However, the popularity of Hosay cannot be solely explained in either
cultural or religious terms. There is also a social element which was
important in solidifying Hosay as a popular festival. Both Vijay
Prashad and Frank Korom argue that Hosay was utililized as a means of
social and political protest. The tortuous conditions of indentured
laborers in the plantations and by the exploited Chinese, Afro-Creole,
and American Indian laborers created a point of solidarity in
oppression which brought together the “subaltern classes” at the Hosay
festival (Korom, 101). The work in the plantations was exploitative and
geographically constricting. Hosay was one of the only occasions in the
year when laborers could come converge and enjoy their time off
(Prashad, 79). As the sugarcane industry went in decline during the
late 19th century with the growth of beet and unrestricted free trade,
the cash crop that the indentured servants and most of the West Indies
depended upon lost value. This led plantation owners to work their
servants twice as hard for a lesser amount of money (Korom, 113).
Naturally, this brought upon several strikes during 1870-1900. This
period also saw an increased regulation of the Hosay festival as
colonial officials were threatened by the convergence of subaltern
classes during these processions (114).
Colonial officials
utilized several classic “divide and rule” tactics to weaken the
solidarity of the oppressed classes. This was done by limiting the
participation of Hosay in Trinidad to Muslims, fully aware that Muslims
only composed one part of the hugely popular festival (114).
Another
significant interventionist policy adopted by the colonists was
restricting the movement of tajdahs (replicas of tombs; taziyahs in
India) into the towns (115). Quite significantly, there was an attempt
at polarizing Indian religious identities by encouraging the arrival of
Muslim and Hindu religious missionaries to indoctrinate the respective
communities back to the “real” faith (Prashad, 82). On the surface,
these missionaries claimed to be fighting their Christian counterparts
but in reality, they were encouraged by colonial officials to “create
fissures across the landscape of the working class” (82). Brahman
authorities like Sanathan Dharma Sabah and Arya Samaj tried to
indoctrinate Hindus while Muslims were challenged by the Sunni
orthodoxy of Anjuman Sunnat ul-Jamaat in their polycultural religious
foundations (Prashad, 82; Korom, 117).
The tragic climax of
this troubled period was the Hosay tragedy of October 30, 1884 in San
Fernando, Trinidad which claimed 16 lives and 107 casualties after
colonial authorities began shooting at the Hosay participants (Korom,
112). That particular year was a climatic point of protest against
economic policies that were hurting plantation laborers and it fell
exactly during the time of Muharram.
The channeling of
political and social grievances through the religious processions of
Muharram is a continuation of the tradition seen in Indian ‘Ashura
protests against the British occupiers, in Iran in the lead up to the
Islamic revolution, and in modern-day Iraq (Prashad, 81). Thus, Hosay’s
popularity is due to the simultaneous functions it plays as a forger of
“ethnic unity”, social protest, and specifically a cultural marker for
displaced Indian indentured servants trying to reclaim their Indian
origins (Korom, 106).