Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community

To cite this: Virani, Shafique N. “Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community.” In Journal of Asian Studies 70, no. 1 (February 2011): 99-139. www.academia.edu/36996009/Taqiyya_and_Identity_in_a_South_Asian_Community www.shafiquevirani.org Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community SHAFIQUE N. VIRANI The Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar, India, represent an unexplored case of taqiyya, or precautionary dissimulation, and challenge traditional categories of religious identity in South Asia. Taqiyya is normally practiced by minority or otherwise disadvantaged groups of Muslims who fear negative repercussions should their real faith become known. Historically, the Shı̄‘a, whether Ithnā-‘asharı̄ or Ismaili, have commonly dissimulated as Sunnı̄s, who form the dominant community. However, the Guptı̄s, who are followers of the Ismaili imam, and whose name means “secret” or “hidden ones,” dissimulate not as Sunnı̄ Muslims, but as Hindus. The Guptı̄ practice of taqiyya is exceptional for another reason: Hinduism is not simply a veil used to avoid harmful consequences, but forms an integral part of the Guptı̄s’ belief system and identity, and the basis of their conviction in the Aga Khan, not only as the imam, but as the avatāra of the current age. I HAJI Bibi Case of 1905 at the Bombay High Court, His Highness Sir Sult.ān Muh.ammad Shāh, the forty-eighth imam or spiritual leader of the world’s Ismaili Muslims, was questioned about the provenance of his followers. While enumerating his disciples in Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Central Asia, Chinese Turkestan, Syria, and so on, in his oral testimony, the Ismaili imam also remarked, “In Hindustan and Africa there are many Guptı̄s who believe in me.” Asked to elucidate the identity of these “Guptı̄” followers, the imam replied, “I consider them Shı̄‘ı̄ Imāmı̄ Ismailis; by caste they are Hindus.”1 In his judgment in the case in 1908, Justice Coram Russel shed more light on the existence and identity of the Guptı̄s: N THE CELEBRATED Three witnesses were called before me who belong to what are known as Guptis. They are unquestionably Shia Imami Ismailis. But they certainly adhere to some of the Hindu practices, for instance they do not circumcize their males and they burn their dead, but they are true followers of the Aga Khan; and one could not help being struck with the dramatic Shafique N. Virani (shafique.virani@utoronto.ca) is Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Chair of the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Toronto. 1 Quoted in Nāmadār Āgākhān sāmeno Mukadamo: sane 1905 no mukadamo nambar 729, Bombay High Court, 1905; and Valı̄bhāı̄ Nānjı̄ Hudā, Asatya Ārop yāne Khojā Jñātinum . Gaurav (Dhorājı̄: En. Em. Budhawān.ı̄, 1927), 134. 100 Shafique N. Virani aspect of the situation when two of those Guptis said that they had made a Mehmani [offering] to the present Aga Khan in the Ritz Hotel in Paris.2 In Sanskrit, as in many of the new Indo-Aryan languages, including Gujarati, the word gupta means “secret” or “hidden.” As their name as well as the foregoing evidence indicates, the Guptı̄s have a practice of concealing their belief in the Ismaili imam from their caste-fellows. They consider ‘Alı̄ b. Abı̄ T.ālib, the first imam of the Shı̄‘ı̄ Muslims, and his successors in the line of Ismā‘ı̄l, collectively, to be the tenth and final avatāra, representing the continuity of divine guidance to humankind. Portrayals in some of the Sanskrit epics as well as the Purān.as of the final avatāra’s advent as Kalkı̄, riding a white horse and carrying a flashing sword, are considered to be predictions of the Imam ‘Alı̄’s famous mount Duldul and his sword Dhū al-Faqār.3 Their history and aspects of their belief system illustrate how the practice of dissimulation, common among minority Shı̄‘ı̄s, was reworked in the Indic milieu in unprecedented ways. Meanwhile, a South Asian worldview allowed them to evolve a religious identity rooted in a particular understanding of salvation history. The Guptı̄ practice of dissimulating religious beliefs out of fear of maltreatment is not uncommon in Islam. In Arabic, this is generally known as taqiyya or kitmān, and Muslims of various persuasions generally acknowledge the legitimacy of its use in certain circumstances.4 The Qur’an (3:28) advises that the company of believers should not be forsaken for that of doubters, unless this be as a precaution, out of fear.5 Verse 16:106, which refers to the blamelessness 2 Before Mr. Justice Russel Haji Bibi v. H.H. Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah the Aga Khan, suit no. 729 of 1905, Bombay Law Reporter, vol. 11 (1908): 431. 3 See Dominique-Sila Khan, “The Coming of Nikalank Avatar: A Messianic Theme in Some Sectarian Traditions of North-Western India,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 25, no. 4 (1997): 401–26. 4 For taqiyya, see, in particular, Lynda G. Clarke, “The Rise and Decline of Taqiyya in Twelver Shi‘ism,” in Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, ed. Todd Lawson (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 46–63; Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shi‘ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam, trans. David Streight (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), index, s.v. taqiyya; Henry Corbin, En Islam Iranien: Aspects Spirituels et Philosophiques, 4 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1971), index, s.vv. ketmān, taqı̄yeh; Etan Kohlberg, “Some Imāmı̄-Shı̄‘a Views on Taqiyya,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 95 (1975): 395–402; idem, “Taqiyya in Shı̄‘ı̄ Theology and Religion,” in Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, ed. H. G. Kippenberg and G. G. Stroumsa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 345–80; James Winston Morris, “Taqı̄yah,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 336–37; R. Strothmann and M. Djebli, “Tak.iyya,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–2004; CD-ROM v. 1.0), 135–36; and Aharon Layish, “Taqiyya among the Druzes,” Asian and African Studies 19, no. 3 (1985): 245–81; see also H. Reckendorf, “‘Ammār b. Yāsir,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–2004; CD-ROM v. 1.0), 448. 5 This verse is cited in justification of the practice of taqiyya in Abū Ja‘far Muh.ammad Ibn Bābawayh, A Shı̄‘ite Creed, trans. Asaf Ali Asghar Fyzee (Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1942), 111. Similar explanations are given in exegetical works; see, e.g., al-Fad.l b. al-H . asan al-T.abarsı̄, Majma‘ al-bayān fı̄ tafsı̄r al-Qur’ān, vol. 3 (Beirut 1954–1957), 55–56. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 101 of those who feign disbelief under compulsion, is explained by both Sunnı̄ and Shı̄‘ı̄ commentators as referring to the case of the companion ‘Ammār b. Yāsir, who was compelled under torture to renounce his faith.6 In the course of time, the majority Sunnı̄ Muslims, who had gained political supremacy, only rarely had occasion to resort to precautionary dissimulation. We may cite, for example, the Sunnı̄ scholars who resorted to taqiyya during the Inquisition (mih.na) at the time of the caliph al-Ma’mūn, affirming that the Qur’an was created, though they believed otherwise.7 By contrast, since the earliest days of Islam, the precarious existence of the minority Shı̄‘a forced them to practice taqiyya as an almost innate and instinctive method of self-preservation and protection.8 The Shı̄‘a even have a specific legal term for regions where taqiyya is obligatory: dār al-taqiyya, the realm of dissimulation.9 Naturally, many Shı̄‘a who dissimulate may not even be aware of the scholarly minutiae of the practice, or its technical term. Nevertheless, two primary aspects of taqiyya rose to prominence in Shı̄‘a considerations of the subject: not disclosing their association with the imams when this may expose them to danger and, equally important, keeping the esoteric teachings of the imams hidden from those who are unprepared to receive them.10 With regard to the latter, the Shı̄‘ı̄ imam Ja‘far al-S.ādiq is reputed to have said, “Our teaching is the truth, the truth of the truth; it is the exoteric and the esoteric, and the esoteric of the esoteric; it is the secret and the secret of a secret, a protected secret, hidden by a secret.”11 6 See, e.g., Muh.ammad Bāqir al-Majlisı̄, Bih.ār al-Anwār, vol. 16 (Tehran: lithograph, 1305–15 HS/ 1926–36), 224; and Ignaz Goldziher, “Das Prinzip der tak.ijja im Islam,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 60 (1906): 214. 7 M. Hinds, “Mih.na,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–2004; CD-ROM v. 1.0); and John A. Nawas, al-Ma’mūn: Mih.na and Caliphate (Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, 1992), 61; cf. Muhammad Qasim Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘Abbāsids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunnı̄ Elite, ed. Ulrich Haarmann and Wadad Kadi (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 106–14. Other instances of non-Shı̄‘ı̄ taqiyya are discussed in J. C. Wilkinson, “The Ibād.ı̄ Imāma,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies 39, no. 3 (1976): 537; Goldziher, “Das Prinzip der tak.ijja,” passim; and L. P. Harvey, “The Moriscos and the H . ajj,” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 14, no. 1 (1987): 12–13. 8 The political implications of taqiyya in early Shı̄‘ı̄sm are discussed in Denis McEoin, “Aspects of Militancy and Quietism in Imami Shi‘ism,” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 11, no. 1 (1984): 19–20, while the judicial implications are explored in Norman Calder, “Judicial Authority in Imāmı̄ Shı̄‘ı̄ Jurisprudence,” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 6, no. 2 (1979): 106–7. Shı̄‘ı̄ protective dissimulation in Afghanistan is examined in Louis Dupree, “Further Notes on Taqiyya: Afghanistan,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 99, no. 4 (1979): 680–82. 9 Kohlberg, “Some Imāmı̄-Shı̄‘a Views,” n. 13; idem, “Taqiyya in Shı̄‘ı̄ Theology,” passim. 10 Diane Steigerwald, “La dissimulation (taqiyya) de la foi dans le Shi‘isme Ismaelien,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 27 (1988): 39–59; and Clarke, “Rise and Decline of Taqiyya.” 11 Abū Ja‘far Muh.ammad b. al-H . asan al-S.affār al-Qummı̄, Bas.ā’ir al-Darajāt fı̄ Fad.ā’il Āl Muh.ammad, ed. Muh.sin Kūcha Bāghı̄ (Tabrı̄z [?]: Shirkat-i Chāp-i Kitāb, 1960), section 1, chapter 12, no. 14, 28. 102 Shafique N. Virani For the Ismaili Shı̄‘a, a minority within a minority, who emphasized the paramount importance of the bāt.in, or the esoteric dimension of the revelation, this need was even more pronounced.12 However, even among their Ismaili coreligionists, the Guptı̄ practice of taqiyya is unique. Historically, the Ismailis are known to have frequently maintained a veneer of Sunnı̄, S.ūfı̄, or Ithnā‘asharı̄ Islam.13 This was particularly true after the thirteenth century, when the invading Mongols destroyed their political power and massacred the community, forcing those who survived to go undercover. The Guptı̄ Ismailis, however, live as Hindus. So successful have they been in this endeavor that their very existence has eluded the notice of historians of Ismailism almost entirely. In the second edition of the encyclopedic 772-page tome of Farhad Daftary, The Ismā‘ı̄lı̄s: Their History and Doctrines, weighty in both erudition and physical size, the name “Guptı̄” never occurs.14 Only recently has this form of taqiyya been acknowledged.15 Fortunately, we do find allusions to the Guptı̄ communities ( jamā‘ats), under this and other names, in some medieval Persian sources, in the various gazetteers and ethnographic publications produced in South Asia, in the edicts ( farmāns) of the forty-eighth Ismaili imam, in some sectarian writings and popular accounts dating from the first half of the twentieth century onward, in the proceedings 12 Shafique N. Virani, The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: A History of Survival, A Search for Salvation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), index, s.v. taqiyya; al-Qād.ı̄ Abū H . anı̄fa b. Muh.ammad al-Nu‘mān, Ta’wı̄l al-Da‘ā’im, ed. Muh.ammad H . asan al-A‘z.amı̄, 3 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Ma‘ārif, 1967–72; repr., Beirut: Dār al-Thiqāfa), 1:127, cf. 201, 349; and Farhad Daftary, The Ismā‘ı̄lı̄s: Their History and Doctrines, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), index, s.v. taqiyya. 13 See Virani, The Ismailis in the Middle Ages, passim; Hafizullah Emadi, “The End of Taqiyya: Reaffirming the Religious Identity of Ismailis in Shughnan Badakshan—Political Implications for Afghanistan,” Middle Eastern Studies 34, no. 3 (1998); and idem, “Praxis of Taqiyya: Perseverance of Pashaye Ismaili Enclave, Nangarhar, Afghanistan,” Central Asian Survey 19, no. 2 (2000): 253– 64. In his 2000 article, Emadi “examines how sectarian policy orchestrated by the state had compelled the Ismailis of Nangarhar [in Afghanistan] to maintain a high level of secrecy concerning practice of their religious beliefs and assimilate themselves into the religious and cultural milieu of the dominant Pushtun [Sunni] community.” 14 Daftary, Ismā‘ı̄lı̄s, index. Recently, Dominique-Sila Khan and Zawahir Moir have mentioned the existence of the Guptı̄s in a number of their articles. I am grateful to Dr. Khan for graciously providing me with copies of her writings. See especially Khan, “Diverting the Ganges: The Nizari Ismaili Model of Conversion in South Asia,” in Religious Conversion in India: Modes, Motivations, and Meanings, ed. Rowena Robinson and Sathianathan Clarke (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 32, 45; idem, “The Graves of History or the Metaphor of the Hidden Pir,” in Culture, Communities and Change, ed. Varsha Joshi (Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2002), 167–68; idem, “Liminality and Legality: A Contemporary Debate among the Imamshahis of Gujarat,” in Lived Islam in South Asia: Adaptation, Accommodation and Conflict, ed. Imtiaz Ahmad and Helmut Reifeld (Delhi: Social Science Press, 2004), 215, 229–30; idem, “The Mahdi of Panna: A Short History of the Pranamis (Part II),” Indian Journal of Secularism 7, no. 1 (2003): 60–61; and Moir and Khan, “New Light on the Satpanthi Imamshahis of Pirana,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 33, no. 2 (2010): 210–34. 15 Daftary, Ismā‘ı̄lı̄s, 404, does mention taqiyya in its Hindu form, without going into details. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 103 of a few court cases, such as the one cited earlier, and even in certain of the polemical works of the Āryā Samāj in the early 1900s. This study focuses primarily on the experience of the Guptı̄ community of Bhavnagar, Gujarat, one of many Guptı̄ Ismaili communities spread primarily in Gujarat, Sindh, and Punjab. Bhavnagar, on the western shore of the Gulf of Cambay, was founded in the eighteenth century. The surrounding region once constituted a princely state of the same name. Originally a trading post for cotton goods, Bhavnagar city is now a sprawling industrial metropolis that is home to nearly a million people. The Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar trace the independent existence of their community to the early twentieth century. Thus, they claim a history distinct from the other Guptı̄ communities of South Asia, many of which have been in continuous contact with the Ismaili imams for hundreds of years. Nevertheless, they share with other Guptı̄s a common allegiance to the imam and a common practice of dissimulation as Hindus. Recently, they have discarded much of their earlier reticence and have publicly acknowledged their fealty to the Aga Khan. In addition to the sources already mentioned, this paper utilizes the oral tradition of the Bhavnagar Guptı̄s as it was narrated to me during interviews conducted in Gujarati and Hindi in 1998 in India, and in written correspondence after that year. My primary informants, their ages at the time of the interviews, and the designators that will be used to reference their input are as follows: seventy-four-year-old Bachchubhāı̄ (B), whose mother and maternal uncle were motivating forces in the nascent community; fifty-seven-year-old Kapı̄lābahen Andhārı̄ya (KB), a dynamic and popular Guptı̄ wā‘iz.a (preacher); thirty-seven-year-old Rāju Andhārı̄yā (R), also a wā‘iz., who served two terms as the chairman of the Bhavnagar Ismaili Tariqah and Religious Education Board, and whose father’s grandfather, Ran.chhod. Bhagat, was a motivating force in the nascent community; and finally, eighty-one-year-old Kālı̄dās Bhagat (KD), the community’s most respected elder at that time, who served for twenty-five years as the kāmad.