardly a page in this present work which in one way or other does not derive authority or enlightenment from Dr. Gundert’s labours and scholarship. END OF QUOTE.

The above-quote is quite curious. In that, it more or less substantiate the doubt that I had. That this book had been influenced by the Converted Christian interests. I have not much information on Dr. Gundert, as to how he collected the various word and verbal information about Malayalam. It is an intuitive feeling that he was very vigorously helped by the converted Christians of Travancore, who had arrived in Malabar. For staying on in Travancore after acquiring good intellectual abilities would be experiencing the heights of abomination for the lower castes. In Travancore, they cannot walk on the road. In Malabar, these very persons can hold responsible and respectable positions as heads of institutions, be teachers, be doctors, be judicial pleaders, be lawyer’s clerks, be government officials &c.

Due to this very issue, the fact that there was another language in Malabar would have been quite conveniently kept aside. Many of the Malabari words could be very casually taken into Malayalam as it went on grabbing words to become a language. Even now, the people of Travancore find that Malabari words as some kind of barbarian sounds.

However the wider fact is that each feudal language creates a very powerful web of hierarchical connections. Outsiders to these links would find an entry into it irksome and a pain. Only in planar languages like English can anyone enter at any point and link to anyone they want. In feudal languages, all links and relationships have a vector component and there are direction valves in all communication. It is like this: A particular person can speak to another man with a lot of freedom. However, the other man cannot do it back. There are codes of ‘respect’ and ‘degradation’ that decides all kinds of links and directions.

QUOTE: Besides Malayalam there is one other territorial language in Malabar—Mahl to wit—the language of the Minicoy Islanders END OF QUOTE.

The above statement is a very cunning dialogue. Even now many Travancoreans when they come to interior parts of north Malabar, find it quite difficult to understand the language. As of now, there is no perfect Malabari even in north Malabar. Almost all persons know Malayalam. For, it is the language of education, newspapers, Cinemas, TV shows, and public speeches. Even this Malabari-Malayalam mixed language, the Travancoreans find it difficult to understand. If this be the case, just imagine the cunningness in simply refusing to mention the local language of the population by a group of people who had entered from outside.

QUOTE: The Jews and Syrians were by other deeds incorporated in the Malayali nation END OF QUOTE.

This ‘Malayali-nation’ mention is again a deliberate attempt at creating a confusion. It is an event not connected to North Malabar or even to South Malabar. It is simply superimposing a historical event in another country on Malabar antiquity.

QUOTE: It will be noted in the historical chapter that a more or less successful resistance, probably with Brahman aid, was made by the Malayalis against the aggressions of the Western Chalukya dynasty, END OF QUOTE.

What is the context of using the word ‘Malayalis’ here? It is like the writings in Wikipedia and elsewhere about ‘Indians’ fighting against the outsiders in the medieval ages. The simple fact there was no ‘Indians’ at the time is simply kept un-understood, in the deliberate attempt to insert an ‘India’ word across the historical ages.

A similar kind of insertion of the ‘Malayali’ word in all sort of ancient incidences is there in this book; suggesting a very concerted effort at promoting a ‘Malayali’ heritage, where there is none.

QUOTE: the idea of an exclusive personal right to hunting privileges in certain limits is entirely foreign to the Malayali customary law. END OF QUOTE.

Here again a misuse of the ‘Malayali’ word. In a land where the place is a continual attempt to keep various populations subordinated, there was presumably no such thing as a ‘Malayali customary law’. As to the Malayali, if a Malabari man is a Malayali, then the Travancore man would be something else, possibly some kind of Tamilian. If a Travancore man is a Malayali, then the Malabari man is something else. In this book, both these different individuals are being desperately clubbed together.

And as the reader can sense in the history section of this book, there was no long period of peace for any steady customary law to get practised. What could have existed is merely very local village customs of rights and privileges, which varies from place to place.

Peace is not an endurable thing in a social system which runs on feudal languages. Unless the various hierarchical levels are very clearly understood and maintained.

QUOTE: Kerala was probably stripped of its northern province by the power and influence of the Western Chalukyas, END OF QUOTE.

The use of the word ‘Kerala’ here is some kind of deliberate doctoring. I can even think that this was inserted in 1951 when the book was reprinted. For, it is quite possible that this was the book that was pushed forward to claim that the Malabar district of Madras State had to be amalgamated with the Travancore-Cochin state. May be if anyone can make an enquiry, it would be found that in all discussions on State reorganisation, this book must have been very prominently used by the Christian Church as well as the SNDP or some other Ezhava leadership. Both stood to gain when Malabar is connected with Travancore.

QUOTE: Here Keralaputra, or as sometimes transliterated Ketalaputra, refers undoubtedly to the king of ancient Chera, END OF QUOTE.

How can a word which is transliterated as something different be corrected to another word to prove something?

