A Weaponization of Spiritual Synchronicity

The following is an interesting angle on the partition of India written by the Imaan Khan(my sister). I really enjoy reading her work and understanding her perspectives irrespective of my own, it’s always worth the read. I tend to get easily excited thinking about her for who she is now, as well as who she’ll be in the future - ❤️ما شاء الله ❤️

Intro: The role of religion in the history of international relations is not understated by any means. From missionary invasions across the globe to the foundations of World War 2, faith-based conflicts have affected each corner of the world. One notable example of this is the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. The differentiating quality of this instance is the presence of a foreign power responsible for facilitating the religious-nationalistic rivalry between Hindu and Muslim natives. British colonization indoctrinated the South Asian region with Catholicism and weaponized both Hinduism and Islam to effectively divide Indian people, disturbing their identities and understanding of one another. This played a substantial part in triggering one of the bloodiest and largest migrations in history. Through a thorough historical analysis of the British Raj in India concerning religions, both foreign and native, it is made painfully evident that colonization created religious identities and exploited them to their advantage, dividing a once culturally unified nation and leading it into decades of ongoing conflict.

In 1779, Alexander Dow, an officer in the East India Company, wrote An Enquiry Into the State of Bengal: With a Plan For Restoring That Province to its Former Prosperity and Splendor. In which, he stated, 

“To leave the natives entirely to their own laws, would be to consign them to anarchy and confusion. The inhabitants of Bengal are divided into two religious sects, the Mahommedan and Hindoo, almost equal in point of numbers. Averse, beyond measure, to one another, both on account of religion and the memory of mutual injuries, the one party will not now submit to the laws of the other; and the dissention which subsists between individuals, would, without a pressure from another power, spread in a flame over the whole kingdom. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the peace and prosperity of the country, that the laws of England, in so far as they do not oppose prejudices and usages which cannot be relinquished by the natives, should prevail. The measure, besides its equity, is calculated to preserve that influence which conquerors must possess to retain their power.”

Firstly and most importantly, it is made clear that the English were of the understanding that they had a duty to reform Indian laws. They believed that English laws had to be instated to ensure religious peace and stability in the region. What’s interesting, however, is that there is no substantial proof of confusion or anarchy at the time between the Muslims and Hindus. Dow based the need for English reform in India on conjecture that there could possibly be conflict in the future, despite the fact that the Muslims and Hindus of India had been living amongst one another for hundreds of years. While there were undoubtedly some issues of inter-religious conflict, three centuries of Mughal rule leading up to British Invasion were generally peaceful and harmonious for both Muslims and Hindus.

One of the earliest steps of interference in Hindu and Islamic law was the introduction of personal laws. Prior to British Invasion, Mughal rule simply provided that people would abide by the rulings of their respective religions and communities as they pleased. That is, while Muslims were in power in a majority of the states, the Hindu population was free to be self-governed by Hindu scripture and the communal village system. The East India Company decided that this was not concrete and organized enough. Thus, they introduced various British Laws and formed the personal laws in an attempt to modify their system to apply to a religiously diverse population. In order to do this, they employed English people to interpret Hindu and Islamic religious texts to form the set of laws for each population. The officials would interpret religious texts and vaguely consult religious leaders, and then reiterate it to the people in a court of law. According to “The Reinvention of Shari’a under the British Raj”, this was crucial to the Colonists as it allowed them to maintain control over the Indigenous groups. Under the guise of respect, the British were able to control Hindu and Muslim experiences and stay closely tied to the social community. It would ensure that the natives regarded the invaders as authoritative figures who seemingly had their best interests. In this process, both the Hindu and Islamic laws were eventually altered to fit the British narrative. The aim of this practice was to sophisticate the Indian people. Warren Hastings, Governor - General of Bengal, stated that in cases where the religious rulings were “immoral” or distasteful to the British, they should step in and alter the rulings. The general aim of this entire endeavour, after all, was to introduce morality to these people, to “attemper them with the mild spirit of British government” (as was stated in a letter to the Governor-General of India).

