THÈSE DE DOCTORAT

de l’Université de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres PSL Research University

Préparée à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales

Vartan Bhanji (Gift Exchange) as Social Capital in Punjabi Village: Tradition in Transition

Ecole doctorale n°286

ECOLE DOCTORALE DE L’EHESS

Spécialité Anthropologie Sociale et Ethnologie

COMPOSITION DU JURY :

M. Lyon Stephen M. Agha Khan University, Rapporteur

Mme. Rivoal Isabelle Université Paris Nanterre, Rapporteur

M. Boivin Michel CNRS, Membre du jury

M. De Chiara Matteo Soutenue par Abdul Qadar INALCO, Membre du jury

le 04 12 2018 Mme. Ortis Delphine h INALCO, Membre du jury

Dirigée par Michel Boivin M. Speziale Fabrizio EHESS, Membre du jury

h

Acknowledgements

This thesis has emerged from a long process of efforts in multiple locations and directions. The process has incurred many debts of gratitude during all of the phases of my effort from the initial ideas to the completion of the thesis itself. The study has taken place at Amin Kot, the village where I was born, raised and made many friends besides my closest relations and Khokhran the adjacent village. Therefore, when I imagine to thank the people of my villages of study, I am well aware of my inability to acknowledge all sources of explicit, formal and non-formal support. Some people were more kind than the others not necessarily due to myself but their kindness, indeed deserves mentioning. My Uncle Zia Ahmad Khan for helping me access official records, Qamar Zaman Khan at dera, Ali Ahmad Khan as life-long mentor, and Haji Shabbir Khan along with his son Abrar Khan at Khokhran provided me with the support which I am unable to pay them back. Apart from family members I am thankful to Pir Mohsin Fareed Chishti, Jaan Muhammad Bhatti, Ghulam Nabi Khiaoh and Bhai Jahangir Ansari.

After people of the villages of my study, my first and sincere feelings of gratitude go to persistent, unswerving and helping support of my supervisor Professor Michel Boivin. I must admit that this thesis would not have been possible in such smooth and timely fashion had I not been under the supervision of such supportive supervisor who remained steadfast in his belief and trust in me. The list of mentorships goes back to many sources of inspiration but the second most important influence remains the personality and guidance of Muhammad Azam Chaudhary, Director National Institute of Studies (QAU, ). The list of many important friends who have always been instrumental in shaping my intellectual capacities is long but I limit it to the most important names who are Arslan Waheed, Muhammad Shoaib, Abdul Rehman and Zahid Nawaz Warraich as sources of permanent support. Some names which are always important for me when I am at home are Asif Sarwar , Malik Mohsin Abbas Khokhar, Zabih Ur Rehman Chaudhery and Faheem Rasheed Chaudhery.

When it comes to my stay in Paris, the most important source of solace and support has been the presence of Mansoor Ahmed. Then I am greatly indebted to Bilal Hassan, Anum Qureshi and Saba Sindhri who provided me with the best possible environment outside of library and CEIAS. Some other people who made my stay in Paris as enlivening and source of entertainment are Kamran Khalid, Zeeshan Mushtaq, Matti Ullah and Hira Niazi. At CEIAS, I am indebted to my colleagues Caroline Michon for her help in French language, Jose Egas, Asad Ur Rehman and Nadia Guergaudj. This thesis has also incurred many debts to the cited authors and their books, which could not have been possible to consult without support of staff from libraries of Bibliothèque universitaire des langues et civilisations (BULAC), Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (FMSH) and Maison de l’asie.

My last thanks go to my family, My mother Sakeena Bibi, my sister, my brother Ghulam Mustafa Khan and their sons and daughters, whom I missed the most. One thing, which I missed most while my stay in Paris was the innocent childhood of my nephews and nieces Usman Abdullah, Hafsa Nazir, Rida Fatima, Shaheer Hassan, Muhammad Ahmad and Ishaal Fatimah.

i

Dedicated to My late Father Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan, Taya Abu Muhammad Amin Khan, Mamu Haji Falak Sher Khan, My Mother, Brother, Sister, Uncles, and Phuphies.

ii Vartan bhanji (L’Échange de dons) comme capital social dans un village pendjabi : tradition en transition

La présente étude tente de contextualiser les schémas contemporains des forces sociales dans un village pendjabi, qui ont pour résultat des modifications des pratiques traditionnelles. En effet, il y a des modifications des structures sociales traditionnelles, mais plusieurs pratiques sociales importantes restent liées à leurs racines, ou du moins ne sont pas complètement déracinées. Ainsi, il est probable que la pratique de vartan bhanji (échange de dons) dans un village pendjabi soit un cas utile pour la compréhension des transformations des liens sociaux et leur signification social par rapport à leur rôle et leur importance historique. La présente étude tente également d’analyser les moyens et mécanismes présents, qui remplacent les pratiques traditionnelles et les rôles des différents acteurs. Par conséquent, l’étude tente de combler le fossé des questions restées sans réponse en ce qui concerne la pertinence sociale et l’importance relative des acteurs dans un environnement mouvant lorsqu’il s’agit de pratiques sociales. Par exemple, l’importance de biraderi étant donné la mutation du rôle des familles avec l’augmentation de la mobilité et sa pertinence actuelle comme capital social sera l’une des préoccupations centrales de la présente étude. Un intérêt connexe sera le rôle de la terre comme facteur important dans la vie d’un village, malgré les mutations de sa signification socio-économique. L’étude veut présenter une analyse ethnographique des défis posés à l’importance socio-économique actuelle de la terre comme seul facteur déterminant le statut social et la position économique de l’individu, qui a maintenant tendance à varier, avec une grande diversité de choix professionnels pour la population d’un village dans son ensemble. Cette diversité d’options professionnelles doit être évaluée comme un défi pour la compréhension traditionnelle de la constitution et de la préservation des seules catégories de zamindars et de kammis. Cette division entre les deux catégories sera discutée comme relevant de différentes pratiques et préférences, représentant l’une ou l’autre des catégories. Par ailleurs, à l’intérieur de cette traditionnelle structure catégorielle, l’étude a essayé de situer et de comprendre des sources de prestige et d’honneur plus récents, qui sont organisées et explicitement manifestées lors de mariages, et implicitement calculées lors des rituels funéraires. La présente étude veut demander, dans les sphères individuelles ou collectives, qui remplit quelle fonction et avec quel type d’attentes par rapport aux rôles traditionnels. Il est attendu que l’étude mettra en lumière le potentiel évolutif de facteurs de base tels que les rôles de genre, la famille et l’efficacité de biraderi dans un contexte mouvant et plus large.

Mots clés : Village pendjabi, biraderi, vartan, capital social, tradition

iii Vartan bhanji (Gift Exchange) as Social Capital in Punjabi Village: Tradition in Transition

Thesis abstract

This study contextualizes the contemporary patterns of social change in two adjacent Punjabi villages near Tehsil of (Pakistan). I have attempted to explore both the continuity and change in traditional social structure through the schematic study of the tradition known in vernacular parlance as vartan bhanji (gift exchange). The study analyzes present positions of people in broader categories of zamindars (land owners) and kammies (artisan castes), when the configuration of Punjabi personhood bargains between tradition and transition in same. Therefore, the study tries to bridge the gap of unanswered questions regarding the social relevance and comparative importance of primary actors i.e. biraderi and role of land ownership as mediating agents of both change and continuity. I have aimed to present an ethnographic analysis of the challenges to the current socio-economic importance of land as sole determinant of one’s social status and economic position, which now tends to alternate with diverse professional options for the people of both the villages of study. This comparatively recent diversity of professional options is assessed as a challenge to the traditional understanding of the formation and preservation of the sole categories of zamindars and kammies as fixed identities. Therefore, the division between both the categories and within each category is to argue the case of changing economic order and the resultant social structure as mutation of one form of Bourdieusian capital into another form. The study also probes into nature of gendered roles, which make, shape and live both marriages and deaths as peak periods of socialization. Thus, the study highlights the changing potential of primary actors like role of land, gendered positions, the family as basic unit of social organization and the contemporary importance of biradari in rural Punjab.

Keywords: Punjabi village, biraderi, vartan, social capital, tradition

iv

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations...... ix

Note on the Transliteration...... xi

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….1

1.2: Aims of the Study……………………………………………………………...... 4

1.3: Introduction of the Locale………………………………………………………...... 8

1.3.1: Land, Village and Social Life…………………………………………………..…....18

1.3.2: Zamindar and Kammi Relations in Changing Times…………………………...…...24

1.4: Rationale of the Study…………………………………………………………...……..28

1.5: Locating Debate in Anthropology of Punjab (Pakistan)……………………….……….34

1.6: Structure of the Thesis………………………………………………………………….40

Chapter Two: Methodological Framework: Navigating ‘Self’ as Punjabi Native Anthropologist

2.1: Introduction to Relationship among Field, Punjabi Anthropologist and Nativity……..43

2.2: Participant Observation of Note-taking Anthropologist: Notes, Notices and Niceties ..48

2.3: Socio-spatial Making of My Field and Native Anthropologist…………………………51

2.4: A Punjabi Village as Field and Anthropologist as ‘Native’ Anthropologist……………55

2.5: Representations as Facts and Writing for Native Anthropologist………………………61

2.6: Writing of Thesis: Mediating between Visibility and Invisibility as Writer……………64

2.7: Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………66

Chapter Three: Theorizing Gift as Social Capital: Between Economy and Spirit of Social Relations

v 3.1: Theorizing Gift and Self in Anthropology…………………………………………...... 67

3.2: Theorizing with Bourdieu: Gift and its Meaning…………………………………...... 73

3.3: Understanding Gift, Money and Capital…………………………………………….,,,.,79

3.4: Socio-Moral Tenor of Reciprocity and Gift…………………………………………….84

3.5: Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………90

Chapter Four: Contemporary Punjabi Personhood and Change in Socio-Economic Order

4.1: An Introduction into Making and Perception of Punjabi Personhood………………….92

4.2: Remnants of Colonial Punjabi Personhood…………………………………………….99

4.3: Punjabi Individual, Family and Village in Present Times………………….………….105

4.4: Notions of Izzat, Ghairat and Shareeka in the Making of Punjabi Personhood…….….112

4.5: Presentation of Self: Memory, Land Ownership and Muqaam (position)……………..117

4.6: Kinship: Match-Making Strategies and Claims of (un)Successful Punjabi Personhood.124

4.7: Naming Personhood and Caste: Understanding Personhood through Names………….129

4.8: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..133

Chapter Five: Festivity and Vartan Bhanji: Exploring the Role of Marriages in Village Life

5.1: Introduction: Marriages as Marriages and beyond their Festivity……..………………135

5.2: Making of Marriage: Setting the Context and Socializing the Event…………………..141

5.2.1: Beginning of Marriage as Social Event and Defining the Relationships………….....146

5.2.2: Invitation: Relations in Marriage Cards……………………………………………...149

5.2.3: From Mehndi to Rukhsti and Walima………………………………………..……….154

5.3: Assessment of Marriage: Symbolic Understanding of Exchange and Relationships…..158

5.4: Inroads of Reciprocity………………………………………………………………...... 161

vi 5.5: Vartan and Economy……………………………………………………………………166

5.6: Vartan among Equals…………………………………………………………………....170

5.7: Women Sphere in Vartan at Marriages and Gendered Relations………………………..175

5.8: Marriages of Zamindars and Kammis: Case study of Two Marriages………………….181

5.9: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..…..…..189

Chapter Six: Living by the Death: Sharing Dead, Bereavement, and Sorrow

6.1: Happening of Death at Amin Kot and Khokhran………………………………………..191

6.1.1: Death Between Closeness and Distance: Articulation of Relatives, Biraderi and Friend….194

6.2: Religious Zeal and Social Rhythm of Deaths…………………………………………...200

6.3: Dead to Define one’s Relations………………………………………………..………206

6.4: Death, Dua and Dead: Sharing each other’s Dead………………………………………212

6.5: Gendered Spaces and Death Rituals: Women At the Crossroads of Religious Legitimacy and Social Practices……………………………………………………….………………...217

6.6: Reciprocating Sorrow and Grief………………………………………………………221

6.6: Unequal People Unequal Deaths: Two Case Studies…………………………………226

6.6.1: Death of a Woman in Zamindar Family…………………………………………....228

6.6.2: Death of Male in Kammi Family………………………..………………….………231

6.7: Shift in death rituals……………………………………………….………….………234

6.8: Conclusion…………………………………………………………….…………….…238

vii Chapter Seven:

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..240

Bibliography………………………………………………………………….…………..248

Clossary…………………………………………………………………….…………….266

Appendix one (Thesis summary in French)..………………………………………….277

viii

List of Illustrations

Figure 1.1: Population increase in district since 1951………………………………..5

Figure 1.2: Caste-wise Composition of Khokhran……………………………………...... 14

Figure 1.3: Caste-wise Composition of Amin Kot…………………………………………..16

Figure 1.4: Zamindar and Kammi relations…………………………………………………..27 Figure 4.1: Family Tree of Dhuddi Zamindar Family of Amin Kot…………………………125

Figure 4.2: Match-Making Strategies of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot……………………….126

Figure 4.3: Name of Successful Zamindar Patron…………………………………………....130

Figure 4.4: Name of Kammi Members/Dependents………………………………………..131

Figure 5.1: Marriage of Ghulam Rasool…………………………………………………...164

Figure 5.2: Table of Reciprocity to Same People…………………………..…………164-165

Figure 5.3 : Zamindar and Kammi Marriages Two Generations Back……..…..…..…185-186

Figure 5.4: Current Marriages of Zamindar and Kammi……………………..….……187-188

Figure 6.1: Death and Circle of Relationships………………….…….…………………….207

Maps

Map 1.1: Map of District Vehari and Pakistan………………………………………………8

Map 1.2: Map of the Mauza Khokhran and Satellite Photos of Both Villages………………10

Pictures

Picture 1.1: Dera of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot……………………………………………22

ix Picture 5.1: Marriage card to Guest…………………………………………………………152

Picture 5.2: Invitation Card Detailing Hosts………………………………………..………153

Picture 5.3: Comparatively Expensive Marriage Card …………………………….………154

Picture 5.4: Neondra Entries of Zamindar Marriage………………………………....…….171

Picture 5.5: Zamindar Dulha with Mamu…………………………………………….……..183

Picture 5.6: Zamindar Dulha with Riaayas…………………………………………………..183

Picture 5.7: Dulha from kammi family at Mehndi…………………………………………..184

Picture 5.8: Dulha from Kammi Family Leaving for Barat……..………………………….184

Picture 6.1: Graveyard in Amin Kot………………………………………………………..193

Picture 6.2: Mosque of Amin Kot...... 193

x

Note on Transliteration

I have italicized all the local terms used in this thesis. Names of castes start with capital letter and are not italicized. Only the vernacular expressions have been italicized and their English translation is given when used for the first time. Some expressions also have been re-translated when used after long interval since the first use. Furthermore, if there are two expressions i.e. Urdu and Punjabi used for single concept then Urdu has been used. For example, aana (come) jaana (go) has been preferred over aan jaan and dena (give) over den etc. For the sake of systematic interpretation of certain terms, I have used one specific term unless specified otherwise. The names of places and personal names are not italicized, for example, Qamar Zaman and Amin Kot, Khokhran or Burewala. When it comes to use the name of women, I have used either only first two letters i.e. KI, IB or I have just mentioned caste and age in order to maintain anonymity as desired by the people of the villages.

Age of people is referred in brackets. It is given sometimes according to the age shared with me by the people themselves and sometimes it is what I know myself due to my knowledge of the field. For example, age of my family members was known to me and the people of the kammi families of Amin Kot was also known to me. However, sometimes I had asked people and mostly people do not know exactly about their ages. The most important source of age is what people recall from their National Identity Cards or simply through their age during happening of historical events. For example, people refer to 1947 as lotti wala saal (the year of loot), 65 wali jang (war of 1965 between Pakistan and ), 71 wali jang (war between Pakistan and India in 1971) or like months or years before or after the floods of 1988 and 1995.

One of the most important reference for the people and for this study is the understanding of caste and biraderi. Here in the thesis, the term biraderi has been italicized due to the specific sense of identity, which is shared, competed and meant to be propagated subsequently. Caste is referred to the professional and familial specification when specified by the people themselves against biraderi. Thus, caste names are not italicized and only biraderi expression is purposefully italicized.

xi

Chapter One

1.1: Introduction

‘Vartan maran jeevan de naal a’ (exchange stays with a person through all times of death and life) shares an elder (75) from landless Wahgah biraderi (endogamous group). This above given passage from multiple references in the daily communication of the people helps us reflecting upon the much deeper meanings of the vartan bhanji or vartan (gift exchange) about the social life of the villages of the study. This study of gift exchange (hereafter referred as vartan or vartan bhanji as the people in the village use the words) in a Punjabi village aims to study the social structure of this practice as repository of social relations. The practice is believed to extend to the outreach of one’s social relations. Thus, the study is helpful for arguing a case about contemporary socio- economic layout of the Punjabi village. When I use the words contemporary and tradition as subtitle of the thesis, my aim is to relate my study with structure of vartan bhanji as traditional practice in its contemporary form. My fieldwork in the villages of my study is divided in three planned visits besides my life as native anthropologist to help me reflect in recognized and unrecognized ways. My first span of fieldwork was from 6th July 2016 to 27th February 2017 followed by another stretch of six weeks from 26th September 2017 to 12th November 2017.

Furthermore, my last chance to visit for three weeks is comparatively recent from 17th April 2018 to 13th May 2018. My stretches, of the fieldwork are exclusive as spending of the time at villages of my study as an anthropologist studying in Paris, otherwise nativity entitles me for a life of reflexivity as an anthropologist. Therefore, I have debated my ‘self’ and position of field for a native anthropologist while remaining attentive to the concerns of representations in anthropology is discussed in detail in the second chapter.

When I bring in the analysis of field, people and their social structure as scheme of the study, the most important aspect of their life appears to be their attentiveness to the upkeep of their network of social relationships. Therefore, the study contextualizes articulation and networking of social relations through deaths and marriages of the people at both villages of study known as Khokhran and Amin Kot. It is generally believed that Punjabi village is dependent upon land as

1

one of the most important and defining element in socio-economic landscape of the village. However, this study investigates both the traditional economic significance of land ownership and the contemporary changes in its role in village life. I realized the need to scrutinize the change in Punjabi village while doing a comparative ethnography (Qadar 2015) to renew the study of Zekiye Eglar (Eglar 2010). My M. Phil study which was much generic in its approach led me to this study with a narrower but comprehensive focus on study of gift exchange as socially shared practice. This paves the way for me to think about recent changes in kinship relations and biraderi system as an endogamous group in more detail, which I argue is better conveyed through the practice of vartan bhanji as the most suitable social institution. I must admit that I still owe a lot to Zekiye Eglar for her seminal study conducted in 1950s at the same village of Mohla in Gujrat where I did my fieldwork for my M Phil.

Though my intention remains primarily to add to the debate started by Eglar, yet I found that people now identify and practise significant change in the importance and its subsequent shape as social porcatice, which requires current contextualizaton. Here I do not want to focus more on the comeparative analysis, but I would just refer to very broad understanding of the people in their use of key terms. For example, people use the word vartan as general conduct of one individual or the household or even a biraderi, which is not limited to deaths and marriages. When people refer to vartan bhanji, then they are more directed to the specific reference of one’s conduct at principal events of marriages. Moreover, when people incorporate the deaths as socially shared, they would use the expression of khushi ghami (moments of joy and sorrow) or simply vartan. This leads me to question some of the famous definitions of the practice which are more limited as people in my villages of study consider. One of the most important contributiuons is considered the definition given by Hamza Alvi (1995), which I believe needs a critical re-assessment in terms of the words used in their context. Hamza Alvi argues that the term vartan bhanji itself indicates the transactional essence of the ritual, for the word “’vartan’ means ‘dealings’ or ‘buying and selling’; and ‘bhanji’ means sister’s daughter (an object of affection)” (Alvi 1995: 16). In my case study, I have found that people consider the practice of vartan bhanji as more holistic than merely reducing it to ritualistic selling or buying and people would say that the term denotes the general essence of relationship between people. Furthermore, when asked about the term bhanji, people believe in general that it does not refer to sister’s daughter, but it means the curry eaten with bread. Thus, the 2

term refers to serving and sharing of food at marriages as principle events in the social life of the villages. An important distinction also lies in the fact that people use the word of bhaaji as proper word in the villages of study instead of the nasal use of ‘n’ in the word. Therefore, one can depart from the influential study of Zekiye Eglar (2010) who has translated the term as primarily a practice of gift exchange. My study owes to both the studies referred above as sources of its important influence, but I consider the vartan bhanji as more diffused practice of people at marriages and death rituals. However, when I use the more often used expression of vartan, it refers to more general conduct i.e. dealings of every day life with fellow people, greetings, mutual helping and sharing of every day socio-cultural life.

As I have already made it clear that my reflection on the topic actually started crystallising after reading Eglar’s (2010) work, so, intentionally or unintentionally this study draws on Eglar’s study. What makes my study of a required worth for such an extended endeavour is the subtitle of my thesis; tradition in transition. When I use the expression of tradition, it is mainly borrowed from the vernacular expressions of rasam-o-rivaaj, and riwaayat as two most commonly used expressions. Furthermore, it also brings in perspective the meaning of vartan as social practice dating back to what people refer as aglay waqt (earlier times). When probed further about their use of the expression aglay waqt, people limit their use of aglay waqt to one to two generations back about their ancestors due to practical limitations on the memory and relevance of elders as primary sources of pride. This leads to my analysis of both the tradition as located in aglay waqt and how people conceptualize their present forms of the practice. Therefore, this provides with the opportunity to problematize the practice of vartan with close observation of time while thinking about socio-economic change. I am also attentive to understand that how the sense of time is at work when one thinks that tradition can be separated from present, and with what kind of easiness or challenges does it proceed to bring forth the meaning for a study like this. I feel it necessary to clearly mark the sense of tradition in this study, which means here not the word used, deliberated and discussed by academics, but it relies for its meanings on the understanding of the people of the villages of my study.

3

1.2: Aims of the Study

This study aims to bring forth the current trends of social change at a mauza (revenue unit of a village or some villages) in the rural landscape of Punjab. My intention is to understand the current web of social networking through the formalised practice of vartan bhanji. The study aims to highlight that vartan bhanji would look quite hollow in itself if not pursued as a repository of the underlying social, cultural and economic perspectives and power relations at the village level. As this study owes its origin in Punjab’s rural context to Eglar’s first academic effort to start the debate, the focus on vartan has been central to most of the ethnographies till date (Alvi 1995; Alvi 2001; Eglar 2010; Nasir and Mielke 2015: Mughal 2018). The important reason lies in the nature of the practice itself as recognized by Lyon that “account of gift giving provides useful complementary evidence” for other researchers also “to provide a more holistic picture of Pakistani society” (Lyon 2004a: 52). When we see the central role of vartan bhanji in the rural structure of Punjab, it takes us to the formation of the rural structure itself where land ownership has been of central importance. Agriculture remains the “lifeline of Pakistan’s economy accounting for 19.5 percent of the gross domestic product, employing 42.3 percent of the labour force and providing raw material for several value-added sectors” (GoP 2017). Now, if we further narrow down our focus on the rural population in district Vehari, where both the villages of study are located, we find that out of total 2.897 million population 2.397million live in villages and .505 million live in cities (Government of Pakistan 2018). Another interesting fact mentioned in 1998 Population Census of the country also highlighted that per house size of persons was 6.9 in the district (GoP 2000). These figures become more helpful for our understanding of the rural structure and its dependence upon agriculture when we see it against the increase in population over seven decades since the creation of Pakistan. Similarly, the house size of persons is also helpful to understand the making of family and the way it evolves in endogamous or social relations of vartan. My following diagram from the District Census Report of Vehari would also help us understand the gradual but steady increase in population.

4

Figure 1.1: Population increase in since 1951 (measured in 1000s)

This chart helps us identify the fact that population has been increasing with the profound impact upon socio-economic structure. For example, when the population was slightly over 0.5 million the land ownership has surely shrunk in its size when the population has increased almost four times since 1998 to more than 2.09 million (GoP 2001). Now, as the latest figures of the 2017 census are available, and the population is 2.897 million, it generates academic interest to revisit the traditional understanding about the role of land ownership and the subsequent social order, which is subsequently taking place. Furthermore, land ownership has been and still remains one of the most important determinants of one’s social status and economic well-being in the villages of the District Vehari because of the large scale land ownership patterns in the district. Similar patterns are visible in both the villages of my study where land was owned till three decades back only by three land owning families as following discussion would highlight. However, with the passage of time, there have been important changes in the patterns of land ownership structure and people from landless families are challenging the traditional understanding of the fixed village structure. It brings me to the contemporary contextualization of the role of land ownership as sole provider of the economic support and social standing in my villages of study.

I have deliberately avoided myself from incorporating any debate which despite its contemporary academic currency remains vague like modernity, globalization or post-modernity

5

or post-globalization. I find these ideas as helpful only in their academic currency, but people in the villages do not see any such change coming due to these outside larger influences. Importantly, when asked about the emerging changes in their everyday life, mostly people would say that change comes only when people themselves are ready to change and this same logic provides them with the opportunity to rely on conspiracy theories against their religion and culture. When probed in detail about relationship between modernity in life-style i.e. use of mobile phones, cars, tractors and televisions etc. the people of the villages consider most of these items helpful and not challenging their traditional social life-style. What emerges as the most important factor in the daily life is the ambiguous relationship between present and past when people are asked to shed light on the change in their everyday life. Rozehnal rightly points out these confusions that “tradition and modernity are often invoked, but these ambiguous concepts are rarely explained” (Rozehnal 2016: 5). Furthermore, Chakrabarty alarms about ‘modernity’ as “easy to inhabit but difficult to define”, and what he argues to be inevitable if one has to define modernity, then one “must identify some people or practices or concepts as nonmodern”(Chakrabarty 2002: xix). This is the reason that one finds untenable the real meaning of tradition if it is attempted to see tradition against time-bounded concept of modernity. My intention to avoid from such terms like modernity, post-modernity, and globalization also stems from my concern to keep the people of the village as self-speaking instead of over-emphasized academic references. However, ‘tradition’ in this study means what people see the difference between their presence and the sense of past when they need to remember their past through rituals, ceremonies, events and festivities. Here Miller pertinently reminds about the phenomenon termed “the invention of tradition” that is something which “claims links with an ancient past but is really an almost entirely new festival” (Miller 2017: 413).

I hope, with evolving argument, the study would bring forth the shifting meanings in the conceptions of space and time when a collective meaning is attributed to the social change. Here, Mughal is quite relevant when he argues about the usage of term social change:

to indicate change in its entirety. I use the terms socioeconomic, socio-political, and sociocultural to stress the economic, political, and cultural elements of social change, respectively, when the distinction between them is necessary to be made (Mughal 2014a: 4).

6

Similarly, my intention is to assess the change in socio-economic structure of the villages of my study when seen in a mutual relationship of spatio-temporal and socio-economic changes in the villages. Therefore, the sense of the past by the people of both villages is the real stimulus of my study to warrant importance and logic for understanding the social structure of the village as a representative category of rural Punjab. It is beyond any doubt that biraderi is considered or at least supposed to be the central institution around which most of the social structure of Punjabi village revolves. When I refer to the supposed importance of the biraderi, my reference goes not only to academic references, but I aim to incorporate the narration and practical importance given by the people themselves. Similar recurrence of importance appears truly representative when general glance over most of the definitions of biraderi either in their literal sense or through their working meanings is accepted. This study relies upon the people themselves instead of depending upon academic understanding for a corresponding relation between biraderi and vartan in this study. This proffers the working definition of biraderi as more meaningful than simple academic dependence. Because “vartan bhanji is central to the managment and ritual cohesion of biraderies” (Alvi, 1995: 17), thus, this study is helpful to problematize the given understanding of biraderi for its contemporary relevance as the most important social institution. This opening up of vartan bhanji helps to incoporate the holistic structure of village life where change in biraderi and vartan is possibe to locate. Therefore, the study would also bring forth the shifting importance to nuclear family instead of extended andogamous group of biraderi, which advocate as opening of new vistas of understanding about both biraderi and vartan.

As a reminiscent of general structure of introduction about Punjabi village with feudal lords, or landlords with utter disregard to the life and honour of the riaaya (one who is residing and tilling the land given to him by the zamindar) and kammi (artisan, derived from kaam, which means to work), this study intends to present a picture which is not exotic in any such way. So, the study intends to bring forth what people do in normal flow of life, what they mean from their words like vartan, walan wassan (To live by sharing), or len den (lit. to exchange in reciprocal relations). These words embody an ongoing, active and encompassing flow of social life. As people use these words interchangeably, their meanings are understandable only in the given web of social significance of their use. Likewise, in the villages of my study, whenever these words are used,

7

their use embodies complete life-cycle of the persons within their being as social agents. Such comprehensive and encompassing environment of the use of these words would bring forth individual and collective representations. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the village structure, its changing forms and their corresponding influence upon village life is aimed in this study.

1.3: Introduction of the Locale

This study is grounded in two adjacent villages of Amin Kot and Khokhran separated by 1.5 kilometres of agricultural land. Both the villages are located on the south-eastern side of Burewala (district Vehari, Punjab) near the mausoleum of a saint from earliest history of Islam, Deewan Haji Sher Chawli Mashaikh (d 748). Vehari is located in one of the most fertile regions in Pakistan. This geographical location is also clear from the below given map of Vehari’s location in Pakistan.

Map 1.1: Map of District Vehari and Pakistan

8

People of both the villages follow almost exclusively Barelvi Sunni sect and speak and understand jhangvi dialect of . My reference to the jhangvi dialect is in line with what people refer to their language because they mark it importantly as different language from otherwise mainstream Punjabi language. The dialect jhangvi pertains to local expression of language, which people recognize as the dialect of what they refer to as neeli ki zubaan (language of neeli bar). Except few elder men and women, almost all people understand Urdu, the national language of Pakistan. Mauza (revenue unit) Khokhran was the revenue unit of 960 acres of land (GoP 1984), which it still continues to be in its physical size. Total population of the mauza has been gradually increasing from 690 persons (GoP 1988) in the whole revenue unit to 2070, according to the latest estimates, which I had by my personal survey and through 2018 voters lists. Khokhran as a revenue unit can be known in the documents of British administration since 1860s, when the mapping of the village started, which culminated in first settlement in 1882. The earliest British documentation and its continuation till the most recent times suggests the official name of the mauza as Khokhar, but people use the name as Khokhran as I would be using in the coming discussion. In a somewhat extended geographical location of the villages, the area is known through historical references from people as belonging to neeli bar because Satluj river was once known as neeli (Punjab Government 2001). The word neeli bar is often used to make a larger distinction with that of river Ravi and Seraiki belt as geographical areas. Neeli bar is generally referred to the area between the rivers Satluj and Ravi. Khokhran is a village established earlier than the arrival of British administration. The name of the village is actually derived from one of the famous castes of Punjab Khokhar, who left the village even before the arrival of British administrative setup. This is not clear to the people that when and why the left the mauza because there is not even single house of the Khokhars in whole mauza. People remember only that originally Khokhars lived in the village Khokhran but gradually they left with or without specific reason. One of the more valid reasons, which seems closer to reality is that Khokhars had to leave when they land was clearly marked and they were asked to pay by the elders from Dhuddi family to pay for the land, which they needed to cultivate. So, we know from the name of the village that Khokhars were once the leading caste at Khokhran but they left without traces.

Now, I Introduce both villages of my study with the help of a map dawn by hand and two separate google maps representing each village of the study. 9

Khokhran Amin Kot

Map 1.2: Map of the Mauza Khokhran and Satellite Photos of Both Villages

The first map drawn by hand helps us see the whole revenue unit of Mauza Khokhran, where Amin Kot is a comparatively newer village, established in 1961, by the Dhuddi zamindar family of the village. Dhuddi is one of the many sub-castes of in neeli bar. Dhuddi caste is further sub- divided into 39-43 goths (sub-castes), and they mark themselves quite distinctly from other sub- castes of Rajputs. Establishment of Amin Kot goes hand in hand with the increase in power and status of zamindars during the green revolution of President Ayub Khan (1958-69) because people still narrate the emergence of rich zamindars during the Ayub period. Therefore, I see the Amin 10

Kot village as a culmination of role of zamindar family when change in its economic resulted in enhanced social status as successful zamindar patron. This would become further clear when introduction of the village as a unit of social structure is problematized to show different cleavages about ownership of land, subsequent positions of individuals and families, strengthened the categories of kammis and zamindars. Khokhran was the parent village of all five contemporary villages in whole of the mauza Khokhran, from which sprang firstly two villages of two respective zamindar biraderies: Amin Kot by Dhuddies and Jagga by Pir Iqbal Chishti. However, the land records of colonial government show that originally land belonged to Dhuddies, whose elder married one of his daughters to the boy from Chishti family, before 1870s. This led to the establishment of Chishties as land owner in the mauza through inheritance of their mother who had no brother because had she had a brother, there was no possibility of inheriting land by a daughter. This convinces me about the veracity of claim from Dhuddies of Amin Kot that Chishties emerged as land owners after inheriting from their mother of Dhuddi family. While doing fieldwork, I personally did not believe in what the elders of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot used to share when it was claimed that the forefathers of Chishties (referring to their contemporary political rival chishties of Khokhran and Jagga) were merely faqirs (wandering mendicants) and depended upon begging as descendants of the saint Bab Fareed-Ud-Din Ganj-e-Shakar (d 1266) of . It was claimed by the Dhuddies and their dependents both the riaaya and political clients that Chishties used to rely on the bread which they collected as faqirs from different households in Sahuka, a town four kilometres from both the villages. Now, the tales shared by Dhuddies are also corroborated from the facts given in documentation of the earliest genealogical trees in the first land settlements of the mauza Khokhran. Given the present economic structure of the Amin Kot and Khokhran, the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot, and Khokhran along with Chishti family of Khokhran are landlord as defined by Saghir Ahmad (1977). Saghir Ahmad is of the view that “landlords” are those “proprietors who employ others to work full time on their land, and who never themselves engage in such agricultural work as irrigating, planting, ploughing and harrowing , etc.”(Ahmad 1977). Similarly, at mauza Khokhran all the main zamindar families never tilled their land in person but established their relationship with dependents as sharecroppers known as hissaydar and riaaya. Thus, ownership of land on the one hand and landlessness on the other is one of the primary themes of the study, which would help us understand the terms of zamindar,

11

kammi, sense of status mediated by dependence and patronage, which ultimately brings in the sense of status to biraderi. This assumption of the role by one member from a biraderi and then subsequent claims of sharing the status as members of an endogamous biraderi is also important for the debate about Punjabi personhood. Furthermore, this study aims to understand the social spirit of gift exchange in both villages necessitating to understand the positions of individuals and biraderies in this regard before proceeding directly to the practice of vartan.

It is important to keep in mind that land has been and it still remains ‘principal source of livelihood’ (Eglar 2010: 58) in a Punjabi village. The importance of land as a source of economic sustenance goes even beyond purely agricultural domain of the village life. For example, the study would also draw on the role of land in relation with memory and the narration of the ‘shakhsiyyat’ (selfhood), and nasal (racial configuration of genealogical tree), representing individual and collective spheres respectively. Historically, whole of the mauza Khokhran belonged to three zamindar families of Dhuddies, Salderas and Chishties. There is no denying the fact that land ownership has always been definitive, but land was not always equally precious commodity as one finds at present times. People of the villages would often remember their ancestors who were also hierarchically divided based upon ownership of land and the lack of same, but then the use of land was more communally shared. When people talk about the contemporary economic and social value of land, they are much clear about the increased dependence of zamindars on use of technological tools i.e. tractors, tube wells, pesticides and thrashing machines, which results in less dependence upon the landless. Similarly, again jumping back to colonial times, we see different sensibility and worth of land as burden for the larger land holding families who did not possess the required manpower, but had to pay the revenue taxes. When revenue collection was becoming harsher and the zamindars were facing hardships to pay their taxes due to them, it led to stories about the zamindar families and their dependence upon their loyal kammis to till the maximum part of land. I can relate it with one similar story shared with me by an elder (65) from landless Khiaoh (a caste which is not considered among the kammis but does not own land) biraderi about closeness between his ancestors and elder of the Dhuddi zamindar family. The elder referred to grandfather of Zia Ahmed Khan Dhuddi (50), head of the Dhuddi family that the zamindar asked the former’s father to take the ownership of 20 acres of land to share the taxes with him. However, the latter declined that he would not own the land but would till the land at sharecropping and pay 12

the taxes due to Dhuddi elder. The Khiaoh elder was of the view that such favours of sharing land ownership among closer friends were quite common those days because land was shared as resource among people both as necessity and responsibility. Thus, possession of land as a source of economic guarantee with resultant accumulation of socio-cultural capital seems changing in coming times when the market economy became stronger. Now, when the market economy has expanded and has gradually taken in its grasp most of the earlier sensibilities of different practices, it is necessary to look into present setup of the village structure. I aim to make it possible through the detailed study of two villages, where zamindar families have important role to play, but the very composition of the villages and their structure help us identify transition in traditional setup. For example, it is tempting to see how the land itself has shrunk after being divided within the families as the most important factor apart from exceptional circumstances of selling the land. I aim to present the family tree of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot to show both the land ownership and the kinship structure of a zamindar family. The family tree is also helpful to understand that land does not remain as fixed ownership and its shrinking through internal division from inheritance and selling as rare exception is a compelling factor for the eventual current role of land ownership.

Khokhran is the oldest village of the whole mauza. According to the land records of 1882, there was only one village of Khokhran, and seven khoohs. Unlike, Amin Kot as a village owned by the zamindar family, Khokhran is a village where the residents have malkana haqooq (proprietary rights), given by Benazir Bhutto in 1992. There are mainly two zamindar families in the Khokhran village, of Chishties, aulad (progeny) of one brother from the three brothers of Chishti family. Chishties who had 200 acres of land which they inherited from the inheritance of their mother from dhuddi family, and later one of their elder was given 300 acres as token of respect by Dultana family for their spiritual position as aulad of Baba Fareed, moved to three different places. One of their brothers got almost 200 acres of land in Arifwala tehsil and shifted to the village known as Tibbi, and son of second brother, Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti shifted to Jagga basti which is the third village in the mauza Khokhran. The aulad of third brother is still at the Khokhran village along with another Dhuddi family as the important land owning families of the village. The Chishti family at Khokhran is now further divided into the progeny of three brothers. The second largest land owning family of Dhuddies is relative to the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. One of the sisters of Haji Shabbir Ahmad Dhuddi from Khokhran, is married to the 13

cousin of Zia Ahmad Khan, and the daughter of elder brother of Zia Ahmad Khan is married to Haji Shabbir Khan Dhuddi. There are some other Dhuddi families which are also door de rishtaydar (distant relatives) to both the main Dhuddi families of Amin Kot and Khokhran, but their landholding vis-a-vis influence is not of independent nature. These Dhuddi families also depend upon Zia Ahmad Khan for most of their matters about patronage at local level and for official purposes i.e. police, courts and revenue etc.

Demographically, Khokhran is divided among two zamindar and some kammi castes. I intend to present the brief discussion with the help of my chart and illustration based upon my little survey.

Figure 1.2: Caste-wise Composition of Khokhran

14

The above given charts show that there are two mainly zamindar families of Dhuddies (4) and Chishties (2). Further, there are nearly total 50-51 other families who are known as tabbar (independent household). I have deliberately avoided giving very strictly defined numerical representation of the houses. This is to keep it somewhat loose i.e. what makes a separate household, when a brother’s home can be separated from the brother’s and how a separately running household tries to present itself as a single household to show their khulq (mutual love), mohabbat (used as synonymous with khulq) or bhai chara (brotherhood). If it comes to write about the kammi families in sequence of their influence and importance now, then the Chadoya biraderi of Khokhran comes next to both the zamindar biraderies. There are almost 10-12 Chadoya tabbars (households). My use of the word tabbar is borrowed from vernacular expression to represent a house, which not only shares physical space of house but they are also regarded as the recognizable single social unit. Over the period of last two decades, the Chadoya biraderi has managed to accumulate good amount of social capital, which has largely sprung from economic capital and the symbolic mediation between both forms of capital. One nasal (generation) back from today’s nasal, the forefathers of Chadoya family depended only upon the land of dhuddi family of Amin Kot or upon the tenancy on the land of Salderas, who have been absentee landlords throughout their history of land holding in mauza Khokhran. Till earlier 1990s, Mian Khan Muhammad Chadoya remained munshi (a middle-man between the zamindar and his tenants, labourers and workers) of the Dhuddi family for years. Now, all the four sons of Mian Khan Muhammad are serving in different government sectors. His eldest and the youngest sons are having lucrative careers, serving respectively in senior positions in education sector and medical corps of the army. The other two sons are serving in excise and taxation department and Punjab traffic police, so they also have good standing because both the jobs entail social recognition due to peculiar socio-legal structure of the society. Similarly, other Chadoya families also have the largest numbers of people in government jobs than any other biraderi in both the villages including the zamindar biraderies of Dhuddies and Chishties. Likewise, other kammi families with considerable improvement in economic position are also trying to educate their sons at different universities i.e. one boy from biraderi is doing job in private banking sector after completing his Master in Business Administration from Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University Multan. Furthermore, two brothers from Qasaai biraderi are becoming Medical doctors and the position as Doctor is source of both

15

enhanced economic and social capital. Similarly, the Sunaar are also engaged in commercial business near Murad Ali adda ((little market near bus stop) and they are not dependent upon the zamindars like Pawalies, Maachhies and Kumhaars who also earn independent of their dependence upon the land of zamindars. However, when it comes to Musallies and Ajeras (sub-caste of Joyias who are landless in Khokhran) with one to two houses of landless Dhuddies, the traditional dependence upon either of the zamindar emerges as the dominant source of economic sustenance. Thus, in overall structure of the Khokhran as a village, it takes us beyond the fixed social structure of villages, where the change in traditional imagination of the people is visible. Thus, in the villages of my study the economic structure is rapidly changing and it has strong influence upon and resultant changes in family structure and kinship patterns (Qadeer 2006; Ahmed and Amjad 2013; Lyon and Mughal 2016). Now, I proceed to little introductory discussion of physical and spatial making of the social life in both villages.

Figure 1.3: Caste-wise Composition of Amin Kot

16

The above given charts show that composition of Amin Kot is significantly different from the demographic composition of Khokhran. Here the zamindar family has herself increased from seven houses of haveli to eleven houses now. Furthermore, the number of riaaya has also decreased over the period of last one decade when the village was largely dominated by the kammi castes or the landless riaaya from Dhuddi zamindar family. Now, there are two houses of Dhuddies who are riaaya and three Musalli families who are not mutually relatives. Then there are two houses of the Pawalies locally also known as Julaha. One brother from the family has been working as cattle raiser for the Dhuddi family because the before him his father and grand-father also worked for the Dhuddi zamindar family’s buffaloes. The second family of Pawalies worked as munshi of the Dhuddi family, which since last three to four years has disappeared and nor the work of munshi is in the hands of sharecropper. When it comes to Chadoya family, the man works as launderer at Deewan Sahib, town 5 kilometres east of the locale. The launderer’s sons also work in factory near and the family does not till the land. Similarly, two Saasi families are relatives and share the walls of their houses at the backside of the haveli and the third family is not relative to the two families. One brother from the family works as cattle raiser for nephew of Zia Ahmad Khan and is dependent upon his half acre land from his zamindar, while his two younger brothers work in factories near Sahiwal. Qasaais are one of the earliest families to move to early days of Amin Kot and now the remaining three families are relatives to each other but the sons of the main leading man locally known as maulvi (religious intellectual) Muhammad Bakhsh have moved out of the Amin Kot and they are independent maulvies in different mosques now. Three other families are Khaggas, Mochies and Maachhies who are also riaaya of the Dhuddi family because the land is owned by the Dhuddi family but they also do not till the land. The Maachhi male member’s family has moved to like his brother’s family and he drives taxi in Sahuka. Mochies have the largest shop at Amin Kot, which they refer as karyana store. Khaggas are originally zamindars but at Amin Kot they are landless so they live as riaaya and the only son of the family also keeps on shifting his work either going to factory or joining someone as sharecropper. So, the above given charts and their brief demographic introduction shows that the Dhuddi zamindar family has the over-riding say in the village structure and the position of family’s elder Zia Ahmad Khan is key to most of the matters at the village.

17

1.3.1: Land, Village and Home in Social Life

People make important references in their daily life to their belonging to neeli bar, which is located away from current political debates about southern Punjab as a political entity in Pakistan. When they refer to neeli bar, people mostly talk about the folk narratives which discuss the regional characteristics of people as innate and inherent due to the territorial making of habits and attitudes. is likely to be the last Tehsil on the southern side of different proposals for the territorial boundary of South Punjab, but it is not even in the remote references to the daily concerns of people. South Punjab is not seen very differently in the common imagination of the people of the village. Though this is also true in some extent about general characteristics of the Seraiki Punjab from the rest of the province, but “cuisine is much the same as in the rest of the province” (Ramzi 2012: 81). However, some contemporary political claims and their use in the debates about new province of south Punjab are remotely discussed in the villages of the study. Most of the people travel to Burewala for their needs about revenue officials, medical facilities and most of the boys go to Burewala colleges for higher education. All the shopkeepers of both the villages also travel to Burewala twice or thrice in the week when they go to buy fresh fruit and vegetables from the nearest sabzi mandi (vegetable market), which is located in the Burewala city. People do not prefer to relate themselves with Seraiki belt of South Punjab despite many socio- linguistic shades of association with the Seraiki belt of Punjab. People in both villages of the study are also often heard making jokes about the mohajireen (migrants of 1947, who came from different parts of India to settle in Pakistan) as short-tempered, disrespectful to their elders, and talkative persons. However, people talk about the neeli bar as fertile land of brave men and modest women.

When it comes to physical structure of the villages, I go back to the first permanent settlement of the mauza Khokhran, in 1882. Earliest documents show that land originally belonged to only three zamindar families of Dhuddi Rajputs, Chishties, and Saldera Joyia families. This also brings in the contestation of claims as asli zamindar (original landowner) like most of the cases about claims of superior status of one’s own biraderi by lowering the status of other contending biraderies. For example, claims of Dhuddi biraderi about their land ownership of the whole of mauza Khokhran is not accepted by the Chishti zamindar family. The reason for such contested

18

narratives and their articulation is itself indicative of the nature of the intricacies which actually necessitate the understanding of village as a socio-historic entity. Such an analysis of the village as a site upon which an ethnographic account is being written, demands further problematised understanding of the space in historical, cultural and economic domain. This also leads to questions about the village itself as a site of any academic discussion. Territorially, every village looks separated and different from the nearby villages, but such separation is transcended in almost all social, economic and political encounters in daily life. Here Madan is rightly relevant when he argues that “the relations extend the interactive network and social space of a village well beyond its boundaries into neighbouring regions” (Madan 2002: 17). My reflection in this case does not aim to bring in its fold a detailed historical account, but my analysis is confined only to a brief account of the villages of my study. It is necessary to recognize that such an account of the village studies does not add much to theoretical guidance as it entails inherent contestations. Furthermore, oral history and the sense of community, which are mutually dependent did not divide people as it does today. Role of land which was earlier used more communally was also not appropriated only as owners and those who lack the ownership. Legally, land was owned by certain zamindar families till what people refer to as aglay waqt, but the real essence of land pre-dominantly remained communal till the very recent times according to one of the landless tenants (65). This memory of socially shared benefits of land remain important for most of the claims about closeness of different people. Such historically located sources of closeness and distance are manipulated at the required time both by zamindars and non-zamindars. These notions of relationships also sometimes crisscross the otherwise easily drawn lines by biraderi and caste. This relationship between people of the villages and land ownership will be discussed in more detail in the fourth chapter as it would reflect on the making of Punjabi personhood.

Presently, people normally consider their space as limited to their place of house, the land they own to till, to graze their animals and the possibility of sharing their leisure time with the fellow village men. How one owns the space and thinks about it is dependent upon the ownership and usage of the space as either it is independent or dependent. For example, the houses at Amin Kot are comparatively larger and spacious as compared with the houses of Khokhran. This is true in both cases when compared at the level of zamindars or kammis. Normally, a zamindar house

19

with one or more trees for shade in summer is built keeping in view the number of sons and every son is supposed to have his independent room after the marriage. The division of the house is avoided till the progeny of one brother becomes adult and the need to marry them becomes compelling reason for construction of new house. An average zamindar house comprises of rooms according to the number of sons, one room for parents, one room for winter cooking where six to eight persons can sit at a time. Usually, all the rooms of the houses are joined by veranda, where people sleep from end of February to end of March and then from mid of October to mid or end of November. The veranda is also used for extreme summer season when there is no load-shedding and the people spend most of their time under the fans or lying in front of room air coolers. Now, the newer change in the construction of winter houses to cook and fire is the purpose-built kitchens as has happened at all four new houses of zamindars of Amin Kot and their relative Dhuddi family of Khokhran. Furthermore, the complete dependence upon wood to fire for cooking purposes is also shifting to Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders in almost all zamindar houses. On the other hand, when it comes to kammis and riaaya houses both the physical and social space shrinks in its size. There are almost 25% kammi houses which do not have trees in the houses and almost 50% houses are without verandas. The space of courtyard also shrinks in their size because in kammi or riaaya houses the buffaloes, goats and cows are also kept within the house. Normally, kammi or riaaya households manage to stay within the old houses and would make a new house only if one of the brothers shifts to new place or the zamindar family has given them separate place to build the house. Unlike their zamindar neighbours, the kammis and riaayas rarely use the LPG and would rely mostly on wooden stock to cook. There is no household of kammis or riaayas who has purpose-built kitchen and they would mostly manage their winter season within one room specified for the purpose. Otherwise the hearth is placed under the shadow of tree or near the wall of room to avoid sunshine during summer season.

When it comes to leisure time, people always consider it an important concern in the village structure that who sits where and with whom. When they talk about the one person’s friendship with someone or to refer to one’s political attachment, they would say that he shares huqqah (a traditional revolving pipe, which pre-dominantly elder people use for smoking tobacco) with the one specific person. People further refer to their place and space in terms of opportunities for

20

socialization as uthna (stand up) bethna (sit), waqt guzaarna (spend time) etc. We can infer from the above given brief picture that a dera (male guest house) of zamindar is the central place where most of the activities about place and space for socialization. When it comes to housing patterns, people prefer to stay closer to their own relatives and biraderi. This is also visible from housing pattern in both the villages of study. Dhuddi zamindar family’s haveli is located in the centre of the village. Similarly, there are streets or at least parts of streets where people stay in shared walls of houses. At Amin Kot, one street at the back side of the haveli is remembered as qasaaion wali gali (the street of Qasaais). Likewise, one street in Khokhran is remembered as Chadoyon wali gali (street of Chadoyas). There is no baithak (a room, which is mostly adjacent to the gate of the house and is reserved for male guests. Baithak is constructed mostly either in urban houses where dera construction is not possible or people who do not afford to have dera are satisfied with baithak) of any kammi or riaaya biraderi at Amin Kot. The only exception was Muhammad Zafar Maachhi’s (d 2010) (baithak whose daughters and sister-in-law used to observe purdah, so Muhammad Zafar Maachhi built his baithak for his guests. One practical consideration was also the possibility that he was earning enough from his theykedari (cultivation of lease of land with some zamindar) and the women of the household did not need to go out. Another baithak was constructed and used by Maulvi Muhammad Bakhsh Qasaai, who was Imam Masjid and well- respected in the area due to his Islamic knowledge. However, at Khokhran, there are more than 10 baithaks in the village. Khokhran is bigger village than Amin Kot both population-wise and the land it occupies as village site. There are three deras in total at Khokhran two of the Chishti family and one of Dhuddi family. However, the deras of both the families at Khokhran are not spacious as that of the Amin Kot. People consider it important to construct a dera according to their claims of personal standing. It is also reflected in the case of Chishti family of Khokhran, who is no more aligned with Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti. Pir Mohsin Fareed Chishti and Pir Ammar Fareed Chishti both paternal cousins have constructed new deras in their capacities as potentially successful claimants to zamindar patronage.

Amin Kot as a village is owned solely by zamindar family of Dhuddi family, whose land keeps on dividing within the family. This division of land is only about agricultural land and does not include the land of the village, which is located on 7 acres of land. Haveli of the zamindar

21

family has been expanding with increasing members of the zamindar family herself. A well- spacious dera is situated right in the front of main gate of the haveli. The dera is well-spacious and Dhuddi family believes it is representative of their claim as established zamindar family. One can deduce easily that the ownership of the “domestic space, as linked to the household, is the dimension of socio-cultural experience that provides an insight into socio-spatial relationships” (Mughal 2015b: 215). In this case of our study, both these places of haveli and dera are of central importance in daily life of the Amin Kot village. Dera is the place which has central role in many of the daily activities of male of the village and the nearby areas till the extension of relationships and patronage of the patron. It is important to keep in mind that influence of an elder of the area is assessed from the numbers of guests he hosts or has the ability to host in the best possible manner. The picture given below is helpful to see how a village is important for the status and claims of the same for the zamindar family of the area.

Picture 1.1: Dera of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot

The above given picture of the dera of Dhuddi family narrates the history of the family’s standing in the area. The dera was originally built in 1969 by Ghulam Muhammad Khan Dhuddi (d 1985), who hired masons from because wanted to build a dera unsurpassed in the area matching to his own standing as an establishing the zamindar of the area. Then he also bought furniture for

22

the guest room of the dera from Lahore and people would still relate to his lavish food served to all guests regardless of the oddity of time and weather constraints. After the death of Ghulam Muhammad Khan, when Zia Ahmad Khan was in the process of establishing himself as heir to his uncle and father-in-law, he also added grassy lawn, which can be seen in the picture, and two western side rooms for warming oneself from fire in the winter. Zia Ahmad Khan is himself quite concerned about the guests and the way they are served, because he still asks his nephews to take good care of the guests referring back to Ghulam Muhammad Khan’s prominence for his generosity. Zia Ahmad Khan also added new cemented wall around the dera and he asked his younger brother Qamar Zaman Khan (48) and the eldest sons of his two dead elder brothers to pay for the construction of a new room and furnished toilet and washroom for the guests. During my presence at the dera Zia Ahmad Khan asked his brother and both bhateejas (brother’s son) narrating the famous saying that deraydar apne deray se pehchana jata ha (the man who owns dera is known from the upkeep of his dera). The matter of recognition from dera is not limited to physical construction of the dera, but the care for the guests and the successful patronage are also essential for this qualification. Therefore, Zia Ahmad Khan is also concerned about both his network as patron of the area and the care for the guests to come. Similarly, it is common that people remember other strong zamindars who took good care of their guests and are remembered as among the generous people as a noble attribute with both this-worldly and other-worldly rewards.

The case of Khokhran is different from Amin Kot because in the former all the people have property rights and in the latter the land belongs to the zamindar Dhuddi family. The houses are more spacious at Amin Kot because the village was established latter and households are less in numbers as compared to Khokhran. In Khokhran, People do not depend upon the zamindar families as they used to rely till almost two decades earlier. Now, only those people are dependent upon both the zamindar families of Khokhran who are either working as servants or tilling the land as sharecroppers. This makes Khokhran a different village from Amin Kot. Amin Kot is comparatively more zamindar-controlled village where dependence upon the land is more pronounced both for the zamindar family and for the riaaya also. Role of land does not remain only confined to the residential purposes, but people in the villages of the study depend upon land

23

of the zamindars in multiple ways. This dependence is dictated by the need to rear cattle and to have land for agricultural purposes. For example, landless people of both villages tend to have more preference for cultivating the non-cash crops like wheat for meeting the needs of food and fodder for their buffaloes and goats etc. An important realisation on the part of the people remains the shrinking land ownership among the zamindars and its resultant impact upon the life of landless people. It is common to listen to people that earlier relationship between zamindars and raak (one who tills land as sharecropper) was enduring which is called as ‘tenancy at occupancy’ against the now increasing ‘tenancy at will’. (Mohiuddin 2007: 130). Similarly, the shrinking land ownership also influences the long term relationship between zamindars and non-zamindars. Thus, the social structure of the village is witness to the fact that land still remains the most defining feature of both the villages of the study, and it would become further clear with the study zamindar and kammi relations.

1.3.2: Zamindar and Kammi Relations in Changing Times

Seypi, as an arrangement between zamindar and non-zamindar artisan castes where the former paid in kind the latter for the services throughout the year, is still one of most powerful words in the local vocabulary. If one clearly observes the village composition of castes, then one aspect of socio-economic change is self-evident that many traditional kammi castes have either left their work as seypies of the zamindars or they have moved out of the villages. For example, there is no Kumhaar (potter) in Amin Kot and those three households who are living in Khokhran do not work as potters anymore. Similarly, the family of Sunaar (goldsmith) left Amin Kot in 2001 and the one family at Khokhran is doing the business in nearby market of adda Murad Ali. Furthermore, Nai has left the village of Amin Kot and the two families of Khokhran are still working at seypi with the families who were being served by their parents and grand-parents. It tells us that the traditional structure of a village where all the kammi castes were present and depended upon the zamindar is no more case in both the villages of the study. Another interesting shift, which needs to be considered is the definition of seyp, which mainly defines people in binary of land owners and landless. I am of the view that the definition is lacking in significant ways. For example, at both Amin Kot and Khokhran, many landless people from the otherwise recognized land owning castes i.e. Bhatties and Dhuddies also work with the artisan castes when there is season of harvesting.

24

The mutual dependence between landless and land owners is not limited to seasonal works. The mutual dependence is a matter of everyday life when the zamindar asks the raak or riaaya for vangaar (call from zamindar to help in exchange of food in any urgent matter requiring help from larger manpower but without monetary remuneration) or assistance to help the servants for any task requiring larger manpower. For example, Qamar Zaman Khan called for vangaar in 2006 all the young male members from Amin Kot and raaks of the family at khoohs when he needed the help from 30-40 persons for building the concrete roof of his new house in Amin Kot. People would say that now the frequency for call of vangaar has decreased, but they do not consider it as weakening of the relationship between zamindar and kammi unless the latter is able to accumulate enough economic capital to sustain himself independent of zamindar.

In current contextualization, it is important to see how the relationship between zamindar and riaaya works in accelerated changes on both sides. Increasing monetisation of all personal and social spheres is having a corresponding pressure on both sides of the earlier system of mutual dependence which used to be less dependent on monetization in everyday life. As a case in point, Amin Kot shows that the relationship can remain intact only till the terms remain in the hands of the zamindar who is vested with economic and social control. People find the relationship between zamindar and riaaya as contingent on more than one factors. For example, nature of land holding, power as a strong and influential zamindar of the area, and reputation as a generous person who is willing to forego his personal share for the betterment of the dependents are some of the key factors which entice the landless people to look for some zamindar. On the other hand, keeping riaaya is also a qualification for the wider recognition of the zamindar as the asli zamindar (real land owner). Precisely, the dependence between both the zamindar and riaaya though largely determined by the former, is not unilinear. The relationship is kept intact because it also helps the riaaya for securing many favours, which are otherwise not possible to be secured. It is common to listen riaaya narrating boastfully the power and persona of zamindar as the one who is able to get the chores done of the former regardless of the law, and social norms of right or wrong. On the other hand, if one zamindar is having 40 households of riaaya, then it is not only about manpower at one’s disposal but it also helps zamindar in many ways to make connections and get oneself acknowledged. Whenever one riaaya member has to marry his/her son or daughter, zamindar has to play an important role in not only arrangement of marriage but the relationship of the couple 25

also keeps zamindar in the pool whenever there are serious conflicts between both the families. For example, if daughter of a riaaya of Zia Ahmad Khan is not happy with her husband or in-laws and is back to her parents at Amin Kot, then he in-laws would come to ask Zia Ahmad Khan to ask the parents of the girl to go back to her husband’s house. Though the zamindar is less likely to compromise upon the interests of the riaaya daughter or her parents, yet a balancing approach is managed to keep the relationship going. Therefore, the dependence of kammis and riaaya upon zamindars have been there and still remains mutual within the practical choices. This is also quite visible from what Srinivas has viewed “the power wielded by the dominant caste” as “real but it also respected certain common values” (Srinivas 2002: 37). Thus, land provides one with space to exert influence and to exercise authority, but it is not absolute and everlasting. The relationship between zamindars and kammis is also kept intact through general favours in the form of patronage which also convinces Lyon to argue that “Punjabi landlords do not rely on giving as their primary strategy for gaining prestige and authority (Lyon 2004b: 37). Therefore, the relationship between zamindars and kammis is more directed towards the upkeep of status and authority instead of exclusive material dependence.

Unlike the appearance of riaaya of Dhuddi zamindar family at their whims, one needs to dig deeper to understand the logic behind the functioning of the system. It is common to listen Zia Ahmad Khan while talking to the elders of the riaaya family, whom he considers important because they have been living in the village since the times of his father Haji Bahadar Khan and uncle Ghulam Muhammad Khan. Such people are given importance even when they have died, and the benefit of such feelings also keeps flowing to the progeny of the deceased. For example, when one of the elder (85) from Musalli (the caste responsible for cleanliness and stands at the lowest level in social rank of castes) family died and his youngest son who had shifted to mandi, 40 kilometres from the villages of the study, came back to ask Zia Ahmad Khan for the haatah (house with both physical and personal boundary as independent household) of his father. Zia Ahmad Khan opined that the haatah belongs to the deceased because he was amongst the earliest settlers with Haji Bahadur Khan and Ghulam Muhammad Khan, therefore, it gives the progeny of deceased first right in his haatah. So, the land for cultivation may be circling among the riaaya with more autonomy to decide for the zamindar, but these decisions are not made with open choices for zamindar when it comes to matters of residence in the village. Furthermore, it is 26

not possible for zamindar to evict a riaaya from the village without regretting this decision. According to Qamar Zaman Khan, it brings bad name to zamindar if one keeps on changing riaaya because it shows one’s weakness for not being able to satisfy even the immediate dependents. Therefore, the relationship between zamindar and kammi is not only mutually beneficial to both but it also entails a social pressure to keep the relationship working. Though zamindar is visibly on the higher end of the social ladder, yet the relationship demands from the zamindars to ensure the complete protection of the kammis or riaaya in all spheres of life. Importantly, if a zamindar is unable to fulfil the role as competent and self-sufficient patron who has to provide the kammi with all the needs, then the relationship starts losing its core values. As the following diagram also shows that there is mutual give and take in the relationship, which depends upon both the parties of the relationship. Apparently, one can find the table unduly structural in the favour of zamindars, and to some extent rightly. However, one must understand the broader necessities of life for the kammis or the people who are residing in a village as riaaya since decades––compelling them to stay permanently dependent. I can reflect on many cases to show that how people are structurally dependent upon their zamindars but one of the most compelling reason remains the role of zamindar as patron. As a matter of practical concern, people who do not have direct clout in state institutions i.e. police, revenue department, union council etc, feel themselves time and again dependent upon their zamindar patron. Once asked by one of the elder (47) member from kammi biraderi while sitting at the Amin Kot dera, I was asked by the elder that what officer would I become after completing my degree from . Upon hearing my answer that I would be teaching somewhere in universities in Pakistan, the man was happy that he would not need to go to a gazetted officer for getting his documents verified. The reasons behind these mundane necessities of kammi households and their individuals lie in everyday realities of life. The general picture of mutual relationship between zamindar and kammi is presented in the following diagram.

Figure 1.4: Zamindar and Kammi relations

27

The above given diagram shows that mutual relationship between zamindars and kammis is beneficial to both and it urges them respectively to keep the relationship intact. As a practical reality, except one Zargar family from Amin Kot, no family has been able to move from Amin Kot due to the elevated economic status. Nonetheless, there are three Chadoya families and one Qasaai (butcher) family from Khokhran who have significantly enhanced their socio-economic status to come out of the traditional structure of zamindar and kammi relationship as mutually dependent. When some kammi family becomes economically self-sustaining, it is more likely that the family would shift to some two nearby towns of Sahuka (some Qasaai families moved there) and Deewan Sahib (Zargar family from Amin Kot) where they can buy the house, or the family would move to Burewala city as Chadoyas of Khokhran did. However, one important concern in this regard is the social protection to the kammis and riaayas provided by the patron zamindar, which becomes the important reason for them to stay in relationship as riaaya with zamindar. For example, Allah Ditta Saasi (landless caste considered as branch of Bhatties) who has business as an aarhti (trader working as middle man between farmer and market) with one of his partner in Sahuka, has not moved out of Amin Kot despite the fact that he is in a position to buy a good house in Sahuka. When I asked second son (22) of Allah Ditta who also assists his father at the shop about the reason to stay in dependent position with the zamindar, the boy shared that his father believes that if he moves out of Amin Kot then Zia Ahmad Khan would not be in compulsion to help them in time of need. He shared some instances when police was involved due to different conflicts and brawls, which are common in market. The boy also shared that that now, whenever there is any such unwanted situation, Zia Ahmad Khan comes to the support of Allah Ditta because the latter is riaaya and his interests are to be protected as the first responsibility as zamindar. Therefore, the relationship between zamindar and kammi households should be understood in these logics of practical realities, which are pre-disposed orientations of the people due to their logic of practice in Bourdieusian terms.

1.4: Rationale of the Study

This study re-enforces the need to understand the social structure of changing village in Pakistan, where increasing urbanisation is enticing academic interest either in class structure (Qadeer 2006; Rahman 2012) or religiosity as marker of emerging middle class in urban centres (Maqsood 2017).

28

An increasing interest is also being generated in the studies about women issues, which cover as encompassing domain as state structure (Weiss 2014; Zia 2018). However, despite many changes, when assessed against the structured village life the assessment shows that it is also rooted in the traditional socio-economic structure. It brings me to concur with Sorge and Padwe that “rumours of the village’s demise, then, have been greatly exaggerated” (Sorge and Padwe 2015: 236). While considering the general picture of Pakistan’s economy, we find that “Agriculture is the lifeline of Pakistan’s economy” because it still accounts for “19.5 percent of the gross domestic product, employing 42.3 percent of the labour force and providing raw material for several value-added sectors”(Governement of Pakistan 2017: 19). I intend to further narrow down the economic and social importance of land as a “source of income and the basis on which village society is divided into two distinct groups, owners and non-owners” (Eglar 2010: 288). Now, this needs to be evaluated when land ownership has shrunk significantly as individual share and its subsequent role in the overall social structure is in need of recent assessment.

My understanding is that an anthropologist is much better equipped “to understand social change” because “social anthropologist is to describe all of society in such terms that we see how it persists, maintains itself, and changes through time”(Barth 1967: 661). This importance of anthropology assumes further clarity even among historians when a specific case is placed in longue durée of history. Susan Bayly pertinently reminds us about the significance of the works of anthropologists because “this discipline’s special skills, and its insights into the small-scale community, can and should be drawn on in the attempt to explore both changes and continuities in the experience of caste” (Bayly 1999: 6). My broader intention of the study is also an informed and grounded study of “representations of inequality as consisting of locations within abstract hierarchies rather than of concrete connections among people”(Tilly 2001: 301) through what I refer as claims of elevated statuses of endogamous groups in Punjab. Therefore, I have aimed to present my analysis of gift exchange in everyday life as a force which “creates, maintains and strengthens various social bonds–be they cooperative, competitive or antagonistic – which in turn define the identities of persons”(Yan 2005: 246). My holistic understanding would bring forth how people define their personhood through cooperation, competition in respective equal, unequal and antagonistic positions. I do not intend to problematize the personhood as a discrete construct, rather

29

the personhood is aimed to lay the ground for much narrower analysis of marriages and deaths as social events.

There are many debates about forces of social change at the background but this study attempts into unlocking what is normally referred to as traditional practices and its relationship with current practices. It is crucial to make a clear statement about the meaning of ‘traditional practices’, which are not abstract academic underpinnings but its meaning for people and their relation with such meaning is at the core of my analysis to follow. In the study, such an understanding of the people about their past and their constitution of identity in present context of vartan is the mainstay of my study. As the main premise of this study is less historical and more ethnographical, therefore, visibility of people is intended as much as possible. The following debate would highlight not only changes in such ‘traditional practices’, but it would also argue against any exaggerated notions of social change. As the introduction of vartan bhanji shows, the practice remains one of the basic themes in a Punjabi village. This leaves the meaning and importance of such practice located in past as helpful case when we try to understand the potency of social change. It is already well-debated that how a particular social structure of state apparatus resulted in biraderies within particular socio-economic structure in Punjab (Ahmad 1977, 1970; Gilmartin 1979, 2012; Malhotra 1998; Talbot 1998; Oldenburg 2002; Nelson 2011; Javid 2012). This study would try to extend the debate not only on these lines, which sound more political, and historical but the eventual layout of the study would become anthropological with the evolution of the argument of the study located in contemporary times. Resultantly, the study takes into account the historically located sources of power, economic reality, and socially located positioning of the actors in their relevance for today. It remains beyond the scope of this study to go into unasked depth of politico-legal and social dimensions of a complete historical genealogy of the villages of my study, but it is also at the cost of oneself as an anthropologist to overlook the origin of the social structure, within which the spirit of vartan is embedded. So, the study would try to construct the permeation of a particular meaning of social status through a historical origin, which interacts now within the sphere of recent modes of ‘transition in tradition’. As the theoretical framework would also highlight, I have tried to incorporate the ‘social capital’ of Pierre Bourdieu to juxtapose what the contemporary sense of the word tradition entails here. Further zooming in, when the

30

discussion shifts from general debates about globalization and multi-headed forces of modernity to the ways it has unfolded in the villages of the study, this tries to bring forth the contemporary layout of the village.

This study does not shy away from the ambiguity in meaning of theoretical terms, but it tries to take on whatever help is possible to be taken from the major theoretical formulations. Just to connect theoretical framework with ethnographic analysis, I must make it clear that neither theory nor ethnographic understanding from the villages has been tailored to fit into each other. So, the study takes its own independent course acknowledging both the ability and inability of the given theoretical frameworks in the light of ethnographic data. The detailed scheme of theoretical understanding has been separately deliberated in the third chapter. Now, it lets me to proceed for a brief introduction of both the villages as cursory points to navigate my understanding through writing. Importantly, the logic to look into gift exchange as social capital is an effort to mediate between general debates about gift exchange as social and economic practice to the articulation of individuality and collectivity in sociality of the practice. This theme of understanding about individuality’s translation into collective sphere is a process of bargaining where continuous negotiation of personhood and change happens. The reason behind this realization of individual identity and its collective representation is important for the coming debate about biraderi and its relevance as social identity. The reason behind such an analogy of processual understanding of biraderi is important when we bring in the socio-economic dynamics of vartan bhanji when biraderi is brought into account.

My focus in this study is not to assert my own position by undermining the work of many other anthropologists who have been working on biraderi system (as it is generally referred to), but I am unable to stand with most of the accepted academic wisdom in this regard. Therefore, it is important to reflect on my own position also that how I disagree and why I find myself uncomfortable with the existing plethora of debates. My second chapter of the thesis debates my personal background as native anthropologist and how I have been reflecting upon my personal position. However, here I must make clear my point of departure from rest of the studies which propagate the term ‘biraderi’ as somewhat stable in general meaning ascribed to it, but I find myself uncomfortable and indecisive when the fixed, and unchanging meaning is given to this

31

term. For example, the general understanding of the term for the people is not fixed as anthropologists and sociologists have assumed most of the time. It is impossible to come across any study which does not acknowledge the loose meanings for even single biraderi over a longer period of time. Consequently, it is important to question this tendency to pool together, on the one hand as an authoritarian narrative-making, and on the other hand, what remains ambiguous and opaque. My aim in this study is to bring in such mobility of the people, which becomes helpful for acceptability and unacceptability of the meanings of the biraderi. Therefore, meaning of the term biraderi remains indecisive not only in academia but it has more than one meanings for people.

Here I want to reflect on the idea of marrying certain places to certain ideas (Appadurai 1986 & 1988), which can be helpful for understanding the tendency to fall within the dominant narrative-making domain. Tellingly, instead of accepting loose meanings of the terms biraderi, zat (caste) or qaum (used interchangeably with later, but it mostly refers to artisan castes), most of the studies have not recognized this reality but have tried to prove it as a fixed––thus true representation of the society. This is important to ask that why does it remain essential for any such effort to understand biraderi system to be treated as an unchanging lived social reality. This study aims to bring forth not only the tendencies which dictate the fixity of biraderi, but it also explores the ambiguity which remains persistent. Therefore, in this study, my theoretical reliance on Pierre Bourdieu is helpful in many respects where vartan has been seen under the lenses of not only social capital, but it also incorporates the changing modes of this practice which brings in contemporary spirit of not only social meanings of the exchanged items, and feelings, but the economic considerations in this regard as well. The study also incorporates the wider scope of narrative about caste in colonial regime of knowledge (Cohn 1996; Bayly 1999; Dirks 2001; Guha 2013). This would lead to the relatively present times for looking into the sensibility of the alien knowledge which has been appropriated as true representation of the supposedly ‘ever-living’ biraderi system.

This understanding of colonial gaze at caste (Malhotra 1998) is important to bring in the ethnography of gift exchange as contemporary lens to question it in today’s context. Therefore, it is important to realize that the practice of vartan bhanji is not taken as discrete and disconnected case study. In fact, the practice remains one of the most important defining mediums for the

32

representation and articulation of individual and shared identity in contemporary Punjabi village. I must make clear what I mean when I use the expressions ‘articulation’ and ‘representation, where the former means a process which culminates in the later. Though, representation also means here a process, but at the specific moments of death rituals and marriages, which are in themselves culmination of ordinary times, so what is represented at these specific moments is treated here as a consummated identity. What makes this whole arrangement of vartan bhanji as a case to look into broader themes of possible understanding is the fluid and active presence of identity of those who are involved in the practice. The expressive and meaningful aspect of the terms like len den, vartan, vartan bhanji, walan wassan and saanjh (mutual sharing in social relationships or material possessions) are to be dealt in detail in theoretical section. I intend to problematize all these words in the theoretical section not only in their social currency but it would also lead to the economic dictations of the conceptual importance of these terms.

I am also well aware of the limitations of this study. Limitations are not always necessarily coming from monetary and time constraints (though in this case it is true as timely completion of degree), but practical possibility also remains an important concern. Quite purposefully, I consider to keep scope of the study limited not to toe the existing debates, but it comes mostly from the urge to propose a new way for the understanding about biraderi as an identity. For example, this very urge has dictated against my earlier scheme, to write only about the contemporary times, compelling me to relate my ‘contemporaneity’ to the historical and traditional meanings. Now, when one tries to understand the social history of biraderi through an institutionalized practice of vartan bhanji, practical considerations are themselves self-revealing. As a case in point, I came to realize it when I was collecting my data on kinship patterns of both the villages, and I started thinking about kinship as the most important factor in this whole practice. However, later on, when I went deeper into the written records and sensibilities of gift exchange practices, then the emerging importance of market economy seemed to be the equally important factor in this regard. As the study would highlight gradually, the shift in every day economic needs and materialist considerations is having an influence which is generally not given the required recognition as such. Therefore, it is always similar with an anthropologist that whatever one is trying to understand in a society, it very important within the larger frame of the given society. It is true that certain

33

terminological expressions like ‘modernity’, ‘post-modernity’, and ‘globalization’ remain embedded in the contemporary academic consciousness. What I find as a limit of this study is not my deliberate choice to whisk away from such debates, but my inability to establish a relationship with academic abstraction, which remains distant located in metropolis cities and the remotely imagined village.

1.5: Locating Debate in Anthropology of Punjab (Pakistan)

“The anthropology of Pakistan has, in many respects, been at the margins of the discipline”(Ewing 2010: 531).

Ewing is pertinent when she identifies the anthropology of Pakistan as a particularly neglected discipline in the general state of apathy to knowledge and education. However, when we narrow down further our focus on Punjabi village, we see that a certain image of Punjabi village has dominant location of anthropological interests in Pakistan. Gupta and Ferguson reflect on these proclivities within anthropological lens because “some places are more anthropological than others”(Gupta and Ferguson 1997: 11). At broader level we can understand it from the crafting of narrative-making about caste in India’s context (Appadurai 1986b) and “the philosophy underlying area studies”, which Bose and Jalal both see as resulting in “spurious, ahistorical ‘religious’ and ‘cultural’ essences and denying peoples of these regions their agency”(Bose and Jalal 2004: 215). This is important to see how the rationale of this research endeavour has been placed in larger picture of the ethnographic landscape of the existing modes of debate. My use of the term ‘modes of debate’ is meaningful and deliberate because these same modes and proclivities still remain not only important references but their limited scope can be contested. All of the anthropological literature on Punjab tends to see Punjabi society as inherently divided between zamindar and non- zamindar. The problem emerges when such representation is taken for granted as fixed and unchangeable. Importantly, this obfuscates the further possibilities of understanding of the diversity of individual as well as collective representations of the people in the contemporary times. I am of the view that treating the role of land ownership as the basic premise of rural Punjabi society is different from treating it as always dependent on the same over the long course of history. Unfortunately, the same has happened in historical and anthropological analysis with far reaching

34

consequences. The reasons for such happening may be multiple, but the urge of comparisons seems to be the most potent driving force. For example, Lyon argues that “Pakistan shares much of its history with northern India. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the anthropology of Pakistan might benefit from comparison with that of India” (Lyon 2004a: 25). Now, considering the ongoing debates about questioning the caste and processes of decolonization in India (Bandyopadhyay 2004), I find these comparisons within the larger and generic modes as not only problematic, but they also lead to the misrepresentations.

My quite recent field experience at three different Punjabi villages (Mohla, Gujrat for M.phil study and two villages of this study) does not allow me to accept such an understanding of the fixed social order. As my understanding remains within the purview of social anthropology, I would be reflecting on the major existing ideas and their argumentation. Anthropology in Pakistan is still in its nascence; thus, the discipline still remains far from what can be called as radical response to the frames of colonialism. My uneasiness with parochial remnants of colonial frames does not overlook the critical voices from within the discipline, but my concern remains with the scale to which anthropology has been able to achieve in this regard. As a case in point, I cannot see any salient step in this regard which shows that such distant, exotic, and parochial approaches have been undone. Furthermore, immanence of the particular image of village structure is itself reflective of my concerns about the discipline. In addition to this, what aggravates it further is the response to such knowledge of receiving societies. Therefore, we must be aware of this background of any such socio-cultural study, because even if it criticizes such references, these same references yet remain the most important defining constructs. One of the most important contribution about the politics and power of knowledge remains the sustained effort made in the subaltern studies series. I have realized that the subaltern intervention occupies a pivotal position when it comes to the debate about representations and anthropology as a discipline. For example, the subaltern studies and anthropology as a discipline is realized by Jegnathan because “the world is always mediated and constructed by archives of knowledge and protocols of knowledge production” (Jeganathan 2000: 40). I explore the embeddedness as an anthropologist, myself in this case who intends to talk about the people away from colonial tradition of distant anthropologist. Spivak, is appositely relevant when she argues for “subaltern consciousness” as “displaced to global political sphere, so that (a) knowledge can be made data and (b) a subaltern 35

will for globalization can be put together as justification for policy”(Spivak 2000: 326). My acknowledgement of the subaltern studies as one of the most important references also pertains to an intersection of the relationship between colonialism and processes of state formation where anthropology occupies the central importance as indigenous discipline1.

