Money, Religion, and Politics: the Oudh Bequest in Najaf and Karbala, 1850–1903
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Int. J. Middle East Stud. 33 (2001), 1–21. Printed in the United States of America Meir Litvak MONEY, RELIGION, AND POLITICS: THE OUDH BEQUEST IN NAJAF AND KARBALA, 1850–1903 “Money was the life blood of Najaf.” Thus observed the Shii author, Ali Khaqani.1 The story of the Oudh Bequest, which channeled more than 6 million rupees from the Shii kingdom of Awadh2 in India to the two Shii shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala in Iraq during the second half of the 19th century is a fine example of Khaqani’s assessment. These Ataba¯t-i a¯liya¯t (“sublime thresholds”) were the most important centers of learning in Shiism during the 19th century. For this reason, a study of the bequest provides important insights into the internal workings of a leading community of ulama during a period of change, as well as into the role of European players in the life of such communities. It should be stressed that unlike Ottoman and Iranian centers of learning, the Ata- bat’s main source of income was not landed awqa¯f (endowments) but contributions from lay believers. Although networks of patronage extending to Iran during the 1830s and 1840s channeled growing amounts to the Atabat, these sums proved insufficient, and many of the ulama and students lived in poverty.3 The interaction between money and social power raises the question of the role of the Oudh Bequest in the formation of socio-communal bonds, particularly the system of patronage and social networks, which served as the backbone of the social system in the Atabat. We will also address the role of financial resources in the acquisition of leadership status, while making a distinction between its religious and social as- pects. The impact of the bequest on the finances of the entire community of learning in the Atabat also merits consideration. Integrating society and culture, the Oudh Bequest demonstrates the role ethnicity played in the formation of social alliances and rivalries during a pre-nationalist era and the manner in which it was articulated. Finally, as the bequest was established as a trust of cash funds carrying perpetual interest and was operated by non-Muslims, this study sheds light on the ways in which financial necessities forced traditional legal conventions to adapt to changing circumstances. Meir Litvak is Senior Lecturer, Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel; e-mail: [email protected]. S S N 2001 Cambridge University Press 0020-7438/01 $9.50 N L L Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 15:53:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743801001015 2 Meir Litvak THE ESTABLISHMENT AND EARLY OPERATION OF THE OUDH BEQUEST Financial donations from the rulers, ministers, and notables of the Shii kingdom of Awadh amounting to more than 1 million rupees flowed to the Atabat during the years 1786–1844. The larger share of these funds was spent on public projects, such as the construction of the Hindiyya canal in the Middle Euphrates to bring water to Najaf and Karbala.4 The Oudh Bequest originated in the Third Oudh Loan, which the East India Com- pany (EIC) extracted in 1825 from Ghazi al-Din Haydar, king of Awadh, in order to finance its war in Nepal.5 The principal of 10 million rupees (about £1,000,000) was never to be repaid; the interest, fixed at 5 percent a year (i.e., Rs500,000), was to be applied by the government of India in perpetuity to specific purposes. Among other things, the agreement stipulated monthly allowances for life of Rs10,000, Rs2,500, Rs1,100, and Rs1,000 to four women: Nawwab Mubarak Mahal Sahiba and Sultan Miriam Begum Sahiba (both wives of Ghazi al-Din), Mumtaz Mahal, and Sarfaraz Mahal. Each was empowered to bequeath one-third of her allowance to any purpose she desired. The remaining two-thirds, together with any portion of the one-third not bequeathed by will, were to be divided equally and transferred to the mujtahids resi- dent in Najaf and Karbala for distribution “to deserving persons...fortheacquire- ment of religious merit.” If any of the women’s designated beneficiaries died without heirs, their allowance was to go to the Atabat, as well.6 The bequest became operative when the two widows of Ghazi al-Din Haydar died in April and June 1849 and monthly installments of Rs8,664 began to accumulate in the EIC’s treasury.7 In October 1850, the British resident in Baghdad, Henry Rawlinson, informed Shaykh Murtaza Ansari, the leader of the ulama community in Najaf, of