Jump to content

Resisting Regimes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resisting Regimes: Myth, Memory, and the Shaping of a Muslim Identity
English cover
AuthorShail Mayaram
LanguageEnglish
SubjectMeo, Tablighi Jamaat
GenreEthnohistory
PublisherOxford University Press
Publication date
1997
Publication placeUnited Kingdom
Pages298
ISBN9780195639551
OCLC43417730
Websiteoup.com

Resisting Regimes: Myth, Memory, and the Shaping of a Muslim Identity is a political anthropological account and social history detailing the Meo, an ethnic group native to the Mewat region in north-western India—the birthplace of Tablighi Jamaat. Authored by Shail Mayaram and published by Oxford University Press in 1997, this work is recognized as the first in its genre.[1] Through a combination of archival research and fieldwork, the book scrutinizes the intricate processes of state formation and the evolution of ethnic identity within a dynamic milieu marked by nationalist fervor, ritual sovereignty, pan-Indian and global movements, tensions between Hindu and Muslim organizations, and instances of genocidal violence in the princely states of Alwar and Bharatpur during the twentieth century.[2][3] The narrative develops through the lens of the Meo oral tradition.[3] The author argues for a liminal identity for the Meos, incorporating elements of Hindu, tantric, and Islamic beliefs.[3] Over time, historical events catalyzed an Islamization process within the Meo community, particularly influenced by the presence of Tablighi Jama'at. This book is an integral component of the author's broader project focused on Meo oral traditions in eastern Rajasthan.[4]

Content

[edit]

The book unfolds with an introductory sweep in the first two chapters, setting the stage for a dive into the institutionalization of modern state forms in Alwar and Bharatpur in Chapter Three.[5] This involves a nuanced examination of monarchical absolutism, kingly ritual, state nationalism(s), and evolving relationships with pan-Indian Hindu organizations like the Arya Samaj.[5] Chapter Four analyzes representations of the Meo movement, scrutinizing discourses from the Alwar state, the British Raj, and modern historiography while incorporating Meo perspectives from official accounts.[5] Chapter Five draws upon Meo representations to unveil alternative narratives of the early 1930s events, exploring collective and individual stories within the Meo community. Moving forward, Chapter Six scrutinizes the impact of Partition on the Meo population, delving into genocide and displacement experiences.[5] The subsequent chapters analyze the transnational influence of the Tablighi Jamaat and the Meo negotiation of Islamization processes. The book concludes by raising thought-provoking questions for both ethnography and history, acknowledging its critical readings and occasional disappointments.[5]

Theme

[edit]

This publication navigates the Subaltern archive, deliberately steering away from essentialism when depicting 'traditional communities.' It probes the intricate nature of subalternity, unraveling the complexities of subaltern existence across myth, memory, and group identity. Its scope widens to encompass politics, the modern state, nationalism, the nuanced impact of technology, sovereignty, and the dynamics of resistance. Analyzing the interplay of ritual in power dynamics and the ethnography of collective violence, it weaves a narrative that elucidates annihilatory violence and the subsequent silence that echoed post-Partition.[6]

The author accentuates the enduring impact of violence on memory, underscoring the multifaceted nature of collective identity that acknowledges cross-cutting identities, class distinctions, and gender disparities. The analysis broadens to scrutinize the rights of communities in the modern state, challenging the autonomy asserted by the ulama within the Muslim community and recognizing internal cleavages.[7] Navigating the intricate classification dilemma of the Meos as either Hindus or Muslims, the work underscores their dual religious influences and advocates for a conceptual shift towards "liminal identity," surpassing traditional binary categorizations. The author's revelations expose a state policy of "cleansing" during Partition, involving forced conversion, abduction, and genocide against Muslims, resulting in an estimated 82,000 deaths, coupled with substantial land losses for the Meos to Hindu and Sikh refugees.[8]

Barbara D. Metcalf delineates three revisionist arguments within the book, spotlighting active modernization efforts by the princes that challenge their perceived feudal image. The depiction of the early 1930s rural revolt, particularly involving the Meo community, emphasizes its agrarian and caste-specific nature, distinct from Islamicizing movements. The portrayal of the Tabligh movement as a strategic tool by Congress and Muslim elites to control Indian Muslims is accompanied by the author's emphasis on Mewati resistance to Tabligh teachings.[8]

Metcalf's critique of the author extends to the absence of an exploration into how embracing the Tabligh movement could function as resistance against consumerism and political pressures.[8] Additionally, Metcalf underscores the author's irony in concluding that global support for the Tabligh movement transforms Mewatis into agents of change, while simultaneously noting irony in the author's stance, acknowledging Mewatis' agency in the agrarian movement but denying it in their support for Tablighi Jama'at.[8]