Historically, today’s Pakistani Punjab is different from the one, which was studied and imagined by the colonial administrators for a long time after 1947 and before. Indeed, my concern in this study is more oriented to the recent changes in a Pakistani Punjabi village, but terminological persistence of Punjab as regional conceptualisation must not be overlooked. I have been feeling this uneasiness with my use of the word ‘Punjabi village’ right from first day, because the word is referent to a historical sensibility, as a large territorial configuration of apparently similar socio-cultural geography. Madan has also rightly argued “however distinct the villages were in their character, they were always a part of a wider social and civilizational matrix” (Madan 2002: 3). Though in this study, I have used the same expression of Punjabi village, yet my use is only as a current one village of the study in Punjab, which makes claims only for the villages of the study and those who have more in common i.e. area wise, land ownership patterns, and rural/urban configuration etc.

Anthropology as a discipline is not very well grounded in Pakistan, thus remaining largely stuck in carrying forward the same legacy of following same fault lines in cultural understanding. It is needed to understand the fact that all of the post-colonial societies have not been able to realize that the real source of knowledge which can salvage their urge for ‘true’ or ‘near-true’ knowledge about themselves can come only from endogenously informed anthropological studies. But, this

1 I refer here only to the most influential contributions of the subaltern studies which proved most instrumental for the debates about indigenization of knowledge and concerns for silences and visibilities of different actors, subjects and agencies. For details see Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography,” in Writings on South Asian History and Society, Subaltern Studies IV (New : Oxford University Press, 1985), 330– 363; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Discussion: An Afterword on the New Subaltern,” in Community, Gender and Violence, ed. Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, Subaltern Studies XI (London: Hurst & Company, 2000), 305–334; Ranajit Guha, “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography,” in Writings on South Asian History and Society, ed. Ranajit Guha, Subaltern Studies VI (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 210–209; Ranajit Guha, “Introduction,” in A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, ed. Ranajit Guha (London: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), ix–xxii; David Arnold, “The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge, and Penology in Nineteenth-Century India,” in A Subaltern Studies Reader 1986-1995, ed. Ranajit Guha (London: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 140–178; Partha Chatterjee, “Caste and Subaltern Consciousness,” in Writings on South Asian History and Society, ed. Ranajit Guha, Subaltern Studies VI (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 169–209. 36

very realization still remains a distant dream. It is true not only about Pakistan, but also for whole of South Asia (Śarana and Sinha 1976). For example, if establishment of anthropological departments and schools of cultural studies with their focus on anthropological approach in universities is taken as a measure to know the groundedness of the discipline, then the situation seems even more dismal. There are 5-6 universities in Pakistan, a country with 210 million people with ever-present ethnic assertions, and wide diversity in all its flora and fauna. To aggravate the situation further, funding prospects for universities are themselves even more dismal. There is hardly any anthropological project or study which can be presented as a complete national project conceptualized, financed and executed by the indigenous anthropologists within national means. Ironically, most of the key texts about Pakistani societies either have been produced by non- Pakistani anthropologists or those written by Pakistani ethnographers have been trained outside of Pakistan. Not only, it should be an important concern to think about the overall growth of post- colonial studies, but anthropology has to assume the leading front because of its leading position in colonial knowledge. It is beyond the scope of this study to give an account of complete anology of knowledge production and its powered relations, but here my concern remains only with ethnographic representaions, which undoubtedly do not undermine the importance of many influential streams of knowledge i.e. subaltern studies, post-colonial studies etc.

It is also important to keep in mind that academic responses to epistemologically fixed understanding of certain areas within certain frames is also due to the fact that territorial imaginations of postcolonial transition are themselves mired in multiple challenges and historical ambiguities. For example, post-partition emergence of Pakistan and then place of Punjab in the national polity has drawn focus in a very different way. Politically, post-partition scenario with a fragile state structure was itself an important reason for particular exotic images of Punjabi society in the academia. This exoticism in anthropological roots does not need a detailed discussion, but one can say with confidence that particular trends within anthropological roots have hindered the way for meaningful departure from such trends. Likewise, another practical problem has always been at the heart of any territorial configuration as a site of knowledge. This is also true with regard to Punjab, which in its terminological sense means quite different what it survives in its contemporary political imagination. Pakistan which was carved out of larger British India, also inherited the divided Punjab, with very tragic history of bloodshed. There is no dearth of literature 37

and historical studies dealing with the event, but anthropological exploration has never been possible which can give a unified sense of the divided Punjab. So, now when the word is itself devoid of its historical relevance, then it is important to ask how my use of the same word justifies its usage. Therefore, that the idea of Punjab as a typical society in its socio-economic sense located within particular milieu of political understanding is relevant. It is possible due to two primary reasons; (a)trying to transcend the given boundaries, (b)questioning the transcendence itself. I consider it necessary to understand the contemporary societal structure of Punjabi village with a markedly indigenous anthropological approach. Nurul Alam succinctly advocates that “a fundamental prerequisite for anthropology for the future is to make anthropology relevant and contextual considering the need of the society” (Alam 2002: 45). So, considering such future of anthropology as a prerequisite for the acceptance of the discipline as true representative, we must look into the broader picture we have been confined in.

The ensuing debate not only questions the classification of British logic as dictated by administrative urge, but it would also aim to highlight that how these same records remain the most important sources of any such attempt to contest the same. Smith (1996) rightly points out about colonial documentation of local people in terms of record-keeping. The author is mindful to the fact that “the form of records is stereotype yet they teem with factual detail” (Smith 1996: 8). Ironically, I find it indigestible when confronted with claims of true knowledge establishing a coherence between what society offers and what we as researchers have been made to believe. This continuing colonial lens is my major point of concern in reason to write this part of the introduction. As earlier said, not only all of the researchers accept the biased approach of colonial knowledge-producing urge, but everyone is stuck in same references. The reason to look into these paradoxes is important because it is relevant to understand the under-growth of indigenous realization of self-knowing in general as well as particularly in the case of Pakistan. I am convinced that if the logic behind a study remains committed to one particular mode of understanding, then it is bounded to bring forth conforming conclusions. Thus, this study not only tries to shed such urges of academically-accepted conformity, but it also tries to advocate a newer recourse to the study of biraderi system.

The reasons behind my such claims for newer recourse to the understanding of biraderi,

38

pre-dominantly come from what the people themselves happen to represent. It is true that role of land ownership has been important in Punjab, but anthropological imagination of a fixed understanding on the same basis is neither true in its existing structure nor helpful. Due to same reasons different authors have debated social implications of the trends of land ownership in Punjab with their different respective understanding of the role of land ownership in the village life. These studies take in their fold important social, legal, and political debates by relying on the role of landed-elite and the landless strata (Ahmad 1977; Chaudhary 1999; Javed 2012). Moreover, the current land ownership patterns also remain an important arena in state practices since British period (Gilmartin 1979) to contemporary political processes like voting behaviour (Mohmand 2011) and the role of landed elite in politics through patronage (Talbot 1998; Lyon 2004a; Javid 2012; Martin 2016).

There is no denying the fact that such studies merit their due importance as important representations of the society, but it comes at the cost of certain reifications of ideas. Indeed, there is no doubt about the fact that biraderi has been and still remains important in Punjabi life, but it is worth asking that why only fixed notions of biraderi should be the central question of all studies. This is important keeping in mind the relationship between anthropological perspective and their relationship with power both as constitutive and subversive of it;

“The anthropological perspective on studying cultural codes of societies, whether through ‘thick description’ or by analyzing symbols and rituals of a culture is equally important, as is the desire to study cultural texts for their meanings; so too is Foucault’s notion of discursive practices as sites both for constituting power and for its subversion”(Malhotra and Mir 2012: iii).

Thus, such an approach remains problematic becuause it plays its role in both ways––on the one hand, by criticising colonial intervention in the indigenous socities (in this case, Punjab), on the other hand, simultaneously relying on same fixed understandings of the colonized societies. This is important to to recognize that subversion of such rigidly defined social hierarchies like biraderies as the elevated ones and on the lower ends should be accepted as a social phenomenon instead of assuming same as necessary tool to imagine Punjabi society. Such a realization is possible by keeping in mind the relationship between an anthropologist and philospoher (Das et 39

al. 2014) This study does not rely on philosophical probing, but the major thrust remains embedded in questioning anthropological position.

1.6: Structure of Thesis

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The reason for seven chapters is largely intentional and to some extent accidental. When I refer to the intentional part, it focuses on the main themes of the study, which I planned to focus for my fieldwork. For example, the nature of land record data and introduction of the locale was quite clear to me from the beginning of the study that this would make my first chapter. Therefore, to understand the social structure of village that leads to our subsequent evolution of the argument is my first chapter. In the first chapter, I have aimed to present a little discussion of the physical, socio-legal and historically determined outlook of the villages of study. This has led me to understand the claims of status and power or powerlessness in the village where people are divided on the basis of land ownership and lack of the same. Furthermore, I have given some cases about changing socio-economic situations of some individuals and their families to question fixed notions of izzat (respect), ghairat (the word does not have fixed meaning, but it is used more specifically about serious matters of honour), sharam (shame, modesty), muqaam (social standing) and shanakht (recognition) of individuals and biraderies .

My second chapter takes me to what I referred as accidental part of my thesis. This chapter actually springs from my reflection on my personal position as a native anthropologist. I was not aware of the importance of impact, which my self was destined to have in this whole study. I reflected on my ‘self’ because I had similar concerns while doing earlier ethnography for my previous study (Qadar 2015) at a village near Gujrat. However, this time, as expected I had different sources of solace and support because I was among the people of my own village, where I knew each person of the village and everyone knew me. But, I found that my belonging to certain zamindar family in the leading position of the village had structured my field significantly. This similar concern to counter-check my self and representations of the people in this regard is central to the second chapter. This self of anthropologist in second chapter is deliberately specific and direct to what general understating about Punjabi personhood is believed. Hence, second chapter

40

deals with the questions of nativity, (un)strcturedness of the Punjabi field and concerns for representation for native anthropology.

These concerns for self of a native anthropologist were random and less planned during my fieldwork days as compared to my theoretical guidance. I have deliberately avoided long discussion of different modes of debates about gift exchange in different disciplines i.e. anthropological/sociological or economic/non-economic. Therefore, my discussion in theoretical chapter is only about the origin of the systematic studies on topic, which tend to narrow down to main influence on this thesis. When I attribute one of the many important influences in this regard, I must admit that Pierre Bourdieu has been the most important influence. As discussed in theoretical chapter, I am of the view that Pierre Bourdieu is the best placed thinker, who is sensitive to not only to the context in which he situates his analysis, but he questions his proclivities also. Whenever I thought about any ethnographic tension, I found that Bourdieu was always there to help me out for his persistent self-reflexivity. Furthermore, Bourdieu is aptly aware of the local conditions, which provide him with the most relevant contextual opportunity to propose relationship between object, money and gift in changing economic order. This paves the way for my theoretical formulation of main argument in Bourdieusian terms and I export his key ideas and to the villages of my study. Thus, in third chapter, I theorize my understanding of the gift mainly informed and derived from Bourdieusian analysis.

After theorizing third chapter, I proceed to another rather less planned fourth chapter, which is pushy but generic due to the need of topic. I consider it pushy because while thinking and writing about fifth and sixth chapters as mainstay of the whole argument of the thesis, I came to realize that personhood is itself central to the evolving structure of thesis. Therefore, while conceptualizing key properties of izzat, sharam, muqaam and ghairat of Punjabi person, I have written the fourth chapter to pave way for thick ethnography of marriages and death rituals. This chapter provides us with the background about changing individual and familial positions, or their counterbalancing historical fixation of the status and position. This also acts as an opportunity to explore the generic but changing milieu of cultivation of personhood in rural Punjab when economic avenue and social standing of the people is in transition against their fixed traditional

41

order. Thus, the fourth chapter bridges introduction of the locale and theoretical formulation of third chapter to the eventual ethnographic discussion of fifth and sixth chapter.

The fourth chapter is followed by the fifth chapter of which provides the ethnographic discussion of marriages as meaningful scheme of understanding social capital. My account of ethnography of the marriages is not limited only to festivity, but the chapter also helps us understand how marriages define the social flow in everyday life in the villages. The schematic use of marriages is presented as case studies not only to argue for the coherent world of celebrations and festivity, however my aim takes me to question the same. For example, the presence of shareeka (opponent from within) is profoundly convincing about similar urge to question the gaiety as only objective of marriages. Therefore, my use of the expression of shareeka is limited only to what people see as opponent within one against the opponents as equals. These competitive and hostile performances of different roles make the marriages interesting case for overall understanding of the vartan. So, fifth chapter serves the purpose of consequential stage of vartan as repository of social relations in the villages of study. This constitutes my scheme for the fifth chapter of the thesis. However, the word vartan is not limited only to celebratory relationships. People define their relationships of vartan rather strongly, but quietly at their deaths. This takes me to sixth and second last chapter of the thesis.

Sixth chapter is about death rituals in both the villages of the study. This chapter discusses death rituals of the people as socially shared. The importance of the analysis about death rituals is far beyond their ritualistic significant. People are quite concerned about their relationships with their dead and they define their living relationships through the sharing of their dead. My intention in the last chapter is also to narrate the complete flow of social life of people when they talk about their vartan. This chapter, which is also the last one discusses the death as equally important part of vartan, which neither people limit to their marriages nor serves the purpose if left unrecognized. So, the thesis weaves the social life of the villages of the study through their articulation of personhood, which is expressed and recognized and reciprocated through both the joy of marriages and sorrow of the deaths. All the sixth chapters are concluded with a brief conclusion of respective chapters. Similarly, thesis as a whole is also concluded in seventh chapter and this is also the last chapter to present a brief discussion of as well as summary of whole thesis.

42

Chapter Two: Methodological Framework: Navigating ‘Self’ as a Punjabi Anthropologist

2.1: Introduction to Relationship among Field, Punjabi Anthropologist and Nativity

“In the social sciences, the progress of knowledge presupposes progress in our knowledge of the conditions of knowledge” (Bourdieu 1990: 1).

As the above given passage shows, production of knowledge assumes more importance when one is confronted with an anthropological field, where claims of closeness, and authenticity of the knowledge are more assertive. My reflexivity during my fieldwork experiences at two different villages in Punjab, Pakistan has convinced me that such claims are far-fetched unless the claimant, myself as an anthropologist, is well-aware of the knowledge and power nexus. Self of an anthropologist is assuming increasing importance as awareness about colonial origins of the discipline (Asad 1973; Lewis 1973; Bourdieu 2003; Bourdieu and Sayad 2004) and concern for representations is being refined (Lewis 2015). Similar concerns, originating from my personal position during fieldwork have compelled me to make sense of my personal position as a native anthropologist, which strongly impacts the relationship between researcher as a Punjabi anthropologist and his/her field. As the following debate would also highlight, I argue that making of such realization is important for the eventual relationship between researcher and the people of the village. We need to debate the self of an anthropologist regardless of the closeness or distance of field because such realization is itself important. For example, Chaudhary experiences different kinds of fields as researcher, like ‘Muslim researcher from Pakistan working in ’, ‘Muslim Punjabi researcher working at Chillas, Gilgit’, and Punjabi researcher doing research in Punjab (Chaudhary 2006 & 2011). As the village profile given in first chapter indicates, my personal background as belonging to one zamindar family of the one village of the study had important bearing throughout my stay for the fieldwork. This compelled me to locate myself as the one, occupying a position as a native anthropologist, which has strong influence for the researcher as a Punjabi anthropologist. As Punjabi rural society is visibly hierarchical, so are the people assessed and treated (Chaudhary 1999; Lyon 2004a; Eglar 2010). It is common in the villages of the study that people come to know someone only by knowing one’s caste––

43

determining one's status as higher, equal or lower. Thus, origin of oneself is an important determinant of one’s acceptability and rapport-building in the village depending upon the caste, and social status. This position, as the one coming from the zamindar family in the village though facilitated my entry into the field but it also reminded me of many past events, their contexts, which otherwise would have gone unnoticed. However, the nativity as a position of an anthropologist also proves a difficult barrier sometimes or leading to the very mundane but undesired directions. Hence, I realized that it is necessary to make myself cognizant of the fact that my background is itself loaded with socio-historical making, which exists independent of myself. In a similarly extended emphasis on my personal position I also realized that the way one enters in the field, it also determines the contours of what is generally known as fieldwork. It leads me to explore anthropology’s self-belief about essentialized separation of zamindar and non-zamindar with current contextualization to see the relationship influencing the position of anthropologist himself in this regard. Though I do not agree with the scale of division between zamindar and non- zamindar as realities of village life, yet I remain attentive as Martin (2006) also remained worried about similar positions determined through researcher’s relation with one of the respective groups. Martin was conscious that “entry into the village through the Gondals might make it appear to villagers” that he was on the side of the landlords, therefore, he thought that “this might prevent me from winning the trust of kammis” (Martin 2016: 10).

I found all the positions to be important as an anthropologist because they played an important role for my eventual learning relationship with the people of the village. This realization was a constant reminder that the existence of field is quite different from the taken-for-granted village social order for the living people. I came to realize this aspect because despite being native anthropologist, once I was in the village for this specific purpose of ethnographic gaze, it proved a new entry in interesting ways. As an end in itself, Ingold rightly argues that “dialogue in the field, in short, is not just a source of ethnographic facts: for the fieldworker it is also an education” (Ingold 1996: 3). Therefore, if fieldwork is to be treated like a process of education then the very process needs to be reflected throughout the engagement with field. Astuti calls it an “apprenticeship as all-consuming and engages all our senses and body parts” as anthropologists “while ourselves re-learn how to walk, sit, eat, see, and hear, and so on” (Astuti 2017: 10). The reason which urges me to treat my fieldwork as a two way process of learning and sharing, is an 44

accumulation of: my ‘self’, people of the village with all their voices and silences, and field as a reality in itself which remains independent of the anthropologist. Furthermore, this discussion leads to the possibility of realizing multiplicity of anthropological fields and self of an anthropologist by treating the term native as a loose configuration of meanings. The word native here does not refer to Appadurai’s “creatures of anthropological imagination”(Appadurai 1988:39), but contrary to it, the anthropologist is himself placed against the term native. As a matter of closer observation of the term ‘Punjabi native anthropologist’, I rely on Anjum Alvi’s understanding of the personhood in Punjab by what she refers to as “subjective’ personhood” or the “‘shared’, which incorporates the notions like izzat (respect), shame, caste and spheres of public and private both” as distinguished from western understanding of personhood (Alvi 2001: 51). This subjective personhood of an individual as a native Punjabi anthropologist takes us even farther if problematized for the understanding of positionality of native anthropologist. So, can this ‘self’ of anthropologist be shed even if one tries to do? I argue that such selective adoption and rejection of self is not possible. Thus, positions assigned to different actors, as understood by anthropologist are not only concern for the anthropologist himself/herself but they remain important for the actors of the field also. Here I want to make us all realize the real paradox; the position of the native anthropologist him/herself and the positions attributed to the actors may not necessarily be what those social actors want themselves to be positioned as.

As anthropology becomes increasingly concerned about the “self and identity”, Sökefeld calls for the “establishment of a closer connection between them” (Sökefeld 1999: 418). Realizingly, I feel compelled to start with understanding of my ‘self’ because this is important to know how my personal background has impacted my research design in the overall relationship as a researcher. There is significant debate about ‘self’ in western and non-western contexts, which problematizes both the researcher and the subjects (Dumont 1986; Sökefeld 1999: Alvi 2001;). Despite the fact that Dumont’s work has also drawn an increasing scholarship on the topic but most of them now question for its further contextualization and urge for the specificity (Appadurai 1988; Quigley 1999; Celtel 2004). I am of the view that self as an academic construct cannot be defined to make it all time acceptable construct. Therefore, the self of a Punjabi native anthropologist should be separated from a western self, but this separation entails far more than mere understanding of the broader spheres of influence. For example, one anthropologist has 45

multiplex locations of reflexivity, which sometimes act as reminder for the Punjabi anthropologist to be too immersed in the shared personhood that it becomes challenging to shed such personhood for the sake of position as an anthropologist. So, beyond only position as an anthropologist, there are different contexts for the anthropologist which have undeniable importance in the process of research for Punjabi native anthropologist. Therefore, self as an understanding of oneself and the relationship with others/subjects in rural Punjab is generally not individualistic or as separated from the kin or extended family. Lyon is aptly relevant when he opines that “ are socially encouraged to relate to representatives of groups rather than as individuals” (Lyon 2004a: 70). Similarly, Alvi regards the Punjabi personhood as “constituted through its relationship with plurality of bodies” (Alvi 2001: 45). Here lies my concern as a Punjabi native anthropologist, who cannot shed the shared self and either willingly or unwillingly, has to relate to his/her kith and kin, friends and the village fellows. Resultantly, it compels me to think that there is no psychological luxury like native researcher’s position in one’s own society no matter how personal and close it happens to be to writer (Narayan 1993; Chaudhary 2011; Mughal 2015). Thus, one ‘native researcher’ is not a category which can go equal for all, however, contrary to it, the term itself has to be held for retrospection. For example, I come from the main zamindar family of both the villages, and this being, which has already been made, independent of my position as a PhD candidate at a university in Paris, raises important questions. Though I have been enjoying considerably enhanced access to many important spheres of social interaction, yet certain challenges have also been striking me permanently. For example, I was part of inner circles of consultations and management during most of the activities taking place during my stay at the villages. These activities and their making not only sharpened my understanding of the events but it also opened my entry into the otherwise inaccessible women sphere. Hence, this paper raises important questions for the anthropologist’s relationship with writing and the positions of not only of the actors of the field but for defining the self of anthropologist himself/herself. Bourdieu rightly reminds us about his belonging and its relationship with academic role that ”I could not but be aware that I necessarily fell under the scrutiny of my own analyses, and that I was providing instruments that could be turned against me”(Bourdieu 2000: 4).

These positions which describe living human relations may become paradoxical in particular for a native anthropologist who has to live with his/her active participants for a longer 46

period in a more intimate relationship. Indeed, there are multiple social inequalities in the field, which an anthropologist is not only supposed to understand, but he or she has to write it also. Resultantly, challenges to treat all the agents equally is morally and ethically a pre-requisite, but is it possible ever? Furthermore, as the real motive of research demands, anthropologist does not only have to go to field and then come back to his/her institute, but the anthropologist has to write down the field as well. So, there remains an inseparable relationship between anthropologist as a person, and his/her field with active members and their representation in this whole relationship. Indeed, field is the starting point of any anthropological account, but one can hardly deny the importance of writing in this whole effort. Mosse rightly argues:

The challenge for anthropology today is not how to rearrange ‘fieldwork’ or how to re- frame ‘writing’, but how to get to grips with the changing relationship between the two: change, first, in how fieldwork relations shape writing, and, second, in how writing now alters relationships of ‘the field’(Mosse 2006: 936)

This sensitivity of positions assigned to different people in the anthropological writings and the absence of active presence of ‘some actors’ is the real dilemma in my debate of a native anthropologist in the field. As a Punjabi village is generally divided among different biraderies, so the positions based upon status are heavily skewed in the favour of zamindars. So, some actors refer to those who did not own land and stand devoid of such sources of social status. This helps us realize that the challenges for an anthropologist lie in all forms of research endeavour without prioritizing any role either as a native or an outsider anthropologist. However, it is intended to argue that representations, which anthropological texts bring forth are of special concern for native anthropologist due to the very nature of relationship between an intimate, supposedly responsible researcher who must be sensitive to positions and nature of the relationships with the active subjects.

Now, I aim to present an integrated analysis of the field as experienced, witnessed and written by Eglar against my personal experience of the field. This analysis will take into account the diverse forms, which an anthropological field can assume over the period of time. Furthermore, this assumption of variation in the positions and statuses of the social actors of the field is to be understood in relationship with writing. The actors of field may have concerns against pre- 47

disposed writing orientation like placing certain people in hierarchies, status groups or categories as the following debate would highlight. Resultantly, some actors of field can lose interest in the study or in a worse case can even resist the position of anthropologist. As the relationship between field and anthropologist grows difficult, there is increasing need to understand field and the ways in which field is itself connected to different factors who remain independent of the researcher’s presence. Consequently, a closer look into what makes field, and how native anthropologist is expected to reflect upon his/her relationship with actors of field is important for the anthropologist himself/herself.

2.2: Participant Observation of Note-taking Anthropologist: Notes, Notices and Niceties

My participant observation in the villages of my study was instrumental not only for my academic presence in the villages, but it also gave me a role to stay in the villages quite unlike the one I had since my earliest days of consciousness. Personally, it is not possible that one can barn the whole life for the assumption of a new role as a researcher, however, the dictates of an ethnography acted significantly and in multiple ways. For example, people always asked me the need to write about them when I told them that I was back from France to study among them. This uneasiness and the inability of the people to grasp their significance for the ethnographic study also impacted the mode of conversation. I still remember one young man (22) from nearby village with whom I was discussing the land ownership structure of his village, and he shared his surprise at this mere fact that I need to ask him about one village of Pakistan to share with the French people. I still recall that it was not possible to persuade the young man about the importance of his information despite long effort to persuade him about the same. The uneasiness does not mean that he did not share his thoughts with me but he remained perplexed that the study of Punjabi village in French university. These concerns were quite common by the people what they considered as useless information for the people (French) where I was studying. Now, if we take the field as territory self of anthropologist in these circumstances as essential tool the assumption of the required role as part of society, then Zaman (2008) familiarly identifies both as crucial “to get access to their territory, and to take a role in the community (Zaman 2008: 3). Therefore, both the required attainments are key to a possibility of rapport-building in the village even when I was a native anthropologist in my own village.

48

Participant observation is rightly treated as one of the most important and peculiar data collection methods in ethnographies. Though there is no fixed limit of the time required to spend in the field which qualifies one’s stay as a fulfilment of the established criteria, yet a reasonably stretched and personally involving time with mixed data collection techniques of notes, interviews and surveys make up the broader understanding of the participant observation. It is difficult to define that what duration would qualify as a fulfilment of the necessary time in field, but what remains more important is actually nature of relationship between researcher and field. This relationship also defines significantly the selection and use of methods and data collection techniques. However, participant observation is considered and used as a broader and most reliable “revolutionary praxis” (Shah 2017) in anthropology. Alpa Shah views four important cornerstones of participant observation as revolutionary praxis are long duration for revealing social relations of a group of people aiming at holism with following intimacy and estrangement (Shah 2017: 45). I am of the view that the last condition set by Shah (2017) is not possible for a native anthropologist, especially the Punjabi anthropologist where there is more possibility of a shared ethnography (Haeri 2010). My following discussion would also highlight that estrangement from the field is not possible for native anthropologist. In my case, I still find it impossible to disassociate myself from the same village where I have spent most of my life, and still unable to detach from the people, relations and memories with strong emotionality. Therefore, I have been quite attentive to the fact that same shared being with the field was influential for my relationship with people while taking notes or asking people to sit with me for my study.

Evidently the relationship between my presence as one from the people themselves and the one who takes notes of some important matters always popped up for the people. This made both my presence and the note taking a topic in itself for the people of the villages during my fieldwork and stay at the villages of Amin Kot and Khokhran. When talking with one young man from Khokhran (28) in Burewala city, I came to know that my ‘note taking’ was discussed by some people in Khokhran. I asked the person to share that were people concerned in some specific way about matters of honour or representations, which he replied that in negative and added that actually people were more concerned about the position of my family as an important family of the area and in this relationship my writing of the opponents of my family. Once again, I was asked

49

by an old man (67) from Dhuddi biraderi of Khokhran about the logic of writing about the same people with whom I have been living since my birth. I asked the old man that is he uncomfortable from my note-taking or simply from the logic behind research of village studies? The old man was blunt and replied categorically that when I start taking notes of the conversation, then it is clear that I am not writing for myself and I would discuss these things with someone. The old man, considered a close friend of my father’s brother further advised that either I take notes without telling people or I do not discuss the matters of izzat and ghairat because these are serious matters and people do not want to be discussed. Though here my reference is brief about the note-taking and it is just to keep them as part of larger contextual making of fieldwork, yet I am convinced about the impact of mediating a position between an anthropologist and not-taking which balances the position of anthropologist and the people.

My personal position as a native anthropologist from zamindar family proved more challenging than the convenience I had expected. It also compelled me to change some of my data collecting methods. For example, taking participant observation as a research method, which requires long and personalized sharing of the field between the researcher and researched, I questioned the possibility of assuming any research methods as ‘revolutionary praxis’ when an anthropologist is in the native field. I encountered this practical difficulty while sitting with same people, who had been living with me, my family and in the shared social structure since decades. However, the mode of conversation was heavily skewed in the factors, which were neither of my making nor could be undone even if I wished. As a case in point, during one of the earliest interviews in July 2016, I asked one of the hissaydar (sharecropper) (55) of my cousin (Father’s brother’s son) about the marriage patterns of his family, and he started giving me details of his past two generations. The moment he started speaking and I asked for his permission to take notes, the man became quiet; both due to his unwillingness to let me take the notes and finding it difficult to refuse me for taking notes. Realizing the disapproval of the interlocutor, I asked him about the reason which made him uncomfortable in this regard, and he was of the view that he is afraid of representations from writing in a distant academic environment. The person was little relaxed when clarified about the simplicity of the task that I would not be writing about the women of the house. He further suggested me that I should only write about the Ghulam Muhammad Khan

50

Dhuddi (brother of my grand-father) because according to the interlocutor, Ghulam Muhammad Khan deserved accolades. This reference to one’s patron zamindar is not misplaced in Punjabi rural landscape. People would simply talk about their patrons with more ease and comfort than the matters of marriages, which they can find annoying also. I can still relate it with the difficulty of the man about the marriage patterns of his family because he must be shy about the marriage of his bahteeja (brother’s son) who eloped girl from a kammi family. Similarly, on another occasion, sitting at the dera of my family, when I was busy in group discussion about the conflict between two brothers in Amin Kot and the potential match-making among the sons and daughters of both brothers. When I asked the relative of both the brothers about his opinion, I was asked by my paternal uncle not to mention the name of any woman of the villages while I was busy in taking notes. On the other hand, I realized that if the interview goes orally and information is sought in more informal way instead of making it more formal then the people were more open to talk. Therefore, I started interviewing people most of the times, first making it clear that I need this to discuss with them as information for my studies abroad and then taking notes according to the permission of the people, which was mostly accorded. However, one important concern for the people remained that when there is something more important and serious they would predict that I would start writing. I found it rather problematic that people could anticipate what was more or less important for me by the format of taking notes. Therefore, the realization about the field and its agents is at the heart of any analysis when an anthropologist wishes to keep the control of the field.

2.3: Socio-spatial Making of My Field and Native Anthropologist

Now, taking account of the loose understanding of different words used for native anthropologist like ‘insider’, indigenous (Narayan 1993) and “anthropologist at home”(Mughal 2015), I want to bring myself as a site of study before advancing to taken-for-granted claims about native researcher. I have a confession to make that I still do not feel equally qualified native anthropologist at Gujrat the village of my first study for my M.Phil thesis, as I felt during my fieldwork at Amin Kot and Khokhran the villages where I was born and brought up. This feeling stems from my reflection on the modes and practicalities of participant observation. There may be many reasons for the selection of such approach, but one of the most important reasons for this

51

selection is the claim of ethnography itself. As already discussed that self of an anthropologist as a native anthropologist in Punjabi village is unbreakably placed among his/her community, so it raises important questions. For example, my background from one of the largest landowner families in the area, as a male member who is studying abroad (a source of considerable social status for people of the village), was both helpful and discouraging sometimes. As the village profile suggests, the relationship between zamindar and non-zamindar is structurally unequal through the intricate relationship of dependence and patronage of the later by the former. Evidently, I was always reminded of unequal relationship between me as an important male member of the zamindar family of the area and most of the people of both the villages. This position also influenced my interaction with other members of the zamindar families as well in the nearby villages. Thus, my presence was heavily influenced due to my background, which remained for the people of the villages as more important than the position as a researcher, which was of more important for me at least during my fieldwork. Moreover, my background as a male member of an influential family of the area also cast its shadow upon my process of rapport-building. As a case in point, an important challenge in this regard remained the loss of interest of the Chishti zamindar family in my study who are a political rival family of my family since last three generations. Such loss of interest on the part of Chishti family was pre-defined because of the decades old political and social antagonistic relationship between the Chishti family and the Dhuddi family (to which I belong). Thus, the social structure of the village, and my personal position as an anthropologist with a particular background actually dictated large part of my research design. This self-reflection still remains important because this was not confined to the moments I was in the village, but this still remains important for writing. Therefore, keeping in view the debate about self as repository of certain traits and then making its distinction in particular as Punjabi anthropologist assumes increasing importance. For Radcliffe-Brown, “ethnographer derives his knowledge, or some major part of it, from direct observation of or contact with the people about whom he writes” (Radcliffe-Brown 1952: 2). This focus on direct observation does not only ensure that the boundaries of disciplinary outlook are taken care of, however, it also helps for self-questioning about one’s own role in this whole effort. For example, as I try to cogitate about my role as a native researcher and my tools as an ethnographer, then, this self-questioning raises many important avenues, which might otherwise remain unaccounted for. This relationship

52

between a native researcher, who is doing fieldwork in one’s own village, and the use of participant observation, as major tool of data collection is important for the understanding of (my)self. This realisation that knowledge of oneself is key to understanding of the others, has been primary concern throughout my study.

Indeed, a native anthropologist is her/himself positioned in a somewhat ambiguous position, where urge to take notes and write diaries is a must, but the same invokes different and even sometimes weird responses. For example, during my stay at Mohla, the village of my first ethnography, I was reminded by my main interlocutor and host to be careful while writing down the information which involves matters of honour. It happened while we sat at charpaies (bedstead) at the corner of the baithak of one of the elders from the zamindar families of the village. I started realizing that the selection of the words by the speaker became more careful about the choice of the words when a repute of the family was at stake and the speaker was conscious of the fact that I am taking notes. I knew that the urge to show their generosity as my hosts did not allow them to ask me stop taking notes but certain words and sentences struck me with sheer force of their tenor and claims. As during one of the earlier conversations my host elder from the zamindar family shared with me that he knew that I share with him same claims of ‘khandani shanakht’ (family recognition) and ‘waqaar’(social standing). Thus, I found such many subjectivities as deeply rooted which had important bearing upon my research methods in terms of framing questions, probing some points and deciding about the time and topic of taking notes. In similar vein, I was placed differently when I was doing my recent fieldwork at the village where I was born and raised. Here claims of one’s social recognition and status were actually differently located. I was treated as an important male member of the zamindar family, whose leading male member also has a larger role as patron to significant number of the clients. Consequently, I have this feeling that sometimes, my questions raised more niceties and manners than the sincere urge to respond to my questions. For example, while sitting and taking notes with one Julaha (weaver) male member at the dera of my family, I started taking notes. The brief conversation followed:

Me: Chacha AB, maen yeh sb likh loon jo hum bat cheet kr rhe hain? (Uncle, can I write down what we are discussing at the moment?)

53

AB: lekin agr aap likhna chahte hain to muje kya pta k kya kehna chahiay aur kya nahin, kion k muje pta nahin k aapko kya likhna zaruri ha? (But if you want to note down, how do I know that what should I say or not as I don’t know what is important for you to write or not?

In the meanwhile, a young man from nearby village comes, and my respondent asks me either he should carry on or we should postpone the conversation as according to him, the information I need is too important to be spoiled by someone outsider. This making of outsider actually reflected deep-rooted association of oneself with the unequal positions in which people live, have internalized and give meaning to. On the other hand, I was also well aware of the niceties, which were required of me as the one educated, shareef (noble) person who is well aware of the relationships with people of the area. Like Lindholm, when he was living with his friend and main informant Zaman, the realization of relationships “lay beneath the entire fieldwork enterprise” (Lindholm 1982:xxi). Thus, writing while doing fieldwork is itself tricky part and needs careful realization of the same.

Same tensions remained at the level of negotiation between my ‘self’ as part of the village society and to qualify for the ‘self’ which I am required to attain as necessary ethos of a good ethnography would demand. This was clearly visible from all the configuration of the spatial and socio-economic order of the village. There is no doubt about the sincerity of the people who always showed warmth to my queries, but the structural positions could not be undone. As a case in point, my family being the land owning family, owns the male guest house which is used for most of the male gatherings and gossips, thus, people would always ask me to meet them at my dera, so that a better conversation could be possible. Tellingly, as goes the tradition, people have a proper seating arrangement where socio-economic positions largely dictate the mode of conversation and even selection of words to show respect. So, someone whom I ask to sit and discuss at some neutral place, asks me to go to the dera, then it is also important for the mode and tenor of the conversation which is cognizant of the social positions. I argue that such sensitivities, which people have internalized, significantly determine the relationship between the author and the text. I am convinced after doing my fieldwork for this dissertation that the relationship between anthropologist and subjects is important for all of the anthropological studies. Now, as the self of either of the anthropologist or that of the subjects is pivotal to Punjabi ethnography, therefore, one

54

must not forget the fact that if one remains stuck to linear and time-free understanding of the self in either of the western or non-western category of the term, then there is lack of very presence of selfhood. I have realized this multiple time while doing my fieldwork that people deliberately hide or mask their self not out of emotional or economic reasons, but for the very articulation of self. For example, such masks are at display at particular moments of joy and sorrows when families as a whole try to hide individual representations to show collective strength known as salook, (unity), and bhai chara, (brotherhood).

2.4: A Punjabi Village as Field and Anthropologist as ‘Native’ Anthropologist.

It is not only difficult to streamline what separates field from rest of the society and to what extent does an anthropologist have the freedom to decide about such boundaries is an important question. However, ethnographers refer to the natural setting where there is no claim of control on the people as the field. Angrosino claims that this “process of doing ethnography is therefore often called “fieldwork”(Angrosino 2006: 2). The careful assessment of not only one’s background as anthropologist is necessary, but the very moment of anthropological present is itself cause of interesting times. Geertz rightly reminds this temporal presence of anthropology when there is “simultaneous increase in cosmopolitanism and parochialism”(Geertz 2002: 14). Therefore, the need to reflect on oneself should be coupled with the place and time of discipline itself. Narrowing from anthropology to field, I come back to queries about the general layout of the field and its contemporary position in the anthropological debate. Indeed, anthropology is expanding as a discipline, and this expansion is also leading to many forms of fields in anthropology. For example, now one can see the broadened horizon of anthropological studies from development sector to the culture of multinational business firms, which were initially not in the fold of ‘pure anthropological approach’(Barnard 2000: 2-3). However, maintaining any linear understanding of the word field over a long period is difficult due to many concerns which are also rooted in the discipline itself. For example, one can ask some very basic questions like, what makes a field, how a field is separated form rest of the society, and how field becomes representative of the claims which it makes etc. Such questions are important for “exploring the possibilities and limitations of the idea of the field” carrying with it both the opportunity and risk “of opening to question the meaning of our own professional and intellectual identities as anthropologists”(Gupta and Ferguson 1997:

55

103). These initial questions, which strike to our mind when we start thinking about basic concept of field. However, despite many contesting debates, ranging from political forms of representation to kinship studies, one can hardly imagine the future of anthropology without fieldwork. For Leach, “The essential core of social anthropology is fieldwork––the understanding of the way of life of a single particular group”(Leach 1961: 1). It is important to keep in mind that this ‘single particular group’ assumes different importance when an anthropologist studies and writes about one’s own society. For Abu-Lughod “culture is an essential tool for making the other”(Abu- Lughod 1991: 143), and I am of the view that this remains true even for a local or native anthropologist also. As the field in anthropological sense is closer to the self of researcher, so, in my view it is of a deeper concern for a native anthropologist not to make ‘the other’. Furthermore, the very word of ‘field’ and ‘home’ assume different meanings for an anthropologist who is not middle-class, male American or European anthropologist (Gupta and Ferguson 1997). Accordingly, I have been reminded time and gain of my position in my villages of study for both of my fieldwork about the position and placement of my discipline during fieldwork, write-up and all this process of reflection also. Bourdieu again comes to help about the consciousness of placement of ethnologist himself. He is of the view that ethnologist “is placed, by the force and the logic of circumstances, within a social form which existed before he did, which is not of his making, and which he must accept even if he disapproves of it”(Bourdieu 2003a: 13). When the matter about approving or disapproving it is left and the fieldworker starts imagining the field in an attempt to be neutral, which is not possible in any way then position of the anthropologist him/herself becomes site of inquiry first. This is also influential for relationship between the anthropologist and Punjabi field for even an outsider anthropologist. Lyon also aptly reminds us about his reflection of his dreams as constant feeling to stand as a non-Muslim for his otherwise quite friendly locale (Lyon 2010). Geertz is of the view that when one “sees things from the native's point of view, it does not make it any easier, nor does it lessen the demand for perceptiveness on the part of the fieldworker”(Geertz 1983: 57-58). This is absolutely true in my case as I have advocated in the last section an approach towards the realization of remaining attentive to the nature of relationship between the native researcher and the researched.

56

This part of my reflection juxtaposes my personal experiences of the fieldwork at two Punjabi villages. My first fieldwork was under the shadow of Eglar’s (2010) study, in which a village near Gujrat, (Pakistan) has been discussed as field and the way it reflects back to anthropologist. The second fieldwork comprises of two villages, where I am doing my recent fieldwork for my doctoral dissertation, is the village where I was born and raised in a zamindar (land owner) family and the adjoining village. The comparative analysis by reflecting on both the experiences can be helpful for tracing different meanings of both the terms field and ‘native anthropologist’. As far as the word field is concerned, I do not find the ‘field’ only in the sense of my experiences during fieldwork, but I find my study historically inseparable from Eglar’s study. This historical connectedness of the field becomes more important when we find ourselves confounded on two different fronts. Firstly, in an effort to understand the way of life of a single particular group, and secondly as a field which is always changing. Now, it is important to note that such a location of field must pose some challenges to anthropologist about flow of information, mechanics of rapport building, and positioning oneself as a researcher. Indeed, these positions which are constantly changing but cannot transcend their historical placement, have a strong impact upon the eventual layout of the field for researcher. These structured positions and the resultant making of field has been duly realized by Lyon (2010) while writing about the decision- making in Punjab and the role of dreams in this regard. Lyon’s realizes about it and argues that “body of research has largely been driven by the preoccupations of my informants”(Lyon 2010: 73). Similar concerns are indicative of the my realization that it is difficult to mediate both a ‘self’ structured in the field and the role of field where the same field settles the passage for the anthropologist.

During my stay at the first village of my study from May 2014-July 2015, an important concern for people of village was the study conducted by Zekiye Eglar (2010). Eglar’s study mainly aimed to understand the social structure of village and the role of land ownership in the village. Eglar divided the village in two categories of zamindars (land owners) and kammis (professional artisan castes) which depended upon the land as sole source of economic sustenance and social status. Resultantly, such a typology of the village gave birth to a peculiar relationship of the people of the village with Eglar as a researcher, who was living in the house of the zamindar

57

family of the village. According to the socio-economic needs and structure of the village at the time of Eglar’s study, people who owned land occupied primary importance, while lowering the status of those who did not own it. My research question actually wanted to see the village structure in the face of falling importance of the land, dictating different understanding of the village structure, which does not depend upon the land ownership as sole provider of economic well- being. However, village men started presupposing my intended research goal, which, for them, must be related with land ownership. This proved on the one hand helpful because zamindars were more willing to be part of any debate, but it was at the cost of loss of interest of kammis. Such pre- disposed welcoming and unwelcoming, which lies beyond the control of researcher, is significant because it generates certain unasked questions and interests in the mind of the people of the village. Remembering Barnard that “evidence itself depends on what questions one is trying to answer” (Barnard 2000: 5) it is important to realize how field is itself structured and influences the relationship with the researcher. Gradually, I started realizing that reference to Eglar’s study still remains too important for people to consider my study in its own independent place. It was commonplace to hear from the elder people of the village about their daily conversations with Eglar when she used to sit at the dera (male guest house) of the Chaudhry of the village. Most of the people would even introduce me to their guests or someone from the village whom I was meeting for the first time, as the one who is writing tareekh (history) of their village like the angrez bibi (English lady, because all white-skinned people are most of the time referred as English men/women), referring to Eglar.

Presence of Eglar’s reference was not only felt whenever I was in discussion with the members of kammi castes, but it was also true when it came to zamindars. As landless castes pre- supposed my writing orientation to be again mainly about land ownership, which naturally denied equal representation, the zamindars also took it for granted that their khandaani shanakht (inherited family recognition) would again be given central importance. It is important to make clear that the village does not remain anymore typical Punjabi village where zamindars have upper hand in all socio-economic affairs of the village. For example, in last local bodies elections in 2015, one Jat zamindar could win for the seat of councillor after tough competition against a male member of economically strong but landless butt family. Likewise, no landless kammi family is dependent upon the zamindar families like they did back in Eglar’s time when complete seyp 58

system was in place. This marks the importance of my realization that field can remain historically embedded. Thus, when the village has changed in its relationship with the land, people still perceive that they are necessarily studied in their relationship with land. I argue, that this self- supposed ‘historical presence’ of the subjects is an important reminder for the anthropologist that field is not like passage where one enters and then leaves at mere convenience of oneself.

Like field, the term native anthropologist also assumes different meanings depending upon the distance through which one tries to understand it. For example, I realized, that it is difficult to assign fixed meaning to the term native as a representative category of the (Punjabi) anthropologists who are working within their own (place of origin as person, academic, and member of community etc.) political, historical and socio-cultural unit of study. As I have just argued to show how a field remains historically placed in a position which is independent of the researcher, but still it is known as a native ‘field’ for the anthropologist where a Punjabi anthropologist is doing fieldwork in a Punjabi village. Paradoxically, I find it more important to acknowledge the fact that not only field is independent of the anthropologist, but the term native also varies its significance and meanings, depending upon the distance or closeness. For example, anthropologists have been finding their nativity as a source of self-questioning not due to emerging, contemporary and locally produced challenges. Instead of limited focus on contemporaneity and situatedness, Abu-Rabia reminds us how he was compelled to ask himself that “I am a Bedouin man whose spiritual and ethical universe and worldview is based on the Arabic language and civilisation, and the Islamic religion”(Abu-Rabia 2008: 159). So, I argue that the intricate relationship between ‘field’, and self of an anthropologist as native anthropologist must be fully understood before advancing any convenience as a native anthropologist.

As being Punjabi anthropologist from southern Punjab doing fieldwork in one of the villages in central Punjab does not strip one of the title of native anthropologist, I argue, this self of an anthropologist speaks and communicates differently when one is playing same role in one’s own village. For example, if I rely on Alvi’s ‘shared’ self as an anthropologist, then the ‘similarities of experiences’ are untenable if the term native is attributed fixed meaning. Being native anthropologist in two different Punjabi villages does not bring similar experiences as the word native suggests. As earlier discussed, my position as an anthropologist in the village in central

59

Punjab brought different experiences for me as compared to my experiences at my own village. While staying with my host family at the village of my first study, I had to remain sensitive while discussing matters, involving women, izzat (respect), and ghairat (honour). Such deliberate policy of avoiding asking such questions was also due to the fact that my host who also came from important zamindar family, did not want me to write about the women of the village. For example, I still remember, when walking through his farms near the , I asked him about one of the cases about honour killings, and he immediately replied, ‘I think, you should not indulge yourself in such disgraceful matters’. Though I did not feel any such censure from people in my own village while talking with different people. However, one thing was clear to realize that people did not want to talk about any matter which involved their own family or my family and caste, which is important zamindar family of my village. This becomes even more important for myself if I have to write about any such matter, which involves matter of shame and honour of my family. I must admit that such ‘self’ as a male Punjabi zamindar member rightly echoes here. I hope, the above given references to some of the daily conversations help us understand that linear meanings of the term native are not only difficult to hold but it helps us to realize that a Punjabi anthropologist is differently positioned/expected as not only a ‘responsible researcher’, but also as a member of family, village and community.

Above given different challenges and tasks in the understanding of field and the term native help us self-reflect as an anthropologist. As Alvi’s (2001) understanding of the self is problematized as self of an anthropologist then one’s self, which is positioned as a member of an academic community, cannot override more important self as expected by either host family or as a member of the zamindar family. I argue that this self which may seem less-academic and parochial, is strong enough to be realized even within self-assumedly universal category of ‘native being’. This is not necessary that same pattern of experiences is likely to follow for every anthropological study. However, I am of the view that if I was unable to realize such differently positioned actors and their expected representation in the study, then the lack of interest of some people of the either village might have produced an entirely different understanding of the field. I must say that field is not only as it exists, as an anthropologist may see it or understand it, but the self of native anthropologist is also like a text, which is read and discussed by the subjects. Now, if self of an anthropologist is accepted as a text-being-written, then change in field would surely 60

change the meanings of ‘native’ and its representations in writing. Thus, field must be viewed in the holistic picture which is not disconnected from its history, and opens important arena for an anthropologist to understand field and himself/herself in possibly diverse forms.

2.5: Representations as Facts and Writing for Native Anthropologist

Writing occupies an important position in contemporary human intellect and Dumont rightly argues that “our civilization is to an unprecedented extent a written civilization” (Dumont 1986: 10). Now, with the increasing self-questioning within anthropology the role of fieldwork is also assuming different importance when writing is brought in as a concern for representations. Keeping in view the above given understanding of ‘field’ and the term ‘native’ we must reflect on our relationship with writing as an anthropologist. The relationship between writing, doing fieldwork and the concerns about representations are becoming paramount in the discipline itself. Clifford argues, “We begin not with participant observation or with cultural texts (suitable for interpretation), but with writing, the making of texts”(Clifford 1986: 2). Anthropology has extended the scope of self-reflection even to the limits of borders of ethno-fiction or auto/ethnography (Reed-Danahay 1997). Moreover, the making of texts goes even further if its impacts over the nature and history of concerns for representations is taken into account. Rabinow extends the similar vein of self-reflectivity because “anthropologists, critics, feminists, and critical intellectuals are all concerned with questions of truth and its social location”(Rabinow 1996: 54). Furthermore, Rees alerts us that “writing culture occupied a fascinating and yet a strangely odd place in that history of anthropology” because it is believed to have “intellectualized – both analytically and politically-its key defining practice, namely fieldwork” (Rees 2008: 2). Now, If we put side by side the Rees ‘intellectualized practice of fieldwork’ and the ‘central importance given to writing in cultural texts’, by Clifford, there remains an important concern for representation in this whole arrangement. Some of such arrangements are also like academic studies for completion of degrees of Master or Doctorate, besides nationally and internationally funded programs. Furthermore, if I operationalize the unequal nature of human relationships in the society against the writing, then we need to remind ourslves of the historical continuities also. It is important to recognize that there is a growing concern in the anthropology about modes of representation and the role of writing in this regard. We can locate different positions on this trend

61

in anthropological imagination. For example, Stahl is aptly rlevant when he asks us to examine “methodology” for “interrogating the mentions and silences of documents and oral histories”(Stahl 2004: 2). For Said, “to represent someone or even something has now become an endeavour as complex and as problematic as an asymptote, with consequences for certainty and decidability”(Said 1989: 206). This, same complexity is leading to some fundamental shift in the modes of anthropological knoweldge. For example, fieldwork in the anthropology is itself at the centre of many debates about representations and its supposedly one-way drive––always steered by the researcher himself/herself. This does not remain anymore singluarly, fixed and pre-defined fieldwork. As Gosden reminds;

“Now that fieldwork is seen as negotiation and dialogue, it is also possible to see that local people have considerable ability to control the information coming to the anthropologist and to impress new themes and thoughts on them” (Gosden 1999: 60).

As in the case of my first study, I was reminded of the unequal social field which Eglar was writing at her time of study. I can feel that such a scepticism of the kammi people also stemmed from some of their feelings which were true from their perspective. For example, I was staying in the village in the house of one of Zamindar families as Eglar stayed with the family of the largest land owner of the village. Secondly, despite my concerns to treat the village people at equal basis, it remained a distant idea for the kammi biraderies to dissociate the socio-economic landscape of the village from role of land ownership. Similarly, while doing my recent fieldwork for my doctoral dissertation, I am also convinced that my background as an anthropologist pre-defined most of expectations of the people about their representation. For example, my cousins and other biraderi members were always excited and confident about my study, considering it a history praising their zamindar background with expressed confidence. On the other hand, people from the kammi families never showed such warmth, despite being supportive and welcoming.

As “the term autoethnography invokes the self (auto), culture (ethno), and writing (graphy)” because “when we do autoethnography, we study and write culture from the perspective of the self”(Adams, Jones, and Ellis 2014: 46). I argue that a native anthropologist is required in more deeply rooted reasons which actually invoke the reasons and causes of ‘autoethnography’. Moreover, a scenario with background about anthropological studies in general and my study in 62

particular decided the ultimate contours of my relationship with people from kammi families in the villages of my both studies. Though my aim is not to question the study of Eglar (2010) or her methodology but I intend to make us aware of the intricacies of the relationship between writing and field. Now, it is necessary for us to know that there is nothing inherently wrong about writing a field in its own contextual settings, but one cannot assume the representation also to be fixed. For example, Eglar’s study (2010) might not have been such a matter of concern for the people of the village during her time of study, but the village does not remain any more divided on the same basis. So, anthropologist needs to engage himself/herself at multiple levels of self-reflexivity. This self-reflexivity is helpful not only for the anthropologist, but it would also refine the debate at academic level as Ingold rightly reminds us, “anthropologists are involved in multiple conversations, both in the field and among academic colleagues”(Ingold 1996: 16). I am also convinced that these similar concerns have been important for me to mediate my positions both as a member of an academic community and as part of society to be written. This leaves me in the midst of urgency to reflect on the compulsions of both positions as stretching me in opposite directions.

I further found that similar concerns become more pronounced when seen against the unequal positions of the people and my presence as part of the society among them. Now, in a changing Punjabi village when the kammis have become economically self-sufficient and equally assertive as zamindars it becomes difficult for researcher to place himself/herself in the traditional imagination of a Punjabi village. On the one hand, I had to navigate myself through traditional image of the village by looking into role of land ownership in the socio-economic landscape of the village, but, on the other hand, kammis found it inherently biased study where they are studied only in relationship with zamindars. Such a feeling on the part of kammis, which are equally important part of the village structure is mainly dictated by their redefined sense of social status. Importantly, when I was doing fioeldwork at Mohla the village where Zekiye Eglar’s study was conducted, no one in the village was unaware of the study of Eglar (2010). Nevertheless, there was hardly any kammi educated male member with exception of the some elders from kammi biradries who was interested to discuss Eglar’s study. One advocate from nai (barber) family who is well known in Gujrat city was quite open when he asked me sarcastically to share my M. Phil thesis with him so that he could see how I have presented his family against their epresentation in Eglar’s 63

study (Though I am yet to hear from him about his feelings after reading my text, if he did). This reference to the advocate is important for us to understand the changing positions of actors and their different expectations to be represented accordingly. The concerns for representations are also understandable visible from what people mostly refer to their sensitivity about matters of honour and respect of their women and themselves. Thus, writing for an anthropologist is at the heart of relationship between anthropologist and his/her field of people with their expectations and aspirations from study, who they believe comes from one of themselves.

2.6: Writing of Thesis: Mediating between Visibility and Invisibility as Writer

I have been thinking not only about the people of the villages of the study but their representations are important concern throughout my appraisal of both my personal position as an anthropologist and the part of society of the field. I am quite clear that the expectation from my position among the academic community might not be that strong as people of the village are convinced that actually I belong to them. This observation was and still remains important because of the concern for representations both at academic level and personal level. When I refer to academic level, it indicates my position within the structured university milieu and my required fulfillment of degree as doctoral candidate. Furthermore, when I take into account the personal level of writing as permanent concern, then my aim is to place myself as the observant participant/participant observant and the writer. My comparative reflection on both the positions actually persists as a feature, which strikes me time and again. For example, while leaving from the dera after completing the third stretch of fieldwork, I was greeted by 15-20 people who waited and said me goodbye while sharing with me their expectations that this happens to be the last chance when they have to see me off. These same persons and many others like them in the villages have been always confident that I would be able to return back after my studies in Paris and then I would be with my family assuming an important position in the family and the village. I find these perceptions of people about my relationship with them and its eventual influence upon my writing as significant throughout my write-up. Therefore, I have tried mostly to write about the people when I could afford to hide myself from the scene as participant. Instead I have attempted to present my case mostly through the people when reference to my personal presence was not necessary so that the presence of people and researcher both remain present.

64

It has never been an easy task to write about some of the most important people in my life when I think in terms of my emotional and personal attachemnt to them. The aggravating fact has been the balancing act as stated above, which I often found incoherent and cold on my own part. For exampple, during my first stretch of stay at Amin Kot, my maternal uncle’s death was one of the moments of extreme loss and even these extra-ordinary moments were supposed to be written as an anthropologist. I still remember the greetings with many people who turned to meet me as representative of the bereaving family, but I was also conscious of the need to think and assess the moments as an anthropologist. After coming back from the field and while writing the notes to discuss during my first meting with professor Michel Boivin, I was again realizing that the ideal presence of me as an aggrieved person had actually shrunk undesrvingly. However, my concern here is only to discuss my self as an anthropologist who reflects differently while writing. Another interesting reference lies in the fact that the last chapter of the thesis also involves some references to my father’s standing as an important person whose death served as an important event in the vartan of the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. But when it comes to writing, I have to keep my emotional presence at bay and it becomes emotionally challenging.

This last reference is one of the many references which can be referred here, but I hope it makes clear for us to understand how field alarms researcher to walk through the difficult terrain of representations. Undoubtedly, representations matter not only for academic debates, but they also remain important concern for the people of the village. In the light of above given debate about pivotal role of fieldwork and the changing society, we must realize that ‘field is not an assemblage of things, but an assemblage of variables” (Leach 1961: 7). Thus, the villages of my study were not challenging as Srinivas found his village to be ‘dirty with cow manure, endangering him of snakes or the problems about taking bath in open’(Srinivas 2004: 533), but the villages proved to be a challenge in different ways. Broadly speaking, the socio-economic change with an assertive concern for modes of representation has its own merits which raise different questions for independent native researcher. For me, the above given ‘making of field’ which is socially constructed, must be seen in close association with writing of such socially lived field. Important paradox of such a socially constructed field and anthropologist’s written account with certain representations is of concern to those who might be taken as passive social actors. Nevertheless, such representations may vary from the favoured ones to the unwanted wild images. Therefore, I 65

have been writing my ethnographic account of the Amin Kot and Khokhran villages keeping in view that which names of the people are to be written and how are the names of the women to be referred. Thus, I have been constantly aware of my personal position and the need to write about the people according to their sensitivities remained definitive for me not only when I was in the field, but it still stays important while writing.

2.7: Conclusion

I have tried in this chapter to present a brief picture of my two different fieldwork experiences as a native anthropologist. My first filedwork, which is discussed as briefly was conducted at Mohla a village near Gujrat (Pakistan). The second fieldwork is the recent fieldwork for the study at hand and on the basis of my understanding from both the fieldworks I find the field itself as a changing ethnographic relaity. This demands us to think in a much coherent way for incorporating self of a native anthropologist which is weaved together with the changing field and concern for representations. Indeed, there is nothing wrong about writing as it remains one of the cornerstones of human intellect. However, my understanding is that native anthropologist is required to be more cautious because his/her personal intimacy and textual interpretation of field is deemed more representative than compared with other disciplines. Another interesting distinction, which applies only to the anthropologist is the personal intimacy with field. This personalization of a disciplinary role is also of importance for the relationship between anthropologist’s field and writing about the actors of the field which may be expecting different representation due to changing socio- economic relaities. No doubt, my aim is not to blame anthropological knowledge of distortion in representation, but my concern remains with degree of sensitivity which must be shown by anthropologist while doing research. Thus, we must understand that as field is itself changing continuously, thus any fixity in writing with resulting representation of social positions would become paradoxical and fixed if not properly reflected.

66

Chapter 3: Theorising Gift as Social Capital: Between Economy and Spirit of Social Relations.

3.1: Theorising Gift and Self in Anthropology

Now, when I have discussed the self of native anthropologist and its impact upon a field, it is helpful to reflect upon the general scheme of theorizing both gift and self in this regard. Theorization in social sciences is always difficult and open to criticism, but such an attempt is bound to fall back upon its own premises in anthropology because of the tension between data and theory. This contestation is more visible with increasing loss of stability in overall knowledge and place of anthropology in particular. Ellen echoes quite familiar when he identifies “there is arguably no longer a single anthropology, while the character of the theoretical is itself in question” (Ellen 2010: 390). This confounds the possibility of clear articulation of relationship between loose anthropological boundaries and character of theoretical as identified by Ellen (2010). The concerns about ethnographic representations of economic attitudes also become blurred with the precision required to debate the reality of an interaction between both. It is pertinent to identify not only the disciplinary focus on theorization, but it is equally pertinent to explore the relationship between changing village economy and its subsequent translation into coherent existence with theoretical formulation. The difficulty to understand the economic order of both the villages of study and its possibility which can be theoretically operationalized is cause of concern. Maurer rightly argues that “economy and ethnographic reality have something in common: they exceed representation” (Maurer 2018: 288). Therefore, this study is at the intersection of ethnographic evidence against some of the very influential ideas in the relevant fields, which have assumed certainly an over- riding theoretical importance. My intention in this debate is not about limitations, but I would reflect more on the need to have a theoretical perspective in contemporary times about ascendance of certain ideas and terms. The reason, which dictates me to have a theoretical debate as precursor of my ethnography is the guiding relevance of some of the key ideas with my ethnography.

Despite many concerns about the uneasy relationship between anthropology and theory, there has been “an intimate fusion between theory and description in the development of social

67

anthropology” (Srinivas 2002: 546). The necessity of an uneasy relationship between theory and anthropology is itself suggestive of both the possibilities and challenges in the difficult-to-make but necessary-to-have relationship between theory and anthropology. However, it is an increasing realisation within critical voices of social scientists that a social reality cannot be taken as settled for all times. I see my villages of the study not as fixed realities of socio-economic life of the people, but I aim to present the evidence from my fieldwork in a much closer tradition of relevant theoretical background. Realizing, the tension between specific evidence from each ethnographic locale and the multiplicity of similar specificities, I agree with Häuberer that “one problem in theory construction in the social sciences” remains the “diversification and instability of social phenomena that make the development of general laws difficult” (Häuberer 2010: 26) . There has always been an uneasiness in anthropology about the meaning and need for theoretical interpretation of ethnographic accounts. Most of such suspicion and ambiguity about relevance of both seems to flow from the scale of respective part. On the one hand, ethnographic data, being singular and specific is treated as not generalizable, and, on the other hand, theoretical claims of universal nature are taken suspiciously due to very nature of the ethnographic specificity. However, I doubt even such claims of ethnographic specificity. As I talk about the villages of my study, I am convinced that the villages are not going to remain unchanged forever. Barnard rightly reflects about these inherent confusions that “students often ask what anthropological theory is for; they could as easily ask what ethnography is for!” (Barnard 2004: 5). Above given passage from Barnard’s book helps us not to come to conclusion but to have a different understanding for reaching our understanding of the topic. Both ethnographic reality and theoretical formulation are cause of concern and help in this study, which I hope to unlock gradually with the evolving argument of the study. Thus, theory is somewhere in between, end in itself, and as a part of process for the refinement of debate.

There is dire need to understand both the individual specificity as an agent in our discussion and the role of gift as denoting its particular characteristics either as general or specific practice in respective societies. The major difference in this line, which also implies an epistemic challenge is the “the metaphor of the gift” ,which characterizes “gift exchange as opposed to one dominated by commodity exchange opens up conceptual possibilities for the language that conceives of a

68

contrast between them”(Strathern 1988: 19). Here I aim to bring in my analysis about the possibility of tracing the meanings of gift exchange in Punjabi village where different debates make it possible to understand multiple processes of social change. These processes of change are both informed by and reflect the changing metaphors of gift, which take in their fold both commodity exchange and its contrast with personalistic part of gift. I argue that the difference between our (academic community) understanding of commodity and gift may be differently located from what people in the villages of my study would suggest. I extend my analysis to the complete practice of vartan through objects (commodity) and personalistic tones of gift by locating the debate in changing economic order where historical continuity i.e. unequal positions selectively re-assert themselves. This takes us beyond the case advocated by Malinowski when he considers “kula” that it “is not a surreptitious and precarious form of exchange. It is, quite on the contrary, rooted in myth, backed by traditional law, and surrounded with magical rites”(Malinowski 2002: 65). My study aims to counter such fixed understandings of so deeply rooted cultural practice as located in some distant place from the people. This study sheds light on contemporary individual and collective representations in the schematic exchange of gifts which are not only personally indivisible, socially meaningful, but are equally materialistic in their outreach and purpose. There has been long and largely influential romance of anthropology and other close disciplines with different forms and debates of gift exchange in different societies. Sometimes, “gift giving” is advocated as “the most important modes of social exchange in human societies”(Yan 2005: 246).

. Though certain important debates were specific in their cases of gift studies, but their importance soon transpired to wider and extended meanings. The debate about ‘Kula ring’ (Malinowski 2013) and its latter manifestations in different societies is a stark reminder of anthropology’s romance with gift as one of the most important socio-cultural activities. The debate about social importance of reciprocity and exchange of gifts can be traced to the important academic debate started by Marcel Mauss (1969) through his analysis of the significance of gift, which in “theory” are “voluntary but in fact they are given and repaid under obligation” (Mauss 1969: 1). Mauss further refers to relationships established through gift exchange as “bond created by things is in fact a bond between persons” and “since the thing itself is a person or pertains to a

69

person. Hence it follows that to give something is to give a part of oneself” (Mauss 1969: 8). Such indivisible gift from the donor actually gives birth to overdrawn analysis like notions of ‘moral gift’ (Parry 1989), ‘free gift’ (Laiddlaw 2010), and an essentialization of a particular movement of gift flows because “gifts cannot ever really be kept or possessed, but are always in circulation” (Fowler 2004: 32). Such an understanding about exchange of gift can also be seen at universal level as Levis-Straus is of the view that “exchange in human society is a universal means of ensuring the interlocking of its constitutive parts and that this exchange can operate at different levels” (Mauss 1969: 1) . Similarly, such tendencies of treating gift in either of the economic or non-economic categories is clear in Gregory’s (1982) distinction between economic commodity and personal gift. For Gregory, “commodity exchange” works as mere “objects exchanged, whereas gift exchange establishes a relationship between the subjects” (Gregory 1982: 19). Such purely psychological and personal undertones of gift are actually exclusionary to the contemporary practices of vartan bhanji in the village, where economic considerations are becoming equally important like the individual position and representations in this regard. Now, if we take culture as holistic picture of the meanings and logics behind the practice of vartan, the exchange is itself filled with some latent and clear meanings. Therefore, borrowing from Foster “culture is not itself formed of symbols, but of the meaning that lies behind and unites symbols”(Foster 1994: 366), therefore, the debate about vartan at the villages of my study is also like exploring for symbols.

Furthermore, this importance of theorising gift is established further if one keeps in mind what exactly gift means in its contextual conceptualisation. This reminds of the need to keep both the change and persistence of practices which are located in aglay waqt as people in the village refer to. When it comes to the backward looking of the practice of gift as moving back to primitiveness, Camerer brings us back because “the potlatch and similar orgies of gift giving suggest that primitive gift giving helps clarify social roles, wealth, or status”. It is also vindictive of the fact that gift exchange cannot be fully understood unless both present changes in socio- economic order and its traditional role are aware of both the ethnographic and theoretical parts. Furthermore, the scope of gift exchange goes beyond personal/non-personal and economic/non- economic as Wilk and Cliggett remind us:

70

“examining gift giving is a good way to see all the various aspects of human nature in action at one time because gifts can be simultaneously understood as rational exchange, as a way to build political and social relations, and as expressions of moral ideas and cultural meanings”(Wilk and Cliggett 2009:155).

Contextually, gift as an important anthropological concern also needs reflection when the scope of its potential is extended beyond the binaries of economic/non-economic and personal/material. When we bring in multiple meanings and messages conveyed by the term gift, different interpretations follow the course. We have almost every form of giving and taking as a form of gift exchange in theoretical terms, stretching from blood donation as a national drive aimed at national integration (Copeman 2009) to exchange of women in the social and cultural milieu (Lévi- Strauss 1969). I argue that such over-stretched domains of every emotional, cultural, and material object, which can be given or received as a representative of value, if called gift, does not constitute what is known as vartan bhanji. There is no doubt that people act as rational beings when they interact in their everyday social life. But when it comes to our understanding of vartan bhanji as a practice that involves social networking of the village people, larger anthropological discourses and practices emerge as major cause of concern. As the following discussion about self aims to alert us, it is not possible to understand gift exchange as vartan bhanji unless one is clear in understanding of donor and receiver – their self and economic orientation of the actors as players.

Furthermore, if “reciprocity is the primary building block of community”(Gudeman 2001: 80), then vartan bhanji has to be all-incorporating and comprehensive. What eludes from qualifying as a true representation of an ethnography about gift is the inherent complexity to define someone’s self. Despite a broad consensus on particular orientations of the individual selves as regional, cultural, or economic agents within a given time and discourse(Appadurai 1988). To start with, the plural form of self is itself indicative of multiple understandings about the self. Perhaps the most important and largely accepted understanding of the self remains a dividing line between ‘western’ and ‘non-western’ self (Dumont 1986; Sökefeld 1999; Alvi 2001) . In this chapter, my focus remains on the ideas, which I intend to interpret in the debates to follow. Therefore, instead of defining self as a definition that I would be using for the forthcoming discussion, my aim takes me to Bourdieu as the main theoretical dependence. I operationalize the key factor in the larger

71

Bourdieusian formulation of personhood and debates about the different aspects of self or personhood. Bourdieu’ defines his key term as habitus, which for Bourdieu, is:

the durably installed generative principle of regulated improvisations, produces practices which tend to reproduce the regularities immanent in the objective conditions of the production of their generative principle, while adjusting to the demands inscribed as objective potentialities in the situation, as defined by the cognitive and motivating structures making up the habitus”(Bourdieu 1977: 78).

When a Punjabi self, with its own specific orientations and generative principles in Bourdieu’s term, is brought into the field, where an endless competition for symbolic capital is going on, we need to explore the self and gift with help from Bourdieu. As discussed briefly in the second chapter, what must be understood with precision is the relationship of an individual with habitus according to Bourdieusian understanding. As we try to understand the relationship between individual and habitus, it is clear that “habitus is not only a structuring structure, which organizes practices and perceptions of practices, but also a structured structure” (Bourdieu 1984: 170). For this reason, we have, on the one hand, habitus as a generative principle that produces practices; and, on the other hand, habitus is itself a structured structure. It requires a sustained and long engagement with both gift and self for the evolving argument of this study. Yet the Bourdieusian theoretical analogy has not been constructed only for the sake of argument. Rather, the purpose behind such choice is a fact that Bourdieu equips me more than any other theorist to knit my data with this most suitable theoretical framework. Indeed, we have many important contributions in the debate of gift and self, however, the unending range of both gift and self must be seen within not the binary but the interplay of gift as economic or non-economic and as part of a person or representative of deeper meanings than usually attributed to it. Thus, my use of the term gift does not allow me to treat gift in binaries of economic/non-economic, personal/non-personal, social/non-social, etc. The factor urging me to look for the gift as beyond this essentialization of binaries is the very character that people in the villages tend to express through their practices as vartan. As study evolves, individual and collective representations would wrestle with collective representations that do not fall into the categories of economic, non-economic or social and cultural as exclusive categories. Furthermore, multiple forms of social imaginaries at the village – biraderi,

72

family, and gender – and notions of izzat are also part of the network that defines what is meant here by gift and how is it exchanged. Bourdieu reminds us about such hierarchized social order and place of individuals as unequal when he argues that due to:

“structural transformations which abolish or modify certain positions, and also because their inter or intra-generational mobility, the homology between the space of positions and the space of dispositions is never perfect and there are always some agents 'out on a limb', displaced, out of place and ill at ease”(Bourdieu 2000b: 157).

As this study remains grounded in its own logic within given time and space, the relevance of any theoretical model can itself happen to be a contentious issue. Keeping in view all the ambiguities, I proffer a different recourse from what has been mostly followed in anthropological studies on Punjab, Pakistan. My understanding of Bourdieu’s theoretical framework is about the use in my study of not only Bourdieu’s major premise, but contextualisation is also equally helpful to navigate my ethnography in my own way. This contextualization would be clear when I come to question the general meaning usually attributed to gift exchange as a practice which is culturally and socio-economically embedded. This study aims to take Bourdieu’s concept of social capital as a theoretical basis for my understanding. Along with that, it would take into account other building blocks of his major concerns about economic, social and cultural transformations and their manifestations. Therefore, with sensitivity to the contextualisation of a theoretical framework, this study goes beyond the Bourdieu-specific approach, and it aims to broaden the meaning of what people generally mean by their use of vartan bhanji or vartan.

3.2: Theorising with Bourdieu: Gift and its Meaning

Pierre Bourdieu has become one of the leading intellectuals of our times. Such a towering reputation as a public intellectual has generated too much curiosity for Bourdieu’s oeuvres. There is no denying the fact that it is not possible to grasp complete understanding of a life spanning over 72 years (1930-2002), with robustness and activity matching Bourdieu’s stature. Before proceeding to my justifications for using Bourdieu’s theoretical premise as the mainstay of my line of argumentation, I must admit that this effort, in itself, lacks primarily due to two reasons: a) sheer scale of Bourdieu’s contribution, and the interest he has generated as an intellectual, b) his self- 73

criticism as a thinker relevant only within his context. Now, I intend to take the first limitation in a more organized way so that the scale of the problem can be understood. As already indicated, Bourdieu’s contributions surmount any of his contemporaries in the scale, acceptance, or at least interest, which his most of the works have produced. Bourdieu’s range of the topics, which he has contributed to, is comprehensive. What makes these contributions challenging for an anthropologist, in beginning of his academic career, is the assumption of his certain ideas as key concepts or ideas (Power 1999; Grenfell 2012). As he has been commented upon in many directions and in diverse interests, it is sometimes misleading to find contradictory interpretations of Bourdieu’s oeuvres. Importantly, Bourdieu’s influence upon philosophy, sociology and anthropology is not limited to only those ideas which have been identified as key concepts, but the list of his topics also criss-crosses the disciplinarian boundaries. As already conveyed, my concern with Bourdieu’s theoretical contribution is mostly restricted to what in its broadest sense is called ‘social capital’, so I would try to remain stick to only those writings that directly contribute to the same. What confounds is not the ambiguity that can be considered as an offshoot of Bourdieu’s writings, but the all-catching value that the term social capital seems to have gained. As my intention in this study is to understand networking of social relations, I take the ‘social capital’ of Bourdieu, when both individual and gift are theorized within a wide range of debates, where not only individual and gift are unstable, but the very concept of social capital is also unstable. Such instability of these ideas in themselves can lead to my positions as an anthropologist and to bring in the meaning and understanding of the people according to their own logic, which defies only theoretical boundaries.

An important theme in this study has been to understand the relationship between gift, its economy, the sphere of ‘social’ and how this all makes a web of social relationships. This theme is of particular importance to operationalise this theoretical part as a base of following argument of the study. I argue that the following argument of the study is not dependent upon the theoretical base, but rather it aims to extend the latter in the context of this study. For example, the relationship between the social and economic as the essential core of vartan bhanji has been theorized with Bourdieu because it helps us argue for multiple possibilities, which are necessary for the understanding of social capital at the village in its contemporary form. Furthermore, the same theoretical tools of Bourdieu equip us even for discussing its own limitations. What remains 74

enigmatic for me while writing is the tendency of clear-cut separation of economic part of the gift from its social being as people wish to convey the feelings and as it is generally written and discussed. This separation of gift in its economic and social spheres is problematic for treating the act of gift exchange itself as a complete social activity. This raises a worth asking question: if an economic gift is a purely economic object then what is purely economic and how can it be separated from social reasons of any economic theory. One can ask for such purely social aspect of gift too, but this is the central argument of the study. I hope this study enables me to come forth with the evidence in the favour of this collective sphere of gift where both economic and social aspects of gift are seen in mutual interaction while theorising with Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s understanding of ‘capital’ is itself rooted in his broader aims for a complete understanding of human social world. He sees capital as a repository of “accumulated history” where if agents are not to be treated as mere “interchangeable particles” then “one must reintroduce into it the notion of capital and with it, the accumulation and all its effects”(Bourdieu 1986: 241). Such a central role attributed to the agent and then bringing in the capital as pre-requisite for the full articulation of individual remains specific to Bourdieu’s understanding of capital. Although Bourdieu’s understanding of capital has been largely extended as well as criticized, his approach towards capital remains more comprehensive than his contemporary theorists’ due to many reasons. I do not intend to criticize the fellow theorists here, but my selection of Bourdieu’s theoretical capital is rooted in my understanding of the justification for Bourdieu’ s theoretical framework of analysis. Bourdieu argues that capital is “accumulated labor (in its materialized form or its 'incorporated,' embodied form)” which for Bourdieu “when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor” (Bourdieu 1986: 241). It is essential to treat the definition given by Bourdieu in both its weaknesses and strengths as capital is the central idea upon which I would be building my following analysis. Importantly, Bourdieu’s definition of capital is unbreakable when we bring in the other relevant themes and ideas of Bourdieu.

As it is clear that Bourdieu had a very active academic life and he wrote extensively, his analysis of capital has to be evidently extended. As Haüberer reminds us that “almost everything ranging from social relationships via norms up to tolerance is termed social capital. A substantive definition seems to be missing”(Häuberer 2010: 27) . This means that unless one can make sense 75

of social capital in Bourdieu’s terms as identifiable and distinguishable from other contending theoretical underpinnings of social capital, it is not possible to theorise Bourdieu. The reason for my selection of Bourdieu as my source of theoretical understanding may be manifold, but his concern with the transformation of social capital into economic, cultural and symbolic capital as rooted in the society is what makes Bourdieu a distinguished thinker among his contemporaries. As the following discussion highlights, I intend to operationalize social capital the way it opens individual representation through gift exchange by mediating economic manifestations. Such a web of network of social relations, by looking into the making of individual and transformation of capital into different forms, helps me contextualize Bourdieu’s social capital. Such contextual specificity would prove helpful for a better understanding of vartan bhanji that cannot be translated as a gift in analysis of economic anthropology Though the concept of capital has been central to the contributions made by Bourdieu, his theoretical understanding has yielded different understandings at different times. I argue that such different interpretations or even to accept that Bourdieu has not been consistent in his theoretical formulation of the idea of capital is actually vindictive of the fact that the idea itself is a representative of social reality. This is further corroborated by what Bourdieu considers capital as “a vis insita, a force inscribed in objective or subjective structures, but it is also a lex insita, the principle underlying the immanent regularities of the social world” (Bourdieu 1986: 241). Now, extended to a more comprehensive attempt to delineate what is meant by ‘objective or subjective structures’ and ‘immanent regularities of social world’, Bourdieu leaves space for every respective and contextual discussion. My aim is not limited to confining my interpretation to what we can mean from objective and subjective structures. I aim to bring in the people themselves in the account that what makes an objective or subjective structure in what they perceive to be their social world. This possibility of presence of the people of the villages is facilitated due to Bourdieu’s realization that an anthropologist or researcher is him/herself structurally positioned.