ı̄ā (an Ismaili official, second to a mukhı̄) of the jamā‘at during its formative period and whose mukhı̄, the late Paramān.anddās Khod.ı̄dās, was the Guptı̄ jamā‘at’s most charismatic leader, whose reputation spread through the Ismaili community far beyond the confines of Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and even India. My conversations with these four individuals took place separately, often in their homes, over tea or a meal. Frequently, large numbers of family members and friends joined in these discussions, avidly relating their own experiences and recollections, jogging the memories of those being interviewed, and asking questions of their own. The contributions of the others who were present have been incorporated into the narrative with the designator (O), for other, as their names were not always known to me. Because this study draws frequently on the reminiscences and memories of individuals and on eye-witness accounts of events, it does not disdain the use of anecdotes or anecdotal style as narrated by the informants. This captures something of the vividness of the community’s own perceptions 104 Shafique N. Virani of its history and effectively conveys emotional, doctrinal, and devotional undercurrents that would otherwise be lost. The modern history of the Bhavnagar Guptı̄s can legitimately be divided into three main periods. From the turn of the century until approximately 1930, the Guptı̄s became increasingly aware of their historical and doctrinal relationship to Ismailism, and reestablished contact with the Ismaili imam and community, while at the same time practicing intense taqiyya or precautionary dissimulation among their own caste. The need for such caution was further accentuated by the open declarations of allegiance to the imam by other South Asian Guptı̄ communities, which provoked virulent attacks by the Āryā Samāj. The period from about 1930 to 1946 followed the excommunication of the Bhavnagar Guptı̄s from their caste and resulted in immense uncertainty. Nevertheless, it also ushered in a period of greater boldness, proselytization, and cohesiveness as a unit. Ultimately, reconciliation with the caste was effected and permission to follow their personal religious inclinations within the caste structure was granted. The third period commenced in 1946 with the founding of the first official Guptı̄ community center ( jamā‘at-khāna) in Bhavnagar. The ensuing increase in confidence and solidarity as a community culminated in the establishment of a separate housing society, which was recently completed and which, perhaps, represents the commencement of the next stage of the community’s development. The evolution of Bhavnagar’s Guptı̄s, and their self-identification as both Hindus and Muslims, also demonstrates that there is a need, in a number of instances, to reevaluate the terms “Hindu” and “Muslim” as either/or categories. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Members of the Kāchhı̄yā caste of vegetable sellers, the Guptı̄ Ismailis of Bhavnagar consider themselves Pāt.ı̄dārs, a designation that became increasingly more common in the 1930s, and is gradually replacing the traditional caste-name of Kan.bı̄.16 They join their caste-fellows in their historic and age-old devotion to the memory of Sayyid Imām al-Dı̄n. Imām al-Dı̄n, or Imāmshāh, as he is better known, was stationed at Pı̄rān.ā, near Ahmedabad in Gujarat. He was the son of 16 K. S. Singh, ed., India’s Communities: H-M, vol. 5 of People of India (Delhi: Anthropological Survey of India and Oxford University Press, 1998), 1430; A. M. Shah and R. G. Shroff, “The Vahivancha Barots of Gujarat: A Caste of Genealogists and Mythographers,” Journal of American Folklore 71 (1958): 268–69; H. S. Morris, The Indians in Uganda: Caste and Sect in a Plural Society (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968), 93; Harald Tambs-Lyche, London Patidars: A Case Study in Urban Ethnicity (London: Routledge, 1980), 32, 278–80; idem, “Kolı̄, Rajput, Kanbı̄, Pat.t.idār,” in Tribus et Basses Castes: Résistance et autonomie dans la société Indienne, ed. M. Carrin and C. Jaffrelot (Paris: Éditions de l’école des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2002); Vinayak Chaturvedi, Peasant Pasts: History and Memory in Western India (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 34; and A. M. Shah, “Division and Hierarchy: An Overview of Caste in Gujarat,” Contributions to Indian Sociology, n.s., 16, no. 1 (1982): 1–33. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 105 the fifteenth-century Ismaili dignitary H . asan Kabı̄r al-Dı̄n, and a descendant of the Imam Ismā‘ı̄l.17 A common version of the foundational communal narrative describes a pilgrimage of their Levā Kan.bı̄ ancestors to the sacred city of Kāshı̄, where they would bathe in the Ganges and have their sins forgiven. On the way, they chanced upon Imāmshāh in the village of Girmatha, not far from Ahmedabad. He explained to them the futility of the journey and told them that they could bathe in the Ganges at that very place. As the learned teacher explained to them the mysteries of the Satpanth, the path of the truth, lo and behold, the Ganges flowed before them. They bathed in the sacred river, their sins were forgiven, and they joined the path of their newfound spiritual guide (B, K, KD, O).18 In his Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ and Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄, compiled in the mid-1700s, the well-informed ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Khān Bahādur writes in some detail about the Kan.bı̄s and their sister communities. Those who lived around Ahmedabad were called Momnās or Momans (from the Arabic word mu’min, meaning “believer”), while their coreligionists in Saurashtra were called Khwājas (i.e., the Nizārı̄ Ismaili Khojās).19 Kan.bı̄ devotion “reaches the extent that they submit the tenth part of their income as a pious offering at the 17 Historical information about these figures is available in Azim Nanji, The Nizārı̄ Ismā‘ı̄lı̄ Tradition in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1978); and Shafique N. Virani, “The Voice of Truth: Life and Works of Sayyid Nūr Muh.ammad Shāh, a 15th/16th Century Ismā‘ı̄lı̄ Mystic” (Master’s thesis, McGill University, 1995). Tazim Kassam, Songs of Wisdom and Circles of Dance: Hymns of the Satpanth Ismaili Muslim Saint, Pir Shams (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995) examines the earliest historical period and translates the shorter Gināns of Pı̄r Shams. In this regard, see also Françoise Mallison, “Les Chants Garabi de Pir Shams,” in Littératures Médievales de l’Inde du Nord, ed. Françoise Mallison (Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1991), translated into English as Françoise Mallison, “Pir Shams and his Garabi Songs,” in On Becoming an Indian Muslim: French Essays on Aspects of Syncretism, ed. M. Waseem (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), 180–207. Wladimir Ivanow, “The Sect of Imam Shah in Gujrat,” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 12 (1936): 19–70, remains valuable, as it refers to sources that may no longer be extant. Dominique-Sila Khan and Zawahir Moir, “Coexistence and Communalism: The Shrine of Pirana in Gujarat,” Journal of South Asian Studies 22 (1999): 133–54, offer insights into the modern history of the Imāmshāhı̄s. In 1998, Bhavnagar could boast of four Imāmshāhı̄ mandirs. 18 Karı̄m Mahamad Māstar, Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno (Vad.odarā: Mahārājā Sayājı̄rāv Vishvavidhyālay, 2025 VS/1969), 211–12, 314; M. S. Commissariat, Studies in the History of Gujarat (Mumbai: Longmans, Green, 1935), 147; Khan, “Diverting,” 37–38; M. R. Majmudar, Cultural . History of Gujarat (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1965), 254; Bhagavānalāl La. Mānkad., Kāt.hiyāvād.anā Mumanā (Ahmedabad: Gujarāt Vidhyāsabhā, 2004 VS/1948), 4–5; James M. Campbell, ed., Muslim and Parsi Castes and Tribes of Gujarat, vol. 9, part 2 (Hariyana: Vipin Jain for Vintage Books, 1990), 66–68, 76–77; and Momı̄n Mı̄yām . jı̄ Nuramahamad, Isamāilı̄ Momı̄n Komano Itı̄hās (Mumbai: Rāmachandra Vāman Mahājan, 1936), 130. 19 ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Khān Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄, ed. Sayyid Nawāb ‘Alı̄, vol. 1 (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1928), 320; and idem, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄, trans. M. F. Lokhandwala (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1965), 286. The Khojās are a group of Ismailis primarily of Sindhi and Gujarati origin who are traditionally believed to be descendants of families that were influenced by the preaching of Pı̄r Sadr al-Dı̄n and Pı̄r H . asan Kabı̄r al-Dı̄n (the grandfather and father of Imāmshāh, respectively) around the fourteenth century. 106 Shafique N. Virani dargāh of [their pı̄r’s] descendants … and would happily give up their lives in service.”20 The author notes their practice of dissimulation as “they observe many of the rituals of the non-Muslims in order to foster friendship and placate the hearts of the non-believers”21 and that their creed “differs from that of the majority [of Muslims].”22 Outwardly (dar z.āhir), he informs us, many of them conduct themselves as Hindus among their families and castefellows, while inwardly (dar bāt.in), they are followers of the sayyid.23 He narrates at length a story that illustrates how the Ismaili Muslims of Gujarat, including the Nizārı̄ followers of Imāmshāh, hid their adherence to Islam in milieus where the non-Muslim political authorities may have been hostile.24 The most dramatic series of events that changed the course of the community’s history occurred under the reign of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (d. 1707). ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Khān, whose father had accompanied this sovereign during his Deccan campaigns and was the official chronicler at Ahmedabad, was well placed to describe the events:25 During the reign of the ʿlate emperor, tremendous emphasis was placed on matters of the sharı̄‘a and on refuting various [non-Sunnı̄] schools of thought. No efforts were spared in this regard. Many people thus emerged who maintained that, for God’s sake, their very salvation lay in this. Because of religious bigotry, which is the bane of humankind, they placed a group under suspicion of Shı̄‘ism (rafd.), thus destroying the very ramparts of the castle of their existence [i.e., having them killed], while others were thrown into prison.26 20 ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Khān Bahādur, Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄, ed. Sayyid Nawāb ‘Alı̄ (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1930), 123; cf. idem, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 103. 21 ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Khān Bahādur, Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 123; cf. idem, Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄, trans. Syed Nawab Ali and Charles Norman Seddon (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1928), 103–4, in which the translation is confused. M. F. Lokhandwala described the translation of this work as rather “free.” See the preface to Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (trans.). 22 Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 320; cf. idem, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (trans.), 286. 23 Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 320; and idem, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (trans.), 286. 24 Bahādur, Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 129–32; cf. Bahādur, Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (trans.), 108–10. Interestingly, the author describes all of the Gujarātı̄ Ismailis as “Bohrās,” which in modern times is the name more commonly associated with the Must‘alı̄an branch of the community. However, he makes it clear that he also refers to the followers of Imāmshāh, whom he explicitly identifies as Nizārı̄s, under this rubric. The term bohrā has, of course, been widely used by a variety of communities. The fabulously wealthy merchant prince of Gujarat in the 1600s, Virji Vorah, for example, was not a Must‘alı̄an or any other type of Ismaili, but a Jain; see M. N. Pearson, Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat: The Response to the Portuguese in the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976), 26–27. Campbell, Muslim and Parsi, 24, 76, also indicates the wider usage of the term and provides specific instances of Momnās being called “Bohoras.” Even in modern times, the name Bohrā or Vahorā is shared widely by a number of communities. See Māstar, Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno, 127–28. 25 Hameed ud-Din, “‘Alı̄-Moh.ammad Khan [sic, Khān] Bahādor, Mı̄rzā Moh.ammad-H . asan,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater (London: Routledge, 1996–). 26 Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 321; cf. Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (trans.), 286–87. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 107 The aged successor of Imāmshāh, Sayyid Shāhjı̄, was thus accused of Shı̄‘ism and summoned to appear before Aurangzeb. His death en route enraged his followers. ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Khān describes at great length how, when word of the death of their spiritual preceptor spread, this community of simple trades people—men, women, and even children—gathered from far and wide and took up arms against the military. Overwhelmed by the force and unexpected nature of the onslaught, Aurangzeb’s forces lost control, and the community, bolstered by their large numbers, succeeded in capturing the fortress of Broach. However, it was not long before reinforcements arrived and the resurrection was put down, resulting in a massacre of the Kan.bı̄s.27 Similar unsettling events, spurred by Aurangzeb’s policies, were occurring elsewhere among sister communities. For example, H . asan Pı̄r b. Fād.il Shāh led a group of approximately 18,500 families of both Khojā and Momnā Ismailis. His brother, Pı̄r Mashā’ikh (d. 1697), however, became associated with Aurangzeb, and joined the ruler in his battles against the Shı̄‘ı̄ kingdoms of the Deccan. He had H . asan Pı̄r imprisoned and embarked on a campaign to convert his brother’s followers to Sunnism. The vast majority, 18,000, joined him. Today, the Momnās who remain Ismailis are called junā dharma nā moman, “the Momnās of the old faith,” while those who were converted by Pı̄r Mashā’ikh to Sunnism are called navā dharma nā moman, “the Momnās of the new faith.”28 These difficult circumstances would have necessitated extreme measures of taqiyya for those Imāmshāhı̄s who remained attached to their original practices. A host of ethnographic works written from the late 1800s to modern times testify to the continuity of this tendency, explaining that the Kan.bı̄ agricultural community, also called Kurmı̄s,29 draw on both “Islamic” as well as “Hindu” antecedents in their cultural and religious life.30 According to traditional accounts of 27 Bahādur, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (ed.), 320–22; and idem, Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄ (trans.), 286–89. See also Commissariat, Studies in the History of Gujarat, 144. 28 Details of these events are narrated in Pı̄razādā Sayyad Sadaruddı̄n Daragāhavālā, Tavārı̄khe Pı̄r, vol. 2 (Navasārı̄: Muslim Gujarat Press, 1935), 147–50, 204–5; Satish C. Misra, Muslim Communities in Gujarat (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1964), 62–64; Hudā, Asatya, 111–12; Edaljı̄ Dhanjı̄ Kābā, Khojā Kom nı̄ Tavārı̄kh [The history of the Khojas] (Amarelı̄: Dhı̄ Gujarāt end. Kāt.hı̄yāvād. Prı̄nt.ı̄ñg Varkas end. T.āip Phāun.d.arı̄, 1330 AH/1912), 283–84; Sachedı̄nā Nānajı̄ān.ı̄, Khojā Vr.ttānt (Ahmadabad: Samasher Bāhādur Press, 1892), 229–32; Nuramahamad, Isamāilı̄ Momı̄n, 132–35; and Nanji, Nizārı̄ Ismā‘ı̄lı̄ Tradition, 92–93. Misra’s account is based primarily on Pir Muhammad Ibrahim, Masha’ikh Chishti-nu-Jiwan-Charitra (Author, 348, Bapat Road, Bombay-8, 1372/1953) and a manuscript entitled Sara-u’l-Atkiya, written in 1752, that was in the possession of the sajjādnashı̄n of the dargāh of Shāh ‘Ālam in Batwa. The transliteration of the names of both these works, neither of which was available to me, is Misra’s. 29 Māstar, Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno, 313. 