For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/shinkhlala.php#8

The Meos of Mewat were previously Rajputs who were converted to Islam during medieval times. They are considered as a unique community because they retained their Hindu customs even after their conversion to Islam, and articulated an exceptional form of cultural synthesis. They practised the beliefs of Islam but the roots of their ethnic structure were closer to Hindu caste society. The convergence of the two major culture systems among the Meos robbed them of an exclusive religious identity and rather gave them a composite identity, reflecting the elements of both Hinduism and Islam. This study deals with the notions of identity among the Meos and the accompanying vicissitudes of life that shaped the nature and form of their identity.

The main objective is to examine the nature of changes in the historical development of the Meo community and the problems of their identity construction.

In the recent past, some anthropological and historical writings on the Meos have generated a good deal of interest in Meo history. Two major anthropological works by Shail Mayaram, ‘Resisting Regimes’ (1997) and ‘Against History, Against State’(2004) underlined the significance of oral traditions and memories in the study of the marginalized communities like Meos. But the turning point in Meo historiography is the publication of ‘Contestations and Accommodations –Mewat and Meos in Mughal India’ (2016) by Suraj Bhan Bhardwaj. Another significant work is Suraj Bhan Bhardwaj’s, ‘State and Peasant Society in Medieval North India Essays on Changing Contours of Mewat.’ (2019) which gives a new dimension to the social and economic development of the Meos of Mewat.

Meo narratives show that the constant interaction of the villages/pals with the outside world through sectarian networks, marriage networks, pilgrimages, fairs, visits of brahmans, faqirs, bat and khyal performers, kinship linkages, rebellions, wars and alliances etc contributed to the formation of the Meos into a well-connected, well-informed and dynamic community.[7]

The narratives takes great care to situate the Meos in a distinctive spatial context (Mewat) and as an identifiable group (Meo), organized into thirteen clans.[8] The conversion of the Meos from Hinduism to Islam is a great watershed in Meo history and tradition. The conversion draws a line between the Meos and the Hindus as well as between the Meos (new converts) and Muslims. The conversion transformed their Hindu identity but did not altogether divorce them from their legacy. On the other hand, the converted Meos and the other Muslims were not a homogeneous entity. The Meos, despite their conversion, never regarded themselves and Muslims as one people and tried to reassert their ‘selfness’ from the ‘otherness’– ‘Mev to mullah ki na maney’ (Meo doesn’t pay heed to a mullah) We can see that the conversion helped the Meos to demarcate their boundaries with both the new and the old faith.

Hindu Identity

The Meos were born as Hindu Rajputs before adopting Islam in the medieval times.[9]The linkages between the Meo religion and Hinduism is more evident from their oral traditions. One tradition describes Lord Krishna as autari, (incarnation) who ‘enchanted the milkmaids, thus drawing upon Hindu theistic traditions.[10] The legend of Raja Basak Nath as one of the two mythic serpents, Vasuki and Seas Nag, who upholds the world, proves beyond doubt about their ability to remold gods and heroes into local identities.[11] Meo myths suggest linkages with Hindu traditions, such as the Vaishnavism of Brajbhumi and the Nath Jogis.[12] The theme of the descent of the thirteen Meo pals or clans from Hindu gods or heroes can be traced in their oral traditions.[13] Ramayana also figures prominently in the Meo traditions when we find ample references such as those of Kachhawaha Meo genealogies deriving Rajput lineages from Lord Rama’s sons, Lav and Kush.[14] The Meos also derived strength from a number of goddess myths and cults found in Puranic mythology and epic traditions. Chavand was the four-faced goddess of healing and Sitala was the goddess of small pox.[15] The seven Devis worshipped by some Meo households include Kalka, Hinglaj, Dhaulagarh, Gujuki, Nagarkot, Silliserh and Sherhmai.[16]

Meo narratives reflect the shared culture of pastoral-peasant groups. Meo rituals of marriage, childbirth and succession were similar to those of most other Hindu castes.[17] Like other Hindu communities, the Meos observed rules of purity and pollution with regard to low castes.[18] It is also reported that the Meos refrained from eating beef in some areas, and vegetarianism was widespread among them.[19] Rose reported that ‘in religion the Meos profess a happy combination of Hinduism and Islam, but in practice they worship countless godlings or symbols such as Siani, Mangti, Lalchi, Salar Masaud and his flag.’[20]

Muslim Identity

The Meos believed in a variety of Islamic ideologies which ranged from the Qadiris to the Madariyya Tariqa.[21] The warrior-saint Salar Masud was worshipped in every village on Shab-i-rat, Hussainis exercised reverence in Gurgaon, a group of fakirs showed religious inclination towards Banda Nawaz, while some others were followers of Hasan Basri of Basra near Baghdad.[22] The Meos observe various religious festivals like Id-ul-Zuha, Id-ul-Fitr, Muharrum and Shabrat. They also make pilgrimage to tombs of Mahomedan saints.[23]

Although the Meos were converted from Hinduism to Islam about ten centuries ago, their adoption of Islamic cultural practices or even the religious injunctions prescribed in the Quran remained at best nominal and did not advance beyond male circumcision and burial of the dead.[24]The author of a revenue settlement refers to the Meos as ‘lax Mohamedans’ who ‘rarely observe the fasts or attend prayers in the mosque, drink spirits and are quite willing to reverence the same deities as their Hindu neighbours.”[25] Similarly, Powlett, the Alwar ethnographer perceived that full-fledged Islam was not being practiced among the Meos who ‘are now all Musalmans in name; but their village deities are the same as those of Hindu zamindars.

