So, what's it all about?

It occurs to me that before launching into my first theme, some of you may be wondering just what the hell is going on and what business have I in Delhi? Officially, my purpose is to conduct historical research using documents produced by the British Raj. After partition, these documents found their way into state and municipal archives across the Subcontinent. Many of the most crucial, and those of "national" importance (we can debate the usefulness of this term another time) are now housed in the NAI (National Archives of India) located in Central Delhi, just north of Rajpath Marg (India's version of the mall in DC). I will now try to be more disciplined with regard to parenthetical phrases. Another hott spot for nerds like me is the Delhi State Archives which, as one might expect, contains most of the records pertaining to governance of the Delhi and its environs.

This is all well and good, say you, but what does this have to do with Rob, that useless Slav? I, dear friends, am examining the question of what happens to Muslims in Delhi following the 1857 Mutiny Rebellion. Briefly (or not, we'll soon see), in 1857, a century of economic, social, political, and religious tensions resulting from Britain's cancerous spread over the land erupted in a series of widespread, though poorly coordinated, rebellions. Indian soldiers in the British army led the way, hence the term mutiny. Unforunately, fear of the British and intra-Indian rivalries kept most people from joining the struggle and by late 1858, the British had stamped out the last pockets of resistance in Awadh (in the Northeast).

I am looking at Delhi because that was the former capital of the Mughal Empire and it became the symbolic center of the rebellion when disaffected troops from the Bengal divisions marched there and compelled the reluctant, 82 year-old Bahadur Shah to reassert Mughal power. Many Britons resident in Delhi at the time suddenly found themselves facing execution at the hands of those to whom they had been, until so recently, total dicks (Can you tell who I would've been rooting for?). In the early autumn of 1857, what was arguably the most intense, bloody fighting of the revolt took place in Delhi, at the gates of the Red Fort. The British eventually succeeded in restoring their dominion over the region by November. So, was all that mutiny business Ganges water under the bridge? No, of course not. The British forcibly evicted the entire population and demolished entire neighborhoods for "security reasons." The more things change the more they stay the same, no?

My question is, what happened once people started returning? The British largely misinterpreted the rebellion as a fundamentalist uprising by the once proud Muslims in the Mughal ruling class fuelled by millenarian preachers. They casually minimalized the vigor with which thousands of Hindus heeded the rebel call and often took the lead. Additionally, the British failed to see that cooperation and a multi-faith character marked the outbreak in most regions because it did not mesh with what they "knew" about the eternal, bitter rivalry between Muslims and Hindus (and just what is Hinduism, can you tell me that? Can anyone?).

Nevertheless, the official dispatches all blamed the Muslims. I feel like I've heard this story before somewhere... And, without a doubt, as the 20th century approached, the Muslim community was disproportionately composed of the poorest, least literate people. How to account for this? Well, the standard historical narrative lists a number of factors, a chief one being discriminatory British policies after 1857. Though offered without much evidence, people accepted this until the 1970s, when Peter Hardy demonstrated that in Awadh, the British had taken their wrath out on Muslim and Hindu landowners both in proportions consistent with those groups' respective populations. But, as we know, the Subcontinent has a highly regional character and what is true for rural Awadh may be true for there alone. I want to examine the question looking at urban Muslims, and what better place to look than Delhi? I also hope that by looking in a place so thick with scribbling officials, I might be able to shed at least a ray of light upon the situation of lower-class Muslims, not just the elites.

So, that's my project. The research goes slowly, but that's hardly your problem. The archives generally close on the weekends though, so then I zip periously around the city in "autorickshaws" and rapaciously photograph Delhi's historic monuments. It's a good life, if sweltering and plagued by insects. Having to wear long pants all the time for fear someone might think I'm a disrespectful barbarian is kind of a drag, but one never knows when one might need to step into a mosque or other holy place to escape some kafir hustlers. Unfortunately, often as not here, there's as many inside as there are outside. How fitting that this brings us to my first topic (which will be the subject of my post tomorrow, see, I've been jotting things down for 2 weeks, so now it's all going to spew out digitally), preservation of historical treasures. I know, I know, too much excitement, but for Krishna's sake, please contain yourselves.

By, the way, now playing : Gamma Ray - "Free Time." It's an incredibly bad song from their 1990 album, but we all share the sentiment. Think of it as a mood piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMOb7BInqb4&mode=related&search=