Malladi 1

Aalekhya Malladi

Objects of Translation by Finbarr Flood

If our reading last week challenged us to problematize the historical “origins” of Islam in

South Asia with the use of a singular text (the Chāchnāma and the complexity of the Hindu—

Muslim interactions during Muhammad ibn Qasim’s campaign into Sindh) this week’s Objects

of Translation, by Finbarr Flood uses a diverse array of material remains in order to show the

very same complexity of Hindu—Muslim interactions throughout the various medieval Islamic

“conquests” in North India (and later the Deccan and South India). Throughout his seminal

project, he repeatedly argues for the frequency and openness with which translation and

transculturation occurred in the peripheries of Hindu and Muslim kingdoms, including those of

the Ghurids, the Delhi Sultanate, and Rajputs, among many others.

One of Flood’s central and most compelling argument, which he applies to each of the

material remains he is studying (including architecture, clothing, jewelry, political gifts, temples,

icons, and various objects that symbolized political power, and even at some points, words and

texts) is that static borders between kingdoms, cultures, and religions did not exist. Rather,

peripheral contact zones were sites of exchange, where (primarily) Hindus and Muslims

understood the culture and power structures of the other. This newly acquired information was,

in turn, applied in the central sites.

One prime example that Flood points out is the building, or rather, rebuilding, of

mosques. Such constructions usually borrowed much from pre-existing Hindu structures: though

in some case, actual materials, including stones, were taken from remains and used to build

mosques, other times, symbolically significant icons or images (such as elephants, lions, geese,

etc.) were inserted into mosques, which were traditionally decorated with aniconic structures.
 Malladi 2

Flood argues that such acts of borrowing reconfigure power and cultural significance. Rather

than reading these as metonymic appropriations (that is, because the Muslim mosque uses a part

of a Hindu temple, it symbolizes Muslim conquest over Hindus), Flood argues that these

structures be considered “hybrid monuments”, palimpsests that “redistribute sacral power” (150).

A similar argument is made about the agency of clothes as a kind of cultural cross-

dressing, the coins and inscriptions that contain references to both Hindu and Muslim political

power and religious significance, and even the symbolic transformation that the body undergoes

with the giving, accepting, and rejecting of political gifts. For Flood, the borders are not static

but fluid, and “Hindu” and “Muslim” are not self-defined: they are inherently unstable

categories, and his close study of the two categories emphasizes the constant give and take that

creates and simultaneously obscures such identities.

Ultimately, he argues, the medieval “Hindu-Muslim interactions” were processes of

translation and transculturation that drew on indigenous and foreign understandings of power in

order to articulate domination, submission, sacred and political power, and even a hybrid

identity. In essence, such interactions required negotiations, which is precisely what creates the

identities that are now uncontested. Moreover, he shows how a hybrid culture and language was

born as a result of these interactions. Homologies that drew together significations of both Hindu

and Muslim languages and performative practices such as utilizing a huma, or chattri in order to

establish political domain created a unique amalgamated culture of “Hindu—Muslim”

interactions.

I found Flood’s manuscript to be groundbreaking in challenging traditional conceptions

of religions and nuancing the fraught nature of religious interactions. I am also deeply grateful

for his warranted criticism of traditional historiographies and claims of syncretism and
 Malladi 3

multiculturalism that displace present-ist notions onto readings of the past. He even critiqued a

simple understanding of cultural interactions: “practices of displacement and reconsolidation can

be ‘constituitive’ of cultural meanings rather than merely indexing a simple transfer or extension

of them” (263). That being said, I was still left with questions. I kept wondering how other

religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, and Judaism fit into this cosmopolitan world.

Though he did allude to their presence multiple times, I wondering how symbols of their

religion/culture were exchanged and transformed in these negotiations of power.

I was also struck by Flood’s effective use of theory. By drawing on theories of

translation, politics, history, and more, Flood wove a complex network of diverse interactions

and displayed how these interactions resulted in material remains. I was struck in particular by

his use of Derrida and Barthes, in order to theorize the transformation of the significance of

objects over time.

I was really curious about how Flood was able to weave together such a vast array of

material remains. While he makes it clear that his methodologies is histoire longues durée, I was

curious as to the ethnographic and archival methods that he used in order to access these objects,

learn of their historicity, and put these objects in conversation with each other. While considering

his methods I was wondering whether such exchanges of cultural significance were visible in the

quotidian, or in the religious spheres (that is, rituals, materials, or practices) of Hindus and

Muslims.

In his study of “routes not roots, networks not territories, things not texts” (9) Flood

raises some compelling questions about the nature of the historical encounter. As we look further

down the road to the Delhi Sultanate (though Flood does cover them) and the Mughals, how do

these histories set a precedent for further Hindu—Muslim encounters?