The Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Ordinance, 1905: Recourse to Legislation

Sinha, Vineeta

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0887-7_4

Vineeta Sinha²

Part of the book series: ARI - Springer Asia Series ((ARI,volume 1))

719 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

This chapter begins by documenting the logic that led to the passing of the first piece of legislation in the British Parliament, the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Ordinance (MHEO) of 1905, designed to administer religious endowments of non-Christian communities in the Straits Settlements (SS). This allowed for the formation of a permanent board, the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Board (MHEB), in each of the three settlements of Singapore, Penang and Malacca. I argue that the tropes of ‘chaos’ and the ‘need for order’ offered the official rationale for this institutional mechanism and the legitimate regulatory control it was assumed it would provide. Most crucially, this was in line with the overall rhetoric of civilizing subject populations through rational, objective means, in this case through a piece of legislation and an impartial, bureaucratic institution—the MHEB. Here, I detail the functional jurisdiction of the MHEB and its mode of operation, against a background of the history and logic that led to its constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
It is important to note that information about the MHEB in these annual reports is not consistent across the various years, but is somewhat scattered and fragmented over time. While the annual documents carried detailed reports of the MHEB in Singapore, Penang and Malacca within the first decade of its founding, providing particulars of its functioning, this enthusiasm seems to have waned over time. In fact, beyond 1916, the reports on the MHEB are not carried in the annual departmental reports of the SS. However, rather abbreviated information can be extracted from some compilations of these annual publications up to 1928.
2.
The Singai Nesan was an important journal that was published in Singapore and only ran for a brief 4 years, from 1887 to 1890. Its content carried a wealth of historical information about the socio-cultural and religious scene in Singapore and, in particular, details of the Hindu and Muslim communities on the island for these years. I am extremely grateful to Ms. Nagah Devi for painstakingly translating this entire collection of Tamil articles into English. My citations of these articles in this book are from their English translation.
3.
‘Report on the Committee for the better administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.’ This document is dated 26 September 1905 and was authored by the then-Attorney-General of the SS, W. R. Collyer.
4.
Ibid.
5.
Ibid.
6.
Ibid.
7.
‘Objects and Reasons,’ Straits Settlements Government Gazette, 14 April 1905, 777–781.
8.
Ramanathan (1995).
9.
Arasaratnam (1970).
10.
Ampalavanar (1969) and Arasaratnam (1970).
11.
Ramanathan (1995, 171).
12.
Ibid. 172.
13.
‘Mariamman Temple’, Singai Nesan, 24 September 1888, 45, column 2: ‘Last Sunday, there was a gathering in Mariamman temple. A meeting that gathered a huge crowd however did not turn out any results. The meeting was in relation to the selecting of the panchayat. While some confirmed their votes, 2 or 3 ubayakarars were not agreeable to the terms. When all 10 executive members cannot reach a unanimous agreement, how can the panchayat be executed?’
14.
‘Goat Sacrifice’, Singai Nesan, 25 July 1887, 18, column 6: ‘Last Wednesday, there was a flag post raising ceremony in Mariamman Temple. Some recommended goat sacrifice, while another majority group disagreed, and finally with the help of two others, the goat sacrifice took place. It is felt that people are carrying out unnecessary rituals according to their pleasures only because no proper panchayat is in order.’
15.
‘Mariamman Temple’, Singai Nesan, 12 September 1887, 50, columns 2–4: ‘In the morning (6 am) of 18th September, devotees gathered at the Mariamman Temple to carry out an ubayam for Amman. But the Ubayakarar refused to give the temple donation money to the relative of Narayanan Chetty. This drama dragged on until 10 am. The relative refused to let the ritual be completed until the money was given to him. The people had no choice but to give him the money. The people decided to file a case against him later on. However, since the relative has been placed in charge of collecting tax money and donation money during rituals, he is also in charge of the temple donation box.’
16.
Arasaratnam (1970) and Kho (1980).
17.
Cited in Ramanathan (1995, 176).
18.
‘Mariamman Temple,’ Singai Nesan, 24 October 1887, 70, columns 3–4: ‘During the Navarathri festivity, there were some disagreements and verbal fights between two groups of Ubayakarars. Henceforth, a case has been filed against Muthaiya Mestri by Vaithiyalingaapathar. An offence like this where offending words are passed in public in a sacred place is subject to a year’s hard labour at the prisons. The court however took sympathy upon the accused and offered terms for an amicable settlement whereby the accused is willing to offer apologies and cease from such untoward behaviour in the future.’
‘Mariamman Temple Case,’ Singai Nesan, 24 October 1887, 69, columns 2–3: ‘This temple’s management has been faulty for the past 18 years. A. Varatharaj Pillai who was appointed the receiver for the past 2 years has been giving $850 to the court, but it is not known to what use the panchayat has put this amount […] In the case file, amongst some of the important decisions was to remove a relative of the Chetty from the position of the receiver and to appoint someone else. Temporarily, Sheriff Norris has been appointed the receiver and the Chetty’s relative’s duties end with this order.’