30 Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, Hindu Castes and Sects (Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1896), 218; K. S. Singh, ed., Gujarat, vol. 22, part 2 of People of India (Delhi: Anthropological Survey of Indian and Ramdas Bhatkal for Popular Prakashan, 2003), 553, 557; R. E. Enthoven, The Tribes and Castes of Bombay, vol. 2 (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1922), 121, 124; 108 Shafique N. Virani their history, Imāmshāh’s Guptı̄ followers, while pledging allegiance to the Ismaili imam in Persia, maintained an outward identity indistinguishable from that of their caste-fellows, while the Momnās became publicly identifiable as Muslims. In this article, the followers of the Aga Khan are intended in referring to the Guptı̄s, though it is possible that some other Imāmshāhı̄s who are not followers of the imam also refer to themselves by this name. The Imāmshāhı̄s remained in contact with the Ismaili imams in Persia from the time of Imāmshāh until at least the early eighteenth century. Their prayers, in a manner similar to that of their Persian, Badakhshani, and Khojā coreligionists in South Asia, invoke the names of the line of imams. However, many of the Imāmshāhı̄ lists abruptly end with the name of the fortieth imam in the series, Nizār b. Khalı̄l Allāh (r. 1680– 1722) who, notably, was the Ismaili imam contemporary with Aurangzeb’s rule in India. Meanwhile, the lists of non-Imāmshāhı̄ Ismailis include the names of the imams who came after the reign of Aurangzeb.31 Evidence adduced here demonstrates that some of the Imāmshāhı̄ leadership, the sayyids descended from Imāmshāh, secretly continued their contact with the Ismaili imams, but did not share this information with the rank-and-file of the community. The bulk of the Kāchhı̄yā followers appear to have looked only to these sayyids (along with officials at the shrine known as kākās) as their leaders, submitting their religious dues to them. For these believers, contact with the imams in remote Persia seems to have been severed in the early eighteenth century. While the details have yet to be fully examined, circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that this may be attributed to the aforementioned policies of Aurangzeb. The Kāchhı̄yās thus evolved a religious and social identity largely independent of their Ismaili coreligionists. Notable for this study, though, is evidence of a common adherence to the Gināns, or religious compositions of a number of Ismaili dignitaries, and the performance of certain rituals and prayers that reflect a shared history.32 “Kanbis,” in Encyclopaedia of Indian Tribes and Castes, ed. B. K. Roy Burman et al. (New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 2004), 2839; and Māstar, Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno, 107. 31 See Pat.el Nārāyan.jı̄ Rāmjı̄bhāı̄ Kont.rākt.ar, Pı̄rān.ā-“Satpanth” nı̄ Pol ane Satya no Prakāsh, vol. 1 (Ahmadābād: n.p., 1926), 386. The list in this source is corrupt in a number of instances. The late Gulshan Khakee had also come across similar manuscript lists of imams (personal communication); see also Gulshan Khakee, “The Dasa Avatara of the Satpanthi Ismailis and the Imam Shahis of Indo-Pakistan” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1972), 12–13; Virani, “Voice of Truth,” 30–33. 32 In addition to the aforementioned studies, Aziz Esmail, A Scent of Sandalwood: Indo-Ismaili Religious Lyrics (Richmond: Curzon, 2002); and Ali Sultaan Ali Asani, Ecstasy and Enlightenment: The Ismaili Devotional Literature of South Asia (London: I. B. Tauris, 2002) are two more recent contributions to the field that contain up-to-date bibliographies. Christopher Shackle and Zawahir Moir, Ismaili Hymns from South Asia: An Introduction to the Ginans (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1992) includes an excellent linguistic analysis of the Gināns. For the import and significance of the word “Ginān” itself, see Shafique N. Virani, “Symphony of Gnosis: A Self-Definition of the Ismaili Ginān Literature,” in Reason and Inspiration in Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 109 ESTABLISHMENT The genesis of the Guptı̄ community at Bhavnagar, independent of the leadership of the sayyids and kākās of Pı̄rān.ā, is associated with a certain Khod.ı̄dās Manordās Vanmāl.ı̄, a learned and well-read Kāchhı̄yā with a profound interest in religious matters. Versed in the community’s Gināns, of which he was an avid reciter, Khod.ı̄dās was also fully conversant with the most important religious epics of the Sanskrit tradition, the Rāmāyan.a and the Mahābhārata (K, KD). His frequent pilgrimages to the shrine of Sayyid Imāmshāh in Pı̄rān.ā alerted him to some very disturbing innovations being introduced into the community’s sacred literature by the authorities at the shrine complex (dargāh).33 The interpolations were significant enough to alarm him (K, KD). Moreover, a number of religious rituals that had once been practiced were now discontinued. Significant among these was the custom of uttering hai zindā upon entering the shrine precincts, to which those in attendance would reply kāyam pāyā (B, K, KD). Both formulae consist of an Arabic word followed by its Persian translation and reflect a Gujarati pronunciation. The first, from h.ayy zinda, means “living,” and is traditionally regarded by the Ismailis as a declaration of the belief in a living imam. The second, from qā’im pāyinda, meaning “eternal” or “abiding,” asserts the eternal nature of divine guidance. Indeed, one of the most common titles of the imam in Arabic is qā’im, which conveys the sense that the imam is the one who ushers in the resurrection, or qiyāma.34 Notably, the change in rituals was within memory of a schism from the Kan.bı̄ community, and may have been adopted as a protective measure to avoid similar secessions.35 Later, in 1899, two prominent Kan.bı̄ brothers, Kalyanji Mehta (1870–1973) and Kunvarji Mehta (1886–1982) from Vanz village near Surat, joined the Āryā Samāj. They became active in proselytizing among the Matı̄yā Kan.bı̄ followers of Imāmshāh, urging them to renounce their Islamic traditions.36 Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, ed. Todd Lawson (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005). 33 A modern history of this shrine, particularly its legal status, can be found in Khan, “Liminality.” 34 Another common understanding posits that the initial word of the first formula and the latter word of the second formula are the Hindi verbs hai and the past tense pāyā, which would give the translations “He is alive” and “The Qa’im has been found” or “We have found him eternally.” See, for example, ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad Kamāl al-Dı̄n and Zarı̄na Kamāl al-Dı̄n, Manāsik Majālis wa-Tasbı̄h.āt (Karachi: self-published, 2004), 42–44; see also Nānajı̄ān.ı̄, Khojā Vr.ttānt, 212; and Campbell, Muslim and Parsi, 49. When I visited the dargāh in 1998, the sayyids present told me that this ritual had indeed been practiced in the past, and despite some strenuous efforts to revive it, some of which had been successful, pressures finally became too great and that the two formulae are now only heard when the occasional elder, who still happens to practice the tradition, visits the shrine. 35 Māstar, Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno, 218, 315; Majmudar, Cultural History of Gujarat, 254; and “Kanbis.” 36 David Hardiman, “Purifying the Nation: The Arya Samaj in Gujarat 1895–1930,” Indian Economic Social History Review 44, no. 1 (2007): 50. 110 Shafique N. Virani Khod.ı̄dās’s distress at the changes being introduced into religious practices prompted him to seek answers upon his return to Pı̄rān.ā in about 1900. He approached the sayyids and kākās in charge of the shrine and requested to see the old manuscript copies of the Gināns. He was aware of the existence of these documents because they were regularly displayed on the occasion of festivals, such as the death anniversary (‘urs) of Imāmshāh (K, KD).37 He was, however, refused. The authorities there simply offered him more of the altered versions, in which certain words, such as shāh, imām and so on, which had specific Ismaili connotations, had been replaced by Sanskritized expressions (K, KD).38 Continuous pressure and the payment of some money to one of the sayyids finally enabled him to procure an old manuscript copy of the book Caution for the Faithful (Moman Chetāman.ı̄) by Imāmshāh (K, KD). Khod.ı̄dās was roused by the vividness of the admonitions to recognize the current avatāra contained in this work, such as the following (K, KD): The descendants of ‘Alı̄ and the Prophet continued Generation upon generation He who forsakes his veneration to them Approaches the gates of Hell Know that he will be considered the worst of the damned The vision of whose face will be a heinous sin A soul who shall destroy his own mother and father A soul that does not recognize the present garb of the avatāra.39 Upon his return to Bhavnagar, Khod.ı̄dās began to pore over his religious scriptures. The oral tradition of the Guptı̄s is unanimous in describing Khod.ı̄dās’s captivation by one particular passage in the Bhagavat Gı̄ta (IV:7–8) in which the avatāra Kr.s.n.a addresses his disciple, Arjun.a, in the following words: 37 Urs, literally “wedding,” is commonly observed as the death anniversary of saints on the Subcontinent. I was able to see copies of some of the Ginān manuscripts at the shrine. However, partly because of the litigation that plagues the community, many of the possessors of such documents do not want them shown. 38 A similar tendency to reject words of Sanskrit origin in preference for Perso-Arabic expressions is also prevalent among some sections of the Ismailis and other Muslims, particularly in Pakistan. 39 The Moman Chetāman.ı̄ is common in a number of manuscripts and printed works. See the indices in Ali Sultaan Ali Asani, The Harvard Collection of Ismaili Literature in Indic Languages: A Descriptive Catalog and Finding Aid (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1992); Zawahir Moir, A Catalogue of the Khojki MSS in the Library of the Ismaili Institute (London: unpublished typescript, 1985); and Zawahir Nooraly, Catalogue of Khojki Manuscripts in the Collection of the Ismailia Association for Pakistan (Draft Copy) (Karachi: Ismailia Association for Pakistan, unpublished typescript, 1971). Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 111 O Arjun.a, whenever virtue declines And vice spreads, then do I appear. For the deliverance of the good and the destruction of the wicked For establishing virtue, I am born from age to age. Not only did nearly every Guptı̄ whom I interviewed make reference to the importance of this passage in Khod.ı̄dās’s belief system, but they also recited the passage to me in its original Sanskrit (B, K, R, KD). The oral tradition maintains that Khod.ı̄dās was convinced that the testimony of the religious scriptures made the existence of an avatāra in the present age incumbent. This belief was further strengthened when he met other Hindus in various cities who were also adherents of ‘Alı̄ as the tenth avatāra (KD). Because of his ancestral profession as a vegetable seller, Khod.ı̄dās was in frequent contact with the Khojā Ismailis of Bhavnagar, who were involved in the same hereditary occupation. With these acquaintances, he would avidly discuss matters of religion, and was startled to learn of the Ismaili adherence to the Gināns (K). He had been unaware of the historical connections between the two communities, and was under the impression that these compositions were the exclusive inheritance of his caste. Not being able to respond to some of his queries, his Ismaili acquaintances eventually introduced him to a learned member of their community by the name of Vāras ‘Īsā, who discussed matters further with Khod.ı̄dās and gave him a copy of an Ismaili prayer known as as.l du‘ā.40 This prayer contained numerous passages parallel to the Imāmshāhı̄ prayers. He studied this book deeply and soon began to recite the du‘ā daily (B, R). In 1903, Khod.ı̄dās was granted an audience with the Ismaili imam, Sult.ān Muh.ammad Shāh. Before long, his brothers Ramjı̄bhāı̄, Maganlāl, and Jet.hālāl joined him in his devotions (R).41 As religious modifications from Pı̄rān.ā continued, Khod.ı̄dās was moved to appear at the chief Ismaili community center 40 Dhuā vakhat trejı̄ tathā āratı̄ (2) sāñjı̄jā choghadı̄ā (5) dhuā (7) tathā chhelo nı̄n.dho (10) mo avatār, 12th ed. (Mumbai: n.p., 1942 VS/1998); and Pı̄r Sadaradı̄n Sāhebe rachelı̄ asal duā, 12th ed. (Mumbai: Mı̄. V.N. Hudā for Ismailia Association, 1948). It is possible that this was either Essabhoy Dawood or Issabhai Nanji, who were witnesses numbers one and two, respectively, on the Bhownagar Commission for the Aga Khan Case. See The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Russell in the Aga Khan Case heard in the High Court of Bombay from 3rd February to 7th August 1908 (Judgement delivered September 1, 1908) (Bombay: Times Press, 1908), 38. 41 In their gatherings, they regularly recited the du‘ā and Gināns together. As time progressed, they modified their traditional Imāmshāhı̄ practice of an important ceremony known as ghat.-pāt. to correspond with the Ismaili practice and added the performance of other Ismaili ceremonies. Azim Nanji, “Ritual and Symbolic Aspects of Islam in African Contexts,” in Islam in Local Contexts, ed. Richard C. Martin (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982), 102–9, is a cursory article on the ghat.-pāt. ceremony. More details may be found in Parin Aziz Dossa, “Ritual and Daily Life: Transmission and Interpretation of the Ismaili Tradition in Vancouver” (PhD diss., University of British Columbia, 1985); Hasan Nazarali, A Brief Outline of Ismaili Rites, Rituals, Ceremonies and Festivals (Edmonton: n.d.); and Kamāl al-Dı̄n and Kamāl al-Dı̄n, Manāsik Majālis wa-Tasbı̄h.āt, 101–3. 112 Shafique N. Virani ( jamā‘at-khāna) of Bhavnagar, where he requested admission (K). He was then taken to the Re-Creation Club Institute, the primary Ismaili organization for religious matters, and formal arrangements were made. In 1913, he officially performed the bai‘a or oath of allegiance to the Ismaili imam, formally acknowledging him as his spiritual leader. The opposition of some members of his family to this move failed to dissuade him. Instead, he entered into private deliberations with other members of his caste and induced them to join him. Prominent among them were Ran.chhod.dās Kuberdās, Dhud.ā Oghā, Maganlāl, . Vanārası̄dās Maganlāl, Mukhı̄ Budhardās, Khı̄mālāl, and Narmadāshankar (KD). The small group began to have frequent meetings with a number of Ismailis in addition to Vāras ‘Īsā. These included Missionary Sharı̄fbhāı̄, Mukhı̄ Jamālbhāı̄, and Missionary Jamālbhāı̄ Vı̄rjı̄ of Mumbai and ‘Īsā Dā’ūd Khānmuh.ammad of Bhavnagar.42 Fear of discovery prevented the Guptı̄s from practicing openly, and they were allowed to enter the jamā‘at-khāna by the back door. The elders of the community vividly recall doing this as children (R, KD, O). Kālı̄dās Vanārası̄dās recollects how H . asan ‘Alı̄ Bāpu, one of the pioneers of the nascent movement, would encourage the Kāchhı̄yā children in the prayer hall by pointing to the picture of the imam and proclaiming in Gujarati, ā kharo sāheb chhe, “This is the true lord.” Chuckling, he says, “What a revolution that was. As Hindus, we would not even have a cup of tea with Muslims, and here we were praying with them!” (KD) The experience of some people joining the community at this time and the family dynamics involved are noteworthy. One young Jı̄vābhāı̄ Motı̄rām supported the group, but was opposed by his father. Unable to openly participate in early morning meditations that were commonly practiced among the Ismailis, he is said to have tied a string to his foot every night, which he would leave hanging from the window. At the required time, one of the other Guptı̄s would pull the string, thus awakening him and allowing him to participate in the prayers unnoticed (K). Jı̄vābhāı̄ passed away while young, and his father experienced tremendous feelings of guilt. In 1923, Khod.ı̄dās encouraged him to accompany them to Limdi, where they were going for the dı̄dār (beatific vision) of the imam. Half-heartedly, Motı̄rām joined the group. In Limdi, he was astounded to see one of the female sayyids from Pı̄rān.ā, supposedly a Sunnı̄, in attendance. He approached her in bewilderment, asking her why she 42 The last is perhaps the same as the aforementioned Vāras ‘Īsā. The English word “missionary” was commonly used for learned Ismā‘ı̄lı̄s who performed preaching activities, both within and outside the community. In this sense, it was similar to another term of Sanskrit origin that was once common, bhagat (from the Sanskrit bhakta). Both of these terms have now fallen largely into disuse in favor of the Arabic word wā‘iz.. The group of Guptı̄s would also meet regularly with Missionary Alı̄bhāı̄ Bābavān.ı̄, who was originally part of the Moman (as distinct from Khojā) jamā‘at of Junāgad.h (Gı̄r). As a Moman, he shared the Guptı̄s’ historical attachment to Sayyid Imāmshāh of Pı̄rān.ā. He had moved to Bhavnagar for employment. This missionary was well known for his piety and the authorship of the book Allāh nā Rasulo, The Prophets of God (R). Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 113 was present for the dı̄dār. She told him, “The Aga Khan is our spiritual leader (pı̄r). It is incumbent for us to come.” This so moved Motı̄rām that he became an Ismaili forthwith and even performed a symbolic ceremony (known as sirbandı̄) of dedicating his life, heart, and all of his worldly possessions (tan, man and dhan) to the Ismaili imam (KD).43 The continued allegiance of at least some of the sayyids of Pı̄rān.ā to the imam, which seems to have existed without the knowledge of their followers, is noteworthy. A few of the sayyids whom I interviewed in Pı̄rān.ā intimated that a portion of the religious dues collected at the shrine used to be forwarded to the imams in Persia. Documentary evidence indicates that this practice continued right until the time of the arrival of the first Aga Khan in India in the nineteenth century.44 Kapı̄lābahen Andhāriyā also relates that at one point, the authorities in Pı̄rān.ā caught wind of the regular treks of a group of Guptı̄s to Mumbai for the dı̄dār of the Ismaili imam. Interestingly, they did not oppose this, but instead insisted that these pilgrimages not be revealed to other members of their caste. This was readily agreeable to the party, as its members had no desire to draw attention to themselves (K). About this time, a number of countervailing forces—Christian, Hindu, and Muslim—were at play, particularly among communities perceived as having a composite heritage. The Āryā Samāj was becoming more active in Gujarat, often in reaction to Christian and Muslim activities among “untouchables” and disadvantaged groups such as orphans. Hindus who were “lost” could be “reclaimed” by undergoing the Āryā Samājı̄ purification ritual known as shuddhi. During the famine of 1899–1900, a number of Christian orphanages were established to look after children who had lost their parents, such as the one established in Nadiad by Reverend G. W. Park of the Methodist Episcopalian Church. This provoked the Āryā Samājı̄s to launch a campaign in 1908 to reconvert and “rescue” the orphans. It also led to the establishment of a “Hindū Anāth Āshram” for the children.45 In 1911, a collection of bhajans entitled Anāth 43 The sirbandı̄ ceremony is described by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Russell in The Aga Khan Case heard in the High Court of Bombay from 3rd February to 7th August 1908 (Judgement delivered 1st September 1908), 41, in the following words: “There is another ceremony called ‘Sir Bundi,’ literally the offering of the head. In this ceremony the follower puts the whole of his property at the disposal of the Imam through the committee of elders in the Jamatkhana. But they magnanimously relieve him from such an excessive sacrifice. They fix the price at which he is to buy back the whole of his property and the price so fixed is paid to the Imam. I myself went with the Counsel of some of the parties to the Jamatkhana and saw the Thalsufra and Sir Bundi. We sat on chairs in front of a raised seat or throne on which the Aga Khan sits when he attends the Jamatkhana. The whole large room was full of Khojas seated and at times kneeling on the ground, in another room the women of the community were collected in large numbers and going through similar ceremonies. It was a most impressive sight owing to the reverence with which the whole proceedings were conducted.” 44 See Dominique-Sila Khan, Crossing the Threshold: Understanding Religious Identities in South Asia (London: I. B. Tauris, 2004), 148; cf. Nānajı̄ān.ı̄, Khojā Vr.ttānt, 231; Nuramahamad, Isamāilı̄ Momı̄n, 135. 45 Full details of this incident are provided in Hardiman, “Purifying the Nation,” 47. 114 Shafique N. Virani Bhajanāvalı̄ was prepared for the Nadiad orphans to sing in processions around the town. In one of them, they would sing that in the evil times of famine, as their parents were no more, they were left at the mercy of Christians and Muslims: “To eat us alive the Qur’an and the Bible are hissing [like snakes]; to drink our blood, famine and plague are gnashing their teeth.”46 Among communities targeted for shuddhi, there were sometimes strong reactions. In March 1926, for example, the Molesalams held an anti-shuddhi conference in Charotar, presided over by one of their prominent leaders and a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly, Sardar Naharsinhji Ishvarsinhji.47 The Ismailis, whose various communities, and particularly the Guptı̄s, had also been targeted,48 reacted strongly as well. They endeavored to solidify their position and even to gain adherents. This movement reached its greatest momentum in the 1920s and was spearheaded primarily by four Ismaili missionaries: Khudābakhsh T.ālib,49 Hājı̄ Muh.ammad Fād.il,50 Muh.ammad Murād ‘Alı̄ Juma‘,51 and ‘Alı̄ Muh.ammad D . āyā. The successful proselytization activities of these four and others like them precipitated intense jealousy and rivalry. An attempt was made on the life of Khudābakhsh T.ālib by adding potassium cyanide to his tea. In the ensuing court case, the personal intervention of the Aga Khan resulted in the charges being dropped, thus assuaging lingering tensions.52 Parallel to these developments were the abandonment of taqiyya and public declarations of allegiance to the Ismaili imam that were being made by centuries-old Guptı̄ communities, particularly in the Punjab, Surat, and Mumbai.53 The combination of proselytizing activities and these public 46 Cited in ibid., 47. “Secret Bombay Presidency Police Abstracts of Intelligence,” C.I.D. Office, Mumbai, 1926, 112, 199, as cited in ibid., 57–58. 48 In addition to the Āryā Samājı̄ statements cited later, further indication of this among both the Khojās and the followers of Imāmshāh is provided in “Secret Bombay Presidency Police Abstracts of Intelligence,” C.I.D. Office, Mumbai, 1926, 128, 250, as cited in ibid., 57–58. 49 Khudābakhsh T.ālib (1890–1925) was born into a Sindhi family in Gwadar. His mother, Khairı̄bāı̄, was a well-known missionary. In addition to his native Sindhi, he also learned Arabic, Persian, and Gujarati. Some details of his life are preserved in two popular accounts, Jāpharalı̄ Abajı̄ Bhalavān.ı̄, Shahı̄d Mı̄shanarı̄ Khudābaksh Tālibanı̄ Jı̄van Jharamar (Mumbai: 1983); and Mumtaz Ali Tajddin Sadik Ali, 101 Ismaili Heroes: Late 19th Century to Present Age, vol. 1 (Karachi: Islamic Book Publisher, 2003), 265–72. 50 His name is mentioned briefly, without details, in Sayarāb Abū Turābı̄, Dharmanā Dhvajadhārı̄ (Mumbai: Divyajñān Prakāshan Mandir, 1981), 150. 51 Muh.ammad Murād ‘Alı̄ Juma‘ (1878–1966) of Mumbai was later to become the principal of the Ismaili Mission Center in that city; see Sadik Ali, 101 Ismaili Heroes, 318–19. 52 Like the Christians, the Ismailis were also active in social work among the poor, which sometimes . attracted hostility. In about 1921, an orphanage called Nakalank Āshram, with which Khudābakhsh T.ālib was associated, was opened in the village of Anand. The orphans there were brought up as Ismailis. However, as a result of this murder attempt, the activities of the orphanage were severely curtailed; see ibid., 265–72. 53 See, in this connection, the most detailed account of the Guptı̄s of Surat, Sultanali Mohamed, “Heroes of Surat,” Jāgr.ti (1956). Similarly, the testimony of Vāres Amı̄chand Mukhı̄ Pı̄n.d.ı̄dās, a 47 Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 115 declarations aroused the ire of the Āryā Samāj. Sometime before 1919, Pan.d.it Rādhākr.s.n.a of Peshawar wrote in his polemical Urdu work, Āghākhānı̄ khudā’ı̄ awr uske karishme, For several days, I have been hearing rumors of the misfortune and short-sightedness of my Hindu brethren and have been reading in the newspapers that in some areas the unfortunate Aga Khanis have abandoned the Hindu fold, becoming Shı̄‘ı̄ Imāmı̄ Ismailis …, and are adopting Islamic practices. This horrible news is tearing my heart to shreds. My blood curdles from worrying day and night. I can’t eat, and largely because of worry and anxiety I even become feverish.54 Echoing these sentiments, Pan.d.it Ānandaprı̄yajı̄, Gujarat Hindu Sabha’s founding secretary, decried the Christians and the Ismaili Muslims who “worked day and night to transform the great devotees of Ram and Krishna into Johns and Alis.”55 Pan.d.it Rādhākr.s.n.a charged in a tract entitled My Sound Advice that the Guptı̄ Hindus would never be accepted by Muslims and that Ismailis would refuse to give their daughters in marriage to Islamized Hindus. Ibrāhı̄m Vartejı̄ responded by pointing out the recent case of a Guptı̄ by the name of Nānālāl Hardevashrām, a Brahmin by birth, who secretly held to a belief in the Ismaili imam as the avatāra of the current age. When he openly declared this, his parents-in-law forced their daughter, Chandravidyā, to leave him. However, following the divorce, not only did this Brahmin (whose Arabic name was Nūrmuh.ammad ‘Alı̄muh.ammad) find an Ismaili Muslim bride, but their wedding was happily attended by about five hundred Ismailis, including prominent members of the community, among whom was the president of the Mumbai Ismaili Council.56 Extremely interesting to note is the fact that the oral tradition of the Guptı̄s of Punjab maintains that Pan.d.it Rādhākr.s.n.a was himself born to Guptı̄ parents and only later turned against his ancestral belief in the tenth avatāra.57 large landholder and Guptı̄ from the Punjab, at the Aga Khan Case on July 28, 1908, is noteworthy in this regard. He explained that there were thirty-five Guptı̄ prayer houses in the Punjab and that the Gināns were recited in all of them. He also detailed his meeting with the imam in Amritsar in 1897, at which time the imam examined the accounts he had prepared, which detailed the affairs of the community. In cross-examination, he also explained that it was not possible for the community to adopt certain Muslim practices because they would be excommunicated if they did so; see Nāmadār Āgākhān sāmeno Mukadamo: sane 1905 no mukadamo nambar 729, 277–82. 54 Quoted in Ibrāhı̄m Jūsab Vartejı̄, Āgākhānı̄ Khudāı̄no Jhal.kāt. yāne (Shamshı̄) Ismāilı̄yā Phirakāno Bhed (Mumbai: Mukhtār Nānjı̄ for the Isamāilı̄ Sāhitya Uttejak Man.d.al., 1919), 112. 55 Pan.d.it Ānandapriyājı̄, “Gujarātamām . Hindū Sabhā,” Yugadharma 4, no. 5 (1980 VS/1924): 351– 52, as cited in Achyut Yagnik and Suchitra Sheth, The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva and Beyond (New Delhi: Penguin, 2005), 214. 56 Vartejı̄, Āgākhānı̄ Khudāı̄, 274–75. 57 I am grateful to the late al-wā‘iz. Abuali A. Aziz of Vancouver, Canada, himself originally from a Guptı̄ family of Punjab, for this information. 116 Shafique N. Virani The Āryā Samāj’s repeated attacks against both the Ismailis and Guptı̄ Hindus continued, coupled with allegations of cannibalism and infanticide. The astonishing accusations led to physical violence against these communities in southern Gujarat, and the government was forced to intervene (B, R). The thirty-fifth resolution of the 1922 Kathiawad political assembly held in Vad.hvān. aimed at dispelling the fears that had been aroused in the population and ensuring the security of those who had been wrongly impugned: This assembly rejects any accusations of the type that the Khojās [Ismailis] of Kathiawad are kidnapping young children, murdering them and so on. Because of such accusations, atrocities are being committed against this community. We urge citizens to forsake such actions.58 The harassment by the Āryā Samāj provoked opposite reactions among different groups of Guptı̄s. In July 1914 in Surat, for example, abandoning their dissimulation, 150 Hindu families jointly made a public declaration, accompanied by announcements in prominent newspapers, of their allegiance to the Aga Khan; while in Bhavnagar, the threat of disclosure led to even greater adherence to taqiyya. Attendance at the Khojā jamā‘at-khāna, even through the back door, now became exceedingly difficult. Rather, daily gatherings were held at individual homes (KD). Kālı̄dās Vanārası̄dās recalls how early morning prayer meetings were held at his own house, the house of Khod.ı̄dās and the house of Ran.chhod. Bhagat from at least the mid-1920s. Despite attacks by the Āryā Samāj, there was continued growth of Guptı̄ numbers (KD). This provoked increased suspicion and disapproval by the rest of the Kāchhı̄yā caste, which accused the Guptı̄s of adhering to Islamic customs. These accusations are rather startling considering the fact that all members of this Hindu caste, whether Guptı̄ or not, began prayers and mantras with the formula om farmānjı̄ bi’smi’l-lāh al-rah.mān al-rah.ı̄m, “OM, by the command, in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful” (R).59 But interestingly, the inclusion of the first verse of the Qur’an in religious practices was somehow considered neither objectionable nor Islamic. . Quoted in Hudā, Asatya, 172; see also N. M. Budhavān.ı̄, Ismāı̄lı̄ Khojā Jñāti upar Bhayankar Ārop (Dhorājı̄: Kāt.hiyāvād. Sāhitya Prachārak Man.d.al., 1922); Valı̄mahamad Nānajı̄ Hudā, Lokono Khot.o Vahem ane Khojā Komanı̄ Nirdoshatā (Dhorājı̄: Kāt.hı̄yāvād. Sāhitya Prachārak Man.dal., 1922). The original minutes are not available through WorldCat or other major library search engines or union catalogs. My colleague Samira Sheikh kindly checked through the holdings at the British Library for me, but records for the 1922 assembly were not available. 59 This phrasing is recorded in several works, including Kont.rākt.ar, Pı̄rān.ā-“Satpanth”nı̄ Pol, 374– 462; Pūjāvidhi tathā Jñān (Ahmedabad: Ācharya Shrı̄ Kākā Saheb Savajı̄ Rāmajı̄, 2038 VS/1982); Satpanthi Yagña Vidhi, ed., Saiyad Shamsaddı̄n Bāvā Sāheb, 4th ed. (Ahmedabad: Pı̄rān.ā Gurukul. Ajyukeshan T.rast., 2048 VS/1992). The more recent Atharvavedı̄y Satapanth Yajñavidhi, 3rd ed. (Pı̄rān.ā: Satapanth Sevā Prakāshan Samiti, 2053 VS/1996) has eliminated all Qur’anic references from the text, while Saiyad Kāsim-alı̄ Durvesh-alı̄ Erāki Alahusenı̄, Satpanth Shāstra yane 58 Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community EXCOMMUNICATION AND 117 RECONCILIATION Matters finally came to a head in the early 1930s, when the caste took drastic action and excommunicated the Guptı̄s collectively (K, KD). Such a move was exceptional, as the Kan.bı̄s are well known, even today, for the latitude of beliefs and practices within the community. The proverb Kan.bı̄ nyāt bahār nahı̄m . , meaning “a Kan.bı̄ is never out casted,” clearly did not apply in this circumstance.60 An order was circulated to each and every house requiring complete dissociation from all Kāchhı̄yā partisans of the Aga Khan (KD). This order had dramatic consequences. For the first time, the Guptı̄ adherents of the Ismaili imam in Bhavnagar were defined as a distinct and identifiable group. Many who had never before considered themselves to be any different from other members of their caste except in their private religious convictions were forced to reevaluate their position (KD). It must be remembered that religion is but one aspect, and in fact sometimes a rather minor one, of caste identity. In his 1922 work The Tribes and Castes of Bombay, for example, R. E. Enthoven notes that although they are a single caste, the Kāchhı̄yās “belong to different religious sects.”61 Adherents included Bı̄jpanthı̄s, Shaivas, Vallabhāchāryas, Swāmı̄nārāyan.s, Kabı̄rpanthı̄s, and, of course, Muslims. The Andhārı̄ā and Khatrı̄ Kāchhı̄yās, like the Matı̄yā Kan.bı̄s, however, are distinguished by their adherence to the path of their saint, Imāmshāh.62 The out casting provoked heated arguments. Kālı̄dās Vanārası̄dās recounts how, as a teenager, he contended with his friends that if he were an Ismaili, then so were all of them, whether they realized it or not. He pointed out the fact that the Gināns recorded that Imāmshāh himself, along with all of the other recognized saints (pı̄rs) of the community, had traveled to Persia for audiences with the Aga Khan’s ancestors (KD).63 The role of women in this movement is remarkable. Seventy-four-year-old Bachchubhāı̄ vividly recalls that his father was not a believer. However, soon after his father passed away, his mother revealed to him her own belief in the Aga Khan as the avatāra of the current era (yuga). She told him that at the age of twelve, he would have to decide which group to join and firmly told him, “be here or there, but not in between.” At the age of twelve, Bachchubhāı̄ Mokshagatı̄no Sācho Mārg (Pı̄rān.ā: Pat.el Lālajı̄bhāi Nānajı̄bhāı̄, 2010 VS/1954), 194–270, omits om. See also “Kanbis,” 2849; cf. Māstar, Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno, 325. 60 Jayprakash M. Trivedi, The Social Structure of Patidar Caste in India (Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House, 1992), 22. 61 Enthoven, Tribes and Castes, 123. 62 Ibid., 124. 63 See, e.g., Sayyid Imāmshāh, Janatpurı̄, 2nd ed. (Mumbai: Mukhi Laljibhai Devraj, Dhı̄ Khojā Siñdhı̄ chhāpakhānum . , 1976 VS/1-8-20), in which the community’s patron saint records his own journey. 