South Asia in 1947: Broadening Perspectives

South Asia in 1947 Broadening PerspectivesCONFERENCE  PROGRAMME

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

South Asia in 1947: Broadening Perspectives

Institute of Historical Research (IHR) Power and Postan Conference

12 June 2017 • 9am-5pm

Wolfson Conference Suite,

Senate House, University of London,

Malet St, London WC1E 7HU

Keynote: Dr. Yasmin Khan (Oxford)

2017 marks the 70th anniversary of perhaps the most important year of South Asia’s 20th century. The year saw the end of the British rule in India and the creation of the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. As was pointed out for another equally turbulent time, 1947 was a year in which “decades happened.” This day-long international conference will explore the consequences of 1947 for South Asian history seventy years, focused on themes as wide-ranging as ideologies, cultural reconfigurations, global politics and regional histories.

9am                         REGISTRATION AND WELCOME

9:15-10:15am      IDEOLOGIES IN AND OF 1947

Chair: Dr. Taylor C. Sherman, Lecturer in Department of International History, London School of Economics

Muslim Merchants in India’s Partition

Danish Khan, DPhil Candidate (History), University of Oxford

From Jalandhar to Multan: Journey of Khair-ul-Madaris and Maulana Khair Muhammad (1931-1947)

Fakhar Bilal, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, Royal Holloway University of London

Politics of Islamisation in Pakistan 1947-1956: Tracing the roots of ‘Islamic Law Commission’

Mansoor Ahmed, PhD Candidate, Centre for South Asian Studies, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris.

10:15-10:30 am           TEA

10:30am–12pm    CULTURAL RECONFIGURATIONS IN AND BEYOND 1947

Chair: Dr. Katherine Butler Schofield, Senior Lecturer in Music, King’s College London

Memory and Memorialisation along the Indo-Pak Border

Dr. Churnjeet Mahn, University of Strathclyde and Dr. Anne Murphy, University of British Columbia

The Region and the Nation in Post-colonial Indian Museums, 1947-1970

Mrinalini Venkateswaran, Museum Consultant, Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum, Jaipur; and PhD Candidate in History, University of Cambridge

Unraveling a National Symbol: Partition and the Lahore Museum

Aparna M. Kumar, 
PhD Candidate, 
Department of Art History University of California, Los Angeles

Interrogating Nationalism and Partition in Middlebrow Hindi Magazines, 1945-1960

Aakriti Mandhwani, PhD Candidate, South Asian Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies

12-1pm                LUNCH

1-2pm                   KEYNOTE ADDRESS

‘South Asia’s Partition in a Global Perspective’

Dr. Yasmin Khan (Associate Professor, 18th to early 20th century British History, Oxford)

2-3:05pm              A GLOBAL PARADIGM FOR 1947 

Chair: Dr. Jon Wilson, Senior Lecturer in British Imperial & South Asian History, King’s College London

Reverberations of Partition: The Echoes of the Partition of South Asia in 1948 Palestine/ Israel

Rephael Stern, PhD Candidate, History, Harvard University


“Belsen, without the gas chambers”: Partition, Genocide and History

Dr. Gavin Rand, Principal Lecturer in History, University of Greenwich

“When Britain caught a cold, India got pneumonia”: Collective Trauma and Nehru’s Evolving Worldview (1940-1955)

Adam B. Lerner, PhD Candidate in Development Studies, St. John’s College, University of Cambridge  

3:05-3:20pm        TEA

3:20-4:25pm        REGIONAL HISTORIES OF 1947 

Chair: Prof. Sarah Ansari, Professor of History, Royal Holloway, University of London

Rehabilitating’ Delhi: Partition and the Post-colonial Order in India’s Rajdhani

Dr. Anjali Bhardwaj Datta, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and JRF Wolfson College, Cambridge

Claiming a New Sindh

Uttara Shahani, PhD Candidate in History, Cambridge

Freedom in a Penal Colony: How the Andaman Islands became Indian

Dr. Uditi Sen, Assistant Professor of South Asian Studies and History, Hampshire College, Amherst, USA

4:25-45pm           DISCUSSION: ‘BROADENING PERSPECTIVES ON 1947’

4:45-5pm             CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTE OF THANKS

This conference free to attend but registration in advance is required.