19.
Ramanathan (1995, 177).
20.
Ibid. 179.
21.
‘Mariamman Temple,’ Singai Nesan, 25 July 1887, 17–18, columns 3–5.
22.
Singai Nesan, 25 February 1889, 143, columns 3–4.
23.
‘Mariamman Temple case,’ Singai Nesan, 24 October 1887, 69, columns 2–3.
24.
‘South Bridge Road Qutbaab Mosque,’ Singai Nesan, 15 August 1887, 29, columns 3–4.
25.
‘South Bridge Road Qutbaab Mosque,’ Singai Nesan, 22 August 1887, 33, columns 3–4. The article lists the 10 requests, including the building of the mosque and the setting up of a Muslim court.
26.
‘Mosque panchayat,’ Singai Nesan, 23 July 1888, 14, column 1.
27.
See Ampalavanar (1969), Arasaratnam (1970) and Palanivel (1971).
28.
Dharmalingam (1995).
29.
‘To our subscribers,’ Singai Nesan, 4 July 1887, 6, column 4.
30.
‘Mosques and Temples,’ Singai Nesan, 25 February 1889, 134, columns 1–2.
31.
‘Report on the Committee for the Better Administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.’
32.
Report of the Special committee appointed to consider the Bill ‘For the Better Administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments’, dated 11 July 1905.
33.
Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider Mr. Huttenbach’s proposed amendments in ‘The Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Bill.’ The document is dated 5 September 1905 and signed by four members of the Select Committee consisting of W. R. Collyer, J. O. Anthonisz, Hugh Fort and John Anderson.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Section 3(1), An Ordinance for the Better Administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, 8 September 1905.
36.
Section 2, Ordinance No. XVII, 1905.
37.
Section 4, Ordinance No. XVII, 1905.
38.
Section 6(2), Ordinance No. XVII, 1905.
39.
Section 7(1), (2) and (3), Ordinance No. XVII, 1905.
40.
Section 11, Ordinance No. XVII, 1905.
41.
Section 17, Ordinance No. XVII, 1905.
42.
‘Report on the Committee for the Better Administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.’
43.
In fact, this did become an issue in Singapore in the 1930s with the demand by the Sikh community for the return of the Sikh gurdwara to the community as an expression of the right to self-governance and self-determination.
44.
See Mudaliar (1976) for Tamil Nadu and Ramanathan (1995) for Penang.
45.
Dharmalingam (1995, 24).
46.
For example, as demonstrated in Chapter 3, the various processions undertaken by the Indians, Chinese and the Malays were never seen to be ‘properly religious’ or the activities of the participants ‘pious’ enough, for the governing authorities. The latter were suspicious that these were merely the front for other more insidious political practices involving gangs and secret societies, which then legitimized not only their greater surveillance, but also justified the various restrictions imposed on their enactment.
47.
Yong (1997, 128) (in Brook Barrington).
48.
Yong (1997, 128) (in Brook Barrington).
49.
Baker (1975).
50.
Mudaliar (1976, 77). I have found Chandra Maudaliar’s study, State and Religious Endowments in Madras (1976), to be invaluable resource in reconstructing relations between the spheres of law, policy and religion in the state of Tamil Nadu, both during the colonial period and after Indian independence.
51.
Mudaliar (1976, 78).
52.
‘Hindu-Muslim Endowments in Madras,’ The Indian, 1 February 1936.
53.
Ibid. 364.
54.
Ibid. 370.
55.
Ibid. 377.
56.
Mudaliar (1976, 81).
57.
Baker (1975, 85).
58.
Presler (1987, 29).
59.
‘Hindu religious institutions,’ Indian Daily Mail, September 1946.
60.
‘Committee to manage and supervise temples,’ Indian Daily Mail, 26 September 1949.
61.
As noted by Frank Presler, the legislative history of this Act is complicated. See Presler (1987, 23–34) and Mudaliar (1976) for details.
62.
Mudaliar (1976, 308).
63.
‘Annual Report of the Straits Settlements, 1905.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 5: 1901–1907, 490.
64.
In fact, a suggestion was already made in 1915 that appointment of Commissioners to the Board should be ex-officio: ‘The Board further desire to suggest to His Excellency that the Municipal Engineer be appointed a Commissioner by virtue of his office and not in his private capacity’ (Minutes of SMHEB meeting of 6 September 1915).
65.
Upon independence of Singapore in 1969, the latter Board split into two, leading to the autonomous existence of Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) and the Hindu Endowments Board (HEB), which is today still charged with the management of the same four Hindu temples and the celebration of two prominent festivals— Tai Pūcam and Timiti.
66.
As a matter of comparative interest, it is noteworthy that in the Indian context, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board was formed in 1926 under the Madras Act II of 1927 (Presler 1987, 28–29). Prior to this of course, a fair number of controversial laws were formulated under Company Raj, by the EIC in relation to government involvement in matters of religion.
67.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1909.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 6: 1908–1914, 404.
68.
Ramanathan (1995, 174).
69.
As far as I can determine, the Malacca Board at no point administered any Hindu temple.
70.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca,’ 1915, 29.
71.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 110.
72.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1910’, in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 356.
73.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909’, in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 110.
74.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1910,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 356–359.
