|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
084839
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To what extent did legal notions of identity conceal more porous and dynamic social relationships experienced outside of court? This article reconstructs events surrounding a famous court case, Abraham v. Abraham (1863), involving a property dispute within a mixed race family from Bellary, South India. Using the case's original documents it presents a narrative about the Abraham family, highlighting their negotiations of identity within the domains of family, market and law. The narrative shows how Indians, even under colonialism, could experience far more dynamic and flexible boundaries than what is often portrayed in the literature on communalism. At the same time, it demonstrates the very real impact of personal law categories upon the choices and litigation strategies of Indians. Indians had real agency in crafting their identities, but only as they adopted the conceptual tools of the colonial judiciary to pursue their interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
153587
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In April 1839, 29 Muslims in Vellore (South India) accused their maulvi, Sayyid Shah Modin Qadiri, of preaching seditious sermons in his mosque, which exhorted Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling East India Company. The ensuing criminal trial of Maulvi Modin illustrates key aspects of liberal imperialism as it was interpreted and implemented in pre-Mutiny India. As a central ideology of the British empire, liberalism championed the rights and freedoms of rational individuals and constraints on state power. At Modin's trial, however, this framework did not lend itself to a sanitary, evidence-based enquiry that bracketed the identities of the accused or the accusers. Rather, the trial measured a Muslim's place within networks of patronage that ensured namak halal, or the bonds of loyalty between rulers and subjects. Far from being a post-Enlightenment adjudication of guilt or innocence, his trial reveals the Company's investment in a particular kind of social order maintained by its scrutiny of class backgrounds and its patronage of traditional identities—a fact that softens the distinction often made between a commitment to liberal transformation before the Great Rebellion of 1857 and a return to conservatism afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|