Abstract
Nationalism is a fluid concept which needs contextual understanding. Construction of communal and caste identities played an important role in countering or qualifying nationalism in the United Provinces (UP) (1918–30). This article investigates the contents of some of the Brahman caste journals in order to study the evolution of identify consciousness, the construction of the ‘self’ vs. the ‘other’, where the self was always the Hindu upper caste, and the ‘other’ was invariably the ‘Musalman’. It is clear that identity consciousness had an overarching presence in middle-class UP in the 1920s—a presence which is clearly traceable in the caste journals published in that decade.
‘Myths, folktales, proverbs, genealogies, histories of caste, region, nation – a whole plethora of historical statements was … thrown up to underline the temporal axis, the heritage, the popular consciousness of common traditions by which the local community defined its own identity and projected its image to others.’ 1
Nationalism is a fluid concept which needs a contextual understanding. It is understood and practised in multifarious ways. The history of nationalism, as we understand it today, is entangled with the concept of modernity. Nationalism as it evolved since the late eighteenth century in Europe was inspired by processes such as Enlightenment and Romanticism and became the dominant political trend with the rise of industrial capitalism. European modernity travelled to Asia and Africa through the connections created by colonialism, of which nationalism aspired to be the nemesis. Construction of identities played an important role in defining nationalism in every society. Any study of Indian history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century would have to deal with this reality. It needs to be added that the spirit of nationalism did not evolve in a political vacuum. It took different forms and acquired various meanings, both for the coloniser and for the colonised.
Any study of British colonialism and Indian nationalism becomes complex, because it has to deal with the immense variety of common and conflicting interests on both sides. Right from the mid-nineteenth to the first half of the twentieth century, the sentiment of nationalism needs to be understood in phases, triggered by varied factors. The middle classes were obviously the prime movers of this sentiment in India, and their ideology or ideologies were framed under diverse influences. At one level, the socio-religious reform movements gained profound importance in the course of the nineteenth century, and, at another level, English education and its rapid spread was making the educated Indian aware of the real nature of imperial governance. The Hindu socio-religious reformers were trying, in part, to chart an identity, which would give Indians an exclusive and glorious heritage. This, in turn, would lead to a sense of the superiority of Indians (read Hindus) over others, including westerners. It has been said, at the same time, that ‘the Indian middle class which the British aimed at creating was to be a class of imitators, not the originators of new values and methods’. 2 What constituted this social class is a difficult question to answer. It was not their economic background alone that was defining its members, it has been claimed, ‘but … the abilities of its members to be cultural entrepreneurs … the middle classes in colonial North India were constituted not by their social and economic standing, but through public sphere politics’. 3
Members of the middle class used multiple means to establish their position in Indian society. At one level, by acquiring English education to understand what was happening in the West, they became ‘modern’ to a particularly limited degree. Thus, Sanjay Joshi refers to them as having acquired a ‘fractured modernity’. At the other level, they produced leading critics of colonial rule and ultimately the initiators of India’s national movement. These contradictions were as much related to their social stature, as of the times in which they lived.
Referring to the decade 1920–30, which is the focus of this article, it was a time when almost every aspect of the lives of the people was being defined in new ways. The First World War (1914–18) had brought to the surface and sharpened the contradiction between Indian and British interests. On the one hand, the war had affected Indian life through massive recruitment, heavy taxes, war loans and a very sharp rise in prices. On the other hand, it also showed up the falsity of the myth of the invincibility of British power. Such a situation germinated a diverse array of sentiments, such as a rise, in the words of Sudipta Kaviraj, ‘between tendencies, the axis and the periphery, the mainstream and the embarrassing fringe, the self and the other’. 4
By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the very heterogeneity of Indian society made the struggle for nationhood an immensely contested arena. What was very distinctive about Indian nationalism was that ‘though it was inspired by Western concepts of territorial and political nationalism, it was not identical with it. The cultural and religious factor was much stronger in India’. 5
Language, as used in journalism, was a parameter which was central in this contestation over nationalism. Krishna Kumar notes, with reference to the Hindi region at the beginning of the twentieth century, that ‘journalism performed the role of pulling together into a sense of community, a heterogeneous town based society’. 6 This heterogeneous society was mainly dominated by the upper caste, chiefly Brahmans and Kayasthas, who were the major contributors in journalistic production.