Soon enough there emerged both Anglo-Hindu and Anglo-Mohammedan law. Both of which were understood as Hybrid laws, reminiscent of traditional sacred rulings but rounded off and selectively implemented in accordance with British satisfaction. The Anglo-mohammaden law contained changes concerning punishment and what constituted crimes. A number of the alterations disproportionately harmed women, especially those from vulnerable groups, stripping them of freedoms, instating patriarchal lineage, and controlling their sexualities. Similarly, Anglo-Hindu law was a far cry from its original predecessor. Hinduism, in pre-colonial eras, was a collection of different religions with varying scriptures and beliefs across regions. As the laws were combined and then altered, it left Hindu communities with little from their actual cultural laws and religious scriptures.

A noteworthy example of the indoctrination of western morality into Indian social spheres was the introduction of homophobic and transphobic laws to India. Studies of pre-colonial India have shown that homosexuality was common and socially accepted. Sacred Hindu texts, ranging from stories of Gods to the Kamasutra, depicted homosexuality as holy and divine. Vishnu, the God of preservation, was conceived through the lesbian sex of two widowed queens. In addition, Gods often took the form of multiple genders and non-genders. In the Puranas, Vishnu takes the female form of Mohini. In the Mahabharata, Arjuna, a warrior and companion to the God Krishna, took the form of a man, a woman, and a non-binary figure. In the Ramayan, Rama chooses to live amongst Hijras (intersex and transgender people), narrating the loving and pleasant companionship they offered. These stories consist of a fraction of the gender diversity and gender transcendence depicted in Hindu holy texts. In the Indian Muslim communities, Qawwalis and Sufi music were celebrated for their homo-erotic nature. Under the Mughal rule, Hijras, also known as Khwajasarais were often politically significant, holding positions as members of government, military, and management of elite households such as the Royal families. Hijras were given land to build their communities upon, had the right to possess and transfer their own personal land, and to collect alms. However, historians have demonstrated that “the mid-nineteenth century saw a steep decline in khwajasarais’ social standing as they were impoverished by British imperial expansion into Awadh”. In memoirs, the western imperialist gaze is disturbingly clear in the language used by foreigners to describe Hijras. James Forbes, in Oriental Memoirs, called them “disgusting”. Flemish artist Solvyn, in his illustrations, called them “an outrage to morality”. In Governing Gender and Sexuality in Colonial India, Jessica Hinchy calls this period of time, when Britishers became aware of Indian gender non-conforming and transgender population, the “Hijra Panic”. In essence, between the 1830s and 1850s, the English became heavily concerned with the presence of Hijra communities, attempting to gather information and social understanding of the group of people due to the “unnatural” nature of their existence. Eventually, colonists institutionalized their homophobic and transphobic rhetoric as they introduced the Criminal Tribes Act to strip Hijras of their rights to inheritance and retract the given land to the communities. In Pre-colonial India, the distribution of land was a means to protect communities, fund education, and encourage community building. Thus, the Criminal Tribes Act was understandably detrimental to the Hijra people. The British also introduced the criminal law of Unnatural Offences, persecuting people for engaging in homosexual intercourse. As these laws were enforced, their messages became instilled into the Indian population, who internalized the harmful beliefs. In an article, Ira Trivedi explains:

“In an effort to align Indian culture more closely with British ideals, modernize Indian society, and ingratiate themselves with the colonial ruling class, several nineteenth-century Indian social reformers set about excising eroticism, including homosexuality, from Indian literature, education, and religion. Partly as a result of such efforts, a repressive attitude toward sexuality in general and homosexuality, in particular, became deeply intertwined with modern Indian nationalism.”

