Scholarly literature on the Imamshahi sect is rather scanty.27 The only extensive study was conducted by W. Ivanow, a well-known specialist of Ismaili studies.28 ln bis article published some sixty years ago the historical link of the Pirana Satpanth with Nizari Ismailism is fully acknowledged although, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the exact way in which the whole process of secession and dissidence occurred can be only conjectured. A reason why the historical role of Ismailism in the subcontinent has been greatly underestimated is precisely the scarcity of written documents, a fact which can find its natural explanation in the necessity of taqiyya.

We will not dwell at length on the history of the sect as reconstructed by Ismaili sources, this paper dealing only with one particular aspect of the subject. Until the publication of our book the reader can consult Ivanow”s above mentioned article. It will suffice here to mention its principal phases and its most salient features. Imam Shah was the son of Hasan Kabiruddin (d. 1470), one of the main Pirs or local leaders of the Nizari mission the centre of which was located at Ucch-Multan (in present Pakistan). It is said that, at his father” s death:

One tradition has it that his son Sayyid Nar Muhammad Shah (d. 1533) declared that Imam Shah was not merely a Pir but the real Imam of the time.30 His breakaway would have led to the emergence of the Imamshahis of Gujarat and Khandesh as a distinct group, separate from the Khojas and the term Satpanthi or “followers of the true path”, used in the ginans to describe all Ismailis came to be particularly reserved for the Imamshahis.31

The subsequent history of the sect is complicated by inner schisms which led to the formation of three other branches, respectively known as Athias, Satias and Panchias,32 Not to mention the attempts of the various rulers of Gujarat and the mughal governors to “Islamise” these groups which had often fragmented the community. As result a separate mosque was created within the complex to accommodate changes to Sunni and Shia followers.33 It is further believed that during the eighteenth, and maybe the nineteenth century, the two groups attempted to win followers from each other’s communities.34 The Imamshahis have their centre at Pirana, as has been said above, and their own versions of the ginans.35

More than half a century having elapsed since Ivanow’s study, it will be interesting to compare his valuable data with our preliminary research. For instance, according to his inquiries, Imamshahis do not acknowledge any historical connection with the Nizari Ismailis. Each branch attributes a different origin to the founder Pirs, for example those who appear now with a Ithna Ashari Shia identity will link the Pirs with a Twelver Shia Imam. 36 The same author also alludes to the fact that “many Hindu bodies are making efforts to reconvert the Satpanthis to Hinduism”.37 However, among these, he mentions only the Arya Samaj.38 Before going further it will be necessary to specify here that at the time of Ivanow”s research as well as at the present time the members of the same sect, which is historically known as Imamshahi, appear with at least three distinct identities: the majority of disciples are Hindus from various castes, in particular from a section of the agricultural Kunbi community now referring to themselves as Patels or Patidars,39 while the remaining ones define themselves as Muslims, both Sunnis and Twelver Shias.40 We will see that this interesting phenomenon is accounted for in various ways according to our informants. For the moment suffice it to say that the efforts of the “Hindu bodies” as mentioned by Ivanow were clearly aimed at those who termed themselves Hindus although they followed, in conformity with the Satpanthi ideal, a good many Muslim customs, such as the practice of burial and the erection of graves (mazars) in the Islamic fashion. For the sake of comparison it must be added that a similar campaign was launched at the beginning of our century by the Arya Samaj with its suddhï programme, among various other groups with “liminal” identities.41

It is clear that, from the last decades of the nineteenth century onwards, defining or redefining one’s identity as a group within the Indian society had become a crucial issue, where economical and political factors played a much more important role than religious considerations.42 Questions which had never been raised in the past grew more and more significant and “syncretic” or “composite” traditions legs and legs acceptable, unless, as in the case of the Sikhs, they chose to proclaim themselves as religious movements outside the pale of Hinduism and Islam which tended to be represented as hostile blocks. For centuries the Satpanthis, whether appearing outwardly as Sunnis, Shias or Hindus, had more or legs peacefully shared a sacred space.43 In the new context which arose before and after Partition a major split emerged within the community over questions of religious identity, which, once more, could not be dissociated from issues of power and money.