QUOTE: The thirty-two Tulu gramams (north of the Perumpula) were it is said, “cut off from all connection (or perhaps intermarriage)” with the thirty-two pure Malayali gramams lying to the south of that river, and a fresh distribution of the Malayali gramams themselves took place. END OF QUOTE

Why should the term Malayali gramams be used in an age when there was no Malayalam or Malayali? Could it not be a very obvious attempt at inserting historical inaccuracies?

QUOTE: Kerala, from Perumpula to Puluppalanam END OF QUOTE

Again a Kerala, before Kerala is born!

QUOTE: This Province was in the previous distribution called Kerala. END OF QUOTE.

It is quite funny. In this book itself, the writer/s had to wander into various locations in the globe to prove the existence of Kerala in the ancient days. The above are all categorical statements meant to stamp into the reader’s mind of a place called Kerala, which had to be recreated.

QUOTE: The name “Kerala" even undergo a change, and instead of meaning the whole of the land between Gokarnam and Cape Comorin it comes at this time to signify merely North Malabar, i.e., Kolattunad, the kingdom of the Northern Kolattiris. END OF QUOTE.

These are all quite funny statements. It is quite doubtful if the word ‘Kerala’ is there in any of the historical record connected to these events. Kolathunad does not mean Kerala. It means Cannanore and beyond to the north, I guess. It is a curious situation that Cannanore and thereabouts had been called Kerala. Even if at any single or more time in history, a place has been named anything does not really mean anything beyond that.

QUOTE: The state of Kerala and nearby regions of the Indian peninsula (Malabar Coast, in some versions including Konkan) are considered as Parashurama Kshetra. END OF QUOTE.

What ‘state of Kerala’?

QUOTE: From thence they sail with the wind called Hippalos in forty days to the first commercial station of India named Muziris END OF QUOTE.

Here two different items have to be noticed. One is the use of the word ‘India’. The question would be this: Did Pliny (A.D. 23-79) actually use the word ‘India’? Or some other similar sounding word like ‘Inder’?

The second is the other item. That the first commercial station of ‘India’ was Muziris. These kind of writings are obviously from a very small perspective. There is actually such a tendency all over the subcontinent, even now, to mention local great things as the ‘greatest’ in Asia or ‘greatest’ in the world. After all Al Biruni had noticed this centuries ago. May this Pliny was informed via this kind of reporting.

QUOTE: In one manuscript it is written Celobotras. It is clearly intended for Keraputran or Cheraputran ~ king of Chera. END OF QUOTE

Whether there is an clarity about this not the only issue. The wider issue would be that there would be so many rulers in the location, extending all over the south-western coast. For instance, in the 1700s there were rulers in Trivandrum, Attingal, Quilon, Kayamkulam, Chengannur, Changanasherri, Kottayam (near Quilon), Cochin, Palghat, Beypore, Badagara, Kottayam (near Tellicherry), Cannanore &c. Each one of them could have ancestors with all kinds of names.

If the reader can simply ponder for a few seconds, he or she will be able to know (if it is not already known) that if a person’s parents and ancestors are counted backwards, within a matter of 300 years backwards, this person would be connected to around 20 lakh (2 Million) and more person alive then. The numbers would simply grow exponentially as one goes backwards.

The wider point here is that it would be quite difficult for a current-day person living in Kerala to connect himself or herself to any particular bloodline. For, each person would be connected to an immensity of bloodlines, extending to all parts of the world.

QUOTE: wrote the title of the Chera king as Kerobothros and stated the fact that the capital of the kingdom was at Karoura, which name has been very generally accepted as identical with that of the modern town of Karur in the Coimbatore district END OF QUOTE.

This quote messes up everything again. The mythical ‘Kerala’ is here seen as outside current-day Kerala. It is in Tamilnadu.

QUOTE: Malayalis themselves call the country east of the Palghat gap the Kongunad or country of the Kongus. The Kongu language seems to have been Canarese, and not Tamil or Malayalam, END OF QUOTE.

The mischievous insertion of the word ‘Malayalis’ is again found. Beyond that, there is a sort of mention of Malayalam. Which Malayalam, is again the question. The idea here is simply to mention Malayalam. That is enough. A mere mention has its definite power in indoctrination and publicity.

QUOTE: .... but it is clear in the light of the writings of Pliny and Ptolemy and of the Periplus that the Tenkasi eastern boundary, which describes pretty accurately the Malayali limits now, is of later date than the first to third centuries A.D. The Malayalis have since those dates encroached considerably to the south on the ancient Pandya dominions. END OF NOTES

See the way a local kingdom boundary over here is found out. From some records in some far away locations. And see the mischievous insertion of the ‘Malayalis’ word. There is no basic consistency in the claims. In this book, first the Nayars and possibly the Brahmins are identified as the ‘Malayalis’. Then there is a lot of debate on from where the Nayars might have arrived. Even Nepal location is mentioned.

