Marginal Muslims: Maulawis, Munsifs, Munshis and Others Avril Powell
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marginal Muslims: maulawis, munsifs, munshis and others Avril Powell (SOAS) (Work in progress: not to be cited) The paper will examine patterns of response to the events of 1857-58 among some Muslim civil servants employed in the subordinate services in the North-Western Provinces in positions such as sadr amin and deputy collector, and also as professors and teachers in the Anglo-Oriental colleges of the region, notably in Delhi, Agra and Bareilly. Many were of maulawi background and education, but unlike those ‘ulama more directly associated with mosque and madrassa functions, whose involvements in 1857 have been examined previously in several other studies, the responses of the ‘service’ category, with the exception of some well known figures such as Saiyid Ahmad Khan, have had little critical attention so far. The longer-term objective will be to disaggregate this service class to chart and evaluate some specific perceptions of events and decisions on stances and involvement, before, during and in the aftermath of rebellion. The present paper merely provides an entrée to this topic. In returning to this subject for the purposes of this conference after about fifteen years it should be considered whether studies completed in the interim now necessitate some questioning of my own earlier conclusions on Muslim involvement in the rebellions. But in fact, if anything, the more recent publications on Muslim issues in this period, have tended to reinforce the two-fold division of views predominant in the 1950s to 1980s between those arguing, either, that members of the religious class of ‘ulama spearheaded and acted in unison during the rebellion; or, that although some Muslims of various classes and categories can certainly be identified as committed ‘rebels’, there is little evidence of co-ordination among them, nor did they belong to a specific ‘religious’ category’ within Islam. Like many others who participated they were driven as individuals by a range of motives, secular as well as religious. When writing on the relations between Muslims and missionaries in NWP in the pre-1857 years, my conclusions placed me firmly in the latter camp, close overall, though using some different examples, to the views of Peter Hardy and Barbara Metcalf. Thus Metcalf’s conclusion on the qasbah of Thana Bhawan that ,‘even if ‘ulama figured prominently in this place, the overall role of the ‘ulama in the revolt was at best fragmentary and divided’, seemed to be confirmed by my own findings, even for ‘ulama and other Muslims who had strongly contested the missionary publications and preaching against Islam, and might therefore seem to have a strong ‘religious’ motive. 1 Meanwhile, it seems that the view of the ‘ ulama as mujahidin continues to hold sway in Pakistan. In a paper which Naeem Qureshi hoped to present to this conference (but which unfortunately will now be postponed to another occasion), he intended to show in more detail than I am in a position to do, the extent to which ideological agendas in recent decades have resulted in a reaffirmation in Pakistan of ‘the role of the ‘ulama , especially their fatwa 1 Barbara Daly Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900 (Princeton, New Jersey, 1982), p. 83. See also Peter Hardy, The Muslims of British India (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 62-70. Avril A Powell, Muslims and Missionaries in Pre-Mutiny India (Richmond, Surrey, 1993). 2 for jihad of 1857’, in ways that have assisted the concept of jihad to take on ‘a new meaning in Pakistan’s political vocabulary’ which is now reflected ‘in the textbooks of the madrasas and, from the time of Ziaul Haq’s Islamization programme, in the “secular” educational institutions as well’. 2 A contesting ‘liberal’ view that Qureshi identifies with such as Faiz Ahmad Faiz in the 1960s, no longer seems to find a voice. But I am not aware of much recent effort elsewhere to provide either an alternative view or to follow up the Hardy and Metcalf conclusions with some detailed case studies of individual Muslims or ‘schools’ that might, in aggregate, allow a more comprehensive overview. This is not to say that there have not been some new studies of particular centres of rebellion in which Muslim participation loomed large, and one or two of the careers of some individual Muslims whose parts in 1857 have thereby received some reassessment. Among these, William Dalrymple’s Last Mughal has obvious implications, in its concentration on Delhi, for the wider understanding of Muslim motives and patterns of participation. In representing the build up to rebellion in Delhi as a clash of ‘two fundamentalisms’, Evangelical and Islamic, Dalrymple brings back into the equation an emphasis on ‘religious factors’ which has been missing in recent years except in the school of historiography dominant in Pakistan. However, given the emphasis Dalrymple