118 Shafique N. Virani chose to swear allegiance to the Aga Khan.64 Bachchubhāı̄’s mother then proceeded to convince her brother, Motı̄lāl, to support the group of Khod.ı̄dās. Motı̄lāl did so and became one of the most ardent benefactors of the emerging community (B).65 A handful of the most daring Guptı̄s abandoned all pretences of dissimulation, challenging community leaders by saying that as they had been expelled, the caste no longer had jurisdiction over their actions (K). Immediately, three heads of families boldly joined the mainstream Ismaili community, changed their names, and began attending the Khojā jamā‘at-khāna once again. These were Maganlāl, the brother of Khod.ı̄dās, who now became known as Murād ‘Alı̄; Hemālāl, who became Qurbān ‘Alı̄ and Prabhudās,66 who not only changed his name to H . asan ‘Alı̄, but also adopted “Muslim” dress and became well known for sporting a red cap in the Muslim style. This type of reaction was completely unexpected by the caste authorities (KD). In 1936, the leaders of the Bhavnagar Guptı̄ community sent representatives to participate in the imam’s golden jubilee celebrations being held in Mumbai (R). More Kāchhı̄yās started to attend the Khojā jamā‘at-khāna, though still through the back door, and a number even began sending their children to be taught at Ismaili religious schools (KD). But, as time went on, members of the Kāchhı̄yā caste relented and began to flout the orders of excommunication, openly intermingling with expelled family members. This was particularly true at times of weddings and other such occasions when families refused to exclude members censured for their allegiance to the Aga Khan (K). Numerous caste members privately held to the same religious convictions, and so naturally felt sympathetic to the plight of those who had been ostracized (KD). The discomfort caused by a general disregard toward the injunctions occasioned a postponement of the excommunication until such time as instructions were received from Pı̄rān.ā (K). The year 1939 was a landmark for the Guptı̄ community, as a delegation of their leaders went to Limdi, where the imam was to grant audience (dı̄dār) on February 3. Upon arrival, they requested the relevant authorities for a special mehmānı̄, a meeting at which they could express their devotion and homage. However, they were told that they could participate in the mehmānı̄ of the general Bhavnagar Ismaili jamā‘at. Budhar Mukhı̄ pressed the matter,67 suggesting that they were prepared to telegram the imam if need be. In the 64 Bachchubhāı̄ explained that henceforth his family’s dasond, or tithe, which had previously been sent to the shrine of Imāmshāh in Pı̄rān.ā via Poshān., was now sent to the Ismaili imam (B). 65 This Motı̄lāl is apparently different from the one referred to earlier. 66 The maternal uncle (māmā) of Vanārası̄dās. 67 As the title mukhı̄ indicates, Budhar Mukhı̄ was a senior functionary in the Imāmshāhı̄ community. He was the father-in-law of Kālı̄dās, one of my informants. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 119 end, the jamā‘atı̄ authorities relented and honored the request. When the imam approached the group, he inquired as to which jamā‘at’s mehmānı̄ it was, to which Budhar Mukhı̄ replied that it was the mehmānı̄ of the Guptı̄ jamā‘at of Bhavnagar (KD). The significance of this incident should not be underestimated, for it marks the first instance in which the Ismaili institutional structure recognized the Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar as a distinct Ismaili jamā‘at. Fortunately, the communication made by the imam to the Guptı̄s on this occasion has been recorded in the Khojkı̄ book The Jewel of Mercy.68 The imam accepted the offering of the group and gave his blessings to the “Imāmshāhı̄ brethren” who were assembled. He further said that Imāmshāh had correctly shown them the recognition of the imam of the time, in the manner that the sage himself had believed. They should therefore believe in the “living imam” of the Imāmshāhı̄s. He urged them to perform meditation or esoteric worship (bāt.inı̄ ‘ibādat), never to do this for reasons of ostentation, and never to cause pain to anyone.69 In attendance on this occasion was Paramān.anddās, the son of Khod.ı̄dās. He was so moved by the episode that henceforth he became the motivating force behind the Bhavnagar Guptı̄ community and its most charismatic leader (KD). With captivating speaking skills and a gifted singing voice for recitation of the Gināns, Paramān.anddās was able to win over even larger numbers. Thus commenced an era of open and public proselytization (B, K, R, KD). The Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar came into contact with Guptı̄ communities in other areas that, despite having a variety of histories and backgrounds, faced many of the same challenges posed by their dissimulation as Hindus. Khod.ı̄dās and Paramān.anddās traveled widely to speak to both Guptı̄ and non-Guptı̄ communities, . often accompanied by Kālı̄dās, Ran.chhod., Shankar, and others (KD).70 Paramān.anddās became extremely popular and was in demand to deliver sermons (wa‘z.) in Mumbai and other centers. Even today, the Ismailis of Mumbai affectionately refer to him as dhotı̄-wālā mishnarı̄, “the preacher in the Indian loin cloth.” Recordings of both his sermons and his Gināns proliferated far beyond the confines of Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and even India. His favorite subject appears to have been rūh.āniyyat or “spirituality.” 68 The secret Khojkı̄ script, another of the instruments of taqiyya, is discussed in Ali Sultaan Ali Asani, “The Khojki Script: A Legacy of Ismaili Islam in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, no. 3 (1987): 439–49. 69 Gavahare Rahemat yāne Rahematanā Motı̄: Maolānā Hājar Imāmanā Mubārak Pharamāno 1933 thı̄ 1940 (Mumbai: n.p., ca. 1940), 172. 70 Thus, when the Ismaili missionary ‘Alı̄bhāı̄ D . āyā approached the Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar, he was assured that they were in no need of “conversion” and, in fact, were themselves in the process of proselytizing others (KD). During the imam’s visit (padhrāman.ı̄) in Dhaka, ‘Alı̄bhāı̄ D . āyā delivered a report on the status of India’s Guptı̄ jamā‘ats. Based on this report’s findings, the imam ordered several modifications to the practices of Guptı̄ jamā‘ats in Bharuch and Ahmedabad, including the changing of a number of personal names. The jamā‘at of Bhavnagar, however, was allowed to continue as before (KD). 120 Shafique N. Virani Paramān.anddās was not the only Guptı̄ speaker (wā‘iz.) to gain renown. Rājū Andhārı̄yā recounts how his father-in-law, Bābubhāı̄ Manjı̄, would travel to other centers of Guptı̄ strength, particularly Khambhāt, to deliver sermons. Most significantly, every year at the grand celebration of Sayyid Imāmshāh’s ‘urs in Pı̄rān.ā, Bābubhāı̄ Manjı̄ would give public lectures to thousands of Hindus gathered there, informing them of the arrival of the long-awaited avatāra (R). The powerful hierarchy at Pı̄rān.a was not prepared for this public opposition to their authority. However, having tried and failed in their attempt at excommunication, they decided to try other tactics. In 1945, a public debate was announced in Andhārı̄yā Kāchhı̄yā Jñātinı̄ Vād.ı̄ between the party of Sayyid Ah.mad‘alı̄ Bāwā Khākı̄ and the party of Khod.ı̄dās (K, R, KD).71 The irony of the Pı̄rān.ā party’s being led by a Muslim, a sayyid (descendant of the Prophet Muh.ammad) no less, in accusing the Hindu party of Khod.ı̄dās of adhering to forbidden Islamic practices should not be lost. Khod.ı̄dās was called upon to prove that he and his party had not stepped out of the bounds of their caste. The loser of the debate was to take the shoe of the winning party in his mouth, a most demeaning condition (K, R, KD). Drawing on a number of sources, notable among them the Caution for the Faithful (Moman Chetāman.ı̄) of Sayyid Imāmshāh, the universally acknowledged saint of both parties, Khod.ı̄dās sought to show that not only was his party’s allegiance to the Aga Khan in conformity with the religious beliefs of their caste, but that such an allegiance was the logical outcome of adherence to their religious scriptures (K, R, KD). Further evidence was drawn from the daily prayers of the party from Pı̄rān.ā, which included a recitation of the genealogy of Ismaili imams until the time of Nizār b. Khalı̄l Allāh (d. 1722) and the practice of uttering the formulae hai zindā and kāyam pāyā at the entrance to the dargāh (K, R). In the end, the sayyid conceded defeat and admitted the acceptability of Khod.ı̄dās’s arguments. However, as the Guptı̄s are proud to explain, Khod.ı̄dās was magnanimous in victory and would not allow the sayyid to be humiliated by the punishment that had been decided. Instead, he showed utmost reverence, saying “you are our most respected elder, we shall follow what you recommend” (K, KD). The sayyid then conceded the right of the Guptı̄s to remain within the caste, but requested that they no longer attend the jamā‘at-khāna of the Khojās and instead establish their own prayer house, a condition that was found acceptable to the Guptı̄s (K, KD). The debate, a turning point in the history of the community, ended with great jubilation and applause. Considering the Ismaili allegiance of some of the sayyids themselves and their laissez-faire attitude toward the Guptı̄ pilgrimages to Mumbai to see the imam, so long as these were kept private, one suspects it was not the Bhavnagar Guptı̄s’ “Islamic” 71 A certain Sayyid Satakbhāı̄ was also said to have been present on this occasion. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 121 leanings that the Pı̄rān.ā party found disturbing, but the potential repercussions of their public manifestation. FORMATION OF COMMUNITY The establishment of the first Guptı̄ jamā‘at-khāna in Āmbā Chok above the store of Khod.ı̄dās on June 15, 1946, ushered in a new era for the community (B, R, KD). Caste acceptance encouraged a number of previously reticent families to join, most notably that of a certain Jñānchandbhāı̄, whose brother, Chāndubhāı̄ Mukhı̄, was already publicly part of the group. Jñānchandbhāı̄ brought with him about forty members of his own family, which was a major boost to the morale of the Guptı̄s (R). Two of Khod.ı̄dās’s sons, Budharbhāı̄ Khod.ı̄dās and Man.ı̄lāl Khod.ı̄dās, were appointed as religious functionaries (mukhı̄ and kāmad.ı̄ā) for the newly established congregation (KD). During the same year, a delegation was also sent on behalf of the Guptı̄ jamā‘at to participate in the Aga Khan’s diamond jubilee (R).72 One of the most distinctive features of the Bhavnagar Guptı̄ jamā‘at was the passion for religious sermons, known as wa‘z. (K, R). Until 1980, there were daily wa‘z. in the Guptı̄ jamā‘at-khāna. A minimum of three sermons were delivered on important religious festivals, known as majlis. On the occasions of the imam’s birthday (sālgirah), the anniversary of his accession to his position, and the festival of spring (nawrūz, the Persian New Year), there would be as many as seven to eight sermons (R).73 An interesting passage in a Gujarati travelogue entitled The Enchanting Lands I’ve Seen (Joyā Ral.ı̄yāman.ā Desh), written by the late Shamsudı̄n Bandālı̄ Hājı̄, narrates a trip to Bhavnagar in the mid-1970s, the day after the spring festival (nawrūz). The mukhı̄ at the time, Paramān.anddās Khod.ı̄dās, lamented the fact that the traveler had missed the religious celebrations, which had continued late into the night. The traveler wished another majlis to be held that day, a request that was readily agreed to by the mukhı̄. To draw a comparison, it was as though Christmas mass were to be celebrated again the following day at the request of an itinerant traveler. This majlis was attended by six hundred people, and sermons were delivered until one o’clock in the 72 It is interesting to note that from the establishment of the jamā‘at-khāna until 1972, all mehmānı̄s and correspondence with the imam were direct and not through the institutional structure of the main jamā‘at. 73 Kālı̄dās Bhagat recalls the visit of the popular wā‘iz, ‘Alı̄bhāı̄ Nānjı̄ (d. 1978), when he was kāmad.ı̄ā of the Guptı̄ jamā‘at. The Mumbai institutions had permitted the wā‘iz only a two-day stay in Bhavnagar, one day for the main jamā‘at and one day for the Guptı̄ jamā‘at. But Kālı̄dās’ mukhı̄, Paramān.anddās, asked the kāmad.ı̄ā to send a telegram to Mumbai to request an extension. The request was granted and ‘Alı̄bhāı̄ Nānjı̄ was able to stay with the Guptı̄ jamā‘at for eight days. 122 Shafique N. Virani morning.74 Equally telling about the Guptı̄ jamā‘at’s passion for religious sermons is a note in the platinum jubilee souvenir issue of Jāgr.ti magazine, which records the fact that the Guptı̄ jamā‘at in Bhavnagar could boast an overwhelming twenty-seven preachers.75 The year 1947 saw the partition of India and Pakistan. Surprisingly, the Guptı̄s were little affected by this. The jamā‘at-khāna was not closed and, despite the curfew in Bhavnagar, members were permitted to leave their houses and attend early morning ceremonies (KD). In 1950, a number of Guptı̄s attended the audience (dı̄dār) given by the imam in Hasanabad, Mumbai. By this time, Khod.ı̄dās, the founding father of the community, was extremely aged. He was granted a meeting with the imam in which he said that he had not much longer to live and desired to spend his last days at Hasanabad, site of the mausoleum of the first Aga Khan, and to be buried there (K). The imam advised him against this drastic action, suggesting instead that he return to Bhavnagar and have his caste perform his last rites. This startled Khod.ı̄dās, who ventured, “But we burn our dead;” to which the imam is purported to have replied, “So burn them, but what you wish is not appropriate at the present time” (K). It is likely that the situation was still too volatile for such a bold statement, which may have been viewed as provocative. Kapı̄lābahen Andhārı̄yā recalls the hair-raising case of Savjı̄ Kākā, a leading Hindu religious figure at the shrine of Imāmshāh in Pı̄rān.ā.76 Savjı̄ Kākā had been an open advocate of the concept of the imamate, and published a book to this affect. The book hinted at his allegiance to the Aga Khan. Soon after its release, however, Sawjı̄ Kākā was murdered (K).77 Following the instructions received from the imam, Khod.ı̄dās returned to Bhavnagar, where he passed away within a short time. All rites were performed according to the tradition of his caste except that as his body was being taken in its funeral procession (shmashān. yātrā), rather than chanting Rām bolo Rām, “say Rām say Rām,” in the traditional manner, the gathered mourners called out Jai . . Nakalank, “long live Nakalank.” This bold slogan recalls the belief in the imam . as Nakalank, the Immaculate One, the name used by Ismaili pı̄rs from perhaps the eleventh century onward for the last and final avatāra, ‘Alı̄, the cousin and . son-in-law of the Prophet Muh.ammad. Furthermore, the title of Nakalank is a direct parallel to the Shı̄‘ı̄ belief of the imam as ma‘s.ūm, which also means “immaculate.” Henceforth, all funeral ceremonies performed by the Guptı̄s were to include this slogan. 74 Shamsudı̄n Bandālı̄ Hājı̄, Joyā Ral.iyāman.ā Desh (Mumbai: Divyajñān Prakāshan Mandir, 1981), 138–39. 75 Mohamed, “Heroes of Surat.” 76 On the institution of the kākā in Pı̄rān.ā, refer to Khan and Moir, “Coexistence,” passim. 77 My informant did not have a copy of this book and could not remember the exact year of the incident, but assured me that she “remembered it distinctly,” as the whole episode had transpired during her lifetime. The death date is recorded as 1986 in Moir and Khan, “New Light,” 231. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 123 Already dynamically involved in the field of delivering sermons both within their own community and among the general Ismaili population, the Bhavnagar Guptı̄s now actively immersed themselves in all respects with the general jamā‘at or what they refer to as the mūl. jamā‘at, roughly translatable as “the parent community.” Thus, they can be found at every level of the jamā‘at’s institutional structure and have even provided the chairman of the Ismaili Tariqah and Religious Education Board (R). In 1964, twenty-five Bhavnagar Guptı̄s attended the World Ismaili SocioEconomic Conference in Karachi, Pakistan. They were overwhelmed at meeting other followers of the imam from across the globe, including places as dispersed as Hunza, Gilgit, Afghanistan, and Africa (R, KD). They narrate how the mukhı̄ of the Multan jamā‘at noticed their appearance and approached them, inquiring as to whether they were Hindus. They replied in the affirmative, stating that they were members of the Guptı̄ jamā‘at of Bhavnagar. Hearing this, the Multan mukhı̄ was overjoyed. At one time, virtually all Ismailis of the Punjab had been Guptı̄s themselves. He embraced Paramān.anddās and Kālı̄dās, the Guptı̄ mukhı̄ and kāmad.