The Role of the European Imperial Powers throughout the Armenian Schism in the 1870s

The Bull "Reversurus" (1867) and its dogmatic legitimization at the First Vatican Council in 1870 caused not only ecclesiastical controversy and Schism in the Armenian Catholic Church, but it had also wide political consequences for the Armenian Catholics in the Ottoman Empire. The conflict originally between the Armenian Catholics and Rome attracted very soon the attention of the European imperial Powers. France, the British Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Russia were the main political powers who were involved in the Armenian affair. A full picture of the role of all these powers for the course of the Armenian Schism is missing. Mostly the role of France is foregrounded in the printed sources, as the main power, which supported the papacy to win during the Armenian affair. The role and the motives of the other imperial powers is almost missing. This article will try to describe as completely as possible the historical and political background, which brought to the escalation of the Armenian conflict beyond the national frontiers and led to number of conflicts at the international and transnational level. It will be shown that the imperial policy in Europe in the 19th century have played an enormous role throughout the Armenian Schism. It will be explained that several historical circumstances in Europe, especially the relation of the European imperial powers to each other as well as their expectations from the Ottoman Empire and its Armenian subjects were decisive for the duration and conclusion of the Armenian Schism.

Where Empires Meet: Orientalism and Marginality at the Former Russo-British Frontier

This article explores the intersection of orientalism and marginality in two regions at the former Russo-British frontier between Central and South Asia. Focussing on Tajikistan’s Gorno-Badakhshan and Gilgit-Baltistan in today’s Pakistan, an analysis of historical and contemporary orientalist projections on and in the two border regions reveals changing modes of domination through the course of the twentieth century (British, Kashmiri, Pakistani and Russian, Soviet, Tajik). In this regard, different local experiences of “ colonial ” rule, both in Gorno-Badakhshan and Gilgit-Baltistan, challenge “ classical ” periodisations of colonial/postcolonial and colonial/socialist/postsocialist. This article furthermore maintains that processes of marginalisation in both regions can be interpreted as effects of imperial and Cold War contexts that have led to the establishment of the frontier. Thus, a central argument is that neither the status of the frontier between Central and South Asia as a stable entity, nor the periodisations that have conventionally been ascribed to the two regions as linear timelines can be taken for granted.

The Madras Presidency’s Prisons and the British Empire, 1820s–1850s

This paper is based on the observation that projects to reform prisons in British India in the first half of the 19th century were remarkably parallel to those in Britain and other colonies of the British Empire. Therefore, it will be asked to what extent local discussions about imprisonment in India were connected to developments in the metropole, in other parts of the empire, and elsewhere in the colony and how such imperial connections influenced local practices. Recent studies on colonial India’s prisons have focused on the British possessions in north India, whereas the Madras Presidency’s penal history is as of yet mostly unstudied. The paper will look on two initiatives of prison reform undertaken by the Madras Government; firstly, an inquiry made in the 1820s to combat the high mortality in the jails, and secondly, attempts throughout the 1840s and 1850s to construct a penitentiary along the lines of penal systems in other parts of India and the British Empire. The two case studies promise insights into the body of knowledge about punishment that was accumulated in British India, its entanglement with debates in other parts of the empire, and the emergence of ‘imperial standards’ of imprisonment in the course of the 19th century.