Despite all the challenges and difficulties, an important aspect, which an anthropologist can never afford to overlook, is contextualisation of the theoretical framework. My contextualisation of Bourdieu’s theoretical standing is directed towards establishing similarities between my position as a native Punjabi anthropologist and Bourdieu’ concerns for his studies and status of the societies which he was writing about. This becomes further clear when we think of 76

the word gift as a framework of social networks, which have to be represented in their economic, social and cultural value. Thus, concerns for origin of theoretical framework, in this case of a thinker from France and its application to a Punjabi village in Pakistan are important reminder of appraisal. Realizing the need Bourdieu himself reminds us that “studying the transformations of economic practices in rural society enables one to grasp more clearly and more completely what they entail” (Bourdieu 2000a: 23). Bourdieu further extends his analysis, for studying these practices entails “namely, a whole lifestyle or, better, a whole system of solidary beliefs – so much so that one must speak, to describe them, not of adaptation but of conversion” (Bourdieu 2000a: 23). I do not treat what Bourdieu is alarming us about such lifestyle, solidary beliefs etc. simply as concerns while writing an ethnography, but such contextualisation with Bourdieu is unbreakable from what we can call a framework of analysis or theoretical framework. He has attentively argued in the favour of a reasoned understanding of field and its making, i.e., Bourdieu’s concerns about understanding literary field as field is rooted in his attention to the fact that even the perception, realization, critical approach and meanings of art are themselves produced in a larger field of the production of such trends (Bourdieu 1993). Bourdieu digs it even deeper to bring in belief and value of art as a field among many fields where one must be conscious of assumption of the material or symbolic value. An important reminder in Bourdieu’s works is his constant reflection that “scholarly critics cannot grasp the objective reality of society aesthetes without abandoning their grasp of true nature of their own activity” (Bourdieu 1980: 226). This is what makes theorizing with Bourdieu, though challenging due to the enormity of his oeuvres, fascinating as he keeps on reminding one of the scholastic positions and locating oneself constantly in the objective and subjective making of oneself. It is difficult to grasp contribution made by Bourdieu in different fields, but some of Bourdieu’s writings have produced probably the most significant engagements. For example, “field, habitus and capital” have been used by scholars in “vastly different ethnographic sites” (Thapan and Lardinois 2006: 19). It is therefore specific to Bourdieu that despite his universal application of certain key ideas, he is conscious of his own proclivities and making of texts. He argues that texts which he has “produced in a definite position in a definite state of the French intellectual or academic field have little chance of being grasped without distortion or deformation in the American field” (Bourdieu 1997: 450). Therefore, apart from what Bourdieu provides us with his tools of framework for analysis, I find it more helpful that he is

77

aware of the fact that Bourdieu is himself located and positioned in a specific academic and national milieu. Resultantly, Bourdieu sounds more relevant as a guide to study a changing Punjabi rural society when one is reminded, time and again, about the specific making of knowledge itself and the role of institutions in this regard.

Bourdieu alerts us about Algerian society as a witness to the super-imposed transition from a pre-capitalist to capitalist society. Digging even deeper with Bourdieu also alarms us about the struggle between different classes when they are “engaged in a specifically symbolic struggle to impose the definition of the social world that is most consistent with their interests” (Bourdieu 1979: 80). Bourdieu’s concern for making and living of respective classes with specific cultural capital is important for our concern about the Punjabi rural society. The relevance of such symbolic capital and economic classes assumes more importance when market and materialization of the otherwise personalised sphere of human activity is an important reminder in this regard. This debate would take into account what is generally meant and assumed to convey the meaning of a relationship between the economic aspect of gift as bargained in ‘market’ oriented sense and the spirit behind its role in maintaining, cementing or cutting relationships. I treat all these aspects as a social flow of the gift in the scheme of practices recognized by Bourdieu as “customary rules preserved by the group memory” which are “product of a small batch of schemes enabling agents to generate an infinity of practices adapted to endlessly changing situations”(Bourdieu 1977: 16). The practice of vartan bhanji is, in this regard, in relatively more convenient place to theorized with Bourdieusian frame because Bourdieusian attention to the relationship between economic capital and social capital is pertinently helpful in this case. While thinking with Bourdieu, the generative mechanisms of capital and their mutation when lead to refinement are known as habitus making it cornerstone of my analysis.

As the title of my thesis highlights, the reason to look into gift exchange has been to understand gift exchange as social capital in terms of Pierre Bourdieu. In fact, this word has now become a currency in academic discussions. Yet the widespread use of this word is limited here in this study only to what it means at the intersection of different forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986). Furthermore, it is imperative to see the social capital in its more vibrant and active forms so that overall social spirit of the term can be clarified. Another interesting theme also remains the

78

realization of the contemporaneity of study. As it has already been made clear that this study is aware of the time in which it intends to give meaning to ‘social’ and ‘capital’, the concept of social change is not discrete from it. As duly noted by Eglar (2010) about the importance of vartan bhanji in a Punjabi village’s context, this study is intended to synthesize what we learn from social capital and how does it translate the present spirit of this practice in the view of social change. Therefore, by bringing in ‘social change’, I treat ‘extension of space and duration of time’ only after ‘distinguishing different regions and moments and by encountering their associated boundaries and meaning’, relying on Barnard and Spencer (Barnard, Alan, and Spencer1996: 822). Bourdieu’s understanding of the capital and its subsidiaries, i.e., economic, cultural and symbolic, is as deep as one experiences different distinctions in culture. He is aptly relevant when he reminds:

“the dominant culture produces its specific ideological effect by concealing its function of division (or distinction) under its function of communication: the culture which unites (a medium of communication) separates (an instrument of distinction), and legitimates distinctions by defining all cultures (designated as sub-cultures) in terms of their distance from the dominant culture (i.e. in terms of privation), identifying the latter with culture” (Bourdieu 1979: 80).

It is neither possible nor intended to introduce the Bourdieusian framework as an end in itself, but my aim is limited to the justification for the matter of convenience and acceptable reasoned relevance of the framework. Now, I intend to bring forth the meaning a gift can have either as an object or something even beyond it.

3.3: Understanding Gift, Money and Capital

The term ‘capital’ as an idea according to its contemporary understanding owes its origin to the detailed and systematic study of capital by Marx. Harvey traces the origin of Marx’s understanding of capital not as “a thing, but rather a process that exists only in motion” (Harvey 2010: 12). I neither go for a Marxian understanding of the capital as required by the study at hand nor I find it of much help because my aim is limited to the term capital. My inability to grasp the extended Marxian analysis is also due to the what Arjun Appadurai reminds us that “through a critique of the Marxian understanding of the commodity, I shall suggest that commodities are things with a 79

particular type of social potential (Appadurai 1986: 6). I find it less helpful in my analytical scheme if I rely on Marxian notion of capital because of my focused analysis of Bourdieusian use of ‘capital’. Here, my aim is limited to the relationship between money and capital as used by Bourdieu and how they play their role in vartan. At its broad level, economic anthropology does not provide a single answer to the multiple contexts of economic realities in different cultures–– and surely rightly so. This is also reflected by a careful analysis of some of the primary texts on the subject (Dalton 1969).

Gift is not only about money since anthropological evidence also suggests the same even from the primitive times. However, keeping in view that how the villages of my study are changing according to the diversifying professional options, it reminds of an increasingly monetized environment. Furthermore, it necessitates a balance between purely economic and non-economic sphere of vartan bhanji practices. The balance of economic and non-economic part of the practice is itself rooted in purely personal as well as the economic considerations. However, increasing economic considerations must be given due importance, for “economic action is socially situated” and it “cannot be explained by reference to individual motives alone” (Granovetter and Swedberg 1992: 9). Thus, it is necessary to assess the changing monetized modes of the practices of vartan bhanji, which play an important role in the re-defined articulation of biraderi. An important concern in this regard always remains with the ease of separation of monetized environment from the otherwise purely personal and indivisible repertoire of one’s self. For example, if we see family as “a place of trusting and giving as opposed to market and its exchanges” (Bourdieu 1996: 20), while remaining mindful to the fact that conversions of capital even within family are dependent upon time and possession of economic capital for the conversion between economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). As these studies highlight an on-going debate about economic and non- economic parts of gift exchange, this study is unable to find a clear separation between economic and non-economic or personal parts of the gift. Sahlins considers “a material transaction as a momentary episode in a continuous social relation” (Sahlins 1965: 1). I am of the view that materiality and non-materiality of the gift as object or part of the person while making and sustaining the relationships must be placed at the heart of such analysis. Such an understanding of gift is helpful if “we need to consider the category of the gift and the specificity of the object

80

(material and immaterial)”, which is exchanged for understanding “the question of what kinds of relations it produces, and the effects with which such gifts are imbued” (Das and Das 2010: 17).

If the gift is an object, which has its personal and emotional part of the giver as an essential part of exchange then cultural and social capital of gift should be a primary concern due to the exchange between two parties in social relations. Therefore, what lies beneath the binary division between economic/non-economic or socio-cultural embeddedness or disinterestedness is the entangled practice of economic goods that are symbolic in their outlook. Foster is aware that a “‘thing’ that represents: that is culturally involved” is located in a symbol that “participates in a web of significances that we call culture” (Foster 1994: 366). Furthermore, Das and Das rightly bring us back to the “need to consider the category of the gift and the soecificity of the object” which has been exchanged “in order to understand the question of what kinds of relations it produces, and the effects with which such gifts are imbued (Das and Das 2010: 17). My understanding of the gift at the villages of the study is inclusive and mindful to the fact that the practice of vartan bhanji is difficult to be compartmentalized in either of the categories which misses the other part. As a case in point, is it possible to understand only economic or material part of the gift without delineating the emotional cum personal part of the gift? Bourdieu asserts that “if economics deals only with practices that have narrowly economic interest” and “are directly and immediately convertible to money” then, Bourdieu is of the view, “the universe of bourgeois production and exchange becomes an exception and can see itself and present itself as a realm of disinterestedness” (Bourdieu 1986: 242). I do not see bourgeois or proletariat classes as transposable to our discussion, but Bourdieu adds appositely about the realm of interestedness or disinterestedness. I argue that gift exchange as a practice takes place only when we are able to see the realm of interestedness because disinterestedness comes only when the primary importance of vartan is compromised between the parties. An important part of this network of practice is the reciprocity because “most if not all economic acts are found to belong to some chain of reciprocal gifts and counter-gifts, which in the long run balance, benefiting both sides equally” (Malinowski 2013: 39-40). It is important that individual, gift and materiality remain within a comprehendible frame of analysis. When we ponder upon a relationship between “individuals” and the resources at their disposal then “they are also who they are because of what the wider social world gives or

81

takes away” (Lemert 2012: xv-xvi). Such an understanding of the individual as dependent upon things, objects, money or emotional spirits can never be a complete definition of an individual. Miller rightly reminds us “artefacts are a means by which we give form to, and come to an understanding of, ourselves, others, or abstractions such as the nation or the modern” (Miller 1994: 397). Now, with an increasing realisation of anthropological concern over the understanding of things as culturally communicative and representatives, we have a possibility of understanding gift as communicating through objects, artefacts and other material and non-material presentations. Similarly, exclusive focus on personal and emotional parts of gift, which the actors of exchange are engaged in, is an effort in vain because it conceals more than what it reveals. Thinking in the language of Bourdieu, if symbolic capital is brought in the analysis, we can have a more inclusive and comparatively richer depiction of a synthesis between economic cum material and emotional cum personal parts of the gift. Here again, Bourdieu sums up:

“as everyone knows, priceless things have their price, and the extreme difficulty of converting certain practices and certain objects into money is only due to the fact that this conversion is refused in the very intention that produces them, which is nothing other than the denial (verneinung) of the economy” (Bourdieu 1986: 242)

In my theoretical intervention, I advance my appropriation of Bourdieusian understanding of the cultural capital as the pivotal place in this extended formulation. As Bourdieu himself divides cultural capital into “three parts of: 1) embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of mind and body” (Bourdieu 1986: 243), which in my understanding is seized in the 2) objectified state through discursive and display of one’s position in the society to claim the recognition of 3) institutionalized state. I argue that these three states of cultural capital have a primary role to play in the whole network of vartan bhanji practice in the villages of the study. If the conception of capital in Bourdieusian frame is knitted with what Bourdieu considers the role of social fields and the process of transformation, it entails the competitive potentials of the social fields. For Bourdieu, the process of transformation, as becoming a specific agent in social fields, “starts in childhood, sometimes even before birth (since, as is particularly clear in what are sometimes called 'dynasties' - of musicians, entrepreneurs, academics,” (Bourdieu 2000: 165). Now, we have three states of cultural capital, which are not level-playing fields, but certain

82

possessions of capital determine the convertibility of one form of capital into another. For example, possession of economic capital can pave the way for claim to a certain type of social capital that demands possession of networks of social relations and their mobilization (Bourdieu 1986). Now, bringing village back in our analysis, I have attempted to understand the transformation of agents themselves as cultivated within certain spheres of socialization, i.e., family, schools, and colleges. Now, one must ask: are all the agents positioned in a neutral place to claim similar mediums and means for access to different forms of capital in the hierarchical structure of the village? My aim in this study is to assess the role of unequal access to economic capital, which itself is pre- determined, independent of the agents’ role in its accumulation. As a case in point, the claims for cultural capital as representative of elevated status of let’s say a zamindar elder can spring from the position one occupies, yet it is not necessarily the ever-lasting possession of economic capital. Such a structured structure of economic capital works both as habitus and field where not only competition for its accumulation is always going on, but it also acts as pre-disposed act generating mechanism. However, it is never a simple task to understand the complexities of economic order, where claims of cultural and social boundaries are porous. Therefore, “small results have been achieved, because the amount of serious consideration given by theoretical writers to economic problems is in no way proportionate to their complexity and importance” (Das and Das 2010: 3). Thus, from economic aspect, we need to know that how does market economy sneak into without being warranted for any understanding about the gift as personal and emotional parts. One may ask: is it possible to treat gift only in the mode of market economy and then seeing it not rational, which places material self-interest at first? I argue that not only our answer to these questions but also the logic of practice (vartan bhanji) itself is rooted in multiple considerations. These considerations are themselves embedded in consciousness, which have an unbreakable relationship with money, its representation and the practice of vartan bhanji as a system within which we try to look for the answers. According to Bourdieu, we can deduce the logic behind “material or symbolic power accumulated by the agents (or institutions)” by looking into gift or the potlatch, which “may enable them to accumulate symbolic power” (Bourdieu 1979: 80). The same concerns about symbolic power and its role in economic choices is also duly realized by Bourdieu during his stay in Algeria where he identifies the mis-match between economic modernity and traditional socio-cultural structure (Bourdieu 1979b).

83

The mode of debate on giving and reciprocating in the village is always reflective of broader trends, instead of mere calculations. For example, people do not talk only about the money paid or owed but it entails a far more comprehensive understanding of oneself as in debt. It appears necessary to comprehend that how do people feel indebted in terms of economic or non-economic value. Graeber rightly conjures up the very fact that “we don’t know what debt is, the very flexibility of the concept, is the power of the concept” (Graeber 2011: 5). Although Graeber’s reference is more about macro economical structures, I have intentionally problematized it here because debt is also an equally powerful concept for the people when they talk about their vartan. Furthermore, people are quite familiar with the changing economic positions of the fellow friends, biraderi members and, above all, the relatives, who are the closest and immediate shareeka. Therefore, the shift in village economy and the resultant role of money is important for our current contextualization of the debate about money, gift and economy in the villages of my study.

What makes this whole debate more interesting is the meaning of gift in the academic community, which I do not see completely compatible with the understanding of the people of the village. For example, the practice of gift-giving and the reciprocity, which remains inseparable in the given understanding of the gift in most of the academic discussions, is not taken similarly by the people of the village due to their consideration of moral values and cultural capital, which does not pre- determine the primacy of economic capital.

3.4: Socio-Moral Tenor of Reciprocity and Gift

Vartan in the villages of the study often invokes references to morality as the guiding principle of a larger network of social relations. Therefore, moral values operate within their socio-temporal logics when people talk about invitations to different events and then reciprocity is closely linked with the standing of someone as either ikhlaaqi (moral) or ghair ikhlaaqi (immoral) person. When people assess moral worth of someone in the villages of study, they relate it to conduct with relatives, biraderi and friends as the criterion to determine one’s qualifications in relation with social standards of moral worth. People would rarely accept someone as a good person who is not good with his relatives, friends and biraderi. However, here, biraderi acts as a more important word as compared to the other two relations because of very important concern about ethnographies of Punjabi village, where biraderi is supposedly incorporative of relatives as a 84

whole and selectively some friends also. When we discuss in detail the ethnographical specificity about the real importance of biraderi, Eglar’s realization that biraderi “as a group” remains decisively important because “biraderies are thoroughly involved in family events”(Eglar 2010: 93). I problematize the essence of relationships for bringing in another very important driving force of vartan, which acts equally strong as do the economic and social making of the vartan practices. Thus, we can argue that people are concerned about their conduct in vartan and take it as a cornerstone of one’s moral, economic and social standing.

Here I bring both the economic structures of choice to compel on staying within one’s means and the imposing urge to stay in the network of vartan, which paves the way for normative conduct. I argue that a comprehensive discussion on normative moral conduct requires the understanding of historical patterns of consciousness in this regard where both economy and social structure play an important role. Durkheim pertinently argues that “what above all is certain is that morality develops over the course of history and is dominated by historical causes, fulfilling a role in our life in time” (Durkheim 1984: xxv-xxvi). I aim to extend the similar combined role of factors that people often invoke to check the transgressions. The checks on transgressions are not limited to keeping people in the pool of network, but they also make people conscious of the limitations of others in the network. This need to keep the vartan as accommodative of the others, thus making it larger and it is conditional to the careful and attentive conduct. For example, Bourdieu’s notion of honour in gift exchange is rightly mindful that “to make a present so great that it cannot be matched merely dishonours the giver” (Bourdieu 1977: 12). Therefore, while discussing the economic and cultural characteristics of vartan, we need to be aware of the multiplicity of possibilities in this regard, which people themselves keep open. Furthermore, neither one’s personhood in vartan acts as a sole actor, nor it is allowed in the given structure. Apart from tensions of broken relations, people see many crossroads while trying to bridge the economic and social milieu of the practice. For example, people prefer to hide the same gifts in their material form or the favours as in personal non-materialistic way, which they calculate to be reciprocated. The reasons, which lead to such contradictory approaches are weaved in the larger moral milieu that forbids the materialistic calculations of close relations. Therefore, I have deliberately called it socio-moral tenor of the practice because “ethics or morals in everyday life, imperfect as they are”

85

and are not dependent upon “normative philosophical theories of how they should be”(Sayer 2011: 145)(Sayer 2011). This is truly needed for the claims of better understanding about the place of morality as it operates in the villages instead of normative constructions, which are not grounded in the locale itself.

Are all gifts necessarily involving some moral or spiritual parts of the donor as claimed by Mauss (Mauss 1990: 12)? Gift is not a gift in the sense of what we generally understand from the mechanism of exchange in different societies. We call it either reciprocity or free-flowing gift, my understanding of the gift is rooted in much deeper layers of everyday life at the villages of the study. It is true that we have so far treated gift—be it in the discussion of capital, its material manifestations or deeply embedded emotional and personal undertones—as recognizable, communicable and measurable in its essence. I aim to contest this easily given and simple exchange of gift. My contention of these fixed notions of gift stems from the basic premise that exchange of gift, known as vartan bhanji, which is itself suggestive of the need to have more extended meanings of the practice. I intend to make my analysis more exclusive by looking into the network of multiple actors who determine the meanings a simple object can have. When I use the term multiple actors, my intention is to bring in the real meanings people give to what they consider material, social or personal part in their wisdom. I further aim to increase the scope of my inquiry by a careful assessment of the role of events, i.e., marriage ceremonies and death rituals as prime occasions of gift exchange. However, my understanding of the whole network as I take it while learning from my fieldwork is not confined to events. As events are not making of themselves in terms of both time and spirit of the relationship, so I try to build my analysis of vartan bhanji where the exchange of gift is representative of the human relationships. For example, if we bring in value as a representative face of the objects or greetings exchanged then “value, is never an inherent property of objects, but is a judgment made about them by subjects” (Appadurai 1986: 3). Therefore, if value of objects is dependent upon the subjects who make the judgement, then the subject assumes a central position with his/her subjectivities. This would also lead to the opening up of gendered spheres of the practice. For example, it leads to the shift in the role of women and men due to the increasing monetization of domestic spheres, which earlier rested with

86

women of the house. Thus, such otherwise remote and dormant looking spheres (like gender in this case) actually determine the larger socio-historically located practices.

Bourdieu (1978) reminds us that how a social demand is created, which remains conscious of its class structure and hence determines even leisure activities. He further asks us to be cautious about the fact that “it is first necessary to consider the historical and social conditions of possibility of a social phenomenon which we too easily take for granted” (Bourdieu 1978: 820). Thus, before discussing the practice of vartan bhanji, it is imperative to understand the background of discussion about capital and the role of economic capital, which leads to a different understanding of basic notions in the socio-moralistic logic of the practice. I further extend the domain of moralistic undertone of the value of not only objects but also of the relationship between people through revisiting some of the primary notions of economics and materialism. For example, though people calculate the material value and investments of their money at different events of the vartan bhanji practices, the aim of participation in the practice is itself the negation of only economic calculation. This brings us back into the fold of socio-moral tenor of the practice that is becoming representative of an increasingly monetized sphere. Now, when we have a Punjabi village where people have both access and constraints to the economic capital, it is essential for a comprehensive debate about gift to revisit such notions like poverty, object, materialism and cultural individual. As the fifth and sixth chapters would also highlight in the light of ethnographic data, it is a fallacy to take any of these notions as complete in themselves. For example, an individual, who is presumed as a social individual, who has no regard for the constraints and calculations of materiality of the gift, then there is no possibility of any debate about economic part of the contemporary calculation, which is at the heart of the practice of vartan bhanji in the village. At the broadest level, “If a gift is freely given, it has no social impact, because no obligations are set in motion” (Gudeman 2001: 81). Now, if we take any of the two actors or the obligations to give and receive gift, then gift as a system of exchange would collapse.

I argue that the network of social relations is reflective of the making of the contemporary moralistic and economically calculated scheme of participation in vartan bhanji. (Alvi 2001) My deliberate use of the term socio-moral is itself indicative of the theoretical referent term for bringing in crosscurrents in Bourdieu’s terms as the intersection of economic capital and social

87

capital. This term denotes not only my contribution to the debate on multiple forms and understandings of the gift, but it also brings forth the articulation of individual as an agent in the social practice of gift exchange. For example, when we miss any of the forms of capital, as argued by Bourdieu (1986), I find the complete picture of vartan bhanji as becoming blurred between symbolic, social and economic capital of gift. For example, if the symbolic capital is treated as just symbolic, it becomes difficult to bring in economic capital, which remains a primary agent for mobilizing and securing other forms of capital, i.e., cultural and social. Furthermore, if one is able to focus on all forms of capital even then it is not possible to assume the meaning of the practice, which people might be wishing to convey. Bourdieu has assessed similar “strategies of honour which govern ordinary exchanges” as not “totally absent from the extra-ordinary exchanges of the marketplace” (Bourdieu 2000a: 20). Here I bring in my highly subjective approach for the time being when we have to take into account what is meant by moralistic tones, which interact with the economic sphere of the practice. For example, the use and show of money during vartan bhanji practices is very well-calculated despite the contradictory generosity disguised to show feelings for the relationship between the parties. Bourdieu corroborates it when he reminds us that “different conditions of existence produce different habitus––system of generative schemes” (Bourdieu 1984: 170)(Bourdieu 1984). People also face this dilemma about showing money at the same time when they want to hide the same. It is interesting to see gift as always representing something in between a symbolic and economic object with essential presence of giver and receiver. This presence of giver and receiver is synonymous with an urge to determine some knowable value of the objects and emotions, which can be taken as gift. Looking further precisely, the gift has to be understandable if it is to be treated as a gift. As this section is only about theoretical understanding of gift, when I am trying to navigate my position as native anthropologist, I expect gift to be communicable through its value. This is in line with concern in anthropology “with the qusetion of how value is created in the process of exchange” (Das and Das 2010: 14). However, I remain attentive to the fact that essentialization of either form of gift as an object with material value or part of a person as on two extremes is impossible to be bridged. I intend to bring in objects, which are exchanged in both capacities as objects and symbolic messages of deeper meanings than mere economic value. As Descola tries to bring in non-humans in the domain of anthropology and makes it clear that “if nonhumans are to become agents in their

88

own right, they have to be able to escape this symbol-induced passivity” (Descola 2016: 36). As a result, this necessary role of gift as understandable and comprehensible makes individuals and gift as agents of meanings which can be written, discussed and studied.

Now, when we bring in economy, moral values and positioned persons in vartan bhanji, keeping in view the habitus, we are struck with a question of social reproduction and social transformation. Foster asks “how people continuously produce their social relations amidst circumstances that they cannot always anticipate but must nevertheless engage?” (Foster 1995: 1). Given this impossibility of abdicating one’s required role, which is imposed by the structured structure, which also acts as a structuring structure, it is necessary to look into the play in the field. I am of the view that this understanding would open the way for the bargaining in terms of either succumbing to the logic of practice or manipulating the available options. Bourdieu urges that “fields use the agents' drives by forcing them to subject or sublimate themselves in order to adapt to their structures and to the ends that are immanent within them” (Bourdieu 2000b: 165). This takes me to my primary concern in this theoretical section to bring in not only the explicit meanings associated with vartan bhanji but also dig into the implicit meanings of the practice as a system. Importantly, I have not treated the individuals as time-free fixed beings, who are either positioned as merely economic agents or completely devoid of any such consideration. I must add here that this fallacy stems from practical inability of the researcher to see into all aspects of gift exchange— that, in most of the case, is difficult. As a case in point, my feeling throughout my fieldwork to unpack the complete schema of moral meanings, which people attribute to economic representations, has not been successful. The first reason for this impossibility is the habitus as a universalizing mediation, which “causes an individual agent's practices, without either explicit reason or signifying intent, to be none the less sensible and reasonable” (Bourdieu 1977: 79). Thus, this sensible and reasonable calculation for the agents of practice becomes abstruse because of the inability of the researcher to internalize those values and feelings that require peculiar social and contextual life. What remains open to investigation and understanding for the anthropologist is the role of certain key parts of the whole practice of vartan bhanji. For example, if we change the word of reciprocity with an obligation for the time being then the role of morality would become central. Once again, if we shuffle the expectations about reciprocating the lain (what remains due) by reversing the positions upon the ladder of hierarchy then those who are at the lower end must 89

find it economically challenging to meet the required expectations. Smart argues that through

”obligation”, which “once it has been used, it does not exist anymore and until then, there is no certainty that the obligation or “gift debt” will actually be reciprocated”(Smart 1993: 393). My analysis, therefore, relies not only on the face value of the agents, but I also try to understand the pretensions to give meaning to materialization—that is used to veil the very materialization. My understanding of such ambiguous relationship of people with the money as an expression of their relationship with their affine, cognates, friends is itself far from definitive. What evades the measurability is:

“to refuse to calculate in exchanges with one’s ‘nearest and dearest’ is to refuse to obey the principle of economy as propensity and capacity to economize or minimize expenditure (of effort, ‘pains’, then labour, time, money, etc.), in favour of giving without counting, a refusal which can in the long run foster the atrophy of calculating dispositions” (Bourdieu 2000a: 24)

Thus, my understanding of the Bourdieusian frame of analysis about the role of money, capital and subsequent meanings of vartan bhanji brings me to the conclusion of this part of the debate. I must admit that the line between economic and non-economic is porous, especially when we want to discuss gift exchange, because of the intersectionality of other actors and agents. But I am convinced about one aspect of the gift exchange in the village so far––nothing is singularly responsible for the complete network of gift exchange. The coming three chapters would aim to synthesize what has been so far discussed in the light of Bourdieusian theoretical framework. The following chapter, however, makes it clear that how one should understand the personhood and ethnography when we discuss marriages and death rituals as mutually re-enforcing for our understanding. This theoretical chapter is important to keep in mind during the evolving contours of the debate.

3.5: Conclusion

This theoretical chapter is intended to lay the ground for knitting the ethnographical data of coming chapters with both theoretical formulation and the introduction of villages. My understanding of the theoretical framework is not in binaries of either as personal, non-personal or material, non- 90

material forms of gift exchange. What I have further aimed in this chapter is also the introduction of broader contours of Bourdieu’s ideas of the forms of capital, which pave the way for my succinct analysis. Bourdieu’s theoretical formulations are selectively chosen because they lead to the careful assessment of ethnographic analysis in the following chapters. One of the most important aspects of Bourdieu’s concerns has always been his careful assessment of the impacts not only upon the people he studies, but he is also aware of his personal position. I am of the view that this deep-rooted contextualization of Bourdieu about people’s economic, social, symbolic and moral choices is key to my analysis in the following three chapters. Bourdieu’s comprehensive analysis of gift in particular and economy in general is well aware of the relationship between economy and social values of the people. These concerns when coupled with enhanced care paid to one’s reflection on self-made claims is key to understand the change in socio-economic order of my villages of study. Furthermore, my theoretical formulation is rightly aware of the intricacies in understanding of gift, as argued in traditional (classical) approaches and its recent debates about material (economics), personal (anthropological) binaries of gift exchange. My theoretical discussion is aimed at presenting the analysis, which necessitates the possibility of simultaneous approach towards the cumulative reasoning of all approaches.

I also look for the recent configuration of Punjabi personhood while discussing change in professional options for the people and the traditional imagination of land ownership as the key resource f or one’s socio-economic standing. Therefore, the theoretical chapter as discussed above provides both the introduction to theorization and it also paves the way for an ethnographic account of personhood in Punjabi village when we are aware of the closer relationship between increasing materiality and personal meanings of gift known as vartan in this study.

91

Chapter Four: Contemporary Punjabi Personhood and Change in Socio-Economic Order

4.1: An Introduction into Making and Perception of Punjabi Personhood

“There are”, writes Jean-Paul Sartre, “qualities that we acquire uniquely through the judgements of others”(Bourdieu 1985: 19). The reason behind this borrowing of the quote from Jean-Paul Sartre lies in my understanding of the Punjabi personhood, which is largely driven by the calculation of oneself against the shareeka (opponent within). The term shareeka has pivotal role in the overall conduct as a Punjabi individual who acts as individual, member of family and as biraderi wala (belonging with the endogamous group) because shareeka is present at all levels of Punjabi personhood-making. Therefore, through the making of personhood and locating the importance of shareeka, my aim in this chapter is to discuss personhood in Punjabi village which is helpful to reconstruct the past and present personhood as a category. These considerations of personhood are not disassociated from some of the essentials which serve as building blocks of personhood. Namely, izzat (respect), sharam (shame and modesty), ghairat (the word does not have fixed meaning, but it is used more specifically about matters of serious breach of one’s honour) and, muqaam (social standing) are some of the key properties of any successful claim to shakhsiyyat (personhood). The analysis of a mutual interplay of all the key properties just mentioned above, one thing which remains equally important, is the ever-present threat to them. People in Khokhran and Amin Kot recognise it quite well if their threat originates from the outside or from within. When the threat comes from outsiders, it is recognised as mukhaalfat (opposition) or dushmani (animosity), but when the opposition is from within, people would say simply shareeka. Though ethnographically, the evidence suggests that feelings of shareeka are pervasive to all aspects of the conduct, yet Anjum Alvi’s (2001) analysis is aptly helpful in this regard. Alvi persuasively argues that “a human being also perceives of other humans within and outside his or her own society, thus constituting the notion of the person”(Alvi 2001: 48). It takes us to the basic realization of the making of Punjabi personhood when we realize that people have to position themselves as within and outside of their web of relationships.

92

As an important theoretical background, I imagine Punjabi personhood located within the main trends of debate about holistic individualism of Louis Dumont (Dumont 1980, 1986). Coupled with Dumont’s proposal about holistic individualism, the author also specifies that “to see our culture in its unity and specificity we must set it in perspective by contrasting it with other cultures”(Dumont 1985: 94). Here, Dumont’s contribution is apt due to specific field of specific modes of discussion about personhood, in our case a Punjabi village. However, as an extension of Dumontian approach towards holistic individualism, this would also bring in discussion of contemporary changes in the social structure, which fulfill the requirement of Dumontian individualism to materialize in contemporary context. My intention is not to essentialize the Dumontian category of personhood, however, it paves the way for our analogous discussion of individualism as some of the post-Dumont approaches (Lardinois 1997; Quigley 1999: Celtel 2004) have already contributed in Indian context of caste studies. My intention is to relate the above mentioned essential properties of Punjabi personhood in the context of my villages of study with holistic individual of Dumont when we bring in our discussion of class characteristics and properties. It is pertinent to bring Bourdieusian analysis about habitus as an “embodied history internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history - is the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product” (Bourdieu 1992: 56). This relationship between past and the embodied history is pivotal to the making of personhood when we understand the holistic individualism (Dumont 1985) or shared being (Alvi 2001) in Punjab’s context. Bourdieu’s general scheme of discussion has also been summed up by Wilkes as “broad-ranging account of class practices” which is believed to embody “food tastes, clothing, body dispositions, housing styles and forms of social choice in everyday life, as well as the more familiar categories of economy and polity (Wilkes 1990: 109). Like Wilkes, I am also of the view that this historically located habitus can prove helpful for our discussion of more generic categories of people as zamindars and non- zamindars in the discussion of Punjabi personhood’s larger categories.

As vartan is my mainstay of the analytical framework, it is pertinent to relate contemporary figuration of personhood with practice of vartan which is limited to marriages and death rituals in this study due to practical necessities. Extending further, my intention is to evaluate the scale of change in imagination of personhood when people talk about their understanding of vartan in

93

contemporary times against what they call as aglay waqt. This chapter aims to bring forth not only the practice of vartan as a network of social relations, but the positions as occupied and performed by people are main objective of discussion in the chapter. This discussion is an addition to and extension of the last theoretical chapter by focussing on increasing need of an objectified and materialistic orientation of those objects and relations, which earlier resisted such perception. The resistance of materialistic manifestations was considered necessary by the people because weighing one’s relation with money or monetary benefits was deemed disrepute to the person and the mutual relationship. This is also important reference in current relations of the vartan where people treat the material calculation as different from their personal essence as friends or relatives.

Therefore, this chapter paves the way for a comprehensive understanding of the making and acting of shakhsiyat, which is at the crossroads of both the earlier logic––mainly informed by colonial making of personhood through land ownership patterns and contemporary changes, which are taking place at both the villages of the study. When I use the word contemporary changes for personhood at Khokhran and Amin Kot, my aim is to bring in some important accounts about the persons who challenge the traditional division of Punjabi rural structure as divided among zamindars and kammies. These accounts of the persons who are challenging the earlier fixed understanding of Punjab’s social structure are intended link between my understanding of vartan and the existing Punjabi personhood. I argue that this realisation among the people as belonging to lower castes, now jumping into higher status categories through government jobs and different businesses is what Bourdieu considers the convertibility of one state of capital i.e. economic capital into cultural and social capital (Bourdieu 1986). This also requires the further precision about any linear conversion of one state of capital into the other state of capital. For example, as Bourdieu considers the embodied form of cultural capital to be “long-lasting dispositions of mind and body” (Bourdieu 1986: 243), this is not possible to treat multiple forms and performances of individuality at the village through any such simple possibility. My understanding of both the process of socialisation and the eventual growth as an established or recognised individual does not let me go inattentive to the fact that the long-lasting dispositions of individuals are also divided on the basis of given positions as zamindars or kammis.

94

This takes me to theorise Bourdieu’s main ideas about cultural forms of capital when economic capital is converted into social and the resultant assumption of role as an individual. This analysis is mainly dependent upon the long-lasting dispositions of the people in their minds according to their belonging to certain groups with particular reasons to claim their sources of origin (in case of zamindars) or the contestation either explicit or implicit of the same (by the kammis). This debate about long-lasting pre-dispositions of the people has been borrowed from the idea of Habitus by Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1992; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; 2000). This further leads to a socio-cultural landscape of historically determined imaginations of personhood in Punjab. My case studies bring forth not only the smooth analytical propositions but it also raises tensions about ethnographic evidence and the theoretical wilderness due to lacking contextual relevance. Therefore, as a tool of my analytical framework, I am aware of the grounds mostly covered by Bourdieu and it gives me space to add where I have the possibility of any addition. As a case in point, I contest one state of the cultural capital i.e. embodied state, it does not mean that my aim is complete rejection of the formulation of cultural capital by Bourdieu. Instead of rejection, I aim to extend the scope of Bourdieusian analysis to bring in my own contribution by presenting fresh evidence from the villages of my study. Thus, my scheme of analysis does not put people in their respective position as always fighting against each other due to tensions in their roles, but my analysis would bring in harmonised conflict. I employ this term to show how people mediate their unequal positions and how these tensions are managed amicably. This avoidance from hostile environment again takes us back to reality of positions accruing from institutionalized state of capital (proprietary rights) and the convertibility of economic capital to cultural capital over an extended period of time. These tensions can better be realised when we pay careful attention to the changing castes of those families who have come out of their exclusive dependence upon zamindars. For example, when Chadoyas of Khokhran shifted to Burewala city and changed their family name to be known as (land owning caste in Punjab, boasts of itself as warring caste), their change of caste was not liked by the people of area but no one ever objected in front of the family. Considerably, enhanced social status of the family was important factor for no serious offense to the family for changing caste. However, the similar option would not have been possible for another family from same lineage of the biraderi without economic capital. Therefore, it is needed to rethink the long-lasting disposition of the mind while considering caste as permanent

95

marker of one’s social position as Bourdieu argues about social capital (Bourdieu 1986: 243). It shows that caste when changed from the lower to the one with higher status, is an option which people often use but the tensions about acceptance of such change are suggestive of the need for renewed focus on personhood. Now, for the sake of argumentative convenience, I problematize the self of persons who are changing caste against those who assume the role of other as shareeka. My intention from this self and othering is the understanding of ontological category, which Anjum Alvi argues that the relationship between the “self and the other” are “thus two ontological categories of human existence, and yield meaning vis-a-vis each other”(Alvi 2007: 658). Therefore, it is inevitable for one ontological presence at a specific social status to assume and pay back the meanings in mutual interaction as parts of same social structure which confers the positions as elevated or lower due to caste or profession.

In the last chapter the focus has been on relationship between forms of capital and its mutations into different forms as advocated by Bourdieu. It takes me now to explore transition within material and cultural values as a compelling urge here. Resultantly, we are equipped with socio-cultural events as representatives of the expression of Punjabi personhood and the increasing materialization of the overall day-to-day life and its special focus on vartan. Through the extension of same focus, another theme for the comprehensive discussion of vartan is materialization of domestic sphere, which pertains to shift in gender roles. Women who are still one of the primary agents of the calculations of vartan, used to have more say as compared with recent share in the overall conduct at the events of marriages. Till recent times, marriages used to be more of a household event because as remarked by one of the elder from Bhatti biraderi (65) that barat aur walima k ilawa sari shadi ghr ki chaar deewari main hoti thi (except barat and walima whole of the marriage function was organized within four walls of household). Resultantly, woman of the house had leading role of the whole practice because it involved inviting guests, receiving gifts, calculating them, managing the wikhaala (tradition of showing the dowry items in the house of the bride at the day of her departure), and decision to reciprocate at appropriate time. This discussion is given in detail in the fifth chapter which deals with ethnography of marriages with special focus. However, it is important to remain attentive to the fact that women were more influential for the upkeep of household’s naam and namoos (name and honour) as remarked by an elder (68) from

96

the Julaha biraderi of Amin Kot. The reference pertained to the role of woman of the house as host, guest when invited and mother of the sons and daughters whose marriages are one of the most important concern. Here for our focus on changing practices of gender roles in vartan, we need to remain focussed that there are important changes in the conduct of women as articulative of their personhood.

At theoretical level, some of the broadest categories lie in the limits to the understanding of self, which may be referring only to western or non-western sphere of individual. As individual in its exclusive and limited approach is not liked or preferred in Punjab, but this is what serves here my purpose of referring only to some selected understanding of western self. For example, Lindholm argues about American context of growth of an individual that “becoming ourselves is, it seems, a matter of personal effort and is opposed to social demands”(Lindholm 2007: 4). On the contrary, this is the main dividing line of my emphasis on the sources of the making of Punjabi personhood, which is collective and inclusive of the circle of relations according to their importance. I rely here on Hermans, with his “‘dialogical self” a term which he borrows from Bruner (1986), recognizing this part of self as “distributed-that is, it is not unified and centralized but rather heterogeneous and decentralized”(Hermans 2002: 72). It is pertinent to keep in mind that the attachment to biraderi and khandaan or relationships accruing mainly from these two sources i.e. friends of father, uncles and even of grand-father are owned, and taken care of as a requirement of successful Punjabi personhood. This characteristic is one of the essential requirements to qualify for a successful claim to personhood as qaabliyyat (capability) of khandaani waqaar (familial integrity). My use of the terms qaabliyyat and khandaani waqaar actually encompasses a reference from the one of the conversations with Qamar Zaman Khan who represents the vocabulary of zamindars, which is mostly monopolized in their own favour. Thus, Punjabi self is not about an individual growth, disconnected and discrete from the kinship, biraderi, friends and village fellows. Though this scheme of analysis about personhood is limited to some extent when we keep in mind the “salient aspects of cultural politics relating to autonomy, reason, citizenship, and nationhood” (Coleman 2015: 297), but my analysis is deliberately interested in this limited focus of Punjabi personhood.

97

People of Khokhran and Amin Kot are not comfortable with the meanings of the individual and person as terms, which we anthropologists tend to have. Therefore, when I use the term individual, it is not interchangeable with personhood, which I find more collectively owned, assessed and acted than the individual as a representative of personalized and separated being. My use of both terms individual and person is mainly borrowed from what people in the villages of my study consider when they use both these words in Punjabi. Borrowing from the local expression, people mostly use the word kalla or fard when they want to talk about individual who prefers to act as the one who is separated from kith and kin. For example, they would talk about someone who prefers to stay away from the rishtaydar, hmsaye (neighbour), biraderi as the one who is either nalaiq (inefficient) or not a proper human-being. Furthermore, when I separate the individual from personhood, my major reason for this separation is processual production of personhood. Unlike, the kalla or separated being, one who is actively part of social life, is considered as culminating the processual becoming of successful person and the attributes like achha (good) or shareef shakhs (noble person) are used. Such clear cut ideals and roles as expected from someone as part of society does not let me accept what Tambs-Lyche proposes that “Individualism is an ideology, not a social feature”(Tambs-Lyche 2018: 55). Though there is already some debate in second chapter about some notions of western and non-western individualizations, but it is important to mention that people of both the villages not only talk about their mutual distinctions as both reasons and credentials––they also make a clear distinction about their difference from American or European individual. The reference to both the American and European terms is due to the fact that people would often use the two words as representatives of similar kind of family systems (which they believe that there is very weak attachment to parents, siblings etc), sexual promiscuity, and general lack of religious zeal in life. Hence, people of Amin Kot and Khokhran, position themselves as Sunni Muslim, either zamindar or non-zamindar and kammi, and then comes their position as an individual within zamindar and kammi categories. The reason which urges me not to delve too deep in the religious zeal of the people is the realisation that this part of individual commitment to communal or collective sphere does not translate into the processual becoming of person except for the imam masjid (prayer leader) or those who claim spiritual capital. This is also vindicated by the fact that one who has left one’s biraderi is considered as bura aadmi (bad person) due to this mere fact irrespective of the position even as

98

imam masjid. Furthermore, my understanding of the Imam masjid as an important person in the village is also because he is most likely to assume a position of the one who is in the central place between zamindars and kammies. One exception is the role of Syed pir, to whom people have their allegiance in the form of bayat (paying allegiance at the hands of pir as spiritually dependent for barakah and guidance). My reason for not discussing in detail the role of pir is somewhat less important here for the discussion about Punjabi personhood because it does not translate into its role in vartan where pir is an exception as an actor. As a broader aim of the study, I proceed to discuss the role of colonial making of Punjabi personhood, which still persists in some of its conscious and sub-conscious forms.

4.2: Remnants of Colonial Punjabi Personhood

As the aim demands, my understanding of current Punjabi personhood is aware of the legacy of colonial normative notions of collective and individual positions of the people. Schematically, current forms of Punjabi personhood seem mediated and domesticated more rigorously due to colonial practices than it otherwise would have unfolded within the changing times. This leads me to systematize what I call the contributing factors towards ultimate shape of personhood as individual category and its place within Punjabi society at large. My aim in this section is discussion of personhood in Punjab as dependent upon colonial narration of personhood, which was deliberate and intentional in its fabrication of a specific image of Punjabi person. For this purpose in sight, I explore existing hierarchies and inequalities at Amin Kot and Khokhran, which people believe are rooted in historical and political reasons like land ownership and placement of one’s biraderi among the rest of biraderies etc. My aim in this chapter demands me to explore the making of personhood in rural Punjab by understanding what underlines the positions people occupy. Extending my argument, I aim to unpack the same occupancy of the position as warranting further precise investigation of the sources, which played and still continue to play an important role as the agents of the making of personhood in Punjabi village. Indeed, role of land ownership was instrumental in economic order of an agrarian society at the time of colonial state formation in 1850s. However, the current legitimacy of the claims and their impact still resonates in rural Punjab which does not go unnoticed for an anthropological effort to understand the field. The penetrating influence of colonial state apparatus is visible in memories of people when they talk

99

about the roles and position assigned to different groups of people as belonging to specific castes. Apart from subtleties of land ownership as guarantor of economic sustenance, the role of land ownership and subsequent belief in social structure lies even deeper as innate qualities of people. Similar beliefs in oneself and the other are also clearly marked about claims of one’s descent. Eglar (2010) rightly reminds us about the role of land ownership for the history of family when it comes to trace the common ancestor as source of provision for dominating agency. Eglar traces the logic behind selective memory of people as representatives of zamindar and kammi categories where “zamindar biraderi trace their descent for several generations, while the kammi can claim a few generations only”(Eglar 2010: 245). I aim to problematize these processes further in their relationship with land ownership and the subsequent positions determined as realities with socio- economic impact upon claims of one’s belonging to ancestors.

Personhood in Punjab is connected closely to its historical relationship with colonial processes of social engineering through land ownership distributed in the wake of canal colonies (Ali 2003), and then its translation into something socially recognisable through status claimed by this very rationale of belonging to land owning caste (Chaudhary 1999; Lyon 2004a; Eglar 2010; Martin 2016). Lindholm aptly remarks about imagination of colonial state policy as requiring a “norm”, which “if not followed leads to the exception”(Lindholm 1996: 1). Undoubtedly, this has left an indelible mark on the consciousness of the people. This eventually led to a social structure where not only hierarchies were produced but were also legitimized for the people due to their everyday interaction with state, which was herself excessively over-riding and super-imposing in its outreach and power. When land had been realized as one of the most essential tools to divide people in respective caste categories leading to biraderies as social identity, then one can decipher how colonial state imagined to order the society according to its logic of governance structure. Quite persuasively, Bourdieu and Sayad’s cultural Sabir (Bourdieu and Sayad 2004) is aptly illustrative as a case when the fellahin has been left languishing in a paradoxical state-imposed social and cultural modernity for a society when it is not ready for it, has long-lasting implications either economic or cultural (Bourdieu 2000a, 1979b). Similarly, in a different context from Boudrieu and Sayad’s, the same colonial urge to impose its own idioms of identity and rationality of economic order worked in Punjab.

100

How mythological and contested history of caste is constructed and appropriated is also proved form the contradictions of its important role in the imagination of people, which remained anything but settled and unquestionable. For example, Dhuddies of Amin Kot and Khokhran are claimants to an origin from one of their ancestors, known as Rai Umar who was contemporary and opponent to the Mughal King Akbar (d 1605). The legend adds that Rai Umar did not pay taxes to the Mughal King and as a consequence, had to face the wrath of the powerful kingdom at the time. This led to the ultimate dissipation of the state and subsequent status of Dhuddies as heir to a kingdom was lost. Resultantly, this gives Dhuddies as reference of their origin, which is in this case according to the legends. It is strongly believed in the larger socio-cultural area of villages of my study that one cannot be both Jatts and Rajputs at one time. However, Dhuddies in central and northern parts of Punjab mostly refer to themselves as Jatts because they marry and compete with the Jatts who are numerically, politically and economically more affluent in their area. To narrow our analysis to roots of colonial knowledge about Dhuddi caste and its relevance for people in the larger area of rural Punjab we need to dig deeper for the relationship between colonial knowledge and present-day references to it. For example, Rose considers “Dhudhi, a tribe of Muhammadans found in Pakpattan tahsil of Montgomery (contemporary Sahiwal) district, and akin to the Raths” are simultaneously “classed as Rajputs, Jat, , and in Shahpur as Jat” (Rose 1997: 240). It is this confusion in colonial production of knowledge which though contradictory yet remains convincing for the people concerned. Tellingly, people still relate themselves to the little scattered knowledge they have of colonial knowledge-making. This also reminds us about the problem about the justifications and legitimacy of the claims about British sources of knowledge. I still remember when asked repeatedly by the younger son of Haji Shabbir Khan Dhuddi at Khokhran that what do I find about the colonial references of Dhuddi caste as a martial caste with kingly and saintly references. This one reference is self-revealing that these tendencies among the people to elevate oneself against the other competing or nearby castes is actually rooted in these caste histories which essentialized the knowledge about castes. On the other hand, as normally such legends of one’s caste as elevating herself in status are contested by the other castes, is true in this case also. Chishties, the competing zamindars do not buy this legend of Dhuddies as inheritors of a lost kingdom. The Chishties and those who are closer to them and opposed to Dhuddi family would refer to those households of Dhuddies who do not own large chunks of land.

101

The mere fact that someone owns less land or no land is considered as a fact of low status, which is again believed to be innate property.

Like the above given reference to the claims and contestation of status of castes, there is need for sophisticated discussion of complexities, which can help in deciphering the contradictions in this regard. The real stimulus for my understanding of the reason for British needs to think about the people in terms of categories is similar what Robb realised that “perhaps inevitably, as aliens, they liked to deal in certainties, which survive to exaggerate the extent and rapidity of changes under their rule”(Robb 1983: 3). Undoubtedly, British were not unaware of the complexities of the task at hand, but the urge to define what had been occupied as a piece of land was actually motivating, in fact compelling factor for governing dictations. One of the authoritative figures on the subject of caste in Punjab, Denzil Ibbetson, who was himself mindful to the “the difficulty of Indian census”, which he considered “springs mainly from two sources; the infinite diversity of the material to be dealt with, and our infinite ignorance of that material”(Ibbetson 1987). Furthermore, Rose also wrote about “” as appear to be a true Rajput tribe, though a very considerable portion of them are styled Jat” (Rose 1997:495 ). Now, when Rose confused the same styled Jat and Rajput distinction while writing/claiming about Dhuddies as Jats and Rajputs, becomes too familiar with the case of Kharals. These contradictions and their subsequent role in governance led to use “caste at an all-India scale to categorize the population according to occupation and social structure” which formed a “more sophisticated basis for British attempts at social engineering”(Bates 19: 1095). This process of social engineering and the outreach of colonial state structure reached every nook and corner of the society because it was believed that the ”registration” in the form of knowledge being produced “defined its own idiom” (Smith 1996: 8). I extend the analysis of Smith which he reached through systematic study of colonial governance through records. Smith’s (1996) concern becomes most relevant to my argument when I bring in the present scenario of our discussion in the light of current dependence upon same colonial sources. Smith adds that when it comes to colonial documentation “accuracy is not the issue” rather he finds it more problematic that “this large body of official data is still the principal source for what we know about a particular era and it conditions more generally how we speak about the past” (Smith 1996: 5). Keeping in view that the similar tools of British anthropology,

102

my analysis takes to the discussion of biraderi as contemporary tool of analysis when social status and role of historical making of the biraderi is debated.

Gilmartin’s analysis helps us in drawing the contemporary analysis based on “demarcation and recording of vast scale within the framework of Punjab’s land settlements” which he deemed as fundamental to “reconstruction of biradari” (Gilmartin 2012). Gilmartin further extends his analysis to the establishment of “Punjab’s biraderi-based property order and the subsequent evolution of new visions of state-directed environmental challenge” (Gilmartin 2012: 300). Naturally, it takes us to a closer investigation of the relationship between caste in colonial state apparatus and biraderi in present case when we bring in the Gilmartin’s (2012) analysis. I find it more compelling to understand that the very definition of people according to their belonging to certain castes and then the position of these very porous castes––often defining biraderi or zat has always been difficult. There is a long list of vernacular and other alien terminologies for the discussion of caste in Punjab’s context but the list expands even to the word “’community’ to indicate the social unit identified in Urdu as zat or biradari” (Koul 2017: 13). My intention to raise the confusion in our discussion is deliberate and purposeful because it would lead to our succinct discussion what Quigley opines that “sometimes it is relatively straightforward to say who belongs to a caste and who does not; sometimes it is impossible (Quigley 1999). This urges to think not only in reference to the making of British colonial state practices and the subsequent evolution of an agrarian order with its particular beliefs, but it also takes to the contemporary relevance of those beliefs. Instead, colonial observers attested the omnipresence of primordial collectivities that displayed all the negative features that European history had supposedly overcome. These entities included ‘tribes’, ‘castes’ and above all religious ‘communities’ (Daechsel 2006). These tendencies for the knowledge production and least concerned for the representations which were main factor about determining the relationship with state, led to historically formed and culturally embodied understanding of the colonial self of personhood in Punjab.

These people who do not belong to the group of traditional land holding castes, are mostly remembered with disgust and sarcastic references to their kammi origin. One common word for such people who have secured newer avenues for upward mobility through different jobs, are called nau doltiye (newly wealthy). The reference to someone’s newly acquired wealth is always

103

directed to a socio-cultural character where people assume that the nau doltiya is transgressing his/her original place. These accounts for contesting respective positions as accruing from economic sources or attributed due to belonging to certain castes and biraderies is pivotal to the making of Punjabi personhood. My use of the expression Punjabi personhood does not essentialize the homogenous individuality or personhood as shared because as argued by Fowler “exactly who or what may or may not be a person is contextually variable”(Fowler 2004: 4). For example, the simple fact that someone has become nau doltiye, would invoke different reaction depending upon who is asked and what is the relationship between nau doltiye and the man asked. I recall a pertinent such instance, when we were coming back to Khokhran after offering janaaza (funeral prayer) of a woman from Ajera biraderi and the youngest son of Munshi Khan Muhammad Chadoya came from the opposite side of the street. He exchanged greetings saying As-Salam-o- Alaikum (peace be upon you) with us as it is expected to happen normally and passed us, which did not go well with one man from Dhuddi biraderi. The Dhuddi member of the group referred to the Chadoya boy’s cousin who was accompanying us that do these nau doltiye even talk to their relatives. The man who was accompanying us replied affirmative and added that they are good people but fellow village men are jealous of them due to their status. Tellingly, people of both the villages would always advocate varied and contentious personhood as true depiction of the village structure. In the light of above given discussion, my analysis is mainly aimed at the relationship between colonial texts and their problematic arguments about caste, which serve as a link between current sources of status and authority. For example, the concept of hierarchy (Dumont 1980, 1986) and even its rejection (Appadurai 1986b, 1988) are certain key ideas, which dictate certain modes of thinking in colonial or post-colonial configuration of selfhood or personhood. Likewise, the debates about patron-client relations have been undeniably important feature in all such debates involving claims of statuses in Punjab’s context. These fixed definitions also lead to assume or define patron-client relationship as “vertical social connection, i.e., between parties with unequal resources or power, in which flexible assistance or services may be provided that are not specified contractually”(Chaudhry and Vyborny 2013: 185). My concern with these debates is their significance for any new understanding of Punjabi personhood without taking into account the colonial Punjabi personhood.

104

4.3: Punjabi Individual, Family and Village in Present Times

Punjabi personhood is largely held together by a host of actors where family has the most important role to play. Pirani’s argument about family as a “unit in Pakistani society” which is “responsible for the total care of its members” (Pirani 2009: 21) merits the acceptance. My understanding of family as the primary agent at Khokhran and Amin Kot is an enabling factor to the role of biraderi as endogamous group, then leading to village and community. Though there is no possibility to propose a general statement about the role and importance of any of the above-mentioned factors, but their role is not exclusive to each other. Instead, family would likely lead to both the closeness and attentiveness to the presence of shareeka, which then leads to both the allied and opponents in community at large. Due to the importance of “family, biradari, tribe, and ethnicity” as primordial ties, Qadeer finds them as “structures that define an individual’s place in society and inform her/his beliefs and behaviors, although in the postcolonial period, class too has come to have a significant bearing”(Qadeer 2006: 189). My concern is limited only to the role of family, tribe or caste and zat in the study, but I consider class as representative of the changing realities at the villages, which have important role to play in the contemporary personhood. Likewise, it has been duly recognized in diverse contexts when referred as “routine classificatory categories—culture, and the family” acknowledged as “as it were, naturally occurring phenomena which present themselves for study in a direct and unproblematic fashion”(Jenkins 1992: 115-116). Bhandari and Titzmann also concur that “the family is shaped by—and also shapes—social, cultural, and technological changes”(Bhandari and Titzmann 2017: 1)My study also brings in the analysis not limited to routine classificatory categories, however, the shift in role and importance is brought into account when changing socio-economic realities in the villages of the study demand a renewed configuration as emerging reality in the traditional frames of analysis.

There is no doubt that most of the ethnographies about rural Punjab actually overlook the analysis of personhood because of presumed role of fixed understanding of biraderi as primal agent in making of Punjabi personhood. For example, most of the times, when biraderi is under discussion, the predominant tendency is to treat the kinship patterns and economic structure as rigidly defined, which leaves little room for contemporary discussion to accommodate the changes of present times. Kinship patterns and their role in solidification of image of biraderi as the 105

ultimate authority to determine one’s conduct has also been important in the scheme of personhood in Punjab. Therefore, I have tried to analyze the making of personhood in contemporary context, which I consider to be mainly influential at three levels: individual, family, which leads to biraderi, and village or beyond village. My consideration of family and biraderi is deliberately limited to the social aspect of its reference in this part of discussion because of my aim to problematize permanent presence of shareeka and opponents at larger level. My intention is to use shareeka as simultaneously present social phenomenon when the aim is about exploration of primary agents of the making of personhood in Punjab. Furthermore, the inheritance from the family is not limited to material assets i.e. land, property and business, but it extends to kinship as repository of relationships.

When it comes to code of conduct, it is mainly dictated again by the tabbar or gharana (household), nasal (lineage) as immediate sources of conduct, and biraderi at larger level with less potency. It makes all forms of capital i.e. economic, social, cultural or symbolic as inheritable for the most part of it from family as first source of rationalization of lifeworld. The role of family extends to almost all spheres––inculcating the religious zeal according to the followed sect, and kinship as concern for nasal with claims of moral and social elevation. When it comes to religious part of one’s life and the role of family, the people are least accommodative of a change in the family life. For example, one young boy (24) from Pawali family from Khokhran, a recent graduate while sitting next to me and sharing his prospects for professional career, complained about the twahamati mahol (superstitious environment) of his house because both his mother and father decide most of their tasks with the will of their pir. The boy seemed further perplexed when I advised him to convince his parents for travelling abroad as he planned to go for higher studies that if he say anything against the pir’ s prophesies his parents would start complaining that their son is becoming Wahabi. This one reference actually needs larger operationalization of the similar tensions because of the sensitivities about one’s parents beliefs and then positioning oneself accordingly is key property to be regarded by the family as a qaabil (capable) aulad. This takes me to Silva’s analysis about role of family as the earliest agent of rationalization. Silva argues in Bourdieusian terms:

106

“cultural capital as fulfilling the social function of legitimating social differences and establishes that it is produced (as taste, knowledge and ability), as well as consumed, in certain legitimate areas sanctioned by ‘culture’ (e.g. painting and music), or in personal areas (e.g. clothing, furniture and cookery), where early familiarization establishes legitimacy”(Silva 2005: 84).

Keeping in view the above given reference from tensions of an educated young man and the pressure to comply with the family’s role is central to Silva’s early familiarization of family rules as establishing legitimacy. Therefore, family acts as an agent of primary importance when its role is central at Amin Kot and Khokhran as a source of legitimacy for the cultural consciousness is established. There are many local idioms, which highlight the importance of family in this regard. For example, the sayings vary from indications of everyday sharafat (nobleness) to the hardest insults for improper conduct resulting in reference to one’s parents and family as responsible for an individual’s such conduct. As Punjabi rural social order is mainly informed by structural properties of its hierarchical establishment, therefor the positions of the people are themselves corroborative to their idiomatic expressions. As referred above, insults may vary from mild to very serious ones, but their intensity and invocation is itself indicative of the positions of individuals who use them and the one to whom the insults are directed. As a case in point, if the boy from Musalli family has done something undesired from him, he can be called by the zamindar as haraami (illegitimate child) without any serious fallout, but if another kammi member uses this insult to the boy from a kammi family, then serious tensions may follow. My understanding of the acceptance and rejection of someone’s behaviour as appropriate or inappropriate is due to the appropriation of one’s personal and the family or in its extension, of the biraderi’s position. It is in this logic of the positions that the role of family as a source of consciousness should be considered. Persuasively, Bourdieu opines that “families are corporate bodies” with a “tendency to perpetuate their social being, with all its powers and privileges, which is at the basis of reproduction strategies”(Bourdieu, Sapiro, and McHale 1991: 643). I do not feels satisfied with this understanding of families as corporate bodies, but their social and cultural tendencies are similar in their approach as identified by Bourdieu, Sapiro and McHale (1991). In a Punjabi rural family where individuals are supposedly its building blocks, do not act as exclusively corporate bodies, but the sources of legitimation of the claims to elevated status are surely part of reproductive strategies. It is one of the essential characteristics of family to employ “matrimonial strategies, successional strategies, economic strategies, and last but not least, educative strategies” (Bourdieu, Sapiro, and McHale 1991: 643), which are vital for the acknowledgement of the reproductive strategies.

107

Now, I extend the similar role of family as the earliest source of familiarization at the village level where people do not live in separated families. Therefore, this very realization of family, which ideally, is not expected to be individualistic, has important bearing upon the processes of psycho-social development. Resultantly, family assumes an over-riding importance about defining one’s possibilities of actions in given code of conduct both as an individual and representative of the family. These representations are regulated by the normative behaviour seen as legitimate within the cultural settings. However, it is not binding upon all members of the society irrespective of their background because people act or are expected to act according to their socio- economic standing. Furthermore, the scale and intensity to stick to the normative conduct depends upon position of the family in biraderi, and then position of biraderi among biraderies of the area with limited role of individual standing. At the village level, people would often object to their certain domains as problematic in different ways. For example, one who wishes to separate the house from one’s own family is also considered as a good person. I was present during one such encounters at the dera of Amin Kot when two brothers-in-law brought their conflict to Zia Ahmad Khan for settlement of their assets because one of them was not happy to live with his sister and her family. The brother who wanted to separate from her sister and nephews through the construction of wall between both the houses. The brother defended his position against the complaint of his sister that he shared his walls of the house with his sister and always took care of his sister and her sons and daughter as his own aulad. Zia Ahmad Khan reminded the former about his reputation in the village as the one who is only dolat ka sga (relative only to money) and, the zamindar further added that one who does not care for his sister cannot be expected to be of any one’s sga or dost (friend). The brother was also reminded of the fact that he was the one who owns a running business as an aarhti and still he wants to separate from his sister and her aulad, so, the problem is with the one who disapproves shared housing among siblings. Therefore, considered as separated from siblings is not a wishful attribute for any male or female member of family at any level of the life.

This is not due to the argumentative convenience that I am writing biraderi as a dependent factor on family in the villages of the study. My use of family as first residue and agent of personhood consciousness is dictated by the importance of both the family and biraderi as they

108

come to attain. Here it is pertinent to present the case of a landless riaaya family at Amin Kot, which is Dhuddi but does not belong to the same goth of the zamindar Dhuddi family. This difference of goth is important reminder besides the striking lack of land ownership for the riaaya family. Sufi Muhammad Hussain the only son among the four sons of Muhammad Khan Chandiya who still lives in Amin Kot, shared with me that his mother often asked him about the respect, which must be shown to khans (referring to zamindar Dhuddies of Amin Kot) because his father was known as a thoda (little) sakht (socially unwelcoming) person. He also added that their (referring both to himself and khans) image as biraderi also depends upon the fact that families teach their coming generations the way they are expected to behave with elders of biraderi. Now, considering biraderi as social identity in which personhood is itself shared among those who are considered as inalienable constitutive force of one’s making the mutuality of sharing assumes pre- eminent role. This mutuality is not similarly expressed by the zamindar Dhuddies to their fellow landless Dhuddi brethren. Similar selective applicability of respect and regard for biraderi members according to their status and economic position is clearly marked both by Muhammad Hussain Dhuddi and any of the members from Dhuddi zamindar family. Now, on the one hand, we have a brother being known in the area as a bad person because of conflict with sister and on the other hand selected importance of biraderi as the primary agent is central to configuration of Punjabi personhood in the villages.

It is worth-asking that do the feelings of attachment to one’s respective biraderi always remain same if one stays at the same positions of socio-economic status. Given the changing socio- economic milieu of positions of people, there are changes in code of conduct of the people which were earlier considered as their pre-disposed habitus. These changing realities suggest that there is need to understand the presence of contested narratives about caste, zat and qaum in this regard as primary building blocks. For example, there is no doubt that “the terms zat and quom (as well as biraderi-a patrilineal descent group) are used inter-changeably among Muslims in Punjab”(Nazir 1993: 2897 ), and it leaves very little space for the articulation of political or any other strategic alliance without keeping in mind the ground realities. Likewise, though his original study was in a different Pakhtun society, but it is not possible to agree to the corporate organization of caste society (Barth 1981). Similar confusion of the meaning of zat is explored by Gaborieau

109

who argues that “kashmiris, however, use the word zāt in a broader sense to connote to essence or inherent nature”(Gaborieau 1995: 245). Sometimes, the scope is exaggerated to the extent that zamindar group is equated as “qaum”, which is divided “into further biraderies” (Anwar 2016: 26). However, my aim is to employ an umbrella term of biraderi, which is used with much clarity when it comes to employ any of the above given attributes of Punjabi social order. The reason is that biraderi gained more importance in Punjab, because it came at the intersection of a profound socio- economic order with governmental bureaucracy at back of the order. One of the most apt illustrations of the conception of biraderi is when Gilmartin’s traces “genealogy” as “rooted pre- eminently in the claims of common descent, remained a central organizing social and political principle of British policy” (Gilmartin 2012: 295). As a consequence of “diagnostic marker of these changes was the critical rise of biradari, or brotherhood of extended kin” which was destined to play its role as the “preeminent form of social organization in the new, settled agricultural society of the Punjab”(Gilmartin 2012: 295). This residue of pride within bloodline and the wide scale competition among the competing biraderies and their patrons also encompasses the references to pure and impure bloodlines. One who takes much care about keeping bloodline intact by ensuring the marriage within bloodline is remembered as more successful person. An important reminder about one of the such cases was repeated thrice (which I remember) by one elder (60) from Bhatti biraderi who shared that when Lakhvera (one of the largest landowning sub-castes of Joyia in Bahawalnagar and Vehari districts) young boys fought against each other someone complained to their uncle, who boasting his bloodline, replied to the person that this is not the Lakhveras who are fighting but they are Kanjars and Pawalies. His satirical reference pertained to the mothers from lower status castes as inheritors of innate qualities of their belonging to Kanjar profession and Pawali caste. This short account of the logic in boasting one’s bloodline is at the heart of analysis, which considers family as the most immediate and first source, then biraderi and then village as habitat to play an important role in the making of personhood in Punjab’s social structure.

Narrowing biraderi down into its building blocks where families, bloodlines and individuals with shareeka struggle to balance their normative conduct on the one hand and the compulsion to act otherwise are also required to be explored. Quite appropriately, Madan who

110

realizes that “members of a household are governed by jural and ritual norms, but that in practice general or ‘normal’ behaviour does not always conform to the normative behaviour” (Madan 1989: 126). Madan also brings to fore the one of the responsible “factor for this discrepancy, the personal interest of individuals, within the household is pre-eminently important” (Madan 1989: 126). This must lead to deeper understanding of both the family and biraderi when we take into account the role of individuals who have assumed position as patron/client but as representative of the family as the highest concern. Thus, family serves both as an enabling agent and structure to regulate or hamper specific behaviour and choices, which determine both individual and collective options as members of respective families and biraderies. For example, when I bring in analysis about one Sunara family of Amin Kot, five Chadoya families, and one Qasaai family of Khokhran village as agents of changing realities, they are compelling reason to realize the changing realities as far as the understanding of Punjabi personhood is concerned. Sunara family’s all four sons got good government jobs and shifted to Deewan Sahib where they had purchased a house, then Chadoya families also shifted to Burewala once they afforded to Buy houses there as Qasaai family’s two educated sons are planning to shift to Lahore with their eldest brother serving as an Imam Masjid. When the families just referred left their traditional dependence upon zamindars and the educated male members secured government jobs it led to their change in caste and leaving the villages to shift in nearby towns and Burewala city. Therefore, in order to keep analytical framework in our grip, Fowler, sounds familiar when he persuades that” people may pass from one state or stage of personhood to another” (Fowler 2004: 4). Similarly, when individual members of a lower status biraderi are able to garner economic capital it leads to their elevated level of personhood, which is duly realized by the fellow village men. An important observation pertains to the shareeka which these changing positions generate because when someone changes caste and shifts to new place, it is often regretted in the villages. The mode of conversation may invoke satirical tones, but it does not translate into serious fallouts for the family who changed caste. This again may come to our discussion about shareeka because people would accept that “all men are born equal” but it does not ensure that they believe in it as simple belief “does not exclude competition” (Tambs- Lyche 2018: 55). To conclude, I argue that unlike past concepts of personhood which might have “supported identities that were highly contextual, and relational to specific events and interactions” (Fowler 2004: 1), it is not the case in contemporary case. Therefore, it is necessary to lessen the

111

significance of such past experiences of kammi people as fixed dependences and it leads to current personhood as contextual identity when family assumes the most important reference followed by biraderi and then by village as marker of one’s personhood.

4.4: Notions of Izzat, Ghairat and Shareeka in the Making of Punjabi Personhood

Bourdieu aptly argues about the ethos of Kabyle honour that “the system of honour values is enacted rather than thought, and the grammar of honour can inform actions without having to be formulated” (Bourdieu 1979: 128). I also intend to bring in my analysis of the making of Punjabi personhood, when people keep their notions of izzat, ghairat, sharam and shanakht as the main characteristics and their resultant making of personhood in the villages of study. When we think about the context of Punjabi personhood these keywords include certain references, which are located in the processes of conscious-making because they are already formulated and do not require their actions in this regard for the claimed recognition. However, Bourdieu’s analysis also reminds us about how the “ethos of honour is opposed, in its very principle, to a universal code” because “the same conde will dictate contrary conduct depending on social field” (Bourdieu 1979: 129). Now, when Bourdieu informs us rightly about the inapplicability of code of honour because it depends on the social field, I am of the view that it helps us navigate the respective positions of people according to their formulated conduct which is representative and expected of the one specific social field. Accordingly, it is one of the most delicate assessments to be carried at the village level that how people maintain their izzat within their respective social fields and develop or show their macho which is corresponding to the requirement for keeping one’s claimed izzat. As a case in point, one zamindar is expected according to the social field which is recognized in larger scenario as class habitus to defend and extend the sense of honour in the relevant social field. Bourdieu defines class habitus as “the internalization of the objective situation, is the structure unifying the system of dispositions” (Bourdieu 1979: 92). This mechanism of unifying the system of dispositions is central to the assessment of the people as embodying their personhood either as zamindars or kammies and then further competing even within respective categories.

It takes me to three most important words, which are of central importance to the people about their standards of izzat, ghairat and sharam. Chaudhary also familiarly argues “zan, zar and

112

zamin are the proverbially known reasons for conflicts in South Asia” (Chaudhary 1999: 42). Zan (woman), zar (wealth) and zamin (land) are still proverbially considered primary agents of conflicts but zan and zamin are recognized as valid justifications for one’s any action if it comes to one’s ability in defence of both. However, one common saying is that zar and zamin can be earned or bought but zan, once damaged as repository of honour and respect, can never be repaired. This leads to specific care and complete life cycle where gender roles starting from roles as son/daughter and then extending to all stages of life are properly managed. For example, if one is unable to fulfil this role as a mother or father, then it involves primary breach of the criteria, which has been settled since long times as the requirement of a complete person. It is pertinent to recount how a widower from kammi biraderi of Amin Kot was asked by Haji Bahadur Khan to marry his daughter at the earliest because the adult girl was always a burden on father. The widower shared his concern as ever-present threat to his personhood after the untimely death of the mother of the girl. The widower also reminded the zamindar patron about his circumstantial compulsions arising from lack of support from his behn bhai (sisters and brothers) and his role as father of the beti (daughter). This is quite common to believe among the people of the villages that the tarbiyyat (socio-moral upbringing) of daughter is possible only by enhanced role of her mother. As women and men follow well-maintained social boundaries, therefore, it leads to the certain roles designating codes of mobility, visibility and access to different courses of professional and personal growth with resultant impact on personhoods.

Unlike, what is mostly regarded as the unequal recognition of the people being zamindar and kammi, one aspect as central to all is that keeping one’s honour is the utmost priority of all people regardless of belonging to zamindars or kammies. Another interesting theme while defending one’s honour pertains to role of biraderi, as a general reference, which Eglar opines that “all the members of a biraderi have a feeling of collective honour, the protection of which serves as collective security”(Eglar 2010: 94). However, it is clearly visible in both the villages that zamindars are much better positioned to defend their honour as compared to the kammies who are easily referred as beghairat (lacking honour), or besharam (lacking modesty). Therefore, what keeps kammi people in somewhat vulnerable positions about conceding to their impression as beghairat or besharam is their realization of the situation where they are positioned as socio-

113

economically dependent, and heavily marginalized in their relationship with state institutions i.e. police, revenue officials, etc. However, the feeling of infringement upon one’s personal izzat is strongly rooted in relation with similar concern for biraderi at large. As an interesting case, I still remember one such happening when I was present at the dera of Zia Ahmad Khan Dhuddi. During those days, a girl from family of Mandi Bahawalnagar was a source of gossip of the village. The girl had eloped with one of her neighbours from Sukhera biraderi. This compelled the girl’s relatives at Amin Kot who asked Zia Ahmad Khan to intervene on their part because they considered father and brothers of the girl unable to do anything at their own. Zia Ahmad Khan, who had asked one of his zamindar friends of Bahawalnagar from Joyia biraderi, managed to bring the girl back to fled again. This time, when the girl had again run away with the same man, Zia Ahmad Khan asked Ali Ahmad Mochi not to pursue the case. However, Ali Ahmad was of the view that it is difficult to face biraderi and the people of ilaqa (area) if the girl stays with the person. Ali Ahmad further added that it is difficult also due to the fact that Mochies and Sukheras are different (referring to respective biraderies). Ali Ahmad continued his lobbying with nephew of Zia Ahmad Khan asking him to convince Zia Ahmad Khan for the last effort to bring the girl back, because if not brought back, they would be remembered as beghairat log (dishonoured people). Therefore, this over-riding importance of women is necessary to consider when we talk about role of women as source of someone’s qualification to status of izzat wala. Likewise, Lyon points out similar concerns of Bhaloti when as a case he points out that “Nisha, Malik Ghulab’s sister and Malik Akbar’s wife, is only mentioned as a named individual after a good deal of information sharing regarding her brother and husband” (Stephen 2002: 49). As a matter of principal, women are not expected to be known at their own, and it further damages one’s standing as member of biraderi if the girl from same biraderi is wife of a person who married the girl without the consent of parents, relatives and biraderi members.

It occupies central importance for the people that women of the house are not exposed to outside men so that the chances for breach of honour are minimum. The one who manages purdah well is recognized as fulfilling the criteria of becoming an izzat wala (respected). This importance of purdah is not linear and men imposed upon women but it also constitutes an essential feature of women’s establishment as women of sharam (shame) and haya (modesty). Anna-Maria

114

Walter’s analysis is absolutely relevant when she argues that “in the area of Gilgit, shame is women’s embodied expression of “pardah” because the fear of being exposed is always “connected to the (potential) presence of men and modest behaviour serves as a role model of femininity. Girls who adhere to this are depicted as “shermati” (modest, shy)” (Walter 2016: 171). This is a key feature to the claims of being izzat wale and acceptance of one’s credentials as an influential man or a woman with the best character. The role and scope of purdah is not the sole criteria for qualification of izzat wale but one’s conduct within the household is also key to reputation outside of the house. One of the famous sayings goes bahir ki izzat ghar ki izzat se hoti ha (one can earn respect from outside only if one earns it from inside the household). This saying gives meaning to the well understood logic behind historically formed and culturally embodied roles and responsibilities of men and women. The above given axiom is traced mainly to the role of women of the zamindar households and their interest in serving the guests of their brothers or husbands. It is believed that if woman does not serve the guests well then male members cannot make good friends and resultantly their role as political patrons is compromised. Furthermore, an analysis about the current practices is also rooted in logic of flow from historical sources about positions of authority and prestige. As prestige is itself closely associated with economic sources, thus role of land as one of the most important factors in this regard remains of particular importance. Eglar is of the view that “among the zamindars themselves, size of landholding is the basis on which social status is measured” (Eglar 2010: 60). Eglar’s analysis is of special focus through which some links to the urge to keep women of the household under control can be deduced. “since to zamindar land is the source of his power, he wants to keep it with in his line” (Eglar 2010: 61). Bourdieu comes to help here when we keep in mind both the role of land ownership as exclusive claims to status and prestige with normative conduct supported by discursive formation of gender roles. Bourdieu argues that “when we try to understand masculine domination we are therefore likely to resort to modes of thought that are the product of domination” (Bourdieu 1998: 5). Similarly, discursive and historically informed narrative about masculinity as pre-supposing control on women is essential feature of both the Punjabi male personhood and the recognition of woman as one with the required characteristics.

115

Now, for a precise discussion of izzat and ghairat, I consider it necessary to separate both the terms as people in at Amin Kot and Khokhra use the terms. Ghairat is some intrinsic value with properties, which can be attacked or infringed by the shareeka i.e. transgressing the limits about conduct with or for women of the household, or (in)ability to keep the boundaries of land ownership intact. If one is able to ensure these fundamental aspects, then comes the stage of izzat which serves as more permanent and enduring state of recognition and respect. As both the terms represent a life-long circle for one’s preservation of oneself and the family at first, then biraderi, and village or region at large; they incorporate a life-long circle of responsibilities and rights in this regard. The scale of these attributes and their role in the overall conduct of one’s societal role from home to region is vindicated by the idiom of regional attributes. For example, there is one very famous poetical expression used about three riverain regions of Punjab, which is characteristic of personality traits of the people of the respective region. The poetical expression goes ravi raashkan, chanaa aashqaan te neeli munaafqaan (Ravi of the beloved ones, chenab of the lovers and neeli of hypocrites). As the area of my research is neeli bar, which is remembered in this expression as reflective of hypocritical traits being common among the people of the area. However, it is contested by the people of the neeli bar area. Thus, such notions of izzat and ghairat are central to the daily making and living of the people where its scale is not necessarily personal or familial but it can go to much larger domains also.

