Search results

"This examination of the formally autonomous state of Hyderabad in a global comparative framework challenges the idea of the dominant British Raj as the sole sovereign power in the late colonial period. Beverley argues that Hyderabad's position as a subordinate yet sovereign 'minor state' was not just a legal formality, but that in exercising the right to internal self-government and acting as a conduit for the regeneration of transnational Muslim intellectual and political networks, Hyderabad was indicative of the fragmentation of sovereignty between multiple political entities amidst empires. By exploring connections with the Muslim world beyond South Asia, law and policy administration along frontiers with the colonial state and urban planning in expanding Hyderabad City, Beverley presents Hyderabad as a locus for experimentation in global and regional forms of political modernity. This book recasts the political geography of late imperialism and historicises Muslim political modernity in South Asia and beyond"--

AbstractUrban histories of modern South Asia have centred on British Indian cities and the reign of colonial urbanism, with dependence on metropolitan imperatives and models regarded as givens. Focusing on Hyderabad, one of the subcontinent's five largest cities and capital of an autonomous princely state throughout the colonial era, this article establishes the analytical utility of princely urbanism as a framework for writing the history of South Asian cities. Characterized by state-directed planning, transnational urbanist networks and multiple overlapping property regimes, this mode of city development and its resonance points to hidden genealogies of modern urbanism.

AbstractLarge zones of de facto political autonomy persist even as various state systems have endeavored to fix, rationalize, and secure external and internal borders. These spaces are products of long histories of uneven extension and exercise of state sovereignty in the subcontinent and much of Asia and Africa. Histories and legacies of borderland autonomy have important implications for contemporary sovereign practice in much of the world. This article examines the making, unmaking, and endurance of borderlands around Hyderabad in the eastern Deccan. It describes the region as an "old borderland," from premodern frontier zone, to sovereign and autonomous state during the era of British imperial dominance, through its mid-twentieth-century reemergence as a site of state avoidance or resistance. Identifying the productive relationship among frictional environments, political sovereignty, and social and cultural dynamics, this article develops frameworks for historicizing borderland autonomy in South Asia and beyond.

AbstractScholarship on modern South Asia, even in accounting for the fragility and capriciousness of colonial authority and exploring tensions between popular sovereignty and politics on the ground, tends to regard colonial or national states and institutions as the sole repositories of formal sovereignty. A nuanced understanding of the historical and contemporary political, social, and cultural terrain of South Asia requires a broader conceptual framework that accounts for the multiple idioms and practices of sovereignty in the region and their legacies up until the present. This introduction seeks to hack through the rigid and monolithic concepts of stateness that shape colonial and postcolonial thought about political sovereignty. The special section as a whole provides empirical examples and conceptual reflections that broaden scholarly understandings of genealogies and modalities of modern sovereignty in South Asia, and in a comparative framework stretching across world regions, scholarly disciplines, and periods.

AbstractIn late-nineteenth-century Hyderabad, the Persian administrative idiom gave way to bilingual English/Urdu conduct of governance, along with rising prominence of other languages, networks, and political ideologies. Before and after this shift, state bureaucrat-intellectuals published exhaustive accounts of Hyderabad's administrative and political structure and history in Persian, Urdu, and English. This article considers several documentary texts and their authors' social trajectories in the context of multiple scales of governance. It identifies a reorientation to a shifting global context in Hyderabadi documentary culture, and a productive engagement with British rule and colonial knowledge forms amidst other social and political possibilities.

AbstractNineteenth-century European colonialism produced a textured and uneven legal terrain rather than homogeneous imperial units. The fragmentation of sovereignty between empires and subordinated states created frontier zones that unsettled the workings of governance. This article views the developing landscape of power in high colonial South Asia from the loosely controlled frontier zone between Hyderabad, a Princely State ruled by sovereign Muslim dynasts titled Nizams, and the Bombay Presidency, part of Britain's Indian Empire, or Raj. I argue that the heterogeneous legal terrain along the border was a useful resource for administrators and subjects. State officials of both Hyderabad and Bombay justified various projects there; subjects of the two states shopped forums in a legal pluralist environment; and populations on either side of the border whose livelihoods and political agendas ran afoul of social pressures or the economic and cultural imperatives of state projects fled there from adversity. I examine cases of alleged cattle rustlers, bandits, and prostitutes and their engagements with police and courts to explore the political challenges and possibilities the frontier offered different groups. Colonial attempts to extend racialized policing practices across the frontier were frequently met by machinations of marginal people trying to avoid imprisonment or extricate themselves from oppressive social structures. Such figures could use the ambiguity of frontier legal authority to their advantage. The picture that emerges is one of a brute and often-arbitrary colonial power offset by alternative malleable sovereignties that resourceful subjects could play against one another.