Click here to register. Registration is free. 

All refreshments will be included for the breaks.

Delegates (not speakers) will need to bring their own lunch.

                    LIST OF ABSTRACTS

PANEL 1: IDEOLOGIES IN AND OF 1947

Chair: Dr. Taylor C. Sherman, Lecturer in Department of International History, London School of Economics

 

Muslim Merchants in India’s Partition

Danish Khan, DPhil (History) at University of Oxford

Partition studies have focussed mainly on the high politics, displacement, violence, competing nationalisms, and creation of a new citizenry. Due to the magnitude of the population transfer and the large-scale violence that accompanied Partition, some regions/cities (Punjab, Bengal, United Provinces, Delhi, Calcutta) and groups (service gentry, landlords, nobility, and professionals) have been of more interest to historians and scholars. My paper examines the prominent families and individuals belonging to the Muslim trading communities (Khojas, Bohras, and Memons) in Bombay and examines their response to the Partition.

My research indicates three broad trends that emerged among these Muslim merchants due to Partition. The first was the creation of a new market to expand business, second was the opportunity that new regulations offered to increase profit margins, and third was to protect their trade networks in Africa and Europe. Using police reports, court cases and family histories, I seek to present Partition not just as a process of violence, but also as an opportunity for growth.

I argue that these responses were fashioned due to their relative political ambiguity, cosmopolitan outlook, and transnational links. Thus unlike the larger (North Indian) professional class, these groups were highly interested and eager to maintain links in both the countries in order to consolidate their business interests. However, travel restrictions and evacuee administration forced them to explore other destinations or maintain status quo. In this paper, I seek to demystify how Partition became the high-point in disrupting the balance between the project of capital and their political project.

From Jalandhar to Multan: Journey of Khair ul Madaris and Maulana Khair Muhammad (1931-1947)

Fakhar Bilal, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, Royal Holloway University of London

For most of Islamic history, the transmission of the central texts of Islam, (the Quran and the Hadiths’) and the skills required to make them socially useful were undertaken primarily in the households of ulema (learned men). In the classical Islamic era, the process did come to be formalised for some in the madrasa or college. Such colleges slowly spread throughout the Islamicate world. It is estimated that by the turn of the twentieth century, there were hundreds of such centres of learnings in south Asia. One of such institutions was Khair-ul Madaris of Jalandhar established by Maulana Khair Muhammad in 1931 and eventually transferred to the city of Multan in 1947 after partition as “Mohajar Khair ul Madaris”. Since independence, the number of madrasas has rapidly expanded due to many socio-cultural reasons. My focus is on Pakistan where the number has gone from 189 in 1947 to c. 10,000 in 2002. A large majority of these new foundations, almost over 7,000, have been of the reforming Deobandi tradition. This paper explores the complex issue of how a reforming tradition of Deobandi origin, that was opposed to many expressions of Sufism prevalent in the city of saints -Multan, could expand in a region which was considered a stronghold of Islamic mysticism.

My concern is to study how Khair-ul-Madaris of Jalandhar, a Deobandi madrasa, came to be established in Jalandhar and consequently transferred to the city of Multan in the southern Punjab after the partition. Multan was a city which was centre of shrines and sufi traditions and it is interesting to see how a Deobandi madrasa sought support and made a space for its development and sustainability within the existing environ. Furthermore, I explore the forces of social and economic change which favoured its growth, whilst being alert to and acknowledging the evidences of tension between the Deobandi reformers and the intensely Sufi environment in which they moved.

Politics of Islamisation in Pakistan 1947-1956: Tracing the roots of ‘Islamic Law Commission’.

Mansoor Ahmed, PhD student, Centre for South Asian Studies, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris.