However, at the same time, when the historical location around 2000 years back of the kingdom here is mentioned, the word ‘Malayalis’ is mentioned. The terribleness of this kind of writing is that at this time Travancore definitely had no ‘Malayalis’. As to Malabar having ‘Malayalis’, the local language of Maabar is not the same as the Malayalam as understood currently.

The wider question is, why is the word ‘Malayalis’ inappropriately used? There is definitely an agenda to promote the idea of a kingdom of Kerala existing from times immemorial. Whatever gimmickry has been done in this book, such a claim has no basis.

QUOTE: After the Ceylon embassy to Claudius in A.D. 44, further embassies from India continued at long intervals to reach the Roman world. END OF QUOTE.

The ‘India’ word is another similar insertion. The subcontinent was never a single nation. Being conquered by various rulers from hither and thither does not make various clusters of populations a single nation or kingdom. The people are different. The languages are different. There was never a single focus of sovereignty, until the English rule came and established a single nation. Even this single nation did not comprise the whole of the subcontinent, even though all the local independent kingdoms wanted to have a close connection with this nation.

QUOTE: The true ancient history of Southern India, almost unrecorded by its own people in anything worthy of the name of history, appears as yet only as a faint outline on canvas. Thanks to the untiring labours of European scholars and of one or two native scholars these faint outlines are gradually assuming more distinct lines, but it is impossible as yet to offer anything even approaching to a picture in full detail of any period or of any state, for the sources of information contained in inscriptions and deeds are extremely scanty, and even in genuinely ancient deeds it is frequently found that the facts to be gathered from them are unreliable owing to the deeds themselves having been forged at periods long subsequent to the facts which they pretend to state. END OF QUOTE.

The above quote is quite interesting. First see the last line. Whatever historical records are in existence, have been ‘forged at periods long subsequent to the facts’. Indeed, this very book is an example of this.

See the words: ‘ancient history of Southern India’. The word Southern India is mentioned in a very casual manner, without taking into account the confusion it ought to create in later days. The southern India mentioned here are the southern parts of the South Asian subcontinent. It can also be mentioned as the southern parts of the South Asian peninsula. How this ‘India’ word came in has to be checked. There is a slight possibility that it is an insertion done in 1951.

But then, it is true that there was a foolish manner of understanding in Great Britain that the whole of the subcontinent was British-India, which it was not.

Now look at the words: ‘untiring labours of European scholars’. This is another total foolishness committed by the native-English and also by the native-British in the subcontinent. The word ‘European’ and the word ‘British’ are not synonyms. They are actually antonyms; especially if the word ‘British’ is taken as ‘native-English’.

Pristine-English is a planar language. And hence pristine-England is a planar language nation. While many nations in Continental Europe, including France, Germany, Spain, Portugal etc. could be slightly or terribly feudal language nations. This is a very crucial point. The way the people react and act in certain crucial situations differ in total opposite manners, in a planar versus feudal language comparison.

In this very book, there are powerful instances that show this difference. And indeed why the English side always prospered while the Continental side withered away when they could actually have won the day, can be connected to this information. I will deal with that later.

QUOTE: from the fact that the Tamil and Malayalam languages were in those days practically identical, it may be inferred that the ruling caste of Nayar were already settled in Malabar in the early centuries A.D. END OF NOTES

There is more than one problem in the above lines. If Tamil and Malayalam were a single language, then it simply means that there was no Malayalam here. And the word to define the population is not ‘Malayalis’, but ‘Tamilians’. However, the basic issue in this cantankerous writing is that there is a basic erroneous foundation that is simply taken as true. That the Travancore and Malabar regions were one and the same. It was not.

That Travancorean heritage in Tamil is okay. However, whether the antiquity of Malabar was Tamil is not established anywhere other than in these kinds of writing with ulterior motives. Two different regions and totally different populations are very cunning being packaged as one and the same.

The second cunning insertion is the words: ‘ruling caste of Nayar’. The Nayars are not seen as the ‘ruling caste’ anywhere in this book itself other than in such baseless assertions. It might be true that some of the kings were from this caste; even though this might be a point of dispute. However, the vast majority might be sort of village level supervisors of the Brahmanical landlords and the henchmen of the ruling families.

QUOTE: It will be seen presently that in the ancient deeds a dear distinction is drawn between the Keralas and the Pallavas. END OF QUOTE.

Was there any ‘Keralas’ in the history of Malabar? Or in the history of Travancore? It might be true that some of the kings might have borne such a name. However, the insertion of this ‘word’ in this book is quite clearly with a definite aim. That is to promote a unification of two unconnected geopolitical locations. The fact is that when the English rule appeared on the subcontinent, a lot of unconnected people and populations found it quite easy to establish a connection. For in the language English, it is very easy for populations of different levels of stature to communicate without any feelings of rancour being aroused.