A mushrooming of caste associations had occurred in the late years of the nineteenth and early years of the twentieth centuries. Whatever the cause of the genesis of such caste associations, the Brahman caste journals painted a very glorified picture of these bodies, emphasising the point that these were voluntary organisations. Invariably, every issue of the Brahman journals contained several pages on specific caste associations. The opening page of every journal or at times the reverse side of the cover of each journal, contained the rules of the journal in which it was specified, as to which caste it was associated with.
For this article, I have referred to some of the Brahman caste journals, which I list below:
Chaturvedi, published from Agra, Kanpur and Lucknow, monthly journal of Chaturvedi Mahasabha. Brahman Sarvasva, published from Etawah, the sarvoyapogi monthly journal of Sanatan Dharm. Gaur Hitkari, published from Mainpuri, by the Narayan Samiti. Shri Kanyakubja Hitkari, published from Kanpur. The rules of this journal specified that all proceeds of the journal would be spent for jāti-sahayata (caste-aid).
All these journals were in some ways related to caste, each either by being an organ of a caste association or by laying down in their rules that the proceeds of the journals were to be used to help a specific ‘jāti’, or caste.
What is most striking is that the Brahman journals studied here tried to speak at various levels, that is, at times for the Brahmans, at other times for the Hindus and at still other times for all ‘Bharatiyas’ (Indians). Concerted attempts were made by the Brahmans writing in these journals to harp about a ‘glorious’, ‘ideal’, ‘Hindu’ past. This was juxtaposed to anarchical Muslim rule referred to as ‘yavana’ (barbarian) rule. Colonial rule was spoken of in contradictory ways, lauded at times as a period when the lost ancient glory was being redeemed, while on other occasions, portrayed simply as a continuation of foreign rule.
While the Brahman caste journals tried to posit the Brahmans (and, at times, the Hindus) as being the traditional heroes of Bharatvarsha, they also extended their claims to being ‘modern’ and thus fully eligible for the project of nation-building. But what cannot be overlooked is the fact that Hindu and Muslim streams of nationalisms developed along similar lines and the one needed the other. 7 A distinction between the ‘self’, as opposed to the ‘other’, which in the context of the Brahman journals invariably meant the ‘Hindus’ as opposed to the ‘Musalmans’ was a fixed assumption in the Brahman caste journals. Growing readership of these journals was ample reflection of the fact that the voice of the journals were not falling on deaf ears.
The Brahman caste journals reflect quite clearly the fact that communitarian mobilisation became a common feature in literate, middle-class life, be it religious, cultural, economic, educational or political. Emphasising this divide between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’, Gyanendra Pandey remarks, ‘All identities are built upon a series of identifications and exclusions, in other words of differentiation between “us” and “them”, the “self” and the “other”’. 8 Significantly, the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ could not be constructed in isolation. They had to exist simultaneously.
Individual identity is not just one’s relationship with others. It is not merely an ascriptive or achieved membership of this or that collectivity. It is essentially a matter of being and it is this consciousness of belonging to this or that collectivity and of being a member of an imagined community that determines the form of this identity. 9
What strikes one the most is that the ‘self’ of the Brahman journals was invariably the Hindu, understandably, while the ‘other’ almost everywhere was the ‘Muslim’. This can be considered to be a significant marker of the then existing worldview of the journals’ readers. Identity consciousness received impetus as higher caste Hindus felt threatened by ‘other’ communities. As Sudhir Kakar notes, ‘Cultural identity like its individual counterpart is an unconscious human acquirement, which becomes consciously salient only when there is a perceived threat to its integrity’. 10
A Glorious History of Self
Writers in the Brahman journals tried to project Hindus as possessed of a glorious ‘Hindu’ history. At one level, this could be seen as an act of cultural self-assertion directed against the British colonial regime. At another, such a move also tried to assert the point that Hindustan was the land of the Hindus, since time immemorial and therefore Hindus had a birth right over this land:
Mr Vincent Smith … has written the history of ancient India … that in those old times that is in the kingdom of Chandragupta and Ashoka, India was in the best of condition in all ways … See [also] the times of Ramayana and Mahabharata….
11
Thus, India was posited as a nation, from ancient times. By choosing ancient Hindu rulers and Hindu mythological texts in the articles, the colour to be given to this ‘nation’ was laid down. By specifying that such an account had been written by ‘Mr Vincent Smith’, it was implied that the glory of ancient India was not an invention of Hindus but had received the sanction of colonial officials as well.