After the establishment of Pakistan, Constituent Assembly took almost nine years for drafting the first Constitution which was promulgated on 23 March 1956. One of the reason for this delay was the demand of the ulema in politics to have the authority to abstain future legislatures from drafting any ‘un-Islamic laws’. Consequently 1956 Constitution required the government to appoint an ‘Islamic Law Commission’ (Commission) to bring laws in conformity with Quran and Sunnah and to provide legislature such measures that could be given legislative effects to introduce the injunctions of Islam. The Commission was appointed under the Chairmanship of Justice Muhamad Sharif and ten other members. Although this Constitution was abrogated in 1958, later Constitutions provided Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology and Council of Islamic ideology for nearly same purposes in 1962 and 1973 respectively. This Commission has been out of the radar of the researchers till date, despite being the first institution established by the Pakistani state under the pressure of the ‘political ulema’. Its composition exhibits the approach of the government towards the inculcation of Islam in the ‘veins’ of the country and the profiles of its members depict the aspirations of the various school of thought by what they meant by ‘Islamic Pakistan’ in initial years. By skimming through the debates of the first Constituent Assembly, Reports of the Board of Talimaat-e-Islamia and archival notifications available about the members of the Law Commission, this paper will provide its comprehensive picture. It will conclude that it were not only the ‘political ulema’ that were striving to resort in this Institution, but the government also intended to keep religion in center of contention to successfully laminate its own flaws and this tradition persisted with the establishment of Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology (1962) and Council of Islamic Ideology (1973).

 

PANEL 2: CULTURAL RECONFIGURATIONS IN AND BEYOND 1947

Chair: Dr. Katherine Butler Schofield, Senior Lecturer in Music, King’s College London

 

Memory and Memorialisation along the Indo-Pak Border

Dr. Churnjeet Mahn, University of Strathclyde and Dr. Anne Murphy, University of British Columbia
This paper proceeds from a concern for how memories continue to be both allowed for and erased within the memorial locations located along and across the Indo-Pakistan border, with reference to the “larger Punjab” (in cultural, religious, and linguistic terms) that is so easily erased from the memorial landscape in adherence to national and nationalizing boundaries.  The violence of partition is itself under-remembered: while there have been scholarly attempts to address the history of the violence, there are no memorials or popular sites of memory dedicated to it in Punjab or Delhi, which saw the majority of the violence.
This paper explores issues of heritage and memory through two specific case-studies that address different ways of thinking through and experiencing the border through Punjab, to suggest the ways in which nationalizing memories work and are reworked across this border. Firstly, we consider a particular site that relates to a broader transnational, non-geographically bound form of Punjabi heritage: literature produced in the Punjabi language on both sides of the border. There are multiple locations that support, sustain, and advance a broader idea and practice of Punjabiyat or “Punjabiness,” across the border, yet this one site’s failure to thrive in the post-colonial Indian state gestures towards the problems associated with this discourse in the modern Indian state. We will also consider a recent project conducted at a tourist site in Sirhind, Punjab to think about how the historical lives of monuments are censored and erased.

Interrogating Nationalism and Partition in Middlebrow Hindi Magazines, 1945-1960

Aakriti Mandhwani, PhD Candidate, South Asian Studies, SOAS.

The proposed paper interrogates the salience of 1947 as a point of rupture in the realm of commercial Hindi magazines from 1945-1960. Indeed, ideas about service to the nation, and the vagaries of partition, are present in these magazines, however, only through their absence. I shall analyse a select archive of commercial Hindi magazines in the post-Partition period to re-examine the 1950s from the perspective of middle class consumption. The post-Partition period has predominantly been studied in the context of a Nehruvian nation-building narrative insisting on the deferral of pleasure in the service of the nation. The paper suggests that the archive of Hindi commercial magazines—and the birth of what I call the “middlebrow” magazine in Hindi—offers an unexpectedly rich entry-point to an alternative understanding of the middle classes as everyday consumers who defied the state’s prescription by carving their roles outside the institutional logic of austerity.

I define the middlebrow magazine in this context as a “wholesome” magazine in the logic of the market that gives rise to individualized acts of and demands for reading. I particularly focus on women readers within the space of the family that, as a unit, had by this time, begun to covet the magazine as a material object, and most importantly, reference itself in the light of its consumption. First, I shall discuss Saritā, first published from Delhi in 1945, as the pioneering middlebrow magazine in Hindi, promoting service of the self, of the individual within the family, through various forms of consumption and creative self-representation. I will then examine Saritā in the light of pre-Independence journals and their focus on service of the nation, service to literature, and women’s space within this narrative.

Finally, I shall evaluate Saritā against lowbrow magazines such as Māyā and Manohar Kahāniyā and investigate representations of Partition within the magazines. While the middlebrow magazines ignored the narrative of Partition entirely, it did enter the pages of the lowbrow magazines; their responses shall be considered in the final section of the proposed paper.

