Hardening of Identities

8/6/2019 Hardening of Identities

1/5

Sindhis: Hardening of Identities after PartitionAuthor(s): Rita KothariSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 35 (Aug. 28 - Sep. 3, 2004), pp. 3885-3888Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4415467 .

Accessed: 06/04/2011 08:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4415467?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4415467?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw


2/5

Sindhis: HardeningfIdentities a f t e r PartitionOvertwomillionHinduSindhis(whoformeda religiousminority n Sindh,now in Pakistan)migratedto Indiaduringpartition.Theirpsychic wounds and rupturesremain unknownto most.Ofthese ruptures, he most serious one has been thecommunity'smovetowardshardened dentities.Yet ess thanahundredyears ago, the Sindhispractiseda verynon-textualisedform of Hinduism.RITA KOTHARI

rT hediscussionherehingeson thoseyears in colonial Sindh when theHindus and Muslims were movingfrom fluid and porous religious identitiesto more segmented ones. This shift inidentities did not take place overnight,nor was it a uniform phenomenon, but itundoubtedlyhas it roots in the tumultuousyears from 1920 to 1947 during whichSindh became an autonomous provinceand was eventually lost to Pakistan. Iden-tities that had hitherto been blurred andintertwined stood out as distinct 'andcommunal duringthatperiod. It it regret-table for this researcherthat a traditionofcommunal harmony and sufi-syncretismshould have turned into a cesspool, leav-ingalegacy of hatredamongHinduSindhiswho contributesubstantially today to theupsurge of religious fundamentalism inIndia.This is not to suggest that theHindu-Muslimrelationship n pre-colonial Sindhdid not have imperfections, nor to re-inforce the common cliche about 'divideandrule policy' so easily attributed o theBritish. However, colonialism and itsattendant institutions caused serious im-balances in the socio-economic life ofSindh andthis paper links up imbalanceswith emerging self-images.This paperis neither a history of Sindhnor what Gyan Pandey terms as the 'thecommunal riot narrative' dominant incolonial historiography (1990:23). It is anarrative built of multiple, official andunofficial, biased and not-so-biasedsources written on both sides of the bor-der. Atbest, itprovides ahistorical contextfor a study on the Sindhis of India.

Bordering he Indianstates of Rajasthanin the west and Gujarat in the north,Sindh hadbarelydrawncolonial attentionuntil the mid-19th century. Multiple

interpretationsrevailonwhytheBritishneededSindh n the 19thcentury,a land-lord-dominatedackwardural ector.Ac-cording o ClaudeMarkovits2000), theopium rade carriedout from Rajasthanthrough indhon itswaytoChinaed theBombay government's interest in theprovince.Sindh also provideda com-mercialandpolitical gatewayto centralAsia. This combinationof commercialand militaryinterest made the Britishmake several (abortive) attempts tocaptureSindhresultingn its annexationfromtheTalpurMirs n 1843.Sindhwasone of the last provinces o be annexedand it seemed that once the Bombaygovernment's nterests were served, itcared ittle for Sindh'sdevelopment.Theregion of Sindh was largelya huntingground for English officials and theBombay government's ttitude o Sindhremainedndifferent akingheprovince'stransitionfrom feudalism to colonialmodernity onsiderablylow. Accordingto HamidaKhuhro, he Sindh that theBritishencounteredwas "likethe rest ofIndiaat the timeof theconquest, peasantsociety ruled by despots of either theimperial rlocalvariety. t was likeIndia,essentiallya 'medieval'societywithnoinklingof democratic ractice.Therewashowever a very significant differencebetween Sindh and the rest of India.Sindhwas the only provinceof the sub-continent which was overwhelminglyMuslim in population. n Sindh75 percent of the population was Muslim,whereas n the PunjabandBengal, heirmajority rovinces,ittleover50 percentwere Muslim" 1981:170).British olonialismbroughtwoimme-diateand ar-reachinghanges nSindh'shistory: irstly, t brokeanuninterruptedIslamic ule datingback o712ADwhenSindh irst ell to thearmyof Muhammad

binQasim)andthereby auseda transferof power from Muslim to non-Musimauthorities.econdly,teffected hemergerof Sindh with the Bombay PresidencyshatteringherebySindh'sgeographical,cultural ndpolitical solation romIndia.So far Sindh's relationshipwith 'Indiaproper'was somewhat pisodicand t hadtherefore,orbetterorworse,evolved tsownpolity.Withtheconvergence, indhceasedto be isolated rom maincurrentsin Indiaduringhe 19th entury.Theemer-gence of modern ocial andpolitical n-stitutions n Sindh establishedby bothHindusandMuslims arelargelyan out-come of thisphenomenon. heproximitywith pan-Indianmovements eft neitherthe Hindus nor the Muslims untouchedalthough he manifestations aried.Occupational Economy