Hybrid, Syncretic or Liminal Identity

The discussion over the religious trends among the Muslim Meos has rather complicated the question of their identity. On the basis of our present understanding, it is somewhat difficult to categorize the Meos either as Muslims or Hindus. In fact, this would be a gross oversimplification of the facts. The elasticity of culture and religion, practiced by the peasant communities of Mewat and the simultaneous manifestation of both Hindu and Muslim traits among the Meos offers possibility of designing some other kind of paradigm to understand the Meo identity. Are the Meos Muslims or Hindus? If none, then what are they– hybrid, syncretic or liminal? It is quite clear that the conversion of the Meos has not settled the issue of their identity. The case of the Meos demonstrates that the religious conversion is often only partial because communities continue their pre-conversion practices and is also differentiated within the same community.[26] Hence, the notion of ‘conversion’ itself needs to be reviewed. Conversion suffers from binary syndrome as it tends to eclipse the social reality of the converted communities. It is not a ‘cut and paste’ technique  but a kind of a transformation of matters of faith ‘from’ one state ‘to’ another. To be more precise, the converted communities remain in a transitional state for a very long period.

The question of Meo identity is that of ethnic boundaries, cultural overlapping and intermediate identities. It may be noted that the problem of the Meos is not an isolated one as there are quite a few communities like the Muslim Merat, Bhatti, Kayamkhani Rajputs and Malkana Rajputs of central India who inhabit an interstitial space between Hinduism and Islam although the precise configuration of each displays substantial variations.[27]

The notion of hybridity emphasizesthe transgression of religion and language and is juxtaposed to purity and exclusivity, it is restricted in time and space to the metropolitan. Hybridity suggests how two entities combine to produce a third entity. But at any rate, the culture of the Meos is not hybrid as they are not a product of intermarriages between the Hindus and the Muslims but a simple case of religious conversion.

On the other hand, syncretism is used to describe the encounter between religions. Syncretism is a fusion, in perception or thought, of incompatible elements, somewhat like an inchoate image of two different things.[28] The analysis of the syncretic is in terms of the building blocks of ‘cultural traits.’[29] Its main drawback is that religions become the legitimate great traditions while the margins are seen as inhabited by little traditions.[30]

In case of the Meos, the term liminality seems to be more appropriate as it does not presupposes binarism but seeks to transcend the binary mode of thought and understanding.[31] Despite the conceptual distinction, there is translatability between the hybrid, the syncretic and the liminal.

The identity of the Meos has to be retrieved from the liminalism of the Meo culture. Here, the Meo personality is redefined, as Taylor puts it, in terms of bi-culturalism.[32] The Meos possess cultural flexibility whereby they can interact with the Hindus over puranic genealogy and at the same time they can express their Islamic affiliations. Meo identity is not to be seen as something static or fixed but rather as a dynamic and ever-growing phenomenon. Meo narratives reveal a fascinating and multi-faceted world where aspects of heterodox Shaivism, Vaishnava Bhakti and tantric belief and practice are entwined with those derived from Shia and Sunni ideology. The sources of Meo identity are also not fixed but scattered in form of many voices buried in their oral traditions– folktales, myths, legends, epics, authored and performed to different audiences across time and space. Both the texts and other Meo voices are a useful point of entry into thinking about the ways in which identities are constituted and contested.

Rajasthan religious traditions show that agricultural castes of whatever religion tend to share Shaivite and Sakta traditions of worship. Artisanal groups like tailors, washermen, barbers, potters, genealogists, leather tanners, liquor brewers and cloth printers consist of both Hindu and Muslim branches who share the same deities.[33] Meo Muslims carry on the cult of Allah as also animism and the worship of Pirs and other deities. The Meos believed that the gods also dwell in this world who extend help in need. To them, Mahadev is a benevolent god who is ready to help the Meos even to the extent of supporting them against the Hindu castes. A nineteenth century ethnographer described the Meos as ‘very lax Muhamedans, whose principle of action seems to have been to keep the feasts of both religions and the fasts of neither.’[34]

There are “ambhibious communities” which cannot be said to be either wholly Hindu or Muslim. Such are the Meos of Rajasthan, and their religious status is likely to raise some very difficult question of law. Their amalgam of the customs of the two religions was considered bizarre by both Hindus and Muslims outside of Mewat. The Meos’ response to this view of their culture was to avoid outsiders. But they felt no pressing need to bend in either direction, because their position in Mewat was secure. None of the other caste groups in Mewat questioned the Meo dominance. In their dealings with Meos, the Hindus virtually ignored the fact that the former had embraced Islam.