Apart from the generic conduct as representative of area-wise traits, the real and fierce play for one’s ghairat and izzat plays out in local, closer and known area where one is based. There are many paradoxes of mobility, access and entry into the household of any influential and established person who is recognized as izzat wala. Keeping in view what it means to treat someone as shareek, one hangs in balance by allowing and disallowing the same person’s entrance into the house. Such acts of balance are key to evaluate the ability of an individual as a capable person who can successfully defend the family’s honour. This is evident from one of the well-known instances in the area. One’s closeness to mother’s father, and brothers is one of the cherished and boasted relations in Punjab, but even this relationship is not independent from the feeling of status and authority at its heart. As a case in point, Matiyana family from Chishtiyan Tehsil is one of the influential families of Bahawalnagar district and an established political family at national level.

116

Mian Khan Muhammad Khan Matiyana, Father of Mian Mumtaz Ahmad Matiyana ex-Nazim district Bahawalnagar married a woman of Bhattis of mauza Bhattiyan, which is the adjoining mauza of Khokhran. According to the general tradition, the relations would have resulted in a feeling of mutual love and care for both the families, but Matiyanas never allowed their mother to visit mauza Bhattiyan. All the Bhattis of the area do not consider this relationship as a source of honour because the lady whom Mian Khan Muhammad married, was not married with the consent of the family of the woman. As Mian Khan Muhammad was influential person and the woman was handed him as an amaanat (guardianship), but he liked the lady and decided to marry her. Once married, he never came to Bhattiyan or acknowledged this relationship. One Bhatti member from a nearby village shared while making me understand the intricacies about rishtaydari (affinal and cognate relationships) that one should always marry among equals or to the lower ones. He also shared with me that once the brother of the woman who went to see his sister after very long time, the younger son of the woman, asked his MB to wait in the backyard as they would not allow him to sit inside the haveli among their ladies of the house. The man who narrated the whole story to me, was himself not happy for the brother of the woman because (according to him) it lowered the status of whole Bhatti biraderi. This tells us that there are many layers of the what makes one shareek and how the shareeka is defined by keeping status and recognition in mind. Had Matiyana family and Bhatti family been equal in socio-economic status––firstly, the marriage was not possible to take place; and secondly if had taken place then the families would have accepted each other as equals. As normally understood, shareeka does not stem only from competition among equals or among only blood relatives. The difference between shareeka within and shareeka outside actually refers to relatives and biraderi members as shareeka within and equals who compete for influence and prestige are shareeka outside. Thus, one needs to understand the primary role of izzat and ghairat in the daily life of the people when they talk about individuals and biraderies as important agents in the making of personhood.

4.5: Presentation of Self: Memory, Land Ownership and Muqaam (position)

People often refer to both personhood and positions of individuals through invocation and claims to certain sources of status and authority at Khokhran and Amin Kot. However, the ownership of land and entitlement to it between those who have it and those who have been denied, is the key

117

of my following scheme of analysis. This helps in locating current patterns of sale and purchase of the land as a marker to enhance the prestige and authority of one’s self. This part of discussion opens the debate for bringing in both the current changes in socio-economic status of the people, and the imagined traditional relationship with land as khandaani ( as claim to elevated ancestral status) zamindar. My aim in this part is to discuss historically produced personhood as a result of different legal and socio-economic factors with claimed statuses of elevation of one’s own status and lowering the others. My aim takes me to advance such historical understanding of the personhood as problematic in current times. No doubt, land is still regarded as an entitlement which can be secured by those who have had exclusive claim to its ownership but the changing economic structures and modes of dependence also play an important role as counter-claims. If someone believes that due to historical formation of land ownership patterns, there is no possibility of shift in the importance of land ownership, then this is not true in the case of my villages of study. Originally, in 1875 when first map of village was being designed by the British government, only three families of Dhuddies, Salderas, and Chishties owned the land of whole mauza, which is extended now to the 10 families from kammi or landless biraderies. Similarly, it is needed to realize that change as a reality in the socio-economic structure in the village should be acknowledged for comprehensive analysis of ethno-landscape. Béteille relevantly argues that economic order and its role for “change is a fundamental feature of the social structure of the Sripuram today” (Béteille 1971: 185). When I bring in brief reference to the ownership of landless kammies or riaaya of the zamindar families, it is to explore the possibility of alternative claims as challenging the monopolized exclusive claims. As a broader, aim this study debates “social capital”, which Eglar recognized as “prestige or Izzat’ (Eglar 2010: 61) depending upon factors like caste, ownership of land and the subsequent position in the area and among the biraderi. All of these factors either considered in their separated or cumulative potential have important role to play for the eventual culmination of claims about personhood.

At first imaginative look, a village strikes according to the general layout when people are divided as kammies and zamindars, but when we bring in claims to status and authority, we are compelled to identify the changing realities. Dreze fittingly reasons that “occupational structure of the village has undergone considerable change, while the caste composition of the population has

118

been stable” (Dreze 2002: 208). Similarly, When I see the changing caste positions of some of the educated members of respective biraderies, there is the locus of needed focus. With the following discussion, I would highlight how a negotiation is made when such positions with historical claims are countered within the given code of socially recognizable way. For example, members of zamindar biraderies still believe in their innate qualities as superior than the kammi members, no matter how much upside mobility has been achieved by the latter. These references to exclusive rights of only zamindars as legitimate owners are common parlance, but now people have started accommodating the counter narratives in this regard. These apparently tension-causing but most of the time peacefully mediated deals for purchasing a parcel of land by any of the non- zamindar families is helpful to understand the structural logic behind legitimacy and compulsion of the claims. This can be known from the fact that one Chadoya family of Khokhran some Wahgah families from Wahgah basti and riaaya Bhatti family of Dhuddies have been purchasing land with support of Zia Ahmad Khan and his brother Qamar Zaman Khan. This apparent smooth purchasing of land is at odds with the inherited logic among the zamindars. However, the practical realities of not being able to purchase all of the land every time and to keep new purchasers in fold as dependents leads to new faces assuming the identity and status as zamindars. I argue that this changing pattern of land ownership is also indicative of the shift in monopolization of the sources of status and authority which were earlier vested only with the exclusive rights to land ownership. This account of land as source of status and authority is helpful to look simultaneously both in past and present. Resultantly, it takes me back to past sources of personhood when we see a complete cycle of life where land enjoyed an over-riding importance surpassed by no other factor.

The detailed analysis about economic capital and the role of family in this regard is already well-acknowledged in the villages, where property rests within male bloodline. Till date, no female has been married outside of the family line if she was to be given her share from the land. Two important exceptions are from Dhuddi family, who were married in exchange of the marriages of their brothers but no land was transferred to them as their share of inheritance. One important exception in this regard is the marriage of one of the women from Dhuddi family before first demarcation of land records of the mauza (1875), who was married to the Chishti guy, and her land almost half of the total land of Dhuddi family was transferred to the Chishties. This case is of

119

special interest for both the families of Chishties and Dhuddies because it acts like counter-poise to the claims of both the leading zamindar families. When Dhuddies talk about the Chishties who are not true zamindars because their elders were not from zamindar nasal because they became zamindars only after inheriting the land from Dhuddi woman married to their elder Chishti. On the other hand, Dhuddies also face this dilemma that it is never an advisable option to talk openly about a woman who has been married outside of biraderi. Now, if it comes to Chishties and they are asked that how did they become zamindars, their answer would be denying the inheritance from the Dhuddi woman, but they would boast that they married a Dhuddi woman. Therefore, this aspect of women’s inheritance should also be seen within the larger structure of notions of izzat and ghairat.

Furthermore, there is a long history behind the imagination of people that how do they see their past when it comes to perceive their positions as individuals and members of their respective biraderies. For example, Dhuddies and Chishties as two important zamindar families of the area have a long history of their relationship with the people of the area. However, the relationship has always been of dependence of the people upon the zamindar families. This has led to the establishment of an agrarian social order where land acted as the major determinant factor for the respective positions. Now, when some people positioned as owners and the others are merely lacking the same “In an agrarian society” gives birth to hierarchies by providing “an important basis for social cleavages” (Béteille 2010: 38). Béteille further maintains that “those who own land not only maintain a better standard of living than the landless, but the former can also exercise a direct control over the livelihood of the latter because of the scarcity of livelihood” (Béteille 2010: 38). Here I concur with Béteille’s reasoning that the relationship between landless and land owner is of authority and control in the hands of land owners, it is not such linear process of an uninterrupted ongoing chain of dependence and patronage. In Punjab’s case, we have one of the very influential studies by Lyon (2004) about kinship structure where the patron is both patron and client at similar time because he is also looking for patronage from his patron to extend his network of patron-client relationships. Like Lyon, Frederik Barth explores the role of Pashtun zamindar that “the landowner in turn depends for his position on the fact that he controls many followers” (Barth 1981: 29). In addition to this, the network of patron-client relations, one important agent in

120

the making of personhood is that some individual is believed to be charismatic, who can potentially raise the status of as representative of family claims about status. Likewise, Martin reasons about one of the zamindar elder in Sargodha about his personality traits that “the force of his personality, the awe in which he and his siblings were locally held” (Martin 2016: 100). This proves that awe of an individual can be inherited as it is mostly the case, which if coupled with potential to make others fearful makes “most villagers believed him to be the local leader most likely to intervene effectively on their behalf in a dispute” (Martin 2016: 100). Either through charismatic standing as patron or control of zamindars upon landless people is clearly visible not only in social order but it is also part of local narratives of personhood.

If we have to understand personhood within certain attributes, then wafa (loyalty), khuloos (sincerity), and qadar (recognition) are three important words mostly used by the landless people in relationship with their feeling of the relation with their zamindars. However, same vocabulary is not reciprocated by the zamindar families. Instead the vocabulary of zamindars uses mostly the words like khidmat (services), izzat krne wale (respectful) and raak (one who tills the land of a zamindar as shareholder) or riaaya. Nevertheless, land ownership plays the most defining role in the practical resonance o these words when it comes to understand the social structure’s current dependence upon land ownership. Presently, land ownership has not only shrunk in size but its role for the historical sensibility has also decreased. Still people remember their earlier relationships, which were established according to earlier cultivability of land and the measure of land ownership patterns in the village structure. Now, when land ownership which was 400 acres in 1960s among two brothers Haji Bahadar Khan and Ghulam Muhammad Khan when Amin Kot was established by Dhuddi family, has shrunk to 20 acres in average among the grand-sons of Haji Bahadar Khan. This is clear indication of the practical impossibility of keeping same relations with dependent raaks and riaayas with similar claims of origin and the role of land ownership in this regard. However, the imagined position as inheritors of same important personhood of zamindar is still prevalent. I still remember when Sohail Zia Khan came back to the dera and discussed with his elder cousin Ijaz Ahmad Khan about the deal, which could not materialize with potential theykedar (cultivator of leased land). Ijaz Khan was of the view that he (Sohail Zia Khan) should not forget that he has one of the earliest houses of riaayas at his tube well (the term does not only

121

refer to the watering source but it is also used mostly to refer to the place where one employs some riaaya). Ijaz Khan also reminded his younger cousin about the hereditary role of land with the image of oneself as aulad of zamindars (progeny of landowners). So, despite material gains from out-sourcing land, a zamindar must be able to fulfil his role as required to keep his dependents satisfied. These assumptions and their relevance in both the villages act as normative and practical role for the personhood of zamindar and riaaya.

My aim in this study takes me even further to reclaim the making and living of these social cleavages where individuals are treated less as individuals but their recognition is more in relation to their familial or as extending to biraderi. However, this is important to keep in mind that those individuals who become patrons for the family and the clientele at large are supposed to be heads of their families also. As the introduction also highlights, zamindar families of the villages are represented by individuals, thus, their individual positions are gradually established when they have assumed the role of successful and reliable patron. Apart from role of patron as mediating between state and clientele, land sustains the longer relationships with binary positions of people: zamindar/ kami, patron/client, maalik/hissaydar. A zamindar hires the services of a person or his family, depending upon the scale of parcel of land to cultivate. The maalik (owner) is responsible for all the expenses and the hissaydar (shareholder) has to do all the physical work like watering, sowing, cutting and all the other work which does not require financial burden. One’s relationship with land is assessed on the basis of claims, which originate from the colonial sources of social engineering. However, this social engineering is selectively accepted and occasionally questioned by the people when a new entrant claims the right to own land. I happened to be present at one such discussion at the dera of Amin Kot when Chadoyas of Khokhran purchased almost five acres of land from Salderas. Some male members of the Dhuddi family were not happy from the deal opined that they should have purchased the land as (claiming) originally whole of the land of the mauza belonged to their forefathers. The situation changed when Zia Ahmad Khan asked them to consider the fact that now many zamindars from the Salderas and Chishties would be selling the land in the mauza, so, they cannot purchase all of the land. Zia Ahmad Khan also reminded them that the father of the Chadoyas had served their family as munshi for decades. These narratives which are used with reference to positions of different biraderies actually mark the status of

122

individual positioning also. Apparently, people seem to have internalized the division of land ownership castes and non-land owning castes, but sometimes this division is very porous. As a case in point, when Altaf Ahmad Wahgah purchased almost 8 acres of land near Amin Kot, and was earlier supported by Qamar Zaman Khan Dhuddi. However, Muhammad Altaf’s conduct started changing gradually and this was disliked by some of the people of the area and some members of Dhuddi family also. Once Muhmmad Altaf Wahgah had a little quarrel with one man from Bhatti biraderi and this altercation was perceived as his assertive behaviour of nau doltiye. Actually, people regard it important that one keeps on pretending similar behaviour despite the enhanced economic position otherwise the perception as nau doltiye would seriously harm any future prospects to buy more land.

In a cumulative making of claims about relationship between land owner and land is one of the most important references to the standing of someone. This relationship is interwoven with many local legends and idioms where land assumes role from mother to fertile friend. People would often equate one who purchases land with the one who amasses khair (spiritual betterment) and barkat (blessing). For example, two important Bhatti persons are remembered as individuals in quite different words by the people of the nearby villages due to their approach to the land ownership. The first person who is remembered and respected by most of the people of the area as a successful person is Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatti who has purchased almost 150 acres of fertile land near the Khokhran village. However, another person Haji Talib Khan Bhatti who does not have children, has sold almost all of his land (70 acres) inherited from his father, and is not remembered in good words. Particularly, the persons hailing from his own biraderi are more concerned. Though shareeka should be happy for the loss of someone with whom they are in competition, but land ownership makes an exception in this regard. Mian Turez Ahmed Bhatti who is hissaydar of Ijaz Ahmad Khan Dhuddi opined about Talib Khan Bhatti that despite being shareek, he regrets the fact that by selling his land Talib Khan Bhatti has put an end to his father’s name. Thus, we can say that personhood in the villages is not only articulated in relation with land but the historically informed importance of land itself is also an important factor. Thus, people perceive their relationship with land as one of the defining resources of their standing as a person claimant to certain status and it significantly determines one’s credentials in this regard.

123

4.6: Kinship: Match-Making Strategies and Claims of (un)Successful Punjabi Personhood

Kinship serves the function as one of the most important features of the social order, but it is not simple for the people of the villages to discuss if asked about its importance as most of the anthropologists believe. There may be multiple ontological and epistemological disjunctures, but one of the most important reasons for this dissonance flows from what people consider as innate property of oneself to be shared among tabbar, rishtaydar, and biraderi. This leaves people unable to talk about their understanding of kinship as an expressible reality of their life. Therefore, different answers for similar queries are likely to be heard if one asks people about what it exactly means when they are asked about importance and place of family, bloodline, and biraderi. This feels similar as Geertz and Geertz realized in Balinese village of their study (Geertz and Geertz 1975). What makes the analysis and effort to understand the kinship as a generally recognizable category, despite all ambiguity is that nevertheless, “in the area of kinship, distinction is crucial” (Geertz and Geertz 1975: 7). Similarly, individual responses may vary from references to one’s brother from same father to the wildest imaginations like Muslim Ummah as brotherhood. Astuti also feels similar discomfort while talking about kinship in Madagascar where people also talk about Christian brotherhood (Astuti 2009). On the other hand, there is strong evidence from the villages of the study that people would hardly approve of any statement, which claims that there is no importance of kinship. This leads me to borrow from Sahlins, his famous phrase––mutuality of being (Sahlins 2013). Now, considering all the confusion and the role of different economic and socio-legal aspects of changes occurring in the daily life of the people, it is hard to stick to either extreme of kinship as––complete disapproval or essentializing it as an over-riding reality above all. This takes me to the middle ground keeping in view what people feel about kinship as one of the most important aspects of their daily social life, but with potential of shifts and transformations. Hence, Bloch is persuasively relevant when he warns that “we should rather think of ethnographies as still snapshots of ongoing processes”(Bloch 2013: 255). Similarly, Lindholm also sums up his discussion of kinship when he argues that “kinship as an organizational principle becomes less important as the system becomes more centralized and complex during both its phases of expansion and in its dissolution”(Lindholm 1996: 153).

124

I aim to present a detailed family tree of one Dhuddi zamindar family and the pattern of kinship structure of the family. My intention from the detailed discussion of one family tree and its subsequent articulation as source of family proud is located mainly in match-making strategies of the family and how it leads to (un)successful claims to personhood and representation of family as a whole.

Figure 4.1: Family Tree of Dhuddi Zamindar Family of Amin Kot

The above given family tree of the Dhuddi zamindar family helps to understand the family structure and the scale of land ownership over the period of last eight generations. Historically, Dhuddi family believes that it was for the first time that two brothers from a father survived till marriage only two generations back, from which today’s family has expanded. As the family members claim and what the land records also suggest, that for last 8-9 generations, there was only one son to the father, and as the son was born the father died, so the family did not expand. This remained the case till Baqar Khan (d 1925), father of Haji Bahadar Khan and Ghulam Muhammad Khan, who founded the village of Amin Kot with the help of some of the riaaya from Khokhran and some of the Khiaoh families in the nearby basti Wahgah. Ghulam Muhammad Khan is still referred by the Dhuddi family as a source of pride when they refer to Ghulam Muhammad Khan

125

as their elder who established the family in the area as an important khandaan (extended family comprising of immediate relatives as the core group of endogamous relations). Moreover, as the only zamindar family in the village is progeny of both the brothers, so the village can be divided only in two categories of zamindar and kammi, where Dhuddi zamindar family is represented by Zia Ahmad Khan, third son of Haji Bahadar Khan married to the eldest marriage of Ghulam Muhammad Khan. Dhuddi family of Amin Kot mainly depends upon Zia Ahmad Khan’s political and social persona, and he decides most of the important natters be they purely of zaati (personal) nature or social in their spirit i.e. dealings with zamindars of the area, looking after matters involving police, court and land records etc. Till date, Dhuddi family’s almost all marriages have taken place within the haveli and they have given their two daughters out of their family only in exchange to the brides they received from the families of their brides. The brides married outside of the haveli were married only to Niaamon aanay Dhuddies who are same sub-caste of Dhuddies to which the Dhuddi zamindar family of Amin Kot also belongs. Therefore, when Dhuddi family uses the term khandaan or haveli, they refer it only to their core group of immediate relatives who live within the haveli. The family tree of Dhuddi family also helps us identify how a zamindar family manages to keep the match-making within the fold of immediate relatives, in this case the haveli where aulad of both sons of Baqar Khan Dhuddi and his daughter live together.

Fig 4.2: Match-Making Strategies of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot

126

The above given pie-chart helps us understand the match-making strategies of Dhuddi family. The family has managed to marry the daughters only within the haveli, which is recognized as one of the essential properties as a successful family if one is able to make the matches of couples within the core group of relations. For Dhuddi family, the only exception was the marriage of Muhammad Amin Khan, the eldest son of Haji Bahadar Khan who was married outside of the immediate family. Otherwise second eldest son Haji Nazir Khan was married to the only daughter of Haji Bahadar Khan’s sister. In exchange of this marriage, Haji Bahadar Khan’s two daughters were married to the eldest two sons of Haji Bahadar Khan’s sister. The family believes that had the sister of Haji Bahadar Khan had had elder daughter, Muhammad Amin Khan would have married her. Similarly, if Ghulam Muhammad Khan’s first wife had the daughter, she would have been married to Muhammad Amin Khan. Another such exception was that Haji Bahadar Khan’s third daughter was married in exchange to the cousin of wife of Muhammad Amin Khan and Ghulam Muhammad Khan’s second wife’s brother. Furthermore, Ghulam Muhammad Khan’s all three daughters are married within the haveli, and his only son is married to his mother’s brother’s daughter. The only son of Ghulam Muhammad Khan would not have been married to his maternal side if Ghulam Muhammad Khan was alive because he never liked his in-laws till he was alive. So, there is an important link between the family’s emergence as an established family of the area and its ability to keep the women as izzat and haya of the whole family within the core group. Now, I take this to the second generation of the Dhuddi family, when this possibility of giving daughter outside of the haveli has similarly been maintained and only one daughter was married to the outside of of the haveli. As the above given illustration helps in identifying the pattern of marrying the daughters only within the family because it is not allowed in the zamindar family to marry daughter out of the immediate group of relatives, where the circle of shared honour is located. Resultantly, it is discouraged that daughter is married within the haveli and it is clear from both the percentage and in chart and the family tree. I propose here that it is better and convenient to understand the match-making strategies of the family keeping in view the role of Zia Ahmad Khan. These positions of the families and their heads play important role in kinship patterns where match-making strategies determine the standing of the family and provide choices of appropriate and newly emerging material calculations in this regard.

127

My intention from the above given family tree of a zamindar family is not representative of all caste or zamindar groups, but its general relevance can be understood in a much larger scenario as marker of personhood. Though there is a long and extended debate about the kinship in anthropology, but my concern about role of kinship in the villages of study is more about its social and cultural aspects. Further extension of the roles is also to be understood in reference to modes and forms of equality at the villages of study. For example, kinship structures and their respective claims can only be understood if Ibn Khaldun is right in his proposition that group feeling can “be fulfilled only with the help of common descent”(Lindholm 1996: 161). People in the villages do not make such claims when they have recognized their positions as dependent or structurally unequal to those who have dominance as lineages and have maintained marriage patterns exclusive of them. For example, those Dhuddi families who do not own land or have small chunks of land, do consider all the Dhuddies as brothers but they know that their brotherhood is only social and cannot translate into rishtaydari with Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. Narrowing down the marriage choices even within Dhuddi family of Amin Kot, there are important considerations of selection about match-making on the basis of economic position. For example, two daughters of Haji Bahadur Khan, married to his sister’s two sons (who have 1/8th share of landholding as compared with sons of Haji Bahadur Khan) have neither asked for the daughter from their brothers nor they are confident that they would get for their sons if they ask for the hand of one of their niece’s. It tells us that patterns of kinship are turning increasingly away from the earlier calculations of marrying one’s children or siblings irrespective of material resources as consideration. Therefore, now people feel and share while talking about considerations of match- making strategies, which they opine, are changing with impact upon kinship structures to follow. The case of Dhuddi zamindar family is instrumental in identifying the kinship structure and its importance for the people when both the family honour and material calculation are balanced. Here one important but missing link can be the marriages of kammies and riaayas who also follow the similar patterns of kinship structure but their identification like haveli as the core group is not present. However, those families who share the household and their sons and daughters are adult, then the priority is within the first tier of relationships among father’s brothers, sisters and then mother’s brothers and sisters while match-making strategies.

128

4.7: Naming Personhood and Caste: Understanding Personhood through Names

Names are important in Punjabi personhood not only as expressive of individua references but they give meaning to whole social order in both the villages of the study. Contemporary names and their significance is better understood through colonial Punjabi personhood and the ways through which people re-define their positions. One of the very important option in this regard is changing the caste and becoming part of same categories where entry is supposedly allowed only to the people who are entitled by their blood line. This is clear from the careful analysis of the some of the cases of changing castes. For example, I came to see some the marriage card of Manzoor Ahmed Nai's son at the dera of Haji Shabbir Ahmad Khan in Khokhran. Manzoor Ahmad Nai’s son was married to his khaala’s (mother’s sidter) daughter who was herself married to a Nai cousin (father’s brother’s son) of her. However, in-laws of Manzoor Nai’s son were written at cards as Haans, which is again land owning caste in nearby villages. Furthermore, Tirkhaan another artisan caste after moving to Qaboola, a town 20 kilometres on the northern side of the villages, call themselves , again another leading caste among the zamindar castes in Punjab. Likewise, Chadoyas write themselves as Kharals or Bhattis and Qasaais write themselves as Qazis. The list keeps on going and it is a prevalent pattern that almost all the kammi castes, once able to earn sufficient economic and social recognition at their own ultimately go for some of the zamindar titles. Likewise, Maachhies write themselves as Haans and Pawalies write themselves as Ansaries, Raajars or Jaspaals, all three zamindar castes.

Another important aspect of kinship structure is its relationship with socio-cultural appropriation of persons and their kin as one block on specific positions. As a methodological scheme, I aim to understand the positions of persons and their articulation in the everyday sphere through the onomastic analysis at the village level. This scheme of analysis involves more than simple order of names as falling in respective categories of zamindars or non-zamindars. As the pattern would also highlight in the proceeding section, the names tell us more about living realities than what is imagined from names at births. About social identification of people belonging to certain groups in Nepal, Gaborieau identifies that “the most crucial cue lies in the family name”(Gaborieau 1995: 244). Similarly, sometimes marrying to a man or woman from a stigmatized caste can last even for the children from the couple. Lefebvre also reminds similar

129

case when he argues that “begging and marrying a fakir woman can make one fakir (Lefebvre 1999: 155). This helps us in navigating our focus more closely on the making and living of names and references subsequently. Quite similar to the logic of names as referred above when we see the closely intertwined position of the people on their social ladder, there is the possibility of understanding the social and cultural dimension of kinship titles. My following table would draw on the continuation of some of the colonial titles i.e. Khan and the kammi attributes as artisan castes, which helps in understanding the current significance of the names. Smith is appositely helpful when he locates “the way in which a person was identified” in colonial documentation by caste, clan, religion, village of residence and landholding status which eventually led to” the terms in which Indian society came to be known through official reports” (Smith 1996: 9). This is also reflective from the following table where shrinking names of kammies and expanding or sustaining titles of zamindar background prove helpful. My following table would draw on same analysis. Figure 4.3: Name of successful zamindar patron

Name at Birth Name in the family till Name in the area of Name in the electioneering adulthood influence as a successful (appearing on posters etc.) zamindar patron

Zia Ahmad Zia Ahmad nicknamed as Haji Zia Ahmad Khan Khan Zia Ahmad Khan Zia Dhuddi

Shahzad Fareed-Ud-Din Shahzad, nicknamed as Pir Shahzad Fareed Pir Shahzad Fareed-Ud-Din Shaadu Pir Chishti

The above given table helps us in locating the assumption of gradual role from a child to patron of the area. This onomastic examination is also helpful to identify stages of role and its contestation. As the table shows that the names of zamindars are both representative and witness to the status of the family. There is corresponding growth of names in terms of its assumption of titles of respect with the increasing success as patron. Like Zia Ahmad grew from simple family name to a name full of social recognition. Immediate family also plays an important role in this regard who considers the respect of their elders as respect of whole family. As a case in point, nephew of Zia Ahmad Khan got angry while in conversation with Muhmmad Mumtaz Maachhi (whose father

130

was once riaaya at Amin Kot) at the mere frankness of the later because he was referring to Zia Ahmad Khan only as Khan or Zia. Another interesting reference to the names in the above given table is their evident claim to family roots. It is clearly marked among the people that Khan refers to Zia Ahmad without mentioning Dhuddi, his caste. Likewise, simple Pir would refer to Shahzad Fareed- Ud-Din without naming his caste Chishti. People give importance to the names of the people according to the status of the person, who is being discussed. Main heads of each family are least likely to pronounce ill-names of opposites and this mere fact would also not allow their kammies or riaayas to say something unworthy of the status of the person. On the other hand, if someone calls bad names of the opponent neither it is liked nor would go unreciprocated. As a case in point, Haji Bahadur Khan Dhuddi, elder of the Dhuddi family praised Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti, his opponent due to latter’s respectful language for the former. As names are representatives of socio- economic statuses, thus, their pronunciations are also indicative of the status of the person under discussion and it is believed to tell the worth of the person who is talking. It is in this logic of names that we can understand indirect references of their location in socio- economic structure.

The above given table would become more meaningful if we bring in similar table of men from Mochi kammi family of Amin Kot and a landless dependent of Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti. This table would take us to narrowly study social cleavages and their articulation within the perceived positions as members of pre-determined statuses according to kinship structure.Figure 4.4: Name of Kammi Members/Dependents

Name at Birth Name in the Family till Name in the area with Name in the area on adulthood professional credentials electioneering campaign

Ali Ahmad Aliya or Ali Ahmad Alli Mochi (when use as Sufi Ali Ahmad Chuhan derogatory) or Ali Ahmad Mochi

Muhammad Amin Amin or Meena (when Deewan (because he is Deewan Muhammad Amin used as slang) mujaawar of darbar Baba Khiaoh Din Muhammad

131

This table shows us the picture of sociological basis of patterns of kinship with positions of the people at the center of any analysis. There is no doubt that people’s names are influential in multiple ways, but their trajectory as life history is witness to one bare fact that kammies are kammies. This is common wisdom at both Amin Kot and Khokhran that people belonging to kammi biraderies are not required to be treated with titles like pir or khan. However, when some members from a kammi biraderi are able to improve their social status through government jobs, business or remittances from abroad etc. their entitlement to the status does not put them out of the earlier reference as belonging to kammi biraderi. For example, in the above given table, one important shopkeeper, whose younger brother was also once made chairman of local zakat committee, is known mostly as Alli mochi or Alya. Both these names either as Alya or Alli mochi are pejorative names. Importantly, even when he was elected as labour councilor in last local bodies elections, people would mostly use the same names. Once annoyed to be called Alya by a young Musalli male member, there was an argument between both the parties. In second case, a mujaawar (one who takes care of mausoleum of a saint), not belonging to traditional kammi biraderi, but landless Khiaoh biraderi is also treated similar as Ali Ahmad. The second person in the table is called Deewan only by his patron Pir Iqbal Chishti and his two sons. Otherwise most of the people would name him Meena or simply Amin. In his capacity as mujaawar, Muhammad Amin is not descendant from the saint himself but comes from landless family attributed as “subaltern family/household retainer” (Dandekar and Tscacher 2016: 6). It tells us that even such spiritually fused positions also do not ensure the social standing which is otherwise occupied by the traditional zamindar families. The important point about these simple onomastic settings of the villages is reflective of much larger picture about social structure where kinship patterns and their socio- cultural logic operates.

As the above given tables show that people can accumulate economic or spiritual capital, but if it is not supported by traditional sources of legitimate claims about status then the mere fact of securing any one form of the capital does not ensure its recognition as applicable to other forms of capital. People are more likely to accept the credentials of an individual from kammi biraderi in his/her individual position but the claims of someone as representative of a shift in status of biraderi would not be recognised as legitimate. This is what Bourdieu also reminds us that “capital, which,

132

in its objectified or embodied forms, takes time to accumulate”(Bourdieu 1986). This taking of time is neither in months or years but it is matter of generation and geography. If someone wants to get acknowledged in the same area where a historical imagination has been established then the cultural form of kinship is much stronger than the otherwise purely biological kinship. For example, second generation of Chadoya family of Munshi Khan Muhammad, whose all four sons got well-reputed government jobs, are known as Kharals in Burewala among their friends but people of Khokhran would always recognise them as Chadoyas. Therefore, kinship in rural Punjab is more sociological and cultural than the mere fact of getting born into a family. These similar sensitivities about naming persons and their castes are reflective of the positions and closeness or distance of people when they talk about their network of relationships

4.7: Conclusion

Quite ambitious in its approach, this chapter has attempted to present the ethnography of personhood in the villages of the study. My scheme of analysis was intentional about setting the stage for following two chapters of vartan at marriages and death rituals in the village. As vartan is a practice of keeping, enhancing and defining one’s network of social relationships, therefore, representations and performances of one’s position have been explored in a somewhat arranged manner. This chapter’s aim is limited only to inform us for the broader understanding of the persons who participate in vartan as a network of relations. This analysis about Punjabi personhood has ambitiously tried to touch on all the important factors who play an important role in the cumulative processual making of shared personhood. When I use the word Punjabi personhood, I intend to bring in first a brief importance of the making of personhood, which is not liked if it represents itself as a separated being. On the other hand, one is likely to assume the increasingly important role as a successful man or woman if one recognizes the importance of shared personhood. This analysis also takes in its fold the changing positions of kammi families who have come out of their dependence upon zamindar families and it bears upon the making of personhood in a different way.

This mere realization that people change their positions which have been assigned to them since long times, takes me to reflect on the specific colonial state-led social engineering, which still persists in its essence. My schematic problematization of the colonial intervention in social 133

order is intended to open the window for sneaking into different claims of historically placed positions as muqaam, ghairat, and izzat as key properties to the making of shakhsiyyat. What makes our analysis further interesting is the extension of colonial Punjabi shakhsiyyat to its contemporary references. For example, closer observation of the claims about one’s nasal as elevated due to land ownership structures is still believed as vindication of the authenticity of claims. On the other hand, people are accommodative of these exclusive claims as well as their subtle transformations in the form of changing status of different castes whose male members challenge these traditional frames of personhood. I argue that our focus of discussion lies in both the changes in traditional categories of people as were fixed by colonial discursive formation of positions and the changing positions of some kammi families at the lower ladder. When the status of a family changes, it also leads to changes in castes, thus warranting our focus on renewed conceptualisations for identities like biraderi, qaum, zat or nasal. This does not only lead to contextualization of the discussion, but it also leads to systematic study of vartan as a network of social relations where personhood is a fundamental category.

134

Chapter Five: Festivity and Vartan Bhanji: Exploring the Role of Marriages in Village Life

5.1: Introduction: Marriages as Marriages and beyond their Festivity

Discussion of personhood in last chapter is instrumental in the establishment of a social role of Punjabi men and women for their personhood at vartan bhanji as a web of social relations. For the holistic meanings of vartan, people do not see the practice merely as an act to be performed at marriages or death rituals. The scope of vartan is far beyond the limited festivity or ritualistic acts of sorrow at deaths and festive marriages. The holistic picture of vartan emerges further clear when Punjabi personhood is particularly focussed according to the nature of importance given to social relations. In this regard, Anjum Alvi pertinently argues that “gift exchange plays a most important role in constituting and defining social relationships, as well as in forming the perception of the self”(A. Alvi 2001). I have discussed in last chapter about the formation of self in vartan of the villages when one is aware of the role of land ownership, and its subsequent articulation of notions of izzat, ghairat, sharam and muqaam. With these positions and properties, perception of self-vis- à-vis its interaction with others is itself dependent upon “the subtle and complex nature of social relationships created through gift exchange” because it becomes “critical to examining social organisation and economy” (Mughal 2018: 3). This chapter aims to produce the ethnographic evidence of gift exchange as vartan at marriages in the villages of the study, but my focus is not limited only to marriages as simple events which claim no meaning beyond eventful festivity. When focussed on the specific moments of happening of marriage, the atmosphere of festivity is helpful to look into broader picture of the making of festivity and its role in the articulation of relations. Not only the momentary making of marriage is important but the scale of marriage as an event is vindictive of one’s claimed status. The status is ideally historically informed, socially determined and economically corroborative of the position of the actors of marriage as an event. To reflect upon one of the discussions with an elder (58) from Bhatti biraderi, who cross- questioned me while asking him about his dealings with his family at marriages––the interviewee asked me if I considered a marriage as an event which is self-fulfilling about the roles and responsibilities of the relatives, friends and the biraderi? The interlocutor continued that shadi sirf rotti khilane ya ladki ladke ko biyah dene ka naam nahin ha (marriage is not about only serving 135

food or getting son or daughter married). The elder further added that marriage is about making ancestral bloodline intact (implying marriage within immediate relatives), and its recognition through the event of marriage as a man of biraderi and friends. Both these claims about purity of bloodline and establishing one’s credentials as a successful person are pivotal to the importance of marriage when people define their personhood and notions of izzat, ghairat and sharam. This also takes us to the deeper structure of significance about prioritized immediate relatives, biraderi as pool of endogamous group to ensure the ‘pure bloodline’. Resultantly, it further enriches our analysis about marriages as not only social and economic functions, but also as basic concern for the match-making strategies. I remain attentive to the serious changes in the economy of the villages of the study, which not only redefine the making of personhood, but also lead to extension of our analytics to kinship structure in their current form.

Indeed, there is no all-time applicable rule for the people to marry within preferred options like opting for paternal or maternal side for the marriages of sons and daughters. However, paternal side is always preferred to invoke the blood relation which is socio-culturally more endorsed course to take when the marriage of daughter is to take place. Here this reference is more important because at marriages people are more likely to talk about notions of izzat and sharam of the family and in its extension of the biraderi. As nasal (bloodline) is believed to be traced only to father’s side, therefore, the feelings of shareeka translate differently when maternal side and paternal side are in competition. One who is not happy with father’s brother or his sons due to some conflict over issues pertaining to land or due to internal competition, he/she is unlikely to prefer his maternal uncle against his paternal uncle beyond the walls of house. Normally, people consider it inappropriate on the part of both sides of paternal cousins who quarrel with each other. Likewise, the feelings of animosity among maternal cousins is also socially disapproved. The difference between maternal cousins and paternal cousin is differently recognised because of the nature of relationships––paternal side despite its unbreakable importance is also believed to be the first residue of shareeka. Therefore, people feel it necessary to keep these unavoidable tensions and the necessity to keep dadki nasal as the first source of their social identity. Similarly, during my stay at Amin Kot, Sohail Zia Khan, bhateeja of Muhammad Amin Khan Dhuddi shared with me that he was advised by his Taya Abu about the importance of dadki nasal. Sohail shared that his Taya

136

Abu advised him that one should always stay closer to father’s side because any one with sound mental capacities would disapprove one simply as an unworthy person if one is not at good terms with his own father’s brother. On the other hand, the common trends of breaking of these rules, which are expected to be followed, but if not followed, tend to re-define the web of significance in the favour of maternal side i.e. preferring marriages to maternal side. Though there may be many reasons for such exceptions i.e. marrying to maternal side, like age difference of posterity, uneasy relations between wives of brothers, and land conflicts and due to the emerging patterns of socio- economic mobility through jobs and education. These exceptions pave the way for our understanding of marriage both as a social event and its role in defining one’s core web of relationships through match-making strategies where socio-economic change is defining some of the core values.

It takes me to look at marriages as tradition, which has the potential to define, shape and regulate the social structure within the symbolic significance and meanings as an event. My scheme to have two separate chapters––fifth and sixth is not intended to separate the events as parts of the practice of vartan but the reason is purely practical. This chapter aims to analyse the role of marriage as an event at the villages of the study through their substance which lies in the communicative capacity of the occasion. The chapter makes detailed discussion of vartan at the marriages through exploring the significance of upkeep of relations as social units of one’s belonging. The scheme of analysis does not treat the upkeep of social relations in linear form, but the focus is to understand the intricacies of the making and unmaking of the social relations. This takes in its fold the meanings of ceremonial and festive performance of one’s identity in its individual and shared-being Punjabi personhood. Therefore, we can say that the term “ceremonial refers to the formalised and customary practices of display and communication that takes place ”on specifically designed practices, and “owing to the value accorded these practices, we can say that the exchanges form ritual sequences” (A. Strathern and Stewart 2005). This is the mainstay of our analysis where changing positions of people are given meanings in a ritualized sequence of activities and performances of different roles socially required, materially communicative and culturally performed.

137

The practice of vartan is understood as making of the social relations, but my focus has also been equally important for the unmaking of the social relations. Therefore, I consider the hostilities, and conflicts as equally important factors, which have strong bearing upon the eventual layout of one’s standing. Similarly, the presence of shareeka in Punjab or tarbur in Pashtun society is indicative of the undeniable importance of the hostilities or conflicts as permanent feature of social order. Lindholm familiarly argues about “swati social order” where “all relationships contain elements of hostility or contempt, or both”(Lindholm 1982). My addition in this debate is the precision of the study at hand about the role of these conflicts, which run within lineages, endogamous groups and then among the equals in Punjab’s personhood. All these positions ultimately translate into the networking created, sustained and increased or severed through vartan as a “field of production”:

“owes its own structure to the opposition between the field of restricted production as a system producing cultural goods objectively destined for a public of producers of cultural goods”, and the second form of similar as “the field of large-scale cultural production, specifically organized with a view to the production of cultural goods destined for non- producers of cultural goods, ‘the public at large’” (Bourdieu 1985: 17).

Therefore, I proffer to replace the ‘public of producers of cultural goods’ with zamindar class and with kammis because of the patterns of consumption and (re)production of symbolic cultural items and meanings associated with these practices as a whole. When the positions of two classes are taken into account and the pattern of consumption or (re)production of the cultural items is similarly problematized, then Bourdieu’s further precision is helpful to understand the reality of symbolic goods. Bourdieu proposes that “symbolic goods are a two-faced reality, a commodity and a symbolic object: their specifically cultural value and their commercial value remain relatively independent” despite the fact that “economic sanction may come to reinforce their cultural consecration”(Bourdieu 1985). Thus, this makes possible in our case to understand the relationship between commodity and individual where economic position of the people (as zamindar and kammi) and their resources determine the consumption of symbolic goods either as consumers of large scale production or of restricted production.

138

Now, when we bring in the discussion about change in economic and social structure of the villages of the study, we are compelled by the ethnographic evidence that change and continuity go hand in hand. This relationship of changing traditions with their historical roots is also perplexing for the people. It is difficult for the people of Amin Kot and Khokhran to make an analysis about the mutual analogy between change and continuity as exclusive domains because of mutual interdependence of the causal agents. This paradoxical process of change and continuity becomes clear across the generations and different age groups, I have been interacting with during my fieldwork. However, religiosity, formal education and exposure to outside the village life through mass-media and mobility appear to be dominant factors which are visible in articulation of the confusions or assertions of whatever position is taken by the respondent. Some of the rooted confusions can be found when narratives about some of the marriage traditions, which people often consider un-Islamic, fazool (undesired) are found inseparable. My understanding of this tension between practicing the same traditions which are often criticised is informed by the location of people at historical flow of social order which again incorporates both change and continuity as essential necessities. Likewise, Munck is convinced that “ritual performances are practices enacted to resist change and legitimate the social order; they can be recast as practices that include change and question the social order”(Munck 1996). This is ethnographically traced to the making of marriages of the people where they would always normatively prefer simplicity, but in reality they are culturally bound to spend in no way less than their means. The real locus of meaningfulness of marriage as a mean to understand the Punjabi social structure is in this cycle of ritual performances at marriages, which entails specific and general reciprocity. Specific challenge as due reciprocity is aimed at the circle of significance of the relationships, which opens from inside to the outside depending upon the closeness of the relationship. For example, the relationship of vartan among brothers, between brothers and sisters, and then to their posterity and the posterity of father’s brother and sister and then their progeny. Biraderi as endogamous group would also qualify for the same group of people to whom specific reciprocity is established. Moreover, general reciprocity refers to the broader challenge for the society at large where equals are in specific and directed competition but they are not part of endogamous group or biraderi of vartan. As a case in point, the conduct of marriage as a zamindar is directed to equal zamindars of the area, who are reminded of the position of the host family and the same would qualify for the equal zamindars as

139

a threshold. Similarly, kammis also run for their representations against equal kammis. A specific marriage of boy from Julaha biraderi of Amin Kot was pertinent during my fieldwork days as talk of the town due to relatively lavish spending of the host family. People were pre-dominantly of the view that Julaha family spent more than their resources because of the recent (8 months earlier) marriage of the neighbouring Mochi biraderi. People, who are mostly well-aware of each other’s economic position were of the view that Mochi family was able to spend lavishly on the marriage of their son and daughter due to their earnings from their karyana shop. However, the Julaha family was compelled to compete with the resources at their disposal because of their imagined equality as equal kammis. It helps in realizing that reciprocity is not only limited to the formalistic exchange of objects and money, but it also incorporates the positions and claims of the people. These challenges and their reciprocal scheme keeps marriages as socio-culturally loaded events within and beyond the economic resources at one’s disposal. Nevertheless, this would be mis-perceived if it is believed that people keep on acting in a cyclic movement of becoming receiver and giver in reciprocal mechanism. Tellingly, the current economic changes and their role in redefining the social positions is destabilizing the ritualistic order of marriages.

When it comes to destabilized ritualistic order and its impact upon the larger social norms, one must be conscious of the fact that “field is a set of loosely integrated processes”, where “principles of action expressed in rules of custom that are often situationally incompatible with one another” (Turner 1985). There emerges this opportunity to understand the society when actors in ritualistic customs face not only situational incompatibility, but also face positional incompatibility. To take analysis back to the villages of study, the notion of shareeka also points out similar necessary incompatibilities. People in both villages of the study consider the presence of shareeka both as the primary agent in celebrations and its potential role for the upkeep of certain level of festivities. These considerations about defining both the one’s apna (own) and ghair (other) are the deriving motive and outcome. However, neither relationships of closeness nor distance are the fixed relations. What keeps on constantly changing is the re-articulation of the closeness and distance as always present in the network of social relations and it keeps both the closeness and distance of relations in permanent flow and concern of care. The practice of vartan changes and becomes the socially rooted and approved way to symbolically represent the pleasure or hostility regarding the particular event/marriage. It also tells that there are no fixed patterns of 140

closeness when people express their relations through exchange of certain objects with socially recognized rules of engagement. Therefore, in the vartan “we have to follow the things themselves, for their meanings are inscribed in their forms, their uses, their trajectories” (Appadurai 1986: 5). Appadurai’s things operate in larger scenario where marriages are repositories of human relations when things, objects, emotions and positions of the people are pivotal to their meaning.

5.2: Making of Marriage: Setting the Context and Socialising the Event

Marriage is like an announcement of a public event, which takes place outside the private domain of family. Therefore, the first step making marriage is the pronouncement as social event, which starts the very moment of thinking about the marriage of either girl or boy. Right from its start, marriage sets in motion a complete chain of activities with personal, emotional, material and above all accumulatively cultural circle of meanings invested in and by human relations. Therefore, marriage is never considered a simple religious ceremony for allowing one man and woman to have their nikah (religious obligation of tying the knot between adult girl and boy, when religious leader recites the sermon in the presence of four witnesses and guardian of the bride) and then start a new life. The legitimacy of marriage is equally divided between social and religious. Normatively people adhere to religious legitimacy in much stronger form but a religious ceremony of marriage may be socially invalid if the couple has tied the knot without proper function of marriage. Indeed, nikah, is the first condition for allowing an adult male and female to marry as Muslims, but the social making of the marriage is also equally important for the people of the villages as a necessary condition for their social presence. It is common to listen to the people of Khokhran and Amin Kot remembering some marriages as poorly organized, but they would completely disapprove any marriage which took place without its social legitimacy established by the proper function and festivity. Due to presence of many poor families in both the villages, people do not consider it necessary that a marriage function must be lavish. What remains pivotal for the people is the symbolic social-making of event as necessary for the acceptance of social legitimacy. Thus, any marriage of a couple, which has taken place without the proper consent of parents, which is reflected through the festivity and function of marriage, is bound to bring bad name to the families of both the families of bride and groom.

141

Normally, when time approaches to marry a son or daughter, the very initiation of proposals would begin the making of marriage as a social happening. Sometimes, children are (naam daalna) engaged by parents even before their birth as destined bride of one’s son or groom of one’s daughter, but the marriage as a function requires its making of formal socialization of the event. For example, one elder (60) member of Ajera biraderi from Khokhran was discussing with Haji Shabbir Khan Dhuddi about his relationship with his brother and the importance of mutual relations for the marriage as social function. The elder from Ajera biraderi shared that when he decided to marry his son to his sister’s daughter, he asked his brother to accompany him for solemnifying the tareekh (date of marriage) of the rukhsti (literal meaning is departure, but it refers to the date of leaving the house of father and brothers for the house of husband, which is believed as true house of the bride). Groom’s father was more concerned about the eventual impact upon marriage if his saga (true) brother was behaving like this at the start of preparations. The man made a chain of relations upon my asking about importance of having his brother go with him when both the families and the couple was ready to marry, the elder replied that if his brother had not gone with him then his brother’s in-laws (cousins of the groom’s father) would also have not come and this would have rendered the wedding useless if the close relatives are not part of these festivities. However, after two weeks, with the help from Haji Shabbir Khan Dhuddi, the man was able to make his brother agree to attend the marriage as main organiser. Once both the brothers settled their differences, they started preparations of the marriage together because both brothers invited all their guests in unity. The elder added that if host family invites with internal unity then celebration of marriage as a function multiplies. Ajera elder was of the view that such support from his brother equipped him with courage and help to invite all zamindars of the area and almost all households of Khokhran were invited. I personally remember, when I went there at the walima (the food meal hosted and served by the family of the groom after the day of the barat) to represent my family, I was also welcomed by the same uncle of the groom and I came to realize that he was more active than the father of the groom. My reference to this brief story about two brothers is in reference to the general layout of making of a marriage. Contrary to this story, sometimes hostilities are aggravated at marriages if not invited, or improperly invited, but this straining of ties is avoided unless warranted by unavoidable circumstances.

142

Socialization of marriage assumes increasing importance if we shift our focus from immediate family members to biraderi at large as an endogamous group in reference to a common ancestor possibly located tens of generations back. There are repeated references to the importance of biraderi as first residue of possible help, which one seeks at marriages, but mostly people do not see biraderi only as an endogamous group. The main thrust of importance of the biraderi is in the lineages as inner core of firstly recognised biraderi and then referring to distant relatives, which further loses out when it comes to imagine a distant common ancestor. Same sequence is followed in terms of importance given to the people who are invited and the way their help is needed and presence is ensured. Borrowing from Bourdieu, if immediate relatives and biraderi are recognized as practical kin and larger network of friends and village fellows as official kin, then Bourdieu pertinently argue that “it is practical kin who make marriages; it is official kin who celebrate them” (Bourdieu 1977a). Thus, making of marriage rests mainly in the hands of inner core of biraderi and the socialization of the marriage is shared with fellow official kin of festivity. Now, bringing vartan back in our analysis, which necessarily involves reciprocity of not only money and objects exchanged, but people consider, assess and then reciprocate even the modes of communication. People of Amin Kot and Khokhran recognize the way one has been invited, and correspondingly owing the warmth, coldness or ordinariness of invitation to the inviting family when the time comes to reciprocate the invitation. Therefore, mutual treatment as agents of social networking paves the way for complete circle of significance of making marriage as social event with meaningful positions and persons.

Importance of all players including biraderi as the first source after lineage is instrumental in their role as socializing the event of marriage. This also necessitates the urge to keep shareeka as the primary consideration for all sorts of arrangements and decisions in this regard. In order to prevent any possibility of exposing (its weaknesses be it in terms of economic or social) oneself to shareeka begins as first concern within the lineage and then extends to biraderi and then to one’s outreach as a person. If we suppose for the time-being that there is marriage of two paternal cousins of same linage, and our focus is on the location of shareeka, then the shareeka starts within household. I consider two marriages of Musalli family of Amin Kot when serious concerns were raised by the mother of the groom who was married almost one year later. The lady of the house whose son was married to her sister’s daughter was of the view that her husband and brothers of 143

her husband did not want to make the marriage (referring to walima) of his son equally waddi (large) because she married her son to her sister’s daughter. This resulted in the downplaying of the role of paternal side of the groom at all stages of marriage. She remembered how her husband threatened her on fifth night before barat not to start inviting ladies to the house for singing before only three nights are left. The lady made it clear that if there is feeling of ill-will among the in the first tier of marriage, then the show of marriage as a social function is downplayed at all stages of the event. Further it also tells about the unceasing presence of shareeka, which can originate due to many reasons, but at marriages most of the time these hostile feelings are due to selection of spouses and concerns about the invited guests. Feelings of ill-will due to selection of spouses are more serious in nature than the concerns about guests to be invited. If spouse of one’s son or daughter is not of choice then the reservations about selection of spouse are also repeated whenever there is some tension between in the house. Therefore, one’s stakes in deciding about the selection of partner are important to keep the household satisfied and happy.

People are also careful to the positions of individuals and their biraderies when they give meaning to respective biraderies in a hierarchical social structure. People often come up with pre- disposed orientation like Bourdieu’s habitus when they talk about particular biraderies as good ones or bad ones. These generic classifications are formulated as realized by Farina Mir (2010) who takes the meanings of zat beyond kinship and caste. Mir opines that zat “as a concept implies the innate qualities individuals possess, but which are, in turn, shared by the group these individuals constitute”(Mir 2010). The analysis about innate qualities as described in the language using the words like biraderi, qaum, or zat should keep the delicate meanings also in mind. Therefore, someone’s standing both as an individual and biraderi member is dependent upon the scope of competition either as equals i.e. zamindar to zamindar and kammi to kammi or as one biraderi against another biraderi. People of the villages mediate their consideration of the structural positions as belonging to certain biraderies unchangeable, and the changing economic order through a normative order of unequal positions. The mere fact that a zamindar is in competition with a kammi is itself suggestive of the fact that either zamindar has lowered the status or kammi has elevated in status. As a case in point, both these possible scenarios have taken place when some zamindars from Chishti and Dhuddi biraderies have sold their land and have been

144

rendered landless zamindars. On the other hand, some kammi families have acquired sufficient economic capital which has allowed them shift to elevated symbolic capital by changing their kammi caste to some elevated caste. On the other hand, at Khokhran, one Chadoya family has changed their caste to Kharal and Bhatti (both sub-castes of Rajputs) where the transformation is without serious social castigation or other repercussions. Another case is the change of caste among Qasaai family of Khokhran to Qazi caste. The change of caste among the Qasaai family was also due to fact that one son of a famous Allama (religious intellectual) from the family has just completed Doctorate in Medical Sciences with his younger brother close to completion of his medical studies. The context of change of castes becomes further interesting when marriage cards of the families who have changed their caste are sent to the invited guests. It leads to some of the paradoxes these families face. For example, when cards of the marriage of daughter from one of the (Chadoya) Kharal families of Khokhran were delivered at Amin Kot dera, some people talked sarcastically about the change of caste. One sharecropper of the Dhuddi family referred to the vendor from the immediate family members of the Kharals, as the one who was selling fruits in the street of Amin Kot and he still liked to be remembered as Chadoya. Though the change of caste does not lead to serious repercussions at social level, yet people refer it sarcastically and disapprovingly when they talk about the people who change their castes and it leads to larger scheme of representation at marriages.

The above given brief discussion of marriage as an event, which seeks social legitimacy and defines one’s credentials as a social agent is at the pivot of many positions. When I use the expression many positions, it refers to multiple roles of men and women have to fulfil at marriages. The assumed roles for a male elder of the household may vary from father, son, brother, brother- in-law, friend, biraderi wala, zamindar, kammi to opponent. These all positions have an important role in either of the capacities to socialize marriage as a function with meanings more stretched and intensive than simply believed as due from a social function. The nature of above given roles also suggests that people realize their role as agents of (re)production of certain kinds of capital. Similarly, Bourdieu argues about agents while discussing Field of Restricted Production (FRP)

“Along different lines, they also ensure the reproduction not only of consecrating agents and of producers of a determinate type of cultural goods, but also of consumers capable of 145

adopting the posture socially designated as specifically aesthetic, by providing them with the instruments required for the appropriation of these legitimized symbolic goods”(Bourdieu 1985).

This enables us to borrow from Bourdieu’s analysis about reproduction of cultural capital as sanctifying agents who help to reproduce legitimacy of cultural goods i.e. objects exchanged at marriages, as aesthetic when marriage function is the instrument for their appropriation. This is also reflected in the following analysis when we bring in more nuanced analysis of different customary steps of marriage as different stages of appropriation of cultural capital.

5.2.1: Beginning of Marriage as Social Event and Defining the Relationships

An important distinction, which leads to different settings for marriage preparations as social event is in the fact that marriage of a boy is different from the obligation to marry adult girl as the most important responsibility. Normally, when the time approaches to marry an adult boy the web of network opens from inside of the house to the outer side of relationships depending upon closeness. As first step, the consultation in this regard is likely to begin in family usually between husband and wife, then the scope of advice extends preferably to brothers and sisters of both the parents of the boy or girl. Now, keeping in view that most of the marriages take place among cousins, therefore, it is more likely that this circle of advice-seeking options would include the parents of the couple. If the marriage is not taking place among first cousins, then the second tier of cousins would also incorporate the similar first tier of cousins as advisory body among both the families of couple. The important exception may arise, as usually happens if someone from the first tier is not happy with the decision. For example, if sister of groom’s father is not happy from the decision of marriage, she may decide not to join even the first tier of consultation. It is likely that the complete family of groom including all members of the groom’s family would try their best to convince to bring the phuphi of the house to attend the event. The case of phuphi is specifically important because of her position as daughter of the house. However, if the host family is unable to convince phuphi then the marriage as an event remains of prime importance for the host family and it can lead to further deterioration of the ties. This also helps us understand why people consider first tier of internal consultation necessary for the successful completion of the coming

146

steps about socialising the marriage as an event. The following discussion would also make it indirectly clear that the process to socialising marriage as an event is also directly proportional to the social legitimacy of the function.

As a practical concern, contemporary marriages in the villages are not possible for the host family to manage at its own. Actually, the perception of someone’s marriage ceremony as either successful or unsuccessful is largely assessed from the fact that how marriage as an event has been managed. Normally, the core group of marriage may extend from relatives, biraderi, village to friends but biraderi assumes more importance because it incorporates symbolic bloodline as endogamous unit and as general referent of one’s muqaam. This gives biraderi an important role because “biraderi is historically linked to both social structure and identity” (Akhtar 2013). Now, when role and importance of biraderi is historically informed through a social structure, we need to understand both the practical importance of biraderi and expected role it has to play. This leads to our discussion of “kinship matters” as “made in the context of the Biradari's expectations”(Rauf 1987) because it further establishes the broader significance of web of social relations. which is created and sustained through vartan. As a practical arena Hamza Alvi regards “vartan bhanji” as “central to the managment and ritual cohesion of biraderies” (H. Alvi 1995). When the role of biraderi at marriages is probed in more detail than Hamza Alvi’s makes it clear through separation of biraderi of participation as “defined and reiterated through a ritual of prestations and counter- prestations, called vartan bhanji”(H. Alvi 1995). Similarly, people in the villages of my study take biraderi as an important source of help, but their central importance of vartan resides in immediate bloodline which then stretches to biraderi both as an agent of social relations and the loose source of imagined and practical help. The role of biraderi is not limited only to positive help at events of celebrations, however, biraderi also plays important role when there are conflicts among the members of biraderi. Chaudhary appositely argues that “biradaries take full part in marriage and other ceremonial occasions and on these occasions offended relatives are reconciled”(Muhammad Azam Chaudhary 1999). It is in this similar milieu that biraderi in both Amin Kot and Khokhran operates, nevertheless, an important distinction is the positions of certain households and individuals in this regard. For example, Dhuddies of Amin Kot are important biraderi members for all Dhuddies of both the villages to help the biraderi members for their mutual problems and

147

to decide about their match-making of sons and daughters. On the other hand, no other Dhuddi family except the house of Haji Shabbir Ahmad Khan from Khokhran is entitled to intervene for mutual problems of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. Even the participation of Haji Shabbir Ahmad Khan is very limited and itself dependent upon the requested intercession by the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. These positions of certain people and their role as enabling for the mediating role is important for the social structure and historical identity of biraderi. There we can rely on Sharma and Mary who though in different context of Hindu caste system, yet familiarly argue that “the internal dynamics of the groups we call castes are extremely diverse” (Sharma and Mary 1994). This is the important consideration while discussing biraderi that its generic character as social identity is supposed to work like an imposing force but with certain cleavages.

Our discussion of biraderi and shareeka as an immediate residue in all social relations in the rural social order of Punjab also defines larger considerations like patterns of match-making strategies. An important exception in this regard again pertains to the positions people occupy on the social structure. Zamindar families who have larger clientele as political elites do not follow similar patterns (Lyon and Mughal 2016) as usually little zamindar or kammi biraderies stick to general rules. For example, one of the leading zamindar families of the whole neeli bar has been the Dultana Family of Luddan, who have married almost all of their daughters outside the Joyia biraderi. This does not incur any serious social pressure upon the family because the family surpassed all other zamindars in political, economic and social capital. These exceptions to rules are recognized by the people as legitimate out of their inability to make the transgressor agree to their terms due to practical difference in status. On the other hand, if someone with moderate economic resources and in less established social position within biraderi decides to marry against the wishes of biraderi, then serious consequences are likely to follow. Therefore, while discussing the match-making, it is important that one should keep in sight both the status and standing of the family and biraderi to understand the level of one’s marriage as social function. It is nevertheless, one of the most important aspects of a marriage to make it a successful social function that all the close relatives, biraderi and village men should be happy from both the marriage as event and the general conduct of the family and its individuals.

148

Significance of marriage as defining one’s kinship choices does not bother the distant relations as such, but the social conduct of the family is criterion of expected conduct from distant relatives, biraderi and friends. How choice of spouses for one’s sons and daughters decide about the making of marriage and vartan is also clear from the following brief account to two brothers from Tirkhaan (carpenter) family of Khokhran. Ghulam Rasool (34), the eldest among his siblings shared with me that his brother’s marriage dated 8th January, 2017, was not successful due to the biraderi’s unhappiness with his family at the time of marriage. Ghulam Rasool was of the view that reasons for such severed ties may be multiple, but most important concern originates from the feelings of closest relatives like chacha, phuphi, khaala, mamu that they are not happy from the relationship established against their choice. Ghulam Rasool continued that apparently, they all may seem thek thak (satisfied), but in their heart they do not feel as part of the marriage what their relationship demands of them. He made a comparative analysis of his own marriage dated 27th March, 2011, and marriage of his brother where relatives and biraderi made his family feel that one should have them happy as necessary condition if one wishes to celebrate the marriage as a social function. Ghulam Rasool also shared his neondra (the money received from guests after serving food at walima) details, which he remembered by heart that from neondra to rotti (bread, but here the term refers to the received food items limited only to the (guest) giving and receiving (host) family) everything was less excited at the marriage of his brother as compared to his own marriage. Ghulam Rasool shared with me that even his father’s brother lowered his level of participation because they were not happy from the marriage of his brother. He was of the view that if one of the close relatives is not happy then there is competition as shareeka even among real brothers. In this specific case, Ghulam Rasool’s father competed against his brother and sister to draw closer to other immediate relatives for the better representation of family. This case study if taken in broader logic of shareeka and defining one’s relatives is one of the essential characteristics which decide ultimate contours of marriage as a social function.

5.2.2: Invitation: Relations in Marriage Cards

Marriage cards set in motion the marriage as function and it leads to social image of the marriage with representational potential for both the invited guests and the hosts. The scale of marriage is taken as consummating the potential for one’s self-representation. People of the villages realize it

149

well that as an economic and social function, marriage should be neither underperforming one’s standing nor it is expected to be exaggeratively unproportionable to one’s standing. Therefore, people decide about the number and scale of invited guests as one of the most important considerations while planning the marriage. I was present during one of such critical moments when Dhuddies of Amin Kot were deciding about the list of invited guests at the marriages of Shahid Mehmood Khan (36), Farooq Ahmad Khan (35) and Asif Nadeem Khan (33). All the grooms and brides were sons and daughters of Zia Ahmad Khan’s sisters except one daughter of Muhammad Amin Khan the eldest brother of Zia Ahmad Khan. Shahid Mehmood Khan, the first groom was married to the sister of third groom Asif Nadeem Khan, who himself was married to the sister of second groom Farooq Ahmad Khan. Second groom Farooq Ahmad Khan was married to Zia Ahmad Khan’s eldest brother Muhammad Amin Khan’s youngest daughter. Zia Ahmad Khan Dhuddi was the person who had decided about the dates of marriage and he had been asked by the parents of grooms and brides to decide about the scale of marriage as an event through list of invited guests. Zia Ahmad Khan consulted his younger brother Qamar Zaman Khan and Ali Ahmad Khan (59) his cousin and chacha of the first and third grooms about the scale of marriage. During the conversation, Zia Ahmad Khan also sent his younger son to call Ijaz Ahmad Khan and Ghulam Mustafa Khan who are eldest sons of Zia Ahmad Khan’s elder brothers to join the consultation. No one said anything against any proposal of Zia Ahmad Khan from deciding the menu at walima to the numbers of the invited guests. Zia Ahmad Khan told all the participants that he is of the view that maximum 500 cards would be sent to different people including biraderi members, nearby zamindars and to the people who are important for his political patronage. During the writing of cards, Zia Ahmad Khan was asked time and again by some of his nephews who were writing the cards if there was any confusion about some of the people either to be invited or not. For example, Ijaz Ahmad Khan pointed out that almost all important politicians have been invited except sitting Member of Provincial Assembly Shehryar Ahmad Khakwani. The name of Shehryar Khakwani was dropped by Qamar Zaman Khan because the MPA had opposed Zia Ahmad Khan in some recent matters of Police cases involving members of Zia Ahmad Khan’s political patronage. Listening to this, Ijaz Ahmad Khan shared with his uncle Qamar Zama Khan that personally he also does not like to invite the MPA but may be Zia Ahmad Khan would like to invite him because it does not bode well for politicians to keep the doors closed. So, they decided

150

to ask Zia Ahmad Khan in the evening when he is back from Burewala, and Zia Ahmad Khan asked them not to invite the MPA. Likewise, Qamar Zaman Khan was consulted when it came to decide about the invitations to relatives since two generations back and the sub-castes of Dhuddi zamindars in nearby areas. All the individual members who constitute separate household were invited from Maghranas and Tajwana families who are sub-castes of Dhuddies and are competing zamindar families. Furthermore, when it came to decide about the names of his own guests, Zia Ahmad Khan told his driver to place two hundred cards in his car which he would decide with his closer friends about the more important persons to be invited. In addition to this, the main family members were always talking to each other about the important family friends, zamindars of the nearby areas and biraderi members as special focus.

Furthermore, marriage cards are not merely cards which are singularly similar for all irrespective of one’ standing. Apart from symbolic value of the card, one should keep in mind the range of market prices of marriage cards may vary from 20 rupees per card to 500 rupees per card. Bourdieu pertinently argues about cultural objects that “besides being a commodity that has a commercial value, any cultural object is also a symbolic good, having a specifically cultural value” (Bourdieu 1985). Therefore, marriage card is representative to the invited guest of more than mere invitation. A marriage card is loaded with material considerations and socio-cultural message both from the host and to the guest. The marriage card also tells about the scale of marriage and its worth is far beyond the face value as piece of paper. Once the consultations about the list of invited guests has been finalized, people start writing marriage cards which are specifically designed and written with representational potential as messengers of relationships of the hosts and guests. I aim to present a little analysis here of the marriage cards themselves which are important beyond their limited significance as merely invitation cards. The following marriage invitation card from one of the dependents of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot, Master (school teacher) Naseer Ahmad Joyia who sent the card for his eldest son’s marriage.

151

Picture 5.1: Marriage card to Guest This marriage card as neither one of the very lavish marriage cards nor the simplest one is in line with the standing of the host family. Marriage card was delivered to the guest by Nai male member of Amin Kot. The messenger who brought the card was given 200 rupees by Ijaz Ahmad Khan, the cousin of the invited guest because the former is responsible to receive all marriage cards for any male member of the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot and pays from the central pool of the family. The total amount of two hundred rupees was for the 8 cards which were sent to all households of the Dhuddi family. However, Ijaz Ahmad Khan paid as representative of all the relatives from Dhuddi family because his representation is in line with the family’s scheme of self-representation as one haveli. As a marriage card, proper naming is important when inviting someone, which is first step towards the final arrangements of walima as a social function. Both the names of the guests and their place of residence is mentioned at the back side of the card. If the card is being sent to a distant place, then name of father is also likely to be included with the name of guest. Furthermore, the list of invited guests and writing of their names is made by keeping not only friendship and relationships in mind, but it is also aware of the social recognition of the guest. For example, as the card in picture shows, the guest has been invited along with his brother, despite the fact that only one brother among them would attend the function. All the marriage cards sent to all the households of Dhuddi family were sent to the eldest of the family. In this case Ghulam Mustafa is himself the eldest among his siblings. So, we can see from the above given card that marriage cards are equally loaded with symbolic value as Bourdieu (1985) argues in the favour of relationship between not only material and cultural value.

Furthermore, the following picture shows the inner side of the marriage card where hosting of the marriage and details of the ceremony is conveyed to the guests. It details programmes and names of important persons who recommend the invited guest to join the marriage as a shared social function. Any marriage card is likely to incorporate the names of immediate family members, biraderi members and influential people of the area.

152

Picture 5.2: Invitation Card Detailing Hosts This card conveys all the important information of the marriage as a function. It gives timings of all the important events of the marriage to take place and it also sheds light on the importance of the people through its conspicuous writing of the names on marriage cards who are referred as

mutmanni-e-shirkat (wishful to one’s participation). They are the people who define the most immediate circle of people as organisers and helpers throughout marriage. Similarly, the name of Qamar Zaman Khan Dhuddi shows the importance, which is given to the zamindar patron family. If name of Qamar Zaman Khan had not been written, then the Dhuddi family would have felt it inappropriate on the part of host Joyia family, subsequently lowering the scale of help and attendance. Similarly, all marriage cards of kammis and riaaya houses of Amin Kot write the names of either Zia Ahmad Khan or Qamar Zaman Khan as recommending one’s participation, but this never works other way around. Dhuddi family never writes names of any other person on the marriage cards of their family. Dhuddi family mentions only names of the elders of all households who are alive. Writing names of someone at marriage card is actually sharing of one’s representation within the network of vartan. Therefore, unlike this card of Master Naseer Ahmad Joyia, Dhuddies of Amin Kot do not show their dependence upon any one as their patron. Furthermore, Dhuddi family’s cards do not write names of their Dhuddi biraderi members, but they write only names of their elder members of the family from haveli. The above given card also shows that Naseer Ahmad Joyia wrote names only of his relatives and biraderi members except Qamar Zaman Khan the zamindar and host’s neighbour Jaan Muhammad Bhatti. So, the above given marriage card helps us identify the processual role it plays to define the web of significant relationships both at home and to the destination where it is sent.

Another interesting case may be the last marriage card from one of zamindars who belongs to Sahuka biraderi, a sub-caste of Joyia. This marriage card wrapped in three different wrappers is suggestive of the costly purchasing of marriage card. Then an interesting theme is also about the similar pattern of writing the names of close relatives, defining family and biraderi. The below 153

given third card mentions clearly the name of host, father of groom as dust of the foot of his spiritual mentor. However, except the name of their pir and another Syed friend of the family, no other name was written from any other caste but only Sahukas were in the list of the recommending people.

Picture 5.3: Comparatively Expensive Marriage Card

The above given discussion about importance and communicative capacity of marriage cards convinces us to deduce the underlying message from marriage cards. There I bring in my intention to proffer marriage cards as symbols of symbolic capital of an object in the preparation of marriage, which is not institutionally exchanged. Therefore, it is necessary to keep in mind the means and mediums of marriage strategies, which define and regulate marriages as network of social relations. Now, we proceed to the full function of a normal marriage as it usually unfolds in the last three days.

5.2.3: From Mehndi to Rukhsti and Walima

The following scheme of analysis in this subsection would highlight how three most important and vocal expressions of marriage take place. My aim in this section is to make it clear that people

154

navigate their expressions of self and collective representations thicker as the time of marriage approaches closer. Marriage as an event starts for the host family as the date of marriage has been announced and it leads to a complete circle of responsibilities on the part of the members of the family. This also defines gender-specific roles when women and men have different spheres to manage. These gender roles also depend upon position of family according to its socio-economic standing. Mostly, women of the kammi or riaaya household can go to Sahuka or Burewala markets at their own, but women of the zamindar families need to be accompanied by their male members of the household. Nevertheless, this code of mobility does not mean that women have less important role to play in marriages. If seen from the general perception of among people of the villages, women play an equally important role like men. The difference between roles feels more pronounced than its original form due to visibility of men and invisibility of women in the social sphere as general rule.

The brief discussion of the roles and their expression as an event of marriage would begin with the mehndi of either of dulha or dulhan (bride). Mehndi is the tradition of applying temporary henna (reddish-brown dying made from the shrub known with same name of mehndi) at the hands of dulha and dulhan's for preparations of marriage. Mehndi always takes form of a function when all the people who are in one’s vartan from nearby area are especially invited to be part of function in the night. The women of neighbouring houses, village fellows and relatives would gather inside the household and would place henna at the hand of dulha or dulhan. Another interesting distinction between the marriage of both the dulha and dulhan also lies in the fact that dulhan is more likely to receive her mehndi from the house of dulha. This mehndi is not only henna to be placed at hands, but also contains suites, jewellery, bangles, cash prize etc. This gesture is also reflective of symbolic beautification of the dulhan as performed by the household of dulha. The mehndi of dulhan from the dulha’s mother and sisters is not necessary at all marriages as there is not even single instance of marriages of Dhuddies of Amin Kot when the dulhan’s mehndi has been arranged by the family of dulha. However, if someone is marrying outside immediate relatives then the mehndi of dulhan from dulha is more likely to take place. It happened at marriages of Qasaais of Amin Kot, when Mian Lateef married his two daughters outside of his immediate and neighbouring relatives. Similarly, the eldest daughter of Muhammad Zafar Maachhi was also beautified with the mehndi from her distant relatives from Chishtiyan tehsil of 155

district Bahawalnagar. Generally, If the mehndi of the dulhan is coming from a distant area then the guests with mehndi would also be served with food. When it comes to the mehndi of dulha, the function when completed inside the household, then the dulha would come to the male side of the gathering. If the marriage is in the zamindar family then the male function takes place at dera but in case of kammi or riaaya household, the males and females would sit at separate sides of the house. When mehndi takes place, everyone who is called for placing mehndi is also supposed to pay vail (money paid to kammis as part of one’s representation at the event) to the Nai male responsible for collecting vail in the male side and female who stands behind or by the side of dulhan to receive vail. The host family is likely to be attentive to the amount of payment because it would be reciprocated later when the host and guest are changed vice-versa. About mehndi, it is formally one of the first financial transactions that takes place as a practice of vartan, so, it is not only to be reciprocated but it also symbolically represents the closeness of the relatives, their social and economic standings.

After the mehndi has taken place, people on the side of bride would begin their preparations for rukhsti of the dulhan and those on the side of the groom would prepare for next day’s barat (journey to the house of bride with fellow relatives, neighbours, biraderi members and friends). When the barat approaches the house of bride, there is formal reception of barat for the guests where nikah is performed if not already performed. After nikah, some sweet known as vari from the groom’s side is distributed among all the guests from both sides. Thereafter, the family of bride serves the guests with food before embarking on their journey back to the house of the groom. With end of barat and after rukhsti the marriage ends as function for the family of bride, but the walima is to take place from the family of groom. Both the functions of rukhsti and walima have changed significantly from their earlier forms as social events. The pattern of change is visible from all the fundamental customs, which were earlier bedrock of them. For example, now the tradition of wikhaala has disappeared when all the items of dowry of the dulhan were properly displayed. The display also included an introduction of the items as belonging to all the relatives of the daughter of the house. The timing of wikhaala was normally before the rukhsti taking place because most of the women were present at the moment or were called for by the leading lady of the household. When the wikhaala had taken place, the dulha was called in the house of dulhan to accompany the dulhan for leaving her house. An important difference in the wikhaala of zamindar 156

and non-zamindar families lied in the quantity and quality of the items. However, now the tradition of wikhaala has disappeared and the dowry is simply shifted to the house of dulha even before rukhsti of the dulhan. It is difficult for the people to give an exact answer when asked that what do they think was the reason which led to dissipation of the tradition––people would simply say because the tradition was useless and unwanted. Normally, people refer to all such traditions which once they have been practicing with complete zeal, as either un-Islamic or simply as fazool. The reception of barat from girl’s side is not supposed to be lavish unless demanded by the side of the boy who would be bringing barat in large numbers.

As an ideal practice of walima, when rukhsti of the dulhan has taken place and the relationship has consummated between the couple, then father or brothers and both maternal and paternal uncles are to arrange walima. Host family is supposed to determine the importance of the event by showing scale and interest in terms of inviting relatives, biraderi, neighbours and friends. When someone has invited the guests at walima, then the food menu and timing of serving food to guests is also equally important. As people in Punjab’s social structure are not regarded equals, thus who is given place where in the hall and how some special guests are taken care of opens window to social structure. Normally, at the marriage of zamindar, there is one little stage with three to five chairs and one table with two opposing rows of sofas for special guests who are likely to be equally influential zamindars and politicians. These people are given special care by the host family. Another important seating arrangement may be in terms of sitting of the people at respective different tables as friends sitting with friends or biraderi members sitting together. Similarly, at the marriage of Sohail Zia Khan Dhuddi, one young man from Dhuddi family from Sheikhupura asked Zia Ahmad khan Dhuddi to place two separate tables in the middle of tent for Dhuddi biraderi to sit together. Zia Ahmad Khan asked the boy to wait so that all of the guests can be properly seated first and then he would make the arrangements as asked by the young boy. Later on, when all the guests had come and food was about to be served, Zia Ahmad asked one of his nephews to ask the waiters to place three or four tables in rows so that all Dhuddi biraderi could sit together. So, the scope of walima is far beyond the food and neondra because people consider the behaviour of the host family from all these factors and it lends credence to the standing of both host and guest.

157

Thus, mehndi, rukhsti, and walima are not only about serving guests with food and showing one’s strength through guests at marriages of their sons and daughters. People consider these moments as critical to set their claims of personhood and position among relatives, biraderi, friends and village fellows. After this brief discussion, I now proceed to the assessment of these critical phases of marriage and their cumulative or separated effect in the socio-cultural milieu of marriages.

5.3: Assessment of Marriage: Symbolic Understanding of Exchange and Relationships

Assessment of a marriage both as an event hosted and participated by guests starts right from the beginning of the event. People are quite concerned about their reputation in the wake of marriage. As we have already discussed the making of marriage as a social event, which represents the credentials of the host family and its individuals as socially communicated through the event. This would naturally evoke a critical assessment by all the present i.e. relatives, biraderi, village fellows and friends. The assessment is again informed by the same social structure, which defines the relations and their invitation. The assessment of relationships at marriages is recorded in the form of neondra book, account of salaamies (the money paid to groom or bride at different functions of marriage i.e. at walima, rukhsti etc.) and all the receivables suggests that the holding of marriage and its role beyond the celebratory potential is of paramount importance. People start a complete assessment of their marriage as the guests have left. The accounting of guests takes place in their respective spheres. For example, men would account salaami and neondra according to neondra book and if the dulha or dulhan is paid salaamies in separate then he or she is supposed to get it registered later on. The carefulness is visibly performed on both sides of the relations. The donor of the salaami is also aware of the fact that dulha or dulhan would be receiving from many people, so, either the name of donor should be clearly mentioned on envelope or the cash is paid when people are witnessing the payment of money or gift in the form of object. However, if one is not careful about assessing the participation of guests, it is construed as unworthiness on the part of the host family. Therefore, at the marriage of Mazhar Nadeem, after serving guests with food his younger brother sat at the exit of the tent to receive the neondra from the guests. The guests could easily be seen making sure that their name is properly written, so that the host family knows of

158

their contribution. This contribution is the surety for keeping the relationship running in reciprocal arrangements.