QUOTE: The Tamil race seems to have spread over the whole of the peninsula and to have split up into three kingdoms — Chera, Chola and Pandya—corresponding to those very ancient and well-known divisions of the Peninsula. END OF QUOTE.

The writing seems to go in circles. It does give the impression that the different pages have been at times written by different persons. Here, in the above quote, the Cheras are Tamilians. Then how come the word ‘Malayalis’ and ‘Malayali kingdom’ is being used for those periods in history in this very book?

QUOTE: it was said that this Indian nation traded to the West with the Romans and Parthians, and to the east as far as Siam and Tonquin. Their sovereign was said to wear a small lock of hair dressed spirally on the crown of his head, and to wear the rest of his hair very short. The people, it is also said, wrote on palm leaves and were excellent astronomers. The produce sent as presents, the trade to East and West, and the manner of wearing the hair, are all so essentially Malayali, that it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the ambassador must have been sent from some place on the Malabar Coast. END OF QUOTE.

‘Indian nation?’ There was no Indian nation at that time. It could have been any of the mutually competing kingdoms consisting of mutually different populations; and inside each kingdom, mutually antagonistic populations.

‘small lock of hair’ is the Kudumi of which Rev. Samuel Mateer had done a detailed chapter in his book Native Life in Travancore. The Kudumi was a mark of caste distinction. Higher caste symbol. So again the word ‘Malayali’ can be mentioned as being used to denote the higher castes.

As to writing on palm leaves, well, that was a general norm in many locations in the subcontinent and may be elsewhere also. For there was no paper available then.

‘conclusion that the ambassador must have been sent from some place on the Malabar Coast’. This is literally the signature glow of self-importance being sort in any and every incident. That, it is us who were the people! The actual fact is that there could have been many similar persons from various locations in the subcontinent. Or it might be true that only one single person managed to do this in the whole of the history of the subcontinent!

The quirkiness will be better understood if a similar type of sentence-making is done by the native-English. ‘Oh, that was us, this was us, only we the English could have done it, &c.’

QUOTE: Contemporary grants do not record that Kerala became at this time tributary to the Western Chalukya king, but in a forged grant of about the tenth century it is recorded END OF QUOTE.

The word ‘Kerala’ is the mischievous insertion, done quite obviously with malicious planning. As to the word ‘forged’, it is like the kettle calling the pot black. This book ostensibly written by William Logan is a classic example of such a record. The only location where it has some elevated standards are the locations where Logan himself did the writing. However, why he did not mention that fact very frankly might be due to him being not a native-English gentleman. He was a Scottish gentleman. May be if one were to study the verbal codes inside Gaelic, more information in this regard might be forthcoming.

QUOTE: It is not improbable that the Chalukyas entered into separate tributary relations with the Kerala ruler at this time. END OF QUOTE

QUOTE: And the isolated position of the Keralas behind their mountains would render it easier to detach them than any of the other combined powers. END OF QUOTE.

QUOTE: The Gangas or Kongus (as Malayalis call them) must have followed their suzerain in his southern raid, and not improbably drove the Keralas inside their mountain limits at this time (c . A.D. 680-96). END OF QUOTE.

QUOTE: It is doubtful whether after this time (early part of the ninth century A.D.) the Rashtrakuta dynasty had any dealings directly with Kerala. The invaders were probably driven back, as Malayali tradition indeed asserts. END OF QUOTE.

QUOTE: There are three ancient Malayali deeds which have excited much interest, not only because of their antiquity, but because of the interesting fact that by them the ancient kings of Kerala conferred on the Jewish and Christian colonies certain privileges which those colonies, to a certain extent, do still possess. END OF QUOTE.

At the time of writing this book, the words ‘Malayali deeds’ and ‘ancient kings of Kerala’ are more or less the version of history that was being superimposed upon Malabar from the Travancore side. And that side had a wonderful agent right inside Malabar: QUOTE: most erudite of Malayalam scholars, Dr. H. Gundert. END OF QUOTE.

Dr. H. Gundert was so erudite a Malayalam scholar that he simply could not sense that there was a language in Malabar which did not need any artificial creation or the inputs from Sanskrit and Tamil. Indeed it is possible that the ancient script of the Malabari language was slyly relocated to Central Travancore with the help of people like him. Otherwise, the Malayalam script must have been created by the Central Travancore Converted Christians, which seems more impossible.

QUOTE: Chera, or to use its better known Canarese equivalent Kerala, was at this time (end of seventh to first quarter of ninth century) a petty empire extending in a southerly direction at least as far as Quilon, and in a northerly direction at least as far as Calicut. END OF QUOTE.