Approach

[edit]

This investigation into social and historical realms, shaped by Maurice Halbwachs' theories, intricately examines the collective nature of memory.[9] Despite a dense writing style noted by Rowena Robinson for its clipped and elliptical quality, the book navigates historical landscapes with swift, thought-provoking ideas, demanding intellectual engagement.[7]

Source

[edit]

This publication draws upon Meo myths characterized by their contentious and resistant nature.[9] The oral tradition within this work is categorized into two segments: Mirasi, performed and sung by skilled bards, including Dhamukar and others, and oral cultural texts authored by the Meo community.[10]

Limitation

[edit]

In critiquing this book, both Saurabh Dube and Badri Narayan identify some limitations. Dube highlights a deficiency in argument unpacking within the introduction, emphasizing a disconnect between the book's grand theoretical scale and the absence of clear links to examined questions. The second chapter's inadequate introduction to the Meos further underscores a consistent lack of attention to detail in the book's construction.[5] Dube also points out that binary oppositions in the narrative overshadow shared determinations and neglect crucial evidence. Moreover, the rapid dismissal of binary categories overlooks inherent binarism in social thought, particularly evident in the dominance of the "Meo-state opposition" in the community's oral traditions.[5] Concurrently, Narayan critiques oversimplifications in the book's introduction, specifically contesting the notion that oral traditions exclusively represent a male domain. He emphasizes the imperative recognition of the rich creative traditions of women and spaces reflecting women's protest within oral traditions, adding depth to the discourse on resistance.[10]

Reception

[edit]

The book has received acclaim from scholars such as Barbara D. Metcalf and Badri Narayan. Metcalf praises the book's addition to understanding the contingent and modern nature of Muslim identity, shaped not in opposition but as a product of nationalism.[8] In parallel, Badri Narayan commends the book for its departure from 'Hegelian hubris' and its innovative narrative forms in recounting post-colonial ethnohistories.[10] Both scholars recognize the author's ability to transcend conventional historiographical approaches, with Metcalf emphasizing identity complexities,[8] and Narayan calling for fresh perspectives.[10]

Legacy

[edit]

Quaid-i-Azam University has been awarded a scholarship to undertake a scholarly investigation, focusing on the historical account of the Meo community spanning from the era of Balban to the partition of India in 1947. This academic pursuit entails the development of a thesis and subsequent publication, inspired by the contributions of Shail Mayaram. The primary objective is to document the history of the Meo community, using the details and references found in two works authored by Shail Mayaram.[11]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Robinson, Rowena (1999). "Book reviews and notices : SHAIL MAYARAM, Resisting regimes: Myth, memory and the shaping of a Muslim identity". Contributions to Indian Sociology. 33 (1–2): 463. doi:10.1177/006996679903300141. ISSN 0069-9667. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  2. ^ Toriz, German Franco; Dube, Saurabh (2000). "Review of Resisting Regimes: Myth, Memory, and the Shaping of a Muslim Community". Estudios de Asia y Africa. 35 (1 (111)): 167. ISSN 0185-0164. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  3. ^ a b c Narayan, Badri (1998). "Book Reviews : SHAIL MAYARAM, Resisting Regimes: Myth, Memory and the Shaping of a Muslim Identity, Delhi". The Indian Economic & Social History Review. 35 (4): 448. doi:10.1177/001946469803500408. ISSN 0019-4646. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  4. ^ Dube, Saurabh (1999). "Review of Resisting Regimes: Myth, Memory and the Shaping of a Muslim Community". The Journal of Asian Studies. 58 (3): 869. doi:10.2307/2659178. ISSN 0021-9118. Archived from the original on 6 August 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Dube 1999, p. 870.
  6. ^ Robinson 1999, p. 463.
  7. ^ a b Robinson 1999, p. 464.
  8. ^ a b c d e f Metcalf, Barbara D. (1999). "Shail Mayaram. Resisting Regimes: Myth, Memory and the Shaping of a Muslim Identity". The American Historical Review. 104 (4): 1283. doi:10.1086/ahr/104.4.1283. ISSN 1937-5239. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  9. ^ a b Narayan 1998, p. 448.
  10. ^ a b c d Narayan 1998, p. 449.
  11. ^ Meo, Shahabuddin Khan (2011). "History Of Mewat – An Outline" (PDF). Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. 48 (1): 5. ISSN 0034-5431. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 August 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Resisting_Regimes&oldid=1209434179"