the funds due to the Atabat advising him to appoint an agent in Bombay to withdraw the money. After repeated appeals by the resident, Ansari informed him that Hajji Muhammad Mahdi al-Kuba, of the wealthiest Shii merchant family in Baghdad, would serve as his agent—a manifestation of the long-established links between merchants and ulama, in which merchants managed and transferred funds for the ulama.8 Rawlinson concurred; funds were transferred to Ansari and to Sayyid Ali Naqi Tabatabaiof Karbala, who had established contacts with Awadh as early as 1843.9 Apparently, Ansari accepted the funds in view of the dire economic conditions in the Atabat, where, in his words, many distinguished ulama families “had been reduced to destitu- tion,” and of the need to enhance the traditional Shii schooling in view of the Babi challenge, which had emerged during the 1840s.10 However, in view of Ottoman uneasiness over the flow of such large amounts to the Shiis via the British, Rawlinson recommended to his superiors that disbursements be placed at the hands of the resident, who would see that the funds were spent according to the donor’s intentions. Distribution of the money in Bombay, he argued, precluded British efforts to prevent misuse of the funds for political subversion. More- over, he claimed that “considerable sums” had already been “diverted from charitable purposes to objects of personal ambition.” At the behest of the Foreign Office, which S wanted to allay Ottoman fears, Rawlinson’s proposals were adopted and implemented S N in October 1852.11 N L L Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 15:53:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743801001015 The Oudh Bequest in Najaf and Karbala, 1850–1903 3 TABLE 1 Monthly distribution of the Oudh Bequest in Najaf Rs. a. P. Chief distributor 545 8 7 Junior mujtahids 674 0 0 Indigent mujtahids 848 0 0 Persian students 595 0 0 Arab students 674 0 0 Custodian and attendants of the Imam Ali Shrine 278 0 0 Pauper Indian and Kashmiri residents in Najaf 590 0 0 0.5% deducted by the Wathiqa Office at Lucknow 21 0 1 Total 4,225 8 8 After negotiations, the two mujtahids accepted Rawlinson’s “suggestions,” which sought to “secularize the distribution rather than tie it up for exclusively religious purposes.”12 Overall, British fears of misuse of the funds to foment anti-Ottoman rebellion did not materialize. In view of their historical experience, the ulama were more interested in building up the Atabat as centers of learning and in consolidating personal power bases than in fomenting rebellions whose outcome would be either defeat or semi-anarchy under the rule of urban gangs.13 DISTRIBUTION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN THE ATABAT The allocation of funds was based on Rawlinson’s agreements with the two distribu- tors. Shown in Tables 1 and 2, it illuminates the structure of the community of ulama in both towns.14 The distribution scheme reflects Najaf’s superiority over Karbala as a center of learning indicated by the allocation of greater amounts to scholars and students and smaller sums to paupers and lay residents. In addition, funds were divided according to broad social categories rather than to specified individuals and families, befitting the smaller community of Karbala. Ansari’s proposal for distribution in Najaf, submit- ted to Rawlinson in 1854, mentioned 600 students from each group, Iranians and Arabs, while the distribution scheme for Karbala spoke of 600 students all together.15 The division of the mujtahids in Najaf into two ranks also indicates the swelling among the elite, which led to internal gradations. The term “junior mujtahids” proba- bly referred to the growing number of mujtahids who had received the diploma (ija¯zat ijtiha¯d) but had yet to acquire a sufficient following among lay believers, who would send donations to them.16 The division of the students into Arabs and Iranians reflected the growing impor- tance of ethnic divisions within the community of ulama, which had existed in the Atabat since the late 18th century. Whereas Karbala was predominantly Iranian, Na- jaf retained a mixed character. The ethnic factor became more significant as the num- S bers of ulama grew, particularly due to the immigration of new students from Iran. S N The Turkish-speaking students were lumped together with the Persians, although they N L L Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 15:53:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743801001015 4 Meir Litvak TABLE 2 Monthly distribution of the Oudh Bequest in Karbala in early 1867 Rs.