It is an interesting contention that the word Chera was mentioned as Kerala by the Canarese. Could it be true?

And the next item is more perplexing. That the Canarese had no geographical connection with Kerala. For, this Chera kingdom is mentioned as from Calicut to Quilon. That means, it did not include north Malabar.

The wider issue with all these minute histories is that there is practically nothing worth studying in these histories, other than periodic battles and takeovers, and the names of a number of minute rulers. There is no instance of any real administrative set ups, or welfare or education or infrastructural developments mentioned. Similar histories in millions would come out when technology makes a breakthrough and human beings become able to communicate with ants.

For instance, see what all things are coming out of Chinese history nowadays. Some thirty years back, China was like an unknown land. Now that it is connected to native-English nations, (Hong Kong was handed over to China in a bout of absolute idiotism by England, for one), hundreds of minutes information are coming out. Just like in the case of the ants, I just mentioned. If BPO work can then be assigned to ants, they will for sure take away a huge percentage of human wealth.

QUOTE: These three names are, so far as investigations have yet proceeded, the only really authentic names known of the kings or Perumals of ancient Chera or Kerala. And the last named of them is probably identical with the Cheraman Perumal (a title meaning literally the bigman of the Cheras), whose name is in the mouth of every child on the coast. END OF QUOTE.

It takes a lot of verbal power to mention ‘Chera or Kerala’. However, the individuals who conspired to doctor the writings in this book were not persons with mean mental capability. They were literally experts in this art.

Then about the claim: ‘whose name is in the mouth of every child on the coast’. Does not this claim seem to be quite insipid?

QUOTE: Under such circumstances it becomes easy to understand how institutions existed unchanged for centuries, and how some of the influential families (continued when necessary by adoptions from allied families) who ruled the nads in the eighth and ninth centimes A.D. still continued to rule them when the British acquired the country in 1792. END OF QUOTE

This assertion actually points to an ignorance. In a feudal language social ambience, people try to connect to family names and verbal titles that connect them to powerful locations. It helps in dominating others in a feudal language communication.

Apart from that, the various incidences in the history as mentioned in this book itself stands as testimony that in each generation and even inside each family, feuds, mutinies, backstabbing, treachery, usurping of power, forming antagonistic groups etc. are the norm than the exception. However, with the arrival of the English rule, all traditional royal families more or less went into oblivion and the rest of the populations came to the fore, in a very slow and steady pace. This pace turned into a rumble only when the location was handed over to Hindi-India.

QUOTE: Lord William Bentinck wrote in 1804 that there was one point in regard to the character of the inhabitants of Malabar, on which all authorities, however diametrically opposed to each other on other points, agreed, and that was with regard to the “independence of mind” of the inhabitants., This “independence of mind” was “generally diffused through the minds of the people. They are described as being extremely sensible of good treatment, and impatient of oppression; to entertain a high respect for courts of judicature, and to be extremely attached to their customs END OF QUOTE.

This so-called independence of mind is not actually an independence of mind as understood in English. It is simply that people who do not fall in line as obsequious followers, display this tendency. Generally when people learn English they fall out of line. That is only one part of them. The other part is that where the language is very feudal to a particular section of the society, those affected persons are seen as quite reliable, honest, dependable and ‘respecting’ towards those who suppress them. To those who do not suppress them, they do not concede ‘respect’. To such persons, they are not reliable, honest, dependable or ‘respecting’.

There is also a more complicated code work in this. I cannot go into that here.

As to Lord William Bentinck mentioning anything, it is quite possible that many similar wordings can be influenced by their subordinates who are natives of this subcontinent. Some of the writings even may be written by these official subordinates of theirs.

QUOTE: The Kerala Brahmans are said to use Malayalam. END OF QUOTE.

What was that? Malabar Brahmans or Travancore Brahmans? How could the Travancore Brahmans have used Malayalam in the days of yore when the native-language therein was Tamil? If it is Malabar Brahmans, then they might be using what can now be called Malabari.

QUOTE: There can be little doubt that it was at this time (first half of the ninth century A.D.) that the Malayalam-speaking races became consolidated within the limits which they occupy down to the present day. At the time mentioned, as these deeds show, Malayalam and Tamil were practically one language, at least in their written form. From that time forward Malayalam and the Malayalam races began to draw apart from Tamil and the races east of the ghats. Shut in by their mountain walls except at the Palghat gap, the Malayalis became in time a distinct race, and, owing to their excellent political constitution, which on the one hand kept them free from the aggressions of their neighbours, and on the other hand maintained steadfastly among themselves the ancient order of things, there is little wonder that they presented through many succeeding centuries the example of a Hindu community of the purest and most characteristic type. END OF QUOTE.

The term ‘Malayalam-speaking races’ is a very cunning insertion. Which more or less strives to erase the existence of Malabari people.