As a matter of social practice, both giving and receiving of gift is accompanied by a controlled pretension. One is supposed to pretend according to the closeness of the relationship with the marrying couple. People are more likely to anticipate a boastful orientation of the marriage of groom because marrying one’s son is assumed as matter of proud and jubilance. On the other hand, when marriage of daughter is taking place, it is deemed as time of decency and responsibility on the part of family of bride. These modes of marriage as an event with different potential when it comes to gender of the marriage is itself indicative of the pomp and show when barat arrives near the house of the bride. Unlike barat, the hosts who are relatives of bride, biraderi members and village fellows are expected to show themselves as humbled by the burden of occasion. It is believed in the villages that marrying daughter is the heaviest responsibility and it should be reflected from the conduct of the hosts. One important exception in this regard is clearly remembered in Amin Kot when brothers of bride from Maachhi family danced with the barat as a show of their happiness at the marriage of their sister. People of the village still recall them that they are not properly sharam wale log (modest people) because they dance at the marriages of their sisters and daughters. These generalizations based on specific event are also common in the villages of the study when people talk about someone’s undesired conduct. Moreover, If the host family has been successful in welcoming, serving the barat and finally waving off the bride, then barat should have no reason to complain. The above given scenario is idealistic in its tone, and usually, people eulogize each other as relatives in the initial days. Gradually, people are able to find some reason for complaints either due to mismanagement on the part of each other or dowry as the most important reason for blaming each other. My above given discussion is limited in its scope because my concern is not the discussion of relationship between marrying families, but my intention is to understand the assessment of vartan as a network of social relations.

Despite some complaints as always necessary part of shareeka, people assess one’s arrangement of marriage and the presence of guests as one’s standing in society. The significance of these marriages as better arranged with larger number of guests is only significant if realized and acknowledged by the fellow brethren and shareeka. Furthermore, the relationship between

159

both gifts and boastfulness also owes to similar logic at marriages when salaamies and neondra are likely to be shared among shareeka if the host family is confident that their marriage has been properly arranged. I argue that arrangement of a marriage and its cultural significance also resides in this market of symbolic goods. Bourdieu again comes to our rescue when properties of a cultural good are treated as “positional ones” because “they derive their nature and weight from the relative positions held by agents who, urged on by fairly different (and partly semi-conscious) interests, participate in this dynamic field”(Bourdieu 1985). This role of symbolic goods when exchanged as objects make a dynamic field where giving and receiving of the gift with their symbolic, economic, cultural and emotional value is duly assessed. Therefore, economic calculation is very important for the people in this medium of exchange, but it is not construed as essence of the relationship as a whole. However, with the increasing materialization at broader socio-economic scale, material calculations of the lain dain are becoming more instrumental with the passage of time. People have begun considering the role of economic resources as increasingly important because it gives legitimacy to one’s claims of elevated status either as zamindar or non-zamindar, which again leads to the deliberate enhancement of scale of marriage. There is direct relationship between the accumulated economic capital and its show in the vartan because it is most appropriate time to present oneself as allowed by the economic means. When we change (if we can) our expression of jubilance with generous exchange, then Bourdieu’s analysis about “generous exchange” which leads “towards overwhelming generosity”(Bourdieu 1977a) is appropriately true in our case.

Therefore, it is needed that conduct of people and its assessment is itself seen in the historical making of sensitivities and certain proclivities in this regard. The relationship between “present past that tends to perpetuate itself into the future by reactivation in similarly structured practices” is recognized by Bourdieu as irreducible to immediate constraints as “the principle of the continuity and regularity” (Bourdieu 1992). In our case, marriages serve as scheme of assessment and they also serve our purpose to understand the mechanism of regularity of specific (normative) conduct. Thus, marriages serve their social role as events full of symbolic and economic potentials for the people when they are either hosts or guests. Assessment of marriage is compulsory part of the making of marriage while thinking about it or participating in it. This

160

assessment of marriages as functions consummate with status of the host and guest is the central value, which keeps on defining social relationships through reciprocity.

5.4: Inroads of Reciprocity

Keeping in view that from objects to individuals, all are reciprocated according to their positions, one aspect which is of paramount importance for vartan is the reciprocity known in the villages as daina (give), and badla utaarna (pay one’s debt back). Both of the expressions are used as connotative of flux in the relation, which makes reciprocity an essential feature of vartan as a whole to sustain itself. Our concern at hand takes me back to marriages as events which must be social event in order to qualify as a test case for their role in vartan. This potential of marriages as socialized event within the rules of participation as party to a larger network of social relations, necessitates the well-defined path to reciprocity. Mughal argues in familiar relations in rural Punjab that “exchange relations can be analysed through the concept of reciprocity”, which the author further clarifies as “non-market exchanges of goods or labour, ranging from direct barter or immediate exchange to gift exchange, where a return is delayed but ultimately expected”(Mughal 2018: 3). Hence, there is no possibility that an individual can play his/her role as a party with its own rules. It draws our attention to the fact that whole sphere of activities at marriages is incorporative of all activities at marriages and one’s participation in these activities again pertains to rules of engagement. As a case in point, reciprocity’s concern is established from first day when the invitation is sent. At the marriage of Sohail Zia Khan, the messenger as carrier of the cards of the Dhuddi family was also asked by the host family to note down or remember who pays what and how the card carrier is treated. Here the other messengers sent by Dhuddi zamindar family were driver Allah Rakha, servant Ghulam Abbas Musalli and the Nai of family as one of the traditional message carriers were tasked to deliver the cards. On the other hand, at Marriage of Mazhar Nadeem Musalli, the marriage invitation cards were delivered only by Nai of the family. The difference between composition of messengers at both marriages was due to the 600 marriage cards at marriage of Sohail Zia Khan and just more than 100 at later marriage of Mazhar Nadeem Musalli. Furthermore, the messenger of zamindars marriage cards is more likely to receive handsome amount in cash upon the delivery of the card. Moreover, the host family is quite concerned about the treatment of their messenger because the messenger himself represents the 161

host. Therefore, the money and treatment given to the messenger is likely to be reciprocated when the invited sends his card. During one of such encounters, I was present at the Amin Kot dera when Allah Ditta Mainn (another name used for Mallah, the boatman) returned after delivering marriage invitation cards of Sohail Zia Khan. Qamar Khan was not happy when he heard Allah Ditta Mainn that neither he was paid well by any of the invited Tajwana members belonging to another goth (sub-caste) of Dhuddies nor was properly served with tea or food. Qamar Zaman Khan opined about the Tajwana biraderi members as unworthy of keeping vartan. However, upon hearing about Hafiz Zaheer Khan Dhuddi from that he paid 500 rupees to Allah Ditta as payment of card delivery and served him with delicious one time food meal, Qamar Zaman Khan remarked that Hafiz Zaheer remembers well his friends. Qamar Zaman Khan used to ask all the card carriers about their delivery of cards when they came back to dera. Thus, the general understanding of reciprocity to material calculations and limited to only specific functions i.e. wlaima’s neondra and salaami is misleading and partial. People start their assessment both as hosts and guests right from the beginning of marriage as social event.

An important concern, which both at theoretical and practical level strikes one is the relationship between vartan, economy and reciprocity. The paradox lies in unequal material resources coupled with positions as zamindars and kammis when spending is both facilitated and constrained according to urgency to spend as well as stay within one’s means. Undoubtedly, the upkeep of vartan takes material form of relationships serious but it does not constitute the essence of relationship. Reciprocity of material objects and personal favours as individuals operate mutually where reciprocity of material considerations is at least symbolically downplayed. Therefore, the reciprocity should be seen between material consideration which is ostensibly downplayed and its relation with time of receiving and repaying the due. We can consider the material value as the prime force of vartan if the consideration of time in terms of gift given and then received is also materially adjusted. However, as referred above people do not consider their vartan in monetary terms and are explicitly disapproving of anti-materialistic calculations when their social relations are concerned. Here I aim to extend the discussion to reciprocity in relation with time because people never consider their money and exchanged object in vartan as free from time. However, when they refer to time, mostly it is about the age of relationship which becomes

162

more celebrated as it grows old because it tells about the shared commitment to one’s relationship. Similarly, one of the guests from Bahawalnagar who came to attend the marriage of a boy from nearby village, came to Amin Kot dera and shared with Qamar Zaman Khan that his family has strong relationship with the groom’s family since last three generations. The man shared that his father shared pug (turban) with the grand-father of the groom. It is important that those who share turban are considered as brothers for rest of their lives. Therefore, such close relationships are most hard to lose their closeness. Therefore, this significance of time as socially shared neither translates into material considerations nor people consider it such. It leads to question what Strathern and Stewart propose that the “element of delay that marks the trust or obligation between the sides: if the obligations are not met, relationships can become strained or even hostile”(A. Strathern and Stewart 2005). My intention to question Strathern and Stewart is not complete denial of material considerations which also remain important for the people. What I propose further is that “social life is the process by which we constitute one another as persons”, which Ingold recommends to be “understood as movements rather than as the persistent properties or momentary emissions of things”(Ingold 1986).

Now, I aim to contextualise the reciprocity in my villages of the study where people navigate the consideration of materiality of relations and their social attachment, which is not necessarily anti-materialistic but less pretentious of materiality. Though people have somewhat different expressions for the reciprocity, but the rule is firmly established as the major constituent of whole practice. People in the villages use the words like rakh rakhao, lain dain, vartan, and walan wassan, which all refer to a flowing spirit of relationships, requiring an analysis, with a focus on the continuity possible only through institutional reciprocal arrangements. Hence, people consider someone’s refusal in the mutual interest of relationship as breach in cyclic reciprocity as one party to the shared relationship. I have drawn following table urged by the need to debate both the requirement to participate in network of social relations and the concern about meagre economic resources. The table discusses the marriage of eldest son of house of Tirkhaan biraderi as they received and then reciprocated in all the formal forms of vartan.

163

Figure 5.1: Marriage of Ghulam Rasool Tirkhaan (27/03/2011)

Relationship Rotti2/Pinniyan, Neondra (Rs) Salaami (Rs) + Suit/Trevar/ Sweet Haar (amount with the Clothe in Rs) bride/groom

Taya 1000 1000 Rs

Chacha 1000 1000+ Haar (500 Rs)

Phuphi 1 kg sweet 1000 1000+1000

Friend/neighbour 1 kg sweet 1000 Haar (1000)

Friend from nearby 1500 Village

Figure 5.2: Table of Reciprocity to Same People

Relationship Rotti/Pinniyan, Neondra (Rs) Salaami (Rs) Clothe/Trever/ Sweet + Haar Suit with the bride/groom (amount in Rs)

2 Rotti means here some essential items comprising sweets (1kg to 5kgs), symbolic curry and chapaaties for three to five persons. The main item is sweet now which earlier was in the form of laddu (sweet made from a mixture of flour, sugar and butter shaped into a yellow ball) or pinni (a similar sweet like laddu but pinni is bigger in size and white in colour) or both. When laddu is given it is in kilograms and pinnies are counted in dozens. An important between the contemporary word rotti lies in its social meaning from the word used two generations back when it referred to sending of food for friends and biraderi members.

164

Dauhhter of Taya Rotti by father of 1500+1000 (Paid 500 1 suit+1 suit and Ghulam rasool by Father of Cutlery (added Ghulam Rasool) byGhulam Rasool’s father

Chacha

Son of Phuphi 3kg sweet 1000 1000+1000 1

Friend/neighbour 3 kg sweet 1000 Haar (1000)

Friend from nearby 1000 Village

Above given tables show that concerns for playing a role in vartan are equally shared among the closest relations. As normally demanded even the closest relatives have to play their role in reciprocal relations. People know each other’s economic compulsions according to their means, but it is hardly possible that one completely abandons the responsibility to contribute in reciprocal cycle. As in the above given table the house of phuphi played its due role by contributing to the marriage of Ghulam Rasool, when even the bride believed that their material resources hardly allowed them. The groom shared with me that his father later asked his sister to take 2000 rupees back, because they have paid in front of all and now they can take back the money. The phuphi accepted suit given to her as her share due to her because of her position as daughter of the house, but she did not take the money back. Ghulam Rasool believed that his phuphi knew that she would be paid more by her brother with khula dil (big heart) when the time comes to receive in reciprocity. Second table shows that when she married her son (2013) after almost two and half years, she was made happy in front of all (phuphi ko khush kr dia that sb ka samne) by the father of groom. Similarly, Ghulam Rasool’s father participated in the marriage of his bhateeja (brother’s daughter), beyond what was due to him. Ghulam Rasool shared while helping me draw the rough table that when it came to play the part as dadki (paternal side) of the bride, he paid as separate from his father who told his family that he would pay her bhateeji at her won. Ghulam Rasool further added that all from his taya’s house knew that rotti given by his father does not fall within 165

traditional lain dain. He shared that there is always hisaab kitaan (material calculation) among all loved ones, no matter how close but the exception is when it comes to marriage of the daughters of the house. However, one important reference which needs precision is the fact that his phuphi who was also herself daughter of the house came to play her part what was due to her. Thus, people define their significance of relationships through these calculations on the one hand and downplaying the same calculations on the other hand as supplementary to the relationships. Now, we can also see this fact from the above given examples of reciprocity of Ghulam Rasool’s marriage with his two friends; one from Zargar family who is his neighbour and the second (Musalli) Sheikh friend from Amin Kot. Ghulam Rasool added when I asked him about the reason that why he had equalized the amount of vartan which meant the break up––he replied that it is important among all the kammi households that one should keep in control the maximizing potential of reciprocal amounts over a long period of continuous relationship. He also reflected upon the logic behind his equalization of both cases. In first case, he shared that he added two kg sweets more than what his Zargar friend had paid to him. Ghulam Rasool was of the view that if he had paid cash in addition to what he received from his friend, then his friend would have to add in the amount when he married his younger brother. Resultantly, the monetary pressure keeps on building. Thus, the balance is struck among the closest relatives and friends in reciprocal relations, which is important in the networking of social relationships. The case study of Ghulam Rasool is pertinently helpful in this regard when we see that reciprocity not only defines the importance of relations but it also keeps relations in flux as people themselves stay.

5.5: Vartan and Economy

Contemporary practices of vartan are symbolically within the similar milieu of social significance as rooted in historical making, but the emerging economic realities are becoming an increasingly important factor. The emergence of capitalist modes of gift exchange is not deemed as unfit for the traditional mechanism of vartan because people have appropriated the use of technology and its impact upon their market rationality which is also deemed important in the current increasing materialist calculation. Lyon convincingly argues that “market rationality, rather than supplanting the gift in South Asia, has provided a new range of legitimate gift items i.e. cash, electronic 166

appliances, cars etc”(Lyon 2004b: 37). Therefore, people who have acquired new sources of their economic mobility, they make interesting case for a relationship between facts of economic reality and their consideration of value as Dumont pertinently argues:

“value designates something different from being, and something which, while the scientifically true is universal, is eminently variable with the social environment, and even within a given society, according not only to social classes but to the diverse departments of activity or experience”(Dumont 1986: 237).

It draws us closer to the careful assessment of relationship between individual representation and the bargain between economic realities and value in villages of my study. If value is taken as the logic behind exchange of objects and their potential to communicate the social classes in their own experiential milieu, then the examination of objects as Bourdieu’s symbolic objects becomes further clear. To contextualize the debate further, there is need for detailed scrutiny about the vartan among equals, but the vartan among unequal is also equally important reality. These forms of vartan when people are economically unequal through structural arrangements like patterns of land ownership, have more important role to play if all the actors of vartan are taken into account. I aim to bring in analysis of role of land ownership as primary agent of traditional social order of the rural Punjab. Moreover, the same concern to understand role of land ownership also leads towards assessment of change in both economic base of social structure and its resultant role as an agent of change.

It is beyond any doubt that people in the villages of the study believe that vartan bhanji is not about economy or the calculation of money during the festivities. In addition to this, they deliberately employ certain language which denies any such claims. Taking into account most of the terminology used for marriages as mediums of exchange one thing is clear about the central importance given to persons and the relationship. Appadurai’s analysis about that “we can interpret the human transactions and calculations that enliven things” (Appadurai 1986: 5). Appadurai further narrows down his theoretical point of view when he argues that “human actors encode things with significance, from a methodological point of view it is the things-in-motion that illuminate their human and social context”(Appadurai 1986a). Now, as the last section about

167

reciprocity also illuminates, people make an intentional plan about exchanging money and objects as gifts but they stay within their economic means. This takes us further closer to our understanding of the relationship between choices as agents of socio-cultural network and agents of economic positions. Blim draws on the chronology of culture and economy that “it may not matter much which came first” but he adds that “it is important to keep the interconnection in mind, for changing one often changes the other”(Blim 2005). It is in this logic of mutual existence between culture and economy that we are further equipped by Bourdieu for his digging behind the surficial values. Bourdieu zooms in further about the propensity of people when they prefer their relations as beyond their conversion into economic calculation. Bourdieu opines:

“To refuse to calculate in exchanges with one’s ‘nearest and dearest’ is to refuse to obey the principle of economy as propensity and capacity to economize or minimize expenditure (of effort, ‘pains’, then labour, time, money, etc.), in favour of giving without counting, a refusal which can in the long run foster the atrophy of calculating dispositions”(Bourdieu 2000a).

This is also true in most of the cases when it comes to the relationships among brother to brother, brother to sister, sister to sister and among the in-laws also. How people refuse to make their monetary objects as purely monetary is enabled by their refuge behind the relation themselves. I argue that this refuge of invoking the blood relations to hide their economic importance is possible due to the ascendance of social roles, which cannot be counted in their material calculation. Another important concern which is true in case of these relations is that economy of a household is practically primary factor, which decides about the scale of vartan within core group of blood relatives and extended partners in the network. From the core group, taya, chacha, mamu, phuphi, khaala and in-laws of siblings are ideally immune from materialistic pretensions but cannot be taken as completely devoid of any material calculation in the relationship. How an economy determines the vartan of a poor family is understandable from the following case of a servant of Khadim Hussain Khan Dhuddi. Muhammad Amin Bhatti who works to take care the buffaloes of Khadim Hussain Khans shared with me that he settled most of his lain dain with his brother Ahmad Yar and his in-laws when Muhammad Amin married his son. Muhammad Amin replied to my question that how a brother counts his lain dain with his brother––adding that he was all mindful 168

to the fact that he had already given 13000 rupees to his brother on all of the different marriages of his brother's siblings (two sons and one daughter). When his brother paid him 6000 rupees in neondra, Muhammad Amin added that he declined to accept the money as it did not match what he had already given. Thus, his brother paid him 10000 with addition of 4000 in the evening and then he accepted it because it was easier now to settle the remining amount of three thousand rupees. Muhammad Amin summed up his account that money is not paid to settle the scores but to keep the relationship intact. Therefore, my extended argument in this case critically evaluates money paid in cash and the role of objects and their potential as messengers of symbolic value. For example, when changed “symbolic goods” recognized by Bourdieu as “two-faced reality, a commodity and a symbolic object” (Bourdieu 1985: 26) bring forth the deeper meanings of their potential as mere objects and parts of person (Mauss 1969). Now, finding a middle ground between economy of objects exchanged, which make vartan nevertheless depending upon objects purchased and mobilized among the individuals as parts of themselves, Bourdieu is absolutely relevant when he argues about commodities exchanged that “economic sanction may come to reinforce their cultural consecration”(Bourdieu 1985)

Now, I come to the economy of a household as a reality in family’s vartan. Nasir and Mielke pertinently argue that “the ability to exchange gifts is directly proportional to a household’s socio-economic status, social position within the biraderi, and, its influence among biraderi members”(Nasir and Mielke 2015). Likewise, people make rational choices when compelled to make proportional gift exchanges which are within the socio-economic range of choices. Giving someone is not one way flow of gift. As the gift is meant to be reciprocated, therefore, “the gift is challenge which honours the man to whom it is addressed, at the same time putting his point of honour (nif) to the test” because it also can mean to “insult a man incapable of riposting dishonours oneself”(Bourdieu 1977a). Bourdieu helps us to extend our analysis to local idioms about relationship between economic means at one’s disposal and the need to stay part of vartan by protecting and extending honour. For example, one of the most common axiom goes that chaadar dekh k paon phailana chahiay (Lit. one should always stretch legs as allowed by the limits of clothes). This axiom is not in reference to connotations of modesty or covering oneself, but its meaning is deep rooted in belief that if one spends more than the means at one’s disposal then it

169

may expose one economically. This serves as reminder to limits on people’s desire to extravagantly spend on marriages and keep oneself within means. The axiom also works for keeping the households of lower economic returns to stay part of the network of vartan even with their meagre material resources. Furthermore, the practical necessity for these arrangements is also due to the fact that there is no single zamindar or kammi biraderi, which has equal material resources at its disposal as household. In fact, to put it more specifically, there are no two brothers with their children who claim to have same material resources when their children have been married and thus constituting separate household. Therefore, people not only take good care to keep a balance between the urge to spend extravagantly but to keep the relationships within reciprocable range. There are some important exceptions to the otherwise well-defined rules of participation among the people and its economic base of reciprocity is bound not to follow i.e. among a brother and sister. Therefore, keeping in view the above given brief discussion of relationship between economy and vartan, I aim to employ Bourdieusian terminology. Bourdieu’s realization when he was compelled by the Algerian fellahin to understand their economic order “as a system of embodied beliefs”(Bourdieu 2000a), is also true in this case if we take the compelling need to remain engaged in vartan on the one hand and economic structure on the other hand.

5.6: Vartan among Equals

When I use the word equals, my expression naturally leads to some limited meanings attached to it. When we bring in our analysis of the marriages of people as equals then the sudden realization comes to mind that people who are equals must engage in competition when there is strong relationship between their marriages and money. An important exception lies in the understanding of equal when a zamindar stands as equal to shareeks from within and among the competitor zamindars. For example, Zia Ahmad Khan is a shareek for some of his wife’s maternal side but he also acts as an established patron and competing zamindar among his zamindar shareeks. Same goes for kammis also who can be facing the equals as shareeks at both the levels of within and outside. Now, when we understand the making of marriages and different activities in this regard then the competition also requires corresponding spending of money at all stages. However,

170

sometimes, the spending may be according to means but sometimes the spending is merely dictated by the urge which Bourdieu calls as strategies of honour. Bourdieu argues that “The strategies of honour which govern ordinary exchanges are not totally absent from the extra-ordinary exchanges of the marketplace”(Bourdieu 2000a). This similar strategy was employed by Zia Ahmad Khan when he married his eldest son Sohail Zia. As a matter of competition among his political competitors, he decided not to accept neondra at the marriage of his son. Despite the fact that his arrangements of the walima were not less than any of his equals, he out-performed all by stepping beyond all of them to achieve what no one else could do. This act of not accepting neondra constitutes an exception, which even those who are equals, render them unable to compete in vartan as the competitors. These strategies of honour may also be seen through the fundamental role of marriages in vartan as a social practice with their potential for host family to project herself and re-new the commitment to relations already established. This aim of marriage as mirror to family’s recognition is ensured by the fact that people follow some of the fundamental rules in this regard. For example, in the above referred marriage, Zia Ahmad Khan invited, received, and then served all the guests in a befitting manner which was due to him due to his standing as an elder of the area. This marriage surely is an exception, but the conversations after marriage were of specific concern. Most of the people considered this generous act of Zia Ahmad Khan, which had left his competitor zamindars and politicians as unable to compete. Particularly, Haji Ayub Khan Saldera a neighbouring zamindar (ex MPA) and Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti propped up time and again when it came to draw a comparison of the marriages of all three. This is how people understand not only standing of zamindars but their competition among equals is also selectively invoked depending upon geographic proximity or political rivalries. Now, I aim to present a routine marriage of Dhuddi family when the exception like not accepting neondra has not been followed. My aim is to highlight the importance of marriage when the rules like neondra acceptance are duly

171

observed. The following first page from neondra book of marriages of Sajid Mehmood Khan, Ghulam Mustafa Khan and Ghulam Murtaza Khan in May, 2009 presents a brief discussion of neondra.

Neondra book is the record-keeping book, which helps people reciprocate their relationship with people. The picture shows first page of the neondra book of the marriage of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. This same book is consulted time and again by the host family whenever they have an invitation from someone in their network of vartan. The reason to consult the book is to know how the invitee had paid the Dhuddi family when their marriage took place. If closely observed, one finds that writing and language of the neondra book is itself loaded with the structure of

Picture 5.4: Neondra Entries of Zamindar Marriage social order. Entries of this one page though random because as people leave the table and come to pay neondra their names are written without any clear categorization in this regard, yet page details the larger picture of invitees. The page from enlists political friends (last entry), neighbours (1st, 6th, 7th and 11th entries), biraderi members (8th entry), riaaya (2nd and 9th entries) and former dependents of the family (10th entry). Furthermore, the same book can also be helpful to assess the social standing of the host family because the mere act of attendance of the invited guests is central to the making of network of social relations at marriages. Second entry of the page is significant for understanding the relationship between equal and unequal because Hafiz Sikandar from Amin Kot was imam masjid and riaaya of Amin Kot zamindar family, therefore, he paid only symbolic 200 rupees. On the other hand, in the same book at same marriages an entry of Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatti, a closer friend of the family paid 2000 rupees in neondra because of the

172

earlier 1500 rupees paid by the Dhuddi family. Thus, people exchange their material calculations at marriages for the upkeep of their claimed positions.

Ideally, one’s marriage one is likely to reflect family’s claimed status and for this purpose another important concern remains that one should not be perceived either as a kanjoos (miser) or fazool kharch (wasteful spending person). The internal competition to spend on marriages more than one’s economic base is mostly followed on biraderi lines. For example, Salderas who are stretched to the eastern strip of the River Satluj are known in the area as larger zamindars and are divided in hundreds of lineages now. This sets in motion a fierce competition among the Salderas– – competing internally among themselves and then they compete against zamindars from other biraderies of the area. This has earned them insulting repute of their readiness to sell the land when it comes to arrange a marriage because those who do not have large tracts of land, feel compelled to compete against the larger landlords from their shareeka. In addition to this particular case, this rule applies to some other zamindars also, but I believe, Salderas are more famous due to the large scale of numerical strength and ownership of land. At practical level, people decide about the marriages as self-corroborative events which give practical support to their claims about social status and standing. Therefore, the role of zamindar biraderies as general do not incorporate all individual members as equals, but the competition is further limited only among those who have support from comparatively larger chunks of land ownership. On the other hand, those zamindar families who do not own land are least likely to be able to compete among the fellow biraderi members who have land ownership as important source of economic standing.

As referred above, people in general do not consider it an appropriate act if someone sells land, but the scale of disapproval of these acts further increases if the reason for selling the land is to invest in marriage. As a case in point, second marriage of Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti when he sold his 32 acres of fertile land is often referred at Amin Kot dera to downplay his standing as an influential of the area. Though I have not been able to interview the Chishti elder, but his marriage is often mocked by his opponents to show that he sold his elders land to place himself among his in-laws as equal to them. As narrated, the selling of land by Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti was dictated by the fact that he was marrying in one of the largest zamindar families of riasat (the state of Bahawalpur, which comprised almost all the current Bahawalpur division). As 173

the in-laws of Pir Muhammad Iqbal were far greater zamindars than his position as elder and zamindar of his area, therefore, Pir Muhammad Iqbal spent most of his money to build new dera, haveli and he hosted one of the largest walima of the time. Qamar Zaman Khan Dhuddi, the competitor zamindar of the Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti opined during one of the conversations that Chishties in general are shokhay (boastful) and always spend more than their means allow them. However, Qamar Zaman Khan also added that people find it compelling to spend more than their means if one is in competition against someone who is shareek and in an economically far advanced position.

These tensions are revealed in more pronounced way when someone from the zamindar families exposes oneself as kanjoos at marriage, where he/she is most likely to spend in most generous way. At the marriage of daughter of Haji Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti from a village 2.5 kilometre from the villages of the study demanded the people not to pay less than 1000 rupees in neondra because of his arrangements in one of the best marriage halls. Haji Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti considered it unworthy of the people if they do not take care of the fact that such lavish hosting of walima requires large amount of money from the host family. Therefore, he directed his son-in-law (husband of her elder daughter) who was writing the neondra not to accept from any one less than 1000 rupees. He also asked his son-in-law to send people back without accepting money from those who insist on their earlier lain dain as logic to pay less than 1000 rupees. Quite expectedly, this act of Haji Muhammad Iqbal was disapproved by his guests because no one is allowed to demand someone to pay according to the host’s wish. This act of demanding for the money was also lamented by most of his relatives and biraderi members who considered it unworthy demand of a father of bride. Some considered it inappropriate because spending more than the means is never demanded by the biraderi but no one wishes to be dictated in capacity of guests to pay according to the wish of host. To conclude, one with claims of status and recognition as strong zamindar is not excused if his/her marriages do not match with the claimed status. Above given debate has also aimed to highlight the role of shareeka within and among equals as competing zamindars.

174

5.7: Women Sphere in Vartan at Marriages and Gendered Relations

It is necessary to understand the construction of Punjabi womanhood before embarking upon the journey of ethnographic description on women’s role within their sphere. I am of the view that women have been specifically gendered according to the Punjabi colonial engineering (Malhotra 2002; Oldenburg 2002), which still persists in inheritance patterns among daughters (Nelson 2011; Holden and Chaudhary 2013). Nelson is aptly relevant when argues about efficacy of colonial structures of land ownership because “in effect they defined who owned what and, legally speaking who controlled whom (and how) throughout colonial Punjab” (Nelson, 2011: 22). This paves the way for our deeper understanding of Punjabi personhood, when women are burdened with notions of izzat and sharam by delegating their inheritance shares to father, brother(s) and sons. This also necessitates looking into the making of tabbar at the marriage who is to be represented by male member of the household, which is central to determine the gender relations both as an outcome and creator of the gendered practices. Through their persistence, these colonial practices equip the contemporary need to see the gender relations through their socio-cultural and economic performance in current marriages. Chopra helps in narrowing down the focus because “understanding women’s lives is incomplete without looking at their everyday locations within families that must, of necessity, include relations with men”(Chopra 2008). Therefore, the sphere of activities as being male and female is determined by the larger operative logic to allow particular set of activities as permissible for the women of the household. An interesting aspect is about the cultural acceptability or the mobility of women in rural Punjab. Mughal’s (2014b) analysis about the mobility in one of the villages in southern Punjab also notices similar trends. However, apart from generic limited mobility of the women, one important concern, which Mughal duly noted is that “most cultural restrictions on women’s mobility are age specific”(Mughal 2014b: 209). Similarly, we can understand the sphere of women’s role within three broader categories, which have the most significant role in this regard. The first factor, which plays the most important role in this regard is the relationship of the woman with the male member whose marriage is taking place. This section of debate does not suggest that the rules made in this regard are always applicable, but the exception in this regard also does not qualify for any significant alternative pattern. Secondly, age factor is important to understand the mobility of the women inside and

175

outside of the household. Thirdly, as we have already discussed broader category of zamindar and non-zamindar, there is marked difference of the activity of women due to their belonging to one certain category. My following discussion of gender roles at marriages remains attentive to the above given three factors in direct and indirect references.

It is necessary to understand the “concealment and revealment” (Alvi 2013) as strategies to maintain one’s izzat, which has to be recognised socially if it is to be established. As already debated, this similar rationality leads to choices of purdah (covering of face and body of a woman as the most general meaning of the term). These choices of purdah should also not be deemed only as mediated by the men. As women tend to become less mobile with the increasing economic capital, it suggests that we need to re-think what we accept as male dominated social-world. This was similarly echoed in one of my discussions with elder (60) woman of Qasaai family from Khokhran, who claimed that her son does not allow his wife to go out of the house without proper reason because he affords to fulfil her necessities within the four walls of the house. When I asked her about the marzi (wish) of the wife of her son, she referred to herself that no woman wants to go out and feel compelled to work if the husband is earning enough. It is this logic that people consider the world inside of the house as pure, one’s own and safe as compared to socially shared, and inappropriate place for women outside of the house. This basic understanding of space and the appropriation of same according to social standing is pivotal to the production of gender relations at marriages. This can also lead to choices of women which are mostly mis-conceived as imposed upon them. For example, the choice of women for veiling can be considered as her unbreakable ontological part. Anjum Alvi aptly posits that “veiling is a form of being, or a permanent ontological statement, inbuilt into every act”(A. Alvi 2013). Realizingly, the following discussion is at the crossroads of brief discussion about relationship between izzat and women mobility and the position of relatives and biraderi. This brief discussion about gender roles at marriages is deliberately limited to sphere of both genders at marriages, because when we discuss women in the making of personhood, it rests within broader discussion of personhood. Therefore, being woman does not entitle one to any specific role or favour in vartan but being woman and then having a recognised relation preferably as blood relative and then as neighbour, friend or daughter

176

of any of the above mentioned categories surely leads to specific relations. Though in a different context of Kabyle women, yet Bourdieu pertinently argues:

“the young Kabyle woman internalized the fundamental principles of the female 'art of living', of proper demeanour and deportment, inseparably corporeal and moral, by learning how to put on and wear the different clothing corresponding to her successive stages of life”(Bourdieu 1998).

My aim is also similar to what Bourdieu reminds us that women learn the art of living through proper conduct, which in the villages of my study is constructed normatively through invocation of being naik (pious), bakirdar (chaste) and sughharh (mannered in household chores). This similar repetitive, life-long normativity is central to non-male habitus (Bourdieu 1998). It is often remembered that perception of a household is actually in the hands of the elder woman of the house. As most of the simple tasks varying from taking care of the guests to receiving and calculating the objects exchanged between the parties are in the hands of the elder woman.

Marriages are in the names of males, but as a matter of common wisdom, people believe that all of the lain dain within the household is mainly in the hands of the lady of the house. As the spheres of the marriage ceremony are differently made in terms of gender roles, thus, the responsibilities are also subsequently assumed. How women ascend the ladder of their culmination of role as an independent woman itself starts from the marriage of the woman. Anjum Alvi’s argument that “freedom of movement” as an independent woman to start her vartan with fellow women “is the beginning of a lifelong network of complex and systematic interactions, continuously enhancing her social possibilities”(A. Alvi 2013). This assumption of role of a woman with complete responsibility of vartan serves as a touchstone of her own persona. If she is ready to assume the role of an independent lady of the house, her husband’s role is also necessary to initiate and then maintain his separate vartan with his wife as inheriting the role of her moth-in- law. Gradually, women become more powerful once their sons and daughters have grown up. This relationship between mother and her offspring is tacitly perceived by her husband, and by this extension to her in-laws as her culmination of the role of emerging strong woman. My analysis is not based here on specific evidence from case studies, but this is evident from the everyday

177

tensions between wife and husband. Generally, people perceive their wives as stronger women who must be consulted for the matches of their offspring, and this realization starts crystallizing when the children are growing up. As an important reminder, it does not mean that women have absolute freedom independent of their husbands, but they deliberately keep on hiding behind their husbands. Actualizing among fellahin, Bourdieu was convinced that “even when women do wield the real power, as is often the case in matrimonial matters, they can exercise it fully only on condition that they leave the appearance of power”(Bourdieu 1977a). This is also essential feature of Punjab’s kinship structure, when Anjum Alvi appositely argues against tendency to focus “on the difference between brother and sister” by ignoring what she considers “the substantive unity between them as a necessary precondition of differentiation”(A. Alvi 2007).

As the pictures from Sohail Zia Khan and Mazhar Nadeem’s marriages show only the male part of making of marriages, but I have tried to bring in the women as and when possible. Here I present a comparatively much detailed account of the of mehndi of Sohail Zia Khan mehndi took place inside haveli where women from the haveli were present. All the women either young and old from the haveli were present with some young women from riaaya households. All the women were shown respect and care except women from the riaaya and kammi houses because those women were themselves supposed to take care of guests. However, three phuphoes of the groom along with sisters-in-law of the Zia Ahmad Khan were given more importance because the sisters- in-law represented the houses of late elder brothers of Zia Ahmad Khan. Mother of Sohail Zia Khan paid 1000 rupees to the Nai lady and all three phuphoes paid 500 rupees each as vail of the mehndi. Likewise, wives of both tayas of Sohail Zia Khan also paid 500 rupees each to represent their elderly role. The Nai lady also asked the eldest sister of Sohail Zia Khan to pay her some vail, which incurred an advice from the youngest phupho of the groom that the sister of groom is herself quite young and the Nai lady should think before asking kids for the vail. As a matter of rule, one lady is expected to pay for the vail only if either she is married and runs her own independent house as a chain in the network of vartan. Almost all the ladies from kammi and riaaya households also paid the Nai lady with less amounts varying from 50 to 200 rupees with the exception of wife of Allah Rakha Mallah, who is driver of the groom’s father. The lady from Mallah house is also quite close to the mother of Sohail Zia Khan because former’s husband calls the mother of Sohail

178

Zia as her own mother. Therefore, in extension of this imagined relationship, wife of Allah Rakha paid 500 rupees to the Nai lady. The women who paid vail also symbolically put some mehndi on the leaf which was placed at the hand of Sohail Zia. All the young cousin ladies from haveli also put some mehndi at Sohail Zia’s hand but no one paid vail whose mother had already paid the vail. Likewise, the young ladies whose husbands do not have separate vartan also did not pay vail. As a matter of arrangement and the role of women as hosts of the function, sisters and mother of the groom were taking care of the guests. The eldest sister of the groom was the lady-in-charge who was taking care that everyone is properly treated according to the closeness of the relationship. Nevertheless, one of the most important sources of regulation of men and women relations in this case was similar to the general pattern of lacking inheritance of women. There is still no tradition of women inheritance in the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot (only two exceptions, when land inherited was significantly lower than the legal share), thus, all the women depended upon their sons, husbands and brothers for their spending at the marriage functions. Though women are mostly the holders of the money, yet the source of money is in the hands of the males of the haveli. Therefore, the role of women of the house is clearly marked as dependent upon their males, but the happening of function as an event rested with the women. So, this arrangement of marriage functions inside of the house serves no less important function than the male sphere of the activities of marriage. For example, if a woman is inappropriately treated, it can lead to similar complaints in the relationship as men severe their ties. My discussion of this one event of marriage is selective and intentional because my aim is limited only to presence of women as equal part of the vartan but in a somewhat regulated space in relation with men.

After the mehndi has taken place, women start their preparations for rukhsti of the dulhan if on the side of dulhan or walima if with the dulha’s side. Both the functions of rukhsti and walima have changed significantly for the women due to economic and social reasons. The pattern of change is visible from all the fundamental customs, which were earlier bedrock of women’s role at the marriages. For example, now the tradition of wikhaala has disappeared when all the items of dowry of the dulhan were properly displayed. The display also included an introduction of the items as belonging to all the relatives of the daughter of the house. The list of wikhaala items depended upon the family’s economic and social position. Likewise, the display was expected to

179

be representative of the claimed status. Wikhaala of daughter of a zamindar house used to be an event which was arranged outside of the house mainly by the males of the household, who purchased beds, sofa, dining table, crockery set, dining set and all the electric appliances of daily use. However, the eldest woman either mother or elder sister of the bride served as the host of the event. The timing of wikhaala was normally before the rukhsti taking place because most of the women were present at the moment or were called for by the leading lady of the household. When the wikhhala had taken place, the dulha was called in the house to accompany the dulhan for leaving her house. An important difference in the wikhaala of zamindar and non-zamindar families lied in the quantity and quality of the items. However, now the tradition of wikhaala has disappeared and the dowry is simply shifted to the house of dulha even before rukhsti of the dulhan. It is difficult for the people to give an exact answer when asked that what do they think was the reason which led to dissipation of the tradition––people would simply say because the tradition was useless and unwanted. Normally, people refer to all such traditions which once they have been practicing with complete zeal, as either un-Islamic or simply as fazool. I was present in the house of Zia Ahmad Khan when the dowry of his son, Sohial Zia Khan came from his dulhan’s home in Chishtiyan. When people from the riaaya households of Amin Kot were busy in unloading the bed, sofa, chairs, dining table and other items, wife of Zia Ahmad Khan was clearly concerned about the stuff of dowry. She was also discussing with one of her neighbouring lady in Burewala city about the easiness and avoiding pretension now in current times. She further shared with her guest that she still remembers her items of dowry, which were displayed at wikhaala and some ladies would always say unwanted things about the items regardless of the quality. In the meanwhile, when I reminded her about the loss of women’s share in one of the most important events of marriage, she unequivocally replied that marriage should be simple and there is no need for show off. These references by the same lady who spent lavishly for the jewellery and clothe of her daughter-in-law was only reflecting on much larger changes, which people see happening but cannot stop and then they resort to contradictory justifications. Indeed, the same lady would arrange the most lavish possible dowry allowed in the means of her husband when the time approaches to marry her three daughters because it is still regarded as the symbol of a woman’s wisdom if she arranges her daughter(s) dowry in the best manner. Now, when wikhaala has dissipated with impacts upon women, there is no such loss of men sphere of activities at marriages.

180

My intention from two above given specific events of marriage of a particular category is helpful in realizing that “competition for official power can be set up only between men, while women may enter into competition for power, which is by definition condemned to remain unofficial or even clandestine and occult”(Bourdieu 1977a).

Thus, the above given brief discussion helps us identify that there are important subtle transformations in the role of Punjabi women at their dealings of vartan and its resultant role in the conceptualization of womanhood. The above given discussion of wikhaala is particularly significant that the change in traditional patterns also leads to similar patterns of women’s dependence upon men for their unofficial role to be recognized by official sources of power––the men. I bring Bourdieu back in the analysis when we keep in sight the changing material and cultural values due to emerging gendered practices. Bourdieu alerts us that “each of the two genders is the product of the labour of diacritical construction, both theoretical and practical” which he argues is “socially differentiated from the opposite gender (in all the culturally pertinent respects), i.e. as a male, and therefore non female, habitus or as a female and therefore non-male habitus"(Bourdieu 1998). This non-male habitus which is historical production in Punjabi personhood’s context is ever present as strong feeling among the women of the household to be the decisive figure when it comes to decide about the match-making and dowry arrangements of the sons and daughters. However, the increasing monetisation is changing the gendered practices in many hidden and explicit ways mostly in the favour of males of the household.

5.8: Marriages of Zamindars and Kammis: Case study of Two Marriages

Introduction of village landscape shows the division between kammis and zamindars, who have sustained a system of seyp since long times till recent two decades back. Though there are many visible recent changes like moving of outside of the most of the traditional kammi castes, yet the gap between structural positions of zamindar and kammi are somewhat intact. The visibility of these positions of people are most clearly articulated at marriages of the respective categories of social status in the village structure. Just to mention the historical legacy of the seyp, we can rely on systematic discussion of somewhat geographically distant Pakhtun case as discussed by Barth (1981). Frederik Barth analyses the role of “creeping monetization of labour and land” where we

181

have seen “how the traditional organization of division of labour involved persons in comprehensive, unquantified functional roles in return for shares of the gross harvest”(Barth 1981). This same scheme of seyp is also mainstay of any ethnographic discussion about the social structure of rural Punjab (Ahmad 1977; H. Alvi 1995; Muhammad Azam Chaudhary 1999; S. M. Lyon 2004a; Eglar 2010). My brief reference to the seyp is just to keep the unequal positions in the analysis so that the historical positions of both categories are clear.

My analytical scheme for both marriages is not about activity-wise discussion of respective marriages, but I aim to present an integrated view of both the marriages as representative of respective positions. Firstly, I present two pictures, which I deliberately chose from the function of mehndi at marriage of Sohail Zia Khan from Amin Kot, son of Zia Ahmad Khan the main zamindar of the village. The function of mehndi took place at dera of Amin Kot inside the haveli where only women participated in the event. Main function of mehndi took place in the dera, and the function inside of haveli is not pretentious. I have not incorporated the pictures from inside of the haveli because women themselves and men of the village also do not want their women to be photographed. Inside haveli, women stood near the chair of dulha (groom) inside the haveli and the women placed one by one some mehndi at the right hand of dulha. Wife of family’s Nai stood by the right side of the dulha to receive vails from the relative women, women from close friends and some kammi women of the Amin Kot. After almost one and half hour, there was a mehndi brought in the form of group by some of the supporters of Sohail’s father Zia Ahmad Khan from Deewan Sahib, his political constituency. As the party approached dera there was lavish display of fireworks and singing with dancing. People started dancing in traditional Punjabi bhangra (Punjabi folk dance) style, which they carried on for quite some time. Then Zia Ahmad Khan came out of the room built for warming oneself and guests in winter days, and he asked the guests to stop music and dance now so that they can be served with sweets and tea. While the guests kept on dancing and were joined by some members of the riaaya also, Zia Ahmad Khan paid himself vails to the dholchi (drummer, locally known also as piraeen) of the coming party. Then Zia Ahmad Khan sent one of his nephews to bring Sohial Zia Khan to dera so that the guests can start the formal tradition of mehndi at dera.

182

Picture 5.5: Zamindar Dulha with Mamu Picture 5.6: Zamindar Dulha with Riaayas The mehndi of Sohail Zia Khan in above given picture was arranged at the dera of the family of the dulha. This place is designed and used for the purely male sphere of activities. This naturally led to the separation of marriage activities between the males and females because no one who is not compelled by the circumstances is ready to share the sphere of women’s presence with men. Therefore, from mehndi, to barat and preparations for walima all the necessary arrangements took place at dera. This brief discussion of mehndi through these pictures leads to larger differences according to claims of one’s greatness as khandaani or nasli zamindar

Now, I aim to extend the scope of our analysis to marriage of Mazhar Nadeem Musalli who was married to her mother’s sister’s daughter. Mazhar Nadeem works for Khadim Hussain Khan Dhuddi as ahis manager of land affairs and looks after the buffaloes of his zamindar patron. Mazhar Nadeem’s mehndi took place in his house and the barat also left from his house when all seven cars hired by Mzahar’s family and one by his friends from Amin Kot were also parked in the street and dera of Amin Kot. The following pictures would highlight the making of mehndi as a function which is managed within household and the moment when the barat is leaving for the house of dulhan.

183

Picture 5.7: Dulha from kammi family at Mehndi Picture 5.8: Dulha from Kammi family leaving for Barat The above given pictures from the mehndi and barat tell us about some of the minute differences, which ultimately lead to larger picture of marriages in the villages of the study. As first picture shows when the dulha is standing in his house and his cousin standing behind him is giving vails over his head, this makes an event which is shared among all men and women who have been invited. Presence of both the men and women in the same house also leads to difference of activities, which is beyond economic differences. Practically, a marriage is arranged according to one’s claims of the status, therefore, it leads to the similar arrangements of this marriage from Musalli family with no claims of elevated status. As a case in point, Faiz Ahmad Musalli at Amin Kot, married his eldest son Mazhar Nadeem and he spent more than what people expected him to be able to spend. Faiz Ahmad, who did not invite many people at the marriage of his younger son (whom he married earlier) Muhammad Azhar except his immediate relatives and in-laws. According to Mazhar Nadeem, his father was not happy at the marriage of his younger brother both due to financial hardships and the fact that Faiz Ahmad did not want the marriage of his younger son also to take among their nanke (mother’s side). Therefore, when it came to marriage of Mazhar Nadeem, Faiz Ahmad arranged many of the events with comparatively lavish spending according to the socially recognized standards of Musalli marriage. Mazhar Nadeem also shared that his father invited all the village fellows, biraderi, and friends for barat, walima, and all other important activities. Therefore, they (Mazhar’s house) received more than 60000 rupees in neondra which was four times higher than the amount of neondra received at the marriage of Muhammad Azhar.

My intention from the above given background of zamindar and kammi relations as a general layout of village structure was dictated by the need to understand the marriages of both 184

groups as representatives of respective category. Therefore, I present my case through a table, which debates both the groups of zamindar and non-zamindars where each group is in competition among equals also. The table highlights the relationship between claims of higher status of zamindars and its practical relevance in earlier times when role of land ownership was stronger than its current share in the socio-economic structure of the village. I have tried to show how marriage ceremonies have changed of both the zamindar and kammi biraderies over a period of three to four decades. First comparative table is based on different accounts and narrations of people when probed to reflect on earlier modes of marriages in the village. What I deduced from the age of people whom I talked with for ‘earlier marriages’ and their reference to aglay waqt or pehle waqt. Furthermore, the second table discusses about current marriages which are actually my reflections on the marriages, which I attended while doing fieldwork.

Figure 5.3 : Zamindar and Kammi Marriages Two Generations Back

Kammi Earlier Marriage Zamindar

Marriage Ceremony Muhammad Amin Khan Dhuddi Niaz Ahmad Julaha

Prepared by Nai, served to whole village as

rotti, and at walima or barat. Rotti with Prepared by Nai, served at walima. Rotti Food/Menu at beef curry and sweets made at home. All with beef curry and sweet rice cooked with Walima zamindar members of the family were milk. No zamindar served the guests but

present at the dera and only kammis young zamindar members (age fellow of the alongwith riaaya served the food to the groom) took care of the guests. guests. Mother of Muhammad Amin Khan with Dhiyan groom’s both phuphies paid money and Mother of Muhammad Yar Maachi paid total

(provision of clothe gave clothe to all the relative women who 6 relative women on her own side and her and money to the came from Havelian a village near husband’s. Two women from neighbouring guest women) Tehsil, and Kauranwala the peke of houses were given only dupattas. No woman groom’e mother. The money and clothes was gievn in money. Only the wife of nai were also given to all the kammi women among kammis was given one suit. working inside the house.

185

All the village fellows, biraderi members All the village fellows, relatives and biraderi (60 kilo metres radius) with only exception Invitees members (10-20 kilo metres radius) from the of ex-communicated ones. Socio-politically nearby areas. important individuals of the area.

Venu of Function Inside haveli and dera Inside house

Above given table shows that marriage of zamindar family and kammi family was clearly marked according to the claims of status and recognition. Muhammad Amin Khan who was first son of Haji Bahadur Khan and adopted son of Ghulam Muhammad Khan who did not have his own aulad till that time. Therefore, marriage of Muhammad Amin Khan was managed by the Dhuddi family with special care because it was the first marriage since the establishment of Amin Kot. Marriage of Muhammad Amin Khan is still remembered as one of the most lavish marriages of its time, when Ghulam Muhammad Khan was recognized elder of the area. The marriage took place for women inside of the house and for men dera served the purpose for most of the activities to cook, celebrate and host the male guests. On the other hand, women did not have the responsibility of cooking food for the days of marriage. Here the difference between marriages of zamindar and kammi members is also due to the fact that kammis could host their guests at dera but for the functions of marriage the house was to serve all the purposes of the marriage. It also made most of the marriage functions of kammi members as less gender-segregated functions. This separation of women from men is considered essential for someone’s claims about social standing. Resultantly, this also serves to reify the notions of izzat and sharam as nonenolizable only for the zamindars. Similarly, marriages of both zamindar and kammi are also marked by distinction of invitees. Muhammad Amin Khan’s marriage was attended by all the important zamindar families who were invited. Further, rotti (food meal per head of according to the numbers of persons) was sent to all the households and one elder from kammi family remembered the scene that when the rotti was being dispatched through kammi and riaaya men––there was line of the people who were taking the rotti to deliver to the receiving family. Understandably, such lavish spending is neither expected from a kammi family nor is possible for the kammi members to afford. Therefore, at marriage of Niaz Ahmad, no such rotti was sent to anyone except beef curry and chapati (a thin, unleavened round bread of wheat flour) sent to the haveli of Amin Kot. Further, the difference

186

between both the marriages is clearly visible from the patterns of dhiyan also where again the tradition easily out-performs the kammi marriages. People construct their narrative versions of these practices also when they refer to dhiyan as a tradition exclusive to zamindars because it represents one’s treatment of daughters of house. On the other hand, kammis also have tradition of dhiyan but the scale of their performance of the tradition is less pronounced and limited as compared to the zamindars. The difference between zamindar and kammi again might vary according to the importance of marriage within the respective household. For example, the mode and amount of dhiyan changes even at the marriages of two real brothers, but the difference between zamindar and kammi marriages is of scale and scope allowed by economic resources.

It takes me to brief discussion of contemporary marriages of zamindars and kammis to see both the continuity and change in positions and its translation into performance of the role.

The following table highlights some of the important customs and their arrangements among zamindar and kammi households of Amin Kot.

Figure 5.4: Current Marriages of Zamindar and Kammi

Current marriage Zamindar Kammi

Sohail Zia Khan Dhuddi Marriage ceremony Mazhar Nadeem (Musalli) Sheikh

Venue Haveli for women and dera for men Inside of the house Function of mehndi was arranged with food Function of mehndi arranged by mamu of for all Khans of Amin Kot, close friends of groom with food for 50-60 people. Food Food/Menu at Mehndi Mazhar Nadeem and relative women from served to 10-15 women inside the haveli distant areas who stayed in the house for and 40-45 male guests at dera barat Food prepared for 700-800 guests by the

professional cook at marriage hall in Food prepared by the Nai from nearby Food menu at Walima Burewala. Mutton, beef with kheer served village. Chicken and beef served with sweet cold and hot drinks by the waiters at the dish and cold drinks and green tea marriage hall

187

Beef curry with 10 chapaaties served to each house of Amin Kot and Raitiyan. No kammi and riaaya house was invited to No smabhaal. Only walima for whole Sambhaal walima because sambhaal was meant to village according to tradition among the replace their part in walima kammi families

Followed by zamindar biraderies with Dhiyan younger members mostly considering it Not followed by the kammi biraderies unnecessary

The above given table roughly shows that marriage as a public function has changed in some of its core values as compared to last table representing aglay waqt. For example, first time the walima of the zamindar family was arranged in a marriage hall in Burewala. This shift of venue was not liked by the elders from the zamindar family and kammis also, but the latter did not say anything publicly. Most of the festivities of marriage as zamindar and kammi have not changed from the marriage discussed in both the tables, but kammis are becoming increasingly self-reliant for their economic means. Earlier marriages were more community-oriented because of the long duration of stay of guests and resultant constant need of logistic and food supplies for the guests. This aspect of marriages made zamindars and kammis as mutually dependent. For example, when the guests started arriving at the marriage day of Muhammad Amin Khan, the host zamindar family asked their riaayas to provide them with charpaies for guests. This kind of mutual dependence has finished now because now the busier schedule (as people claim) with enhanced mobility for people, minimises the possibility to stay longer time-span among the hosts. This tendency of the people to appear always busy and limiting the shared time with hosts is complained by all irrespective of the marriage either of zamindar or kammi. Though the above given table shows that economic resources largely decide about the difference of marriages of zamindars and kammis, yet the kammis have begun spending more on the menu of walima, dowry for their daughters (as list of dowry items is increasing) and spending on mehndi is also increasing with the passage of time. Therefore, we can say that marriages of zamindars and kammis are reflective of the historical sensibilities, when economic dependence of kammis on zamindars is decreasing. This making of 188

marriages as symbolic embodiment of economic and social order is “the objective homogenizing of group or class habitus that results from homogeneity of conditions of existence is what enables practices to be objectively harmonized”(Bourdieu 1992). Class habitus, which results from homogeneity of conditions of existence is here indicative of separately homogenous categories i.e. zamindars and kammis. Thus, Bourdieu’s argument is aptly relevant to trace the objectively harmonized practices, which are mediated by the logic of reality faced within the respective categories.

5.9: Conclusion

This comparatively lengthy chapter provides me with the opportunity to discuss marriages as prime events in the daily life of the people where they express themselves, define their relationships and establish their claimed positions. My intention in this chapter also takes me to understand the larger picture of socio-economic changes in the villages of the study. When we see the changes in marriage events both in recent times and the earlier times, which people refer to as aglay waqt is the locus where transition in tradition takes place. Now, when consideration of the muqaam and shanakht are key properties of personhood in Punjab, I propose that these key properties also translate in relationships between persons. This is further helpful for our analysis about increasing materiality and monetization in domestic sphere when people bargain their position through exchanged objects as materially fused or as parts of oneself with their symbolic representational potential. However, I have remained careful to the fact that despite increasing materiality and monetization people do not reduce their socio-cultural practice of vartan as limited only to the ceremonial exchange. People incorporate zaati (personal), and insaani (humanly) orientation of the exchanged objects beyond their materiality. Now, looking at village as site of change in positions of people i.e. some kammis, I have focussed on the need for newer understanding of the positions of the people. This is particularly important at the marriages when they change and the ceremonies shift from one prescribed format of ritualistic format to another. This leads the people of the villages to recognise it as shifting positions of the people themselves whom they refer to as kammis, if jealous then as nau doltiye (newly wealthy). The mere fact of the changing rituals of marriages are themselves indicative of the multitude changes in the socio- temporal landscape. For example, women of the household realize and talk about their changing

189

role in marriages as a result of increasing monetization, which is again mainly in the hands of male the house. Despite many changes and shifts in marriages, their importance still remains established as nodes of relations for the people. Therefore, when marriages are becoming increasingly expensive in all spheres of their pretensions and arrangements, the corresponding means and their attainment is also equally compelling. The range of the shifts stretches from less reliance upon the zamindar to economic independence of the kammi families and it adds to relative independence of marriages of the kammis and riaaya families now. Last but not least important observation pertains to biraderi as one of the most important factors in the making of marriages, but I am of the view that people define their biraderi as increasingly limited to immediate relatives. I would also add that people consider their remotely ancestral link as endogamous biraderi as less influential and more impractical concern in their contemporary discussion. My last observation is based upon the remark made by Ijaz Ahmad Khan Dhuddi:

Biraderi waghaira pehle waqton ki bat ha, ab log sirf rishtaydaron tk mehdood hain kion k zamana badak gya ha aur ab pehle wali baten bhi badal rhi hain.

Biraderi etc is a matter of past days, and now people are limited only to their relatives (both affine and agnatic) because the times have changed and the earlier sensitivities (about relations) are changing.

190

Chapter No 6: Living by the Death: Sharing Dead, Bereavement, and Sorrow

6.1: Happening of Death at Amin Kot and Khokhran

On 27th November 2016, during my stay at Amin Kot, the death of Haji Falak Sher Khan Dhuddi was announced on loudspeaker of the mosque late in the night. The first elaan (public announcement mainly through mosque’s loudspeaker) was only to inform the people that Haji Falak Sher son of Khan Allah Yar Khan has died and elaan for his namaaze-e-janaaza (funeral prayer) would be made in the morning. Then, the second announcement was made in the morning after the fajar (morning prayer, which Muslims offer before the dawn) prayer had been offered. The second announcement gave clear time of namaaze-e-janaaza to be offered at 2:00 p.m. at the lawn of dera of Amin Kot. With the announcement of fautgi (death), all male members from the bereaved family and their riaaya of Amin Kot started gathering at the dera. Everybody was waiting for Zia Ahmad Khan who was on his way to Amin Kot from Burewala city. Zia Ahmad Khan had to give the time for janaaza because he decides all such events as head of the family. Zia Ahmad Khan arrived within 30 minutes when he had called his bhaanja (sister’s son), the eldest son of the deceased to consult him for timings and arrangements for the ghusl (last bath for Muslim dead persons before their funeral and burial) of the dead. Zia Ahmad Khan walked to Ali Ahmad Khan, the younger brother of the deceased and now the only surviving brother among the three, about his proposed time of janaaza at 2 p.m. after zuhr (second prayer the Muslims offer in the afternoon) prayer. The latter, as expected of him, told Zia Ahmad Khan to decide as he feels appropriate. Zia Ahmad Khan asked his eldest bhateeja Ijaz Ahmad Khan to send the people to nearby mosques so that elaan of death is properly made. Zia Ahmad Khan also asked his second son to call on cell phone of Qamar Zaman Khan, asking him when he would be arriving from Burewala with his family. Once all the members of the immediate family had gathered, Zia Ahmad Khan asked his driver to take one or two other persons from basti (meaning riaaya) to bring dariyaan (plural for dari, which is a large mat made of rough threads), which are spread on the floor and lawn of dera for the people to sit on. Then Zia Ahmad Khan also directed some members from his riaaya to arrange the food for the guests from distant places after janaaza. For this purpose, at least two to

191

three daigs (a large cauldron used to cook rice and curry at public events) were cooked of chicken curry with chapaaties to be served to the guests and all the members of the haveli.

After the proper announcements and messages to all the friends and biraderi members, Zia Ahmad Khan sat in the middle of the lawn where people started arriving. When there was some influential zamindar arriving, Zia Ahmad Khan used to call for the person to come and sit closer to him. So, till the time of janaaza, the circle around Zia Ahmad Khan had expanded quite big. Moreover, all the other male members of the family also sent messages to their friends about the time of janaaza and they also sat with their guests all waiting for the janaaza. Mostly, people from nearby areas reached quite close to the time of janaaza and left right after the offering of janaaza to come again for offering fateha (recitation of durud+sura-e-fateha+three times sura-e- Iklaas+durud to seek blessings for the deceased) in coming days. When janaaza had been offered and the prayer for the dead completed, people raised the charpoy with the deceased on it and walked briskly to the graveyard near mosque in Amin Kot. When the janaaza was being taken to grave, the head of the dead was kept in the direction of grave, and people walked briskly to bury the dead at the earliest after offering of janaaza. The dead is recognised as an amaanat of the Allah after the janaaza, and the undue wastage of time is avoided. When the dead had been brought to the grave, people gathered in two circles, which were not intentionally arranged, but appeared because of the closeness of the people to the dead. In the first circle were the sons, brother, cousins, son-in-law and nephews of the dead who stood around the grave along with the grave diggers and Imam masjid of Amin Kot for recitation of specific parts of Quran. Haji Falak Sher was buried next to Muhammad Amin Khan, his brother-in-law who was also his mother’s brother’s son. As mother (d 2006) of Haji Falak Sher and his younger brother Khan Muhammad Khan (d 1995) were buried in graveyard of Baba Haji Sher, thus he was buried to the closest relative in the new graveyard near Amin Kot mosque. The graveyard near mosque of Amin Kot was shifted when for the first time Haji Bahadar Khan was buried here because he was the one who established the village of Amin Kot and the family is also not happy from the condition of the graves of their loved ones in the graveyard of Baba Haji Sher. Therefore, now the family buries its dead in the new graveyard adjacent to the only mosque in Amin Kot. The grave of Haji Falak Sher is given below in the picture.

192

Picture 6.1: Graveyard in Amin Kot 6.2: Mosque of Amin Kot

When the dead had been buried, people prayed for the last time at the grave of the dead and imam masjid also recited some specific parts of the Quran. Thereafter, people came in large numbers for first three days and the largest gathering took place on third day when Qul khawani (the gathering on third day of the death for recitation of Quran and kalmas seeking blessings for the dead) was organized by the bereaving family. Qul khawani is referred mostly as qul, and it is necessary for the host family to announce the time of qul when the janaaza has been offered. Till one decade back, people only used to sit together at the given time, which was mostly in the noon, and recited Qur’an for seeking blessings of Allah so that the deceased is blessed. One who was unable to recite the Quran could recite simply kalma tayyeba (the first kalma to embrace Islam). Now, since last ten years, people spend less time for the recitation of sura-e-fateha and invite an Islamic scholar to deliver sermon, which is believed to be source of sawaab (reward from Allah) for the dead in after-life. Dhuddi family of Amin Kot always invites Maulvi Muhammad Yaseen who is one of the leading religious scholars in the rural area of Burewala tehsil. Maulvi Muhammad Yaseen is also former riaaya of the Dhuddies and his one sister is still riaaya at Amin Kot. After the sermon from Maulvi Muhammad Yaseen, the family served one-time meal of chicken curry, with chapaati and cocktail of fruit to almost all the 300-350 persons at the dera and 50-60 women inside the haveli. When the khatam (same as qul, but principally, the event may refer to third day of death, seventh day of death and fortieth day of death). had been offered, people started leaving for their houses and routine matters. The relative biraderi members from Havelian and Kauraanwala also left in the evening to come back again on seventh. When it came to condole the bereaved family from fourth to seven days, either very close people or those who were less close would came during these days. The reason for closest ones to come was their expected role as sharers of grief who stay in constant touch for first even days; however, the less close came due to the nature of 193

relationships, which allows the delayed arrival. Most of the people who came after third day gave a valid justification for not being able to condole the bereaved family at the earliest. Then came the khatam of seventh, which is mostly observed on the first jumairaat (Thursday) is similar to qul khawani at third day, but the scale of guests was limited only to close biraderi members and friends. However, after the khatam of seventh, the kirrha (sitting of people at ground on mats for a specific as days of mourning) was wrapped in the evening. After seventh, Dhuddi family stopped sitting at the grassy lawn and shifted to charpoy. Then the smallest function took place on the khatam of chalisvaan (fortieth), which puts to end all of the mourning activities. With this brief account of a death in the zamindar family, I intend to expand the analysis for general significance of death rituals. The above given narration of a zamindar family’s death is a case in point to help in locating much deeper meanings of death. The symbolic message of a death as an event is far beyond the scope of only one death as an event. This is also clear from the following discussion, which examines social structure to unpack larger picture by the death.

6.1.1: Death Between Closeness and Distance: Articulation of Relatives, Biraderi and Friends

It is essential to understand the social network of relationships before embarking on the passage towards ethnographic accounts of deaths in Khokhran and Amin Kot. For example, Dhuddies of Amin Kot use the term biraderi at their deaths and marriages, limited only to the distant relatives to whom the relationship of distant kinship is traced. They do not refer to their close circle of lineage, which is within the haveli as biraderi members because they are part of closest group and are believed as one family. So, the term biraderi refers here to some distant relationships, which points out again the closeness and distance as the primary factors while discussing relatives and biraderi. Normally, when the word biraderi is used, it refers to second tier of the relationships of the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot and they reside in Kauraanwala and Havelian. These both places refer to closely scattered households of the people who join the Dhuddies of Amin Kot three generations back. When the elaan of Haji Falak Sher Khan’s death had been made, his relatives from Kauraanwala and Havelian were the first to arrive at Amin Kot after the riaaya and kammis of the Dhuddi family. Men came directly to dera and the women went to haveli, which are opposed to each other in the middle of Amin Kot. After the relatives, people from Khokhran and neighbouring villages of Wahgah and Bhattiyan also started coming well before time of janaaza. 194

Most of the people who came from other biraderies were former sharecroppers of Dhuddi family or they were clients of Zia Ahmad Khan’s patronage. Some families, which are considered as closer friends like Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatti and son of Waryaam Khan Sahuka, who are themselves zamindars of the area also reached soon after the elaan. However, an important distinction lies in the fact that the zamindar friends did not bring their women at the earliest and the women reached only close to the time of janaaza and left soon after the janaaza. On the other hand, the women from relatives of Kauraanwala and Havelian stayed for two nights and departed after the qul khawani. Similarly, women from Dhuddi biraderi who are not relatives of the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot stayed longer in the house of the dead. When it came to participation of men, almost similar trend was followed by the relatives and biraderi members. The closer friends from the area who did not belong to the Dhuddi biraderi stayed for longer time than most of the guests to come, but surely their time to spend with the bereaved family was far shorter than the relatives and biraderi members present at the dera.

Similarly, the bereaved family did not call anyone at the sixth jumerat (Thursday of sixth week after death as the last day of formal mourning), and the planning was that only the members from the haveli would gather inside the haveli and the khatam would be offered by the imam masjid. However, pitrers (father's brother's son/daughter) from Kauraanwala came without proper invitation. The simple fact that the deceased was the eldest son of the male lineage of both his line and his sons of his both uncles who were living in Kauraanwala. This part of closeness is of special concern for the people when they think about someone as elder and then from paternal lineage, which is believed as one’s own lineage. Riaz Ahmed Khan, the most active and leading member from the lineage of the two other brothers of deceased’s father asked Abid Aleem Khan, the son- in-law of the deceased about the time of sixth jumerat. So, Riaz Ahmed Khan sent his bhabhi (brother’s wife) and behn (sister) to represent the woman part of family besides his personal presence for whole of the day. Apart from Riaz Ahmed Khan, all of the family from Amin Kot haveli was present. This tells us that the Dhuddi family defines its inner core within itself and then it opens to distant relatives known as biraderi at the deaths of family.

Now, I proceed to more generic analysis about role of biraderi at death events where we do not have the role of haveli as a core group like in the case of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot.

195

Though the role of biraderi at marriages has been given in the last chapter, yet my concern here demands first of all the distinction between role of biraderi as first residue of solace and strength at the moments of ultimate loss and grief. The internalization of these expectations about the role of biraderi is as deep as the people normally consider the overall social structure, which determines the contours of notions of izzat, sharam and haya etc. Though there may be some tensions when it comes to the sharing of dukh sukh (moments of sorrow and ease/joy) with village fellows, friends and even zamindar patron, yet this role, if not properly played at the deaths of biraderi members can lead from bad reputation to ostracization. The intensity and scale of measure depends upon the nature of violation of socially agreed code of conduct. Furthermore, the same playing of the role, if properly played, lends credibility to one’s recognition as man or woman of higher insaniyat (humanity). My use of the attribute insaniyat is borrowed from an elder member from Khiaoh biraderi from nearby village Wahgah. He shared with me the reason that why he was unable to play an active role at the marriage of Sohail Ahmad Dhuddi, his zamindar maalik (owner). The elder opined that he might have come to attend the marriage, but unlike today’s generation, which he considered as devoid of moral values and regard for rishtaydari, he decided to attend the marag of Muhammad Amin Khiaoh (referring to Amin Khiaoh's wife's death). The elder further added that he knew that Zia Ahmad Khan (father of Sohail Zia Khan) would also not mind if the elder did not come to attend the marriage. The elder equated the understanding of Zia Ahmad Khan with their mutual concern for rishteydars, which is the principle factor for the samajdar log (wise people) when they decide about someone’s standing as a responsible person. Interestingly, both Zia Ahmad Khan and the elder from Khiaoh biraderi are not at good terms with the Muhammad Amin Khiaoh whose wife had died. However, both the Khiaoh elder and Zia Ahmad Khan realized that it is more important to condole someone at the loss of one’s loved ones than sharing the moments of joy. This narration of one episode from a flowing social trend gives us the brief sketch about importance of both the death as an event and the role of biraderi as one’s immediate self and the presence of shareeka.

As already discussed in theoretical chapter about the increasing materialization of domestic and public spheres, the exchange or simple help through money at death rituals is also helpful to understand the role of biraderi at deaths. For example, when family of Amin Kot plays its role during vartan at marriages or death rituals then, family represented by Zia Ahmad Khan, always 196

pays the money through him. It is not a preferred course by anyone among whole of the 8 households of the family that someone starts acting as individual with his own separate vartan marking him as alehda (separated) from the family as collective unit. This was evident from the case when mother of Riaz Khan Dhuddi (Zia Ahmad Khan’s mother’s brother’s son) died, his cousins from Amin Kot paid him 10000 rupees. The money was paid as their contribution and Zia Ahmad Khan was the person who was handed money to pay to the head of bereaved family. This representational scheme involves all the four sons of Haji Bahadur Khan i.e. Sons of Muhammad Amin Khan, Sons of Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan, Zia Ahmad Khan himself, Qamar Zaman Khan and Haji Falak Sher Khan with his two brothers. It is also reflective of the making of personhood of some certain individuals, here the role of Zia Ahmad Khan as potentially faces of whole of family. Another interesting aspect in this regard is that role of family head is mainly recognised at the events of vartan because here people have to represent themselves according to their expected recognition of themselves. It leads to the establishment of one’s role as head of immediate family, head of lineage extending to the second generation of parents and as patron or influential person of the area.

My above given account of one death as an event is not limited to only the happening of an eventuality, or its role as an event which shapes the social relations of people. Instead of any limited significance of death I take “bereavement” as “complex, varied, and long lasting” (Rosaldo 1988: 429) by borrowing from Rosaldo’s realization as an ethnographer. Similarly, one of the most commonly used expressions of one’s dealings in social life at both Amin Kot and Khokhran goes as dukh sukh, meaning sorrow of death and gaiety of marriage. Like marriages, the deaths are also not limited only to the instant happening, but its flow stretches to the everyday life. However, as aim of the study dictates, the purpose is limited to decisive exploration of individual and collective references of the belonging of people with their dead ones. When I use the expression of ‘belonging’, it is carefully used because of its potential to equip us with the necessary scheme of analytics. Therefore, I find the people of both villages of my study as the ones who do not separate death from life because they define their living cosmos through their dead. To borrow from Hallam, Hockey and Howarth “death, as we shall see, is everywhere encoded in life and life is encoded in death in a complex, self-referential relationship”(Hallam, Hockey, and Howarth 2005:

197

10). Therefore, the following analysis is located in both the death as an event, and its preceding as well as following potentialities for the upkeep of social relations of the people. Apparently, there may seem to be some mismatch between both the role and importance of marriages and death rituals in Punjabi village’s vartan, but the following discussion would investigate their shared significance.

The difference of death as an event is not considered as separated from the rules and importance of vartan, but the conduct is itself differently regulated at deaths. Therefore, differentiation of death rituals from marriages goes beyond their emotionality to knit together personal emotions, socially shared bereavement and its religious legitimacy. Apart from emotionally personalised loss, when it comes to social order the death rituals primarily draw on rules of reciprocating one’s dead in order to seek the religious legitimacy for one’s own dead. It takes me to delve into the meanings of death for the people of both villages when they draw clear distinction between marriage and death. Indeed, both events are the paramount expression of emotional, personal and social being of someone, but the loss from death is considered as more defining one. There may be many reasons behind the establishment of death rituals as markedly significant event, but the breakup of the dead individual from collective being in Punjab’s context is one of the most significant moments in villages of study. I argue that meaning of the dead is not clear if one does not understand the shared personhood in Punjab’s context. Persuasively, Witz argues that “spatiotemporal orders shape our experience and thus subjective feel for history and place”(Wirtz 2016: 344). These temporalities and their spatial articulation of individual relations in Amin Kot and Khokhran are themselves articulated in and expressed through vartan. Therefore, death can be operationalized to understand the larger web of social relations where positions mediate, change, and define individuals and their shared beings as parts of families, and biraderies. Jennifer Hockey’s claim is pertinent when she argues that “death ritual has repeatedly been shown to encapsulate the cultural values or themes which are central to a particular society” and can be “most powerful expression when an individual member dies”(Hockey 1986:4 ). Now, if sharing of one’s personhood is central to Punjabi social order, then the death of Haji Falak Sher Khan is pivotal to the similar making of death with cultural value and it acts as most powerful expression. The potential of death as one of the most potent social expressions is visible when male members

198

despite all of their strength break up and the women intentionally resort to wailing and crying with undermining of the usual conduct both in dress and dignity.

The evidence for such death when mere acceptance of someone as being dead is not enough but acknowledgement must be about all of the socially practiced and religiously endorsed rituals. Settar also sums up his archaeological evidence that “rituals necessarily involved all these or the majority of these observances”(Settar 1989: 103), which were considered as temporally recognised. Thus, here death rituals are communicated by singular vernacular expression of marag, which literally refers to someone’s being dead but its local meanings are more diverse and rich. The very logic behind my usage of the term vartan instead of vartan bhanji is due to the similar urge to understand the broader logic of culmination of the role at death rituals or marriages as discussed in last chapter. This distinction is important for the people in their care for both the marriages and deaths in the social circle of everyday life. Abu-Lughod’s analysis about “the opposition between death and life” is appositely illustrative of structures of relations “between the ritualized verbal genres of funerals and the formulaic genres of celebrations is also enacted in a range of social practices”(Abu-Lughod 1993: 180). An important analogy for separating the death rituals and festivities of marriages is when we begin understanding the circle of relationships from the start of respective events. This separation of both events according to their cultural and social values for the people is at the heart of significance which gives death a particular role in the daily life of the people.

The very nature of the happening of the death as an eventuality is markedly different than arranged making of an event when marriage is to take place. This leads to very different emotional, social and religious ethos towards fautgi. An important marker of difference, which differentiates between death and marriage is the accelerated but hidden/disguised intensity of feelings. As death is considered the ultimate loss one can suffer except the loss of izzat, so, the role of death is paramount for the network of social relations in vartan. Likewise, death of a member of the community serves as mirror to understand many of these realities as potentially representative of the relations communicated through death rituals. Death itself has many roles and it is impossible to treat it as one mark on a time scale. Unless someone has died due to some accidental cause of death i.e. road accident or murder etc, the death does not commence with simple pronouncement 199

of someone as biologically dead. The sequence of the rituals, which are considered as important markers on the time scale have to be taken in holistic spirit of their practical role in society. Therefore, ethnographical account of a person who has died should be covering the becoming of ‘ill’––critically ill, and then leading to death, which results in social and ritualistic circle of one’s death as a social event. Further, people make it a recurrent and permanent theme of their social life when they bring in the reciprocal arrangements as essential feature of the ritualistic order of someone’s being ill, becoming dead and then the fautgi as post-death scheme of rituals.

Before proceeding to further discussion, it is necessary to make a little discussion about my meaning from the terms ritual and death events. Now, when I aim to discuss the death as an event, which encompasses the holistic conceptualization of personhood of both the living and dead, I bring in the primary difference between ritual and death as an event. If “ritual itself is defined by its formality and routine” (Rosaldo 1988:426), then the intention is again similar to the Rosaldo’s intention to take the deaths at villages as “actual event or a human process”(Rosaldo 1988: 426) in the daily life of the people of my study. Now, when death is discussed as an event in its scope as an event, I treat the death as an actual experience of human life, but when I refer to specific customs of people, it is formalized act practiced as ritual. This consideration of a social custom with religious legitimacy may be mis-construed as a ritualistic, but this is what people mostly define when they talk about these customs.

