Jamia, Aligarh and the complex legacies of India’s Muslim institutions: Laurence Gautier’s new book tackles it all

THE HISTORY OF PARTITION IS CHECKERED, layered, charged, and packed with complex dynamics. Not a few but many communities and institutions were instrumental in shaping different aspects of post-independence India. From politics to economics to the social and religious spheres, these communities and institutions have often stood at the frontlines; either as intermediaries negotiating between state and society or as core subjects that define the very spirit of the nation, now free from colonial rule. Among all, two institutions stand out for their complex legacies and hold on to be cornerstones in the socio-political life of Indian Muslims: Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’) and Jamia Millia Islamia (‘JMI’).

Laurence Gautier, the author of the book, is a historian of modern South Asia where she unpacks this very complexity in Between Nation and ‘Community’. The book focuses on the political and symbolic characters of these two universities in post-Partition India, influenced by their pre-Partition establishments. Deriving from the rich set of archival materials, oral histories, and existing scholarship, including foundational works by David Lelyveld, Barbara Metcalf, and Mushirul Hasan, Gautier explores and puts forth how AMU and JMI have negotiated their institutional identities, Muslim affiliations, and relationship with the Indian state.

The book consists of nine chapters, including the introduction and conclusion, each digging deep into different facets of the two universities. Gautier presents an in-depth and layered exploration from their origin as educational projects to their stand in nation-building, their involvement with minority affairs, and the evolving narratives of empowerment and representation.

The very first chapter, “A laboratory for composite India,” sets the tone by looking at Jamia Millia Islamia’s foundational ideals of composite nationalism, especially around the time of Partition. Jamia, with its proximity to the Indian National Congress and figures like Maulana Azad and Zakir Husain, positioned itself firmly within the secular nationalist camp. Yet, as Gautier notes, this ideological leaning came at a cost. While Jamia gained state patronage and acceptance, it sometimes found itself alienated from large sections of the Muslim populace who viewed it as overly compliant and JMI leaders felt the university wasn’t fully recognised by the State and wasn’t given the same institutional weight as other central universities.

In contrast, the next two chapters together examine the post-Partition repositioning of AMU. Once labelled the “arsenal of Muslim India” due to its close associations with Muslim League and the Pakistan Movement, AMU compelled to reformulate its institutional identity in India as one that was free from the colonial rule. Being an alum of AMU, I find these chapters compelling because Gautier maps how this reformulation was facilitated not only through symbolic and administrative shifts, but also through legal and political struggles, especially with the long-running campaign for AMU’s minority status. Moreover, jointly these chapters show how AMU ventured to preserve its distinctiveness while aligning with the broader national narrative of secularism and inclusion.