The Region and the Nation in Post-colonial Indian Museums, 1947-1970

Mrinalini Venkateswaran, PhD Candidate in History, University of Cambridge and Museum Consultant, Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum, Jaipur

The many partitions of the Indian subcontinent remain a subject for investigation, despite the decades that have gone into analysing and understanding them. Various studies have focussed on the history and underlying politics, the chain of causation, repercussions in the form of communalism and migration, and its impact on communities and genders. It also sits at the heart of national and regional identities in South Asia. I seek to explore how they were constructed in postcolonial India, by moving away from older or flagship institutions like the Indian Museum or National Museum and looking instead at smaller, regional museums that were equally committed to the nation-building project. Linking the partition of land and people with collections, I focus on Indian Punjab, which lost its provincial museum to foreign – soon enemy – territory, and was granted a new capital (Chandigarh) with the requisite museum.

Partition and the image of the nation appear self-evident and monolithic in the public imagination, whilst being highly polarised. I seek to break down, texture and activate the narrative: objects did not simply end up in one place or the other, telling a particular story, of their own volition; someone put them there, for a reason. Using the archives of the individuals behind the Chandigarh Museum, I hope to expose the deliberate, constructed and fluid nature of identity that is conversely presented as innate, authentic and immutable, by virtue of the power of antiquity and heritage, and that of the museum.

Unraveling a National Symbol: Partition and the Lahore Museum

Aparna M. Kumar, 
PhD Candidate,
 Department of Art History University of California, Los Angeles

The museum’s close ties to the nation-state have long been central to its history in South Asia. Though introduced to the Indian subcontinent in the nineteenth century, as an instrument of British colonial power, museums in India and Pakistan were quickly refashioned in the 1940s, as a crucial vehicle for national politics and identity. While the museum’s historic ties to Enlightened, rational thought, and Western conceptions of progress made it an important declaration of civilization and power, museums erected anew at Delhi and Karachi proved to be key players in the production of nationalist art historiographies. Lesser explored, however, are the histories of violence and disjuncture that punctuate this otherwise triumphant historical transformation of museums in South Asia, histories suppressed by the fervor of nationalist rhetoric on both sides of the border. Of concern to this paper, in particular, are those experiences catalyzed by the violence of partition in the 1940s that tend, by contrast, to configure the museum in South Asia less as a symbol of creation and national pride, and more as a site of destruction and loss.

Specifically, this paper examines the history of the Lahore Museum, and the process by which its collections were dramatically split between India and Pakistan in 1949. Central to my analysis are the physical ramifications of this process of division upon the institution’s collections. I also explore the ideological relationship that develops in the 1950s between the Lahore Museum, and its counterpart across the border at Chandigarh, where the Lahore Museum’s ‘exiled’ collections in India eventually found refuge. Ultimately, this paper seeks to unsettle prevailing claims that inscribe the museum as national in South Asia. It links the history of the Lahore Museum to discourses on exile, dispossession, and homelessness, and in so doing re-positions the museum in South Asia as a site of physical and ideological tension, where the politics of partition continue to unfold. In deference to my larger dissertation project on partition and visual culture in India and Pakistan, of which this paper is a vital part, my analysis of the Lahore Museum will also be a means to reflect on partition’s larger epistemological ramifications for the field of South Asian art history today.

PANEL THREE: A GLOBAL PARADIGM FOR 1947

Chair: Dr. Jon Wilson, Senior Lecturer in British Imperial & South Asian History, King’s College London

Reverberations of Partition: The Echoes of the Partition of South Asia in 1948 Palestine/ Israel