75.
Presler (1987) notes this to be the case for the HEB in Tamil Nadu as well.
76.
‘Administration Report, Malacca, 1915.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 7: 1915–1921, 252.
77.
Presler (1987, 2).
78.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1910,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 355.
79.
Ibid. 356.
80.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1914’, in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 213.
81.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1924.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 8: 1922–1926, 247.
82.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1908.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the Straits Settlements 1855–1941, Vol. 6: 1908–1914, 417.
83.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 109.
84.
Ibid. 110.
85.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1909.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the Straits Settlements 1855–1941, Vol. 6: 1908–1914, 312.
86.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 109.
87.
Ordinance No. XVII, 1.
88.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 108.
89.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1915,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 28.
90.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1910,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 359.
91.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1915,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 28.
92.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1921.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 7: 1915–1921, 337.
93.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1922.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 8: 1922–1926, 610.
94.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1909.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 6: 1908–1914, 404.
95.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1915,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 29.
96.
Administrative Report, Penang 1921.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 7: 1915–1921, 351.
97.
Administrative Report, Penang 1922.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 8: 1922–1926, 610.
98.
Administrative Report, Penang 1921.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 8: 1922–1926, 246.
99.
Ordinance No. XVII of 1905, ‘An Ordinance for the Better Administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments,’ dated 8 September 1905.
100.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1908.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 6: 1908–1914, 417.
101.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 109.
102.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1910,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 337.
103.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1911,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 69.
104.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1911.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 6: 1908–1914, 512.
105.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1913,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 30.
106.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1914,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 213.
107.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1915,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 27.
108.
‘Administrative Report, Penang 1919.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the SS, 1855–1941, Vol. 7: 1915–1921, 223.
109.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1915,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 25.
110.
Also known as the ‘Kalapathukkarars,’ who specialized in the repair of boats, and originated from the Cuddalore district in Tamil Nadu (Hindu Endowments Board 2009, 15).
111.
Ibid. 16.
112.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1913,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 28.
113.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1913,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 28.
114.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1914,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 211.
115.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 110.
116.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office. 108.
117.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1914,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 211.
118.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1913,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 29.
119.
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1914,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 212.
120.
Ibid. 213.
121.
Administrative Report, Penang 1918.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the Straits Settlements 1855–1941, Vol. 7: 1915–1921, 501.
122.
Administrative Report, Penang 1919.’ In Robert L. Jarman (ed.) Annual Reports of the Straits Settlements 1855–1941, Vol. 7: 1915–1921, 223.
123.
Minutes of SMHEB meeting of 8 August 1940.
124.
Nair (1972, 27).
125.
Arasaratnam (1970, 166).
126.
‘Malacca Muslims not to have a Board,’ The Straits Times, 19 December 1934.
127.
Ibid.
128.
Ibid.
129.
‘Advisory Board for Malacca,’ The Straits Times, 1 August 1935.
130.
‘Advisory Board for Malacca,’ The Straits Times, 1 August 1935.
131.
Ibid.
132.
Ibid.
133.
Ibid
134.
‘Hindu Endowments; Government asked to assist,’ The Straits Times, 18 July 1933.
135.
Ibid.
136.
Ibid.
137.
‘Hindu Endowments; Government asked to assist,’ The Straits Times, 18 July 1933.
138.
Means (1978).
139.
Ibid. footnote 6.
140.
Means (1978, 388).
141.
Ibid. 389.