Many divergences in belief and practice among the Indian Muslims are due to their incomplete conversion. We have, therefore, had the communities or groups calling themselves Muslim, like the Malkana Rajputs of Uttar Pradesh and the Meos of Punjab whose beliefs and practices were inconsistent with the teachings of Islam.

The arguments over the Meo identity that have been presented here now lead us to two major points. First, from the twelfth-thirteenth century onwards, the journey of the Meos from one form of cultural group to another, their endless resistance with surrounding regional and imperial powers, tossing them from chieftainship to peasantry, have battered the community to such an extent that they have been left wounded with an overall fractured identity. Second, in an attempt to decipher the most appropriate mark of identity from among the above-mentioned sets of identities, the most preferable choice seems to be the Mewati peasant identity. During their evolution and course of struggle the Meos assumed different roles and as a result different identities but ultimately the most fundamental mark of

identification or the badge that decorated the Meo personality or which they would never like to lose was that of a peasant of Mewat. It was this peasant in the Mewati which transcended all other kinds of identities that may have characterized them from time to time. The Mewati drew upon from their Rajputism, they derived richly from their Hindu mythology, they equally took proud in their Islamic association but at the core of their heart they remained peasants. It was their pastoral-peasant identity which swept aside all other identities and gave them an outstanding and exclusive identity which separated them from both the Hindus and the Muslims. The formation of this unique community and the development of their unique identity is a classic example of cultural co-existence of so-called incompatible religions, unthought by Samuel Huntington who believed in cultural fault lines and the clash of civilizations. One cannot help discovering almost a conscious effort to imbibe the elements of both Hindus and Muslim cultures and to emanate a blend which is intrinsically Mewati. Feelings of reverence towards saints, scriptures and customs of both Hindus and Muslims are clearly visible, and both are absorbed as integral parts of the Meos’ rural cultural heritage.

The Meos are sons of the soil par excellence. They had accepted Islam as a religion in some bygone days and still take pride in regarding themselves and being regarded by others as Musalmans. Only such characteristics of this culture have been imbibed by the Meos as fit into their rugged pattern of rural life in Mewat. The other niceties born out of urban living, a certain economic standard combined with leisure, have at best come as a thin veneer to the Meos. Here in Meos we find a body of a Muslim and the spirit of a Hindus or more appropriately, a perfect synthesis of Indo-Islamic culture, one who can resist the hegemony of the mullahs and pundits and yet had the capacity to retain their Mewati-peasant identity. As peasants, the Meos remained closer to the Hindus of Mewat than to the Muslims of the rest of India. A very popular saying, emphasizing the superficiality of the difference between Hindu Jats and Muslim Meos is often quoted: ‘Jat kya Hindu aur Mev kya Musalman.

1. H.A. Rose, A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Panjab and North-West Frontier Province, vol. 1 (Delhi, 1990), p. 79-80; Imperial Gazetteers, vol. 17, p. 313. 2. K.S. Singh, People of India:Rajasthan, vol. 38, Part II, Mumbai, 1998, p 638. 3. Shamsuddin, ‘Marriage Customs among Meos of India,’ Journal of Indian Law Institute, 2, 1981, p. 258. 4. Bharatpur:Rajasthan District Gazeeteers, 1971, p. 98. 5. Shail Mayaram, Against History, Against State: Counter Perspectives from the Margins, New Delhi, 2004, p. 43-44. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. KS Singh (ed.), People of India, vol. 5, Delhi, 1998, p. 2282. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., p. 255. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. p. 43 16. Ibid. 17. Mayaram, AHAS, p. 41. 18. Ibid. 19. Watson and Kaye, “Mewatees,” in the People of India; Pratap Agarwal, “Islamic Revival in Modern India– The Case of the Meos,” Economic and Political Weekly, 4, 1969, p. 1677, 1679-1681; Cited by Mayaram, AHAS, p. 41 20. H.A., A Glossary of the Tribes and Castesof the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, New Delhi, 1990, p. 84. 21. Mayaram, AHAS, p. 39. 22. Ibid. 23. M.A. Sherring,Hindu Tribes and Castes, p. 90. 24. Shamsuddin Shams, Meos of India, Their Customs and Laws, New Delhi, 1983, p. 35. 25. Mayaram, op. cit., p. 41 26. Mayaram, AHAS, p. 37. 27. Singh Manushi Hardayal, Report Mardumshumari Rai Marwar (Hindi), vol. 1, Jodhpur, 41-51; Cited by Shail 27. Mayaram, ‘Rethinking Meo Idenity:Cultural Faulline, Syncretism, Hybridity or Liminality?’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa,and the Middle East, vol. 17, no. 2, 1997, p.35. 28. Bullock Allan et al, The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, London, 1986, p. 839. 29. Mayaram, ‘Rehinking..’, p. 36. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Taylor Charles, Sources of the Self, Cambridge, 1989; Cited in Mayaram, op. cit., p. 36-37. 33. Singh, op. cit., 34. Punjab District Gazetteers, 4A, p. 25.