Rephael Stern, PhD Candidate, History, Harvard University


This paper examines the reverberations of the 1947 Partition of British India in Palestine/Israel. Examining Zionist-cum-Israeli connections to and borrowings from India and Pakistan in the years surrounding the 1948 War, I argue that, while Zionists found striking similarities between the unfolding realities in Palestine and South Asia, the exact nature of the comparison– was India or Pakistan “the doppelganger of the Jewish State”?—was quite equivocal. At times, such as during their prolonged efforts to establish diplomatic connections with India, Zionists saw and portrayed themselves as more akin to Indians. At others, they identified Israel as paralleling Pakistan. This was especially pronounced as an array of Israeli officials and Zionist actors, including Joseph Schechtman and Zalman Lifschitz, transplanted recently-legislated Pakistani Evacuee Property Ordinances into Israel to legalize the confiscation of Palestinian Evacuee Property. This paper makes two general contributions. First, the focus on Israeli transplantation of Pakistani law underscores their shared British legal legacies. In contrast to the significant literature on legal transplantation across the British Empire, less attention has been given to transplantation among post-colonies. This paper seeks to demonstrate one case of the post- colonial life of an originally British colonial law and show that, while partition certainly bred chaos and loss it, it also produced a legal afterlife. Second, I draw attention to the fact that Israeli actors involved in transplanting Pakistani law were part of broader currents of population transfer thinking in interwar and WWII-era Europe and the partitions and population displacements in Palestine and South Asia. As I show, Zionists involved in transplanting the Pakistani legislation were engaged in both debates about population transfer, minority rights, and federations and confederations in wartime Europe as well as in those concerning global demography and population distribution. In this way, Palestine/Israel served as meeting point for ideas and practices from post-WWII Europe and the emergent postcolonial world.

“Belsen, without the gas chambers”: Partition, Genocide and History

Dr. Gavin Rand, Principal Lecturer in History, University of Greenwich

This paper explores the nature of, and contemporary reactions to, partition violence. Focussing on Punjab, the paper charts the systematic and purposeful nature of violence by examining the responses of those charged with maintaining order during the partition of the province – the soldiers and officers of the Punjab Boundary Force. Exploring how witnesses made sense of 1947, it shows how partition violence, and its effects, may be situated in a wider history of twentieth century violence, and considers what relocating partition violence in this broader context might help to reveal, for historians of empire, South Asia and genocide. Ironically, despite the proliferation of works on genocide in recent decades, there have been few attempts to examine the partition in relation to wider histories of violence. The paper examines why this lacuna has developed. The aim is not to add partition to the cannon of genocide studies but to historicise ‘genocide’ as a framework for thinking about and categorising forms of violence. Rethinking the place of partition in wider histories of violence can help us to better understand both partition and the categories we use to make sense of mass violence.

“When Britain caught a cold, India got pneumonia”: Collective Trauma and Nehru’s Evolving Worldview (1940-1955)

Adam B. Lerner, PhD Candidate in Development Studies, St. John’s College, University of Cambridge  

 In this paper, I argue that the traumas of the 1940s, including India’s coerced involvement in World War II, the Bengal famine and partition violence, caused Nehru to reimagine his vision of non-alignment. Whereas previously, beginning with his early involvement in anti-colonial conferences in Europe and his initial involvement in INC leadership, Nehru had expressed a vague desire to create a non-aligned bloc of nations committed to economic development and opposition to imperialism and fascism, by the 1940s he demonstrated far more skepticism towards alliances of any variety. This shift, in my estimation, largely occurred because of India’s traumatic experiences from 1940-1947, many of which Nehru envisioned as caused by global coercive alliances and imperialist interests.  By the Asian Relations Conference in 1947, we begin to see a generally independent streak in Nehru’s world view that came to define Indian foreign policy for the next decades. While Nehru still expressed aspirations for some sort of idealized pan-Asian solidarity, he no longer connected this sentiment to any tangible foreign policy agenda, including any sort of alliances or economic cooperation with other emerging postcolonial nations.

This argument is relatively novel, as much of the scholarship on Nehru’s world view deals largely with shifts after Indian independence rather than its intellectual genealogy. Further, most scholarship tends to regard non-alignment as a fairly stable, albeit idealistic, ideology rather than a contested, evolving world view. Such insight on its intellectual roots will contribute greatly to the perennial debate among Indian historians of whether or not Nehru did indeed abandon his goal of non-alignment towards the end of his prime ministership, whether his vision of non-alignment adjusted during these later years, or whether non-alignment itself did not constitute a singular ideology over time. I believe my argument will cement a vision of non-alignment as an unstable and ever-changing worldview that never constituted a singular vision for Indian foreign policy.

