Attingal Rebellion of 1721: Kerala’s first organised revolt against British rule

The Attingal rebellion of 1721 is considered by many historians to be the first organised revolt not only in Kerala, but in the entire country, against British rule. This legendary resistance took place in April 1721 against the British East India Company. Anchuthengu (referred to as Anjengo in British records), located in the southern part of Kerala, is one of the earliest British settlements in India where the East India Company built a fort in 1695. The fort Anjengo, near Varkala in Thiruvananthapuram district, was an important strategic point that served as a military depot for the British.

In 1721, under the leadership of local chieftains, the people of Attingal and Anchuthengu revolted against the East India Company. They attacked a contingent of 140 Englishmen and laid siege to the Anjengo fort for five to six months. The revolt, which is known as Attingal Rebellion, ended with the arrival of more forces from British Malabar. The Attingal rebellion is a significant event in the history of the independence movement in Kerala. As per the account presented in A. Sreedhara Menon’s A Survey of Kerala History (DC Books, 2019), the British secured the land in Anchuthengu from the Attingal queen. The land was acquired for establishing a factory, and by 1690, they were granted permission to construct a fortress on this site, which was completed by 1694-95.

The role of Umayamma Rani

According to Menon, “Before long, Anjengo grew into a significant possession for the English along the western coast, ranking second only to Bombay.” The local population, however, did not welcome the British presence, Menon writes, primarily due to their manipulation of pepper prices that negatively impacted the farmers. The British East India Company had incited resentment among the local inhabitants through their dishonest practices and domineering behaviour.

Nevertheless, they managed to maintain a positive rapport with the Attingal queen by bestowing upon her valuable gifts. In 1721, the situation took a turn when the representatives of the feudal lords — Pillais — demanded that these gifts be conveyed to the queen through their intermediary, a demand which the British disregarded. This negligent and disrespectful gesture did not sit well with the local populace.

On a particular day in April 1721, the British, a contingent of approximately 140 soldiers, were targeted by the local force, who had been training under Kudamon Pillai, a chieftain, while returning from a visit to the queen’s palace. This incident, which transpired after their encounter with the Attingal queen, marks a significant event in the historical narrative.

The role of Umayamma Rani, also known as Aswathy Thirunnal Attingal Thampuratty, has been a subject of contention among scholars. A section of historians assert that the queen, who already had strained relations with the British due to their direct interactions with the King of Travancore, played a part in supporting the mutiny that resulted in the massacre of 140 British soldiers.

‘Rani made the grants’

According to Ivory Throne: Chronicles of the House of Travancore (HarperCollins, 2015) by young historian Manu S. Pillai, in which he discusses in detail how the queens of Attingal negotiated power with the Kings of Travancore, the queen had not even consulted with the then Travancore king before handing over the land to the British.

“In 1688, the Attingal Rani granted Vettoor (‘Rettorah’) and Vizhinjam (‘Brinjohn’) to the English to establish factories, which functioned for some time until she cancelled the lease. What is interesting is that these places were technically located in Travancore and the Rani made the grants while there was a king ruling there, whose consent was neither sought nor taken. Then, in 1694, she would give the English the more important enclave of Anjengo, stating: ‘Because the English I called hither have always been obedient to Me, I do hereby grant unto them the following privileges; I give unto them the hill of the lounges that is at Anjengo, to fortify with stone and to abide there for ever; And I will send thither my officers to set forth and appoint with land marks the limits of the Land that belong unto Me,” writes Manu Pillai.

According to noted historian M G Sasibhushan, the unjust trading methods by the East Indian Company and the British in general inflicted a significant setback on the previously thriving inhabitants of the area. The arrival of William Gyfford, who was dispatched by the company to oversee the newly established fortress, further exacerbated the prevailing feelings of mistrust.

The resentment against inequitable trade

According to some historians, the queen was also getting discontented with the foreigners. “In 1721, she presided over a comprehensive slaughter of Company factors after getting them conveniently cornered at her palace during a banquet. One gentleman, for instance, had his tongue ripped out and was sent floating down a river nailed to a log. But they would kiss and make up and in 1722 and 1726 sign fresh treaties, again with no reference to Travancore, although the alliance was admittedly turning frosty by this time,” writes Manu S. Pillai in Ivory Thrones.

A section of historians view the Attingal Revolt as the apogee of prolonged dissatisfaction and resentment against the inequitable trade strategies employed by the British. Significantly, it stands as a cornerstone of the Indian Independence movement, exemplifying unity among the Nair, Ezhava, and Muslim communities in opposing the more technologically advanced British forces. This particular aspect distinguishes the Attingal Revolt from other rebellions such as the Battle of Plassey in 1757 or the uprising of 1857.

Only a limited number of British or Indian historians have made reference to this event. The number of casualties was under dispute from the beginning, with the East India Company records downplaying it as a mere 23, likely to prevent a decline in morale. The state’s historical educational materials also seem to have overlooked the event, possibly owing to a reluctance to depict the Queen of Attingal as involved in a mutiny.