Suchergebnisse

This article seeks to highlight the extent to which recounting historical narratives can determine the nature of relations between racial and ethnic groups, through examining the case of Muslims and Hindus in British India. Throughout the 19th century, the process of the religious communalization of the subcontinent was set in motion, which ultimately led to the bifurcation of the local society into two self-conscious, mutually antagonistic groups: a Hindu majority versus a Muslim minority. This study argues that such schism would not have taken place without the instrumentalization of a colonially 'constructed' past by Hindu communalists who, in the process of mobilizing their co-religionists through mythmaking and a hostile discourse fraught with subjectively interpreted historical facts, alienated the members of the other group. This article also underscores that besides imperial scholars, Hindutva activists should bear the historical responsibility for the divide.

Notwithstanding the fundamental socio-cultural cum religious divergences existing between the Muslims and Hindus, the two religious groups managed to forge bonds of fraternity based on mutual understanding and respect thanks to their centuries-long overall peaceful co-existence in the Indian environment. This virtually harmonious relationship soon gave birth to a composite culture whereby many of the Muslim-Hindu differences were blunted and replaced by shared socio-cultural – and sometimes even religious – aspects of life. Yet, the second half of the nineteenth century witnessed a reversal of this trend. In fact, the post-Revolt context in British India was marked by the emergence of consciousness among the Muslims whereby they developed a sense of belonging to a cultural entity that was different from that of the Hindus. In other words, these "Muhammadans" became actively conscious of their cultural differences vis-à-vis the Hindus, and therefore, saw themselves as a separate group with distinct cultural traits. This shift towards cultural exclusivism, which eventually gave rise to a separatist tendency among them, has been a moot point that drew a great deal of interest among scholars who provided different interpretations. In this article, the main task is to look into whether the British had any involvement in this new development in the Indian scene. [Indian Muslims, Hindus, Urdu, Hindi, divide et impera, language controversy]

The post-1857 revolt era represents one of the highly eventful phases in the history of the Muslims in British India. Perhaps the most striking event was the U-turn that occurred in the minds of the Muslim elite by the turn of the century whereby they became convinced that the old advice preached by the late community leader, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, regarding aloofness from politics was no longer helpful to the cause of their co-religionists. This change of heart was, in fact, spurred by new challenges that the Muslims of India were facing in the light of the new context in the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, the aim of this work is to look into these challenges which brought the followers of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan face to face with the option of entering politics, as an inevitable move in order to survive.

One of the thorniest issues that contemporary scholars of British India are faced with is that of the genesis of the Indian National Congress (1885). While some of them believe that the foundation of this first major political party on an all-India basis was an inevitable corollary of the circumstances that prevailed in the South Asian Sub-continent as a result of British Raj, others have held opposing views. In fact, the latter, while championing the "safety-valve" theory, are convinced that the birth of this political organization was nothing more than a British stratagem aimed at forestalling an imminent popular uprising among the colonial subjects. Thus, the aim of this article is to set out the views and arguments of both camps of scholars.

Upon taking the reins of power in the South Asian Sub-continent, the East India Company officials, being aware of how sensitive Indians were of their socio-cultural traditions, adopted a policy of "non-interference" and kept aloof from all matters related to the socio-cultural and religious affairs of the local inhabitants. Instead, they busied themselves with the economic exploitation of the country, the objective for which they had come to the region.Nevertheless, following a vociferous clamour and pressure from the Christian missionaries who regarded the Indian people as "primitive" and "benighted", and who felt duty bound to "civilize" them, the British Government in London forced the East India Company in 1813 to forsake its, hitherto privileged, "no-interference policy" and give the evangelical movement unrestricted access to the country as an essential precondition for the renewal of the charter.Thus, upon setting foot in the Sub-continent, the missionaries, and even some British reform-minded officials, embarked on the process of reforming, as well as westernizing, the Indian society. Although some of the reforms being introduced were, when looked at objectively, positive, they were always despised by the native Indians. Indeed, this brought about a widespread malaise among the natives who interpreted the Company's actions as part of a scheme to forcefully convert them to Christianity. Thus, the task of this paper is to set out this socio-cultural malaise.