Referring to Shivaji, it was said that ‘Shivaji was a genuine brave person. Even when he had a fight with the Musalmans, he never did injustice to their women. Even the enemy praised him, when he saw Shivaji’s bravery’. 12 What was emphasised here is that he was not only extremely courageous, daring, a true nationalist but also an immensely moral being, in tune with Hindu tradition.
The Goodness of Being a Hindu
Much of the material contained in the Brahman journals attempted to valorise the construct of the ‘self’ by giving Hindu jāti, Hindu dharm and Hinduism, in general, precedence over all others.
Nowadays, many of our rational brethren do not understand the difference between English courtship, Nikaah for the Muslims and marriage for the Hindu … To satiate the natural urge of one’s senses, marriages happen in other jātis. The motive of marriages in our jāti is to let flow of a constant source in a dam, which would water the seedlings of dharm (religion), arth (economy), kaam (desire) and moksha (spiritual liberation) in a disciplined manner. 13
What seems implied here is that while other jātis indulged in worldly, mundane affairs, the Hindu jāti (community) believed in spiritual development and self-discipline, along with kaam!
The Hindu jāti was projected as comprising staunch believers in a cult of brotherhood. A folk tale with a view to emphasising this trait is contained in a Brahman journal. A ‘baraat’ of Chaturvedis came to Agra. Realising the lack of resources in the girl’s house, all the Hindu baraatis drank sharbat from one glass. Seeing this gesture, an old Musalman asked, ‘Till this time only Musalmans were like this, which is this second jāti, which has evolved sharing the same practice… but now this custom [among us] is being lost systematically’. 14 Such a folk tale seems to be included in the journal to stress the fact that though the Hindu jāti was accused of being extremely rigid about commensality, in practice, that was not the case. They, that is, the Hindus were a lot, who were not irrationally particular about hygiene and could accommodate themselves fairly well, according to the circumstances. Inclusion of the statement by the old Musalman is also important, as it seems to be directed as a tone of ridicule by the writer, towards the Muslim ‘jāti’ which is portrayed as having misconceptions about their being the only community believing in equality and brotherhood.
One can acquire the title of an English citizen by following Christianity, or a Musalman or Jew citizen by following Muslim and Jewish religion but grace, reputation, pride and life can be derived only when one moves ahead as a genuine Hindu, protecting the real Sanatan dharm. 15
Here, Hindu dharm is shown as the only dharm, which could lead to the true progress of human beings.
‘Blessed is the Hindu mother, who infused her blood in a mass of flesh and gave to society a boy and to make her dear boy a human, left him in the lap of Savitri, after separating him from herself’? 16 A concept of heroic motherhood was being presented here to offer the image of a selfless and patriotic Hindu. The use of ‘baalak’ (boy, not daughter) is a significant indication of the gender bias then prevalent.
Characteristics Attributed to the ‘Other’
The ‘otherness’ of the Musalmans was repeatedly stressed by affixing certain attributes to them.
History’s Oppressive ‘Other’
Musalmans were repeatedly portrayed as the oppressive ‘other’ in Brahman journals. While talking about history, the obvious target were the Mughal rulers and the two figures who repeatedly appear in this list of tyrants are Aurangzeb and, rather surprisingly, Akbar.
Emperor Akbar … he decided that he could not gain, if he made the Hindus, specially Rajputs his enemy … The Musalmans were convinced by heart about the bravery of the Rajputs … This is the reason that he started allying with the Rajputs … The diplomacy of Akbar made him so deceitful, pretentious and adulterous and the Rajputs so weak, but competitive, [for favour] that they could not understand the real motive of Akbar. 17
At another place, Akbar was portrayed as a shrewd politician, who took advantage of the lack of unity among the Hindu kingdoms: ‘Seeing the mutual fights, the Mughal Emperor has taken a liking to “bandar-bhaat” (mutual wranglings)’. 18
It is common knowledge that Akbar was the Mughal emperor, whose policies were even-handed towards Muslim and Hindu subjects. He is considered to be a just ruler by most people. By painting him as a shrewd manipulator and mere opportunist, the Mughal Emperor was sought to be denied any claim to a genuine sense of justice or fairness.