Before moving further, it is important that the chronology of the British Raj as it relates to religion thus far is reiterated. Two transitions have occurred. First, the British used the prospect of future instability to justify invasive reform. Then, they implemented English Common Law with respect to the diversity within the nations laws and customs. While it was initially used as a means to implement authoritative rhetoric and integrate themselves into social spheres, the British progressed into an attempt to completely dissolute the religions by taking control of implementation and distribution of knowledge. This process held the purpose of encouraging the spread of Christianity and English Common Law while instilling the belief of Indian degeneracy. While the effects of English Common Law implementation can be seen in the internalization of homophobia and transphobia, the true extent of damage caused by British Invasion can more effectively be understood in an analysis of the British’s control on Muslim and Hindu personal law.

It is crucial to understand that there is large consensus amongst historians that colonization constructed Hinduism and Islam in South Asia. As mentioned previously, upon invasion, the British set out to alter the religions and control the sets of population in accordance with English law and for English benefit. However, this construction goes as far back as simply creating the concept of Hindu and Muslim identity. In “The Hindu in Hindu self-Understanding”, it is explained that prior to the British’s entry, there was no politically consequential religious consciousness. 

 “there appear[s] to have been an absence of an overall sense of Hindu religious unity during the centuries prior to the appearance of Muslims... When the Muslims first arrived, they collaborated with the locals so that any alliance system that developed tended to cut across the foreign versus indigenous peoples division. In other words, rivalry was between class or special-interest groups rather than between clearly defined religious communities comprising the incoming "invaders" on the one hand and the local people on the other.”

When the British arrived, their prioritization of implementing religion based personal laws indicated that religious identity was of utmost importance, while in the past, cultural and regional community identification held this status. With the alteration of law and the ability to affirm/deny people’s relation to the religious laws they wanted to abide by, the British set out essentially telling people what their religion was and how to follow it. Their limited cultural context and regard for the different schools of thought, sects, and subcultures according to region led to the homogenization of both religions. This produced vaster differences between the two religions and became another significant event in the cultivation of religious consciousness. Hindus and Muslims were suddenly made aware of vast differences between each other in place of the unity they once felt as belonging to a certain subculture, region, caste, linguistic group, etc and led to communities throughout India feeling a sense of cultural displacement. 

In 1857, Indians grew frustrated and organized a revolt against colonialism and the work of Christian missionaries. Years of organized protest, both violent and non-violent, lead to the passing of the Government of India Act in 1935. This allowed Indians to regain limited control and access to government, but only at a provincial level. In addition, the theme of religion based division continued as the British clarified that separate electorates would be organized according to religion. As anti-colonial protests continued, the British sentiment of “divide and rule” seemed to be setting in place.  In “Hindu-Moslem Conflict in India”, it is explained that the concept of nationalism during the anti-colonial protests was largely Hindu-centered. Muslims, while sharing nationalist sentiment, understood that there was a difference in what each group expected from colonial exit. The Muslims soon felt as though they were not being equally represented and the Muslim League called for Partition in order to establish a Muslim country. This was an immediate product of the division caused by the British as they constructed disparate Hindu and Muslim identities. In 1947, Mountbatten, officially declared the partition plan, splitting Indian provinces disproportionately and declaring the emergence of an independant Muslim country and an independant Hindu one. 

The chronology of British Rule in India as it concerns religion is essentially an account of British Rule in India in its entirety. That is, the British used fear of future religious conflict as means to invade. This, in itself, was the beginning of religious identity construction in the region. By controlling and altering religious law, the Europeaners changed the native’s understanding of themselves, one another, and their communities. Centuries of “divide and rule” based politics lead to the most formative event in South Asian history. The partition of India and Pakistan was gruesome, responsible for over a million deaths, cultural displacement of many millions of people, and the multiplication of severity of Hindu-Muslim Rivalry. Interestingly enough, while the British were responsible for this to a large degree, it was only at this point that they had chosen to retreat to their home country. This event, the decision to leave natives at each other’s throats and in the midst of conflict that would influence international relations for decades to come, was the final hurrah of British rule in India.