The Heritage Society Presents... First Ismaili Electronic Library and Database

CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION

When I began this research project in December 1996 I was seduced by the sexy concept of diaspora. I went to Kenya to study Ismailis with the assumption that this community had some innate link to what I considered to be their homeland in Gujarat, the place from which their ancestors had come. I was surprised to find that not only did my informants in Nairobi have little connection to South Asia, but that they did have other transnational connections which were more salient to them. Not only did their imagined cartography of the Ismaili community extend to their Khojah kin in North America, Europe and Australia, but it also included Central Asian Ismailis who had no kin or racial relationship to these people living in Kenya. Through interviews, I came to understand that shared belief, money and a common leader were important enough to link communities that did not share race, culture, language, economic status or religious practice. It was not that shared belief innately connected these different communities. These connections were made primarily through the encouragement and leadership of Aga Khan IV and his late grandfather Aga Khan III. From their location in Europe, the Aga Khans were able to orchestrate the production of a transnational Ismaili community. The reforms that I observed in Nairobi and spoke to my informants about, were strategies for transnationalizing the globally dispersed Ismailis. In particular, the Islamization reforms that have been occurring over the past few decades, and which have increased in the last ten years, are not only about appeasing other Muslims who question the legitimacy of Ismailism. I believe, based on my research, that many of these reforms are important steps in forging a pan-Ismaili identity. In Chapter Five I attempt to synthesize all this information, and try to understand the transnational Ismaili community, through a comparative process of examining Ismailis in relationship to labels that are traditionally used to define communities including diaspora, nation and religion. It is clear that Ismailism does not comfortably fit into any of these definitions. Through my analysis of Ismailism, I have exposed some of the limitations and assumptions inherent in these terms and suggested how these limitations arise out of specific historical contexts that may not be broad enough to accommodate Ismailism and other imagined communities. In broader terms I hope that my research, taken with other studies of migration and transnationalism, will be effective in rethinking the anthropological notion of the "field"; emphasizing the fluidity of culture and religion; and challenging the discipline of anthropology by continuing to problematize the complex relationship of people, place and belief.

Ismailis and the "Field"

In graduate school I hope to continue studying the Ismaili community, specifically examining the interactions of East African, South Asian and Central Asian Ismaili immigrants in North America. I applied for PhD programs in anthropology last fall and have been agonizing over my decision. Many people have offered me advice on which program would be most appropriate for my interests, and which faculty would be best to work with. The majority of my peers and professors have directed me to faculty who specialize in South Asia. Because I am racially South Asian and am studying people who are primarily racially South Asian, should that determine where I am placed in academia? The Ismailis I spoke to in Kenya had very little connection to India and did not define themselves in this manner. For them the Ismaili identity is much more salient. Anthropology is particularly invested in Area Studies, and I am not sure that my research would fall into South Asia Studies. Working with scholars of Islam is another possibility. But again Ismailism survives on the periphery of mainstream Islam, especially in its unorthodox and syncretic practices. Many people do not consider Ismailis to be "true" Muslims. Of course it is necessary to be in dialogue with both South Asia Studies and Islamic Studies, even though Ismailis occupy minor and marginalized places within both disciplines.

There is also the possibility of studying Ismailis through Asian American Studies. Again South Asians have been on the periphery of this discipline, although attention is increasing with the rise of second generation artists, activists and academics of South Asian descent. Furthermore, Asian American Studies is very focused on the American nation-state, and to a lesser extent, on the nations of origin of immigrants. The concepts of diaspora, transnationalism and deterritorialization are recent meditations. There is currently little space for the complex histories of diasporics from East Africa, Caribbean, Fiji and so on. This discipline has also been primarily attentive to race, and now gender and sexuality - religion has been largely overlooked. Asian American Studies has also been criticized for its weak theoretical tradition, and in the few universities where it exists, it does so as a program more often that a department. This makes it an unstable field for graduate study and the subsequent academic job market.