6.2: Religious Zeal and Social Rhythm of Deaths

Religion plays the most defining role in the death ceremonies as events full of collective representations. People follow the religious rites at death as conveyed by the ulema and maulvis. This sets the stage for our simultaneous understanding of fautgi as religiously fused event and social happening. It is religious in the sense that people in the villages start accepting death through invocation of the will of Allah as the ultimate force behind someone’s death. One is expected to recite the Arabic verse from Quran as the news reaches of death. The verse goes inna liLLah-e- wa-inna ilaeh-e raajeoon (indeed we all belong to Allah, and we have to return to Him). This very first news initiates a complete series of religious ceremonies which tend to subsume gradually into social customs. The initial compulsory ceremonies of death are believed to pave the way for

200

peaceful departure of the dead. The recitation of the Quran, provision of ghusl (washing the dead body to purify before burial) to dead, offering of janaaza, burial of dead with his/her face to Kaaba in the grave are some of the basic rights of a dead Muslim. Those who are loved ones of the dead must fulfil their obligation of praying for the dead. When the praying of dead continues for weeks the provision of food meal to the wife of imam masjid in the evening continues for years to come. This is important to realize that death keeps on growing emotionally stronger for first three days and then it starts losing its rigour, but the sorrow stays ever for the immediate family and closest friends. Now, there is need to treat the earlier strong days of death which are emotionally fused as culturally and socially more meaningful. On the other hand, the religious ethos and beliefs about the dead are more about the long-lasting dispositions as Muslims where an ever-lasting life starts after death. This leads to never-ending responsibilities, which one owes to loved ones when they are dead. Correspondingly, people give maulvi, the rotti (here rotti means two chapaaties, with curry and milk if available) for one person every night as part of meal reserved for their dead. It is believed that souls never die and this food is served to them in the heavens along their other heavenly food. This understanding of the dead as living somewhere else is also true in Tibetan understanding of the death. Childs argues that “death should not be feared, since it is not the ultimate cessation of life”, rather he is of the view that it “marks the commencement of one’s next existence” (Childs 2004: 142). So, a death is considered from this aspect about keeping intact the relationship with the loved ones who are dead. This is also reflected from the items of the food meal given to maulvi sahib’s wife for the khatam. If someone is not careful about the food menu then this entails a bad name among the relatives, biraderi and in the village. Furthermore, same spirit of association with the dead loved ones is shown with utmost sincerity in the first ten days of Muharram (the first month of Islamic calendar). It is established practice in both the villages that according to the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) people go to offer fateha and to clean the grave during these first ten days. Almost every male member would go to offer fateha at the graves of the grand-father, grand-mother, father, mother, brother, cousins, nephew/niece, and close friends who have died. Usually the married women are the ones who would clean the grave from shrubs, watering and keeping some green branches of date tree or spreading brown lentils known in the village as daal masoor. These are some of the traditions, which span from everyday practices to their annual routinized repetition with religious zeal in

201

personally emotional attachment. If we come to conclude the pattern of activities either in sequence or as the way in which they go, according to the notion of common sense by Geertz “they are depicted as inherent in the situation, intrinsic aspects of reality, the way things go” (Geertz 1983: 85). However, what entails in the wake of once formally declaring someone as dead is actually beginning of socialisation of the death as an event. Though there is no proclaimed timing like beginning, middle or end of the death as an event, yet it would also be wrong to assume that there is no temporality involved whatsoever. This is also important for the organized and systematic study of the event because of the potential, which death rituals unleash in the wake of elaan (announcement in mosques and at rickshaws) of someone as dead. Furthermore, if death rituals are taken as potentially capable of defining the network of social relations, then analysis must incorporate what remains beyond the emotional spectrum. It starts with the very first act of pronouncing someone as dead whose very nature is itself suggestive of the need to initiate the socialization of the dead. This mere act of announcement itself spirals into a chain of relationships where; firstly, it serves the responsibility of the bereaved family to let the mukaan aale (those who are within the network of sharing death bereavement); secondly to become on the receiving end of the event when the bereaving family becomes host. As the declaration constitutes an invitation in the tacit meanings of the elaan, thus those who are expected to perform their role as participants of the network of the relationship should fulfil their role.

In this case of our study, the main focus of religious emphasis is upon sectarian orientation, which is pre-dominantly barelvi sunni in both the villages of study. The only exception was an elder Lohar (blacksmith) Faiz Ahmad, who followed ahl-e-hadith school of fiqh (jurisprudence) and died four years back. The death of Faiz Ahmad was regretted by the people because Faiz Ahmad was remembered as the one who did not believe in dua due to his sectarian orientation who considered dua for a dead to be incommunicable with God. People regretted that Faiz’s conduct was inappropriate because his habit of not going to pay condolences to the bereaved families also did not allow people to condole his wife and son. Resultantly, Faiz Ahmad’s attitude was remembered more as stubbornness which did not allow the completion of standard measure of socialisation of a death. Therefore, this cultural aspect shared in religious is proposed as an “organic event” which is “added a complex mass of beliefs, emotions and activities which give it

202

its distinctive character”(Hertz 2004: 197). People in the villages consider death as a happening with more disguised but implicitly powerful cultural meaning than explicitly religious zeal where compromise is difficult. For example, people are more accommodative of unfulfilling of religious duties to dead, but they are least likely to forgive the social and cultural disrespect of the dead and themselves. As a case in point, people take it serious about the persons who should have come to offer janaaza but missed it than those who came but could not offer the janaaza. The latter are considered as equals to those who came and offered the janaaza unless the bereaved family is convinced the delayed arrival was intentional. This paves the way for our detailed analysis about religious zeal of death in mutual interaction with its historically rooted cultural order.

Importantly, people shape their religious zeal of the death as their greatest responsibility to the dead because the religious performances of death rituals are considered essential for the eternal peace of dead in the after-life. There is very strong relationship between the life of individual and the narrative which is constructed after the demise of the dead. People always sacralise the departing soul either one dies an accidental death or through a protracted illness. For example, when Muhammad Zafar Maachhi died in car accident, most of the people opined that it shows that Allah has been happy with Muhammad Zafar because he avoided any hardships of illness and agony for the family. People feel pity for the patient who remains ill for long time because the medical cure is mostly away from the reach of common man and the patient is also deemed as burden for the poor family. On the other hand, when Muhammad Amin Khan Dhuddi died after struggling for five years to recover fully from partial paralysis due to stroke, people said that Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) has ensured that one who struggles with illness is cleansed from the sins. These references to apparently contradictory approaches to death are in reality part of same logic of sacralising the dead. As death marks an important departure for the dead and the surviving loved ones, therefore, people always manage to relate the dead with blessings and rewards from Allah. So, people always weave some narrative to elevate the conduct and character of dead as an individual with many good qualities and little shortcomings. In addition to the sacralization of the dead at the time of one’s death is the persistent respectful attitude towards the dead. It is strongly recommended that one should not be remembered in bad words after the death. People are considered as witness to the life of their fellow beings and what they say about someone who is

203

dead is written as a witness both for the dead and the one who says. For example, during heated discussion at the grocery shop of Ali Ahmad Mochi (calls himself Chuhan now), when his mother abused the mother of her client, whose mother had died, the client asked her to be respectful to her mother who is no more in this world. During their heated exchange, Ali Ahmad also came out of his house, adjacent to the shop to ask his mother to behave as required of her age. Ali Ahmad, who is himself as quite short-tempered person was not happy at his mother’s reference to the client’s mother who died of cancer in 2009. Ali Ahmad’s intercession also lowered the tone of the client who told Ali Ahmad’s mother that she respects her like her own mother but would never bear that someone disrespects her mother. This constitutes one of the most serious disrespect, which one can endure if someone says inappropriate things about one’s dead loved ones. This is commonplace to hear the people when they argue about ending their ill-wills with their fellow shareeka members and village men after their death that now all the gilay shikway (complaints) have died with the dead. In addition to this, if we bring back the analysis of other-worldly consequences for the dead of people’s treatment at the time of death, then the reciprocal treatment of one’s own dead is also taken into account before speaking harsh about other’s dead. When someone does not pay respect to the dead person, he or she is considered as less God-fearing because this is most critical time when people are expected to appear as humble, polite and sensitive. Therefore, if someone marks an exception, and does not show the required respect to the dead persons, then it is bound to be reciprocated for one’s own ends. Usually, people are willing to forgive very serious offenses, but they are least willing to forgive the ill-treatment of their dead loved ones.

Religion plays the most important role in complete circle of death rituals, but its use is limited also in some respects as well. There are certain rituals, which are purely religious in their tone and tenor which begin with giving ghusl before offering janaza, to keep on reading Quran in the family and the continuation of fateha for coming days extending to weeks. One equally important aspect is also the presence of social sphere of all these rituals, which may ostensibly appear to be purely religious. However, the importance of questions and concerns about after-life remain separately important from their social and personal considerations as part of society. This takes us to stretch the analysis beyond Childs assessment of Buddhist philosophy about questions

204

of death and the after-life, which have “grown so large as to eclipse other important questions pertaining to the living”(Childs 2004: 143). This is not the case at the deaths in the villages of my study where people consider the death as pre-ordained and divine. While discussing about the same extent of attributing all aspects of life and death away from human-beings, I asked an elder from Wahgah biraderi that how people bring in the divine will when someone is killed and one goes to condole the bereaved family. The elder was quite clear that when it is about condoling the bereaving family, one would simply go and say as usual Allah da hukm (it is Allah’s will) and the bereaved family’s male members would reply according to the normal prescribed word of the jee maan lia (yes, we have accepted). The matter of revenge or settlement between the bereaved family and the murderer is destined to take its course afterwards, but the death once happened is always attributed to the will of God. The dead is considered as the voyageur to one’s ultimate destination to meet the Almighty Allah as consummation of a relationship between individual and his/her God.

Despite all these over-riding concerns for the status of dead and some contradictions in the social appropriation of death, the scale and nature of social circle around happening of death remains same when it comes to the customary exchanges of prayers for the dead and symbolic sharing of the sorrow of the bereaving family. Therefore, we can say that death with its multiple meanings for the bereaving family members, biraderi and friends is a stage in life when the nature of event stands similar. Apart from the sacralization of dead, people consider someone as a pious person who regularly prays namaz five times a day, observes Ramadan, and does not consume alcohol. Another very significant quality pertains to avoiding illicit sex relations with any woman outside the marriage, which establishes someone as recognisable pious person if coupled with religious observance of faraiz (plural for farz which refers to obligatory practices as a Muslim). However, these qualifications are easier to find among the women but rarely found among the men. If found among the men, then these qualities help the person acquire a repute far wider, but the conduct of death as a social event is again dictated by the similar logic of reciprocal relationships among the people. One such famous example relates to the death of Mian Shahra Bhatti, a sharecropper of Dhuddi family who died back in 1980s. He was known as a devout Muslim man with Sufi mystic powers of enhanced perseverance and potential to work hard as an honest sharecropper. People always showed him extra respect due to his assumedly super-natural

205

powers, which no one ever witnessed personally, but were nevertheless believed. Upon my queries about the janaaza of such a devout Muslim man, his son shared with me while discussing at their baithak that people respect religion only for dikhaawa (pretentious) and added that his father’s janaaza was offered only by the biraderi, Dhuddies of Amin Kot and friends of their father. Jaan Muhammad, son of Mian Shahra Bhatti was of the view that it does not matter how pious one is. Jaan Muhammad added that while referring to his family’s relations of vartan that people never forget to keep hisaab kitaab (calculation) unless one is dealing with one’s own pir. This helps us in understanding the relationship between religious legitimacy of one’s position as pious person differently from death rituals, which are markedly social in their importance and lead to ritualistic order. Therefore, people believe that one dies only when willed by God, but their sharing of the dead remains social and symbolic among them.

6.3: Dead to Define one’s Relations

Death in both Amin Kot and Khokhran make people articulate their emotional and religious relationship with the dead, and the social role of death as an event shapes a network of relationships among the people. The charged meanings of death in rural Punjab can also be understood from linguistic analysis of the vernacular terminology of the death. Death is called marag or fautgi as a happening in the villages of the study. People take the lore of death as a holistic ritual package where they do not refer to simple loss of one biological life. The term fautgi is itself characteristic of the nature of the relationships which either precede or proceed the befalling of death. Sometimes people would refer to fautgi as saadi fautgi (our death) or tuwaadi fautgi (your death) in the local dialect of Punjabi language, referring to their shared being with the dead or as separated from the dead. This paves way for further elaboration of the boundaries of oneself as shared or non-shared with kith and kin. Similarly, Bourdieu (1977) draws a parallel analysis of both the above referred properties through his official and non-official categories. When it comes to “the official set of those individuals” whom he considers as “amenable to definition by the same people to the same ancestor at the same level on the genealogical tree may constitute a practical group”(Bourdieu 1977: 39). Therefore, the referent as our death or your death is in line with the broader scheme of the deciding about the markers of possibly joining the official set of groups. Here in the villages of the study, people add to this Bourdieusian conceptualisation of practical group when they define

206

the imagined same ancestor as same (equal) people on the genealogical tree but interact in recognisable differentiation of status and rank. For example, keeping in view the role of the earlier arrangements at the death of Haji Falak Sher Khan, the zamindar family relies heavily on their riaaya and kammi members. Their relatives come to participate in the marag only as guests who share the dukh wala waqt (saddening time) of their zamindar brothers. As Dhuddies of Amin Kot are the largest land owning family in whole biraderi, therefore, they are not expected to extend their physical help when it comes to attend the death rituals of their relatives. Similarly, the Dhuddies are expected only to provide economic and social support to their riaaya and kammi who manage most of the arrangements at the deaths in the Dhuddi family. This mutual help is required by the Dhuddi family because being zamindars they are not expected to do the manual work themselves. Besides the help from riaaya or kammi in a position of zamindar, people are always ready to help their biraderi members, kammi and village fellows at deaths.

My following table helps us in understanding the general layout of a death rituals as they are participated by the relatives, biraderi, friends and neighbours who are the most important actors in death rituals.

Figure 6.1: Death and Circle of Relationships

207

This table is based upon my personal understanding of the contemporary deaths as social events and the way people discuss the aglay waqt when they talk about their mukaan, faetta (local expression for fateha). Firstly, the most important actor throughout the death rituals are relatives either immediate or distant. It is clearly marked that one’s participation tends to shrink in time and content as one shifts to distance from relationship with the dead. However, one qualifies only as good person if one pays the dead their appropriate importance when they are dead. The role for a relative starts even before the happening of death because the relatives are expected to inquire an ill person also. So, the relatives would remain close to the bereaving family from ghusl to the last khatam of chaleesvan. The relatives are also involved in digging of the grave, but an important exception pertains to the case of Dhuddies and Chishties who do not dig the graves of their loved ones themselves. The four persons who dig the grave are symbolically asked by the brother, father or uncle of the dead about the amount of their labour, which the grave diggers always waive in the name of Allah. Similarly, neighbours would remain present at most of the death rituals but they are less likely to be involved in digging of the grave because mostly grave digging is specific to the persons. Likewise, the neighbours may skip the cooking arrangements if they are not the house shared by an immediate relative or biraderi member. As I have already made it clear that here biraderi refers to the endogamous group where people are connected either through distant relations or by an imagined remote ancestor, therefore the level of biraderi is somewhat less important than the relatives. It is again similar to the trends of neighbours at death rituals because the concerns like purdah of women and shareeka come to play their roles. Then comes the role of friends who are most difficult category to conceptualize at death rituals because the friends may assume from core to least important relations. However, the friends of a common person are expected to belong to similar caste groups, who would play their desired role as responsible friends, but they are not expected to enter the house of dead. They would shoulder the dead to graveyard, but it happens rarely if the dead is woman. However, the friends as a general category are the largest number of the attendees at the death of an influential person because having friends is one of the key properties of personhood at Amin Kot and Khokhran. The last category of riaaya or kammi is selectively applicable to large zamindar families of Chishties and Dhuddies. This relationship is largely one way at death rituals when the kammis and riaaya are part of the most of the activities from sharing the bereavement through prayers to managing most of the tasks for

208

serving the guests. Due to the nature of tasks the kammis and riaaya attend almost all the steps given in table. Nevertheless, an important exception lies in the absence of reciprocal arrangements in this regard because zamindar would only attend the death rituals of kammis like the list of neighbours shows in the above given table.

The above given table and discussion takes me to the positioning of oneself either as on the side of the dead or the one who is not with the dead, which is of paramount importance for understanding the relationships weaving people together. Generally, people refer less to the dead him/herself but the family or biraderi of the dead is remembered more clearly while talking about condolences. If the bereaved family is herself known by one face of its representation i.e. Zia Ahmad Khan as representative of the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot, then people in distant areas would say that they are going to offer fateha to Dhuddies of Amin Kot or to offer dua-e-khair with Zia Ahmad Khan. Therefore, the dead must be understood within his/her own circle of relationship if the larger network of social relations through vartan is to be understood. It paves the way for an immediate proclamation of someone as dead to decipher the larger social milieu of death as happening. After the first formal announcement of death, as time passes, social and cultural importance of death grows more important for the people until it is too late to condole the bereaved family. People understand it quite clearly about what constitutes as too late to condole the bereaved family and it again comes back to the closeness of relationship. For example, when mother of brother-in-law (28) of a male member from Ajera biraderi from Khokhran could not reach within the first three days to condole the bereaving family where his sister was married. Husband of his sister (35) took it seriously and told his wife (30) that his brother’s absence has caused him embarrassment within his house and throughout the village. I was told by one of the members (52) from their relatives that wife told her husband that all her family (father, mother, younger sister) was present throughout the death, but her brother could not come because of his new job in Lahore. However, the bereaving husband reminded his wife not to expect any such closeness to her peke (mother’s side) from him now onwards. The man who shared it with me also added that these hard stances are only to the close relations which people consider as unbreakable and the same calculation is not applied to the less important friends and village fellows. The man continued that if one friend from nearby village does not come to condole within first three days, his careless

209

attitude would be reciprocated in similar manner. Therefore, people consciously define their expectations from the network of social relations about the intensity and timing of one’s participation in death rituals.

Another important concern remains for the people that they define the relationship between after-life and this-life through their dead because it also serves as a defining feature of the rural social order. It is pertinent to narrate one brief discussion between two brothers from kammi family of Khokhran at the kirrha of the elder brother’s wife, when one of the deceased woman’s cousins came to condole the bereaved family. As the man got off from his motor cycle, the younger brother stood up to leave the kirrha because he did not want to meet the person. However, the elder brother asked him to sit down properly because all the disagreements have to stop once someone has come to pay condolences. In the beginning of the day I did not know the reason for such behaviour on the part of the younger brother, but I was told later by the elder brother himself that the man’s father had infringed upon the honour of their family (eloping with their father’s sister). The widower was of the view that though his qasoor (crime) was surely of grave nature, but the timing of his arrival was also equally important. I observed that the man who came to condole the bereaved family, offered only fateha and did not say ‘Allah da hukam’ to any person in specific because the adage is always directed to one specific person by calling his name or facing him clearly. The man who came to pay his condolences remained quiet for some time and then left after 20-30 minutes without being served tea. When the man was about to leave, he asked all the men present to pray for the deceased again, and when he finished his prayer then the host asked him to wait for the tea, which the guest simply declined and left. As procedure of protocol required, the guest was supposed to be asked and served tea after he arrived and had made himself comfortable. Importantly, both the guest and host knew that the offer was not meant to be materialized Furthermore, the most important aspect in this regard was that despite hostilities of serious nature, people consider death as an ultimate loss to the bereaved family and therefore, one’s presence is required. On the other hand, the host family realizes that the attendance of the guest does not guarantee that relationship as a whole can be revived, but one comes to remember the dead as shared loss.

210

Death is remembered by people not merely for the sake of remembering their deceased ones. What people remember beyond grief and sorrow is their memory of the social time shared and lived as members of the community. Metcalf and Huntington pertinently argue that “death throws into relief the most important cultural values by which people live their lives and evaluate their experiences” and they further add that “fundamental social and cultural values are revealed” (Metcalf and Huntington 1979: 2). Therefore, the happening and passing of death as an event which takes place in a socio-temporal landscape is reflective of the religious, cultural, economic and social significance of the death itself. To be more specific, the primary focus of the complete circle of death rituals is pre-dominantly dictated by religious ethos required as of good Muslims. When the cultural logic of fears according to religious understanding of death for the dead are taken into account, people make an interesting case where they express both fear and hope for the dead’s afterlife. Consequently, this creates a harmonic milieu where “a society’s culture may offer explanations of death that either repress or encourage fears about death according to the needs of the society”(Moore and Williamson 2003: 4). Therefore, theological connotations and socio- cultural values are simultaneously important for the people. It leads people to experience the death of their loved ones as one of the most defining moments in life. People at Amin Kot and Khokhran also weave complete narratives about one specific death as marker of one of the most important times of life. When I asked Qamar Zaman Khan who was smoking huqqa at his dera in Amin Kot to narrate the death of his Uncle Ghulam Muhammad Khan, as one event which was of the most important person of the family. Qamar Zaman Khan was of the view that such events are the essence of life because they change complete course of life. Qamar Zaman Khan’s reference to potentially life changing course in the wake of death of Ghulam Muhammad Khan was due to the personality of the deceased. The deceased was the person who established the family as strong zamindar family of the area. The moment Ghulam Muhammad Khan died, his in-laws occupied the land, which was half of the total land owned by the Dhuddi family. Though the Dhuddi family took the land back from the brothers-in-law of Ghulam Muhammad Khan through the emerging role of Zia Ahmad Khan as the patron-to-be, yet the death led to one of the most tough times in memory of the family. Another important factor which brought disrespect to the family was that wife of the deceased (now mother-in-law of both Zia Ahmad Khan and Qamar Zaman Khan) also went to court for seeking government help to get the possession of the land. Keeping in view all

211

the suffering and damage to social standing of the family due to death of his uncle, Qamar Zaman Khan was of the view that all these factors lead to the contextual making of one specific death. In addition to the personal position of Ghulam Muhammad Khan as the elder of the area, the immediate aftermath also made the death of Ghulam Muhammad Khan as an event, which shaped memory of family’s ties with friends and foes. Therefore, it is right to claim that “both the story of the death itself and our changed relationship to the deceased” are to large extent “personally narrated, socially shared, and expressed in compliance with or contradiction to widely varying communal rules”(Neimeyer, Klass, and Dennis 2014: 486). Thus, this background of individuals within the purview of Punjabi personhood also shapes the narrative and making of death as a social, religious and personal happening for the people.

6.4: Death, Dua and Dead: Sharing each other’s Dead

Different cultures perceive death differently and sometimes it is identified as a “processual, cyclical or stage-like”(Robben 2004: 4) affair. Death as an event is observed within religious ethos sophistication of emotions, carefulness of position and standing of the family of dead. This leads to processual assessment of death, which is reciprocated among the bereaving loved ones who need to engage in social network of the relationships. When I use the expression ‘need to engage’, my intention for this expression is borrowed from listening to the mother of Farooq Ahmad Khan Dhuddi, who asked her son to go for the condolences to Siyaals of nearby Chak no 41/KB. Siyaals have been one of the closest families to the Dhuddies of Amin Kot and their forefathers have been maintaining relationship client and sharecropper with the Dhuddi family since last three generations. Keeping in view the history of relationship, the lady advised her son not to miss the qul khawani of the dead woman because if one goes to elevate one’s status by participating in some one’s fautgi, it elevates (implying reciprocity) the status of one’s own dead. During discussion Farooq Ahmad Khan mentioned to his mother that he has already offered the janaaza and now he would go the next day from qul. His mother reminded him that Siyaals are so close to their family and Farooq should not miss the qul because the relationship demands that all the stages of death rituals must not be missed. Here we can find not only the references to closeness of the relationship, but it also defines the stages, which are recognized as processual culmination of deaths. Another important reference in the above given account is the unceasing reciprocity to play 212

defining role in the making of relationship between two persons or their families. Ahmed’s analysis of “gham-khadi” among Pashtuns is relevant when she argues that it “comprises a body of ideas and practices of life, in which happiness and sadness are understood as insoluble and are celebrated communally within networks of reciprocal social obligations” (Ahmed 2006: 2). Similarly, this is evident from the above given account where a zamindar family’s woman reminds her son of the need to engage in a network of mutual relations with fellow people. If one keeps on missing the dead rituals of fellow biraderi members, and friends, then it is feared that one day there would be no one to share the burden of their loved ones when they are dead. Therefore, people define their relationships according to the shared importance and it regulates their sharing of each other’s dead.

When it comes to participate in death rituals, people are aware of the fact that all deaths are not equal in terms of the loss and grief to the bereaved family. The sorrow and grief of the dead depends upon who has died and what is the position of the members of bereaved family. Though the sorrow and fear upon death may be prevalent among all the cultures, but in Punjab’s social order the same is considerate of the position of not only the dead, but that also of the lineage or biraderi. Keeping in view what people consider as determinant for the concerns to lead to specific expression of the sorrow, it reveals the underlying notions of Punjabi personhood. Similar, to people in Tibet who feel equally distressful when some young man has died and it leads to different forms of sorrow depending upon the age of dead (Childs 2004). As a case in point, Mian Jagan Wahgah (26) a landless, sole bread earner for his wife, mother and young brother, known as a siddha aadmi (straightforward person, who is not aware of cleverness) died of a protracted illness after almost one year of his marriage to his cousin. As neither the family nor Mian Jagan himself occupied an important position in the area, thus his janaaza was not larger in number than the janaaza of third infant son of Khadim Hussain Khan Dhuddi. I was reminded of the unequal deaths and of people through this comparison by one of the neighbours of Mian Jagan. Khadim Hussian Khan who is himself not quite active in the area despite the fact that he is the largest land owner in whole mauza, but he occupies important position for the people due to his land ownership and the important position of his family. Tellingly, death acts not as an independent event which is representative of sorrow and grief according to the loss of the bereaved family, but it is largely informed by the social positions of the people. There Bourdieu again helps us in navigating the

213

relationship between “strictly economic logic” which he opines “is not independent of the logic of the social relations in which it is immersed, or embedded”(Bourdieu 2000: 20). It is also relevant in our case because the main reason for the people to attend the janaaza of humanly less important child against the loss of a family, which is so grave for them is embedded in socially defined code of importance.

The moment of death and reaching of the news stands as a thick moment in the memory of the people. People remember not only the time of death, the activity they were doing, the circumstances they were in, they also share the internal emotional and psychological pain felt in the wake of the news. If asked about their instant experiential condition at the death of their loved ones, people mostly attribute death to the divine will and then naturalization of grief takes the subsequent importance. Yang, aptly reminds that “grief and fear are not the only reactions to death, but they are now regarded as natural”(Yang 2011: 234). Therefore, I extend this analysis of inherent potential of death to disrupt normal course of life, and consequently “thickening of symbolic webs of meaning” (Rosaldo 1993: 2). Likewise, people have socially recognized rules about the conduct of a death as it unfolds and gradually they experience a thickening of the moment. The code of conduct involves admonitions as well as endorsements of certain actions and roles. For example, people of the village would not cook till the janaaza has been offered and would remain present at the mataam (interchangeable with the word kirrha) till people keep on coming for condolences. The timing of people to continue coming for condolence to the bereaved family is itself indicative of both the nature of relationship and the positions of the people. One affords to come late only if the news has not reached or the other plain fact remains that relationship is deemed of less importance as compared with those who arrived before them. The mere fact that someone has been late is both an act of settling the score in terms of paying one what is due or declaring that relationship is no more regarded as important enough to be the earliest of the mourners. What makes the exception is that sometimes it is not possible for some people to reach to all the people at appropriate time even though they have heard the news. This can be accepted only if there is genuine reason either accruing from the busy schedule or through the fact that someone’s social position makes one too busy to be present at all such gatherings. For example, Zia Ahmad Khan and Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti remain busy in their engagements about the politics of the area and the resultant role as patrons of the area. Now, if one has gradually become 214

patron then it demands both the need to remain attentive to the khushi ghami of the area and managing in the busy schedule to be visible in all such social events. However, the simple fact that someone is too busy does not give one the reason to overlook the required importance of the relationship, which demands one’s attention. Zia Ahmad Khan and Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti are always busy in the area for remaining part of the death rituals because not only the political patronage but the role as part of khushi ghami of the people is primary to one’s standing in the area.

Special relationships demand special care for keeping those relationships alive. Similarly, there is very strong and active relationship between Dhuddi family of Amin Kot and family of Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatt from mauza Bhattiyan. Both the families are well-known in the area and take special care while dealing in the matters of vartan. For example, at all the deaths of Dhuddi family since 1985, Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatti from nearby mauza Bahttiyan comes in person before the janaaza, would keep on coming for first three days and then at khatam of seventh if invited. If Nazir Ahmad Khan is busy himself or cannot come in person, then his brother would come. Furthermore, Nazir Ahmad Khan’s mother with one of her daughters would also come to condole the women of the Dhuddi family. I witnessed the reciprocity of the family of the Dhuddi family to Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatti’s family at the death of Nazir Ahmad Khan’s first wife, who died when I was in the villages for the last stretch of my fieldwork. Ghulam Mustafa Khan Dhuddi, called his chacha Zia Ahmad Khan Dhuddi to convey to him the news of the death of Nazir Ahmad Khan’s wife. Zia Ahmad Khan advised his bhateeja Ghulam Mustafa that he should take his mother, one of his phuphies and take one of his male cousins with him to go to the bereaved family. Ghulam Mustafa Khan left with his sister because his mother was not feeling well at that time and with his youngest phupho. Later on, all of the households of the haveli were represented by one male member from each household at the janaaza due to the closeness of Nazir Ahmad Khan to whole of the family. Zia Ahmad Khan reached himself well before time of the janaaza and asked one of his younger bhateeja to go with the dead body to the graveyard because Ghulam Mustafa had to take his sister and phuphi back to home. Zia Ahmad Khan also kept on going to condole the family for three days. He was also joined by his younger brother Qama Zaman Khan Dhuddi who went with his two nephews at the qul khawani because Zia Ahmad Khan had to go to Multan for some matter in Multan High Court. However, when Zia Ahmad Khan was back from Multan, he 215

also went in person in the evening because the closest ones are least likely to miss the third day. Before leaving for qul khawani, Qamar Zaman Khan took two of his bhateejas to accompany him because Nazir Ahmad Khan Bhatti’s family had special relationship with the Dhuddi family and the more numbers would show enhanced closeness between the families. Qamar Zaman Khan reminded one of his bhateeja who also accompanied him that Nazir Ahmad Khan came in person for all first three days despite his serious illness to condole their family when Muhammad Amin Khan died. Qamar Zaman Khan also remembered that Nazir Ahmad Khan was not even in position to sit among the people and he slept for almost all day in the guest room of the dera but refused to leave before evening. Therefore, people are quite concerned to keep their scale of sharing the deaths of relatives, biraderi members and friends as share the commitment to their relationship.

This above given account of sharing of each other’s dead members among two families is also helpful to understand how people prefer to remember each other in familial capacities. This also suggests that individuals are referred only if they represent their family and lineage. Therefore, the terminologies and language of collective representations must be clearly understood. I still remember my sitting with Zia Ahmad Khan at the death of Haji Falak Sher Khan dhuddi. There were two persons from Jamlera zamindar family, who could not come at the earliest after the death. The first thing most likely to be said in such situation after offering fateha is the complaint of the guests that they were not properly informed. Likewise, the above referred guests also protested this improper behavior on the part of the family in general but Zia Ahmad Khan in particular. The concern of the guests was that they felt humiliated that they had to hear about the news of death at Amin Kot by some people who were talking at Jamlera adda. The feeling of the guests was due to two most important reasons, which express the underlying logic of importance of relationship. First, people are expected to reach at the earliest after the death has been appropriately announced. Secondly, people expect to be communicated properly as it shows that the bereaved family waits their presence at the time of distress and loss. Time is one of the most important aspects at deaths in terms of evaluating the nature of closeness of the relationship between the parties involved. Thus, people help their fellows share their moments of ultimate loss of a loved one, but the sharing is itself directed and calculated. I argue that this calculated participation of people in their shared khushi ghami is helpful to identify what people in the villages of the study call saada fautgi and

216

tuwaadi fautgi. When the death is appropriated as one’s own and that of others, it leads to sharing of dead, their dua and dukh as part of the social being of both the dead and bereaving.

6.5: Gendered Spaces and Death Rituals: Women at the Crossroads of Religious Legitimacy and Social Practices

Death rituals define different spheres of activities for both men and women. The difference further lies in the legitimacy derived from religious and cultural interpretations of respective normative codes. The impact of both the factors is deeply ingrained like a complete universe of recognized legitimate performance of both. The beliefs also lie in the fundamental distinction between being male or female, and it leads to the enactment of sorrow and bereavement within the gendered spheres. For example, one of the basic properties of death rituals is the showing of sorrow or grief, which again comes back to the normative conduct as required in the propagation of gender roles. Charles Lindholm appositely maintains that “men are forbidden by custom to show any grief” (Lindholm 1982: 156), while women are more tuned as potential wailing agents of death. This becomes further established if the analysis is derived in a schematic way. Therefore, if we see the happening of death as a setting of stage for set of different activities according to respective genders, we come to realize that women are ideally supposed not to go out of the house unless warranted by serious need. This apparent one aspect of women life-world is suggestive of the larger cosmology because the deaths are time of the most severe emotional breakdown and if the women do not cross normal boundaries in these highly abnormal, chaotic times then it is extremely unlikely that it would happen in normal course of life. As a matter of further precision, it was evident at the death of Zafar Ahmad Khan Dhuddi’s wife, when all the women who had gathered inside of the house of the deceased’s brother. After some moments of intense wailing and crying, the women were asked by the elder brother of the deceased that now the women should be patient and stop wailing because men have started coming in the baithak. This one reference to the reaching of guests in the baithak is reflective of similar trends when women are not only to stay within the four walls of the household, but their voice is also not to be heard outside of the house. Soon after the request of elder brother of the deceased, women started lowering their voice and one niece of the deceased asked other ladies to do ablution for the recitation of the Quran. Once the recitation of the Quran started, the traditional wailing and ululation translated into sobbing with

217

frequent cries from the elder sister-in-law of the deceased. This account of one case is lacking in detailed discussion because here my focus is limited to the organized discussion of gender roles and the way they are articulated. This discussion is at the crossroads of patriarchal landscape, which is culturally bonded with some mythological references. The following discussion would also highlight the socio-economic cleavages according to structured positions of biraderies and families.

The role of women at death events is largely determined by religious creeds, mainly informed by the folk religion, which derives its legitimacy through interpretation of clerics and pirs from Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Similalrly, the conduct of women at death rituals is required to remain within the boundaries of sharia. In order to give a generic picture of death and the role of women in this regard, I give the example of Mian Muhammad Shafi (65) from Qasaai family in Amin Kot. Mian Muhammad Shafi who died due to lingering weakness and nameless (family did not know believe he was ill) sickness was a part-time imam masjid at the nearby adda mosque. When I heard the elaan of the death while coming back from Burewala about the death of Mian Muhammad Shafi, I could see the saddening environment at the dera and was asked by the elder cousin to accompany to the house of deceased. I saw in the house that dead body of Mian Muhammad Shafi (d 2017) was placed among women and wrapped in the sheets ingrained with four Qulls (last three sura’s and Sura kaafiroon of Quran) and pictorial prints of Kaaba (house of God and the mosque to which Muslims turn their faces while offering prayer) and Roza-e-Rasool (the burial place of the Prophet of Muslims called also Mosque of Prophet). The dead body was placed in the eastern side of the house and the male members were sitting on the western side of the house. The dead body of the deceased was eliciting the most explicit wailing by his youngest daughter Z. The daughter of the deceased was wailing with her full voice when her maternal uncle asked the elder son of the deceased to prepare the dead for ghusl, so that the janaaza could be offered timely. As the two brothers stood up along with their maternal uncle to take the dead for ghusl, the ladies started mourning in a unison realizing that the dead body would be taken away from them forever. The youngest daughter of the deceased who was just divorced held one leg of the charpoy and began asking her father whom she was calling as babul (an Arabic word which is rarely invoked to refer to father or brother upon their death as loved ones) to stand up (become alive) because he was the one for whom she was in the house. Then as 218

the three men reached closer to the charpoy, another cousin of the deceased approached them and the maternal uncle of the wailing lady first embraced her and asked her to be patient because wailing is haram (unlawful) in Islam. The man who is himself a well-known maulvi of the area asked the widow, her daughters, nieces and other women from Amin Kot and Wahgah basti to stop wailing now, because it is cause of pain for the dead according to religious edicts. Listening upon this, the eldest daughter of the deceased asked her daughter to bring the beads so that women can read kalma and durud. It was markedly different environment when women started reciting quietly and there was no wailing. The wailing of women tends to increase when the time to take the dead for janaaza approaches because these are last moments of the dead with the women of the house. As women are not allowed to offer namaz-e-janaaza, therefore, they know that once taken out of the house the dead body would be taken to grave for burial. Similarly, when dead body of Mian Muhammad Shafi was taken to the dera of Amin Kot for offering of namaz-e- janaaza, the widow, her daughters, the dead’s step sister and other relative women started crying loudly. While crying loudly they also started giving way to the males who were standing next to four legs of the charpoy. Once taken out of the house, the women shifted their focus more devoutly to recitation and zikr till the people came back from burial after janaaza. This takes us to more generic and religio-cultural milieu of the death rituals when women are directly influenced as actors in the whole event.

The most important religious role is assumed by the widow of the dead who has to observe iddah (a period of wait to solemn the nikah again, which is three months for the woman who is not pregnant and the one who is pregnant has to wait till delivery of the child). The religious injunctions in this regard are observed most commonly when it comes to the commandments about nikah, but the social decrees about purdah and not showing oneself needlessly are less followed. The transgression of the social sphere is also not seriously reprimanded. Similarly, after the death of Mian Muhammad Shafi, his wife did not observe the complete iddah and she even used to visit the nearby houses with a lowered corner of her dupatta to cover the forehead and upper side of her face known in the villages as ghund. The observance of iddah becomes strict for younger widows according to their less likelihood of showing themselves. Apart from iddah, some other importantly marked differences in men and women as actors at death rituals also pertain to the ghusl and patterns of grave digging. When man dies, he can be given ghusl only by male members 219

who wash the dead body at least three times with clean water when the private parts are covered with clothe. Similarly, women give ghusl to women and there is always a circle of women around the dead body to hide it from any revealment during the activity. Grave is not simply fulfilment of a religious obligation, Moreover, the grave is considered as continuation of the living relationships among the dead because they are determined as neighbours through their graves. When male has died, he will be buried in the grave closely to his father, brothers, sons, nephews or friends. However, a female is placed in grave only by her father, brothers, sons, grand-sons and nephews and her husband if deceased. There also comes the pattern of deciding about the burials of men and women. For example, men are likely to wish to be buried closer to their mother, father, brother, son or daughter if they have died before them or among their fore-fathers if the graves are already in some place together. On the other hand, if woman is asked about her choice of place of grave she would ask to be buried by the side of her husband, then son or daughter if already dead and then comes the choice of brother and father to be buried by the side of them. This choice also helps us understand the fact that once married, woman’s real house is her husband’s house.

To conclude this section, women participation in death events has transformed through puritanical Islamic assertions and the emerging cultural patterns where educated ladies are least willing for ululation or wailing. It is difficult to claim with confidence that either the education or gentrification is playing its role to change the earlier practices of wailing, which are now seen as jahaalat (ignorance) and ghair Islami (un-Islamic). The way women have transformed their wailing into sobbing, recitation of Quran and pray for the dead is reflective of the break from earlier times. However, this would again be misplaced perception about the emotional and personal loss of the women for their loved ones, if we believe that may be there is less attachment to dead. Surely women spend more times commemorating their dead ones because they have comparatively more leisure time than the males. Another important factor is the patriarchal structure, which disapproves the weeping men who are, ideally, not expected to be broken by the deaths. Unlike men, women still define their closeness to their dead loved ones through their explicit weeping, transitory crying and rare wailing. For example, when Mian Muhammad Shafi had been given ghusl, his step-siter MM (65) who has very weak eye sight now, came and asked her friend who was holding her hand that where have they reached, and her friend told her that they are in the house of Mian Shafi. The moment she heard that they had reached the house of the deceased 220

brother, she started weeping and crying that her brother is leaving her. She was declaring in cries that now it is her turn to depart and might her brother’s turn be changed with her time to die. Interestingly, these strategic making of the choices about time, place and duration of crying and weeping have changed significantly over period of last two decades (as claimed by Jaan Muhammad Bhatti). However, what still remains little changed and somewhat similarly in the fold of women is the cooking of food if the dead is from a riaaya or kammi family. Women still prefer to go in little groups when they have to travel to nearby villages where they can go via walk. To conclude, women define their life world at death rituals within the larger framework of social structure and notions of izzat, ghairat, sharam and purdah. Above given discussion also highlights that even the private sphere of women, inside of the house is also dependent upon their males of the house. Further, the role and position of women is undergoing significant transformations in the wake of socio-economic changes in the villages.

6.6: Reciprocating Sorrow and Grief

Personhood of oneself becomes more profoundly vested in one’s loved ones when they are dead. It is clearly reflected when people divide their deaths and dead while referring to them as saada (ours), tuwaada (yours) and saada fautgi (our death) and tuwaadi fautgi (your death). When the deaths have been termed as one’s own and that of the others, it leads to the subsequent relationship among those who are alive through their dead. This possession of one’s dead stands inviolable because the respect accorded to the dead is the respect to oneself as owner and possessor of the dead. The love for the dead is mediated in an amicable way when people try to balance both their social obligations and establishing their own positions as persons of izzat and muqaam. This context of sharing the sorrow of someone’s dead as a mirror to the possibility of treating one’s own dead is the essence between tensions and smoothness. When I bring in the reciprocity of dead as a network of relationships, my intention is to keep both the smoothness of social relations as an ideal conduct and tense relationships where people mediate their choices about relationships. As a case in point, during my fieldwork, I came to realize that the relationships are differently perceived at death rituals than the vartan of marriage. This fact became more clearly understandable to me when Qamar Zaman Khan forbade all of his family members not to go for janaaza or qul khawani of the mother of Chaudhry Tariq Mehmood Bajwa (42), the man who won last (2015) local bodies

221

elections against Zia Ahmad Khan Dhuddi. Bajwa family who has had good relations with the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot before their political opposition to each other, had never missed the deaths of Dhuddi family, which was always reciprocated by the Dhuddi family in the similar manner. This time it was different for the Dhuddi family because Chaudhry Tariq Mahmood or his brother did not come to condole the bereaved Dhuddi family when Haji Falak Sher Khan had died on 27th September 2017. Qamar Zaman Khan whose sister was married to Haji Falak Sher Khan was of the view that dead of Bajwa family are equal to their own dead. Therefore, no one from the Dhuddi family should go to the bereaving Bajwa family before the befitting delayed response as adopted by the Bajwa family. This understanding of one’s own dead and the required respect which has to be commensurate with the position, gender, status of dead and the standing of family, is central to the networks of social relations. This is also important for the people to define their relationship when some breach of the required protocol is committed. People know it well that who is intentionally undermining the warmth of relationship by delaying the condolences of one’s dead. In the above mentioned case, Dhuddi family did not complain to Bajwa family because they knew it well that politics causes every day tensions and it may be difficult to keep the cordiality in relationship.

This attitude of considering all relations equal and preparedness to sever the relations at any such excuse is considered as social recklessness. Sometimes people do self-assessment when some important relations seem to be losing the friendliness. In a similar case, when Muhammad Amin Khan Aakuka (sub-caste of Joyia) a zamindar near Satluj river belt died, Qamar Zaman Khan asked his brother Zia Ahmad Khan not to go for janaaza or to offer fateha before the fourth day. Qamar Zaman Khan reminded his brother that deceased’s sons came fourth day when their father Haji Bahadur Khan Dhuddi died (d 2010). Sons of Muhammad Amin Khan were among the last comers on sixth day when their eldest brother Muhammad Amin Khan died (d 2015). Qamar Zaman Khan also added that there is difference between a deliberate delay and some delay caused by valid reason i.e. not hearing the news of death, illness of family member or death in the family. However, Zia Ahmad Khan told Qamar Zaman Khan, his younger brother that it is inappropriate on their part if they do deliberate delay because the deceased himself was like uncle to them due to his relationship with their father and father’s brother. Zia Ahmad Khan went himself for the qul khawani and he was of the view that now, the sons of deceased Muhammad Amin Khan would 222

also come timely if they want to keep the relationship intact. This account is helpful to understand that people not only sever the ties if they think they are not being properly respected because their dead are not properly condoled, but the severing of ties and its pronouncement at one’s death is avoided at best. In the first case when the time to reciprocate to Bajwa family came the restraint was not shown due to the general bitterness in the relationship, which was not present in the second relationship. Another interesting aspect in the second relationship was also the fact that the deceased Muhmmad Amin Khan Aakuka always referred to father and uncle of Zia Ahmad Khan as his own brothers. Thus, one needs to be conscious of the fact that one’s relations with fellow zamindars are key to successful claims as patron of the area. Muhammad Amin Khan Aakuka was known as the bazurg of whole Aakuka biraderi, therefore, assumed an important position for Zia Ahmad Khan who needs strong relations with the people near the river Satluj. Similarly, people maintain their relationships at deaths within the required norms as commensurate both with the social standing and respect to their loved ones.

It is important for the people that they do not calculate their relationships of deaths with the people only from their own perspective. People also keep their friends, biraderi and relatives in their own place and then assess the feelings either of bhai chara or as shareeka. Qamar Zaman Khan Dhuddi shared with me about one of such instances, which he referred as aqalmandi (sagacity) of Ali Raza Shah who lives on the other side of the Satluj river, which is called in the area as paar (other side of the river). Ali Raza Shah is one of the old friends of the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot. Qamar Zaman remembered that Ali Raza Shah came on fifth or fourth day when their (referring to himself and his elder brother Zia Ahmad Khan) mother died. He shared that despite the reason that no male member from their (Dhuddi) family could go to pay the condolences at the demise of Ali Raza Shah’s mother one month earlier. Qamar Zaman Khan further added that at the moment of the death of Ali Raza Shah’s mother their mother was hospitalized in critical condition in a private hospital of Burewala. Therefore, when Ali Raza shah came, Zia Ahmad Khan regretted that he (representing his family) could not come due to his mother's illness. Ali Raza Shah said that it is of no use to make a comparison for such things because he knew, there must be some reason if Khans have not come. Ali Raza Shah told Zia Ahmad Khan that he knew from the history of relationship that Khans would not miss any moment of dukh sukh of his family without justified reason. The moment Ali Raza Shah departed, Zia 223

Ahmad Khan asked his younger brother Qamar Zaman Khan to go to Kaaliye Shah, the village of Ali Raza Shah for the condolence to the bereaved family. Qamar Zaman Khan was of the view that had Ali Raza Shah not acted sagaciously, the relationship between both families would have gradually become cold.

Now, it takes me away from formally recognised way of reciprocal participation in each other’s dead to identify the subtle reciprocities in death. When it comes to women, their world of sorrow at deaths has changed more clearly than that of the men. I have realized it from the modes of calculation when women talk about their relationships as they define them at their deaths. For example, one old lady (65) from Qasaai biraderi of Amin Kot shared with me that she remembered well who had embraced her (galay lagana) and wailed (baen kia) by covering their heads and faces when her father died in 1998. She added that as now women do not embrace each other and there is no wailing, thus, calculation of women is limited only to who came and how long one sat with the bereaved family. Undoubtedly, when the time to reciprocate would come, the lady added that she would pay them back the way it is due to her, but she was of the view that when the women used to wail by embracing each other, their calculations were more clearly marked. The lady was of the view that when women knew that their coming to one’s house would not be recognized unless they embrace the women of the house, therefore, the act of wailing was strong in their memory and they remembered who embraced whom. On the other hand, if now women do not wail through embracing each other, it does not mean that they do not recognize the role of each other. Women have well-recognized rules of their participation in reciprocity at death rituals and they even remember the temporal, modal and symbolic gestures to pay back. The counting of women’s participation is equally strong in all its delicacy to the extent that two sisters, once married would engage in reciprocal relations when they have their independent conduct as ladies of separate households. I still remember one such discussion of wife of one servant of the Dhuddi family who was sitting with the wife of Zia Ahmad Khan. The wife of the servant was complaining of her bad terms with her in-laws and she referred to the extent of her in-laws insensitivity that her mother-in-law condoled only her mother at the death of her father. She added that she did not want to disrespect herself and her family in biraderi, so she pretended that it was normal because she was part of her mother-in-law’s house now. Analytically, this brief account is of the paramount importance to the notion of personhood, and the most sensitive part of death rituals in social 224

relations of the people. It tells that no matter how close the relationship is, the shared feeling to dead is touchstone of relationships and its expression even if remotely symbolic, is laden with meaningfulness.

Here it is pertinent to briefly discuss the less pronounced but ritualized expressions of death, which have definite rules of expressing one’s remorsefulness for the bereaving family and necessitating its return. People remember their sharing of each other’s sorrows even to the extent that the minute details are remembered according to the anticipated scale of participation. For example, the calculation of bereaving family begins when the dead was ill, and they calculate according to the already defined rules of sociality about who comes to inquire the ill. When the death has happened, then people from host family would be quite clear if they are asked that what do they know about the people who came to offer janaaza and who gave kandha (shoulder) to the dead body’s charpoy while on the way to graveyard. No matter how long the distance is, people prefer to take the dead body to the graveyard on their shoulders. People not only remember these moments when their dead bodies are shared as burden of the bereaved family, but it is to be reciprocated also. One who does not reciprocate such acts is regretted and treated as an irresponsible person. When the people are back from burial, then the offering of fateha begins and continues for weeks to come. At the death of Muhammad Zafar Maachhi, when Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti extended his symbolic advice of patience to the bereaving brother of the deceased by saying Allah da hukam to Fakhar Ahmed, the brother reciprocated the same words to Niaz Ahmed Bhatti. Normally, the bereaving family is on the receiving end of the advice for the patience which the listener is expected to reply in affirmative that he has accepted the will of God, but here it did not happen. The reason behind Fakhar Ahmed’s reciprocation of the same to Niaz Ahmed was that he considered Niaz Ahmed’s loss equally grave as that of himself because Zafar Ahmed had been one of his best friends. It is this sharing of the sorrow, which marks the people in the network of relationships by giving certain people importance as one’s own.

As a brief analysis from the above quoted accounts, we cannot forget that people are treated according to the positions of their families and themselves as individuals of social structure. Normally people are mindful to the equality in the reciprocity of their dead, but it significantly changes when the positions of the living, unequal people come to play their role. For example,

225

during my stay at the village for the first stretch of the fieldwork, I was sitting at the dera of Amin Kot with some of the hukkah smokers, who come to smoke hukkah before their breakfast when there was elaan about the qul khawani of wife of Muhammad Amin Khiaoh who had passed away two days earlier. My uncle asked me to go for the qul khawani to represent the family and he advised me to stay there till the host family serves food. He also advised me not to eat food and leave as the khatam ends because it is inappropriate to eat food at fautgi when both families are not far away. The moment I reached there, I was greeted by Talib Hussain, the younger brother of widower. Talib Hussain asked me to wait for some moments and I was made to stand, because within seconds Talib Hussain appeared from the hut with a new sheet to be spread beneath me. Despite all my hesitation and feeling of awkwardness, he insisted that I have to sit on the sheet as I was at their house for the first time. Then I observed that among 30-40 males sitting there, I was the only one who was sitting at a sheet. I requested again Talib Hussain to excuse me from this treatment, which he again declined. During all this lapse of almost one hour, I recalled my understanding of reciprocity at death rituals and the positions of individuals and their families. I never witnessed any similar treatment extended to Talib Hussain, his brothers or even their father when he was alive at the death rituals in (my) Dhuddi family. Therefore, while discussing about the reciprocity of death rituals, we need to remain attentive to the fact that people share each other’s dead but within the making of Punjab’s personhood where some families and their individuals are not equal to others. Furthermore, the above given discussion also shows that despite uncompromising commitment to the respect each other’s dead, people are equally concerned about their social relationships.

6.6: Unequal People Unequal Deaths: Two Case Studies

People are anything at Amin Kot and Khokhran but equal, and it also appears in the making of fautgi. It is necessary for the comprehensive study of death rituals to understand the equality and inequality of dead, which requires first to figure out how are dead assessed. The assessment of someone’s death rituals begins with the importance of arrangements of the host family and the scale of guests who come to condole the bereaving family. For example, Dhuddi family of Amin Kot still believes that the largest janaaza in their family was that of Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan. Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan who died in 1990, was only 35 years old when he died of blood cancer. Qamar

226

Zaman Khan, the youngest brother of the deceased was of the view that his brother’s death was so untimely for his family that it was difficult to bear the loss from the untimely death. He further added that death of Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan whom he called Bhai (brother) Nazir Khan, is still fresh in the memory of people due to the large numbers of the people who came to attend his janaaza. Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan’s death rituals were attended by some zamindar families who came to pay condolences to the bereaved family for the first time because the deceased himself had established relations of vartan with some of the influential families at his own. At individual level, establishment of relationship of vartan with the fellow persons is considered as one of the highest qualities. It is a common wisdom among the people in the villages when they are asked about the reasons, which led to the elevated status of a death as special one with more guests. People would simply refer to the status of family and its commitment to the relationships established through sharing of sorrow of other people. Dhuddi family is also considered as responsible in this regard when it comes to the upkeep of relationships. Therefore, when asked about specific case of Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan people would add his young age at the time of death, survived by a young wife and three children in their childhood to sadden people at his untimely demise. Furthermore, death of Haji Nazir Ahmad was death of second most important person in the family after Ghulam Muhammad Khan (d 1985) within five years. This left not only the bereaving family as broken from the sorrow, but the friends and dependents of family were also alerted of the fact that the family might not be able to hold its standing in the area.

As a comparative analysis with the zamindar death, we come to an equally untimely death of a young man form Musalli family of Khokhran who was survived by young widow and four children in their childhood. It is clearly remembered that if father from poor family with young kids has died, then this death is more likely to last longer not only for the immediate family of the deceased, but the people in the area would also feel the sorrow of the family. During my fieldwork visit to Khokhran, I was present at the karyana shop (local grocery store) of one of the kammi biraderi, when I met Muhammad Aamir (19) from Musalli biraderi. Muhammad Aamir sat with us when asked by me, had chit chat and the moment he departed, the father of the shop keeper (60), who was already discussing with me the historical tradition of death, referred to Muhammad Aamir that he was only a kid when his father Niaz Ahmed (35) passed away in 2007. The elder was of the view that Muhammad Aamir was able to stand the hardships of the time because after 227

his father’s untimely death both the Dhuddi family of Amin Kot and Chishties of Khokhran helped his mother to raise her children. When I probed the elder about the scale of janaaza and participation of the people in death rituals of Muhammad Niaz, he counter-checked me that how much do I expect at the death of a Musalli member. The elder also opined that Niaz Ahmed also did not go to many people for condolences and the scale of one’s death rituals depends upon both the family and personal interest in upkeep of relationships with the people. Therefore, it can be inferred from the above given two accounts of almost similar individuals with very different or unequal death rituals in the villages of my study. As agreeing to what I have proposed the potentially different positions and their subsequent role as living persons also gives birth to “various patterns of behavior and social processes”, which have been “institutionalized as coping and response mechanisms for confronting the crisis of death”(Bryant 2003: xix). Keeping in view the above given two accounts of deaths, we are reminded that all the relationships are not equal among the people because the individuals themselves are not equal. The notion of equality for people themselves is considerate of the socio-historical location of their relationships. Now, I aim to extend the analysis further systematically through detailed case studies of deaths of zamindar woman and kammi man. My aim is to advance a little detailed discussion of both the categories of unequal individuals and the gender in this regard.

6.6.1: Death of a Woman in Zamindar Family

My first case study is about the death of bibi (prefix in the name of women to show respect) KI (50), daughter-in-law of Muhmmad Amin Khan. KI Bibi died of cancer on 16-2-2017. The deceased was also Muhammad Amin Khan’s mother’s sister’s daughter, whom he married to his eldest son Khan. Zafar Iqbal Khan is not very active member of the Dhuddi family and he spends his most of the time at Amin Kot dera. The deceased was survived by one son beside her husband. Quite expectedly as normally women are quite close to their peke, the deceased was very close to her younger brother Ghulam Rasool’s eldest son Muhmmad Zafar Khan. Kauraanwala, the village of her peke is 7-8 kilometers away from Amin Kot. Muhammad Zafar Khan, the nephew of the deceased runs his personal business as broker of cars and tractors in Burewala city. He has also bought a house in Burewala where the deceased spent her last days when she was going through treatment at hospital in Multan. As already referred, Zafar Iqbal Khan

228

is not very active in the daily life, and the son of the deceased himself was only 20 years when she died. Therefore, bibi KI was in the house of her nephew Muhammad Zafar whose wife (deceased’s sister’s daughter) took very good care of her aunt. As deceased’s husband does not go to cities, therefore he also did not go even to enquire her in hospital. Resultantly, he always went to see her when she was back to Burewala after chemotherapy spells in Multan. All the households of the Dhuddi family used to enquire about her health whenever she was back from the hospital. As the deceased did not have very good relations with house of her in-laws after the death of Muhammad Amin Khan, therefore, her son was offered money by Zia Ahmad Khan and Qamar Zaman Khan along with Ghulam Mustafa Khan, the elder son of Haji Nazir Ahmad Khan. However, Naveed Zafar son of the deceased accepted money only from Ghulam Mustafa Khan. Accepting the money for one’s patient is avoided till the last time, and Naveed Zafar also was hesitant to accept the money even from his elders of the family. As long as bibi KI was ill, her health and prayers were always repeated whenever someone came back from Burewala.

One day, it was almost in the late evening that she died and the moment she died, Muhammad Zafar called the younger brother of Zafar Iqbal Khan to convey to the husband about the death of his wife. I still remember my presence along with five members from haveli and one landless riaaya Dhuddi member and one of the hissaydar of Ijaz Ahmad Khan from Bhatti biraderi. Ghulam Murtaza, the younger brother of the widower came to dera where everyone was enjoying the warmth of woods fired to warm the room in mid days of February’s cold weather. Zafar Iqbal Khan ran in frenzy as he heard the news and his younger brother Ijaz Ahmad Khan rushed after his brother to take care of the brother in stressful time. For Zafar Iqbal Khan, the untimely death proved too tragic because he did not have daughter, and his son Naveed Iqbal Khan has just entered into his 20tth year. As the news was conveyed to the persons present at dera, all left the dera to convey the news to respective females of the household. Ijaz Ahmed Khan is the main leading member of the house of Muhammad Amin Khan Dhuddi after his death because Zafar Iqbal has not assumed the social role expected of elder brother. All left the dera because smoking huqqa after hearing news of death in the host family of the dera is not considered proper at least till the offering of janaaza. If one keeps on smoking huqqa, it means that the death is not cause of sorrow, which again hurts the feelings according to the positions on circle of closeness to the dead. Furthermore, the immediate time after the death or reaching its news is considered more serious 229

and sensitive. Ideally, one should not eat or drink immediately at such momentary happening, otherwise would be deemed inappropriate by the people. One thing strongly forbidden is that no one is supposed to cook if someone has died till the janaaza has not been offered. Subsequently, Ijaz Ahmed Khan decided to leave for the house of Muhammad Zafar where dead body was placed. Ijaz Ahmed Khan also called his uncle Zia Ahmed Khan to bring the dead body back to Amin Kot because the married woman belongs to the house of her husband. Her dead body was brought back to Amin Kot in the morning after the fajar prayer. Ijaz Ahmed Khan, both brothers of the deceased and her son were awake for the whole night and they brought the dead body back in a van hired for the purpose. Similarly, all the women of the haveli gathered in the house of the deceased where her dead body was placed when brought back.

When the dead body was taken back to the house, the formal elaan was made from the speaker of the mosque and Zia Ahmed Khan decided the time of janaaza after zuhr prayer because some of their relatives from Havelian would take till then to reach. After the announcement of the time of janaaza many people came from the nearby villages of her peke to show that they are well- respected among their network of social relationships. When the janaaza had been offered, Zafar Ahmad the nephew of the deceased asked Ijaz Ahmed Khan to let him serve first day's rotti for the guests. He asked his younger brother to ask the Nai (barber who is also responsible to cook for the similar functions of deaths and for marriages also) for his requirement to cook four daigs for first day. When the first rotti was served by the peke of the deceased, then Zia Ahmad Khan consulted with Qamar Zaman Khan and Ghulam Mustafa Khan to collect 5000 each among all three brothers to give to Ijaz Khan for managing qul khawani. Whenever it comes to pay outside of the lineage of Haji Bahadur Khan, the money is collected from Ijaz Ahmed Khan also to represent the house of their eldest brother Muhammad Amin Khan, but this time the deceased herself belonged to the house of Muhammad Amin Khan, therefore, they were to be given this time. Zia Ahmed Khan also asked Khadim Hussain Khan, and sons of all his three sisters along with the share from Ali Ahmed Khan to pay in the central pool so that all the haveli pays together. Zafar Ahmed Khan was also present when the decision was made unlike earlier times when such matters were discussed only within the family. It is important to keep in mind that all close relatives from both houses of the deceased reached well before the time of janaaza. The ghusl of the dead was performed by the wife of imam masjid and three young ladies from the haveli. Rest of the details about who role and 230

participation of relatives is similar to what we have discussed in the beginning of the chapter at the death of Haji Falak Sher Khan. However, when it came to condole the bereaved family only close relatives from Havelian and Kauraanwala expressed their sorrow to Zafar Iqbal Khan and his son Naveed Zafar. Most of the people of the area condoled Zia Ahmed Khan and Qamar Zaman Khan. Another important distinction of the Dhuddi family lies in the originally and symbolically shared sorrow among themselves because the family represents itself as a distinct lineage. No male member from one household of the haveli is expected to condole the other male member who may be much closer to the dead in relationship. This is how the family presents itself as single house when it comes to represent itself in the relationships of death rituals.

Now, I bring in the second case study from a male kammi death to represent both the comparative and simple happening of a momentary in the village life. This case study happens to be more analytical because I was not present at the time of the death and most of the information is derived from the informal conversations in this regard.

6.6.2: Death of Male in Kammi Family

Death of Muhammad Zafar Maachhi (53) was a moment of shock for whole of Amin Kot village and the nearby area. Muhammad Zafar was a well-known naat khawan (one who sings poetry in praise of Prophet Muhammad P.B,U.H) of the area and a progressive agriculturalist. His sudden death due to a car accident left everyone in shock. Muhmmad Zafar was survived by four sons, two daughters and widow. Now, his widow has moved to Lahore with her sons and the younger daughter who is still unmarried. Muhammad Zafar was always respected by the people of the area because as was announced by the Maulvi Sahib at his qul khawani that Muhammad Zafar was the person who had only friends. Therefore, the reasons for the deep sorrow and grief at his untimely fall were multiple because people always referred to his friendliness to all. It is important to realize that people do not feel the sorrow and grief of a marag as simple fact of acceptance of the breakup of social relations with the individual. It is still remembered in the area that due to Muhammad Zafar’s conduct and the nature of his death provoked many people to come to his janaaza and qul khawani. I still remember Muhammad Fakhar (50) the younger brother of the deceased when I asked him about the number of the people who attended the janaaza of Muhammad Zafar, Muhammad Fakhar replied that he does not know the exact number, but the number of people was 231

as large as that of any zamindar member of a family is expected. Muhammad Fakhar also shared that he did not know many people who attended the janaaza of his brother because Muhammad Zafar had many friends from distant places. Furthermore, Muhammad Fakhar added that his brother’s death was also felt strongly by all the people because he had young sons and daughters who needed father. So, it is natural that people of wasaib (local area sharing social values) empathize such pain of the fellow members.

As the role of village is important at the death ceremonies, therefore, the role played by zamindar as first responsibility and then among the village as a whole becomes more important with the unfolding of any such eventuality. Similarly, Dhuddies of Amin Kot were all present at the janaaza, qul khawani and then providing Muhammad Fakhar with all the required personal and financial help. Muhammad Zafar’s janaaza was offered on the grassy lawn of the dera of Amin Kot as most of the janaazas from Amin Kot are offered there. After janaaza, the kirrha was taken to the plot lying empty in front of the deceased’s home. All of the people came and sat there with the Muhammad Fakhar, sons of Muhammad Zafar and other cousins of Muhammad Zafar to condole the bereaved family. This is in line with the representation of the family that all those relatives are paid condolences who are considered as closer part of the family to be eligible for the acceptance of the condolence. The method of paying condolences revolves in a circle where first the cousins who would also pay their condolences to the most immediate relatives. For example, Muhammad Fakhar and his nephews (sons of deceased) were also formally paid the condolences by their first cousins from nearby village of Bhattiyan. Once the cousins had paid their condolences to the sons and brother of the deceased then they also joined the circle as receivers of the same condolences by the people. Most of the people from Amin Kot and nearby villages, who know Muhammad Fakhar in person would pay their condolences only to him, however, those people who had come due to their relationship with the cousins of the deceased paid their condolences to both brother of the deceased and the cousins.

Similarly, it went within the household where women played their part in the fautgi. When it comes to women for deciding about woman of the house to whom they are supposed to pay the condolences, the guest women know it very well due to the positions of the women who have been participating in the fautgi of others. In this case, when I was sitting with the IR bibi, the widow,

232

after almost three weeks of the accident, the wife of the deceased told me that as the news reached to her, the earliest response from her was a cry in the state of incredulousness in news and complete helplessness. She further added that after happening of any such accident like losing one’s husband in such achaanak (sudden) way then the world makes one realize of its burden in terms of the responsibilities. Therefore, IR bibi also realized very soon that she had complete family to feed, marry her sons and daughter. IR bibi shared that it compelled her to be brave. She remembered clearly how she was sure that Muhammad Fakhar cannot be relied as a replacement for the father of her kids. IR bibi, wife of the deceased has been the woman to have the leading role as representative woman of the household to have vartan with. IR bibi was of the view that women who kept on coming for many days either came due to her husband or due to her own network of vartan with ladies. Her significant focus on the role of both the husband and wife as leading figures of the household were in reference to Muhammad Fakhar the younger brother of Muhammad Zafar and Fakhar’s wife. This othering is always important as marker of one’s standing within household, relatives and biraderi.

While interviewing Muhammad Fakhar, I came to know about the fact that Muhammad Fakhar felt proud that for first three days almost all the time some members from the Dhuddi family were present. Muhammad Fakhar’s special focus on the role of zamindar family helped me understand the fact that despite no such effort to give the impression of collective representation of the family, the zamindar family’s role was recognized in this way by all the people who came for condolences. He also shared that he knew that Khans (referring to all male members of the dhuddies of Amin Kot) were directed by Zia Ahmed Khan to remain present at the phoorhi (same word like kirrha used here as used by the interviewee) with the bereaved family. According to Muhammad Fakhar, Zia Ahmad Khan knows the significance of showing such closeness because it is owed to the riaayas by the zamindar. When asked by the food arrangements and financial help provided by the relatives and friends, Muhammad Fakhar responded that actually everyone wanted to help him because of the marhoom (deceased) himself. He became clearer when he referred to his maternal cousins of Bhattiyan that they took the responsibility to cook the food for first two days. Muhammad Fakhar shared that he consulted his sister-in-law, the widow about it and she responded she is fine with it if her eldest son is comfortable. So, the food was served by the cousins for first two days and for third day the host family declined the offer of son-in-law of the deceased 233

to contribute in the qul khawani and the family managed it at its won with help from Khans. I have boldened the font because Muhammad Fakhar deliberately referred to the help of the Dhuddi family. Muhammad Fakhar shared that the help from Dhuddi family does not come in one go, rather they have been helping her sister-in-law till now despite the fact that her sons are earning in Lahore now.

Thus, this case study helps us understanding the possibility of a some deaths which can transcend the fixed boundaries of zamindars and kammis. Muhammad Zafar’s death was of shock and grief to all. Muhammad Fakhar summed up his last discussion with me when we used to talk often at the dera that despite the irreparable loss to his wife, sons, daughters and himself, the death of Muhammad Zafar convinced him that a good life makes one respectful both in this life and after-life.

6.7: Shift in death rituals

It is not easy to think about the change or shift in death rituals as people talk about their experiential understanding of the death. For people, death is about sorrow and grief for the surviving relatives, friends or village fellows regardless of any change in death rituals. Their main argument about no possibility of change in sorrow from death comes from the belief that people are never likely to distance from their dead loved ones. What they realize as some shifts in traditions and customs, which they follow in their death rituals are separated as Islamic and smaaji (social) in one jargon which people refer as badalta zamana (changing time), and badaltay rasm o riwaaj (changing traditions). When they talk about the Islami faraiz of deaths like ghusl, janaaza and offering fateha for the dead, there is no possibility of change for the people. However, they help in highlighting some of the changes in what they consider as the samaaji or duneevi (worldy). My following discussion is not about some specific case studied unless highlighted as such, but it pertains more to the general change in some of the rituals followed at deaths.

The most general change in the death rituals is about the shrinking time, which people spend together now. During earlier times, people used to stay for weeks when death in immediate relatives befell, which has shrunk to two to three days. Furthermore, close friends used to stay with the bereaving family for days and now they come only for janaaza and fateha unless the distance

234

demands a night stay. So, overall the time duration of death rituals has shrunk regardless of the relationship and this is the first cause of concern for the elders when they feel nostalgic about the earlier times. If asked about the reasons for the shrinking time shared at death rituals, people do not consider the limited time at one’s disposal to share with the fellow people in vartan, but they would talk about many things at once. For example, people talk about the departure of their elders whom they refer as true people with commitment to their relationships. Similarly Rosenblatt also realized that “it is the older generation that seems more observant of the rituals and more dedicated to the cultural meanings and emotional forms that have been dominant in the culture” (Rosenblatt 1997: 38-39). People would also add the enhanced mediums of transportation in this regard. Unlike current travel by cars and buses which are faster and easier to commute, when people used to travel in aglay waqt on foot or by the horses, it was difficult to return same day from a distance of 20-25 kilometre. Thus, we can say that people realize that their sharing of time with the bereaving families has shrunk, but what has led to this shrinking time is still confusing and there is no mentioning of any specific reason.

One of the significant agent of general change in death rituals is the use of technology in daily lives of the people. Though people comprehend quite well when asked about the social results of the smartphone in their hand, television in their houses and use of internet on cell phones, but they are able to fathom the minute impacts only if reminded about similar concerns. For example, an elder (55) from Chadoya biraderi of Khokhran, who uses smartphone gifted by his son who serves in Pakistan Army was of the view that his smartphone has changed his life for better. He clarified that he uses his smartphone up to the potential of the smartphone, which other people in his age group do not know because they are mostly uneducated people. The elder added for my clarification that now he does not need to send any messenger to his nearby and distant people of his vartan at any time of dukh sukh because he now merely needs to call them or to send text messages to them. The elder was conscious of the fact that most of the people who are to be intimated cannot read or write, therefore, it is better to call them. I don’t aim to generalize the discussion with the elder but use of mobile phone as messenger has also significantly altered the death rituals from earlier times. For example, when there was no use of telephone or mobile phone, people used to send messenger to the nearby villages for elaan from the masjid and to inform the

235

people in person at distance places. When messenger used to go all the way and communicated in person, then the reciprocity by guests was expected as more special guests from those who were not similarly informed. People also draw a clear distinction between call, message through mobile or messenger in person, and these all carry respectively different standards of importance. Now, when people send messages, those who are intimated, realize that this way of communication is more generic and less directed as one specific messenger was supposed to be. Furthermore, among the young friends it is common that they would complain about the sending of message instead of being called. On the other hand, the sender would also not accept the excuse if he is convinced that the message had been properly read but not acted to honour the relationship. So, role of technology is important in changing the earlier sensibilities, but people are puzzled between both positions as making the things easy for them with simultaneous complaints that it is lessening the importance of their relationships.

Apart from social and economic transformations, another important factor in this regard is the religious puritanical conception of death rituals. I still remember one of the very mundane but grounded observation of an elder from Bhatti biraderi that people did not fear azaab some decades back because they did not harm each other and believed in Allah’s naik log (pious persons). The elder’s reference was to the belief of the people in the power of intercession of their pirs with Allah. In the backdrop of the comment was the discussion that now people do not believe in their pirs as they used to do. I extend this analysis to contemporary increasing invocation of gunah at different stages of death rituals. For example, the first such instance happens right when women of the household start crying at the death of their loved ones. However, during earlier times, to say like two decades back, the death as an event was duly recognized when the guest women had properly wailed what they call in the villages as galay lagna. During the days of wailing, when someone had died, women would sit together and start wailing by remembering the deceased with exaggerated qualities. Most of the time women who were wailing, used to cover their faces and kept on embracing each other. It was same as it is till counted that who embraces whom. For example, if a man has died then his wife, daughter(s), daughter(s)-in-law and niece(s) all are to be embraced one by one. All the women guests who came to condole, were supposed to wail while embracing each other. However, the tradition of mourning by wailing has almost completely

236

shifted into more puritanical conception of ‘religious’. Now, when there is death in the family, some male family member with influence would come and stop the women from mourning as it is forbidden in Islam. If women keep on mourning, he is likely to come again and directing them more strongly not to mourn. Another option used in this regard may be to ask one of the daughters, nieces or sisters whom he considers as more samajdar to stop the women from mourning. However, with the passage of time, there is marked shift in the practices of mourning.

Another important change with far reaching consequences is the compulsory khitaab (sermon about Islamic teachings) of an aalim (scholar) at qul khawani. Hafiz Muhammad Yaseen from Qasaai family is the aalim at all the deaths of Dhuddi family of Amin Kot and he is not offered any money by the Dhuddi family, but he owns the money, which people pay him as source of swab for the dead and as token of relationship with the bereaving family. Same aalim comes to other most of the deaths of kammi biraderies of both Amin Kot and Khokhran. When asked that how long this tradition has persisted since to arrange this khitaab, people would easily say that one decade back there was no such khitaab. People would say that one decade back there was only recitation of kalma and qul at beads and then formal khatam by the maulvi to be followed by food for all the guests. Another incoming change would be about economical food menu to be served for the guests at qul. It was already attempted by some leading zamindars to implement a uniform menu of simple vegetarian food to be served at the qul, which is always referred at the lavish food menu at death rituals. People would often say that they need to simplify the death rituals for the bereaving family.

As we know that people do not consider the dead as separated from them for always, therefore, they would also try to help the dead in the after-life as the ones who are alive for him/her. Apart from prayers, recitation of Quran for the elevation of the status of dead, people also pay almost all the basic items of need when someone has died. There is no settled mechanism through which it is decided about what exactly is to be given in the name of the dead and to whom. Usually the list of items would include––1 suite of cloth, shoes according to the foot size of the dead, one pedestal fan, one lotta (a small usually spherical water vessel of brass, copper or plastic used in toilets for personal hygiene), one bed sheet along pillow and blanket etc. The list of items paid by the zamindar family may go on to qualify even the scale of a dowry for the poor family. As a case 237

in point, when Ghulam Muhammad Khan Dhuddi died, the items included in the saamaan (the expression referred for the items, which can be translated as luggage in English) were sent on tractor trolley to Qaboola Sharif for the Pir Syed Ghulam Dastgir Gillani. People send these items sometimes to their murshad, sometimes to Imam Masjid, or someone whom they consider as poor enough to qualify for zakat. The ones who receive these items on the behalf of dead are neither denigrated as Gaborieu highlights about Gors in Nepal (1995: 259-260), nor like Parry’s Brahmans (Parry 1989). The important change in this regard again comes to the puritanical conception of Islam, when people would narrate these items in their list within the larger narrative about payment of zakat. So, the essential role of pir as the receiver of the saamaan has been rationalized by the people in the favour of needy poor man.

The gradual shift in death rituals is the cornerstone for understanding both the death as happening and its potential for exploring the contemporary significance of relationships as web of network. The people of both Khokhran and Amin Kot are not convinced about the direction of change in their lives, and its articulation at their death rituals, but they are sure about the happening of shift in death rituals. To add, the list of factors, which bring about different changes in death rituals vary from economic conditions to cultural and social practices. However, one important reminder in all these changes is the importance people still give to the deaths as social happening quite unlike what Moore and Williamson argue that “in modernity, death recedes further and further from day-to-day human experience”(Moore and Williamson 2003). I am of the view that despite all the changes in day-to-day human experiences of changing economic necessities and cultural values, either we call them modern or post-modern death remains one of the primary determinants of one’s sociality and sociability.

6.8: Conclusion

Death constitutes a break of relationship, but its role must be viewed not as a dislocation of life process, rather it marks its significance as a unifying force . What is needed as a requisite for the comprehensive understanding of the death in the village social structure is not the boundedness, which the mere idea of death strikes us. I find that people bring in their emotionality at deaths through their communicative and expressive techniques of personal and collective articulation. If we observe the experiential settings of death in rural Punjab, we are reminded of the confined and 238

personalized sorrow of dead as shared among the bereaving loved ones. This mutual sharing of bereavement and sorrow caused by the death of a loved one does not allow the boundedness of death as an analytical scheme. When we diffuse the essence of someone as dead, it brings us the real valuation of the living people who not only share that essence of the dead, but they define themselves through it. Furthermore, as individuals in Punjab’s personhood are not equal, thus, their deaths also alarm us about any such convenience to forget this reality. I have also deliberately attempted to dig deeper through these tensions of unequal personhood and its subsequent translation into economic considerations which bring to fore their cultural and social meanings. Though we have seen that with the changing socio-economic and technological advancements, there is shift in conveying the happening of death and people, yet social protocols of the death remain largely grounded in the social and religious meaningfulness. Religious puritanism also plays out by not only balancing the inequalities as zamindars and kammis through legitimacy of social harmony, but it also paves the way for our analysis of the shift in death rituals. When we reflect on the deaths as of zamindars and kammis, it leads to inequality of same persons who are supposedly equals as at deaths, but this is not the case in their post-death social sphere. However, the significance of web of social relations plays differently in death rituals from the marriages due to the very nature of the events. The broader difference between marriages and deaths lies in the nature of emotional, material and socio-cultural logics as operatives at respective critical junctures of life.

.

239

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Punjabi village is quite rapidly changing ethnographic reality of current times. The change is itself located in multiple sources, which vary from spatial, economic, social and temporal to historical factors as agents of the change. However, my study has attempted to account for the forms and ways of change as people experience, talk and communicate through their gift exchange called as vartan in everyday life of the villages of the study. I have not limited my focus on gift exchange only to the objects exchanged or their ceremonial expression as an exchange. In addition to this, I have rather tried to make my study holistic and comprehensive through their moralistic, economic and social making as incorporative of celebrations, moments of sorrow and ordinary, common, local and normal activities of everyday life. My study is also aimed at exploring the change in socio-cultural structure when there are many economic changes in the traditional socio-economic structure as proposed by most of the ethnographies about rural Punjab ( Ahmad 1970, 1977; Alvi 1995; Chaudhary 1999; Lyon 2004a; Eglar 2010;). To be more specific, I have focused to see the change rooted within similar earlier modes of their normative and practical relevance. Therefore, Harvey succinctly argues that “no social order can achieve changes that are not already latent within its existing condition”(Harvey 2003). My attention to understand the change and continuity as intertwined aspects of social life has resultantly used Bourdieusian lens to think about materialization of domestic spheres, which were earlier taken away from contemporary manifestations. When I bring in my concern about the individual and familial representations, which tend to be more symbolic and social if speaking in language of forms of capital, then, this takes me to consider Bourdieusian analysis about the forms of capital. For Bourdieu, it is impossible “to account for the structure and functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms and not solely in the one form recognized by economic theory” (Bourdieu 1986). What I have discussed in ethnography of personhood, gift and death rituals is therefore at the crossroads of both economic and social capital. When we assess the economic capital mainly determined through land ownership and landlessness in the villages of study, then the debate about mutation of one form of capital into the second form is helpful for our ensuing discussion.

240

This thesis provides a general introduction to both the villages of the study, and it sets the stage for comprehensive debate to follow with the evolving argument. I have also shed light on the rationale of study to streamline the reason as merit of study. With general demographics of the village and very brief discussion about the physical environment of the villages of the study I set my eye to unlock the meaning of spaces and relations in the villages of the study. I find the space appropriated and occupied according to the possession of physical space at one’s disposal. This is also true in case of zamindars as occupants of larger space because of their possession of physical space. First chapter also provides a window opened as a beam of light into the status of anthropology in Pakistan and its certain privileged domains of power and representations. When I have provided the brief introduction of the field of the thesis, then I proceed to the discussion of second chapter, which again refines our understanding of the first chapter because the self of anthropologist is itself at the heart of second chapter.