References

Arasaratnam, S. (1970) Indians in Malaysia and Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Baker, C. (1975) ‘Temples and Political Development.’ In Christopher J. Baker and David Washbrook (eds.) South India: Political Institutions and Political Change 1880–1940. Delhi: Macmillan, pp. 69–97.
Google Scholar
Hindu Endowments Board (2009) ‘Sacred Sanctuary; The Sri Mariamman Temple.’ Singapore: The Sri Mariamman Temple.
Google Scholar
Means, G. P. (1978) ‘Public Policy toward Religion in Malaysia.’ Pacific Affairs, 51(3): 384–405.
Article Google Scholar
Mudaliar, C. (1976) Law and Policy Regarding Religious and Charitable Endowments in India. Madras: Rathnam Press, University of Madras.
Google Scholar
Presler, F. A. (1987) Religion Under Bureaucracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Yong, C. F. (1997) ‘Law and Order: British Management of Malayan Communism during the Interwar years, 1919–1942.’ In Brook Barrington (ed.) Empires, Imperialism and Southeast Asia; Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tarling. Melbourne: Monash Asia Institute, pp. 127–47.
Google Scholar
Annual Reports of the Straits Settlements 1855–1941, Volumes 1– 12, edited by Robert L. Jarman.
Google Scholar
‘Report on the Committee for the better administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.’ This document is dated 26 September 1905 and was authored by the then-Attorney-General of the Straits Settlements, W. R. Collyer.
Google Scholar
‘Report of the Special committee appointed to consider the Bill ‘For the Better administration of Mohammedan and Hindu religious and charitable endowments’ dated 11 July 1905.
Google Scholar
‘Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider Mr. Huttenbach’s proposed amendments’ in The Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Bill. The document is dated 5 September 1905 and signed by four members of the Select Committee consisting of W. R. Collyer, J. O. Anthonisz, Hugh Fort and John Anderson.
Google Scholar
‘Reports of the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Boards, Singapore, Penang and Malacca, 1909–1929,’ in Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements. Singapore: Government Printing Office.
Google Scholar
Ordinance XVII, An Ordinance for the Better Administration of Mohammedan and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, 8 September 1905.
Google Scholar
Singei Nesan (1887–1980, translated into English from Tamil original).
Google Scholar
Ampalavanar, R. (1969) ‘Social and Political Developments in the Indian Community of Malaya 1920–41.’ Unpublished Academic Exercise, University of Malaya.
Google Scholar
Dharmalingam, V. (1995) ‘The British and the Muslim religious Endowments in Colonial Malaya.’ Honours thesis, Department of History, National University of Singapore.
Google Scholar
Kho, E. M. (1980) ‘Religion and state in Singapore, 1959–1978.’ Academic Exercise, Department of History, National University of Singapore, pp. 71–72.
Google Scholar
Nair, V. (1972) ‘Tamil Reform Association, Singapore (1932–1961).’ Academic Exercise, Department of History, University of Singapore.
Google Scholar
Palanivel, K. G. (1971) ‘A Study of the Background to Malayan Indian Politics, 1900–1941.’ Academic Exercise, Department of History, University of Malaya.
Google Scholar
Ramanathan, K. (1995) ‘Hindu Religion in an Islamic State: The Case of Malaysia.’ Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, 11 Arts Link, 115750, Singapore, Singapore
Vineeta Sinha

Authors

Vineeta Sinha
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vineeta Sinha .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sinha, V. (2011). The Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Ordinance, 1905: Recourse to Legislation. In: Religion-State Encounters in Hindu Domains. ARI - Springer Asia Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0887-7_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0887-7_4
Published: 04 April 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0886-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0887-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics