Fractured States: Smallpox, Public Health and Vaccination Policy in British India 1800–1947. By S. Bhattacharya, M. Harrison & M. Worboys. New Perspectives in South Asian History, vol. 11, Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2005 pp. xi, 264, Rs 630 (hardback, ISBN 81 250 2866 8)

2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 666-670
Author(s):  
NIELS BRIMNES
ĪQĀN ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (04) ◽  
pp. 69-86
Author(s):  
Dr. Muhammad Akram ◽  
Dr. Ayesha Qurrat ul Ain

Religion, language, and race have been among the most crucial factors behind the formation of various national and communal identities in modern South Asian history. Just like the political division of British India, the complex interplay of these factors also culminated in a bifurcation of linguistic boundaries along the religious lines according to which Urdu became associated with Islam and Muslims. In contrast, Hindi became increasingly connected to the Hindu culture. These historical developments also affected the extent and nature of the academic materials on Hinduism in the Urdu language, which the present paper examines. The paper takes stock of different relevant materials. Then, it discusses how the changed socio-political realities quantitatively and qualitatively affected the works on Hinduism in the Urdu language as the majority of the Hindu scholars lost enthusiasm to write on their religion in Urdu considering its increased perception of being a Muslim language. Muslims in Pakistan, on the other hand, lost opportunities of everyday interaction with Hindus and easy access to the original Hindi and Sanskrit sources resulting in a considerable decline in Hindu studies on their part. Thus, the overall production of literature on Hinduism in the Urdu language declined sharply. By implication, the paper hints at how decisively socio-political and historical contexts bear on the pursuit of the academic study of religion.


Author(s):  
Angma D. Jhala

Colonial South Asian history has focused on British India and the nationalists who later resisted and supplanted it. However, long before India’s independence from Britain, there were regions where neither the British nor the nationalists were primarily positioned. These were the approximately six hundred semi-autonomous kingdoms, or “princely states” (often referred to as “Indian India”), which spanned the breadth and length of the subcontinent. They comprised two-fifths of the landmass and one-third of the population, excluding Burma. Though their rulers were long marginalized in modern South Asian and imperial history as antiquated relics of the medieval era, oriental despots, or puppet princes, they were real forces in the governing of the subcontinent, not only during the precolonial era but also at the heyday of the British Empire and continue to play a part in modern South Asia. Native rulers introduced new systems of administration, taxation, law, religious and social reform, trade, education, public health, and technology, including railways, ginning factories, and telegraphs, to their states; served as patrons of architecture, the arts, culinary innovation, and sport; encouraged the introduction of representative forms of government; and, in certain cases, supported popular anticolonial movements. In some principalities, where ruling families practiced different faiths from the majority of their citizens, their policies would influence the political trajectories of their erstwhile states long after the end of colonialism. With India’s independence and Partition in 1947, the princely states merged with the new nations of South Asia, and in the 1970s former princes lost their economic entitlement of the Privy Purse. However, they continued to play a part in postcolonial South Asia, serving as diplomats, governors, patrons of educational and charitable institutions, local magnates, company directors, cabinet ministers and, perhaps most prominently, as elected politicians and leaders of heritage tourism.


1998 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1068-1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gilmartin

Few events have been more important to the history of modern South Asia than the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947. The coming of partition has cast a powerful shadow on historical reconstructions of the decades before 1947, while the ramifications of partition have continued to leave their mark on subcontinental politics fifty years after the event.Yet, neither scholars of British India nor scholars of Indian nationalism have been able to find a compelling place for partition within their larger historical narratives (Pandey 1994, 204–5). For many British empire historians, partition has been treated as an illustration of the failure of the “modernizing” impact of colonial rule, an unpleasant blip on the transition from the colonial to the postcolonial worlds. For many nationalist Indian historians, it resulted from the distorting impact of colonialism itself on the transition to nationalism and modernity, “the unfortunate outcome of sectarian and separatist politics,” and “a tragic accompaniment to the exhilaration and promise of a freedom fought for with courage and valour” (Menon and Bhasin 1998, 3).


2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chitralekha Zutshi

This article reviews several key works within the scholarship on princely states produced in the past decade, in order to highlight their engagement with larger conversations in South Asian historiography. It argues that princely state scholarship no longer operates on the margins; rather, it has the potential to, and does, contribute to issues such as the idea of the feudal formation, the nature of modernity and the modern state, the articulation of religious and ethnic identities, women's status in Islam, and indigenous agency and resistance in colonial knowledge production, to name a few, that animate South Asian history while also transcending its narrow confines. Rather than analysing princely states in opposition to British India, these works approach them as distinct entities where particular social, economic and political conditions, combined with an interaction with external ideas and movements, produced certain outcomes in the realms of state, society and collective identity. Moreover, by combining archival research with ethnographic studies, these works have allowed access to the oral histories, memories, and vernacular literary traditions of several marginalised social groups in South Asia. More remains to be done, however, as we continue to decolonise these realms in popular memory and scholarly analysis, and the article suggests some directions princely state scholarship can take in this age of global historiographies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document