In second chapter, my ‘self’ is at the core of the discussion, when I have problematized the self as a balancing act to stay as an anthropologist fulfilling the role demanded by academic commitment and as an individual of the society. While navigating these tensions of two equally important roles, my attempt is to mediate one’s position as an anthropologist and as a part of the society of fieldwork is touchstone of self-reflexivity. I have also deliberately brought in the concerns for representations, when realizing myself as placed in a hierarchical social structure where representations are bound to strike while writing. As an origin of self-reflexivity, I find anthropology’s attentiveness to its colonial origins, and (claimed) post-colonial departures as tools for sensitization of nexus between knowledge and power. My scheme has broadened the domain of self of an anthropologist even to the location of field within representational scheme, and for this purpose questioning myself. For example, I have been checking again and again the places where I interviewed people and how I was positioned while doing participant observation. This reminded me of the structured field with unequal positions, and then the position of the anthropologist him/herself in this regard. It alerted me of the fact that my position as an anthropologist from the zamindar family of the village of study is also influential to lead for the spatial making of my fieldwork. As dera is one of the most important places in the social life of the people of the villages of study, therefore, the ownership by my family of the most important space of my fieldwork remained an important concern. In similar paradoxes of unequal spatial and 241

physical spaces, an anthropologist is destined to face the challenges of writing. Writing of an anthropologist is advocated as specific and more important for the relationship of native anthropologist with the field. Then, as an extension of my ‘self’ of a native Punjabi anthropologist I have extended the debate to theorize economy, social and symbolic capital in third chapter.

For third chapter, my aim takes me little away from my villages of the study. The theoretical chapter provides with the tools of which are instrumental because “if we want to understand social change we need concepts that allow us to observe and describe the events of change”(Barth 1967). Therefore, third chapter provides with the theoretical framework which revolves around Bourdieusian analysis, but it adds to the contemporary debates about relationship between social change and increasing materialization. When I argue about a close relationship between objects exchanged and their materiality as an emerging concern, which was not so pronounced in earlier times, it opens the debate for current possibilities of theorizing gift exchange in a changing Punjabi village. Despite careful observation of the fact that anthropology demands a more rigorous and deeper analysis into the theoretical possibilities of an ethnographic reality, I am quite ambitious in my theoretical framework which is at the crossroads of materiality, morality and sociality. When we trace the traditional approach of anthropology towards gift exchange, it is not difficult to find it missing the specifically personal and social scope of gift. In the given social structure of the villages of study if we remain confined only to similar traditional points of attention, then we are likely to miss some of the core properties like increasing materiality in existing social structure. This realization of change in properties of socio-economic order is apt illustration of Bourdieu’s theorization of forms of capital, which interact within economic, symbolic and social forms of capital. I argue that the relationship between economic and non- economic is mutually permeable. The theoretical chapter also advocates an approach, which is beyond the binaries of gift exchange as either in objects with personal properties or as purely material. While mediating the less categorically charted path of these both positions of vartan the theoretical chapter proposes as simultaneous approach towards the vartan. Furthermore, when we bring in the death rituals also in the debate about gift exchange, then we are directed by the sorrow to re-visit the gift as some item or objects which can be changed tangibly. Thus, if we consider the vartan as a network of social relationships of the people then the potential of death rituals is no

242

way less important than the marriage celebrations. It is further established by the fact that people do not separate their sukh from dukh when they talk about their relationships of vartan. While discussing theoretical undercurrents of money, materiality of objects and personalized gift, one of the most important debates remains the personhood also. Therefore, it is impossible to understand the role of gift as web of social relations, unless one clearly understands the position of personhood, the way it is shaped, articulated, expressed and acts. This leads my discussion from theoretical part to the making and practicing of personhood in the villages of my study.

Fourth chapter is an attempted link between first three introductory and the last two ethnographic chapters. This chapter explores the making of Punjabi personhood both through oneself and as shared with fellows. Keeping in view the hierarchical social order of the rural Punjab and the debate about personhood I borrow from Anjum Alvi when she identifies the “differentiation of the context-dependent category of the own into the opposing categories of the own and the other” because she further argues that “social reality is to be observed in multiple, hierarchically ordered contexts” (Alvi 2001: 57). This hierarchically ordered context brings to our focus the first source of concern, which is about the role of land ownership and its web of relationships through their narration of normative conduct. When we see into the normative conduct of people to assume a specific muqaam then there is also the deep lying role of notions like izzat, ghairat and sharam. These are some of the essential characteristics one must possess for the socially recognized muqaam as a successful Punjabi person. However, I find it self-revealing that the much general discussion of overall social structure is also in line with our broader aim to make it more specific in the next fifth and sixth chapters. Fourth chapter also convinces me about the limited possibility to focus on one aspect or characteristic of the making of Punjabi personhood, which would have left the understanding of social structure incomplete. Therefore, as one most important factor, my aim in fourth chapter has been the discussion of role of land ownership and the claims to elevated statuses. When I problematize the claims of one’s lineage as elevated due to land ownership, it leads to contemporary reconfiguration when scale of land ownership is shrinking at individual level. Therefore, it is important to recognise how new forms of claims about origin and their acceptance sneak into the larger narratives of izzat, shanakht and muqaam. Resultantly, it necessitates the need to place both the narratives of land ownership as a qualification to

243

monopolization of historical references to the elevated social status and then the changing castes in the wake of their improved socio-economic status as central concern for the debate about recent Punjabi personhood. My intention to keep the change in economic status and the subsequent change in caste is dictated by the need to grasp the changing significance of castes, which were earlier known as kammis and landless. However, these all changing potentials of statuses either as caste categories or as individuals with enhanced economic capital, one must not forget that shared Punjabi personhood requires the similar credentials from family as a unit of the earliest reference and biraderi at larger level. Therefore, the place of family is not only important for the zamindar families as source of claimed elevated status, but it is also true for the changing castes and their attachment to their respective families and relatives as markers of their newer identity. After the brief and scattered discussion of multiple shades about the understanding of Punjabi personhood, I have presented the ethnography of marriages in fifth chapter about as they happen in at both the villages of study.

Fourth and fifth chapters are closely related because vartan is mainly dependent upon marriages and death rituals as peak periods of social relations where personhood is marked significantly. Participation and expression of personhood through participation in vartan is considered and expected to match both the status and importance of relationship between the parties involved. One who does not share the network of vartan is separated from those who are in the network of vartan and the separation itself entails the defining of personhood. Normally, people do not participate in the individual positions. What is more important for the hosts is the representation of the guests as representatives of their families. When women who are less likely to violate the code of purdah also participate in the vartan they are also referred as representatives of the household. For example, an old woman of the house is supposed to represent her husband, sons, grand-sons and if not married, her brothers also. Therefore, my analysis about personhood has aimed at the schematic discussion of vartan as general conduct, which weaves people together. Therefore, the fifth chapter presents central position of vartan as both the touchstone and constituent of personhood.

The word exchange emerges little tricky and lacking in certain respects to express the feeling of vartan, because my use of the word vartan also brings forth social essence of personhood 244

and one’s value in the network social relations. This also takes us to surpass what Skeggs identifies “in the development of Western personhood during centuries of colonialism” through the relationships to “objects and exchange offered different positions and possibilities for the investment in, legitimation of, and connection between personhood and value”(Skeggs 2011: 501). It is compelling to take into account that people assert their being not only through the objects, like haaar, salaami, kapray earlier known as trevar when women used to talk about clothes, but they also transcend such calculations for expressing the relationship. It is common to hear people by remembering the excessive and sometimes even lavish spending during their vartan. These references about such rare instances when normal course of action has not been taken, convey the meaning of one relationship as distinct one. This happened many times during narration of stories which trace the relationship to different sources. One very apt illustration of the importance of relationship is one idiomatic expression shared with me by an elder from one kammi biraderi that rishta bootay ki tarah hota ha jo aahista aahista ugta ha aur bdi tawajju chahta ha (a relation is like a tree, which grows slowly and requires utmost care). One of the most important change in the practice of vartan is the role of women. During earlier times, women used to be the leading actors of the marriages when most of the activities of the marriage took place inside the house. Women were the driving force behind singing, dowry making, inviting women, and arranging the wikhaaka at marriages. Furthermore, the calculation of exchange also slips from the hands of the women to men’s sphere when a marriage function turns increasingly materialistic. The study has attempted to present an integrated analysis of the changing village structure, where some positions as zamindar patron or in some of the cases as kammis have remained unchanged. Another important change in the marriages is the change in the representation of the kammis in the marriages of the villages. I have proposed a new approach to the understanding of a contemporary village where one can go with an imagination of traditional village of zamindar and kammi. However, the imagination of such traditional understanding of fixed village is misplaced because both the central position of zamindars is also sliding away and the kammis are also becoming independent. This is more clearly marked at Khokhran, where people from the kammi biraderies have not only assumed independent base of their economic sustenance but also have changed castes. These representations of changing statuses and castes is also visible from their marriages and its expression. So, the ethnography of marriages helps us understand how people make their

245

marriages within their economic means and social claims as mutually defining and maintaining their network of social relationships.

Last chapter of the thesis is about death rituals and it completes the meaning of key term vartan. As expressed in vernacular parlance, vartan is not limited to ceremonial exchange of gift, but it incorporates mundane flow of social life. Therefore, I have been attentive to the most widely used expressions of walan wassan, lain dain, khushi ghami and aana jana among the people of the villages. These expressions embody the life-long processes of sharing between people as agents of their relations. The above given expressions do not separate the element of sorrow because people would recognize one relationship as worthy of its social upkeep only if it shares one’s both moments of joy and sorrow. Anjum Alvi appositely opines that “any understanding of the Punjabi self is bound to remain incomplete without the notion of sorrow (dukh)”(Alvi 2001: 50). However, khushi actually refers to one’s peak period of happiness which comes with marriage, or birth of child and the sorrow comes only when someone has died. Though we can count the illness or an accident causing injury to one as necessary condition of the fulfilment of obligation to share the moment of sorrow, but these events are limited only to closest relatives and friends. However, death marks an exception to all excuses and justifications when it comes to defining the relationship. One who is unable to condole fellow relative or friend’s death is considered as unwilling to keep the relationship. My use of the expression one’s death is deliberate because dead are not individuals in themselves. Once dead they are owned as essential parts of those who are left bereaved and this appropriation of the dead is central to the meanings of death in the network of the vartan in the villages. The meaningfulness of death as a social happening in the villages of study is further established when we see that the importance of dead is also similarly marked as those who are unequal when alive. For example, two persons of same age group with similar responsibilities in their lives to fulfil would be treated as zamindar dead and kammi dead after their respective deaths. This representation of the dead is also visible from the serving of the food and making of kirrha as the remembering of the dead. Therefore, one can easily decipher the difference between the statuses of the families of the dead just by the observation of the place where people sit, share condolences and serving of the food. Like marriages, the deaths are also witness to changing socio-religious structure with economic imprints. When people talk about the difference

246

in their death rituals, they consider the religion as the most important consideration for the reward of the dead in the after-life, but I further extend my observation to the penetrating puritanical religious interpretations. These puritanical religious interpretations mainly concern the family of the dead, but it also changes the mode of sharing the bereavement among women. Thus, we can say that deaths are equally loaded events in the social life of the people of the villages and they reflect the broader changing positions of the people and the process of social change itself.

Thus, considering changes in marriage ceremonies and death rituals either socio-economic or religiously guised, one is convinced about the tradition in transition. Tradition considered from the perspective of people of the villages themselves is rooted in their understanding of the relationship with their elders and they relate it quite regularly with their own time(s). This, marks a transition in what people of Khokhran and Amin Kot consider their relation with their own understanding of tradition.

247

Bibliography

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. “Writing Against Culture.” In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, 1st edition, 137–62. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. ———. 1993. “Islam and the Gendered Discourses of Death.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 25 (2): 187–205. Abu-Rabia, Aref. 2008. “A Native Palestinian Anthropologist in Palestinian-Israeli Cosmopolitanism.” In Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism : Rooted, Feminist and Vernacular Perspectives, edited by Pnina Werbner, 159–72. New York: Berg. Adams, Tony E., Stacy Holman Jones, and Carolyn Ellis. 2014. Autoethnography. 1 edition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Ahmad, Saghir. 1970. “Social Stratification in a Punjabi Village.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 4 (1): 105–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/006996677000400107. ———. 1977. Class and Power in a Punjabi Village. New York: Monthly Review Press. Ahmed, Usman, and Aaisha Amjad. 2013. “Caste Based Endogamy in a Punjabi Village of Pakistan.” South Asian Studies 28 No 2 (28): 341–52. Akhtar, Parveen. 2013. British Muslim Politics: Examining Pakistani Biraderi Networks. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Alam, S. M. Nurul. 2002. “Anthropology for the Future: Can We Create a Relevant Anthropology?” In Contemporary Anthropology: Theory and Practice, edited by S. M. Nurul Alam, 43–73. Dhaka: Jahangirnagar University Press. Ali, Imran. 2003. The Punjab Under Imperialism: 1885-1947. : Oxford University Press. Alvi, Anjum. 2001. “The Category of the Person in Rural Punjab.” Social Anthropology 9 (1): 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0964028201000039. ———. 2007. “India and the Muslim Punjab: A Unified Approach to South Asian Kinship.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 13 (3): 657–78. ———. 2013. “Concealment and Revealment: The Muslim Veil in Context.” Current Anthropology 54 (2): 177–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/669732. Alvi, Hamza. 1995. “The Two Biraderies: Kinship in Rural West Punjab.” In Muslim Communities of South Asia: Culture, Society, and Power, edited by T. N. Madan, 248

Revised and Enlarged, 1–62. New Delhi: Manohar (in association with) Book Review Literary Trust. Angrosino, Michael V. 2006. Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection. 2 edition. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Pr Inc. Anwar, Muhammad Fiaz. 2016. “Role of Biraderi in Politics: A Case Study of Voting Behaviour in Jhok Bodo Village, District Dera Ghazi Khan.” Pakistan Journal of History and Culture XXXVII (2): 19–36. Appadurai, Arjun. 1986a. “Introduction: Commodities and Politics of Value.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective., edited by Arjun Appadurai, 3–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1986b. “Theory in Anthropology: Center and Periphery.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 28 (2): 356–61. ———. 1988. “Putting Hierarchy in Its Place.” Cultural Anthropology 3 (1): 36–49. Arnold, David. 1997. “The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge, and Penology in Nineteenth- Century India.” In A Subaltern Studies Reader 1986-1995, edited by Ranajit Guha, 140– 78. London: University of Minnesota Press. Asad, Talal. 1973. Anthropology & the Colonial Encounter. Ithaca Press. Astuti, Rita. 2009. “Revealing and Obscuring River’s Natural Pedigrees: Biological Inheritance and Kinship in Madagascar.” In Kinship and beyond: The Genealogical Model Reconsidered, edited by James Leach and Sara Bramford, 214–36. London: Berghahn. ———. 2017. “On Keeping up the Tension between Fieldwork and Ethnography.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 7 (1): 9–14. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.003. Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. 2004. Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Barnard, Alan. 2004. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “Barnard, Alan, and Jonathan Spencer.” 1996. Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology New York Routledge. Barth, Fredrik. 1967. “On the Study of Social Change.” American Anthropologist 69 (6): 661– 69.

249

———. 1981. “The System of Social Startification in Swat, North Pakistan.” In Features of Person and Society in Swat: Collected Essays on Pathans., edited by Adam Kuper, 2:16– 54. Selected Essays of Fredrik Barth,. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bates, Crispin. 1995. “Race, Caste and Tribe in Central India: Early Origins of Indian Anthropometry.” 3. Edinburgh Papers In South Asian Studies. University of Edinburgh, Centre for South Asian St. Bayly, Susan. 1999. The New Cambridge History of India: Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Béteille, André. 1971. Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village. Berkley: CA: University of California Press. Bhandari, Parul, and Fritzi-Marie Titzmann. 2017. “Introduction. Family Realities in South Asia: Adaptations and Resilience.” South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal 1 (14). https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.4365. Blim, Michael. 2005. “Culture and Economy.” In A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, edited by James G. Carrier, 306–22. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Bloch, Maurice. 2013. “What Kind of ‘Is’ Is Sahlins’ ‘Is’?” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3 (2): 253–57. Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal. 2004. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. 2 edition. London ; New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977a. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1977b. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Nice. Cambridge University Press. ———. 1979a. “Symbolic Power.” Critique of Anthropology 4 (13): 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X7900401307. ———. 1979b. Algeria 1960: The Disenchantment of the World, The Sense of Honour, The Kabyle House or the World Reversed. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

250

———. 1980. “The Aristocracy of Culture.” Translated by Richard Nice. Sage Publishers 2: 225–54. ———. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Massachsetts: Harvard University Press. ———. 1985. “The Market of Symbolic Goods.” Poetics 14 (1): 13–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(85)90003-8. ———. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson, translated by Richard Nice, 241–58. Wesport CT: Greenood Press. ———. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press. ———. 1992. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. 1 edition. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ———. 1993. “The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed.” In The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, edited by Johnson. Columbia: Columbia University Press. ———. 1996. “On the Family as a Realized Category.” Theory, Culture & Society 13 (3): 19– 26. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327696013003002. ———. 1997. “Passport to Duke.” Metaphilosophy 28 (4): 49–55. ———. 1998. Masculine Domination. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=1279. ———. 2000a. “Making the Economic Habitus: Algerian Workers Revisited.” Translated by Richard Nice. Ethnography 1 (1): 17–41. ———. 2000b. Pascalian Meditations. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ———. 2003. “Colobialism and Ethnography.” Translated by Derek Robbins and Rachel Gomme. Anthropology Today 19 (2): 13–18. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. SAGE Publications.

251

Bourdieu, Pierre, Gisele Sapiro, and Brian McHale. 1991. “Second Lecture. The New Capital: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of State Nobility.” Poetics Today 12 (4): 643–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772707. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Abdelmalek Sayad. 2004. “Colonial Rule and Cultural Sabir.” Translated by Loïc Wacquant, Richard Nice, and Tarik Wareh. Ethnography 5 (4): 445–86. Bryant, Clifton D. 2003. “Introduction.” In Handbook of Death and Dying, edited by Clifton D. Bryant, Two:xix–xxi. California: SAGE Publications. Celtel, André. 2004. Categories Of Self: Louis Dumont’s Theory Of The Individual. New York: Berghan Books. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2002. Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies. 1 edition. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Chatterjee, Partha. 1989. “Caste and Subaltern Consciousness.” In Writings on South Asian History and Society, edited by Ranajit Guha, 169–209. Subaltern Studies, VI. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chaudhary, Azam. 2011. “Doing Reflexive Research in a ‘Native’ Field” XXXII (1): 113–29. Chaudhary, M. Azam. 2006. “Rhineland Ethnography and Pakistani Reflexivity.” Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie 131 (1): 1–26. Chaudhary, Muhammad Azam. 1999. Justice in Practice: Legal Ethnography of a Pakistani Punjabi Village. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Chaudhry, Azam, and Kate Vyborny. 2013. “Patronage in Rural Punjab: Evidence from a New Household Survey Dataset.” Lahore Journal of Economics 18 (Special Edition): 183– 209. Childs, Geoff. 2004. Tibetan Diary: From Birth to Death and beyond in a Himalayan Valley of Nepal. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chopra, Radhika. 2008. “Family, Gender and Masculinities.” In Democracy in the Family: Insights from India, edited by Joy Deshmukh-Ranadive, 183–206. New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Clifford, James. 1986. “Introduction: Partial Truths.” In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus, 1–26. Berkley: CA: University of California Press.

252

Cohn, Bernard S. 1996. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Coleman, Simon. 2015. “On Mauss, Masks, and Gifts: Christianities, (in-)Dividualities, Modernities.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (1): 295–315. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau5.1.014. Copeman, Jacob. 2009. Veins of Devotion: Blood Donation and Religious Experience in North India. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Daechsel, Markus. 2006. The Politics of Self-Expression: The Urdu Middleclass Milieu in Mid- Twentieth Century India and Pakistan. London; New York: Routledge. Dalton, George. 1969. “Theoretical Issues in Economic Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 10 (1): 63–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/201011. Dandekar, Deepa, and Torsten Tscacher. 2016. “Introduction: Framing Sufism in South Asian Muslim Politics of Belonging.” In Islam, Sufism and Everyday Politics of Belonging in South Asia, edited by Deepa Dandekar and Torsten Tscacher, 1–16. London: Routledge. Das, Veena, and Ranendra K. Das. 2010. “Introduction.” In Sociology and Anthropology of Economic Life: The Moral Embedding of Economic Action, edited by Veena Das and Ranendra K. Das, 1:1–30. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Das, Veena, Michael Jackson, Arthur Kleinman, and Bhrigupati Singh. 2014. “Introduction. Experiments between Anthropology and Philosophy: Affnities and Antagonisms.” In The Ground Between: Anthrpopologists Engage Philosophy, edited by Veena Das, Michael Jackson, Arthur Kleinman, and Bhrigupati Singh, 1–26. Durham: Duke University Press. Descola, Philippe. 2016. “Transformation Transformed.” Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6 (3): 33–44. Dirks, Nicholas B. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dreze, Jean. 2002. “Palanpur, 1957-1973: Occupational and Social Inequality.” In The Village in India, edited by Vandana Madan, 203–22. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Dumont, Louis. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

253

———. 1985. “A Modified View of Our Origins: The Christian Beginnings of Modern Individualism.” In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, edited by Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, 93–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1986. Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labour in Society. Translated by W.D Halls. Theoretical Traditions in Social Sciences. London: Macmillan. Eglar, Zekiye. 2010. A Punjabi Village in Pakistan: Perspectives on Community, Land, and Economy. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Ellen, Roy. 2010. “Theories in Anthropology and ‘Anthropological Theory.’” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (2): 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9655.2010.01631.x. Ewing, Katherine Pratt. 2010. “Anthropology and Pakistani National Imaginary.” In Beyond Crisis: Re-Evaluationg Pakistan, edited by Naveeda Khan, 531–40. London: Routledge. Foster, Mary LeCron. 1994. “Symbolsim: The Foundation of Culture.” In Companio Encyclopaedia of Anthropology, 366–95. London: Routledge. Fowler, Chris. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. London ; New York: Routledge. Gaborieau, Marc. 1995. “Muslims in the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal.” In Muslim Communities of South Asia: Culture, Society, and Power, Revised and Enlarged Edition, 211–40. New Delhi: Manohar (in association with) Book Review Literary Trust. Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local Knowldege: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. Basic Boooks. ———. 2002. “An Inconstant Profession: The Anthropological Life in Interesting Times.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085449. Geertz, Hildred, and Clifford Geertz. 1975. Kinship in Bali. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

254

Gilmartin, David. 1979. “Tribe, Land and Religion in the Punjab: Muslim Politics and the Making of Pakistan.” PhD dissertation, University Microfilms International, California: University of California. ———. 2012. “Environmental History, Biradari, and the Making of Pakistani Punjab.” In Punjab Reconsidered: History, Culture, and Practice, edited by Anshu Malhotra and Farina Mir, 283–319. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. GoP. 1984. “1981 District Census Report of Vehari.” Islamabad: Population Census Organization, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. ———. 1988. “Population of Mauzas 1952-81: Vehari District.” Islamabad: Population Census Organization, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. ———. 2000. “District Census Report of Vehari 1998.” Islamabad: Population Census Organization, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. ———. 2017. “Pakistan Economic Survey 2016-2017.” Islamabad: | Ministry of Finance | Government of Pakistan |. http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1617.html. Gosden, Chris. 1999. Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. Psychology Press. Governement of Pakistan. 2017. “Pakistan Economic Survey 2017-2018.” Ministry of Finance. http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1617.html. Government of Pakistan. 2018. “6th Population and Housing Census 2017.” Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. http://www.pbscensus.gov.pk/. Graeber, David. 2011. Debt: The First 000 Years. New York: Melville House Publishing. Granovetter, Mark S., and Richard Swedberg. 1992. “Introduction.” In The Sociology Of Economic Life, edited by Mark S. Granovetter and Richard Swedberg, 1–28. Boulder: Westview Press. Gregory, Chris A. 1982. Gifts and Commodities. Academic Press. Grenfell, Michael. 2012. Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. Acumen. Gudeman, Stephen. 2001. The Anthropology of Economy: Community, Market, and Culture. Massachusetts: Blackwell.

255

Guha, Ranajit. 1989. “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography.” In Writings on South Asian History and Society, edited by Ranajit Guha, 210–209. Subaltern Studies, VI. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 1997. “Introduction.” In A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, edited by Ranajit Guha, ix–xxii. London: University of Minnesota Press. Guha, Sumit. 2013. Beyond Caste: Identity and Power in South Asia, Past and Present. Leiden: Brill. Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. “Discipline and Practice: ‘The Field’ as Site, Method and Location in Anthropology.” In Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, edited by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, 1–46. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Haeri, Shahla. 2010. “Fascination With Difference: Democratizing Anthropology, Conducting Fieldwork Among Equals.” In Pakistani Women: Multiple Locations and Competing Narratives, 278–87. Oxford University Press. Hallam, Elizabeth, Jenny Hockey, and Glennys Howarth. 2005. Beyond the Body : Death and Social Identity. Routledge. Harvey, David. 2003. Paris, Capital of Modernity. New York: Routledge. ———. 2010. A Companion to Marx’s Capital. London ; New York: Verso. Häuberer, Julia. 2010. Social Capital Theory: Towards a Methodological Foundation. 2011 edition. Wiesbaden: VS Research. Hermans, Hubert J.M. 2002. “The Dialogical Self One Person, Different Stories.” In Self and Identity: Personal,Social, AndSymbolic, edited by Yoshihisa Kashima, Margaret Foddy, and Michael J. Platow, 71–100. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hertz, Robert. 2004. “A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death.” In Death, Mourning, and Burial : A Cross-Cultural Reader, edited by Antonius C. G. M. Robben, 197–212. Malden: Blackwell. Hockey, Jennifer. 1986. “The Human Encounter with Death : An Anthropological Approach.” Ph.D., Durham University.

256

Holden, Livia, and Azam Chaudhary. 2013. “Daughters’ Inheritance, Legal Pluralism, and Governance in Pakistan.” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 45 (1): 104–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2013.781447. Ibbetson, Denzil. 1987. Punjab Castes: Races, Castes and Tribes of the People of Punajb. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications. Ingold, Tim. 1986. Evolution and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1996. “1988 Debate Social Anthropology Is a Generalizing Science or It Is Nothing: Introduction.” In Key Debates in Anthropology, edited by Tim Ingold, 13–44. London: Routledge. Javid, Hassan. 2012. “Class, Power and Patronage: The Landed Elite and Politics in Pakistani Punjab.” PhD dissertation, London: London School of Economics. Jeganathan, Pradeep. 2000. “A Space for Violence: Anthropology, and the Location of a Sinhala Practice of Masculinity.” In Community, Gender and Violence, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 37–65. Subaltern Studies, XI. London: Hutst & Company. Jenkins, Richard. 1992. Key Sociologists: Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge. Koul, Ashish. 2017. “Making New Muslim : Reform and Social Mobility in Colonial Punjab, 1890s-1910s.” South Asian History and Culture 8 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19472498.2016.1260348. Laiddlaw, James. 2010. “Laidlaw, James. ‘A Free Gift Makes No Friends’.” 6 (4): 617–34. Lardinois, Roland. 1997. “Genesis of Louis Dumont’s Anthropology.” In Orientalism and Anthropology: From Max Müller to Louis Dumont, edited by Jackie Assayag, Roland Lardinois, and Vidal Vidal, 25–54. Pondy Papers in Social Sciences. Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry. Leach, Edmund Ronald. 1961. “Rethinkinh Anthropology.” In Rethinking Anthropology. London: Athlone Press. Lemert, Charles. 2012. Social Things : An Introduction to the Sociological Life. 5th ed. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.

257

Lewis, Diane. 1973. “Anthropology and Colonialism.” Current Anthropology 14 (5): 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/201393. ———. 2015. “Anthropology and Colonialism.” Current Anthropology, October. https://doi.org/10.1086/201393. Lindholm, Charles. 1982. Generosity and Jealousy: The Swat Pakhtun of Northren Pakistan. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 1996. Frontier Perspectives: Essays in Comparative Anthropology. Karachi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. Culture and Identity: The History, Theory, and Practice of Psychological Anthropology. Oxford: Lyon, S. M. 2004a. An Anthropological Analysis of Local Politics and Patronage in a Pakistani Village. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. ———. 2004b. “‘Indirect’ Symbolic Violence and Rivalry between Equals in Rural Punjab, Pakistan.” Durham Anthropology Journal. 12: 37–50. ———. 2010. “Motivation and Justification from Dreams: Muslim Decision-Making Strategies in Punjab, Pakistan.” History and Anthropology 21 (3): 263–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2010.500813. ———. 2013. “Networks and Kinship: Formal Models of Alliance, Descent, and Inheritance in a Pakistani Punjabi Village.” Social Science Computer Review 31 No Power and Patronage in Pakistan Doctor of Philosophy Canterbury University of Kent 31 (1): 45– 55. Lyon, Stephen M., and Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal. 2016. “Ties That Bind: Marital Networks and Politics in Punjab, Pakistan.” Structure and Dynamics: EJournal of Anthropological and Related Sciences. 9 (2): 110–22. Madan, T. N. 1989. Family and Kisnhip: A Study of the Pandits of Rural . New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Madan, Vandana. 2002. “Introduction.” In The Village in India, edited by Vandana Madan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Malhotra, Anshu. 1998. “Pativratas & Kupattis: Gender, Caste & Identity in Punjab, 1870s- 1920s.” PhD dissertation, London: SOAS, UNiversity of London.

258

———. 2002. Gender, Caste, and Religious Identities: Restructuring Class in Colonial Punjab. Oxford University Press. Malhotra, Anshu, and Farina Mir. 2012. Punjab Reconsidered: History, Culture, and Practice. Oxford University Press. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 2002. Argonauts of the Western Pacific; an Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. With a Preface by Sir James Frazer. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ———. 2013. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, Enhanced Edition. Enhanced edition. Oxon, UK: Waveland Press, Inc. Maqsood, Ammara. 2017. The New Pakistani Middle Class. Cambridge, Massachsetts: Harvard University Press. Martin, Nicolas. 2016. Politics, Landlords and Islam in Pakistan. New Delhi: Routledge. Maurer, Bill. 2018. “The Method of the Real: What Do We Intend with Ethnographic Infrastructure?” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8 (1–2): 282–91. https://doi.org/10.1086/698219. Mauss, Marcel. 1969. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Metcalf, Peter, and Richard Huntington. 1979. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, Daniel. 2017. “Christmas: An Anthropological Lens.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 7 (3): 409–42. Mir, Farina. 2010. Social Space of Language: Vernacular Culture in British Colonial Punjab. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mohiuddin, Yasmeen Niaz. 2007. Pakistan: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC- CLIO. Mohmand, Shandana Khan. 2011. “Patrons, Brothers and Landlords: Competing for the Vote in Rural Pakistan.” PhD dissertation, Sussex: University of Sussex.

259

Moore, Calvin Conzelus, and John B. Williamson. 2003. “The Universal Fear of Death and the Cultural Response.” In Handbook of Death and Dying, edited by Clifton D. Bryant, One:3–13. California: SAGE Publications. Mosse, Mosse, David. 2006. “Anti-Social Anthropology: Objectivity, Objection and the Ethnography of Public Policy and Professional Communities.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12 (4): 935–56.

Mughal, Muhammad Aurang Zeb. 2014a. “Time, Space and Social Change in Rural Pakistan: An Ethnographic Study of Jhokwala Village, .” PhD dissertation, Durham University. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9492/.

–– –– ––2014b. “Calendars Tell History: Social Rhythm and Social Change in Rural Pakistan.” History and Anthropology 25 (5): 592–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2014.930034.

———. 2015a. “Being and Becoming Native: A Methodological Enquiry into Doing Anthropology at Home.” Anthropological Notebooks. 21 (1): 121–132. ———. 2015b. “Domestic Space and Socio-Spatial Relationships in Rural Pakistan ,Domestic Space and Socio-Spatial Relationships in Rural Pakistan.” South Asia Research 35 (2): 214–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728015581287. –– –– –– 2018. “Exchange Relations and Social Change in Rural Pakistan ,Exchange Relations and Social Change in Rural Pakistan: Rituals and Ceremonies of Childbirth, Marriage and Death Rituals and Ceremonies of Childbirth, Marriage and Death.” South Asia Research 38 (2): 177–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728018768137. Munck, Victor C. de. 1996. “Sufi, Reformist and National Models of Identity: The History of a Muslim Village Festival in .” In Muslim Communities of South Asia: Culture, Society, and Power, edited by T. N. Madan, Revised and Enlarged, 493–522. New Delhi: Manohar (in association with) Book Review Literary Trust. Narayan, Kirin. 1993. “How Native Is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” American Anthropologist 95 (3): 671–86. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1993.95.3.02a00070. Nasir, Aftab, and Katja Mielke. 2015. “Vartan Bhanji-Exchange Practices and Social (Im- )Mobility: Exploring the Coping Strategies of Low-Income Households of Different

260

Biraderis in Rural Punjab.” 29. Crossroads Asia Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3799.0487. Nazir, Pervaiz. 1993. “Social Structure, Ideology and Language: Caste among Muslims.” Economic and Political Weekly 28 (52): 2897–2900. Neimeyer, Robert A., Dennis Klass, and Michael Robert Dennis. 2014. “A Social Constructionist Account of Grief: Loss and the Narration of Meaning.” Death Studies 38 (8): 485–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2014.913454. Nelson, Matthew J. 2011. In the Shadow of Shari’ah: Islam, Islamic Law and Democracy in Pakistan. London: Hurst & Co. Oldenburg, Veena Talwar. 2002. Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime. New York: Oxford University Press. Parry, Jonathan. 1989. “On the Moral Perils of Exchange.” In Money and Teh Morality of Exchange, edited by Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch, 64–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pirani, Farida. 2009. “Therapeutic Encounters at a Muslim Shrine in Pakistan: An Ethnographic Study of Understandings and Explanations of Ill Health and Help-Seeking among Attenders.” PhD dissertation, Middlesex University. http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/3338/. Power, Elaine M. 1999. “An Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu’s Key Theoretical Concepts.” Journal for the Study of Food and Society 3 (1): 48–52. https://doi.org/10.2752/152897999786690753. Punjab Government. 2001. Gazetteer of the 1923-24. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications. Qadar, Abdul. 2015. “Change in Land Ownership, Biradry System and Social Status in a Punjabi Village.” M.Phil Thesis, Islamabad: Quaid-e-Azam University. Qadeer, Mohammad Abdul. 2006. Pakistan Social and Cultural Transformations in a Muslim Nation. New York: Routledge. Quigley, Declan. 1999. The Interpretation of Caste. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rabinow George, E, and D. 2008. Rees, Tobias. “Introduction: Today, What Is Anthropology?” In Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary, by Paul & Tobias Rees, . Durham: Duke University Press, .

261

Rabinow, Paul. 1996. “Representations Are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology.” In Essays on the Anthropology of Reason, edited by Sherry B. Ortner, Nicholas B. Dirks, and Deoff Eley, 28–58. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (Alfred Reginald). 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Essays and Addresses; London : Cohen & West. Rahman, Taimur. 2012. The Class Sructure of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Ramzi, Shanaz. 2012. Food Prints: An Epicurean Voyage through Pakistan - Overview of Pakistani Cuisine. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Rauf, Abdur. 1987. “Rural Women And The Family: A Study of a Punjabi Village In Pakistan.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 18 (3): 403–15. Reed-Danahay, Deborah E. 1997. “Introduction.” In Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and Social, edited by Deborah E. Reed-Danahay, 1–20. Oxford: Berg. Robb, Peter. 1983. “Land and Society: The Britsih ’Transformation in India.” In Rural India: Land, Power and Society under Britihs Rule, edited by Peter Robb, 1–22. London: Curzon Press. Robben, Antonius C. G. M. 2004. “Death and Anthropology: An Introduction.” In Death, Mourning, and Burial : A Cross-Cultural Reader, edited by Antonius C. G. M. Robben, 1–16. Malden: Blackwell. Rosaldo, Renato. 1988. “Death in the Ethnographic Present.” Poetics Today 9 (2): 425–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772697. ———. 1993. “Introduction: Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.” In Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis, edited by Renato Rosaldo, With a new Introduction, 1–21. Boston: Beacon Press. Rose, H. A. 1997. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Vol. 2. 1–3 vols. New Delhi: Nirmal Publishers. Rosenblatt, Paul C. 1997. “Grief in Small-Scale Societies.” In Death and Bereavement Across Cultures, edited by Collin Murray Parkes, Pittu Laungani, and Bill Young, 27–51. London: Routledge. Rozehnal, R. 2016. Islamic Sufism Unbound: Politics and Piety in Twenty-First Century Pakistan. Springer.

262

Sahlins, Marshall D. 2013. What Kinship Is––and Is Not. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Sahlins, Marshall David. 1965. “On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange.” In The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, edited by Max Gluckman and Fred Eggan, 139–86. London: Tavistock Publications. Said, Edward W. 1989. “Representing the Colonized: Anthropology’s Interlocutors.” Critical Inquiry 15 (2): 205–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/448481. Sayer, Andrew. 2011. Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Settar, S. 1989. Inviting Death: Indian Attitude Towrds Ritual Death. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Shah, Alpa. 2017. “Ethnography? Participant Observation, a Potentially Revolutionary Praxis.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 7 (1): 45–59. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.008. Sharma, Ursula M., and Searle-Chatterjee Mary. 1994. “Introduction.” In Contextualizing Caste: Post Dumontian Approaches, 1–24. Oxford: Blackwell. Silva Elizabeth B. 2005. “Gender, Home and Family in Cultural Capital Theory.” The British Journal of Sociology 56 (1): 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00048.x. Skeggs, Beverley. 2011. “Imagining Personhood Differently: Person Value and Autonomist Working-Class Value Practices.” The Sociological Review 59 (3): 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2011.02018.x. Smart, Alan. 1993. “Gifts, Bribes, and Guanxi: A Reconsideration of Bourdieu’s Social Capital.” Cultural Anthropology 8 (3): 388–408. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1993.8.3.02a00060. Smith, Richard Saumarez. 1996. Rule by Records: Land Registration and Village Custom in Early British Punjab. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sökefeld, Martin. 1999. “Debating Self, Identity, and Culture in Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 40 (4): 417–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/200042. Sorge, Antonio, and Jonathan Padwe. 2015. “The Abandoned Village? Introduction to the Special Issue.” Critique of Anthropology 35 (3): 235–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X15588618. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1985. “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography.” In Writings on South Asian History and Society, 330–63. Subaltern Studies, IV. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

263

———. 2000. “Discussion: An Afterword on the New Subaltern.” In Community, Gender and Violence, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 305–34. Subaltern Studies, XI. London: Hurst & Company. Srinivas, Mysore Narasimachar. 2002. “The Indian Village: Myth and Reality.” In Collected Essays, edited by Mysore Narasimachar Srinivas, 3–39. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar. 2002. Collected Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Stahl, Ann B. 2004. Making History in Banda: Anthropological Visions of Africa’s Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strathern, Andrew, and Pamela J. Stewart. 2005. “Ceremonial Exchange.” In A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, edited by James G. Carrier, 230–45. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Malenesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Talbot, Ian. 1998. Pakistan: A Modern History. London: Hutst & Company. Tambs-Lyche, Harald. 2018. Transaction and Hierarchy: Elements for a Theory of Caste. London ; New York: Routledge. Thapan, Meenakshi, and Roland Lardinois. 2006. “Introduction: The Uses of Bourdieu’s Social Theory: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.” In Reading Pierre Bourdieu in a Dual Context: Essays from India and France, edited by Meenakshi Thapan and Roland Lardinois, 1–55. London: Routledge. Tilly, Charles. 2001. “Introduction: Anthropology Confronts Inequality” 1 (3): 299–306. Turner, Victor. 1985. “Anthropology of Perofrmance.” In On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience, edited by Edith L.B. Turner, 177–204. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. Walter, Anna-Maria. 2016. “Between ‘Pardah’ and Sexuality: Double Embodiment of ‘Sharm’ in Gilgit-Baltistan.” Rural Society 25 (2): 170–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2016.1194328. Weiss, Anita M. 2014. Interpreting Islam, Modernity and Women’s Rights in Pakistan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

264

Wilk, Richard R., and Lisa C. Cliggett. 2009. Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Avalon Publishing. Wilkes, Chris. 1990. “Bourdieu’s Class.” In An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu : The Practice of Theory, edited by Richard Harker, Cheleen Mahar, and Chris Wilkes, 109–31. New York: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Wirtz, Kristina. 2016. “The Living, the Dead, and the Immanent: Dialogue across Chronotopes.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6 (1): 343–69. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau6.1.019. Yan, Yunxiang. 2005. “The Gift and Gift Economy.” In A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, edited by James G. Carrier, 246–61. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Yang, Shu-Yuan. 2011. “Death, Emotions, and Social Change among the Austronesian-Speaking Bunun of Taiwan.” Southeast Asian Studies 49 (2): 214–39. Zaman, Shahaduz. 2008. “Native among the Natives: Physician Anthropologist Doing Hospital Ethnography at Home.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 37 (2): 135–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241607312495. Zia, Afiya S. 2018. Faith and Feminism in Pakistan: Religious Agency or Secular Autonomy? Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.

265

Glossary

Aana jana… Lit. To come and to go. Socially it refers to one’s terms with fellows.

Aglay waqt…. earlier times, mainly referring to one or two generations back.

Achaanak…Sudden.

Ahl-e-Hadith…One school of thought in Islamic jurisprudence, which believes in strict interpretation of religious texts.

All… A term distinguishing one branch of the bloodline from rest of the bloodlines, mostly due to some specific nature of work, genetical makeup or temperament issues.

Amaanat…A precious trust, object or confidence posed in someone else to be received back

Apna…One’s own, the opposite to other

Asli…Original

Aqalmandi…Sagacity

Azaab…Punishment from God

Badla utarna…To pay one’s debt back

Baithak….A room, which is mostly adjacent to the gate of the house and is reserved for male guests. Baithak is constructed mostly either in urban houses where dera construction is not possible or people who do not afford to have dera are satisfied with baithak

Bahir…Outside

Ba kirdar… Chaste, one who possesses noble character

Bannay samandri…Those who share land boundaries

Barakah…Blessing

266

Barat… Journey to the house of bride with fellow relatives, neighbours, biraderi members and friends

Sunni Barelvi…Schoo of Islamic jurisprudence, which believes in Sufi Islam, and is considered as more accommodative of Sufism. The name traces its origin to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan of Bareli, a devout praiser of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) of Islam.

Beghairat…one who lacks honour

Bhai…. Brother

Bhai chara…Brotherhood

Bhanja…Sister’s son

Bhateeja…Brother’s son

Bhatti…. A Rajput biraderi in Punjab.

Bayat…Paying allegiance at the hands of pir as spiritually dependent for blessings and guidance

Chacha…Father’s brother

Chaleesvan…Lit. meaning fortieth, but socially refers to the khatam on the fortieth day of the death as ending the formal mourning.

Charpai…Bedstead

Chenab…One of the five Rivers in Punjab

Chishti…A caste largely considered spiritually fused as progeny of Baba Fareed-ud-Din Ganj-e- Shakar at Pakpattan

Daal masoor…Brown lentils

Dadki…Paternal side

Dafan…Burial

267

Daina…Give

Daig…A large cauldron used to cook rice and curry at public events. One cauldron of curry is sufficient for 30-40 persons to eat.

Dariyan… Plural for dari, which is a large mat made of rough threads

Dera….Male guest house

Dhuddi…Rajput tribe

Dulha…Groom

Duneevi…Worldly

Dukh…Sorrow

Dulhan…Bride

Dushmani…. animosity

Elaan…Announcement from mosque loudspeaker

Farz…. Plural as faraiz, which refers to the obligatory commandments of Islam, and there is no space for personal reasoning etc., offering prayers five time, ablution before prayers etc.

Fateha… Recitation of durud+sura-e-fateha+three times sura-e-Iklaas+durud to seek blessings for the deceased.

Fautgi…Lit. Death. The term is used mostly to refer to its social meaning as a happening. See also marag

Fiqh…Islamic jurisprudence

Galay lagna…Lit. To embrace. Socially, the term is used mostly when people refer to women’s fierce weeping and wailing while mourning the death. See also wain krna

Ghar…House

268

Ghair…Other, the opponent

Ghairat… The word does not have fixed meaning, but it is used more specifically about matters of serious breach of one’s honour

Ghami…Sorrow. See also khushi

Gharana…. Household comprising of relationships

Ghund….Covering of face by lowering the front side of dupatta

Ghusl… Last bath to purify Muslim dead persons before their funeral and burial

Gila krna….To complain

Goth…… Sub-caste

Gunah….Sin

Haatah…. house with both physical and personal boundary as independent household

Haya…Modesty as a code of life with strict observance of purdah

Huqqah…. A traditional revolving pipe, which pre-dominantly elder people use for smoking tobacco

Iddah… Aperiod of wait for the widow to solemn the nikah again. The time is three months for the woman who is not pregnant and the one who is pregnant has to wait till delivery of the child

Insaani… humanly

Imam…Prayer leader

Izzat…Respect

Jat…The one who works. It also refers to one of the largest land owning tribes in Pakistan, who has many sub-castes.

Janaaza…Funeral prayer 269

Julaha…Weaver

Kafan…Coffin

Kanjar…Pimp

Kanjoos…Miser

Kandha…Shoulder

Karyana…Grocery shop

Kharal…A land owning caste in Punjab

Kharch krna…Spend

Khatam…The recitation of Quran with durud and asking for blessings for the souls of dead persons. Principally, the event refers to third day of death, seventh day of death and fortieth day of death.

Khaala…Mother’s sister. See also Maasi

Khitaab…Religious sermon

Khula dil…With open heart, referring to generosity

Khushi…Lit. Happiness. However the term is used mostly coupled with ghami (the sadness) to represent complete life cycle of all events of sorrow and joy.

Kirrha… The sitting of people at ground on mats for a specific period beginning from the day of death to 7-10 days in average

Kumhaar…Potter

Lain dain…To exchange

Lakhvera…The leading caste among the Joyias near Satluj river

Len den… 270

Lohaar…..Blacksmith

Maachhi….Water carrier and wood collector artisan caste

Maasi…Mother’s sister. See also khaala

Mahol…Environment

Mainn and Mallah…..Boat man

Mamu…Mother’s brother

Mandi…Market

Marag…Death

Masjid…Mosque

Mataam… Same as kirrha

Matiyana…A leading political and land owning caste in district Bahawalnagar

Maulvi…Religious leader

Mauza……Revenue collecting unit at village level, represented by numberdar

Mehndi…A tradition when henna is placed at the hand of bride or groom at the marriage and the function takes place one night before the day of barat

Mochi…Cobbler

Mujaawar...One who takes care of mausoleum of a saint

Mukaan aale… Those who are within the network of sharing death bereavement

Mukhaalafat… opposition

Munaafqaan…Plural for munafiq which means hypocrite

Munshi…Manager between land owner and riaayas and kammies

271

Mutmanni-e-Shirkat…Wishful to one’s participation in the invited event

Musalli…One of the castes in Punjab, who are considered at the lowest position in social ladder of the society and they are mainly responsible for cleanliness.

Muqaam….Social standing

Naam…Name

Naam o Namoos….

Naat khawan…One who recites poetry in praise of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H

Nai….barber

Nanki…Maternal side

Nalaiq…Inefficient, lacking wisdom.

Nasal…Lineage

Nau Dolatiya…Newly wealthy

Neondra…Litteral means refer to bread but The term has changed from sending the food to the houses of nearby biraderi members and friends till early 1990s to now, the received food items limited only to the (guest) giving and receiving (host) family. Earlier meanings of the term have become synonymous with contemporary walima term.

Nikah…Religious obligation of tying the knot between adult girl and boy, when religious leader recites the sermon in the presence of four witnesses and guardian of the bride

Numberdar…… Village headman, who collects land revenue and water cess

Paar… Lit. On the other side. People in the villages use it to refer to the other side of the river Satluj and the people of the other side.

Pakhtun…One of the main ethnic blocks in Pakistan residing largely in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. 272

Paraiya…Not one’s own. See also ghair and shareek

Pawli…Weaver, same as used Julaha

Pir…Spiritual guide

Punjab…One of the four provinces of Pakistan. This is the largest and most fertile part of Pakistan

Qaabliyyat…Capability

Qabila…Tribe

Qasoor…Crime

Qaum…Caste. See also zat and qabila

Qazi…One of the castes from earliest converts to Islam like Siddiquis etc.

Quran…The Holy book revealed on the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) of Islam

Qul…Third day of the death and recitation of Quran and kalmas seeking blessings for the dead.

Qul Khawani…Same as Qul

Raak….Sharecropper

Rakh Rakhao…To keep oneself socially with fellows

Ravi… One of the five Rivers in Punjab

Riaaya……One who is dependent both to till the land and to reside at one’s land.

Riasat…Lit. State. However, in thesis it refers to the state of Bahawalpur, which comprised almost all the current Bahawalpur division

Rishtaydar…Relatives

Rasam-o-riwaaj…

Riwaayat….Tradition

273

Roza-e-Rasool…The burial place of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H).

Rukhsti…Literal meaning is departure, but it refers to the date of leaving the house of father and brothers for the house of husband, which is believed as true house of the bride

Saadi…Ours

Saamaan…The expression referred for the items, which can be translated as luggage in English

Saanjh…Mutual sharing in social relationships or material possessions

Saatveen….Seventh day of death, when khatam is offered for the sawaab of the departed soul in presence of relatives, biraderi and friends.

Sabzi…Vegetable.

Saga…Relative, when used for blood relations, it refers to true relations unlike step (relations).

Salaami…The money paid to groom or bride at different functions of marriage i.e. at walima, rukhsti etc.

Saldera…A zamindar sub-caste of Joyias

Salook…Unity

Sakht…hard but when used for a person, it means an unwelcoming person who is least compromising.

Samaaji…Social

Satluj…One of the five rivers in Punjab, which flows almost 20 kilo meters on the western side of the villages.

Sawaab… Reward from Allah in the hereafter

Sharam…. Shame, modesty etc.

Shanakht…Recognition

274

Shakhsiyyat….Personality

Shareeka…….opposition within one

Shokhay…Boastful

Sugharrh… A woman mannered in daily household chores

Sukhera…A trading caste in the Punjab.

Sunaar…Goldsmith

Syed…The leading caste among Muslims because of their descent from the daughter of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

Tabbar…Household, family as posterity of one couple

Tadfeen…The act of burial. See also dafan

Tarbiyyat…Socio-moral upbringing

Tareekh…Date

Tawahamati…Superstitious

Taya…Father’s elder brother called also Taya Abbu

Thek thak…Representing the satisfaction with affairs.

Tirkhaan…carpenter

Tuwaadi…Yours

Vail… Money paid to kammies as part of one’s representation at the event

Vari…Sweets distributed by the family of groom after the nikah

Waen krna…To wail

Walan wassan……To live by sharing

275

Walima… Refers to the social event when guests are hosted and served food meal by the family of the groom after the day of the barat

Waqaar…Integrity

Wasaib…Local area sharing social and cultural values

Wikhaala… A tradition of showing the dowry items in the house of the bride at the day of her departure from house of her parents

Zaya…waste

Zat…Caste. See qaum, qabila, biraderi also

Zamin…land

Zamindar…land owner

Zaati… Personal

276

Cette thèse se divise en sept chapitres. La raison de ce découpage en sept chapitres est en grande partie intentionnelle, mais aussi un effet, une conséquence de ma recherche et de ma réflexion.

Les sept chapitres de mon travail correspondent aux thèmes principaux qui sont apparus lors de mon terrain. Je souhaitais, depuis le début, faire de mon premier chapitre une analyse de la nature des registres fonciers et une introduction de mon lieu d’étude. Le but était de décrire la manière dont la structure sociale du village fonctionne, afin d’étayer les arguments à venir.

L’étude géographique, socio-économique et historique des villages m’a permis de comprendre qu’un lien existe entre les relations de pouvoirs et de statuts dans les villages, et le fait d’avoir ou non une propriété foncière. Je me suis appuyé sur des cas individuels d’individus et de familles ayant connu des changements de statuts socio-économiques. Cela m’a permis de questionner les notions de Izzt (respect), de ghairat (le mot n’a pas de définition unique il est utilisé plus spécifiquement pour parler de sérieuses questions d’honneur), sharam (honte, modestie), muqaam (position sociale) et shanakht (reconnaissance) des individus et biraderies.

Mon deuxième chapitre est l’aboutissement d’un travail de réflexion sur ma position personnelle d’anthropologue natif. Cette réflexivité m’a conduit à repenser mes présupposés.

Je ne savais pas, au début de ma recherche, que mon positionnement et mon identité prendraient une place aussi importante dans mon l’étude. J’avais eu auparavant des préoccupations similaires lors d’un travail ethnographique dans un village près de Gujrat (Qadar 2015).

Cependant, cette fois-ci, le contexte est différent, car j’étais parmi les gens de mon propre village. Je connaissais chaque personne et tout le monde me connaissait. Le fait que j’appartienne à une famille zamindar ayant une position de leadeur dans mon village a eu une très forte influence sur mon étude de terrain. Me rendre compte de l’influence de mon identité sur les gens m’a obligé à mettre de la distance et à interroger les relations que j’ai eues avec eux, pendant mon étude. Cela m’a conduit à consacrer mon second chapitre aux questions des

277 origines, de la structure, ou de l’absence de structure de mon terrain au Punjab et de ma place en tant qu’anthropologues sur un terrain local (anthropologie du proche).

La question d’appartenir à mon terrain d’enquête n’était pas vraiment présente à mon esprit pendant ma recherche en comparaison avec mon bagage théorique. J’ai délibérément

évité de me focaliser sur les différents débats ayant cours entre disciplines, c’est-à-dire, entre les études anthropologiques et sociologiques ou économiques et non économiques. De ce fait, conséquent, la discussion dans le chapitre théorique ne porte que sur l’origine des études et se focalise sur les auteurs m’ayant le plus influencé. Pierre Bourdieu a été pour moi l’auteur le plus influent . Je considère que Pierre Bourdieu est sensible non seulement au contexte de son

étude, mais aussi il sait aussi faire preuve d’un regard critique sur ses présupposées et être sensible, non seulement au contexte dans lequel il situe son analyse, mais aussi à ses penchants.

Chaque fois que j’ai rencontré un problème ethnographique concernant ma réflexivité, j’ai pu me tourner vers les travaux de Bourdieu. Bourdieu est conscient que les conditions locales lui fournissent un contexte pertinent pour proposer une relation entre l’objet, l’argent et le don dans un ordre économique changeant. Cela ouvre la voie à ma formulation théorique en terme

Bourdieusian. J’exporte et mobilise ses principes arguments et analyse dans le village de mon

étude. De la sorte dans mon troisième chapitre, je théorise la pratique du don à partir de l’analyse Bourdieusienne.

À la suite de cela, j’ai entamé l’écriture de mon quatrième chapitre de manière moins planifiée. Mon approche est plus générale en raison de la nécessité du sujet. Je considère mon choix comme justifié, car en écrivant les cinquièmes et sixièmes chapitres, où se déploie l’argument central de la thèse je me suis rendu compte que la question de l’identité est centrale dans le processus évolutif de la thèse. Par conséquent, le quatrième chapitre, tout en conceptualisant les propriétés particulières de l’izzat, du sharam, du muqaam et du ghairat de

278 l’identité Pendjabi, a pour but de préparer r le chapitre suivant sur les mariages et des rituels de mort. Ce quatrième chapitre nous fournit le contexte dans lequel les positions individuelles et familiales évoluent et la manière dont le statut et la position sociale s’établissent pour se fixer historiquement. C’est aussi l’occasion d’explorer la manière dont les identités se créent et se transforment dans le punjab rural, lorsque le contexte économique et le statut social des gens changent et vont à l’encontre de l’ordre traditionnel. Le quatrième chapitre fait le lien entre l’introduction de la formulation locale et théorique présente dans le troisième chapitre et la discussion ethnographique des cinquièmes et sixièmes chapitres.

Le cinquième chapitre traite de l’analyse ethnographique des mariages en tant que schéma significatif de compréhension du capital social. Mon récit » ethnographique des mariages ne se limite pas seulement à la fête, mais aussi à comprendre comment les mariages définissent la circulation sociale dans la vie quotidienne des villages. L’utilisation schématique des mariages comme études de cas a pour but non seulement de mettre à jour la cohérence du tout que sont les célébrations et les festivités, mais aussi pour la remettre en cause. Par exemple, la présence de shareeka (adversaire de l’intérieur) lors du mariage remet en cause profondément le principe de gaité comme objectif principal du mariage. Par conséquent, mon utilisation de l’expression de shareeka est limitée seulement à ce que les gens voient comme un adversaire

(dans l’un contre les adversaires comme égaux). Les relations et les comportements compétitifs et hostiles qui définissent les différents rôles font des mariages des cas intéressants pour une compréhension globale du vartan (les échanges formels lors des mariages et des rituels funéraires). Ainsi, le cinquième chapitre a pour but de montrer la manière dont la pratique du vartan structure et incarne les relations sociales dans les villages d’étude. Cependant, le vartan ne se limite pas seulement aux relations de célébration, mais recouvre toutes les relations quotidiennes. Les gens définissent leurs relations de vartan assez ouvertement pendant leur vie

279 puis de manière discrète à leur mort. Cela m’amène au sixième et avant-dernier chapitre de la thèse.

Le sixième chapitre traite des rituels de mort dans les deux villages de mon » étude.

Ce chapitre traite du partage social des rituels de mort. L’importance de l’analyse des rituels de mort va bien au-delà de leur signification rituelle. Les hommes et les femmes sont très préoccupés par la relation qu’ils ont avec leurs morts. Ils définissent leurs relations vivantes par le partage de leurs morts. Mon intention dans le dernier chapitre est de raconter le déroulement complet de la vie sociale des gens quand ils parlent de leur vartan. Ce chapitre, qui est aussi le dernier, traite de la mort comme une partie tout aussi importante de la pratique du vartan que les gens ne limitent pas à leur mariage et qui ne sert à rien si elle n’est pas reconnue. Ainsi, ma recherche de thèse aborde la vie sociale de villages à travers l’articulation de l’identité, qui s’exprime et est reconnue socialement à la fois à travers la joie des mariages et la douleur de la morts.

Vartan maran jeevan de naal a’ (séjour d’échange avec une personne à tous les moments de sa vie et de sa mort) partage un ancien (75 ans) de Wahgah biraderi (groupe endogame), sans terre. Ce passage donné ci-dessus, tiré de multiples échanges quotidiens des gens, nous aide à réfléchir sur les significations beaucoup plus profondes du vartan bhanji ou vartan (échange de dons) sur la vie sociale des villages de l’étude. L’étude du don (ci-après dénommé « vartan ou vartan bhanji », car les habitants du village utilisent ces mots) dans un village punjabi permet d’étudier la structure sociale de cette pratique, et son rôle de dépositaire des relations sociales.

Cette pratique s’étend au-delà des relations sociales individuelles. Lorsque j’utilise les mots :contemporain et tradition, dans le sous-titre de la thèse, mon but est de relier mon étude avec la structure du bhanji vartan, comme pratique traditionnelle dans sa forme contemporaine.

280 Mon travail de terrain dans les villages est divisé en trois visites planifiées, en plus de ma vie de natif qui m’a influencée de manière directe et indirecte.

Ma première période de travail sur le terrain s’est déroulée du 6 juillet 2016 au 27 février

2017, suivie d’une autre période de six semaines du 26 septembre 2017 au 12 novembre 2017.

Ma dernière période de visite de trois semaines est relativement récente, puisqu’elle remonte au 17 avril 2018 jusqu’au 13 mai 2018. Mes séjours de terrain ne se déroulent que dans les villages. J’ai donc débattu de mon « soi » et de la position d’anthropologue autochtone, tout en restant attentif aux préoccupations de la représentation en anthropologie, les mêmes que j’ai discuté en détail dans le deuxième chapitre.

Quand j’analyse de manière centrale dans mon étude, les personnes et leurs relations sociales l’aspect le plus important de leur vie, semble être leur attention à l’entretien de leur réseau de relations sociales. Par conséquent, l’étude contextualise l’articulation et la mise en réseau des relations sociales à travers les décès et les mariages des populations des deux villages

étudiés, connus sous le nom de Khokhran et Amin Kot. Il est généralement admis que le village punjabi est dépendant de la terre, qui est un des éléments les plus importants et les plus déterminants du paysage socio économique du village. Cependant, cette étude examine à la fois l’importance économique traditionnelle de la propriété foncière et les changements contemporains de son rôle dans la vie du village. Je me suis rendu compte de la nécessité de scruter le changement dans le village Pendjabi tout en faisant une ethnographie comparative

(Qadar 2015) pour renouveler l’étude de Zekiye Eglar (Eglar 2010). Mon étude de M. Phil, dont l’approche était beaucoup moins poussée, m’a amené à cette étude avec un accent plus

étroit, mais plus complet sur l’étude de l’échange du don en tant que pratique socialement partagée socialement. Cela m’ouvre la voie à une réflexion plus détaillée sur les changements récents dans les relations de parenté et le système biraderi en tant que groupe endogame. Ces

281 relations s’expriment le mieux par la pratique du bhanji vartan comme institution sociale la mieux adaptée. Je dois admettre que je dois beaucoup à Zekiye Eglar pour son étude séminale menée dans les années 1950 dans le même village de Mohla à Gujrat où j’ai effectué mon travail de terrain pour mon M Phil.

Bien que mon intention demeure principalement d’ajouter au débat lancé par Eglar, j’ai constaté que les gens identifient et pratiquent à présent des changements significatifs, dans l’importance et sa forme ultérieure en tant que pratique sociale, ce qui nécessite une contextualisation actuelle. Je ne vais pas me concentrer davantage sur l’analyse comparative, mais je me réfère à une compréhension très large des gens dans l’utilisation qu’ils font des termes clés. Par exemple, les gens utilisent le mot vartan comme comportement général d’un individu ou du ménage ou même d’un biraderi, qui n’est pas limité aux décès et aux mariages.

Quand les gens se réfèrent au vartan bhanji, alors ils sont plus dirigés vers la référence spécifique de la conduite d’une personne qu’aux évènements principaux des mariages. De plus, lorsque les gens font référence laux es décès comme faits socialement partagés, ils utilisent l’expression de khushi ghami (moments de joie et de douleur) ou simplement vartan. Cela m’amène à remettre en question certaines des fameuses définitions de la pratique, qui sont plus limitées que celles que les gens de mes villages d’étude considèrent. L’une des contributions les plus importantes est la définition donnée par Hamza Alvi (1995), qui, selon moi, nécessite une réévaluation critique des termes utilisés dans leur contexte. Hamza Alvi soutient que le terme vartan bhanji lui-même indique l’essence transactionnelle du rituel, car le mot

« vartan » signifie « transactions » ou « achat et vente » ; et « bhanji » signifie fille de sœur (objet d’affection) (Alvi 1995 : 16). Dans mon étude de cas, j’ai constaté que les gens considèrent la pratique du bhanji vartan comme plus holistique que simplement la réduire à la vente ou à l’achat rituels. La population du village dirait que le terme désigne l’essence générale des relations entre eux. De plus, lorsqu’on les interroge sur le terme bhanji, les gens croient en

282 général qu’il ne fait pas référence à la fille de la sœur, mais qu’il signifie le curry mangé avec du pain. Ainsi, le terme se réfère au service et au partage de la nourriture lors des mariages en tant qu’évènements principaux dans la vie sociale des villages. Une distinction importante réside également dans le fait que les gens utilisent le mot de bhaaji comme mot propre dans les villages d’étude au lieu de l’utilisation nasale de la lettre « n » dans le mot. On peut donc s’écarter de l’étude influente de Zekiye Eglar (2010) qui a traduit ce terme principalement par une pratique d’échange de dons. Mon étude a été influencée par les deux études mentionnées ci-dessus, mais je considère le bhanji vartan comme une pratique plus diffuse des personnes lors des mariages et des rituels de mort. Cependant, lorsque j’utilise l’expression plus souvent utilisée de vartan, elle se réfère à une conduite plus générale, c’est-à-dire les relations quotidiennes avec les autres, les salutations, l’entraide et le partage de la vie socioculturelle quotidienne.

Comme je l’ai déjà dit clairement, ma réflexion sur le sujet a en fait commencé à se cristalliser après la lecture des travaux d’Eglar (2010), de sorte que, intentionnellement ou non, mon étude s’inspire de celle d’Eglar. Ce qui fait mon étude une valeur nécessaire pour une entreprise aussi longue est le sous-titre de ma thèse ??? : la tradition en transition. Quand j’utilise l’expression de tradition, elle est principalement empruntée aux expressions vernaculaires de rasam-o — rivaaj, et riwaayat comme deux expressions les plus utilisées. De plus, elle met également en perspective la signification du vartan en tant que pratique sociale remontant à ce que les gens appellent l’aglay waqt (les temps anciens). Lorsqu’on les interroge davantage sur leur utilisation de l’expression aglay waqt, les gens limitent leur utilisation de l’expression aglay waqt à une ou deux générations en arrière au sujet de leurs ancêtres en raison des limites pratiques de la mémoire et de la pertinence des ainés comme principales sources de fierté. Cela m’amène à analyser à la fois la tradition telle qu’elle se trouve dans l’aglay waqt et la façon dont les gens conçoivent leurs formes actuelles de la pratique. C’est donc l’occasion

283 de problématiser la pratique du vartan en observant de près le temps, tout en réfléchissant aux changements socio- économiques. Je suis également attentif au fait que le sens du temps est à l’œuvre lorsque l’on pense que la tradition peut être séparée du présent, et avec quel genre de facilité ou de défis il cela nécessite pour donner un sens à une étude comme celle-ci. Je pense qu’il est nécessaire de marquer clairement le sens de la tradition dans cette étude, ce qui signifie ici non pas le mot utilisé, délibéré et discuté par les universitaires, mais sa signification et la manière dont le mot est compris par les habitants des villages de mon étude.

Cette étude vise à mettre en évidence les tendances actuelles du changement social dans une mauza (unité de revenu d’un village ou de certains villages) dans le paysage rural du

Pendjab. Mon but est de comprendre la manière dont s’articule le réseau social actuel à travers la pratique formalisée du vartan bhanji. L’étude vise à souligner que le vartan bhanji aurait l’air plutôt dénué de sens en soi s’il n’était pas considéré comme une référence pour les perspectives sociales, culturelles et économiques sous-jacentes et les relations de pouvoir au niveau du village. La raison réside dans la nature même de la pratique, telle qu’elle est reconnue par Lyon, à savoir que « le compte rendu des dons constitue une preuve complémentaire utile pour d’autres chercheurs et pour donner une image plus holistique de la société pakistanaise » (Lyon 2004 a : 52). Quand nous voyons le rôle central du vartan bhanji dans la structure rurale du Pendjab, cela nous amène à la formation de la structure rurale elle-même, où la propriété foncière a un rôle central. L’agriculture reste la « ligne de vie de l’économie pakistanaise, qui représente 19,5 % du produit intérieur brut, emploie 42,3 % de la population active et fournit des matières premières à plusieurs secteurs à valeur ajoutée » (GdP 2017).

Aujourd’hui, si nous nous concentrons davantage sur la population rurale du district de Vehari, où se trouvent les deux villages étudiés, nous constatons que sur un total de 2 897 millions de personnes, 2 397 millions vivent dans des villages et 0,505 million dans des villes

(gouvernement du Pakistan 2018). Un autre fait intéressant mentionné dans le recensement de

284 la population du pays de 1998 est le fait que la taille des foyers était de 6,9 personnes dans le district (GdP 2000). Ces chiffres nous aident à mieux comprendre la structure rurale et sa dépendance à l’égard de l’agriculture lorsqu’on les compare à l’augmentation de la population depuis la création du Pakistan il y a plus de sept décennies. De même, la taille du foyer est

également utile pour comprendre la formation de la famille et la façon dont elle évolue dans les relations endogames ou sociales du vartan. La population a augmenté ce qui a eu un impact profond sur la structure socio-économique. Par exemple, lorsque la population était légèrement supérieure à 0,5 million d’habitants, le nombre de propriétaires fonciers a certainement diminué alors que la population a presque quadruplé depuis 1998 pour atteindre plus de 2,09 millions

(GdP 2001). Aujourd’hui, les derniers chiffres du recensement de 2017 sont disponibles. La population s’élève à 2 897 millions d’habitants. Ce changement suscite l’intérêt des universitaires, car il permet de voir la manière dont le rôle traditionnel de la propriété foncière et de l’ordre social a évolué. La propriété foncière a été et demeure l’un des déterminants les plus importants du statut social et du bienêtre économique dans les villages du district de Vehari en raison des modes de propriété foncière à grande échelle dans le district. Des tendances similaires sont visibles dans les deux villages de mon étude où la terre appartenait seulement à trois familles de propriétaires fonciers il y a trois décennies, comme le montre la discussion qui suit. Cependant, avec le temps, il y a eu d’importants changements dans la structure de la propriété foncière et les personnes issues de familles sans terre remettent en question la structure villageoise traditionnelle. Cela m’amène à la contextualisation contemporaine du rôle de la propriété foncière en tant que seul fournisseur de soutien économique et de statut social dans mes villages d’études.

285 Je me suis délibérément abstenu d’intégrer les débats qui, malgré leur actualité académique contemporaine, restent vagues, comme la modernité, la mondialisation ou la postmodernité ou la postmondialisation. Je trouve ces idées utiles uniquement dans leur devise académique, mais les gens dans les villages ne voient pas de tels changements venir en raison de ces influences extérieures plus importantes. Il est important de noter que lorsqu’on les interroge sur les changements émergents dans leur vie quotidienne, la plupart des gens diraient que le changement ne survient que lorsque les gens eux-mêmes sont prêts à changer et que cette même logique leur donne l’occasion de se fier aux théories du complot contre leur religion et leur culture. Lorsqu’on les interroge en détail sur la relation entre la modernité et le mode de vie moderne, c’est-à-dire l’utilisation de téléphones portables, de voitures, de tracteurs, de téléviseurs, etc., les habitants des villages considèrent que la plupart de ces articles sont utiles et ne remettent pas en question leur style de vie sociale traditionnel. Ce qui apparait comme le facteur le plus important dans la vie quotidienne est la relation ambigüe entre le présent et le passé lorsqu’on demande aux gens de faire la lumière sur le changement dans leur vie quotidienne. Rozehnal souligne à juste titre ces confusions que « tradition et modernité sont souvent invoquées, mais ces concepts ambigus sont rarement expliqués » (Rozehnal 2016 : 5).

En outre, Chakrabarty s’inquiète de la « modernité » comme une phase historique « facile à habiter, mais difficile à définir », et de ce qui, selon lui, est inévitable si l’on doit définir la modernité, alors il faut « identifier certaines personnes ou pratiques ou concepts comme non modernes » (Chakrabarty 2002 : xix). C’est la raison pour laquelle on trouve insoutenable le vrai sens de la tradition si l’on tente de voir la tradition en regard d’une conception de la modernité limitée dans le temps. Mon intention d’éviter des termes tels que modernité, post- modernité et mondialisation découle aussi de mon souci de garder les villageois comme des personnes qui parlent d’elles-mêmes plutôt que comme des références académiques trop accentuées. Cependant, dans la présente étude, « tradition » signifie ce que les gens voient la

286 différence entre leur présent et le passé, lorsqu’ils ont besoin de revenir à leur passé à travers des rituels, des cérémonies, des évènements et des festivités. Miller rappelle ici avec pertinence le phénomène appelé « l’invention de la tradition » qui est quelque chose qui « revendique des liens avec un passé ancien, mais qui est en réalité un festival presque entièrement nouveau » (Miller 2017 : 413).

À partir de l’étude de la structure générale du village punjabi et des relations entre les seigneurs féodaux, ou les propriétaires et les habitants sans terres, on voit apparaitre un rapport de complémentarité bien loin de l’image du mépris total pour la vie et l’honneur du riaaya

(celui qui réside et laboure la terre qui lui est donnée par le zamindar) et du kammi (artisan, dérivé du kaam, qui signifie travailler) dont feraient preuve les seigneurs., de la sorte, mon

étude entend présenter une image qui ne soit d’aucune façon exotique. Ainsi, mon analyse vise

à mettre en évidence ce que les gens font dans le cours normal de leur vie, et ce que signifie pour eux les mots comme vartan, walan wassan (Vivre par le partage), ou len den (lit. pour

échanger dans des relations réciproques). Ces mots représentent et incarnent le caractère dynamique, continu et englobant des relations sociales. Comme les gens utilisent ces mots de façon interchangeable, leur signification n’est compréhensible que dans le réseau local de leur utilisation. De même, dans les villages de mon étude, chaque fois que ces mots sont utilisés, ils incarnent le cycle complet de la vie des gens en tant que membres d’un groupe social défini.

L’observation de l’environnement général et englobant dans lequel les mots sont utilisés permet de saisir les représentations individuelles et collectives. Par conséquent, la présente étude vise

à montrer la manière dont le village se structure, à travers le changement de ses formes et les influences qu’il subit.

287 Introduction de la locale

Mon étude s’appuie sur deux villages adjacents, Amin Kot et Khokhran, séparés par 1,5 kilomètre de terres agricoles. Les deux villages sont situés sur le côté sud-est de Burewala

(district de Vehari, Pendjab) près du mausolée d’un saint de l’histoire de l’Islam, Deewan Haji

Sher Chawli Mashaikh (d 748). Vehari est située dans l’une des régions les plus fertiles du

Pakistan. Les habitants des deux villages suivent presque exclusivement la secte sunnite

Barelvi. Ils parlent et comprennent le dialecte jhangvi de langue Pendjabi. Ma référence au dialecte jhangvi correspond à ce que les gens appellent leur langue parce qu’ils la considèrent comme une langue différente de la langue panjabi traditionnelle. Le dialecte jhangvi est l’expression locale de la langue. Les gens l’appellent neeli ki zubaan (langue du neeli bar). A part quelques hommes et femmes plus âgés, presque tous les gens comprennent l’ourdou, la langue nationale du Pakistan.

En terme de taille, le Mauza (unité de recettes) Khokhran est l’unité de mesure de référence, il correspond à 960 acres de terres (GdP 1984) La population totale de la mauza a augmenté progressivement, passant de 690 personnes (GdP 1988) dans l’ensemble de l’unité fiscale à 2070, selon les dernières estimations, que j’ai obtenues par mon enquête personnelle et à travers les listes électorales de 2018. Khokhran en tant qu’unité de revenu apparait dans les documents de l’administration britannique depuis les années 1860, lorsque la cartographie du village a commencé, pour aboutir à la mise en place de la première colonie en 1882. La documentation britannique la plus ancienne et les documents plus actuels suggèrent que le nom officiel du mauza est Khokhar, mais les gens utilisent le nom Khokhran, que je vais donc utiliser dans la discussion à venir. La zone géographique des villages, désignée par les gens comme appartenant à Neeli Bar parce en référence à la rivière Satluj qui était autrefois connue sous le nom de Neeli (gouvernement du Punjab 2001). Le mot neeli bar est souvent utilisé pour la

288 distinguer des zones géographiques de la rivière Ravi et de la ceinture Seraiki. Neeli bar se fait référence généralement à la zone située entre les rivières Satluj et Ravi. Khokhran est un village

établi avant l’arrivée de l’administration britannique. Le nom du village est en fait dérivé de l’une des castes célèbres du Punjab Khokhar, qui a quitté le village avant même l’arrivée de l’administration britannique. Les gens ne savent pas exactement quand et pourquoi les

Khokhars ont quitté mauza, d’ailleurs il ne reste pas une seule maison des Khokhars dans tout le mauza. Les gens se souviennent seulement qu’à l’origine les Khokhars vivaient dans le village de Khokhran, puis qu’ils sont partis progressivement, avec ou sans raison particulière.

L’une des raisons qui semblent le plus proches de la réalité serait que les Khokhars ont dû partir quand l’utilisation de leurs terres était clairement définie, et les anciens de la famille Dhuddi leur ont demandé de payer pour ces terres qu’ils cultivaient. Même s’ils sont partis sans laisser de traces nous savons, grâce nom du village, que les Khokhars étaient autrefois la première caste à Khokhran,

Amin Kot est un village relativement plus récent, fondé en 1961 par la famille Dhuddi zamindar. Dhuddi est l’une des nombreuses sous-castes de Rajputs au neeli bar. La caste

Dhuddi est subdivisée en 39-43 sous-castes (goths), et ils se distinguent nettement des autres sous-castes de Rajputs. La création d’Amin Kot va de pair avec l’augmentation du pouvoir et du statut des zamindars pendant la révolution verte lancée par le président Ayub Khan (1958

— 1969), une période qui a favorisé l’émergence des riches zamindars. Par conséquent, je vois le village d’Amin Kot comme le point l’illustration même du rôle de la famille zamindar. Son changement de statut économique s’est traduit par une amélioration de son statut social, en tant que mécène zamindar prospère. Cela devient plus clair encore lorsque l’on aborde le village en tant qu’unité sociale ainsi que la question des différents clivages qui s’y jouent, concernant la propriété de la terre, les positions ultérieures des individus et des familles et le renforcement des catégories des kammis et des zamindars. Khokhran est le village d’origine à partir duquel

289 sont nés les cinq villages contemporains de la mauza Khokhran. Dans un premier temps, ce sont deux villages qui se sont créés autour de deux biraderies zamindar : Amin Kot par

Dhuddies et Jagga par Pir Iqbal Chishti. Cependant, les registres fonciers du gouvernement colonial montrent qu’à l’origine les terres appartenaient à Dhuddies, dont l’ainé a marié l’une de ses filles à un garçon de la famille Chishti avant 1870. Cela a conduit à l’établissement de

Chishties en tant que propriétaires fonciers dans la mauza. L’héritage passa par la mère qui n’avait alors pas de frère ((si elle en avait eu un ce sont les enfants de son frère qui auraient hérité). Lorsque j’étais sur mon terrain de recherche, sur le terrain, je ne croyais pas ce que les anciens de la famille Dhuddi d’Amin Kot disaient lorsqu’ils prétendaient que les ancêtres des

Chishties (en référence à leurs rivalités politiques contemporaines de Khokhran et Jagga)

étaient simplement des mendiants errants (foires) et qu’ils dépendaient de la mendicité en tant que descendants du Saint Bab Fareed-Ud-Din Ganj-e-Shakar (d 1266) de Pakpattan. Les

Dhuddies et les personnes à leur charge, tant les riaayas que les clients politiques, prétendaient que les Chishties avaient l’habitude de compter sur le pain qu’ils obtenaient de la mendicité auprès de différentes familles de Sahuka, une ville située à quatre kilomètres des deux villages.

