{"title":"The Indian Muslim Salariat and The Moral and Political Economies of Usury Laws in Colonial India, 1855–1914","authors":"Michael O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtad013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the long-term response of the Indian Muslim salariat to the lifting of usury laws in British India in 1855. The salariat were a group of urban professionals and landed gentry in north India who emerged after the uprising of 1857. They espoused a self-conscious brand of Islamic modernism, a central feature of which was a reinterpretation of Islamic traditions pertaining to ‘rent on money’ (interest/usury). Hitherto, Islamic legal rules authorizing interest/usury transactions had been context-dependent, but, motivated by the colonial state’s abrogation of usury caps and a critique of prevailing Islamic legal norms, the salariat articulated a context-free interpretation of interest/usury in which the two were made distinct. Henceforth, interest transactions among Muslims were acceptable, but ‘usurious’ moneylending, conflated with ‘Hindu’ moneylending, was condemned. This pro-interest, anti-usury programme frequently fused Islamic exegesis with readings from European political economy. In turn, the salariat crafted a vernacular political-cum-moral economy that they sought to propagate among the Muslim masses. Nevertheless, by 1914 the salariat had largely disavowed this programme, convinced that the colonial state’s revocation of usury laws had produced a Hindu–Muslim wealth gap. Now a new conception of an ‘Islamic’ economy, in which all interest was anathema, materialized.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"32 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Past & Present","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtad013","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines the long-term response of the Indian Muslim salariat to the lifting of usury laws in British India in 1855. The salariat were a group of urban professionals and landed gentry in north India who emerged after the uprising of 1857. They espoused a self-conscious brand of Islamic modernism, a central feature of which was a reinterpretation of Islamic traditions pertaining to ‘rent on money’ (interest/usury). Hitherto, Islamic legal rules authorizing interest/usury transactions had been context-dependent, but, motivated by the colonial state’s abrogation of usury caps and a critique of prevailing Islamic legal norms, the salariat articulated a context-free interpretation of interest/usury in which the two were made distinct. Henceforth, interest transactions among Muslims were acceptable, but ‘usurious’ moneylending, conflated with ‘Hindu’ moneylending, was condemned. This pro-interest, anti-usury programme frequently fused Islamic exegesis with readings from European political economy. In turn, the salariat crafted a vernacular political-cum-moral economy that they sought to propagate among the Muslim masses. Nevertheless, by 1914 the salariat had largely disavowed this programme, convinced that the colonial state’s revocation of usury laws had produced a Hindu–Muslim wealth gap. Now a new conception of an ‘Islamic’ economy, in which all interest was anathema, materialized.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1952, Past & Present is widely acknowledged to be the liveliest and most stimulating historical journal in the English-speaking world. The journal offers: •A wide variety of scholarly and original articles on historical, social and cultural change in all parts of the world. •Four issues a year, each containing five or six major articles plus occasional debates and review essays. •Challenging work by young historians as well as seminal articles by internationally regarded scholars. •A range of articles that appeal to specialists and non-specialists, and communicate the results of the most recent historical research in a readable and lively form. •A forum for debate, encouraging productive controversy.