Another historical figure who was constantly mentioned as a tyrant was Aurangzeb. In one of the articles, his reign was said to be a time of blatant abrogation of Hindu sanskaras. The writer goes on to glorify British rule as an era, when Hindus enjoyed the freedom of practising Dharm, in all manner of ways.
At another place, where the history of music was traced, it is asserted:
When Aurangzeb became Emperor … this was the last phase of music …. What is famous about this emperor is that all musicians who had been ousted from his state made an ‘arthi’, and moved beneath the windows of the royal palace, lamenting. When Aurangzeb heard this pandemonium, he leaned and asked, whose corpse is this? The musicians answered that it was that of the knowledge of music. Then Aurangzeb said where are you taking it? The people answered that they were taking it to bury it. Then the Emperor said that they should bury it so deep in the ground that it should never come out.
19
By penning down folk tales like the one associated with music, it was emphasised that Muslim rule led not only to the political, economic and social degeneration of Indian society, but also a phase where cultural developments were stalled.
The entire onus of major conversions from Hinduism to Islam was placed on the shoulders of Aurangzeb. Many articles asserted the exploitative nature of Mughal rule. Indeed, it was projected as the dark period of Indian history, being repeatedly referred to as ‘yavana’ rule. In the midst of such articles, British rule was referred to as the harbinger of the lost glory of the Hindus. On the one hand, such a viewpoint emphasised the ‘otherness’ of Muslims and, on the other, it gave a loyalist image to the journals.
The Lascivious ‘Other’
Various methods were employed in the Brahman journals to stress the ‘other’ community (invariably the Muslims) as lascivious by nature. One of the writers narrates a folk tale which he had heard in a village called Basua Gobindpur. This village had a characterless criminal Muslim Nawab called Khan. A beautiful Mathur girl was about to get married. The Khan started pressurising her father to marry the girl to him. The father, a staunch Hindu, in order to escape this indignity attempted to migrate from there. Midway, a fight ensued between the Mathurs and the Nawab. The boy’s side (who was to get married to the girl) also joined in the fight. The Khan met his end, and the marriage was accomplished. The language used for the Khan gives us some idea of the image that was portrayed of him. 20
In a feature titled ‘Vividh Samachar’, it was narrated, how —
A Bengali girl, named Padmini, who was fourteen years of age, got annoyed with her husband and was going to her father’s house. On the way, around six Musalman vagabonds committed atrocities on her. Finally, a Hindu chapraasi saved the life of the helpless girl.
21
Though the samachar [news] goes on to say that the Hindu husband was now refusing to accept her, and the girl was in a pitiable condition, the intention of the writer seems to be not to talk about the plight of the woman, but to emphasise the barbarity of Musalmans. If the husband is being spoken of as causing pain to the wife by not accepting her, it is not without reason that her saviour is also a Hindu chapraasi. Criminality is thus being projected in the journals, as largely the domain of Musalmans. Indeed, one does not get a single instance in the journals where a Hindu is shown as indulging in any criminal activity.
‘Other’: The Aggressor
The decade of the 1920s was a time when the masses entered the Indian political scene in a big way. Due to community-based mobilisation, riots became a regular feature of the politics of the United Provinces. Brahman journals repeatedly referred to Muslims as being responsible for rioting and the main authors of violence.
At one place, it was said that since the time the Hindu Shuddhi Sabha had decided to bring back the Malkana Rajputs within the Hindu fold, the Musalmans had started exciting the public in inappropriate ways.
At another place, it is said:
There were serious riots between the Hindus and the Musalmans, Hindus were hit hard and had to face many atrocities … and in reality Hindus were not to be blamed in this case. Riots began from the Muslim side, Hindus had to use some sternness in retaliation, which was essential.
22
The sharp distinction between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ is clearly evident here. Hindus were posited as being the victims of atrocities by Muslims, who were portrayed as a criminal ‘jāti’. Violence, if and when carried out by the Hindus, was covered under the garb of self-protection. In Hindu dominated areas, Musalmans were said to have experienced mere ‘inconvenience (kasht)’ whereas, in the mohallas of Musalmans, Hindus were said to have experienced real ‘atrocities’ (atyachaar).