Les récits partagés par les Dhuddies sont corroborés par les faits rapportés dans la documentation des arbres généalogiques des premiers peuplements du mauza Khokhran. En termes de structure économique dans les villages de e Amin Kot et de Khokhran, la famille

Dhuddi d’Amin Kot, et Khokhran ainsi que la famille Chishti de Khokhran sont propriétaires terriens au sens de Saghir Ahmad (1977). Saghir Ahmad définit les propriétaires comme les hommes qui emploient d’autres personnes pour travailler à temps plein sur leurs terres. Les propriétaires n’effectuent jamais eux-mêmes les travaux agricoles tels que l’irrigation, la plantation, le labourage, l’hersage, etc. De même, à Mauza Khokhran, les principales familles zamindar n’ont jamais cultivé leur terre en personne, mais ont établi une relation avec les métayers, appelés hissaydar et riaaya. Ainsi, la propriété de la terre d’une part et l’absence de

290 terre d’autre part est l’un des thèmes principaux de monétude. Cela nous aide à comprendre les termes de zamindar, kammi, au sens de statut caractérisé par la dépendance et le favoritisme, ce qui, en définitive, se rapporte au mot biraderi (un groupe endogame de parenté). Les revendications de statut social par un membre d’un biraderi et de son partage avec les membres de son biraderi. Ces considérations sont également importantes pour le débat sur la personnalité des Punjabis. Le but de mon étude est de saisir la signification de l’échange du don dans les deux villages, cela nécessite de comprendre les positions des individus et des biraderies pour par la suite de s’intéresser à celle du vartan.

Il est important de garder à l’esprit que la terre a été et demeure la « principale source de subsistance » (Eglar 2010 : 58) dans un village punjabi. L’importance de la terre comme source de subsistance économique va même au-delà du domaine purement agricole de la vie villageoise. Par exemple, l’étude s’appuie également sur le rôle de la terre dans sa relation avec la mémoire et la narration du shakhsiyyyat (personnalité) et du nasal (configuration raciale de l’arbre généalogique), représentant respectivement les sphères individuelle et collective.

Historiquement, l’ensemble du mauza Khokhran appartenait à trois familles de zamindar de

Dhuddies, Salderas et Chishties. Il est indéniable que la propriété foncière a toujours été irrévocable, mais la terre n’a pas toujours été une denrée aussi précieuse qu’aujourd’hui. Les habitants des villages se souviennent que leurs ancêtres étaient divisés hiérarchiquement en fonction de la propriété foncière et de l’absence de propriété foncière, mais au niveau de la communauté l’utilisation de la terre était alors plus partagée. lorsque les gens parlent de la valeur économique et sociale contemporaine de la terre, ils sont bien conscients de la dépendance accrue des zamindars à l’égard de l’utilisation d’outils technologiques tels que les tracteurs, les puits tubulaires, les pesticides et les machines à battre, ce qui entraine une dépendance moindre envers les sans-terre. De même, en revenant à l’époque coloniale, nous voyons que la relation à la valeur de la terre était différente. Celle-ci pouvait être un fardeau

291 pour les familles nombreuses qui ne possédaient pas la main-d’œuvre nécessaire, mais qui devaient payer les impôts sur le revenu. Quand le recouvrement des dettes devenait plus difficile et que les zamindars faisaient face à des difficultés pour payer les impôts ils renforçaient leur dépendance envers leurs fidèles kammis pour cultiver la plus grande partie de la terre. Cette même histoire trouve un écho dans un récit que m’a fait un ancien sans-terre (65 ans) de Khiaoh

(une caste qui n’est pas considérée parmi les kammis mais ne possède pas de terre) biraderi sur la proximité entre ses ancêtres et un ancien de la famille Dhuddi zamindar. L’ainé fait référence au grand- père de Zia Ahmed Khan Dhuddi (50 ans), chef de la famille Dhuddi dont le zamindar a demandé au père du premier de prendre la propriété de 20 acres de terre pour partager les impôts avec lui. Cependant, ce dernier dit qu’il ne serait pas propriétaire de la terre, mais qu’il la cultiverait en métayage et paierait les impôts à l’ancien Dhuddi. L’ainé Khiaoh était d’avis que de telles faveurs de partage de la propriété foncière entre amis proches étaient assez courantes à l’époque parce que la terre était partagée en tant que ressource entre les gens à la fois par nécessité et par devoir. Ainsi, la possession de la terre comme source de garantie

économique et l’accumulation de capital socioculturel qui en résulte semblent changer dans le temps, lorsque l’économie de marché s’est renforcée. Maintenant que l’économie de marché s’est développée et a progressivement recouvert la plupart des pratiques antérieures, il est nécessaire d’examiner la structure actuelle du village. Pour cela j’ai étudié de manière détaillée deux villages où les familles zamindar jouent un rôle important. La composition même des villages et leur structure nous aident à identifier la différence avec la configuration traditionnelle. Par exemple, il est intéressant de voir comment les propriétés terriennes ont rétréci après avoir été divisées au sein des familles, ou lors de la vente de la terre. J’ai aussi présenté l’arbre généalogique de la famille Dhuddi d’Amin Kot pour montrer à la fois la propriété foncière et la structure familiale d’une famille zamindar. L’arbre généalogique est

également utile pour comprendre que la terre ne demeure pas une propriété fixe et que son

292 rétrécissement par la division interne de l’héritage et la vente comme exception rare est un facteur désicif pour le rôle actuel de la propriété foncière.

Khokhran est le plus ancien village de toute la mauza. Selon les registres fonciers de

1882, il n’y avait qu’un seul village de Khokhran, et sept khoohs. Contrairement à Amin Kot, le village appartenant à la famille zamindar. Khokhran, est un village où les habitants ont des malkana haqooqooq (droits de propriété), donnés par Benazir Bhutto en 1992. Le village de

Khokhran se compose principalement de deux familles zamindar, les Chishties, enfants (aulad) d’un des trois frères de la famille Chishti. Les Chishties possédaient 200 acres de terre qu’ils avaient hérités de leur mère issue de la famille dhuddi. Plus tard un de leurs ainés reçut 300 acres en signe de respect de la famille Dultana pour sa position spirituelle comme aulad de

Baba Fareed. Un autre frère obtenu près de 200 acres de terre en Arifwala tehsil et alla vers le village connu sous le nom de Tibbi. Le fils du second frère, Pir Muhammad Iqbal Chishti se déplaça aussi vers Jagga basti, qui est le troisième village dans le mauza Khokhran. Les enfants

(aulad) du troisième frère sont restés dans le village de Khokhran avec une autre famille Dhuddi qui est la propriétaire foncière principale du village. La famille Chishti à Khokhran est maintenant divisée en trois lignées descendantes des trois frères.

La deuxième plus grande famille de propriétaires fonciers de Dhuddies est liée à la famille Dhuddi d’Amin Kot. L’une des sœurs de Haji Shabbir Ahmad Dhuddi de Khokhran, est mariée au cousin de Zia Ahmad Khan, et la fille du frère ainé de Zia Ahmad Khan est mariée

à Haji Shabbir Khan Dhuddi. Il y a d’autres familles Dhuddi qui sont aussi des parents éloignés

(portes de rishtaydar) des deux principales familles Dhuddi d’Amin Kot et Khokhran, dont la propriété foncière, du fait de l’influence de la famille Dhuddies, n’est pas indépendante. Ces familles dhuddi dépendent également de la famille de Zia Ahmad Khan pour la plupart de leurs affaires de patronage au niveau local et à des fins officielles (police, tribunaux, revenus, etc.).

293 Les gens font référence, de manière importante dans leur vie quotidienne, à leur appartenance au Neeli Bar, sans tenir compte des débats politiques actuels sur le sud du Pendjab en tant qu’entité politique au Pakistan. Lorsqu’ils parlent de neeli bar, les gens se réfèrent aux récits folkloriques qui relatent les caractéristiques régionales des identités locales innées et inhérentes, conséquence territoriale des habitudes et des attitudes.

Burewala Tehsil est probablement le dernier Tehsil du côté de frontière territoriale du

Punjab, mais cela ne fait pas partie des préoccupations quotidiennes des gens. Le sud du

Pendjab n’est pas considéré très différemment, dans l’imagination commune, des habitants du village du reste. Cela est sans doute vrai dans une certaine mesure, car « la cuisine est à peu près la même que dans le reste de la province » (Ramzi 2012 : 81). Cependant, certaines revendications politiques contemporaines et leur utilisation dans les débats sur la nouvelle province du sud du Pendjab sont parfois discutées dans les villages. La plupart des gens se rendent à Burewala pour recevoir leur revenu, pour les questions de santé et la majorité des garçons vont, pour leurs études supérieures, dans les collèges de Burewala. Tous les commerçants des deux villages se rendent également à Burewala deux ou trois fois par semaine pour acheter des fruits et légumes frais au sabzi mandi (marché aux légumes).

Les gens ne préfèrent pas s’associer à la région seraïki du sud du Pendjab malgré de nombreuses similarités sociolinguistiques. Dans les deux villages de mon’étude, on entend souvent les gens faire des plaisanteries sur les mohajireen (migrants de 1947, venus de différentes parties de l’Inde pour s’installer au Pakistan), qui seraient des gens au tempérament ombrageux, irrespectueux envers leurs parents et avec leurs interlocuteurs. À l’inverse, les gens parlent du Neeli Bar comme d’une terre fertile où les hommes sont courageux et les femmes modestes.

294 En ce qui concerne la structure géographique, les gens considèrent généralement leur espace personnel comme limité à leur lieu de résidence, à la terre qu’ils possèdent pour cultiver, pour faire paître leurs animaux.et le lieu où ils peuvent passer du temps libre avec les hommes du village. On voit apparaitre un écart entre la propriété réelle des gens et la manière dont ils se représentent leur patrimoine. Si l’on est la manière dont on utilise la terre, si celui-ci est indépendant ou non, tout cela influence les représentations. Par exemple, les maisons d’Amin

Kot sont comparativement plus grandes et spacieuses que celles de Khokhran. Cela est vrai dans les deux cas lorsqu’on les compare au niveau des zamindars ou des kammis. Normalement, une maison zamindar a un ou plusieurs arbres pour faire de l’ombre en été et est construite en tenant compte du nombre de fils, car chacun est censé avoir une chambre indépendante après le mariage. La division de la maison n’advient que quand les enfants d’un frère deviennent adultes et que le besoin de les marier devienne une raison valable pour construire une nouvelle maison. Une maison zamindar moyenne a un nombre de chambres relatif au nombre de fils, ce

à quoi s’ajoute une chambre pour les parents, une pièce pour la cuisine d’hiver où six à huit personnes peuvent s’assoir à la fois. Habituellement, toutes les pièces des maisons sont reliées par une véranda, où les gens dorment de fin février à fin mars, puis de mi-octobre à mi- novembre ou fin novembre. La véranda est également utilisée pendant la saison estivale où la chaleur est au summum et où il n’y a pas suffisamment d’électricité et où les gens passent la plupart de leur temps sous les ventilateurs ou couchés devant les climatiseurs. Le changement le plus récent dans la construction de maisons d’hiver est la présence de cuisines spécialement construites pour cuisiner et faire du feu. Cela est le cas dans les quatre nouvelles maisons des zamindars d’Amin Kot et leur famille relative Dhuddi de Khokhran. En outre, la dépendance totale à l’égard du bois pour la cuisson au feu change et presque toutes les familles ont recourt

à l’utilisation du gaz (GPL) d’autre part, lorsqu’il s’agit de maisons ammis et riaaya l’espace physique et social voit sa taille rétrécir.. Il y a presque 25 % de maisons kammi qui n’ont pas

295 d’arbres dans les maisons et presque 50 % des maisons sont sans vérandas. L’espace de la cour a également rétréci, car dans les maisons de kammi ou de riaaya, les buffles, les chèvres et les vaches sont gardées dans la maison. Normalement, les ménages kammi ou riaaya parviennent

à rester dans les anciennes maisons et ne construisent une nouvelle maison que si l’un des frères s’installe ailleurs ou si la famille zamindar leur a donné un lieu séparé pour construire la maison.

Contrairement à leurs voisins zamindars, les kammis et les riaayas utilisent rarement le gaz et utilisent surtout du bois pour cuisiner. Il n’y a aucune maison de kammis ou de riaayas qui a une cuisine indépendante et ils passent la plupart du temps leur saison d’hiver dans une pièce dédiée à cette activité. Pendant la saison estivale, le foyer est placé à l’ombre d’un arbre ou près du mur de la pièce pour éviter l’ensoleillement.

Même lors des temps de repos, les gens considèrent qu’il est important pour l’équilibre social de savoir qui est assis où et avec qui. Lorsqu’ils parlent de l’amitié d’une personne avec quelqu’un ou de son attachement politique, ils partagent le huqqah (une pipe traditionnelle, que les personnes âgées utilisent collectivement) avec une personne en particulier. Les gens se réfèrent également à leur place dans la hiérarchie sociale et dans l’espace, en termes d’opportunités de socialisation, uthna (debout) bethna (assis), waqt guzaarna (passer du temps), etc. Nous pouvons déduire de la brève image donnée ci-dessus qu’un dera (maison d’hôtes masculine) de zamindar est le lieu central pour la plupart des activités de socialisation.

Lorsqu’il s’agit de modèles de logement, les gens préfèrent rester proches de leurs parents et biraderi. Cela est également visible dans les modèles de logement que l’on trouve dans les deux villages. Les haveli de la famille Dhuddi zamindar sont situées au centre du village. De même, il y a des rues ou du moins des parties de rues où les gens vivent dans des maisons partagées.

À Amin Kot, une rue à l’arrière de l’haveli est appelée qasaaion wali gali (la rue de Qasaais).

De même, une rue de Khokhran est appelée Chadoyon wali gali gali (rue des Chadoyas).

296 Le village de Amin Kot est la propriété exclusive du zamindar Dhuddi, dont les terres continuent à se diviser au sein de la famille. Cette division des terres ne concerne que les terres agricoles et ne comprend pas les terres du village, qui sont situées sur 7 acres de terre. La Haveli de la famille zamindar s’est agrandie en fonction de l’augmentation du nombre de membres de la famille zamindar. Un Dera (maison d’hôtes masculine) spacieux est situé juste devant l’entrée principale de l’haveli. Le Dera est spacieux et la famille Dhuddi le considère comme représentatif de leur statut en tant que famille zamindar établie. Ces deux lieux la haveli et le dera sont d’une importance capitale dans la vie quotidienne du village d’Amin Kot. Le Dera a un rôle central dans de nombreuses activités quotidiennes des hommes dand le village et les régions voisines pour l’extension des relations et du patronage. Il est important de garder à l’esprit que l’influence d’un ainé est évaluée en fonction du nombre d’invités qu’il accueille et de sa bienveillance.

Dans le deuxième chapitre, j’ai essayé de présenter un bref aperçu de mes deux expériences de travail sur le terrain en tant qu’anthropologue autochtone. Mon premier terrain a été effectué à Mohla, un village près de Gujrat (Pakistan). Le deuxième terrain sert de référent pour mon travail de thèse.

Je considère le terrain comme une relation ethnographique en évolution. Cela exige que nous réfléchissions à la place de l’anthropologue natif, du rôle qu’il tisse, qui évolue et de ses représentations dans un environnement changeant. En effet, il n’y a rien de mal à écrire, car l’écriture demeure l’une des pierres angulaires de l’intellect humain. Cependant, je pense que l’anthropologue autochtone doit être plus prudent parce que son intimité personnelle et son interprétation textuelle du domaine sont jugées plus représentatives que celles d’autres disciplines. Une autre distinction intéressante, qui ne s’applique qu’à l’anthropologue, est l’intimité personnelle avec le terrain. Cette personnalisation d’un rôle disciplinaire est

297 également importante pour la relation de l’anthropologue avec le terrain et l’écriture concernant les acteurs du champ qui peuvent s’attendre à une représentation différente en raison de l’évolution des relations socio-économiques. Sans doute, mon but n’est pas de blâmer la connaissance anthropologique pour la distorsion dans la représentation, mais mon souci reste le degré de sensibilité que l’anthropologue doit démontrer dans ses recherches. Ainsi, nous devons comprendre que le domaine lui-même change continuellement, de sorte que toute fixité dans l’écriture avec la représentation des positions sociales qui en résulte deviendrait paradoxale et fixe si elle n’était pas correctement reflétée.

J’ai pensé non seulement aux habitants des villages étudiés, mais aussi à leurs représentations, qui sont une préoccupation importante tout au long de mon évaluation de ma position personnelle en tant qu’anthropologue. Je suis tout à fait au clair avec le fait qu’au sein de la communauté académique les attentes du à ma position, ne sont peut — être pas aussi fortes que celles des gens du village. Cette observation était et demeure importante en raison du souci de représentation tant au niveau académique qu’au niveau personnel. Lorsque je fais référence au niveau académique, cela indique ma position au sein du milieu universitaire structuré et l’obtention d’un diplôme en tant que candidat au doctorat. De plus, lorsque je considère le niveau personnel de l’écriture comme une préoccupation permanente, mon but est de me placer en tant que participant observateur/observateur participant et en tant que créateur et narrateur.

La réflexion que je mène concernant les deux positions à une place importante dans mon étude.

Par exemple, en quittant le dera après avoir terminé la troisième partie du travail sur le terrain, j’ai été accueilli par 15 à 20 personnes qui m’attendaient pour me dire au revoir, tout en partageant avec moi le fait que c’était sans doute la dernière fois qu’ils me voyaient partir. Ces mêmes personnes et beaucoup d’autres comme elles dans les villages ont toujours pensé que je pourrais revenir après mes études à Paris et qu’ensuite je prendrai une position importante dans ma famille et le village. La perception de ces gens à mon sujet a une influence éventuelle sur

298 mon écriture. Par conséquent, j’ai essayé d’écrire sur les gens quand je pouvais me permettre de me cacher de la scène en tant que participant. J’ai essayé de présenter ma position principalement par l’intermédiaire des personnes, lorsque ma présence personnelle n’était pas nécessaire, afin que la présence des personnes et des chercheurs reste présente.

Il n’a pas été facile d’écrire sur les personnes les plus importantes de ma vie du fait d’un attachement émotionnel et personnel à elles. L’acte d’équilibriste que j’ai dû mettre en œuvre a aggravé un comportement de ma part parfois incohérent. Par exemple, lors de mon premier séjour à Amin Kot, la mort de mon oncle maternel a été un des moments de douleur extrême que j’ai dû écrire et relater dans mon travail d’anthropologie. Je me souviens encore des nombreuses personnes qui m’ont présenté leurs condoléances en tant que représentant de la famille endeuillée, alors que j’étais aussi conscient de la nécessité de réfléchir et d’évaluer ces moments comme anthropologue. En revenant de mon terrain de recherche et en mettant mes notes aux claires notes pour en discuter lors de ma première rencontre avec le professeur Michel

Boivin, je me suis rendu compte que la vision idéale de ma personne en tant que personne blessée avait disparu. Cependant, mon souci ici n’est que de parler de moi en tant qu’anthropologue ayant une démarche réflexive. Une autre référence intéressante réside dans le fait que le dernier chapitre de ma thèse comporte e des références à la position de mon père qui était une personne socialement importante et dont la mort a e eu des conséquences significatives pour le vartan de la famille Dhuddi d’Amin Kot. Le fait de devoir tenir ma présence émotionnelle à distance lorsque j’écris est un réel défi. Cette dernière référence est l’une des nombreuses références que l’on peut citer ici, mais j’espère qu’elle permettra de clarifier la manière dont le terrain d’enquête préparer le chercheur au difficile travail d’interprétation des représentations, qui l’attend. Il ne fait aucun doute que les représentations sont importantes non seulement pour les débats académiques, mais qu’elles demeurent aussi une préoccupation importante pour les habitants du village. À la lumière des débats à propos

299 du rôle central de l’observation de terrain et des changements qui adviennent dans la société, nous pouvons comprendre que « le terrain n’est pas un assemblage de choses, mais un assemblage de variables » (Leach 1961 : 7). Ainsi, les villages que j’ai étudiés n’étaient pas des villages difficiles, à la manière de Srinivas qui a trouvé son village « sale avec du fumier de vache, le mettant en danger avec des serpents ou les problèmes pour prendre un bain en plein air » (Srinivas 2004 : 533), mais les villages se sont avérés être d’autres types de défi. D’une manière générale, l’attention portée aux changements socio-économiques et particulièrement à ceux de la représentation a le mérite de soulever des questions différentes pour les chercheurs autochtones indépendants. Pour moi, la « construction du terrain », qui est sociale, doit être vue en étroite association avec l’écriture d’un tel champ socialement vécu. Le paradoxe important d’un tel champ social et de l’écriture anthropologique est la représentation de ceux qui pourraient être considérés comme des acteurs sociaux passifs. Néanmoins, de telles représentations peuvent varier des images désirées à celles sauvages non désirées. C’est pourquoi j’ai rédigé mon récit ethnographique des villages Amin Kot et Khokhran en gardant

à l’esprit les noms des personnes et la manière dont les noms des femmes doivent être mentionnés. Ainsi, j’ai toujours été conscient de ma position personnelle et de la nécessité d’écrire sur les gens en fonction de leurs sensibilités non seulement quand j’étais sur le terrain, mais aussi en écrivant.

À présent, quand je discute de ma position d’anthropologue natif et de l’impact que cela a sur ma recherche, cette position est utile pour aller au-delà des schémas généraux de théorisation concernant le don et la posture du soi. Comme cette étude demeure fondée sur une logique propre, dans un temps et un espace précis, la pertinence de modèle théorique peut devenir une question litigieuse. En gardant à l’esprit toutes ces ambigüités, je propose d’avoir une approche qui diffère de ce qui a été fait concernant les études anthropologiques sur le

Pendjab, au Pakistan. Ma compréhension du cadre théorique de Bourdieu porte non seulement

300 sur l’utilisation, de la principale prémisse de Bourdieu, mais aussi sur la contextualisation qui m’aide à naviguer à ma façon dans mon ethnographie. Cette contextualisation devient claire lorsque j’en viens à remettre en question le sens général habituellement attribué à l’échange de don en tant que pratique ancrée culturellement et socio-économiquement. Cette étude vise à mobiliser le concept de capital social de Bourdieu comme base théorique. Parallèlement, il a pris en compte d’autres éléments constitutifs de ses préoccupations majeures concernant les transformations économiques, sociales et culturelles et leurs manifestations. Ainsi, sensible à la contextualisation d’un cadre théorique, mon étude va au-delà de l’approche spécifique de

Bourdieu, et vise à élargir le sens de ce que l’on entend généralement par utilisation du vartan bhanji ou vartan. Pierre Bourdieu est selon moi un des plus grands intellectuels de notre temps.

Il est indéniable qu’il n’est pas possible d’appréhender une compréhension complète d’une vie de plus de 72 ans (1930-2002), avec une robustesse et une activité à l’image de Pierre Bourdieu.

Avant d’expliquer pourquoi et de quelle manière j’ai recours aux théories de Pierre Bourdieu je dois admettre que cet effort, en soi, a des lacunes, principalement pour deux raisons : a) l’ampleur même de la contribution de Bourdieu, et l’intérêt qu’il a suscité comme intellectuel, b) son autocritique comme penseur pertinent, qui se limiterait à son contexte d’utilisation.

J’ai l’intention d’aborder la première limitation de manière plus organisée pour que l’on puisse comprendre l’ampleur du problème. Comme je l’ai déjà indiqué, la contribution de

Bourdieu surpasse celle de ses contemporains par l’ampleur, l’acceptation ou du moins, l’intérêt que la plupart de ses œuvres ont suscité. L’éventail des sujets traités par Bourdieu, auxquels il a contribué, estlarge. Ce qui rend ses travaux difficiles, pour un anthropologue au début de sa carrière académique, c’est l’hypothèse que certaines de ses idées sont des concepts ou des idées clés (Power 1999 ; Grenfell 2012). Comme il a été commenté de nombreuses fois et pour des buts divers, on peut parfois trouver des interprétations contradictoires des œuvres de Bourdieu.

Il est important de noter que l’influence de Bourdieu sur la philosophie, la sociologie et

301 l’anthropologie ne se limite pas seulement aux idées qui ont été identifiées comme concepts clés, mais que la liste de ses sujets traverse aussi les frontières disciplinaires. Comme je l’ai déjà dit, ma préoccupation à l’égard de la contribution théorique de Bourdieu se limite surtout

à ce qu’on appelle le « capital social » dans son sens le plus large, alors j’essaierai de m’en tenir uniquement aux écrits qui contribuent directement à ce dernier. Ce qui peut être trompeur n’est pas l’ambigüité, que l’on peut considérer comme une ramification des écrits de Bourdieu, mais la valeur que le terme de capital social a acquise, en dehors des écrits de Pierre Bourdieu.

Comme mon intention dans cette étude est de comprendre le réseautage des relations sociales, je mobilise le concept de « capital social », lorsque l’individu et le don sont théorisés dans un large éventail de débats, où non seulement l’individu et le don sont instables, mais le concept même du capital social est également instable. Une telle instabilité des idées peut m’amener à me positionner en tant qu’anthropologue et à apporter le sens et la compréhension du peuple selon sa propre logique, qui ne connait que des limites théoriques.

Un axe important de cette étude a été de comprendre la relation entre le don, son

économie, la sphère du « social » et comment tout cela constitue un réseau de relations sociales. Ce thème est d’une importance capitale pour rendre effective la partie théorique, comme base argumentative de mon étude. Je soutiens que l’argument suivant de l’étude ne dépend pas de la base théorique, mais vise plutôt à étendre cette dernière dans le contexte de la présente étude. Par exemple, la relation entre le social et l’économique comme noyau essentiel du bhanji vartan a été théorisé à partir des travaux de Bourdieu parce qu’elle nous aide à plaider pour de multiples possibilités, qui sont nécessaires à la compréhension du capital social du village dans sa forme contemporaine. De plus, les mêmes outils théoriques de Bourdieu nous permettent aussi de discuter des propres limites de son travail.

302 Ce chapitre théorique a pour but de préparer le terrain pour les données ethnographiques des chapitres à venir avec à la fois une formulation théorique et l’introduction des villages. La théorisation en sciences sociales est toujours difficile et sujette à la critique, mais une telle tentative est vouée à retomber sur ses propres prémisses en anthropologie à cause de la tension entre données et théorie. Cette contestation est plus visible avec la perte croissante de stabilité dans la connaissance globale et la place de l’anthropologie en particulier. Cela rend confuse la possibilité d’une articulation claire de la relation entre les frontières anthropologiques lâches et le caractère théorique, tel qu’identifié par Ellen (2010). Les préoccupations concernant les représentations ethnographiques des attitudes économiques s’estompent également avec la précision requise pour débattre de la réalité d’une interaction entre les deux. Il est pertinent d’identifier non seulement l’accent disciplinaire mis sur la théorisation, mais il est également pertinent d’explorer la relation entre l’évolution de l’économie villageoise et sa traduction ultérieure en existence cohérenteselon la formulation théorique.

Ma compréhension du cadre théorique ne se limite pas à un cadre interprétatif binaire , abordant la question du don sous forme personnelle vs non personnel, matérielle vs non matérielle. Ce que j’ai visé dans ce chapitre, c’est d’introduire des contours plus larges aux idées de Bourdieu sur les formes du capital, pour ouvrir la voie à une analyse succincte. Les formulations théoriques de Bourdieu sont choisies de manière sélective parce qu’elles conduisent à une évaluation attentive de l’analyse ethnographique dans les chapitres suivants.

L’un des aspects les plus importants des préoccupations de Bourdieu a toujours été son

évaluation minutieuse de son impact non seulement sur les personnes qu’il étudie, mais

également sur sa position personnelle. Je suggère que cette contextualisation profondément enracinée de Bourdieu sur les choix économiques, sociaux, symboliques et moraux des gens est essentielle à mon analyse dans les trois chapitres suivants. L’analyse exhaustive de Bourdieu sur le don en particulier et l’économie en général, est consciente de la relation entre l’économie

303 et les valeurs sociales des gens. Ces préoccupations, lorsqu’elles sont associées à des soins améliorés payés à la réflexion sur les réclamations faites par les personnes elles-mêmes, sont essentielles pour comprendre le changement dans l’ordre socio- économique de mes villages d’étude. En outre, ma formulation théorique est consciente, à juste titre, de la complexité de la compréhension du don, comme le soutiennent les approches traditionnelles (classiques) et les récents débats sur les binarisés matérielles (économiques) et personnelles (anthropologiques) des échanges de dons. Je me penche également sur la récente configuration de la personnalité panjabi tout en discutant des possibilités de changement professionnel pour la population et de l’imagination traditionnelle de la propriété foncière en tant que ressource clé pour le statut socio-économique d’une personne. Par conséquent, le chapitre théorique dont il a été question plus haut constitue à la fois une introduction à la théorisation et ouvre la voie à un récit ethnographique sur l’identité individuelle dans le village punjabi. Elle montre la relation étroite entre la matérialité croissante et les significations personnelles du don (vartan). À la suite du troisième chapitre qui a édifié les bases de la représentation ethnographique, le quatrième chapitre est assez ambitieux dans son approche, pour présenter l’ethnographie de la personne dans les villages de l’étude. Comme le vartan est une pratique qui consiste à conserver, améliorer et définir son réseau de relations sociales, les représentations et les performances de sa position ont donc été explorées d’une manière ordonnée. Par cette analyse du statut social au

Pendjab j’ai tenté, de façon ambitieuse, d’aborder tous les facteurs qui jouent un rôle important dans le processus cumulatif d’élaboration des’identités plurielle. Quand j’utilise le mot

« personnalité punjabi », j’ai l’intention d’aborder, dans un premier temps, la question de la formation de la personnalité, qui n’apparait pas comme elle est réellement, si elle se représente comme un être séparé. D’autre part, on est susceptible de reconnaitre le rôle important d’un homme ou d’une femme qui réussit que si l’on tient compte du rôle décisif que jour l’identité personnelle partagée. Cette analyse prend également en compte l’évolution des positions des

304 familles kammi qui sont sorties de leur dépendance à l’égard des familles zamindar. La prise de conscience que les gens changent de position sociale à partir de celle qui leur a été assignée m’amène à réfléchir sur l’ingénierie sociale spécifique de l’État colonial, qui persiste encore dans son essence. Ma problématisation schématique de l’intervention coloniale dans l’ordre social a pour but d’ouvrir le débat sur différentes revendications de positions historiquement placées comme muqaam, ghairat, et izzat comme propriétés clés dans la fabrication du shakhsiyyyat. Ce qui rend l’analyse intéressante est l’extension du shakhsiyyyat punjabi colonial à des références contemporaines. Par exemple, une observation précise des demandes concernant d’un nasal, en lien avec la structure de propriété terrienne est toujours perçu comme une preuve de l’authenticité des demandes. Les gens s’accommodent de ces revendications exclusives ainsi que des légères transformations qui touchent le statut des différentes castes, dont les membres masculins remettent en question les cadres traditionnels de la personnalité. Je soutiens que notre discussion porte à la fois sur les changements dans les catégories traditionnelles d’identités qui ont été fixés par la formation discursive coloniale des positions et sur les positions changeantes de certaines familles kammi à l’échelle inférieure.

Lorsque le statut d’une famille change, cela conduit aussi des changements de castes, ce qui justifie que nous nous concentrions sur des conceptions renouvelées d’identités comme biraderi, qaum, zat ou nasal. Cela conduit non seulement à un besoin de contextualiser la discussion, mais aussi une étude systématique du vartan en tant que réseau de relations sociales où la personne est une catégorie fondamentale.

La discussion de l’identité personnelle dans le quatrième chapitre est essentielle à la compréhension de l’établissement du rôle social des hommes et des femmes au Pendjab et de leur identité personnelle dans l’espace de relations sociales que représente levartan bhanji. Les gens ne voient pas la pratique du Vatran simplement comme un acte à accomplir lors des mariages ou des rituels de mort. La portée du vartan va bien au-delà des festivités ou des actes

305 rituels de tristesse lors des décès et des mariages festifs. L’image holistique du vartan est encore plus claire lorsque l’identité de la personne Pendjabi est particulièrement focalisée en fonction de la nature de l’importance accordée aux relations sociales. À cet égard, Anjum Alvi soutient avec pertinence que « l’échange de don joue un rôle très important dans la constitution et la définition des relations sociales, ainsi que dans la formation de la perception de soi » (A. Alvi

2001). J’ai discuté dans ce chapitre de la formation du soi dans le vartan des villages quand on est conscient du rôle de la propriété foncière, et de son articulation ultérieure des notions d’izzat

(respect), ghairat (honneur), sharam (honte) et muqaam (position sociale). Avec ces positions et propriétés, la perception du soi vis-à-vis de son interaction avec les autres dépend elle-même de « la nature subtile et complexe des relations sociales créées par l’échange de dons » parce qu’elle devient « critique pour examiner l’organisation et l’économie sociales »

(Mughal 2018 : 3). Ce chapitre relativement long me donne l’occasion de discuter des mariages en tant qu’évènements majeurs dans la vie quotidienne des gens où ils s’expriment, définissent leurs relations et établissent leurs positions revendiquées. Mon schéma de discussion m’amène

également à comprendre de manière plus large les changements socio- économiques dans les villages étudiés. Lorsque nous voyons les changements survenus dans les évènements liés au mariage récemment et dans le passé, que les gens appellent aglay waqt, on se rend compte que c’est lieu où s’opère la transition dans la tradition. De ce fait, la considération du muqaam et du shanakht sont des propriétés clés de l’identité individuelle au Pendjab, qui selon moi se traduisent dans les relations entre les personnes. Ceci est encore plus utile pour notre analyse sur l’augmentation de la matérialité et de la monétisation dans la sphère domestique lorsque les gens négocient leur position à travers des objets échangés comme matériellement fusionnés ou comme des parties de soi-même avec leur potentiel symbolique de représentation. Cependant, je suis resté attentif au fait qu’en dépit d’une matérialité et d’une monétisation croissantes, les gens ne réduisent pas leurs pratiques socioculturelles du vartan à un simple échange

306 cérémoniel. Les gens incorporent l’orientation zaati (personnelle) et insaani (humaine) des objets échangés au-delà de leur matérialité. Maintenant, en regardant le village comme le site du changement des positions sociales des gens, c’est-à-dire certains kammis, je me suis concentré sur le besoin d’une compréhension renouvelée des positions des gens. C’est particulièrement important dans le cas des mariages où ils changent et où les cérémonies passent d’une forme prescrite de rituel à une autre. Cela conduit les villageois à reconnaitre qu’il s’agit d’un changement de position de la population elle-même qu’ils appellent kammis, si elle est jalouse, c’est bien nau doltiye (les nouveaux riches). Le simple fait que les rituels des mariages changent est révélateur de la multitude des changements dans le paysage socio-temporel. Par exemple, les femmes du ménage se rendent compte et parlent de l’évolution de leur rôle dans les mariages en raison de l’augmentation de la monétisation, qui est encore une fois principalement aux mains des hommes de la maison. Malgré de nombreux changements dans les mariages, leur importance demeure toujours établie en tant que nœuds de relations pour le peuple. Par conséquent, le fait que les mariages deviennent de plus en plus couteux dans tous les domaines, les moyens correspondants et leur réalisation sont tout aussi convaincant.

L’éventail des changements s’étend d’une moindre dépendance à l’égard du zamindar à l’indépendance économique des familles kammi et s’ajoute à l’indépendance relative des mariages des familles kammis et riaaya maintenant. Enfin, l’observation montre que les biraderi sont un des facteurs les plus importants dans la décision des mariages. Je suis d’avis que les gens définissent leurs biraderi comme étant de plus en plus limités aux parents proches.

J’ajouterais aussi que les gens considèrent leur lien ancestral lointain comme un biraderi endogame comme une préoccupation moins influente et plus peu pratique dans leur discussion contemporaine. Ma dernière observation se fonde sur la remarque faite par Ijaz Ahmad Khan

Khan Dhuddi :

307 « Biraderi waghaira pehle waqton ki waqton ki bat ha, ab log log sirf rishtaydaron tk mehdood hain kion k zamana badak gya ha ha aur ab pehle wali baten bhi badal rhi hain. »

Biraderi etc. est une question de jours passés, et maintenant les gens sont limités seulement à leurs parents (affins et agnatiques) parce que les temps ont changé et les sensibilités antérieures

(sur les relations) changent.

Les quatrième et cinquième chapitres sont étroitement liés parce que le vartan dépend principalement des mariages et des rituels de mort comme périodes ou les relations sociales et où l’identité personnelle est marquée de manière significative. La participation et l’expression de la personnalité par la participation au vartan sont envisagées et devraient correspondre à la fois au statut et à l’importance des relations entre les parties concernées. Celui qui ne partage pas le réseau du vartan est séparé de ceux qui sont dans le réseau du vartan et la séparation elle- même implique la définition de la personne. Normalement, les gens ne participent pas aux positions individuelles. Ce qui est plus important pour les hôtes, c’est la représentation des invités en tant que représentants de leurs familles. Quand les femmes, qui sont moins susceptibles de violer le code de purdah, participent également au vartan, elles sont également désignées comme représentantes du ménage. Par exemple, une vieille femme de la maison est censée représenter son mari, ses fils, ses petits-fils et si elle n’est pas mariée, ses frères aussi.

Par conséquent, mon analyse de l’identité personnelle a visé la discussion schématique du vartan en tant que conduite générale, qui lie les gens ensemble. Par conséquent, le cinquième chapitre présente la position centrale du vartan en tant que pierre de touche et constituant de la personne.

Le mot échange est une traduction peu rigoureuse, car elle n’arrive pas, à certains égards

à exprimer ce qu’est le vartan. Mon utilisation du mot vartan fait aussi ressortir l’essence sociale de la personne et sa valeur dans les relations sociales du réseau. Cela nous amène aussi

308 à dépasser ce que Skeggs identifie « dans le développement de l’identité de la personne occidentale au cours des siècles de colonialisme » à travers les relations aux « objets et aux

échanges offrant différentes positions et possibilités pour l’investissement, la légitimation et la connexion entre l’identité et la valeur » (Skeggs 2011 : 501). Il est impératif de tenir compte du fait que les gens affirment leur identité non seulement à travers les objets, comme le haaar, le salami, le kapray, connu auparavant sous le nom de trevar lorsque les femmes parlaient de vêtements, mais qu’ils transcendent également ces calculs pour exprimer leur relation. Il est courant d’entendre les gens se rappeler des dépenses excessives et parfois même somptueuses pendant leur vartan. Ces références à des cas aussi rares où des mesures normales n’ont pas été prises traduisent le sens d’une relation comme une relation distincte. Cela s’est produit plusieurs fois pendant la narration d’histoires qui retracent la relation avec différentes sources. Une illustration très pertinente de l’importance de la relation est une expression idiomatique partagée avec moi par un ainé d’un kammi biraderi d’un kammi que rishta bootay ki tarah hota ha jo aahista aahista ugta ha ha aur bdi tawajju chahta ha (une relation est comme un arbre qui pousse lentement et nécessite les meilleurs soins).

Quand il s’agit de l’évolution des pratiques traditionnelles des mariages en tant que spectacles de changement, l’un des changements les plus importants dans la pratique du vartan est le rôle des femmes. Autrefois, les femmes étaient les principales actrices des mariages lorsque la plupart des activités du mariage se déroulaient à l’intérieur de la maison. Les femmes

étaient la force motrice du chant, de la dot, de l’invitation des femmes et de l’organisation de la wikhaaka aux mariages. De plus, le calcul de l’échange glisse aussi des mains des femmes vers celles des hommes lorsqu’une fonction matrimoniale devient de plus en plus matérialiste.

En outre, cette étude a tenté de présenter une analyse intégrée de l’évolution de la structure villageoise, où certaines positions de patron zamindar ou, dans certains cas, de kammis sont restées inchangées. Un autre changement important dans les mariages est le changement dans

309 la représentation des kammis dans les mariages des villages. J’ai proposé une nouvelle approche

à la compréhension d’un village contemporain où l’on peut aller avec une imagination de village traditionnel de zamindar et kammi. Cependant, l’imagination d’une telle compréhension traditionnelle du village fixe est déplacée parce que la position centrale des zamindars est

également en train de disparaître et que les kammis deviennent également indépendants. C’est plus clairement marqué à Khokhran, où les gens des biraderies kammi ont non seulement assumé une base indépendante de leur subsistance économique, mais ont aussi changé de castes.

Ces représentations de l’évolution des statuts et des castes sont également visibles à travers leur mariage et son expression. Ainsi, l’ethnographie des mariages nous aide à comprendre comment les gens font de leur mariage, selon leurs moyens économiques et leurs revendications sociales, la définition et le maintien mutuels de leur réseau de relations sociales.

Ce chapitre vise à produire les preuves ethnographiques de l’échange de don en tant que vartan lors de mariages dans les villages étudiés, mais mon attention ne se limite pas aux mariages en tant que simples événements qui n’ont aucun sens au-delà d’une fête mémorable.

Lorsqu’elle est centrée sur les moments spécifiques du mariage, l’atmosphère de la fête est utile pour examiner l’image plus large de l’organisation de la fête et son rôle dans l’articulation des relations. Non seulement le fait de se marier momentanément est important, mais l’ampleur du mariage en tant qu’événement est vindicative du statut que l’on revendique. Le statut est idéalement historiquement éclairé, socialement déterminé et économiquement corroborant la position des acteurs du mariage en tant qu’événement. Aujourd’hui, tout en réfléchissant à la structure économique et sociale des villages de l’étude, nous sommes contraints par les preuves ethnographiques que le changement et la continuité vont de pair. Cette relation entre l’évolution des traditions et leurs racines historiques est également source de perplexité pour le peuple. Il est difficile pour les habitants d’Amin Kot et de Khokhran de faire une analyse de l’analogie mutuelle entre le changement et la continuité en tant que domaines exclusifs en raison de

310 l’interdépendance mutuelle des agents causals. Ce processus paradoxal de changement et de continuité se manifeste à travers les générations et les différents groupes d’âge avec lesquels j’ai interagi au cours de mon travail sur le terrain. Cependant, la religiosité, l’éducation formelle et l’exposition à la vie en dehors du village par le biais des médias et de la mobilité semblent

être des facteurs dominants qui sont visibles dans l’articulation des confusions ou des affirmations de toute position prise par le répondant. Certaines des confusions enracinées peuvent être trouvées lorsque les récits sur certaines traditions du mariage, que les gens considèrent souvent comme non-islamiques, fazool (non désirées) sont inséparables.

La création du mariage : Établir le contexte et socialiser l’évènement

Le mariage est comme l’annonce d’un évènement public qui se déroule en dehors du domaine privé de la famille. Par conséquent, la première étape du mariage est la déclaration en tant qu’évènement social, qui commence au moment même où le mariage d’une fille ou d’un garçon est pensé. Dès le début, le mariage met en mouvement une chaîne complète d’activités avec des cercles de significations personnelles, émotionnelles, matérielles et surtout culturelles qui se structurent dans et par les relations humaines. Par conséquent, le mariage n’est jamais considéré comme une simple cérémonie religieuse pour permettre à un homme et à une femme d’avoir leur nikah (obligation religieuse pour unifier une fille et un garçon adultes, lorsque le chef religieux récite le sermon en présence de quatre témoins et du tuteur de la fiancée) et de commencer une nouvelle vie. La légitimité du mariage est également divisée entre social et religieux. Normativement, les gens adhèrent à la légitimité religieuse sous une forme beaucoup plus forte, mais une cérémonie religieuse de mariage peut être socialement invalide si le couple omet la fonction propre du mariage. En effet, le nikah est la première condition pour permettre

à un homme et à une femme adultes de se marier en tant que musulmans. Cependant, l’aspect social du mariage est tout aussi important pour les habitants des villages, cela est fondamental

311 pour attribuer une présence sociale à la couple dans les dynamiques collectives. Il est courant d’entendre les gens de Khokhran et d’Amin Kot se souvenir de certains mariages comme étant mal organisés, mais ils désapprouvent complètement tout mariage qui a eu lieu sans la légitimité sociale établie par le bon fonctionnement et la fête. En raison de la présence de nombreuses familles pauvres dans les deux villages, les gens ne considèrent pas nécessaire qu’une cérémonie de mariage soit somptueuse. Ce qui reste essentiel pour le peuple, c’est la socialisation symbolique de l’évènement. Ainsi, tout mariage d’un couple qui a eu lieu sans le consentement des parents, ce qui se reflète dans la fête et la fonction du mariage, ne peut qu’apporter une mauvaise réputation aux familles des époux et des mariées.

Une distinction importante, qui conduit à des contextes différents pour la préparation du mariage en tant qu’événement social, est le fait que le mariage d’un garçon est différent de l’obligation d’épouser une fille adulte. Normalement, lorsque le temps approche pour épouser un garçon adulte, le réseau social s’ouvre de l’intérieur de la maison vers l’extérieur en fonction de la proximité des relations. Dans un premier temps, la socialisation à cet égard commencera dans la famille, généralement entre le mari et la femme, puis la portée des conseils s’étendra de préférence aux frères et sœurs des deux parents de l’homme ou de la fille. Étant donné que la plupart des mariages ont lieu entre cousins, le cercle de conseillers s’est concentré dans les parents du couple. Dans le cas où le mariage n’a pas lieu entre cousins, alors le deuxième niveau de cousins incorporerait également le premier niveau similaire de cousins comme organe consultatif entre les deux familles du couple. D’un point de vue administratif, les mariages contemporains dans les villages ne peuvent pas être gérés par la famille d’accueil elle-même.

En fait, la perception que la cérémonie de mariage d’une personne est réussie ou non est en grande partie évaluée en fonction de la façon dont le mariage en tant qu’événement a été géré.

Normalement, le noyau dur du mariage s’est composé des parents et des biraderi ainsi que les amis du couple. Cependant, c’est le biraderi qui prend plus d’importance parce qu’il incorpore

312 la lignée symbolique comme unité endogame et comme référence générale de son muqaam.

Cela donne aux biraderi un rôle important, car « les biraderi sont historiquement liés à la fois

à la structure sociale et à l’identité« (Akhtar 2013). Aujourd’hui, lorsque le rôle et l’importance des biraderi sont historiquement éclairés par une structure sociale, nous devons comprendre à la fois l’importance pratique des biraderi et le rôle qu’ils doivent jouer.

Les cartes de mariage déclenchent en tant que fonction sociale et conduisent à la construction d’une image du mariage représentative tant pour les invités que pour les hôtes.

L’échelle du mariage est considérée comme la consommation de l’autoreprésentation d’une personne. Les habitants des villages se rendent bien compte qu’en tant que fonction économique et sociale, le mariage ne doit pas sous-performer la réputation d’une personne et qu’il ne doit pas être exagérément disproportionné par rapport à sa réputation. Par conséquent, le cercle intime du couple décide sur le nombre des invités. Cette décision est une des considérations les plus importantes lors de la planification du mariage. Les cartes de mariage ne sont pas simplement des cartes singulièrement similaires pour tous. Au-delà de la valeur symbolique de la carte, les prix du marché des cartes de mariage peuvent varier de 20 roupies par carte à 500 roupies par carte. Bourdieu fait valoir avec pertinence au sujet des objets culturels qu’« outre le fait d’être une marchandise qui a une valeur commerciale, tout objet culturel est aussi un bien symbolique, ayant une valeur spécifiquement culturelle « (Bourdieu 1985). Les cartes de mariage représentent non seulement l’importance symbolique des relations, mais aussi le statut

économique et social de la famille d’accueil. C’est aussi un rappel important de la relation entre l’hôte actuel et le futur hôte.

Les pratiques contemporaines du vartan s’inscrivent symboliquement dans un milieu social d’importance sociale similaire, enraciné dans l’histoire, mais les réalités économiques

émergentes deviennent un facteur de plus en plus important. L’émergence de modes capitalistes

313 d’échange de donx n’est pas jugée impropre au mécanisme traditionnel du vartan parce que les gens se sont appropriés l’utilisation de la technologie et son impact sur leur rationalité marchande, ce qui est également jugé important dans le calcul matérialiste actuel de plus en plus important. Lyon affirme de manière convaincante que « la rationalité du marché, plutôt que de supplanter le don en Asie du Sud, a fourni une nouvelle gamme d’articles donx légitimes, c’est-à-dire de l’argent liquide, des appareils électroniques, des voitures, etc » (Lyon 2004b :

37). Par conséquent, les personnes qui ont acquis de nouvelles sources de mobilité économique font valoir des arguments intéressants en faveur d’une relation entre les faits de la réalité

économique et leur considération de la valeur comme le soutient avec pertinence Dumont :

« La valeur désigne quelque chose de différent de l’être, et quelque chose qui, bien que scientifiquement vrai soit universel, est éminemment variable avec l’environnement social, et même au sein d’une société donnée, non seulement selon les classes sociales mais aussi selon les divers départements d’activité ou d’expérience » (Dumont 1986 : 237).

Ce contexte nous amène vers l’évaluation minutieuse de la relation entre la représentation individuelle et la négociation entre les réalités économiques et la valeur dans les villages de l’étude. Si l’on considère la valeur comme la logique qui sous-tend l’échange d’objets et leur potentiel à communiquer les classes sociales dans leur propre milieu expérientiel, alors l’examen des objets comme objets symboliques de Bourdieu devient plus clair. Pour contextualiser le débat, il est nécessaire d’examiner en détail le vartan entre égaux, mais le vartan entre inégaux est également une réalité tout aussi importante. Ces formes de vartan, quand les gens sont économiquement inégaux à travers des arrangements structurels comme les modes de propriété foncière, ont un rôle plus important à jouer si tous les acteurs du vartan sont pris en compte. J’ai l’intention d’analyser le rôle de la propriété foncière en tant qu’agent principal de l’ordre social traditionnel du Pendjab rural. De plus, le même souci de

314 comprendre le rôle de la propriété foncière conduit également à l’évaluation du changement tant de la base économique de la structure sociale que de son rôle en tant qu’agent de changement.

L’étude a tenté de présenter une analyse intégrée de l’évolution de la structure villageoise, où certaines positions de patron zamindar ou, dans certains cas, de kammis sont restées inchangées. Un autre changement important dans les mariages est le changement dans la représentation des kammis au coeur des mariages des villages. J’ai proposé une nouvelle approche à la compréhension d’un village contemporain où l’on peut aller avec une imagination de village traditionnel de zamindar et kammi. Cependant, l’imagination d’une telle compréhension traditionnelle du village fixe est déplacée parce que la position centrale des zamindars est également en train de disparaître. Similairement, les kammis deviennent

également indépendants. Cette réalité est plus clairement marquée à Khokhran où les individus associés aux biraderies kammi ont non seulement assumé une subsistance économique indépendante, mais ont aussi changé de castes. Ces représentations de l’évolution des statuts sont également visibles dans leurs mariages. Ainsi, l’ethnographie des mariages nous aide à comprendre comment les individus font leur mariage, selon leurs moyens économiques et leurs revendications sociales. La définition et le maintien mutuels de leur réseau de relations sociales dépendent des relations établies pendant le mariage.

Le dernier chapitre de la thèse porte sur les rituels de mort et conclut en clarifiant le sens du terme clé vartan. Comme l’exprime le langage vernaculaire, le vartan ne se limite pas à l’échange cérémoniel de dons, mais il incorpore le flux mondain de la vie sociale. J’ai donc été attentif aux expressions les plus répandues de walan wassan, lain dain, khushi ghami et aana jana parmi les habitants des villages. Ces expressions incarnent les processus de partage tout au long de la vie entre les personnes en tant qu’agents de leurs relations. Les expressions

315 données ci-dessus ne séparent pas l’élément de tristesse parce que les individus ne reconnaîtraient une relation comme digne de son entretien social que si elle partage ses moments de joie et de tristesse à la fois, simultanément. Anjum Alvi a tout à fait raison quand il dit que « toute compréhension du soi punjabi est destinée à rester incomplète sans la notion de chagrin/angoisse (dukh) » (Alvi 2001 : 50, traduction personnelle). Cependant, le terme khushi se réfère en fait à la période maximale de bonheur qui accompagne le mariage ou la naissance d’un enfant et le chagrin ne survient que lorsque quelqu’un est mort. Bien que l’on puisse considérer la maladie ou l’accident à l’origine d’une blessure comme une condition nécessaire à l’accomplissement de l’obligation de partager le moment de tristesse, ces

événements sont limités aux proches, c’est à dire, aux parents et amis. Cependant, le décès constitue une exception à toutes les excuses et justifications lorsqu’il s’agit de définir la relation.

Une personne qui n’est pas capable de consoler la mort d’un proche d’un parent ou d’un ami est considérée comme quelqu’un qui ne veut pas conserver la relation d’amitié. Mon utilisation de l’expression « mort » est délibérée parce que les morts ne sont pas des individus dans un sens rationnel. Une fois morts, ils sont possédés en tant que parties essentielles de ceux qui sont laissés en deuil et cette appropriation des morts est centrale aux significations de la mort dans le réseau du vartan dans les villages. La signification de la mort en tant qu’événement social dans les villages d’étude est encore mieux établie lorsque nous voyons que l’importance de la mort est également marquée de la même façon que celle de ceux qui ne sont pas égaux de leur vivant. Par exemple, deux personnes du même groupe d’âge ayant des responsabilités similaires dans leur vie seraient traitées comme des zamindars morts et des kammi morts après leur mort respective. Cette représentation des morts est également visible par la nourriture et la fabrication du kirrha comme le souvenir des morts. Par conséquent, on peut facilement déchiffrer la différence entre les statuts des familles des défunts en observant l’endroit où les gens s’assoient, partagent leurs condoléances et servent la nourriture. Tout comme les mariages,

316 les décès témoignent aussi de l’évolution de la structure socioreligieuse avec des empreintes

économiques. Quand les gens parlent de la différence dans leurs rituels de mort, ils considèrent la religion comme la considération la plus importante pour la récompense des morts dans l’au- delà, mais j’étends davantage mon observation aux interprétations religieuses puritaines pénétrantes. Ces interprétations religieuses puritaines concernent principalement la famille des morts, mais elles changent aussi le mode de partage du deuil entre les femmes. Ainsi, nous pouvons dire que les décès sont des événements tout aussi importants dans la vie sociale des habitants des villages et qu’ils reflètent l’évolution générale des positions de la population et le processus de changement social lui-même.

Je présente une discussion détaillée d’un décès dans un village de mon étude lorsque j’étais dans le village pour comprendre les rituels de la mort et le réseautage plus large des relations. Le 27 novembre 2016, lors de mon séjour à Amin Kot, la mort de Haji Falak Sher

Khan Khan Dhuddi a été annoncée sur le haut-parleur de la mosquée dans la nuit. Le premier elaan (annonce publique principalement par le haut-parleur de la mosquée) était seulement pour informer les gens que Haji Falak Sher fils de Khan Allah Yar Khan est mort et elaan pour sa namaaze-e-e-janaaza (prière funéraire) serait faite le matin. Puis, la deuxième annonce a été faite le matin après que la prière fajar (prière du matin, que les musulmans offrent avant l’aube) ait été offerte. La deuxième annonce a donné le temps clair de namaaze-e-janaaza pour être offert à 14h00 sur la pelouse du dera d’Amin Kot. Avec l’annonce du fautgi (décès), tous les membres masculins de la famille endeuillée et leur riaaya d’Amin Kot ont commencé à se rassembler au dera. Tout le monde attendait Zia Ahmad Khan qui se rendait de Burewala à

Amin Kot. Zia Ahmad Khan a dû donner du temps pour janaaza parce qu’il décide de tous ces

événements en tant que chef de famille. Zia Ahmad Khan est arrivé dans les 30 minutes après avoir appelé son bhaanja (le fils de sa sœur), le fils aîné du défunt, pour le consulter sur les horaires et les dispositions à prendre pour le ghusl (dernier bain pour les musulmans morts

317 avant leurs funérailles et enterrement) des morts. Zia Ahmad Khan s’est rendu à pied chez Ali

Ahmad Khan, le frère cadet du défunt et maintenant le seul frère survivant parmi les trois, à propos de l’heure proposée de la janaaza à 14 heures après la prière zuhr (deuxième prière que les musulmans offrent dans l’après-midi). Ce dernier, comme on l’attendait de lui, a dit à Zia

Ahmad Khan de décider comme il l’entendait. Zia Ahmad Khan a demandé à son aîné bhateeja

Ijaz Ahmad Khan d’envoyer les gens dans les mosquées voisines pour que l’elaan de la mort soit fait correctement. Zia Ahmad Khan a également demandé à son deuxième fils d’appeler sur le téléphone portable de Qamar Zaman Khan, lui demandant quand il allait arriver de

Burewala avec sa famille. Une fois tous les membres de la famille immédiate réunis, Zia Ahmad

Khan a demandé à son chauffeur de prendre une ou deux autres personnes du basti (riaaya) pour apporter le dariyaan (pluriel pour dari, qui est un grand tapis fait de fils bruts), qui sont répartis sur le sol et sur la pelouse du dera pour les personnes assises. Puis Zia Ahmad Khan a

également ordonné à quelques membres de sa riaaya d’organiser la nourriture pour les invités venus de loin après la janaaza. À cet effet, au moins deux à trois daigs (un grand chaudron utilisé pour cuire le riz et le curry lors d’événements publics) ont été cuits avec du curry de poulet et des chapaaties à servir aux invités et à tous les membres des Haveli.

Après les annonces et les messages appropriés à tous les amis et membres de biraderi,

Zia Ahmad Khan s’est assise au milieu de la pelouse où les gens ont commencé à arriver. Quand des zamindars influents arrivaient, Zia Ahmad Khan avait l’habitude d’appeler la personne pour qu’elle vienne s’asseoir plus près de lui. Ainsi, jusqu’à l’époque de Janaaza, le cercle autour de Zia Ahmad Khan s’était élargi assez largement. De plus, tous les autres membres masculins de la famille ont également envoyé des messages à leurs amis au sujet de l’époque de la janaaza et ils se sont également assis avec leurs invités en attendant tous la janaaza. La plupart du temps, les gens des régions avoisinantes sont arrivés assez près du temps de Janaaza et sont partis juste après l’offrande de Janaaza pour revenir dans les jours à venir pour offrir la fateha

318 (récitation de durud+sura-e-fateha+trois fois sura-e-Iklaas+durud pour demander des bénédictions pour le défunt). Une fois la janaaza offerte et la prière pour les morts est terminée, les gens ont levé le charpoy avec le défunt et se sont dirigés rapidement vers le cimetière près de la mosquée d’Amin Kot. Quand la janaaza était emmenée dans la tombe, la tête des morts

était gardée dans la direction de la tombe, et les gens marchaient vivement pour enterrer les morts au plus tôt après l’offrande de la janaaza. Le mort est reconnu comme un amaanat d’Allah après la janaaza, et la perte indue de temps est évitée. Quand les morts ont été amenés dans la tombe, les gens se sont rassemblés en deux cercles, qui n’étaient pas disposés intentionnellement, mais qui sont apparus à cause de la proximité du peuple avec les morts.

Dans le premier cercle se trouvaient les fils, le frère, les cousins, les cousins, le gendre et les neveux des morts qui se tenaient autour de la tombe avec les fossoyeurs et l’imam masjid d’Amin Kot pour réciter des parties spécifiques du Coran. Haji Falak Sher a été enterré à côté de Muhammad Amin Khan, son beau-frère qui était aussi le fils du frère de sa mère. La mère

(d 2006) de Haji Falak Sher et son frère cadet Khan Muhammad Khan (d 1995) ont été enterrés dans le cimetière de Baba Haji Sher, il a donc été enterré au plus proche parent dans le nouveau cimetière près de la mosquée Amin Kot. Le cimetière près de la mosquée d’Amin Kot a été déplacé lorsque, pour la première fois, Haji Bahadar Khan a été enterré ici parce que c’est lui qui a fondé le village d’Amin Kot et que la famille n’est pas heureuse de l’état des tombes des leurs proches dans le cimetière de Baba Haji Sher. Par conséquent, la famille enterre maintenant ses morts dans le nouveau cimetière adjacent à la seule mosquée d’Amin Kot. La tombe de Haji

Falak Sher est donnée ci-dessous sur la photo.

319 Figure : Cimetière à Amin Kot 6.2 : Mosquée d’Amin Kot

Une fois les morts enterrés, les gens priaient pour la dernière fois sur la tombe des morts et l’imam masjid récitait également certaines parties spécifiques du Coran. Par la suite, les gens sont venus en grand nombre pendant les trois premiers jours et le plus grand rassemblement a eu lieu le troisième jour quand Qul khawani (le rassemblement du troisième jour après la mort, il se fait pour la récitation du Coran et des kalmas à la recherche de bénédictions pour les morts) fut organisé par la famille endeuillée. Qul khawani est surtout appelé qul, et il est nécessaire pour la famille d’accueil d’annoncer le temps de qul quand la janaaza a été offerte. Il y a dix ans, les gens ne s’asseyaient ensemble qu’à l’heure donnée, qui était surtout le midi, et récitaient le Coran pour demander la bénédiction d’Allah afin que le défunt soit béni. Celui qui n’était pas capable de réciter le Coran pouvait réciter simplement le kalma tayyeba (le premier kalma

à embrasser l’Islam). Maintenant, depuis dix ans, les gens passent moins de temps à réciter la sourate e-fateha et invitent un érudit islamique à prononcer un sermon, qui est censé être la source de sawaab (récompense d’Allah) pour les morts dans l’au-delà. La famille Dhuddi d’Amin Kot invite toujours Maulvi Muhammad Yaseen qui est l’un des principaux érudits religieux dans la région rurale de Burewala tehsil. Maulvi Muhammad Yaseen est aussi un ancien riaaya des Dhuddies et sa sœur est toujours riaaya chez Amin Kot. Après le sermon de

Maulvi Muhammad Yaseen, la famille a servi un repas unique de poulet au curry, avec chapaati et cocktail de fruits à presque toutes les 300-350 personnes au déra et 50-60 femmes dans les haveli. Lorsque le khatam (identique au qul, mais principalement, l’événement peut se référer au troisième jour de la mort, au septième jour de la mort et au quarantième jour de la mort) a

320 été offert, les gens ont commencé à partir pour leurs maisons et les affaires courantes. Les membres de la famille biraderi de Havelian et Kauraanwala sont également partis le soir pour revenir sur la septième journée après le décès. Lorsqu’il s’agissait de consoler la famille endeuillée de quatre à sept jours, soit des personnes très proches ou moins proches venaient durant ces jours. La raison pour laquelle les plus proches sont venus était parce que leur rôle est attendue. En tant que partageux de deuil, ils sont obligés de rester en contact constant pendant les premiers jours pairs ; cependant, les moins proches sont venus en raison de la nature des relations, ce qui permet l’arrivée retardée. La plupart des personnes qui sont venues après le troisième jour ont donné une justification valable pour ne pas pouvoir venir et consoler la famille endeuillée au plus tôt. Puis, le khatam du septième est arrivé, il est le plus observé sur le premier jumairaat (jeudi), est similaire à qul khawani khawani qui est le troisième jour, mais l’échelle des invités était limitée seulement aux membres et amis proches de la biraderi.

Cependant, après le khatam du septième, le kirrha (assis des gens au sol sur des nattes pour un jour de deuil spécifique) était enveloppé le soir. Après la septième, la famille Dhuddi a cessé de s’asseoir sur la pelouse herbeuse et est passée au charpoy. Puis la plus petite fonction a eu lieu sur le khatam de chalisvaan (quarantième), ce qui met fin à toutes les activités de deuil.

Avec ce bref récit d’un décès dans la famille zamindar, j’ai l’intention d’élargir l’analyse de la signification générale des rituels de la mort. La narration ci-dessus de la mort d’une famille zamindar en est un bon exemple pour aider à trouver des significations beaucoup plus profondes de la mort. Le message symbolique d’une mort en tant qu’événement dépasse largement le cadre d’une seule mort en tant qu’événement. C’est également ce qui ressort clairement de l’analyse qui suit, qui examine la structure sociale pour déballer une image plus large sur la mort.

La différence de la mort en tant qu’événement n’est pas considérée comme séparée des règles et de l’importance du vartan, mais la conduite est elle-même réglée différemment lors

321 des décès. Par conséquent, la différenciation entre les rituels de mort et les mariages va au-delà de l’émotivité pour lier les émotions personnelles, le deuil socialement partagé et sa légitimité religieuse. Outre la perte émotionnellement personnalisée, les rituels de la mort, en matière d’ordre social, s’inspirent avant tout des règles de la réciprocité des morts pour rechercher la légitimité religieuse de ses propres morts. Cela m’amène à me pencher sur la signification de la mort pour les habitants des deux villages lorsqu’ils établissent une distinction claire entre le mariage et la mort. En effet, les deux événements sont l’expression primordiale de l’être

émotionnel, personnel et social d’une personne, mais la perte par la mort est considérée comme plus déterminante. Il peut y avoir de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les rituels de la mort sont considérés comme un événement d’une grande importance, mais la séparation de l’individu mort de l’être collectif dans le contexte du Pendjab est l’un des moments les plus significatifs dans les villages d’étude. Je soutiens que la signification des morts n’est pas claire si l’on ne comprend pas l’identité personnelle partagée dans le contexte du Pendjab. De façon convaincante, Witz soutient que « les ordres spatio-temporels façonnent notre expérience »

(Wirtz 2016 : 344). Ces temporalités et leur articulation spatiale des relations individuelles dans

Amin Kot et Khokhran sont-elles- mêmes articulées et exprimées dans le vartan. Par conséquent, la mort peut être opérationnalisée pour comprendre le réseau plus large des relations sociales où les positions servent de médiation. L’affirmation de Jennifer Hockey est pertinente lorsqu’elle soutient que « le rituel de la mort a été démontré à plusieurs reprises qu’il incarne les valeurs ou les thèmes culturels qui sont au cœur d’une société particulière et peut

être l’expression la plus puissante quand un membre meurt » (Hockey 1986:4 ). Maintenant, si le partage de sa personnalité est au cœur de l’ordre social pendjabi, alors la mort de Haji Falak

Sher Khan est essentielle à l’élaboration d’une mort similaire ayant une valeur culturelle, ainsi elle agit comme l’expression la plus puissante.

322 La mort d’Amin Kot et de Khokhran incite les gens à articuler leur relation émotionnelle et religieuse avec les morts, et le rôle social de la mort comme événement façonne un réseau de relations entre les individus. Le sens de la mort dans le Pendjab rural peut également être compris à partir de l’analyse linguistique de la terminologie vernaculaire sur la mort. La mort est appelée marag ou fautgi comme un événement dans les villages de l’étude. Les gens considèrent la tradition de la mort comme un rituel holistique où ils ne se réfèrent pas à la simple perte d’une vie biologique. Le terme fautgi est lui-même caractéristique de la nature des relations qui précèdent ou procèdent à la chute de la mort. Parfois, les individus appellent le fautgi saadi fautgi (notre mort) ou tuwaadi fautgi (votre mort) dans le dialecte local de la langue punjabi en se référant à leur être partagé avec les morts ou comme séparé des morts. Cela ouvre la voie à l’approfondissement des frontières de soi-même, partagées ou non avec kith et ses proches. De même, Bourdieu (1977) fait une analyse parallèle des deux biens mentionnés ci- dessus à travers ses catégories officielles et non officielles. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un individu officiel, il considère que celui-ci est " susceptible d'être défini par les mêmes personnes comme faisant partie du même ancêtre et au même niveau que le groupe pratiqué dans l'arbre généalogique”

(Bourdieu 1977 : 39). Par conséquent, le référent “notre mort” ou “votre mort” est en ligne avec le schéma plus large de la décision sur les marqueurs de rejoindre éventuellement l’ensemble officiel des groupes. Ici, dans les villages de l’étude, les gens ajoutent à cette conceptualisation bourdieusienne du groupe pratique lorsqu’ils définissent le même ancêtre imaginé que les mêmes personnes (égales) sur l’arbre généalogique, mais interagissent dans une différenciation reconnaissable du statut et du rang. Par exemple, en gardant à l’esprit le rôle des arrangements antérieurs à la mort de Haji Falak Sher Khan, la famille zamindar dépend fortement de ses membres riaaya et kammi. Leurs parents ne viennent participer au marag qu’en tant qu’invités qui partagent le dukh wala waqt (temps triste) de leurs frères zamindar. Comme les Dhuddies d’Amin Kot sont la plus grande famille de propriétaires terriens de biraderi, on ne s’attend pas

323 à ce qu’ils apportent leur aide physique quand il s’agit d’assister aux rituels de mort de leurs proches. De même, les Dhuddies ne sont censés apporter un soutien économique et social qu’à leurs riaaya et kammi qui gèrent la plupart des arrangements lors des décès de la famille

Dhuddi. Cette aide mutuelle est requise par la famille Dhuddi car étant zamindars, on ne s’attend pas à ce qu’ils fassent le travail manuel eux-mêmes. En plus de l’aide de riaaya ou de kammi en position de zamindar, les individus sont toujours prêts à aider leurs membres biraderi, kammi et les villageois dans des cas de mort.

Le tableau suivant nous aide à comprendre la disposition générale d’un rituel de mort, car les parents, les biraderi, les amis et les voisins, qui sont les acteurs les plus importants dans les rituels de mort, y participent.

Graphique: Décès et cercle des relations

Ce tableau est basé sur ma compréhension personnelle des décès contemporains en tant qu’évènements sociaux et de la façon dont les individus discutent de l’aglay waqt quand ils parlent de leur mukaan et faetta (expression locale pour fateha). Tout d’abord, les acteurs les

324 plus importants tout au long des rituels de la mort sont les parents immédiats ou lointains. Il est

évident que la participation tend à se réduire dans le temps et dans le contenu au fur et à mesure que l’on s’éloigne de la relation avec les morts. Cependant, on ne peut être considéré comme quelqu’un de bien que si l’on paie aux morts l’importance qui leur revient lorsqu’ils sont morts.

Le rôle d’un membre de la famille commence avant même le décès, car on s’attend à ce que les membres de la famille s’adressent également à une personne malade. Ainsi, les parents resteraient proches de la famille endeuillée du ghusl au dernier khatam de chaleesvan. Les membres de la famille participent également au creusage de la tombe, mais une exception importante concerne le cas des Dhuddies et Chishties qui ne creusent pas eux-mêmes les tombes de leurs proches. Les quatre personnes qui creusent la tombe sont symboliquement interrogées par le frère, le père ou l’oncle des morts sur le montant de leur travail, auquel les fossoyeurs renoncent toujours au nom d’Allah. De même, les voisins resteraient présents à la plupart des rituels de la mort, mais ils sont moins susceptibles d’être impliqués dans le creusement de la tombe parce que cette activité est généralement spécifique aux personnes les plus proches. De même, les voisins peuvent sauter les arrangements de cuisine s’ils ne sont pas la maison partagée par un parent immédiat. Comme je l’ai déjà dit clairement, la biraderi se réfère ici au groupe endogame où les gens sont liés soit par des relations lointaines, soit par un ancêtre lointain imaginaire. C’est encore une fois semblable aux tendances des voisins lors des rituels de la mort parce que les préoccupations comme le purdah des femmes et le shareeka viennent jouer leur rôle. Vient ensuite le rôle des amis qui sont la catégorie la plus difficile à conceptualiser lors des rituels de la mort parce que les amis peuvent assumer des relations du noyau au moins importantes. Normalement, les amis d'une personne ordinaire appartiennent à des groupes de castes similaires qui jouent le rôle d'amis de soutien. Cependant, ces amis n'entrent pas dans la maison des parents du défunt. Ils peuvent emmener les morts au cimetière, mais cela arrive rarement si le mort est une femme. Cependant, les amis représentent le plus

325 grand nombre de participants à la mort d'une personne influente parce que le fait d'avoir des amis est l'une des qualités clés de la personne dans Amin Kot et Khokhran.

La dernière catégorie de riaaya ou kammi est sélectivement applicable aux grandes familles zamindar de Chishties et Dhuddies. Cette relation est en grande partie une façon de rituels de mort où le kammis et le riaaya font partie de la plupart des activités, du partage du deuil à la gestion de la plupart des tâches pour servir les invités. En raison de la nature des tâches, les kammis et les riaaya suivent presque toutes les étapes indiquées dans le tableau.

Néanmoins, une exception importante réside dans l’absence d’arrangements réciproques à cet

égard, car les zamindars ne participeraient qu’aux rituels de mort des kammis comme le montre la liste des voisins dans le tableau ci- dessus.

Le tableau et la discussion ci-dessus m’amènent au positionnement de « soi », soit du côté des morts, soit du côté de celui qui n’est pas avec les morts, ce qui est d’une importance primordiale pour comprendre les relations qui tissent les gens ensemble. Généralement, les gens se réfèrent moins aux morts eux-mêmes, mais on se souvient plus clairement de la famille ou des biraderi des morts en parlant des condoléances. Si la famille endeuillée est elle-même connue par un visage de sa représentation, à savoir Zia Ahmad Khan en tant que représentant de la famille Dhuddi d’Amin Kot, alors les gens des régions éloignées diraient qu’ils vont offrir fateha aux Dhuddies d’Amin Kot ou offrir dua-e-khair avec Zia Ahmad Khan. Par conséquent, le mort doit être compris dans son propre cercle de relations si l’on veut comprendre le réseau plus large des relations sociales à travers le vartan. Elle ouvre la voie à une proclamation immédiate de la mort pour déchiffrer le milieu social plus large de la mort. Après la première annonce officielle du décès, au fil du temps, l’importance sociale et culturelle de la mort devient plus importante pour le peuple jusqu’à ce qu’il soit trop tard pour consoler la famille endeuillée.

Les gens comprennent très bien ce qu’il est trop tard pour consoler la famille endeuillée et cela

326 revient encore une fois à l’intimité de la relation. Par exemple, lorsque la mère du beau-frère

(28) d’un membre masculin d’Ajera biraderi de Khokhran n’a pas pu se rendre dans les trois premiers jours pour consoler la famille endeuillée où sa sœur était mariée. Le mari de sa sœur

(35 ans) l’a pris au sérieux et a dit à sa femme (30 ans) que l’absence de son frère l’avait embarrassé dans sa maison et dans le village. L’un des membres de la famille (52) m’a dit que sa femme avait dit à son mari que toute sa famille (père, mère, jeune sœur) était présente tout au long du décès, mais que son frère ne pouvait pas venir à cause de son nouvel emploi à Lahore.

Cependant, le mari en deuil a rappelé à sa femme de ne pas s’attendre à une telle proximité de son peke (côté de la mère) à partir de maintenant. L’homme qui l’a partagé avec moi a

également ajouté que ces positions dures ne concernent que les proches que les gens considèrent comme inébranlables et que le même calcul n’est pas appliqué aux amis et compagnons de village moins importants. L’homme a poursuivi en disant que si un ami du village voisin ne venait pas pour exprimer ses condoléances dans les trois premiers jours, son attitude négligente serait réciproque de la même manière. Par conséquent, les gens définissent consciemment leurs attentes à l’égard du réseau de relations sociales quant à l’intensité et au moment de leur participation aux rituels de la mort.

Une autre préoccupation importante reste que les gens définissent la relation entre

« l’après-vie » et « cette-vie » à travers leurs morts parce qu’elle sert aussi de caractéristique déterminante de l’ordre social rural. Il est pertinent de raconter une brève discussion entre deux frères de la famille kammi de Khokhran au kirrha de l’épouse du frère aîné, lorsque l’un des cousins de la cousine de la défunte est venu offrir ses condoléances à la famille en deuil. Alors que l’homme descendait de sa moto, le jeune frère se leva pour quitter le kirrha parce qu’il ne voulait pas rencontrer la personne. Cependant, le frère aîné lui a demandé de s’asseoir correctement parce que tous les désaccords doivent cesser une fois que quelqu’un est venu présenter ses condoléances. Au début de la journée, je ne connaissais pas la raison d’un tel

327 comportement de la part du jeune frère, mais le frère aîné lui-même m’a dit plus tard que le père de l’homme avait porté atteinte à l’honneur de leur famille (s’enfuyant avec la sœur de leur père). Le veuf pensait que même si son qasoor (crime) était certainement de nature grave, le moment de son arrivée était tout aussi important. J’ai observé que l’homme qui est venu pour consoler la famille endeuillée n’a offert que fateha et n’a pas dit « Allah da hukam » à une personne en particulier parce que l’adage est toujours dirigé vers une personne spécifique en l’appelant par son nom ou face à lui clairement. L’homme qui est venu présenter ses condoléances est resté silencieux pendant un certain temps avant de partir au bout de 20 à 30 minutes sans se faire servir de thé. Quand l’homme était sur le point de partir, il a demandé à tous les hommes présents de prier à nouveau pour le défunt, et quand il a terminé sa prière, l’hôte lui a demandé d’attendre le thé, que l’invité a simplement refusé et quitté. Comme la procédure protocolaire l’exigeait, l’invité devait être invité et servit du thé après son arrivée et s’être mis à l’aise. De plus, l’aspect le plus important à cet égard était que, malgré des hostilités graves, les gens considèrent la mort comme une perte ultime pour la famille endeuillée et, par conséquent, la présence d’une personne est requise. D’autre part, la famille d’accueil se rend compte que la présence de l’invité ne garantit pas que la relation dans son ensemble peut être rétablie, mais on en vient à se souvenir des morts comme une perte partagée.

La mort constitue une rupture, mais son rôle ne doit pas être considéré comme une dislocation du processus de vie, mais plutôt comme une force unificatrice. Ce qu’il faut pour bien comprendre la mort dans la structure sociale du village, ce n’est pas la délimitation que nous impose la simple idée de la mort. Je trouve que les gens apportent leur émotivité à la mort par leurs techniques communicatives et expressives d’articulation personnelle et collective. Si nous observons le cadre expérientiel de la mort dans les zones rurales du Pendjab, nous nous rappelons le chagrin confiné et personnalisé des morts que partagent les êtres chers en deuil.

Ce partage mutuel du deuil et de la tristesse causés par la mort d’une personne proche ne permet

328 pas de considérer la limite de la mort comme un schéma analytique. Quand nous diffusons l’essence de quelqu’un comme mort, cela nous apporte la vraie valeur des vivants qui non seulement partagent cette essence des morts, mais ils se définissent à travers elle. De plus, comme les individus du Pendjab ne sont pas égaux, leur décès nous inquiète aussi quant à la possibilité d’oublier cette réalité. J’ai aussi délibérément tenté d’approfondir ces tensions d’inégalité de la personne et leur traduction ultérieure en considérations économiques qui mettent en évidence leurs significations culturelles et sociales. Bien que nous ayons vu qu’avec l’évolution des progrès socio-économiques et technologiques, il y a un changement dans la transmission de la mort et des gens, les protocoles sociaux de la mort restent largement ancrés dans la signification sociale et religieuse. Le puritanisme religieux se manifeste non seulement en équilibrant les inégalités comme les zamindars et les kammis par la légitimité de l’harmonie sociale, mais aussi en ouvrant la voie à notre analyse du changement des rituels de la mort.

Quand nous réfléchissons sur les décès des zamindars et des kammis, cela conduit à l’inégalité de mêmes personnes qui sont censées être égales aux défunts, mais ce n’est pas le cas dans leur sphère sociale post-décès. Cependant, l’importance du réseau de relations sociales joue différemment dans les rituels de mort que dans les mariages en raison de la nature même des

événements. La différence plus large entre les mariages et les décès réside dans la nature des logiques émotionnelles, matérielles et socioculturelles comme acteurs aux moments critiques de la vie.

Ainsi, si l’on considère les changements dans les cérémonies de mariage et les rituels de mort, qu’ils soient socio-économiques ou religieux, on est convaincu de la tradition en transition. La tradition considérée du point de vue des villageois eux-mêmes est enracinée dans leur compréhension de la relation avec leurs aînés et ils la relient assez régulièrement à leur(s) propre(s) époque(s). Ceci marque une transition dans ce que les gens de Khokhran et d’Amin

Kot considèrent comme leur relation avec leur propre compréhension de la tradition.

329