Again, the assertion that ‘Malayalam and Tamil were practically one language’ actually is about Travancore. There is no evidence that the Shamanistic spiritual chanting of north Malabar that moved across the centuries was in Tamil language.

The sentence that ‘they presented through many succeeding centuries the example of a Hindu community of the purest and most characteristic type’ could be utter nonsense. For inside north Malabar, there was the Marumakkathaya Thiyyas who were at loggerheads with the Makkathaya Thiyyas of south Malabar.

Furthermore there was the north Malabar Nayars who could not bear the Nayars of south Malabar.

Then there were the Brahmins and the Ambalavasis above them, who had their own reason to keep the others at definite social distances.

There were the lower castes who came under both the Thiyyas who the Thiyyas could not bear. This much is about Malabar.

About Travancore there would be corresponding items with regard to the populations therein. This much is a standard attitude all over the subcontinent and in all locations which have feudal languages.

QUOTE: Both Pandyans and Cholas apparently struggled for the mastery, and the latter appear to have driven back the Kongus or Gangas and so freed Kerala, END OF QUOTE

So it appears that the Cholas were to appear as a sort of freedom fighters of ‘Kerala’. What all wonderful claims about a nation or state or kingdom that was yet to be created!

QUOTE: an expedition (probably of Kongus or Gangas) from Mysore was driven back when attempting an invasion of Kerala via the Palghat gap. END OF QUOTE.

The idea of the silliness of this ‘Kerala’ word can be understood if the national attitude of renaming historical place names can be seen being done even now.

For instance, in this book, the places names are like this: Calicut, Cannanore, Trivandrum, Cochin, Quilon, Tellicherry, Badagara, Sultan’s Battery, Manantody etc.

If one were to view the insipid India pages on Wikipedia, it would be seen that all these names are fast vanishing. For instance, Logan is seen connected to Thalasherry, and not Tellicherry. In the case of other names, local vernacular names such as Kozhikode, Kannur, Tiruvanandapuram, Kochi, Kollam, Thalasherry, Vadakara, Sulthaan Batheri, Mananthavady etc. are being seen.

There is always the question as to who gave these modern ‘geniuses’ the right to make changes into words and names that have existed for almost a thousand years, and more, in use all over the world?

It is like the trees in the forests of Wynad district in Kerala. Every day, lorry loads of trees are being felled and stolen. Till the place came into the hands of the ‘Indians’, the trees and the forest have survived. The moment the place was in the hands of the ‘Indian geniuses’, the trees and forests have been ‘changed’. Who gave them the right to make these changes on forest lands that have existed for thousands of years is the moot point.

QUOTE: although the Ballalas took Canara which they called Kerala it does not yet appear that they had anything to do with Kerala proper, that is, Malabar. END OF QUOTE.

Look at the issues here: Canara location is mentioned as Kerala. Then the connecting of the word ‘Kerala proper’ with Malabar. As if it is a foregone conclusion that there was a Kerala, and it was Malabar. And if so, what about Travancore?

QUOTE: Somesekhara Nayakha, the thirteenth of this line of Bednur Rajas, pushed his forces across the Malayali frontier END OF QUOTE

What kind of frontier was that, in an age when the new language of Malayalam was yet to be born? Or could it simply mean the other Malayalam, which can now only be mentioned as Malabari?

QUOTE: The European looks to the soil, and nothing but the soil. The Malayali on the contrary looks chiefly to the people located on the soil. END OF QUOTE.

There are evident attempts to mix up the English with Continental Europeans of whom Gundert was one. And the Malayali of Malabar was the Nayar of Malabar. Or it can be the Brahman and the Ambalavasis. Coule the above statement mean that the Nayar of Malabar were egalitarian? For these people are looking at the people.

It is all quite laughable content. If the comparison is between the native-English and the Brahmans and their supervisor castes, the fact is that the latter were terrible oppressors of human beings. Their very language could hammer down a lower caste person. However, there is also the other side to it. If the lower castes are allowed the upper hand, they would hammer down the upper castes.

In this scenario, the above-quoted statement is just a very insidious attempt to cast some kind of halo on a very sinister social system and claim it to be in some ways superior. The statement has no meaning beyond a very limited context.

QUOTE: This essential difference between a Roman dominus and a Malayali janmi was unfortunately not perceived or not, understood at the commencement of the British administration. END OF QUOTE.

What a perfectly cunning idea to insert a Roman link into the discussion. The issue at stake is the entry of a planar-language social system and it taking command of the social system. This was inserting changes in whole social communication. The old system of human suppression was slowly getting erased. There is no need to compare a Roman dominus and a feudal-language-speaking janmi. However, the native-English side did not understand this point. Their official subordinates were quite cunning. They misrepresent almost all the items which they were asked to explain.