PANEL 4: REGIONAL HISTORIES

Chair: Prof. Sarah Ansari, Professor of History, Royal Holloway, University of London

 Rehabilitating’ Delhi: Partition and the Post-colonial Order in India’s Rajdhani

Anjali-Bhardwaj Datta, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and JRF Wolfson College, Centre of South Asian Studies, University of Cambridge, UK

With the partition and independence of the subcontinent, within a very short span of time, Delhi became a city of refugees. As the refugees squatted the urban terrain, the anxious Indian state responded by hastily drawing out rehabilitation plans, to ensure desired urban development of the nation’s capital city. This paper will argue that rehabilitation of refugees was increasingly subordinated to the ‘proper growth’ and development of Delhi. Restricting the numbers of refugees in Delhi, building refugee townships at a distance from the main city, and the harsh evictions of refugee squatters attest to the privileging of Delhi in India’s rehabilitation policy. The obvious point about partition was that the state had lost control of the capital city, and planned rehabilitation and dispersal was a means to regain that control. The government earmarked a variety of sites for urban expansion after partition towards the south and west of the city. Partition thus, was one of the most significant events in the history of Delhi. It both continued, and intensified, the role of the government as chief architect in ‘directing’ urban expansion. Yet, as this paper will argue, in spite of government’s efforts to manage Delhi’s growth, the city grew beyond that vision, reflecting instead the refugees’ view of the city’s role in their lives.

Partition Refugees and ‘Re-territorialisation’ in Kachchh

Uttara Shahani, PhD candidate, Faculty of History, University of Cambridge, UK

On the morning of 30 January 1948, some hours before he was assassinated, Gandhi received a telegram from the dewan of the Maharao of Kachchh, informing him that the Maharao had granted fifteen thousand acres of land to Sindhi partition refugees, adjacent to the Kandla port in Kachchh. Gandhi had urged the Maharao to accept the request of businessman and philanthropist, Bhai Pratap, to grant land to the refugees. My paper relies on unstudied primary sources to examine the resettlement of Sindhi partition refugees in Gandhidham-Adipur, the twin township that refugees built near Kandla port. Sindhi refugees remain an understudied group; their resettlement and rehabilitation followed a unique trajectory, in part, due to their deterritorialisation. Claiming Gandhidham as a ‘new Sind’ thus acquired great significance to its refugee founders. Right from the start there were tensions between refugee aspirations and government schemes for Kandla, which thwarted the process of resettlement and rehabilitation. I uncover the circumstances in which the government gained control of the land the Maharao had granted to the refugees, and why the refugees eventually asked the government to reduce the land available to them to resettle. The significance of Kandla port forms a key part of this story.

Freedom in a Penal Colony: How the Andaman Islands became Indian

Uditi Sen, Assistant Professor of South Asian Studies and History, Hampshire College, Amherst, USA

The moment of arrival of the nation-state in South Asia has long been over-determined by partition and all it evokes in terms of violence, displacement and trauma. This paper shifts the focus away from the divided provinces and the impacted regions of north India to explore what independence meant in the Andaman Islands. It focuses on the transitional moment of the transfer of power, which sparked a debate on who the Andaman Islands belonged to. This brought into sharp focus not only rival claims upon the Islands, but also rival histories evoked by each claimant. The strategic importance of the Islands, coupled with British investment in rebuilding it after Japanese occupation led to secret plans to retain the Islands as a Crown Colony. Rivalling these claims were India’s nationalist claims, shored up by the history of confinement of freedom fighters in the Islands’ penal colony. Pakistan cited demography and the high percentage of Muslims, while Burmese claims rested upon geographical proximity and old ties of trade. Some Anglo-Indians even dreamt of building a distinct homeland in the Islands while the ‘Local Born’ descendant of convicts attempted to prevent the influx of ‘outsiders’ from the mainland. While India ultimately retained the Andaman Islands, these rival claims reveal the radical contingency that characterized 1947 in South Asia. This paper explores these rival claims to reveal the multiple histories that intersected in these Islands. In the ultimate analysis, the Government of India resorted to projects of ‘right-peopling’ the Islands with settlers from the mainland in order to securely moor it to the Indian nation-state. In the Andaman Islands, the transition from colony to nation-state revealed the erasures and violence that underlies any project of nation-building.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s