‘Other’, the Unscrupulous
While referring to Ala-ud-din, who ruled in early fourteenth century, it was said that he was an illiterate, but a very scheming man. To pursue his expansionist goals, he had killed thirty to forty thousand Musalmans. The author went on to say, ‘What to say about Hindus? The idol of Mahadev of the Somnath temple was brought to Delhi with their permission, so that the Musalmans could trample it beneath their feet’. 23
The unethical conduct of Muslims was highlighted once again in the journal at the time when Swami Shraddhanand, an active propagator of Shuddhi movement, was assassinated on 23rd December 1926 by a Muslim named Abdul Rashid:
Shraddhanandji has been murdered in Delhi. When we remember him, tears start falling from our eyes. Hindu exists just in name in this country, i.e., India. A coward has defeated the lion, Shraddhanandji. The infidel had a revolver in his hand, which he fired. Five shots made Shraddhanandji helpless. My pen stops when I remember that illiterate. The blood of my heart has turned into water, keshavnandji.
24
‘Other’: The Greedy
The contents of the journals, in varied ways, tried to construct a consistently negative image of the ‘other’ community. A folk tale contained in one of the issues of the journal, Gaur Hitkari, emphasised the gluttonous nature of Musalmans. The story was about a 10–12-year-old boy named Sayyid Moin-ud-din. One day, an old lady gave him some bread to be offered to Hanumanji. While offering the bread, it seems, a thought crossed the boy’s mind. He thought, ‘O God! Will you eat the whole thing? Will you give me some bread?’ When he returned to the old lady, after leaving the bread grudgingly as an offering to Hanumanji, she asked him as to why he had greedily eyed the offerings intended to be made to the god. She went on to tell him that Hanumanji had come to know about his thoughts and had sent back half the bread to the lady. Moin-ud-din was surprised. The old lady told him to enjoy the meal. No one asks your jāti. Anyone who chants the name of Hari, belongs to Hari. 25
Though the story ends on a presumably ‘secular’ note, the reader would surely get an idea of the message intended to be conveyed by it. On the one hand, the Muslim boy was shown as being greedy to the extent of pining for the offering made to the divinity. On the other, the Hindu deity was signified as the Supreme Being who not only forgave the boy for his thought but also took care of fulfilling his desire.
Issues Related to Hindu–Muslim Relations
Cow
The cow had now become a potent symbol for communitarianism. As Thursby opines,
The practice of cow slaughter by Muslims in connection with the festival of Bakr-Id (Id-al-adha) was common in Northern India throughout the nineteenth and early part of twentieth century…. In any case, from the period of Muslim invasion and domination in India, the indigenous Indian attitude towards the cow which had become enshrined in authoritative religious texts, became also a point of distinction and of conflict between Hindus and Muslims.
26
Thus, we read in the Brahman press of the time:
As the Khilafat-related question is religious for the Musalmans, in the same way the cow protection movement is religious for the Hindus. But it is a pity that the Hindus are giving help to the Musalmans to solve the Khilafat question, but the Musalmans are not helping the Hindus as far as the Cow-protection movement is concerned, in the same measure.
27
Or again,
A butcher brought two cows to the township of Deendaarpur, a Brahman dominated colony, from the side of the four-sided bridge. He kept torturing the cow for one hour…. The hearts of several Musalmans were teeming with excitement…. In a lot of pain she ran, screaming about Hindu-Muslim unity.… Blood was oozing from her body. When this is happening at a time when Swarajya has not been attained, what irreligious incidents will happen, once Swarajya is achieved.
28
Thus, the Hindus are described as accommodative in their thoughts and deeds, as opposed to the Muslims, projected as intolerant and narrow minded. By describing the pitiable conditions of the cows at the hands of the Muslims, the barbarity of the Muslim community was stressed. Cow, thus, was intended to symbolize the ‘Hindu’ who was so forgiving and liberal, as to respond so fully to the call of Hindu-Muslim unity, even when cows continued to be slaughtered by Muslims.
Music
Another issue which became an active cause of Hindu–Muslim antagonism was music:
Then, as Musalmans complain that their Namaz is disturbed when Hindus play their instruments in front of the Masjid, likewise Hindus can also say that when they sit to offer prayers after getting up in the morning, and bathing, the loud voice of the Musalman Mulla during azaan [call for prayer] disturbs their prayers. The solution to this problem is that Musalmans should stop giving azaan in the morning.
29
The battle lines seem to be drawn here quite explicitly, though such articles tried to suggest that if Muslims had problems with Hindu practices, the Hindus too had complaints against them.
The irrationality of Muslims was also stressed, while talking about music. Referring to an incident which occurred in April 1926 in Calcutta, it was said that the Musalman Qazi had ordered the Arya Samajists to stop their kirtan in front of the Masjid. Unfortunately, there was a delay of 10–15 seconds in complying with his orders. The Muslims turned violent because of this delay and conflict ensued.
The idols of the Hindu temples were broken. Then what was there, the Hindus burnt down the masjids … Musalmans had thought that beating the Hindus was not a big deal, they had been beaten always, but not all days are similar. Seeing this bravery of the Hindus, all Musalmans on this earth, got disturbed and anxious. 30
The degree of integrity of the Muslims was assailed in an article ‘Baaja aur Muslim Dharm’ which said that all talk of the Muslims directed towards their opposing baaja [music] in the name of the Quran Sharif as well as opposition of Muslims to cow-protection were, in reality, various kinds of tricks which the Muslims were employing against the Hindus. Congress leaders were asked to look into the cause of such tricks being played by the Muslims. 31
Jokes
The same ‘other’ was at many places in the journals made the subject of humour. What follows are a series of jokes selected from caste journals directed towards the ‘other’:
Namaz was going on in the Masjid. Imam Sahib was standing in front of others. At that time, a Maulvi Sahib arrived, panting for breath. He started reciting the namaz. Another namazi who was standing beside him said, janaab, why were you so late in reaching the namaz today? Another namazi said, Miyan Sahib, talking during namaz is a great sin. A third namazi said, ‘Deegara ra nasihat, khud ra fazihat [Good counsel to another, committing the same wrong act oneself] is what you are doing. Why are you talking yourself? Is this not a sin?’ The fourth namazi said, ‘Regret! Great regret. What kind of a sin are you committing? You would have let others speak, but you shouldn’t have spoken’. The fifth namazi said, ‘You should have stood silent like me. See, how I am concentrating on my namaz. I am not caring for what you are saying’. At that moment Imam Sahib said, ‘I thank Allah, that I did not speak’.
32
On Holi, some Hindu young men went to steal some cow-dung cakes. A Miyan Phate Khan joined them. The Hindus picked up the cow-dung cakes and ran, but Miyan Sahib stood there with false pride and said, ‘Genuinely, Hindus are very timid. See, I am bold as a lion. No one eats me. Hindus are consumers of very watery dal’. After this, he picked up 5-10 cow-dung cakes. But, by then, seeing the proud bearing of Miyan Sahib, the owner of those cow-dung cakes got up. He silently walked towards Miyan Sahib. It was a moonlit night and Miyan Sahib saw his reflection; he threw the cakes and ran. But the owner threw his shoe, which landed on the temple of Miyan Sahib. At that time, the string of his pyjama got entangled with his feet and his pyjama opened. As he was running, he met his Hindu friends. Everyone burst into laughter. Some small children saw Miyan and said, ‘Holi aayee, bhoot aaya’ [Holi has come, ghost has come]. Miyan said, ‘What to say, I can only thank God who saved my life’. The Hindu said, ‘No thanks to Khuda; today is Thursday; you are a liar, that is why you have experienced this misfortune’.
33
One day, kheer was made in the house of a student, but his dog put his mouth into it, so he put it in a mud utensil and sent it to the house of the Maulvi Saheb. Maulvi Saheb was very happy. On the second day, the boy asked for his utensil. Maulvi Saheb said, ‘Brother, it has broken’. Hearing this, the boy started screaming and crying. The Maulvi Saheb said, ‘Oh! donkey, mardoor. Why are you crying? It was made up of mud only. The boy said, ‘Maulvi Saheb, you are right. But, actually, that utensil was meant to pick up the excreta of my younger brother. My mother will beat me now’.
34
Though the ‘jokes’ cited above speak for themselves, two or three observations need to be made. First, most of the jokes were directed towards the respectable strata of Muslim society, that is, Maulvi, Miyan, Imam and so on. By ridiculing them, the writers tried to show that even the respectable, learned section among Muslims was foolish and ignorant. Second, dietary habits formed the basis of building up the content of the jokes. Third, Muslims were projected as being that section of the population whom the Hindus considered dirty and filthy. Fourth, the jokes repeatedly tried to stress that Muslims were usually foolish in their conduct.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the influence of Professors Shahid Amin and Gyanendra Pandey in helping me to think about the issues discussed in this article.