Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

Canadian restrictions against East Indian immigration were enacted as a way to settle tensions before they could turn violent. Indeed, the riots of 1907 in British Columbia set a precedent of violent racial outbursts that deeply affected Canadian immigration policy in the following years. Legislators had to tread carefully since, compared to other Asian immigrants, Punjabi immigrants were Imperial subjects, and India was still under British Imperial rule in the early 20th century. To avoid complicating their relationship with the British crown, the Canadian government had to deal with any restrictions on Indian immigration with caution. Unlike overt disdain for Chinese and Japanese immigrants, discrimination against East Indian immigrants needed to remain discreet. This was not as important in the case of Chinese and Japanese immigrations previously. However, the racial outbursts by white nativism activists, fuelled by the fear of East Indians ruining white aspirations of Canadian cultural homogeneity, caused enough unrest to force the federal government's hand. The continuous passage rule was adopted to prevent further violent escalations, and the Indian government was urged to discourage emigration to Canada. Despite this, anti-Indian sentiment prevailed in British Columbia. Hostilities would resurge whenever the perceived threat of new East Asian immigration would arise, resulting in a back-and-forth between the loosening and reinforcing Canadian immigration policies.

One such instance of reemerging racial tensions was when the Komagata Maru, with close to 120 East Indian migrants on board, docked in Vancouver. Chartered by Gurdit Singh, multiple reasons could explain such a daring voyage, namely the will to challenge restrictive Canadian immigration regulations. Sure, these discriminatory practices discouraged the majority of East Indians from immigrating to Canada, but if a ship were to make it to a Canadian harbor, would those policies be reinforced? A previous group was allowed entry on the grounds of illegal regulations. It was worth a shot in the eyes of Gurdit Singh, especially since the voyage could also potentially benefit him financially. Indeed, this could kickstart East Indian immigration to Canada, opening up a new business opportunity for Gurdit. Even if the forced entry tactic were to fail, the refusal to accept East Indian immigrants would fuel Indian nationalist sentiment. Canada's regulations and, by proxy, the British Imperial system would be considered a grave injustice against India and its people. For an Indian nationalist like Gurdit Singh, this opportunity would be too good to pass up. All in all, Komagata Maru's voyage to Canada had the potential to accomplish several Gurdit Singh's aspirations.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885, were key obstacles that restricted Indian immigration.
Chinese Exclusion Act set a precedent for broader restrictions against all Asian groups, while the Alien Contract Labor Law prohibited the immigration of foreign laborers under contract, except for domestic workers and skilled professionals. This law particularly impacted Indian immigrants, like Bengali peddlers, who were often seen as laborers, even if they entered the U.S. as merchants or traders.

Despite the restrictive immigration laws in the United States, Bengali Muslim lascars persistently found ways to circumvent these barriers
and make their way to the U.S. through loopholes in maritime labor regulations.

Bengali lascars employed by the British merchant navy could travel between various ports, including those on the U.S. East Coast.
As crew members on British ships, they were not subject to the same stringent immigration controls and were not classified as immigrants upon arrival. Some lascars took advantage of the temporary docking to desert their ships and remain in the U.S.
Lascars often integrated into existing immigrant neighborhoods in cities like New York and New Orleans. These communities provided a degree of anonymity and support, allowing them to evade authorities and continue working, often as peddlers or laborers.

By the 19th century the British had a monopoly on the textile market in India. Bengali Muslims from Calcutta sought to broaden their horizons by seeking out potential customers overseas. The U.S. craze for all things "Oriental" that gripped the U.S. in the late 19th century came at the opportune time for the lascars, who could establish a network. Lascars leaned into what Americans's exoticized ideas about India and "the East" to sell them goods they perceived as exotic and luxurious.

However, their success was dependent on performing the role of the exotic "Eastern traders". This limited their ability to expand beyond certain types of goods or roles. The cultural fantasy of the "mystic" or "stoic" Oriental merchant shaped customer expectations, making it difficult for Bengali peddlers to break out of the stereotyped niche they were expected to fill.

In the text, Samia describes the economy of marriage and nikāh in the Muslim Australian context by examining the transactional nature of mahar as seen by Anglo-imperial narratives in which such marriage transactions are called brideprice.

Stories describe this system as historically rooted in male dominance, where woman are "sold off" to their future husbands. Women’s family's economic and social security is tied to marital status and the mahar a women receives. Adelaide's father breaks off her engagement to Sher Khan in favor of Moosha as the later can freely navigate within the charged environment between British imperial policies and Afghan nationalism, ensuring financial prosperity.

Furthermore, marriage negotiations create a sense of rivalry between potential suitors, as they are compared . Sher Khan saw the annulment of his engagement to Adelaide as a source of great shame, one he could only remedy by murdering Moosha. Sher defended his attempted murder of Moosha by claiming his right over Adelaide, which he received through "Afghan law" while paying for her education, were transgressed when Adelaide was later engaged to Moosha. Sher uses the marriage payment as a testament to assert his right over Adelaide, objectifying her as opposed to defending her right to property. Thus, mahar, intended as a form of protection, becomes a tool for controlling and commodifying women.

The Durand line, which delineates British India and Afghanistan, created a where British Indians and Afghans where pitted against each other. Those who served the British government were considered savages, further fuelling the disdain for Moosha. Thus, Adelaide's marriage was incorporated into Afghani nationalist narratives.