places on the clash of ‘two fundamentalisms’, it is surprising that the ‘ulama and some other religiously disquieted Muslims remain only shadowy figures in his new telling of the Delhi story. We seem to learn no more than we knew already; that is nothing definite, about the alleged ‘Delhi fatwa for jihad’, or indeed about the alleged pre-1857 ‘Wahhabi’ linkages. After a full trawl of the Persian and Urdu ‘mutiny documents’ in the New Delhi archives and elsewhere, unanswered questions still seem to remain even for the Delhi arena of rebellion. For this reason, the two papers to be presented at this conference which will also draw on this rich source are welcomed as likely to address such questions on ‘ulama participation as well as, no doubt, on many others. Others have also been adding to the documentary evidence, particularly in Urdu, which in co-ordination with the official and private sources, mainly in English, further research must take into account. Compiled and translated in Britain, and based largely on documents held in the Oriental and India Office Collections of the British Library, but published in Pakistan, Salim Qureshi’s Cry for Freedom , a collection of ‘proclamations of Muslim revolutionaries of 1857’, seems to support the mainstream of recent Pakistani historiography. However this, and some other collections of ‘mutiny’ documents which Quraishi and others have published in recent years, certainly now make accessible a wealth of raw material for others to examine, which may in time cause some questioning of earlier, sometimes uncritical, conclusions. Two or three other contributions to this field are also important generally, or have helped me frame my own questions. Among these the recently published ‘Delhi College’ volume, edited by Margrit Pernau, comprising some detailed studies of some of the leading scholar-teachers of the city, up to and after the point when the college was closed down during the rebellion, provides informed and balanced assessments of their places in the 1857 scenario. On the British side too there has been an important recent contribution. Alex Padamsee’s revisionist view of the genesis and evolution of British perceptions of ‘Muslim conspiracy’, although 2 M. N. Qureshi, abstract for paper, ‘What really happened in 1857? A synthesis of the Pakistani perspectives on the uprising in Urdu literature’. 3 approachable independently of any evidence of what Muslims themselves actually thought or did, has obvious relevance for a wider context of debate, and is to be welcomed as introducing some new approaches, including the application of psychoanalytic theory to the texts which have hitherto supported the old chestnut of ‘conspiracy’. The particular colonial writings used in the present study may, however, suggest some counter imaginations or even realities, that may not necessarily support his conclusions. Some shorter studies also promise more to come in the future. David Lelyveld has recently revisited Bijnor district in the context of some new work he is engaged in on the family of Saiyid Ahmad Khan. His brief article, ‘Of mixed loyalties’, a re-examination of the Saiyid’s agenda in compiling his History of the Bijnor Rebellion , promises a more nuanced understanding not only of Saiyid Ahmad’s ‘mutiny writings’ but also of the wider scenario in Rohilkhand after the restoration to temporary power of the region’s dispossessed Muslim nawabs, to which little has been added since the concentration of studies on the doab region in the 1970s and 80s. Similarly, an as yet unpublished paper on Azimullah Khan’s significance in the Nana Sahib theatre of rebellion, promises to nail that individual’s mutiny significance once and for all. An alternative focus: Muslim government servants and 1857 An attempt is made here to find a new entrée into Muslim leadership and the divergencies in stances during 1857 by considering a number of individuals initially not as ‘ulama (which undoubtedly many of them were), but according to their service functions under the Company. The hope is to go rather further than Hardy’s, ‘Some Muslim officials went one way, some the other’, though that generalization is undoubtedly correct, and will be reinforced, not questioned, in what follows. The categorisation follows the terminology used in the Company’s own records for uncovenanted servants drawn up annually by the NWP administration which gives years of service, age and current salary, as well as details about the particular post held by individual Indian employees. 3 These lists have the advantage of easy comparison of the ‘before and after’ 1857-8 situation for the various departments of a particular district, answering questions such as to what extent a particular kacahri was, or was not, swept clean in the aftermath of revolt, for example, of judicial or revenue officials; of ‘new men’ or ‘old men’, or even of any alleged ‘Muslim conspirators’. Many lower- ranking officials are identifiable by name and personal details only in these lists.