ı̄ā, and insisted that they come to Multan, where he would show them the shrine (dargāh) of Pı̄r Shams and the nearby shrines of Pı̄r S.adr al-Dı̄n and Pı̄r H . asan Kabı̄r al-Dı̄n, Imāmshāh’s great-ancestor, grandfather, and father, respectively. At first, Paraman.anddās hesitated, saying, “But there are twenty-five of us.” To which the mukhı̄ of the Multan jamā‘at replied, “So for twenty-five of our brothers we will provide twenty-five rooms.” This warm-hearted welcome moved them deeply and further solidified their attachment to the mūl. jamā‘at (KD). What was left to do, in the eyes of Paraman.anddās, who by now had been granted the title of “Vazı̄r” for his dedicated services, was to establish a housing society for his community, at the center of which would be a purposebuilt jamā‘at-khāna. This would finally sever their dependence on their caste, and provide an environment for their autonomous development (B, R, KD). Mukhı̄ Maskatvālā of the Darkhāna jamā‘at-khāna in Mumbai, who was also chairman of the Ismaili Housing Board, strongly encouraged him in this project. But Paramān.anddās lamented the impossibility of the idea, noting that there was probably not even one Guptı̄ who was financially capable of saving enough to provide for a week of his family’s sustenance, let alone dream of establishing a housing society (R, KD). Nevertheless, gradually funds were collected as the Guptı̄ jamā‘at made economic progress. With moral, technical, and financial support from the mul. jamā‘at, land for a Guptı̄ Ismaili colony was finally purchased at the cost of Rs. 850,000 in 1990–91. The generous Rs. 200,000 donation of S.adr al-Dı̄n Nān.āvatı̄ enabled the total to be met, and houses began to be built on the land (R, KD). In 1995, however, the dynamic force behind all of this, Mukhı̄ Paramān.anddās Khod.ı̄dās, passed away, having seen his vision realized (R, KD). In his honor, the colony was officially named the Vazı̄r Paramān.anddās Khod.ı̄dās Housing Society. By December 1995, people began inhabiting the 124 Shafique N. Virani colony (R), and soon enough, a purpose-built jamā‘at-khāna was constructed at its center, perhaps ushering in a new phase in the history of this community, and the end of an era of taqiyya. ANALYSIS: A PARADIGM SHIFT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF TAQIYYA AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY For several reasons, the Guptı̄ case is clearly an example of taqiyya and South Asian religious identity that forces a paradigm shift in academic studies of these concepts: it goes against the norm of Muslim minorities dissimulating in the garb of Muslim majorities. It challenges ideas of Islam and Hinduism as mutually exclusive, unchanging categories. It demonstrates that the need for dissimulation was felt just as much because of caste considerations as because of matters that would more broadly be considered religious. It highlights the assimilative capacities of Islam. And, finally, it reveals that taqiyya and its practice can adapt to changing times and circumstances, a facet that was facilitated by the centrality of the concept of imamate in Ismailism. Challenging the Established Understanding of Taqiyya The Guptı̄ situation of preserving the cloak of Hinduism is not the typical case of Muslim minorities dissimulating in the garb of Muslim majorities. However, it should be recalled that the narratives found in the Qur’an and prophetic tradition (h.adı̄th) to validate the practice of taqiyya always refer to the case of Muslims dissimulating as non-Muslims, not to minority groups of Muslims dissimulating to appear like the majoritarian Muslim community or those in political power. Only after the death of the Prophet, when the Muslim community fractured, did this become the case, particularly for those Shı̄‘ı̄s who lived in hostile Sunnı̄ milieus. In certain senses, then, the situation of the Guptı̄s is much closer to the paradigm at the time of the Prophet, or even that of the so-called Moriscos of Spain, Sunnı̄ Muslims who often dissimulated as Christians after Granada’s fall to the Catholic sovereigns Ferdinand and Isabella, and the reduction of the Nas.rid dynasty.78 Nor are the Guptı̄s the only community in South Asian history to have practiced taqiyya as Hindus. The fourteenth-century Morals for the Heart (Fawā’id al-Fu’ād) reveals that members of Hindu castes were being initiated into the Chishtiyya S.ūfı̄ order in medieval Delhi without any formal conversion.79 An 78 Harvey, “The Moriscos and the H . ajj,” 12–13; see also G. A. Wiegers, “Moriscos,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–2004; CD-ROM v. 1.0). 79 Niz.ām al-Dı̄n Awliyā’ and Amı̄r H . asan Sijzı̄ Dihlawı̄, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Muh.ammad Lat.ı̄f Malik (Lahore: Malik Sirāj al-Dı̄n, 1966), 82–83, 153. This text has been translated as Niz.ām al-Dı̄n Awliyā’, Morals for the Heart: Conversations of Shaykh Nizam ad-Din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi, trans. Bruce B. Lawrence (New York: Paulist Press, 1991). Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 125 even more telling passage in the Correspondence of Kalı̄m (Maktūbāt-i Kalı̄mı̄) explicitly states that those Hindus who did not wish to have their conversion disclosed to their family and caste were readily catered to.80 Even now, the Washington Times reports the widespread practice of “dissimulation” as Hindus by West Bengal’s Muslim minority, a population of well over 20 million people. According to a federally mandated study by former Judge Rajendra Sachar, although the Islamic community makes up 27 percent of the population, its employment in the government sector is less than 3 percent. In the face of such widespread discrimination, Muslims have been taking to a form of taqiyya en masse, adopting both dress and personal names commonly associated with Hindus.81 Thus, taqiyya has been and continues to be practiced by Muslims of a variety of persuasions, in a variety of degrees of intensity, under the cloak of Hinduism. As the tradition recorded in Ibn Bābawayhi’s ‘Uyūn Akhbār al-Rid.ā, states, “practicing taqiyya in the realm of taqiyya is incumbent.”82 Challenging Reified Categories of Hinduism and Islam While the situation of the Guptı̄s provides new tools to explore the situations of Muslims practicing taqiyya as non-Muslims, such as the aforementioned case of the Spanish Moriscos, it must be noted that even here, the experience is qualitatively quite different. Many of the Guptı̄s have few qualms about selfidentifying as both Hindus and Muslims (though they may not admit to the latter in public), because to them, these are not either/or categories. In fact, in the Guptı̄ case, either/or becomes both/and. In other words, they see no reason why they cannot be both Hindu and Muslim. When Gujarati researcher . Bhagavānalāl Mānkad. asked the Momnās (the sister community of the Guptı̄s and also followers of Imāmshāh) whether they were originally Hindus or Muslims, his interviewees refused to answer the question when it was framed in this manner. Instead, they replied that they were Kan.bı̄s who had become Momnās.83 Perhaps one of the most noteworthy features of the Guptı̄ religious vocabulary is precisely that in the context of South Asia, it is not unique, regardless of how much that may surprise us. Its survival in an age no longer accustomed to the type of fecund cross-fertilization that had spawned a Sanskrito-Perso-Arabic culture is striking, but the fact remains that the Guptı̄ religious literature is, in many senses, perfectly representative of medieval Islamic literatures written in the vernaculars. Compare, for example, the famous Muslim mystical romance 80 Kalı̄m Allāh Jahānābādı̄, Maktūbāt-i Kalı̄mı̄, ed. Muh.ammad Qāsim S.āh.ib Kalı̄mı̄ Kalı̄mı̄ (Dehli: Mat.ba‘-i Yūsufı̄, 1883), 25, 74. 81 Shaikh Azizur Rahman, “India’s Muslims Adopt Hindu Names,” Washington Times, August 21, 2007. 82 Abū Ja‘far Muh.ammad Ibn Bābawayh, ‘Uyūn Akhbār al-Rid.ā, vol. 2 (Najaf: Mat.ba‘a al-H . aydariyya, 1970), 122–23. . 83 Bhagavānalāl La. Mānkad., Kāt.hiyāvād.anā Mumanā, 3. 126 Shafique N. Virani The Night-Flowering Jasmine (Madhumālatı̄), composed in Awadhi in 1545 by Mı̄r Sayyid Manjhan Rājgirı̄, a S.ūfı̄ of the Shat.t.ārı̄ order. The poem, typical of its genre, begins, God, giver of love, the treasure-house of joy Creator of the two worlds in the one sound Om.84 This Sunnı̄ Muslim work seamlessly blends Qur’anic descriptions of the Prophet Muh.ammad and praise of the first four caliphs with references to the monkey god Hanumān and the cosmos of Brahma. The reigning Afghan sultan, Islāmshāh, the son and successor of Shershāh Sūrı̄ and Manjhan’s patron, is praised with reference to not only H . ātim al-T.aiy, the epitome of hospitality in Arab lore, but also King Harı̄shchandra, Indian archetype of the unflinching lover of truth. The story is set in the Dvāpara yuga, while dates are provided in the hijrı̄ calendar.85 Medieval Muslim authors writing in the vernacular were not in the least self-conscious of composing in this idiom, nor were their non-Muslim fellows at all embarrassed by Arabo-Persian vocabulary or concepts. However, in some quarters of academia, there has been a fixation on the belief in certain “pure types.” Not only the Guptı̄s, but also South Asian Muslims in general, could hardly, in the eyes of some, be accounted “pure Muslims” by simple virtue of the fact that they were not Arabs. As Gottschalk has trenchantly pointed out, “The British Orientalists of South Asia paid far more attention to Hinduism, opting to rely on their Middle Eastern-assigned colleagues to describe Islam from the supposed heartland.”86 Thus, individuals, communities and phenomena in South Asia that did not fit with predefined ideas of what Islam and Hinduism “should be” were given short shrift.87 The individuals whom I interviewed were quite adamant that they were Hindus. They were equally adamant that they were Muslims. To them, there was no contradiction between the two. As one of them explained to me, “In a sense, Muslims are also Christians.” When I asked her what she meant by this, she said, “Muslims believe in Christ, don’t they? So they can also consider themselves to be Christians if they want to.” I asked her to elaborate further. She said, 84 Mı̄r Sayyid Manjhan Shat.t.ārı̄ Rājgı̄rı̄, Madhumālatı̄, trans. Aditya Behl and Simon Weightman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3. 85 Ibid., 6–7, 17, 19, 79. 86 Peter Gottschalk, Beyond Hindu and Muslim: Multiple Identities in Narratives from British India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 28. Khan, Crossing, 14, notes that “Surprising as it may appear at first, by ‘Muslims’ the British meant only those who claimed descent from the Arabian countries, Iran or Central Asia. The converted population was not taken into account although its numeric strength was obviously much greater.” 87 This is trenchantly argued in Tony K. Stewart, “Alternate Structures of Authority: Satya Pir on the Frontiers of Bengal,” in Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, ed. David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), 22. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 127 “If there is no contradiction in a Muslim believing in Christ and yet being a Muslim, there is no contradiction in our believing in the avatāras and being Muslim. The Qur’an states that messengers were sent to every land and spoke in the language of its people.88 Certainly India was not forgotten. For those Hindus who believe in the avatāras, many are waiting for the tenth one to . arrive. For us, he is already here and his name is ‘Alı̄, the Nakalankı̄ avatāra. That, she concluded happily, “is the reason why we are Hindu Muslims.” Her friend, standing nearby, then chimed in, “In fact, those Muslims who do not accept the avatāras are forgetting God’s guidance that we must make no distinction between God’s messengers.” She was clearly referring to Qur’an 2:285, which contains this exact sentiment. The Guptı̄s whom I met were often bemused, if not incredulous, at what they considered the simplistic notions of some of their fellow Muslims who denied India the divine guidance that the Qur’an so explicitly guaranteed to all of humankind. If we were to read even further into the statements of these two women, perhaps we could extrapolate that they would consider themselves “more complete Muslims” than their fellows, because they recognize “God’s earlier messengers who came to India,” and “more complete Hindus” (or at least Vaishnava Hindus) than their caste-fellows, because they recognize the final avatāra.89 Clearly then, given such statements, it appears that we often rely too heavily on “Hindu” and “Muslim” as descriptive adjectives and analytic categories, as terms that are so self-apparent that they can be brandished to represent exclusive areas of religious activity. Of course, this is not to suggest that such distinctions are without use, merely that they should not be overprivileged and must themselves be analyzed for applicability in a variety of circumstances.90 To the Guptı̄s, Kr.s.n.a’s insistence in the Bhagavat Gı̄ta that there is an avatāra in every age and the statements in the Purān.as regarding the coming, after Rām and Kr.s.n.a, of the tenth avatāra on a white horse were the very reasons for their attachment to ‘Alı̄ b. Abı̄ T.ālib, whom they consider the fulfillment of this prophecy.91 In other words, they find the rationale for their conviction in Islam within the Sanskrit tradition. 88 A reference to Qur’an 14:4, “We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (matters) clear to them.” 89 See Françoise Mallison, “La secte ismaélienne des nizari ou satpanthi en Inde: Hétérodoxie hindoue ou musulmane?” in Ascèse et renoncement en Inde ou la solitude bien ordonnée (Paris: Editions l’Harmattan, 1992); idem, “Hinduism as Seen by the Nizari Ismaili Missionaries of Western India: The Evidence of the Ginan,” in Hinduism Reconsidered, ed. Gunther-Dietz Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke (New Delhi: Manohar, 1989), 93–103. 90 Gottschalk, in Beyond Hindu and Muslim, has examined this issue in great detail. 91 It should be noted that none of the Guptı̄s with whom I spoke explicitly mentioned the Purān.as as the source of this belief. It is not necessary for them to have actually referred to these texts, though, as the concept of the ten avatāras abounds in the vernacular Gujarati literature. 128 Shafique N. Virani Indeed, in this, their methodology mirrors the Qur’an’s claim that Jesus foretold the advent of a prophet known as “Ah.mad.” 92 Early Arab Muslims therefore sought legitimacy for their new faith in existing traditions. Jesus, to the Arab Muslims, thus played a role analogous to Kr.s.n.a to this group of “Hindu Muslims.” It should be recalled at this juncture that the word “Hindu,” today used almost exclusively as a religious moniker, is originally a geographic designation, not a religious one, and so the parallelism of “Arab Muslims” and “Hindu Muslims” is quite natural.93 Such facts on the ground fly in the face of opinions such as those expressed by M. R. Majmudar in his influential book Cultural History of Gujarat, that “Islam is in every respect the antithesis of Hinduism.”94 Cartesian categorizations of Hinduism and Islam are not at all amenable to such complexity. Religion, presumed to be exclusionary, was used as a principal criterion by the British in their censuses. Such assumptions were helpful in governing, and thus we see the creation, for example, of Hindu and Muslim personal law in India. While this is often valid, it is not always so; and unfortunately, as Gilmartin and Lawrence have noted, “Even when the categories palpably do not fit the evidence, scholars are often reluctant to jettison them, opting instead to suggest the existence of hybrid or syncretic forms, defined by the mixing of ‘irreconcilable’ religions, or by the lack of those attributes that are thought to be essential to a given world religion.”95 Simplistic, and perhaps even insulting, labels such as “syncretic” do no justice to such phenomena. In fact, such labels do little more than explain away the belief systems of such communities by simply pigeonholing them, rather than seeking to understand them. Problematizing Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines the freedom to change one’s religion, Arvind 92 Qur’an 61:6: “And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am God’s messenger to you, confirming the law (which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ah.mad.’” 93 The British census takers in the early 1900s were forced to use the phrase “HinduMohammadans” to account for this fact. The difficulties inherent in using the terms “Hindu” and “Hinduism” have been extensively debated in scholarship, and it would take us too far afield to consider them in detail. In brief, Heinrich von Stietencron, “Hinduism: On the Proper Use of a Deceptive Term,” in Hinduism Reconsidered, ed. Günther D. Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke (Delhi: Manohar, 1989), 11–28, argues that, historically, what we today designate as “Hinduism” has been so fragmented that entities such as Vaishnavism and Shaivism are much more legitimate categories for analysis, as they more closely correspond to Christian or Muslim concepts of “religion.” John Stratton Hawley, “Naming Hinduism,” Wilson Quarterly 15, no. 3 (1991): 20–34, even goes so far as to suggest that because “Hinduism,” as a name, goes back no further than the nineteenth century, the entity that we designate by this term is similarly recent. Hawley’s arguments are countered in Wendy Doniger, “Hinduism by Any Other Name,” Wilson Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1991): 35–41; see also Cynthia Keppley Mahmood, “Rethinking Indian Communalism: Culture and Counter-Culture,” Asian Survey 33, no. 7 (1993): 722–37. 94 Majmudar, Cultural History of Gujarat, 249. 95 David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence, Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), 3. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 129 Sharma argues that this makes little sense to many in the South Asian context. He explains that the right of changing religions “only arises if they are exclusive, for change means that a border has to be crossed.”96 He therefore suggests, “(1) my right to retain my religion rather than to change it and (2) my right to accept any other religion without having to change to it, in the sense of my having to sever links with any other culture or faith. Thus I should be able to claim that I am a Christian without having to say I am not a Hindu.”97 Similar tendencies hold true in other parts of the world. In Japan, for example, the 1985 statistics for religious affiliation show 76 percent professing Buddhism, while 95 percent claimed to be followers of Shintoism. Clearly, a huge majority of Japanese had no problem belonging to more than one “religion.”98 In the first census of Gujarat in 1911, the census superintendent recorded 35,000 “Hindu-Mohammadans.” Referring to these statistics, E. A. Gait, census commissioner, could write that the category of Hindu-Mohammadans “has perhaps served a very useful purpose in drawing prominent attention to the extremely indefinite character of the boundary line between different religions in India.”99 It is particularly in modern times, with the tectonic shifts that have taken place in the religious landscape of South Asia, that expressing such worldviews has become difficult, adding an additional layer of dissimulation for those who hold them. What was, in many contexts, considered quite commonplace has now become a source of discomfort. Thus, we see examples, such as the one cited earlier, of the religious works of those on the Hindu side of the fault line being purged of Perso-Arabic vocabulary and concepts, with an entirely parallel process taking place on the Muslim side with terms and ideas originating in the Sanskrit tradition. Often, well-meaning calls for communal harmony take for granted the conceptions of fixed and separate communities. At the time of this writing, the solar and lunar calendars had aligned in such a way that the festivals of Diwali and Ramzan Eid (i.e., ‘Īd al-Fit.r) happened to be celebrated at almost the same time. A poster published by ActionAid India was one of the most commonly circulated digital greeting cards sent at this time (see figure 1). The clever pun on the names of the seventh and final avatāras, Rām and ‘Alı̄, respectively, would no doubt have delighted the Guptı̄s, as would the question, “Who are we to draw the line?” But the card also unconsciously draws attention to the fact that, for most people, unlike for the Guptı̄s, the relationship between Rām and ‘Alı̄ can no longer be taken as organic. 96 Arvind Sharma, “An Indic Contribution Towards an Understanding of the Word “Religion” and the Concept of Religious Freedom,” Infinity Foundation, http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ indic_colloq/papers/paper_sharma2.pdf. 97 Ibid., 16. 98 Ian Reader, Religion in Contemporary Japan (London: Macmillan, 1991), 6, cited in ibid., 25. 99 E.A. Gait, Census of India, 1911, vol. 1, India, Parts 1 and 2, (New Delhi: Usha Publications, 1987), 118, cited in Yagnik and Sheth, Shaping of Modern Gujarat, 198. 130 Shafique N. Virani Figure 1. “Who are we to draw the line?” ActionAid Poster. Reproduced with permission. The Importance of Caste Considerations Oftentimes, more important than the bipolar “Hindu-Muslim” distinction is that of caste identity, whether this is understood as jāti, varan.a, gotra, jñāti, Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 131 qawm, or otherwise.100 A shared religious vocabulary does not presume the elision of caste boundaries. Indeed, the danger of appearing to break with caste solidarity is a factor in the Guptı̄ practice of taqiyya that is at least as important as that of “religious” identity. Naturally, caste boundaries themselves have been fluid throughout history, but change is always gradual. To appear to be stepping out of the bounds of one’s caste could become a matter of great discomfort, and thus secret adherence to a doctrine considered beyond the pale is not unique to the Guptı̄s, as witnessed by testimony in the Chishtiyya S.ūfı̄ sources mentioned earlier. Khan and Moir, citing the litigation and land squabbles at the shrine of Pı̄rān.ā and the role that defining religion played in the British courts’ settlements of such disputes, write, “It is clear that, from the last decades of the nineteenth century onwards, defining or redefining one’s identity as a group within the Indian society had become a crucial issue, where economic and political factors played a much more important role than religious considerations.”101 The Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar are, in a sense, atypical of the South Asian Guptı̄s in general because, as a caste, they have now openly declared their allegiance to the Ismaili imam. It is because of this fact that an article such as this could be written. Many other Guptı̄ communities across South Asia hold to a much stricter practice of taqiyya. Their prayer houses are called mandirs or dharmashāl.ās rather than jamā‘at-khānas, they are extremely reticent to discuss their devotion to the imam, and, in rare instances, even family members may not be aware of their Ismaili inclinations. The anti-Muslim pogroms of 2002 in Gujarat can only serve to exacerbate the need for caution, and hence, at the request of my Guptı̄ informants from outside Bhavnagar, I have only alluded to them elliptically, without providing any details that could place them or their caste members in danger. Assimilative Capacity of Islam The ability of Hinduism to incorporate knowledge from a plethora of sources is too well known to require elaboration. Islam’s capacity for a similar ecumenical worldview is much less recognized, but is also impressive. Manjhan’s mystical romance The Night-Flowering Jasmine (Madhumālatı̄), cited earlier, is but one example. Within the Arabic cultural sphere, no less a figure than the redoubtable Ibn Rushd, chief judge of Cordoba, royal physician, and Sunnı̄ Muslim philosopher of genius, eloquently explained the necessity for the adoption of Greek thought into Islamdom: “For if before us someone has inquired into [wisdom], it behooves us to seek help from what he has said. It is irrelevant whether he 100 The Persian chroniclers, too, tended to classify the various peoples of India based on racial, ancestral, or territorial origin, much more so than on the basis of religion; see Z. U. Malik, “The Core and the Periphery: A Contribution to the Debate on the Eighteenth Century,” Social Scientist 18, no. 11–12 (1990): 22. 101 Khan and Moir, “Coexistence,” 141, “economical” corrected to “economic.” 132 Shafique N. Virani belongs to our community or to another.”102 Within Islam, Ismailism laid particular emphasis on incorporating the wisdom of others into its own system. As the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity (Rasā’il Ikhwān al-S.afā’) would declare, “It befits our brothers that they should not show hostility to any kind of knowledge or reject any book. Nor should they be fanatical in any doctrine, for our opinion and our doctrine embrace all doctrines, and resume all knowledge.”103 This spirit is clearly articulated in the Rules of the Shia Imami Ismaili Missions of Bombay 1922, which advises that the Ismaili “Missionary Training Schools” should “teach the student Missionaries the knowledge and science of the world’s diverse philosophies and religions, cults and creeds penned in the different languages such as Persian, Arabic, English, French, Burmese, Sanskrit, and such other important languages.”104 The dynamism of Ismaili thought was made possible by the acceptance of a living imam as custodian of the faith. Authority was thus vested in the present, not only in the past, thereby allowing the faith to be contextualized according to time and place. The Adaptability of Taqiyya Like their Ismaili coreligionists in South Asia and beyond, the Guptı̄s hold a minority belief in the continuity of divine guidance to mankind, as manifested in the imam, whom they consider to be an avatāra. For centuries, as an act of selfpreservation, Ismailis scattered throughout the world held to the strictest taqiyya, blending in with the majority communities among whom they lived. Taqiyya thus became deeply ingrained, an almost instinctive defense mechanism. It could, if one wished, be adopted only in moments of danger, or it could be a lifelong commitment. In a landmark Pakistani decision in the case of Nur Ali vs. Malka Sultana, held by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Shabbir Ahmad and Sajjad Ahmad JJ.), which Fyzee suggests “may well become the leading case on the subject,” it was held “that the followers of His Highness the Aga Khan, the imam-i hadir [present imam] of the Ismaili Khojās, come from all sects 102 Quoted from the fas.l al-maqāl in Muh.ammad ‘Ābid al-Jābirı̄, Ibn Rushd: Sı̄ra wa-Fikr (Beirut: Markaz dirāsāt al-widadat al-marbiya, 1998), 271. 103 Cited in Bernard Lewis, The Origins of Ismailism: A Study of the Historical Background of the Fatimid Caliphate (New York: AMS Press, 1975), 94. There is still some debate in scholarship about the Ismaili origins of the Rasā’il, but for our purposes, this is of lesser importance, for if it originated outside of the community, its wholehearted adoption into Ismaili milieus only further serves to prove the point. 104 Rules of the Shia Imami Ismailia Missions of Bombay 1922/Shı̄ā Imāmı̄ Isamāilı̄ā Mı̄shans oph Bombe nā Kāyadāo 1922 (Bombay: Ismailbhai Virji Madhani, 1922), 41 (English), 32–33 (Gujarati), “philsophies” corrected to read “philosophies.” Notably, in this document, charge of activities in Gujarat was assigned to a Guptı̄ Ismaili, Kālı̄dās Sākalchand, who was also known as Qāsim-‘alı̄ S.ālih.-muh.ammad, ibid., 26 (English), 20 (Gujarati). Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 133 including Hindus. A Hindu, although he had not embraced Islam, was a follower.”105 In the context of Pakistan, “all sects” naturally refers to both the Sunnı̄ majority and the Ithnā‘asharı̄ minority, along with, as indicated here, the Pakistani Hindus. Fearing possible repercussions, certain Pakistanis clearly dissemble their attachment to the imam of the Ismailis. In the case of Ismailis who dissimulate as Sunnı̄s, this is done despite the incompatibility of Sunnı̄ and Shı̄‘ı̄ concepts of religious leadership, or imamate. In the case of the Ismailis who dissimulate as Ithnā‘asharı̄s, this is done despite the incompatibility of beliefs regarding the number and identity of the imams, the Ithnā‘asharı̄s believing in twelve imams, the last of whom is said to be in hiding, and the Ismailis believing in the continuity of divine guidance until the judgment day, the current Aga Khan being the forty-ninth imam. In the case of the Ismailis who dissimulate as Hindus, however, belief in the imam is not seen to be contrary to their outwardly professed faith, but is rather its fulfillment and culmination. In this way, their taqiyya is qualitatively different from the taqiyya practiced by many other communities, Ismaili or otherwise. As communal identities have reformulated themselves in South Asia, so has the Guptı̄ understanding and practice of taqiyya. The Guptı̄s of Bhavnagar have evolved in a fashion quite different from their more cautious Guptı̄ fellows elsewhere. As Aharon Layish has argued, “Taqiyya is a dynamic, not a static, doctrine; adaptation and assimilation to the environment are not one-time acts but continuous processes determined by changing circumstances of place and time.”106 Given this dynamic nature of taqiyya, a strong intrinsic nucleus was necessary to preserve a hidden identity. In the case of the Ismailis, this nucleus was faith in the imam of the time. As H . asan-i Mah.mūd and Nas.ı̄r al-Dı̄n T.ūsı̄ explain in their Paradise of Submission (Rawd.a-yi Taslı̄m), for the sake of taqiyya, the followers of the path of truth safeguard a reality (h.aqı̄qat) in their hearts, the “reality” being the imamate.107 So long as this reality was not forgotten, the external manifestations of practice—whether Sunnı̄, Ithnā‘asharı̄, S.ūfı̄, or Hindu— were unable to overwhelm the believer. The loss of this nucleus, however, would mean the loss of the core belief, and hence it was essential that devotion to the imam be nurtured in order to preserve an Ismaili identity. The Ismaili imam al-H . ākim best expressed this particular facet of Ismaili taqiyya when he confided to his followers, “if any religion is stronger than you, follow it (ittabi‘ūhā), but keep me in your hearts.”108 105 Asaf Ali Asghar Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 3rd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 69. 106 Layish, “Taqiyya,” 261. 107 Nas.ı̄r al-Dı̄n Muh.ammad b. Muh.ammad T.ūsı̄ and H . asan-i Mah.mūd, Rawd.a-yi Taslı̄m, ed. and trans S. J. Badakhchani (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), ed. 146, trans. 119. In this passage, Badakhchani’s translation differs somewhat from the reading in the edited text. 108 From the catechism Teachings of the Druze Faith (Ta‘lı̄m Dı̄n al-Durūz), as cited in Layish, “Taqiyya,” 251. 134 Shafique N. Virani Acknowledgments This article is dedicated to the memories of the late Mukhı̄ Paramān.anddās Khod.ı̄dās and Kāmad.ı̄ā Kālı̄dās Bhagat. Certain sections of the paper, in a variety of earlier incarnations, have been presented at the Perspectives in Islamic Studies Conference, Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, England, August 23, 1998; Inde médievale et moderne: textes et contextes, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Sorbonne University, Paris, France, February 8, 2000; Myerson South Asia Lectures, University of Texas at Austin, Center for Asian Studies, March 24, 2000; and Association for Asian Studies Conference, Washington, D.C., April 5, 2002. I am extremely grateful to the participants at those fora, as well as to the journal’s anonymous reviewers, for their valuable feedback and suggestions, which improved the quality of the final product. Thanks are also due to Deborah A. Ring for her excellent copyediting, and to ActionAid India for granting permission for the reproduction of the poster used in this article. List of References ABŪ TURĀBĪ, SAYARĀB. 1981. Dharmanā Dhvajadhārı̄. Mumbai: Divyajñān Prakāshan Mandir. AL-JĀBIRĪ, MUH . AMMAD ‘ĀBID. 1998. Ibn Rushd: Sı̄ra wa-Fikr. Beirut: Markaz dirāsāt al-widadat al-marbiya. AL-MAJLISĪ, MUH . AMMAD BĀQIR. 1305–15 HS/1926–36. Bih . ār al-Anwār. Vol. 16. Tehran: lithograph. AL-NU‘MĀN, AL-QĀD . Ī ABŪ H . ANĪFA B. MUH.AMMAD. 1967–72. Ta’wı̄l al-Da‘ā’im. Ed. Muh.ammad H . asan al-A‘z.amı̄. 3 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Ma‘ārif; repr., Beirut: Dār al-Thiqāfa. AL-QUMMĪ, ABŪ JA‘FAR MUH . AMMAD B. AL-H . ASAN AL-S.AFFĀR. 1960. Bas.ā’ir al-Darajāt fı̄ Fad.ā’il Āl Muh.ammad. Ed. Muh.sin Kūcha Bāghı̄. Tabrı̄z [?]: Shirkat-i Chāp-i Kitāb. AL-T . ASAN. 1954–57. Majma‘ al-bayān fı̄ tafsı̄r al-Qur’ān. Vol. 3. . ABARSĪ, AL-FAD.L B. AL-H Beirut: Dār al-Fikr. ALAHUSENĪ, SAIYAD KĀSIM-ALĪ DURVESH-ALĪ ERĀKI. 2010 VS/1954. Satpanth Shāstra yane Mokshagatı̄no Sācho Mārg. Pı̄rān.ā: Pat.el Lālajı̄bhāi Nānajı̄bhāı̄. AMIR-MOEZZI, MOHAMMAD ALI. 1994. The Divine Guide in Early Shi‘ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam. Trans. David Streight. Albany: State University of New York Press. ĀNANDAPRIYĀJĪ, PAN.D.IT. 1980 VS/1924. “Gujarātamām . Hindū Sabhā.” Yugadharma 4 (5). ASANI, ALI SULTAAN ALI. 1987. “The Khojki Script: A Legacy of Ismaili Islam in the IndoPakistan Subcontinent.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107 (3): 439–49. ——. 