None of these area disciplines - South Asian Studies, Islamic Studies, Asian American Studies - provide an ideal theoretical and content focus for my research on Ismailis. Of course it will be important to be in dialogue with scholars in these disciplines. Since the current academic paradigm is organized in this manner, I too have fallen prey to defining my work in terms of these areas of study. How else am I to present my research so that it can be understood? My concern is not simply that Ismailis are a minority within each area of study. People have been able to effectively study minority communities in these areas - Sikhs and Parsis in South Asia, the Sufi tradition in Islam and Hmong refugees in California. The fundamental problem is that people define their work in terms of geographical areas - they are scholars of Brazil or the Trobriand Islands or West Africa. As long as their purview remains within the nation-state, they can easily study minorities in that country or culture. Even studies of widespread religions are based on the nation-state model - Voodoo in Haiti, Hinduism in Indonesia, Christianity in Egypt.

Many studies of diaspora also reinscribe the centrality of the nation-state. These include both studies of diasporas from existing places like India, Africa and Greece, as well as those focused on a lost, former or contested place of origin such as Sikhs and Punjab/Khalistan and Kurds and Kurdistan. While claims to territory are complex, these diasporic people continue to be linked to a physical space from which they come or where they live. I consider the Ismaili case to be unique in this respect. In the North American context, Ismailis come together based on their shared religious beliefs, and East Africans in particular are distanced from both Africa and South Asia as homelands. Granted direct South Asian Khojahs and Central Asians are likely to be more attached to their places of origin, but with time and interaction with other Ismailis, this link becomes less salient than religious identity. The form of Islam that is practiced is largely deterritorialized as it incorporates several traditions and is continually being transformed by Aga Khan IV. For Ismailis in North America, events that occur in Geneva, Aiglemont and London, as well as Samarkand, Nairobi and Karachi can all have significant effects on the community.

The centrality of the nation-state also makes my work difficult to explain. There is no single nation-state that I can use, no matter how obscure, to provide an idea of the people I study. I cannot show this community on a map. If I said that I am doing research in Kenya, the image of Africans comes to people's minds. Saying that I studied an Asian minority community either makes people think of East Asians or Hindus. I usually say I was doing research on an Indo-Muslim minority community in Kenya, although this confuses most people. As a last-ditch effort, I ask people if they have heard of the Aga Khan. Unlike in Europe where the Aga Khans are always in tabloid magazines like Paris Match and L'Express, they are virtually unknown in this hemisphere. The best I can hope for is a recognition of Aga Khan IV's wealth in race horses, resort properties, or the island of Sardinia.

That there is no language to explain my research is partially a personal affront based on the lack of recognition of the work I do. However, it also points to the ways in which Anthropology and the greater academy are organized. So many people "do" South Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. What do I "do"? I study a transnational, deterritorialized minority community headed by a wealthy Prince living in France. I have undeniable links to several area studies programs, but the continued focus on the nation-state makes it difficult to study a community that profoundly blurs borders and cannot be traced to a singular place of origin. Some people have suggested a similarity to Jewish Studies, but again the Holocaust and the subsequent creation of Israel have re-emphasized a shared experience and point of origin - all of which is lacking among Ismailis. I believe that the leadership of Aga Khan IV has prevented a search for "home", and has allowed Ismailis to inhabit multiple spaces because of their strong links, through him, to each other. Their shared experiences come not only in his physical appearances every few years, but also through globally faxed firmans, the international parliamentary governing structure, a single Constitution, and close and sustained leadership on all levels.

Anthropology's investment in territory poses interesting problems for my future project. For my PhD I propose to do research in both Vancouver and New York. This work will deal with fairly different Ismaili communities which have been shaped by distinct immigration patterns, racial constituencies, class backgrounds and so on. Yet these two communities are likely to see themselves as fundamentally similar, and probably more alike than the Muslim mosque or Indian community center within their respective cities. My research problematizes the definition of the "field" which is central to the discipline of Anthropology. Is my work really taking place in multiple fields, or is it different sites of a single field? Given the profound influence of Aga Khan IV and institutions in Europe and elsewhere, where does my field begin and end? What are its boundaries? Much recent work has dealt with the changing and slippery concept of the "field" (cf. Gupta and Ferguson 1997). These discussions and questions are for my next thesis, but I want to foreground the ways in which this study and my future research problematizes, and is problematized by, notions of territory and the anthropological field.


next
previous
back to contents