The basic idea that the administration was run by native-English speakers does not seem to have entered the thick skull of the cunning person who wrote the above quote. It was not a Roman colony that was being built.

QUOTE: First, as to the Malayali mode of determining, or rather of stating, the extent of grain-crop lands END OF QUOTE.

The word Malayali and the impression that there was some great system of determining the grain-crop lands. It is most possible that in the centuries of continual strife no great system was evolved other than the quite easy item of keeping a great part of the population as slaves.

QUOTE: It is suggested in the text that Keralam was at this time more or less under the Western Chalukya kings END OF QUOTE.

The word ‘Keralam’ has thus been used everywhere, without any trace of this kingdom Keralam in existence. However, the desperation to promote a ‘Keralam’ is felt all throughout.

QUOTE: In the year that runs for the Kolavalan (or Keralavalan ?) END OF QUOTE

There is haste to connect anything to Kerala.

See these three QUOTEs:

In Malayalam the tree = pilavu ; its fruit == chakka, whence Jack.

after it has been dug by the mamutty or spade

( == custody, protection) and Sanskrit phalam (? Dravidian palam). END OF QUOTES.

Pilavu is the Malabari words for Jacktree. The Malayalam word is Plavu. It is possible that Malayalam picked up this word from Malabari, or some other language and made a change in it. Or vice versa.

Mamutty might be the Mannuvetty മണ്ണുവെട്ടി in Malayalam. In Malabari, it is generally Padanna പടന്ന and Kaikkottu കൈക്കോട്ട്.

QUOTE: There is still extant a poem entitled the Payyannur Pattola, described by Doctor Gundert as "certainly the oldest specimen of Malayalam composition which I have seen” END OF QUOTE.

Since Gundert cannot be a disinterested person in promoting Malayalam, it is good to consider this information from this perspective.

For it is QUOTE: replete with obscure terms free from any anachronisms END OF QUOTE

Obscure from the perspective of Travancore Malayalam.

And there is this also: QUOTE: The son grows up and is instructed by his father in all the arts of trade and shipbuilding (given in interesting detail, full of obsolete words) END OF QUOTE.

Obsolete words from the Travancore Malayalam perspective, possibly. Even now, many Malabari words are totally incomprehensible in Travancore Malayalam. Even though, vested interests might try to use the term ‘dialect’ to explain away this, the fact is that if the word ‘dialect’ is justifiable, then Tamil can be claimed as a lower quality dialect of Travancore Malayalam. However, that might not be the exact truth.

I am posting here a few quotes from this book, Malabar. It is about the various locations where un-deciphered language / scripts had been located. It may be mentioned that nothing of an extremely grand quality is seen mentioned. Almost all are of very low technological standards from a physical point of view.

Beyond that, the items mentioned here as un-deciphered or un-understood in this book might have changed from that definition over the years. However, the rough idea here is to insert a thought that the history of this location is not so simple as mentioned in Keralolpathi. What is complicated is Keralolpathi itself. As to who wrote it, for what sinister purpose, is an item worthy of intelligent pondering.

QUOTEs:

1. Kunhimangalam - Ramathali narayam Kannur temple - Contains Vatteluttu inscriptions which have not yet been deciphered

2. Kuttiyattur temple - In the gate of the temple is a stone bearing an inscription not as yet read—in characters stated to be unknown

3. Their language is Malayalam, which is usually written in the Arabic character, except in Minicoy where Mahl with a mixture of corrupt Malayalam is spoken.

[My note: There might be more to it. The Malayalam which is mentioned to use Arabic script might be the Malabari language mixed up with Arabic. It is quite curious that the writers of this book are ready to acknowledge the existence of Mahl. However, they act blind to the existence of a language in Malabar which was quite distinct from both the newly created Malayalam of Central Travancore as well as Tamil.]

4. In Edacheri, 5 miles from Badagara, Bhagavati temple called Kaliyampalli temple - There is an inscription on a slab in unknown characters.

5. In Muttungal amsam, Vellikulangara desam, 4 miles north of Badagara, there is a Siva temple. Outside the temple, there is a slab with inscription in an unknown language

6. In Karayad amsam, Tiruvangur desam, 6 miles from Quilandi, there is a Siva temple called Tiruvangur - on a granite rock at the temple there is an inscription in unknown characters

7. Panangod. A ruined and deserted temple, on the eastern wall of the porch of which is an inscription in unknown characters.

8. Ponmeri. In the Siva temple is an ancient inscription on a broken slab in unknown characters.

9. There is a temple said to exist in the Brahmagiri mountains. There are some old copper plate grants in this temple in the Vatteluthu (വട്ടെഴുത്തു) character which have not yet been deciphered.

10. At Putati is a temple known as Arimula Ayyappan temple, on the east wall of the mandapam of which is an inscription, dated K.A. 922 (A.D. 1746), in a mixture of four languages.

11. On the hill known as Nalapat chala kunnu is a stone having an inscription in old Tamil on two sides. It has not yet been read.

12. In Nagaram amsam, in Machchinde mosque, is a slab let into the wall, having an inscription in Arabic, Canarese and an unknown language.

13. Two miles above the Mammalli ferry on the Ernad or south bank of the river lies Chattamparamba. There are many tombs here. The pottery, which is found in abundance in these tombs, is of a very varied character and quite different to anything manufactured in recent times.

14. Walluvanad: The language spoken is Malayalam, except in the case of foreigners. In the Attappadi valley, however, the inhabitants, who are quite ignorant and without any education, speak a form, of Canarese.

[My note: Which Malayalam? Malabari or the newly created Malayalam from Central Travancore?]

15. Pudiyangadi jamath mosque at Tanur: A granite slab on one of the steps of the northern gate bears an inscription. The writing has not yet been read.

16. Deed no. 27 (AD. 1723) -The original is in Vatteluttu character. The copy from which this translation was made was obtained from Kilepatt Teyyan Menon of Walluvanad Taluk, Malabar.

17. Edappal: In front of the temple there are some granite sculptures and also a slab of the same material bearing an inscription in Vattezuthu characters, some of which having now become indistinct, the writing has not been deciphered.

18. Kodakkal: The Triprangod temple - The raised stone foundation of a pillar of the building consecrated to Krishna here bears a long inscription. The writing cannot be deciphered locally.

It may be mentioned that the Keralolpathi might be a fake history book written with some much focused ulterior aims. That of creating a false history, which promotes a ‘Kerala’ image in the minds of the peoples in Travancore and Malabar.

There are other things that come to the mind. One is the fact that there were actually two different astrology versions. One for Malabar and the other for Travancore. Then there is the issue of the KollaVarsham calendars. The name of the Calendar is seen attributed to the Quilon Kollam (south of Travancore) by some. However, it could very well have been connected to the Kollam, north of Calicut. Beyond all this, there is another anomaly. The Kollavarsham calendar year commences from the first of Chingam in the Travancore version. In the Malabar version, it commences from the first of Kanni.

The effect of the imposition of ‘Kerala’ on Malabar had been so effective, that the Malabar Calendar has been pushed into oblivion.

As to the astrological calendar, it would only be intelligent to understand that the signs of the zodiac are actually all mere translation version of some global astrological repository. The names of the Zodiac as seen in both the Malabari as well as the Travancore versions might be the same. It would be interesting to know what is the year-commencing months in the Canara and Tamil astrological systems.

Whether the Keralolpathi does give any explanations for this commencing month dichotomy, between the Malabar Calendar and the Travancore Calendar, is not known to me.

I have not read the Keralolpathi, even though I do have a pdf version with me. I have not had the time to go through it. However, from the general comments I have seen about it, it would not surprise me if it is found that it is the handiwork of the converted to Christian groups. Most probably managed by some Church authorities. Gundert himself might be a collaborator. After all, his aim was to enrich and promote the newly-created language of Malayalam of Travancore. And it would have been a very satisfying event for him to see that the newly converted to Christians from Travancore at last got their richly deserved private lands; after so many centuries of terror, starvation and enslavement under the higher castes of Travancore. They who had been treated as cattle ultimately came to posses land.

However, only the gods can save those they suppressed under them! After all, in a feudal language system, everyone tries to suppress others.

As is evident from what came forth from this book, it may safely be mentioned that this book, Malabar, did not augur good for Malabar. It was indeed this very book that might have been used for the ultimate destruction and demise of Malabar. William Logan was at best quite gullible and also a bit egoistic. For, he has not anywhere categorically mentioned the amount of inputs others had inserted into the book, for which he has taken the credit. However, there is one location where he had great misgiving about the contents. But then, he stops short of admitting the reality, and tries to hide behind another statement:

QUOTE: These views are not to be taken as an authoritative exposition of this most difficult subject, which requires further study and a more detailed elucidation than the author has been able to give to it. END OF QUOTE.

The contents in that chapter are quite obviously belittling the English endeavours. There are statements which categorically mention that the ‘ancient systems of the Malayalis’ were better than what the English administration bestowed.

QUOTE: Mahe was at first a place of considerable importance and trade, but after wards, having fallen so frequently into the hands of the English, the settlement and its trade suffered ; END OF QUOTE

This is a nonsensical writing. Falling into the English hands was much better than falling into the hands of any of the other contenders for power, both native as well as outsiders. It is stated that the town was burnt and the fortification razed to the ground. Actually, this kind of understatements that give a totally anti-English mood is there in this book. It is not a book which William Logan seems to have had much control on. It might be true to say that he was literally taken for a ride by his native officials, who inserted their own insidious agenda into the book.

PREVIOUS ​NEXT