Samia counters these views of Muslim marriage by highlighting the need for reinterpreting Islamic practices in contemporary contexts, prioritizing equity and consent. She suggests that while mahar should be a symbol of respect and support, it has been manipulated into a form of ownership and control over women. Samia advocates for a reinterpretation that aligns with the principles of justice and fairness inherent in Islam, emphasizing autonomy and equality for Muslim women. She argues for a cultural shift where marriage is no longer a transaction but a partnership built on mutual respect, and mahar is no longer a tool for control but a means to empower women.

For example, Samia critiques the way mahar has been traditionally viewed, explaining that “it is not merely a financial transaction but often becomes a means to regulate a woman's behavior within marriage” (Mohabir p. 28). She proposes that “reimagining mahar as a gift of empowerment rather than a form of control could redefine marriage in Muslim Australian communities” (Mohabir p. 32). She argues for a cultural shift where marriage is no longer a transaction but a partnership built on mutual respect, and mahar is no longer a tool for control but a means to empower women.

In contrast, Aboriginal women's marital rights were trampled on by "White Australia", namely through the installment of The Aboriginal Act in 1905. To assimilate the Aboriginal population within the white population, all aboriginal girls were restricted to strictly marrying white men, prohibiting marriage between Aboriginal women and South Asian men. This legislation had the goal of erasing the Aborigines by whitewashing them over a few generations. Aborigine women marrying racialized men would pose a threat to such a goal, as their culture and non-whiteness would persistently exist within "White Australia". Constant surveillance was placed over Aboriginal women and young Aboriginal girls were taken away from there families and institutionalized, disconnecting them from their aboriginal heritage at an early age. Lallie's marriage to Akbar was considered a criminal offense in Western Australia as it violated The Aboriginal Act. Her persistant efforts to escape incarceration and help Aboriginal women regain their freedom.

In the text, Samia describes the economy of marriage and nikāh (Islamic marriage contract) in the Muslim Australian context by examining the transactional nature of mahar (a mandatory gift from the groom to the bride). She explains how this system is historically rooted in male dominance, where women’s economic and social security is tied to their marital status and the mahar they receive. This system enforces a power imbalance, as the mahar, intended as a form of protection, often becomes a tool for controlling and commodifying women.

Samia counters this by highlighting the need for reinterpreting Islamic practices in contemporary contexts that prioritize equity and consent over tradition. She suggests that while mahar should be a symbol of respect and support, it has been manipulated into a form of ownership and control over women. By challenging these norms, Samia advocates for a reinterpretation that aligns with the principles of justice and fairness inherent in Islam, emphasizing autonomy and equality for Muslim women. She argues for a cultural shift where marriage is no longer a transaction but a partnership built on mutual respect, and mahar is no longer a tool for control but a means to empower women.

For example, Samia critiques the way mahar has been traditionally viewed, explaining that “it is not merely a financial transaction but often becomes a means to regulate a woman's behavior within marriage” (Mohabir p. 28). She proposes that “reimagining mahar as a gift of empowerment rather than a form of control could redefine marriage in Muslim Australian communities” (Mohabir p. 32). This shift would reflect an understanding of marriage that transcends transactional norms and fosters genuine equality and partnership.

Why would non-Muslim Africans be more willing to convert than Muslims, according to Diouf?
Muslim Africans were familiar with Biblical figures like Jesus and the Virgin Mary since most of them attended Islamic schools before their enslavement. They saw Christianity as an intermediate religion cast aside once the Prophet Muhammed delivered the Qur’an. Indeed, African Muslims were most probably aware of the Islamic critique of Christianity for conflating Jesus with the Divine, incurring God’s wrath. Islam was to re-establish the notion of a unique God, and Muslim Africans could not be swayed to convert to Christianity simply because missionaries told them to. Moreover, Muslim Africans pledged their allegiance to Allah and the Prophet Muhammed. Thus, they rejected the missionaries' claims that Muhammed is evil and Christianity is the true religion.
On the other hand, non-Muslim Africans are not as familiar with concepts such as the oneness of God. Therefore, it is easier for them to accept the Christian version at face value, as it does not contradict their preexisting beliefs.

Why would zakāt and sadaqa, with their economic functions and requirements, be important to enslaved Muslims?
"The zakah is mandatory when conditions are favorable, whereas charity is not but is strongly recommended " (Diouf, 92)
Zakat was important to enslaved Muslims as it created a sense of solidarity between them. Zakat and sadaqa being monetary donations to the underprivileged, enslaved Muslims in relatively better situations could give their zakat to less fortunate enslaved Muslims. Zakat could also be used as a means to raise enough funds to emancipate enslaved Muslims, who could, in turn, offer zakat to still-enslaved Muslims. Thus, zakat as a practice helped ensure the livelihood of enslaved Muslims as a collective and could be a way to buy their freedom. Sadaqa on a volunteer basis could further enhance the reach of zakat.

I admire enslaved Muslims for practicing their faith persistently through adversity. They were forcefully brought to a land unfamiliar to them and force-fed Christianity as their one true salvation. Forbidden from practicing Islam, enslaved Muslims were forced to conceal their worship of Allah through varying means ranging from praying in secret to pseudo-converting to Christianity. So far from their homes, they possessed no resources to keep their Islamic knowledge alive not only for their children, but also for themselves. The gruelling labour and inhumane conditions enslaved Muslims lived through would inadvertently affect their memory, jeopardizing their ability to recall what Islamic knowledge they remembered. Thus coming up with ways to preserve what they could of their religious faith, all the while avoiding the scrutiny of their "masters", is a noble endeavour.