1. See Chatterjee (1993), Comaroff and Comaroff (1992), Fox (1985, 1989), and Scott (1985, 1990) for examples of subordinates reinterpreting dominant representations. [BACK]

2. Fox reports that the term "Sikh" refers to several cultural identities prevailing in the Punjab in the nineteenth century, identities that "subsumed a

range of quite different religious beliefs and social practices" (1985, 7). The British, however, regarded only one Sikh identity—the Singh variant—as the significant form and, in fact, believed the Singhs to be a separate race. In the early twentieth century, urban-based reformers "appropriated the Singh identity fostered by the British to launch an anticolonial protest" (1985, 12). In doing so they themselves merged the Sikh and Singh identities, promoted a single image of Sikh orthodoxy, and directly challenged Sikh collaborators with British rule. [BACK]

3. Kahn is not alone in objecting to Hobsbawm's notion of "the invention of tradition." See Friedman (1992) and Kapferer (1988) for additional critiques. [BACK]

4. For details on that armed uprising, which resulted in the deaths of thirty-five Muslim insurgents (Princess Tarhata and her husband escaped), see Thomas (1971, 73-76). [BACK]

5. William Roff has described the source and consequence of that dynamism succinctly: "[T]he recognition of [the] non-congruence [between ideal and social reality] by both prescribers ( ulama ) and backsliders acts as a dynamic force within Islamic cultures, resulting in what can be seen as dialectic constantly engaged in translating synchronic tension (the aspect taken by the lack of fit at any given moment) into diachronic 'oscillation' (social, cultural, political, or ideational change in one direction or another)" (1985, 9). [BACK]

6. For an engaging account of recent generational conflict among the Sama (a Philippine Muslim group of the Sulu archipelago) over "ways of knowing Islam," see Horvatich (1994). [BACK]

7. William Roseberry presses a similar point in his writings on hegemony. Like Rebel, he proceeds from an explicit recognition of "differential experience in terms of . . . structures of inequality and domination" (1989, 48). The "common understandings and modes of interaction" that emerge across this differential experience ''can never encompass" all of it. "Cultural production is not limited to those who control the means of cultural production. Experience constantly intrudes" ( 1989, 49). [BACK]

8. Caution is required when assuming the widespread living of lies by political subordinates. The absence of ideological incorporation is just as much an empirical question as is its presence. [BACK]