As mentionedearlier,the Hindus ofSindh(who form the chief focus of mystudy) were a religious minorityin aMuslimprovince.However, his had notpreventedhemfrombeingSindh'smostwealthy class. On visiting Sindh, thefamous ravellerRichard urton emarkedthat "throughout indh, the Hindu ele-mentpreponderatesnthecitiesand owns,the Moslem in the country the formereverywhere epresents apital,the latterlabour"1993:298).Thetwopredominantcommunities,milsandbhaibandsmongHindu Sindhiscontrolled he economy.The amils (literallymeaning,the 'edu-catedones') operatedas revenuecollec-tors andconsultants o the TalpurMirs.The bhaibands traders,moneylenders,shopkeepers)ominatedconomyoutsidethe court.In some senseeverynon-amilHinduSindhi was a merchant nd histo-riography n Sindh refersto the 'Hindubania'or 'Hindu ethia'to denote ts all-embracingmercantileclass. It must bementionedhatthese economicdivisionsamongHindu Sindhisdeterminedheirsocialhierarchy. he Hindus f Sindhareexceptional n being free of the caste-system.However, t is beyondourscopeto contextualise his phenomenon.As for the Muslims of Sindh,a verylargeclass (approximately4 per cent)wasformedby agriculturalistsr thehariswho tilled lands for MuslimandHinduzamindars.The Muslimzamindaror arespectedlderlynvillageswascalled hewadero ndheoperateds he eudalmasterfor bothHindusandMuslims. npoliticalterms,all HinduSindhis(no matterhow

Economic and Political Weekly August 28, 2004 3885


3/5

rich) were under the religio-political au-thority of the Mirs or the royalty, the pirsor the religious elite and the wadero orfeudal chiefs - the threepowercentres thatcharacterised the Muslims. The Muslimsof Sindh, although a numerical majority,were poor, uneducated and lived mostlyin villages. The paradox of an affluentreligious minority and a politically-strongbut poor majority was on4y one of theparadoxes of Sindh, its most unique fea-ture was the religious eclecticism sharedby both communities. Before we moveover to the socio-religious practices inSindh, it must be mentioned unequivo-cally that Sindh's most vulnerable classwere the haris. Both Hindus and Muslimswere engaged in exploiting this rural and-tilling class although from the late 1930s,the Muslim League made false claims tosafeguard its interests.1

Socio-Religious DynamicsIt is evident in the section above thateconomic and political relationships be-tween Hindus andMuslims in Sindh werefarfromsymmetrical.Theeconomic poweramong the Hindus found its complementin political power of the Muslims. Exceptfor the peasant class which remainedexploited byall, Sindhhadevolved its ownnetworks of understanding between theHindus aindMuslims. None of the eco-nomic andpolitical asymmetries damaged

a sufi-indoctrinated way of life in Sindh.Modes of religious worship in Sindh werefairlyeclectic andit involved a widespreadparticipation of the two major religiouscommunities in the worship of saintsbeloiiging to the other community[Markovits 2000:48]. Not idyllic, but arelatively harmonious world view charac-terised religious matters in Sindh. Thismay be explained by Sindh's long expo-sure to Sufism and Sikhism, as well itsculturaldistance fromtherest of India.TheHindus of Sindh practised a very atypicalform of Hinduism which precluded thecaste system but included the worship ofdargahs and pirs.Religious boundaries in Sindh were soporousthatMotiramRamwani notes, "theHindu of Sindh ceased to be a Hindu, andthe Muslim ceased to be a Muslim. Islamcame to Sindh in the form of Sufism,GuruNanak's Sikhism came without itsKhalsa element, all forms of religiousthough changed their nature in Sindh"(1987:136). The names of Shah AbdulLatif, Shaikh Ayaz and Sachai Sarnast

leave little room for substantiatingSindh's long tradition of sufi syncretism.On the whole, indistinct identities thatcould not be attributed to any singlefactor and may be accounted by severalhistorical reasons (such as large-scaleconversions, influences of Sikhism andSufism, a non-brahminicalandmercantileculture) made Sindhi's socio-religious lifefairly unique.Responses to Colonialism

Coming back to colonialism and theresponses it evoked from Sindhi Hindusand Muslims, it is possible to agree withK R Malkani who notes that the Hinduswere far more enthusiastic than Muslims(1984:61). The merger with the BombayPresidency proved to be psychologicallyreassuring for the Hindus who were thenno more a religious minorityin anisolatedprovince. Italso gave them theconfidenceto use theircapitalistic power andallowedthem to own land. It is a matter of debatewhether Hindus could own land in pre-colonial Sindh. K R Malkani's view thatHindus suffered fromMuslim tyrannyandcould not neitherown land,norhold publicfunctions betrays an uncritical perceptionof the times (1984:79). At the same time,even an ideologically divergent historianlike Hamida Khuhro admits of a 'large-scale transferof agricultural andfrom theMuslim harito the Hindubania in colonialSindh' (1981, 1991:171). Khuhro's studyofcolonial SindhclearlyimpliesthatBritishlandreformsenabled the Hindus to chargerampantly high rates of interest upon theharis and increased the exploitativetendencies among Hindus. It is believedthat on the eve of partition,HinduSindhisowned 40 per cent of the cultivable landin Sindh. According to Markovits thesefigures are exaggerated, and need not beattributed to the myth about 'usurious'Hindus, the capital accumulated by theHindusmayhavecome from theirdiasporictrade (2000:44). The differences betweenvarious historical perspectives notwith-standing, it does seem clear that Britishrule proved economically beneficial forthe capitalistic Hindu. It is possible to seethe benign effects of colonialism even onthearnilsection of HinduSindhis. Like thekayasths from north India, the amils hadthe wit to learn British administrativetechniques and from being indispensablein themirs'courts, they became indispens-ablegovernmentemployees intheBombayPresidency.Inthemeanwhiletheshikarpuri

tradersalso carriedon with theirdiasporictrade despite the British presence, whilethe bhaibands (another trading section)began selling Sindhi embroideryandcraftto British colonies.

Unlike theHindus,the Muslims of Sindhdid not gain direct benefits from the newdispensation. The transfer of power fromthe pirs and mirs to the Britishauthoritiescreatedtremendous sense of displacementamong Muslims. Secondly, the Muslimslargely lived in rural Sindh and could nottherefore easily create an urban, well-heeled middle class that existed amongthe Hindus. According to G M Syed (thedoyen of Sindhi nationalism) English co-lonialism was indifferent to villages, itsbenefits went only to urban Sindh(1982:25). The new schools were in urbancentres while the Muslirns were in ruralSindh and the new education policy wasnot the kind of education Muslims wereused to [Khuhro 1981:171]. The censusfigures for 1921 point to a sharp discre-pancy (to the ration of 10:1) in the levelsof literacy between Hindus and Muslims.Over the three decades of British rule inthe 19thcentury,the Muslims foundthem-selves at a disadvantage, politically andfinancially, vis-a-vis Hindus and othercommunities.

Emergence of New OrganisationsThe economic unrest among Muslims

led to the formation of importantorganisations such as the Sind Moham-medanAssociation (1885), SindZamindarAssocation (1886) and Sind MadrassahBoard (1885). Formed by leading andeducated Muslims such as HassanallyEffendi and G M Bhurgri, these organi-sations would play significant roles inchartinga political course for Sindh in the20thcentury.Althoughthepolitics of theseorganisations were not revolutionary ornationalist' in the sense which came tobe accepted later, they "'safeguarded heinterests of the Muslim community as awhole whether these were agriculturalinterests or the demand for adequate rep-resentation npolitics" [Khuhro1981:172].According to Khuhro,such modernpoliti-cal organisations by Muslims formedpressure groups of their own and soughtthe separation of Sindh from BombayPresidency. However, during their incep-tion in the 19th century, they saw them-selves as representing a particularclass,rather han a religiouscommunity.Thesamenon-communalotiongoverned he

3886 Economic and Political Weekly August 28, 2004


4/5

establishment of early Sindhi Hinduorganisations (such as the Sindh sabha,later namedas Sukhi sabhaandbuilt alongthe lines of the Brahmo Samaj).2 In factthe trajectoryof modern organisations inSindhrevealsthatexcept in cases ofMuslimLeague and the Hindu Mahasabha in theyears before partition, membership in-cluded both communities. However, a sig-nificant difference lay in the organisingprinciples of bothcommunities which alsoreflect their respective concerns: organi-sations by HinduSindhis had the thrust ofsocial reform, while the Muslim organi-sations aimed at economic justice anddistribution of resources.

At this point, it is useful to mention thatsocial reform activities among HinduSindhis inspired by the progressive idealsof the Brahmo Samaj during the 1860stapered into revivalistic reforms of theArya Samaj by the end of the 19th cen-tury.3 Thepresenceof theArya Samajwasa response to a plea made by a leadingreformer Dayaram Gidoomal (who wasalso one of the founding fathers of theSindh Brahmo Samaj) to Arya Samaj inPunjab.Theplea followed a feeling amonga certain section of the Hindu reformersthat heHinduconversions to Islamneededto be stopped. Consequently, PanditLekhrajand Pandit Puran Anand reachedSindh and made concerted efforts to stopHindus from converting to Islam. Theyalso introduced the shuddhi ceremony orthe purification drive by which convertedHindus could be brought back into theHindu fold [Chellani nd:56]. This linkwith 'pure' Hinduism would foster, as weshall see later, new ones in future andprove decisive in reshaping a HinduSindhi's identity.Changing Contours

As we move from the 19th to the 20thcentury, the luxury of neat divisions be-tweenpolitico-economical and social livescease to be available for historicisation.Political developments in the20th centurySindh, like anywhere else in India of thattime, are much closely intertwined withthe socio-economic concerns to allowseparate treatment. Hence, the followingdiscussion attempts to capture (however,inadequately) the flux that characterisedSindh in the20th century. For the firsttwoand a half decades, from about 1900s tomid-1920s, intellectuals from both com-munities opened themselves up to anti-imperialisticctivities edbytheCongress.

The 'SindhStory' by K R Malkani, heautobiographicalccountby NarayandasMalkani,and thebiographicalccountofChoithram idwani leadingigures romSindh'spubliclife - referto the HinduSindhis'admirationorLokmanya ilak'srevolutionaryactivities [Malkani1984;N Malkani1973; Behrwani1994]. It isdifficult o assess whetherMuslimsparti-cipatednthesepre-Gandhianovements.However,Gandhi'svisittoSindh n 1928provedto be a landmark vent for bothcommunities.G M Syed movinglyde-scribes his visit to Larkanoor the firstKhilafat conference in Sindh and hisdecision to join the Congress in thefollowingwords:"Born n Muslim amily,having tsowntraditionsnd entiments s wellasitsownpasthistory...Ihadcome to anearlyageunder ufistic nfluence nd wasmentallyin receptivemood to welcomethe Con-gress" 1996:30).In the 1940s,the sameG M Syed would turn into a bitter andunhappyopponentof the Congressandjoin the Muslim League. Writing toChoithramGidwani, a well knownCon-gress leader)duringthatperiod, Syed'sletter s a signof thetimes:We are at theparting fways.Timealonewilldeterminewho followed the pathof righteousnessand who went after the shadowof com-munalism"1996:33).Muchhadchangedin Syed's life, and in the life of Sindh.Itis difficult to summarisehe transitionalmoments n Sindhafterthe KhilafatandNon-Cooperation,both of which wereabandoned y 1923-24.Commenting nthatperiod,Khuhronotes,"InIndiatheugly head of communalism reareditself...the high passions aroused bymass movements resulted in turningthosemovementsntoreligious renzy...the communal bitterness and strifespread hroughout India in the 20s andits effects were felt in the peaceful,tolerantatmosphereof Sindh as well"[1982: Introduction].The efforts to forge a 'proper'VedicHindu dentity as opposed o a nebulousone that hadhithertoprevailed) hathadbegun nthelate 19thcentury,ntensifiedover heyears.WhileHindusweremovingaway romblurredeligiousines, heSindhMuslimLeaguewaswooing heMuslims.The polarisation n the religio-politicalaffiliationsof the twocommunities ard-ened furtherwith the issue of Sindh'sseparationromthe BombayPresidency.The neglect of Sindh by the BombayPresidencyed to Sindh'sdemand oran

autonomous province, a process thatconsumed the energy of two generationsof Sindhi leaders. The demand to separateSindh from the Bombay Presidency wasa local, administrative issue at the begin-ning of the century and in which bothHindusandMuslimsparticipated.Theissuewas first broughtto a platform by GhulamMuhammed Bhurgri and HarchandraiVishindas representing both Muslim andHindu opinion in 1913. It seemed then toboth HindusandMuslimsthatSindh woulddevelop better without the autocraticgovernance of the Bombay Presidency[Mateke 1998:131]. Ever since the Britishcaptured Punjab, suggestions were madeaboutabsorbing Sindhin the Punjab prov-ince. It was admitted even by the Britishofficials that Sindh was a self-contained,territorial unit that did not stand to gainmuch from the Bombay government.However, the subject of separation as-sumed a different complexion once Hinduand Muslims were represented by theHindu Mahasabhaand the MuslimLeague.Sindh seemed like a foundation on whichto build the edifice of a Muslim nation,while the Hindu Sindhis feared that theywould be reduced to a religious minorityin a separate Sindh. From the Muslimpoint of view, the Hindu minority wasfortified against any kind of damage asthey were much too affluent andpoliticallyorganised to suffer at the hands of localgovernment in Sindh. The withdrawal ofHindu community's support to theseparation movement generated a lot ofbitterness among Muslims and as debatesbecame intense in the 1930s, the relation-ship between the two communities under-went severe tests. It is not possible to gofurther through the tortuous path ofSindh's separation and its emergence asan autonomous province in 1936 becausemyriad motives and implications underliethe issue. When Sindh acquiredautonomyon April 1, 1937 (by the government actof 1935), an "unhealablerift hadoccurredbetween Muslims and Hindus" [Khuhro1982: Introduction].

Writing n 1947, Syed says, "Duringpastdozen years or so events have taken placewith such breathless succession that evenlandmarksstand exposed to oblivion andobliteration" [1993: Introduction]. Sepa-ration from Bombay Presidency did notbring Sindh peace, in the ten years from1937 to 1948 Sindh suffered fromfrequentethnic strife. Among the first incidentsthatrocked heHindu onfidencewasthemasjidManzilgahpisode.RespondingoEconomic and Political Weekly August 28, 2004 3887


5/5

a mass demand by the Muslims, theMuslimLeague ookupon tselftorestorea 15thcenturymosque hathadgone outof useduringhe British ule.Themosquestood next to a Sadh Belo, a place ofHindupilgrimage. he Hindu ommunityregisteredtrongprotestwhenthousandsof Muslimsn thesummer f 1939enteredtheManzilgaho offerprayers.What ol-lowed were the Sukker riots in whichHindus uffereda greatdeal.In theearly1940s,therewere more nstancesof spo-radic murdersof the Hindus.Gandhi'sexchange of letters with the Congressleaders uringheSukker iotsandgenerallawlessness n the 1940srevealanequallystrained elationship, developmenthatwould eadHinduSindhis o reposetrustin more 'effective'organisations.Mean-while, the MuslimLeague had planteditself firmlyon the soil of Sindh.It wasinSindh hat hequestionof partitionwasfirstraised nformallyn 1938 and even-tuallya resolution upportinghe demandfor Pakistanmade n 1942.Supported yMuhammadAli Jinnah,G M Syed, themost sensitive and secular leaderfromSindh,was the primemover of the reso-lution. Syed had hoped that a Muslimgovernmentwould finally give Sindh'sMuslimpoordue ustice,adream hatwasnever to be fulfiled.Meanwhile,omequestions ontinue obemarkedyambivalence: id heMuslimSindhiswantan Islamicstate or did theywant a better ife for its poor?Wasthereresentment gainstall Hindus or only aminorityhatormed he exploitativepperclass?' Was the upsurgeof communalfeelings in Sindh universalanddeep?Itisverydifficultor hisresearchero accessanswers o thesequestions,butit is clearthatdynamics etween 0percentMuslimsand he27percentHinduSindhiswho feltunwelcome nd nsecure reverycomplexandnosingle actor an'explain'whytwomillionHinduSindhis eftSindh n 1947.4In the last 10yearsof their ife in Sindh,theHinduSindhiunderwentmany ealandimaginedfears. At a time like this, adifferent rganisationwas bothassuagingand reatingnxietiesnthem.Thememoryof this organisationcontinues to live,especiallyin the mindsof manySindhimen.Itwouldbeoneamongmanymemo-ries thatthe HinduSindhis would bringwith them.Burieddeep in theirsubter-raneanpsyche,to be revivedsome othertime, n somecontext, hiswouldbe theirassociationwith the RashtriyaSwayam-sewakSangh.B3l

Notes[This researchwas assistedby a fellowship fromthe SouthAsia Programme f the Social ScienceResearchCouncilwithfundsprovidedbytheFordFoundation.]I Incidentally, muchresented, ewish-like igureof a Hindumoneylenderwho allegedlythrivedon the blood of the harisbeganto recur n thelate 19th and 20th centuryhistoriographyon

Sindh.2 After Sindh's merger with the BombayPresidency,the Hindu Sindhi came in touchwith reformorganisationsn India.Amongthefirstdevelopments n this regardwas NavalraiSevakram'smeetingwithKeshubChanderSenthat ed to the establishment f the SukhiSabhain 1866. At the same time, reform in Sindhacquired localslantandwomen's ssues exceptin the case of dowry) hardlyever figured inSindh. For theearlyperiodof social reform eeMotiramRamwani's Sindh Asanjo Vaarso.3 From this period on, it becomes difficult todescribe the interstices betweencontradictoryworld views of Sufismon one hand andAryaSamajon the other.The anxietyof conversionin Sindh of the 19thcentury certainlyservedas the bedrock of certain 'back to the Vedas'movementsandshuddhi angathans.t is usefulto contextualise the Hindu Sindhi's intenseresentment owardsconversions(in a hithertofluidsociety) againstSindh's ncreasing ontactwithpan-Indianmovements, ndalso aresponseto missionaryactivityin India. For the historyand reach of the Arya Samaj in Sindh, seeGobind Chellani's Sindh ail Arya Sanlaj.4 Since Sindhhasremainedmarginal ohistoricalandacademicdiscourse, ourcesonthisprovinceare few andfarbetween.ThehistoriographynHinduSindhishas a specialproblem;tnomoreformsapartof scholarshipnPakistan.nIndia,the Sindhis are a scattered, stateless andmercantile ommunity all of which has made

their history in the 20th century escapedocumentation.ReferencesBehrwani,Assandas 1994): ChoithramGidwani,

Bombay.Burton,Richardreviseded 1993):SindRevisited,Vols I and II, Departmentof Culture andTourism, Governmentof Sind, Karachi.Khuhro, Hamida (1981): 'Muslim PoliticalOrganisationsn Sindh, 1843-1937' in SindhThroughCenturies,OxfordUniversityPress,Karachi,pp 170-79.- (1982): 'Introduction',Separationof Sind.roBombayPresidencyHistoryof IslamicCultureand Civilisation in Hamida Khuhro(1999)(ed),Islamabad,TheMakingofModernSindh:British Policy and Social Change in theNineteenthCentury,OxfordUniversityPress,Karachi.Malkani, K R (1984): The Sindh Story, Sindhi

Academy, Delhi,Malkani, Narayandas (1973): Nirali Zindagi(Unusual Life), NavrashtraPress, Mumbai.Markovits,Claude(2000): The Global WorldofIndian Merchants 1750-1947: Traders ofSindh rom Bukhara to Panama, CambridgeUniversityPress, UK.Mateke, Philemon (1998): 'The SeparationofSindh from Bombay Presidency'in MughulYakub(ed), Studieson Sind, PakistanStudyCentre,Universityf Sind,Jamshoro,p131-60.Pandey, Gyanendra 1990): TheConstructionofCommunalismnColonialNorth ndia,OxfordUniversityPress, New Delhi.Ramwani, Motiram(1987): Sindh ain AsaanjoVarso(Sindh and our Inheritance)Mumbai.Syed, G M (1982): Sindhua ee Saanya(Under-standingSindh) introducedandpublishedbyKiratBabani, Mumbai.

-(1996): StruggleforNewSildh, SainPublishers,Sehwan Sharif, first edition 1949.

MadrasInstituteof Development Studies79, 1IMainRoad, Gandhinagar,Adyar,Chennai-600020.Workshopon 'Social Science: Dialoguewith Researchand Activism,Teachingand Policy',February 7 and 18, 2005TheworkshopeekstoexploremultipleacetsofinteractionetweenSocialScienceanda) Research ndActivism,)PolicyMaking,ndc) Teaching.Formoredetailsvisitwww.mids.ac.in.Papers are invitedfrom researchers,teachers, activists andpolicymakerson any of the above-mentionedhemes.Abstractsnotexceeding 300 wordsshould reach [email protected], 2004Selectedcontributors illbe expectedto submit heirpapersnotexceeding8000wordsbyJanuary 5,2005. MIDSwillmeettravelexpenses and offer ocalhospitality. Director.

3888 Economic and Political Weekly August 28, 2004

Documents

Hardening of Identities