1992. The Harvard Collection of Ismaili Literature in Indic Languages: A Descriptive Catalog and Finding Aid. Boston: G. K. Hall. ——. 2002. Ecstasy and Enlightenment: The Ismaili Devotional Literature of South Asia. London: I. B. Tauris. Atharvavedı̄y Satapanth Yajñavidhi. 2053 VS/1996. 3rd ed. Pı̄rān.ā: Satapanth Sevā Prakāshan Samiti. AWLIYĀ’, NIẒ ĀM AL-DĪN. 1991. Morals for the Heart: Conversations of Shaykh Nizam ad-Din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi. Trans. Bruce B. Lawrence. New York: Paulist Press. AWLIYĀ’, NIẒ ĀM AL-DĪN, and AMĪR H . ASAN SIJZĪ DIHLAWĪ. 1966. Fawā’id al-Fu’ād. Ed. Muh.ammad Lat.ı̄f Malik. Lahore: Malik Sirāj al-Dı̄n. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 135 BAHĀDUR, ‘ALĪ MUH.AMMAD KHĀN. 1928. Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄. Rev. ed. Trans. Syed Nawab Ali and Charles Norman Seddon. Baroda: Oriental Institute. ——. 1928. Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄. Ed. Sayyid Nawāb ‘Alı̄. Vol. 1. Baroda: Oriental Institute. ——. 1930. Khātima-yi Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄. Ed. Sayyid Nawāb ‘Alı̄. Baroda: Oriental Institute. ——. 1965. Mir’āt-i Ah.madı̄. Trans. M. F. Lokhandwala. Baroda: Oriental Institute. Before Mr. Justice Russel Haji Bibi v. H. H. Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah the Aga Khan, suit no. 729 of 1905. Bombay Law Reporter, vol. 11, 1908. BHALAVĀN.Ī, JĀPHARALĪ ABAJĪ. 1983. Shahı̄d Mı̄shanarı̄ Khudābaksh Tālibanı̄ Jı̄van Jharamar. Mumbai: Self-published. BHATTACHARYA, JOGENDRA NATH. 1896. Hindu Castes and Sects. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co. . BUDHAVĀN.Ī, N. M. 1922. Ismāı̄lı̄ Khojā Jñāti upar Bhayankar Ārop. Sāhitya Patrikā. Dhorājı̄: Kāt.hiyāvād. Sāhitya Prachārak Man.d.al.. CALDER, NORMAN. 1979. “Judicial Authority in Imāmı̄ Shı̄‘ı̄ Jurisprudence.” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 6 (2): 104–8. CAMPBELL, JAMES M., ed. 1990. Muslim and Parsi Castes and Tribes of Gujarat. Vol. 9, part 2. Hariyana: Vipin Jain for Vintage Books. CHATURVEDI, VINAYAK. 2007. Peasant Pasts: History and Memory in Western India. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. CLARKE, LYNDA G. 2005. “The Rise and Decline of Taqiyya in Twelver Shi‘ism.” In Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, ed. Todd Lawson, 46–63. London: I. B. Tauris. COMMISSARIAT, M. S. 1935. Studies in the History of Gujarat. Mumbai: Longmans, Green. CORBIN, HENRY. 1971. En Islam Iranien: Aspects Spirituels et Philosophiques. 4 vols. Paris: Gallimard. DAFTARY, FARHAD. 2007. The Ismā‘ı̄lı̄s: Their History and Doctrines. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DARAGĀHAVĀLĀ, PĪRAZĀDĀ SAYYAD SADARUDDĪN. 1935. Tavārı̄khe Pı̄r. Vol. 2. Navasārı̄: Muslim Gujarat Press. Dhuā vakhat trejı̄ tathā āratı̄ (2) sāñjı̄jā choghadı̄ā (5) dhuā (7) tathā chhelo nı̄n.dho (10) mo avatār. 1942 VS/1998. 12th ed. Mumbai: n.p. DONIGER, WENDY. 1991. “Hinduism by Any Other Name.” Wilson Quarterly 15 (4): 35–41. DOSSA, PARIN AZIZ. 1985. “Ritual and Daily Life: Transmission and Interpretation of the Ismaili Tradition in Vancouver.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia. DUPREE, LOUIS. 1979. “Further Notes on Taqiyya: Afghanistan.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 99 (4): 680–82. EMADI, HAFIZULLAH. 1998. “The End of Taqiyya: Reaffirming the Religious Identity of Ismailis in Shughnan Badakshan—Political Implications for Afghanistan.” Middle Eastern Studies 34 (3): 103–14. ——. 2000. “Praxis of Taqiyya: Perseverance of Pashaye Ismaili Enclave, Nangarhar, Afghanistan.” Central Asian Survey 19 (2): 253–64. ENTHOVEN, R. E. 1922. The Tribes and Castes of Bombay. Vol. 2. Bombay: Government Central Press. ESMAIL, AZIZ. 2002. A Scent of Sandalwood: Indo-Ismaili Religious Lyrics. Richmond: Curzon. FYZEE, ASAF ALI ASGHAR. 1964. Outlines of Muhammadan Law. 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press. 136 Shafique N. Virani GAIT, E. A. 1911. Census of India, 1911. Vol. 1, India, Parts 1 and 2. Repr., New Delhi: Usha Publications, 1987. Gavahare Rahemat yāne Rahematanā Motı̄: Maolānā Hājar Imāmanā Mubārak Pharamāno 1933 thı̄ 1940. 1940. Mumbai: n.p. GILMARTIN, DAVID, and BRUCE B. LAWRENCE. 2000. Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. GOLDZIHER, IGNAZ. 1906. “Das Prinzip der tak.ijja im Islam.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 60:213–26. GOTTSCHALK, PETER. 2000. Beyond Hindu and Muslim: Multiple Identities in Narratives from British India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. HĀJĪ, SHAMSUDĪN BANDĀLĪ. 1981. Joyā Ral.iyāman.ā Desh. Mumbai: Divyajñān Prakāshan Mandir. HAMEED UD-DIN. 1996. “‘Alı̄-Moh.ammad Khan [sic, Khān] Bahādor, Mı̄rzā Moh.ammadH . asan.” In Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater. London: Routledge. http:// www.iranica.com/articles/ali-mohammad-khan-bahador-mirza-mohammad-hasanhistorian-of-the-mughals-and-author-of-merat-e-ahmadi-ca. HARDIMAN, DAVID. 2007. “Purifying the Nation: The Arya Samaj in Gujarat 1895–1930.” Indian Economic Social History Review 44 (1): 41–65. HARVEY, L. P. 1987. “The Moriscos and the H . ajj.” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 14 (1): 11–24. HAWLEY, JOHN STRATTON. 1991. “Naming Hinduism.” Wilson Quarterly 15 (3): 20–34. HINDS, M. 1960–2004. “Mih.na.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs et al., 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill. HUDĀ, VALĪBHĀĪ NĀNJĪ. 1927. Asatya Ārop yāne Khojā Jñātinum . Gaurav. Dhorājı̄: En. Em. Budhawān.ı̄. HUDĀ, VALĪMAHAMAD NĀNAJĪ. 1922. Lokono Khot.o Vahem ane Khojā Komanı̄ nirdoshatā, Dhorājı̄: Kāt.hı̄yāvād. Sāhitya Prachārak Man.dal.. IBN BĀBAWAYH, ABŪ JA‘FAR MUH.AMMAD. 1942. A Shı̄‘ite Creed. Trans. Asaf Ali Asghar Fyzee. Calcutta: Oxford University Press. ——. 1970. ‘Uyūn Akhbār al-Rid.ā. Vol. 2. Najaf: Mat.ba‘a al-H . aydariyya. IMĀMSHĀH, SAYYID. 1976 VS/1-8-20. Janatpurı̄. 2nd ed. Mumbai: Mukhi Laljibhai Devraj, Khoja Sindhi chhāpakhānum .. IVANOW, WLADIMIR. 1936. “The Sect of Imam Shah in Gujrat.” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 12:19–70. JAHĀNĀBĀDĪ, KALĪM ALLĀH. 1883. Maktūbāt-i Kalı̄mı̄. Ed. Muh.ammad Qāsim S.āh.ib Kalı̄mı̄ Kalı̄mı̄. Delhi: Mat.ba‘-i Yūsufı̄. KĀBĀ, EDALJĪ DHANJĪ. 1330 AH/1912. Khojā Kom nı̄ Tavārı̄kh [The history of the Khojas]. Amarelı̄: Dhı̄ Gujarāt end. Kāt.hı̄yāvād. Prı̄nt.ı̄ñg Varkas end. T.āip Phāun.d.arı̄,. KAMĀL AL-DĪN, ‘ALĪ MUH.AMMAD, and ZARĪNA KAMĀL AL-DĪN. 2004. Manāsik Majālis wa-Tasbı̄h.āt. Karachi: Self-published. “KANBIS.” 2004. In Encyclopaedia of Indian Tribes and Castes, ed. B. K. Roy Burman et al. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications. KASSAM, TAZIM. 1995. Songs of Wisdom and Circles of Dance: Hymns of the Satpanth Ismaili Muslim Saint, Pir Shams. Albany: State University of New York Press. KHAKEE, GULSHAN. 1972. “The Dasa Avatara of the Satpanthi Ismailis and the Imam Shahis of Indo-Pakistan.” PhD diss., Harvard University. KHAN, DOMINIQUE-SILA. 1997. “The Coming of Nikalank Avatar: A Messianic Theme in Some Sectarian Traditions of North-Western India.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 25 (4): 401–26. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 137 ——. 2002. “The Graves of History or the Metaphor of the Hidden Pir.” In Culture, Communities and Change, ed. Varsha Joshi, 154–72. Jaipur: Rawat Publications. ——. 2003. “Diverting the Ganges: The Nizari Ismaili Model of Conversion in South Asia.” In Religious Conversion in India: Modes, Motivations, and Meanings, ed. Rowena Robinson and Sathianathan Clarke, 29–53. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ——. 2003. “The Mahdi of Panna: A Short History of the Pranamis (Part II).” Indian Journal of Secularism 7 (1): 46–66. ——. 2004. Crossing the Threshold: Understanding Religious Identities in South Asia. London: I. B. Tauris. ——. 2004. “Liminality and Legality: A Contemporary Debate among the Imamshahis of Gujarat.” In Lived Islam in South Asia: Adaptation, Accommodation and Conflict, ed. Imtiaz Ahmad and Helmut Reifeld, 209–32. Delhi: Social Science Press. KHAN, DOMINIQUE-SILA, and ZAWAHIR MOIR. 1999. “Coexistence and Communalism: The Shrine of Pirana in Gujarat.” Journal of South Asian Studies 22:133–54. KOHLBERG, ETAN. 1975. “Some Imāmı̄-Shı̄‘a Views on Taqiyya.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 95:395–402. ——. 1995. “Taqiyya in Shı̄‘ı̄ Theology and Religion.” In Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, ed. H. G. Kippenberg and G. G. Stroumsa, 345–80. Leiden: E. J. Brill. KONT.RĀKT.AR, PAT.EL NĀRĀYAN.JĪ RĀMJĪBHĀĪ. 1926. Pı̄rān.ā-“Satpanth” nı̄ Pol ane Satya no Prakāsh. Vol. 1. Ahmadābād: n.p. LAYISH, AHARON. 1985. “Taqiyya among the Druzes.” Asian and African Studies 19 (3): 245–81. LEWIS, BERNARD. 1975. The Origins of Ismailism: A Study of the Historical Background of the Fatimid Caliphate. New York: AMS Press. MAHMOOD, CYNTHIA KEPPLEY. 1993. “Rethinking Indian Communalism: Culture and Counter-Culture.” Asian Survey 33 (7): 722–37. MAJMUDAR, M. R. 1965. Cultural History of Gujarat. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. MALIK, Z. U. 1990. “The Core and the Periphery: A Contribution to the Debate on the Eighteenth Century.” Social Scientist 18 (11–12): 3–35. MALLISON, FRANÇOISE. 1989. “Hinduism as Seen by the Nizari Ismaili Missionaries of Western India: The Evidence of the Ginan.” In Hinduism Reconsidered, ed. Gunther-Dietz Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke, 93–103. New Delhi: Manohar. ——. 1991. “Les Chants Garabi de Pir Shams.” In Littératures Médievales de l’Inde du Nord, ed. Françoise Mallison, 115–38. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient. ——. 1991. “Pir Shams and his Garabi Songs.” In On Becoming an Indian Muslim: French Essays on Aspects of Syncretism, ed. M. Waseem, 180–207. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ——. 1992. “La secte ismaélienne des nizari ou satpanthi en Inde: Hétérodoxie hindoue ou musulmane?” In Ascèse et renoncement en Inde ou la solitude bien ordonnée, ed. Serge Bouez, 105–13. Paris: Editions l’Harmattan. . MĀNKAD., BHAGAVĀNALĀL LA. 2004 VS/1948. Kāt.hiyāvād.anā Mumanā. Ahmedabad: Gujarāt Vidhyāsabhā. MĀSTAR, KARĪM MAHAMAD. 2025 VS/1969. Mahāgujarātanā Musalamāno. Vad.odarā: Mahārājā Sayājı̄rāv Vishvavidhyālay. MCEOIN, DENIS. 1984. “Aspects of Militancy and Quietism in Imami Shi‘ism.” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 11 (1): 18–27. MISRA, SATISH C. 1964. Muslim Communities in Gujarat. New York: Asia Publishing House. MOHAMED, SULTANALI. 1956. “Heroes of Surat.” Jāgr.ti. 138 Shafique N. Virani MOIR, ZAWAHIR. 1985. A Catalogue of the Khojki MSS in the Library of the Ismaili Institute. Unpublished typescript. MOIR, ZAWAHIR, and DOMINIQUE-SILA KHAN. 2010. “New Light on the Satpanthi Imamshahis of Pirana.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 33 (2): 210–34. MORRIS, H. S. 1968. The Indians in Uganda: Caste and Sect in a Plural Society. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. MORRIS, JAMES WINSTON. 1987. “Taqı̄yah.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, 336–37. New York: Macmillan. Nāmadār Āgākhān sāmeno Mukadamo: sane 1905no mukadamo nambar 729. 1905. NĀNAJĪĀN.Ī, SACHEDĪNĀ. 1892. Khojā Vr.ttānt. Ahmadabad: Samasher Bāhādur Press. NANJI, AZIM. 1978. The Nizārı̄ Ismā‘ı̄lı̄ Tradition in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books. ——. 1982. “Ritual and Symbolic Aspects of Islam in African Contexts.” In Islam in Local Contexts, ed. Richard C. Martin, 102–9. Leiden: E. J. Brill. NAWAS, JOHN A. 1992. al-Ma’mūn: Mih.na and Caliphate. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit. NAZARALI, HASAN. n.d. A Brief Outline of Ismaili Rites, Rituals, Ceremonies and Festivals. Edmonton: n.p. NOORALY, ZAWAHIR. 1971. Catalogue of Khojki Manuscripts in the Collection of the Ismailia Association for Pakistan (Draft Copy). Ismailia Association for Pakistan, unpublished typescript. NURAMAHAMAD, MOMĪN MĪYĀṂ JĪ. 1936. Isamāilı̄ Momı̄n Komano Itı̄hās. Mumbai: Rāmachandra Vāman Mahājan. PEARSON, M. N. 1976. Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat: The Response to the Portuguese in the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Pı̄r Sadaradı̄n Sāhebe rachelı̄ asal duā. 1948. 12th ed. Mumbai: Mı̄. V.N. Hudā for Ismailia Association. Pūjāvidhi tathā Jñān. 2038 VS/1982. Ahmedabad: Ācharya Shrı̄ Kākā Saheb Savajı̄ Rāmajı̄. RAHMAN, SHAIKH AZIZUR. 2007. “India’s Muslims Adopt Hindu Names.” Washington Times, August 21. RĀJGĪRĪ, MĪR SAYYID MANJHAN SHAT.T.ĀRĪ. 2000. Madhumālatı̄. Trans. Aditya Behl and Simon Weightman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. RECKENDORF, H. 1960–2004. “‘Ammār b. Yāsir.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs et al., 448. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Rules of the Shia Imami Ismailia Missions of Bombay 1922/Shı̄ā Imāmı̄ Isamāilı̄ā Mı̄shans oph Bombe nā Kāyadāo 1922. 1922. Bombay: Ismailbhai Virji Madhani. SADIK ALI, MUMTAZ ALI TAJDDIN. 2003. 101 Ismaili Heroes: Late 19th century to Present Age. Vol. 1. Karachi: Islamic Book Publisher. Satpanthi Yagña Vidhi. 2048 VS/1992. Ed. Saiyad Shamsaddı̄n Bāvā Sāheb. 4th ed. Ahmedabad: Pı̄rān.ā Gurukul. Ajyukeshan T.rast.. SHACKLE, CHRISTOPHER, and ZAWAHIR MOIR. 1992. Ismaili Hymns from South Asia: An Introduction to the Ginans. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. SHAH, A. M. 1982. “Division and Hierarchy: An Overview of Caste in Gujarat.” Contributions to Indian Sociology, n.s., 16 (1): 1–33. SHAH, A. M., and R. G. SHROFF. 1958. “The Vahivancha Barots of Gujarat: A Caste of Genealogists and Mythographers.” Journal of American Folklore 71:246–76. Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community 139 SHARMA, ARVIND. “An Indic Contribution Towards an Understanding of the Word “Religion” and the Concept of Religious Freedom.” Infinity Foundation, http://www.infi nityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/papers/paper_sharma2.pdf [accessed July 28, 2009]. SINGH, K. S., ed. 1998. India’s Communities: H–M. Vol. 5 of People of India. Delhi: Anthropological Survey of India and Oxford University Press. ——, ed. 2003. Gujarat. Vol. 22, part 2 of People of India. Delhi: Anthropological Survey of Indian and Ramdas Bhatkal for Popular Prakashan. STEIGERWALD, DIANE. 1988. “La dissimulation (taqiyya) de la foi dans le Shi‘isme Ismaelien.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 27:39–59. STEWART, TONY K. 2000. “Alternate Structures of Authority: Satya Pir on the Frontiers of Bengal.” In Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, ed. David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence, 22–54. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. STIETENCRON, HEINRICH VON. 1989. “Hinduism: On the Proper Use of a Deceptive Term.” In Hinduism Reconsidered, ed. Günther D. Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke, 11– 28. New Delhi: Manohar. STROTHMANN, R., and M. DJEBLI. 1960–2004. “Tak.iyya.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs et al., 135–36. Leiden: E. J. Brill. TAMBS-LYCHE, HARALD. 1980. London Patidars: A Case Study in Urban Ethnicity. London: Routledge. ——. 2002. “Kolı̄, Rajput, Kanbı̄, Pat.t.idār.” In Tribus et Basses Castes: Résistance et autonomie dans la société Indienne, ed. M. Carrin and C. Jaffrelot, 265–95. Paris: Éditions de l’école des hautes études en sciences sociales. TRIVEDI, JAYPRAKASH M. 1992. The Social Structure of Patidar Caste in India. Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House. T.ŪSĪ, NAS.ĪR AL-DĪN MUH.AMMAD B. MUH.AMMAD, and H . ASAN-I MAH.MŪD. 2005. Rawd.a-yi Taslı̄m. Ed. and trans. S. J. Badakhchani, London: I. B. Tauris. VARTEJĪ, IBRĀHĪM JŪSAB. 1919. Āgākhānı̄ Khudāı̄no Jhal.kāt. yāne (Shamshı̄) Ismāilı̄yā Phirakāno Bhed. Mumbai: Mukhtār Nānjı̄ for the Isamāilı̄ Sāhitya Uttejak Man.d.al.. VIRANI, SHAFIQUE N. 1995. “The Voice of Truth: Life and Works of Sayyid Nūr Muh.ammad Shāh, a 15th/16th Century Ismā‘ı̄lı̄ Mystic.” Master’s thesis, McGill University. ——. 2005. “Symphony of Gnosis: A Self-Definition of the Ismaili Ginān Literature.” In Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, ed. Todd Lawson, 503–21. London: I. B. Tauris. ——. 2007. The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: A History of Survival, a Search for Salvation. New York: Oxford University Press. WIEGERS, G. A. 1960–2004. “Moriscos.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs et al., 241. Leiden: E. J. Brill. WILKINSON, J. C. 1976. “The Ibād.ı̄ Imāma.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies 39 (3): 535–51. YAGNIK, ACHYUT, and SUCHITRA SHETH. 2005. The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva and Beyond. New Delhi: Penguin. ZAMAN, MUHAMMAD QASIM. 1997. Religion and Politics Under the Early ‘Abbāsids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunnı̄ Elite. Ed. Ulrich Haarmann and Wadad Kadi. Leiden: E. J. Brill.