“Civilizing Mission”: Preliminary Views on Gypsies (Roma) and Late Ottoman Govermentality Research on marginality in Islamic history in general and Ottoman history in particular itself still occupies a marginal status in modern Islamic historiography. Thus, the purpose of this paper research is to explore how the late Ottoman State (1839 -1922) and mainstream society dealt with Gypsies and how, if, and when Gypsies negotiated their "marginal" status. Exploring Gypsies in the late Ottoman Empire is particularly interesting because it was a period when the center itself was rapidly changing. To observe, therefore, what was happening on the margins while the center itself was changing is both fascinating and instructive. My preliminary readings of Ottoman archival sources (particularly documents catalogued under Cevdet Tasnifi in the Ba?bakanl?k Ar?ivi in Istanbul) demonstrate that the nineteenth and early twentieth century Ottoman government was, first of all, extremely concerned about establishing the population breakdowns of the Gypsies --both Muslim and Christian, both settled and nomadic. These population breakdowns, it seems, were the basis of new taxation regulations that was introduced in the 1850s. Perhaps the most significant concern of the late Ottoman state was to sedentarize and reform (?slah) the Gypsies. In this regard, we see the government asking local authorities to prepare memorandums (layihas) on how to educate and make Gypsies useful, appointing imams to Gypsy communities, as well as introducing them to new techniques of agriculture. All these new measures offer glimpses not only into late Ottoman “governmentality” but also its definition of "subjecthood." Therefore, through close readings of two layihas written in 1890 by a college professor and provincial governor, respectively, this paper will attempt to explore the ways and techniques through which late Ottoman government produced and governed the Empire’s subjects but also offer glimpses upon how, if, and when these subjects, in our case Gypsies, resisted, negotiated or accommodated their marginal status. The history of people who were marginal in their societies is not just important for its own sake but for what it reveals about the nature of the societies in which they lived. Thus, my research will not only shed light upon the history of marginal groups but will also make an original contribution to the active debates in Ottoman historiography about the functioning of the late Ottoman society through looking at one of its most despised segments.

As one of the steps to resolve the Eastern Question, the Berlin Treaty stipulated the administration of the Ottoman province of Bosnia by the Austria Hungary, while sovereignty belonged to the Ottoman Sultan. Although the Austrian officials violated and worked to get rid of the provisions specifying Ottoman legal sovereignty in Bosnia, this was the first instance after the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans where Muslim population was not expelled, but was protected by the new administration. In spite of that, one of the main consequences of the Habsburg occupation was the migration of Muslims to the Ottoman Empire. The reasons for the migratory movements varied, and so did the official attitude towards immigration in the policies of Sultan Abdulhamid II and the Young Turk regime. The motivation for migration ranged from religious reasons, propaganda, to economic and political circumstances. The specific understanding of Islam and the claim that practicing religion within a non-Muslim state was difficult or impossible was most often declared as the argument for migration. But insofar as migration was instigated by particular political circumstances (Austrian occupation, conscription and annexation), it could as well be defined as an act of protest. While the Bosnian religious authorities advocated against emigration, their Ottoman counterparts contended in many cases that Muslims from the lost Ottoman lands should migrate and settle in the Ottoman Empire, both seeing strength in numbers. The Ottoman archival documentation, Bosnian manuscripts and journals and newspapers from this period reveal the many levels of the migration issue. In Bosnia, the Ottoman Empire continued to exist in many aspects: claim of Ottoman sovereignty was an important leverage in negotiations with the occupying forces, while migration represented the final exit option. Marking the last Ottoman century, migration became a relevant element in imperial population policies in Anatolia and the Balkans, international diplomacy, Ottoman pan-Islamic political tendencies, and increasingly, nationalism.

The controversy over banning headscarves in public schools has, until now, largely focused on the situations in France and Turkey where secular governments are carefully trying to maintain a thick wall between the church and state. But the issue has spilled over across the Continent, most recently in Bulgaria. As one of the European Union’s two newest member states, and the EU country with the largest Muslim minority (estimated between 13-15%), the headscarf debate has had its own local iteration in this relatively isolated southeastern European country. Beginning in 2006, several complaints regarding the issue were filed with the Bulgarian Commission for Protection from Discrimination (??????? ?????? ?? ?????????????), the new national body specifically set up to deal with human rights violations. This paper will discuss two key cases that were decided by the Commission, and how the decisions surrounding whether girls should be allowed to wear headscarves in schools have created a legal limbo wherein the state has abdicated its responsibility for interpreting the Bulgarian constitution. I will argue that although the situation in Bulgaria is surely influenced by the bans in neighboring Turkey and in France, the debates in Bulgaria are intimately intertwined with local politics and fears of a demographic collapse. Despite a public that is overwhelmingly against the headscarf in public schools, no legislation against them has been passed and as of early 2009, girls were wearing them to school freely. My paper examines why this has been the case, and whether or not Bulgaria will continue this instance of tolerance into the future. This paper is based on over a year of fieldwork in Bulgaria, and a textual analysis of all relevant Commission decisions.

This paper examines the evolution of bureaucratic control in Israel and Turkey over the Palestinian and Kurdish minorities in the early state-building period. As part of their nation-building strategies, Israel and Turkey have adopted very different approaches to the manifestation of “cultural difference” in their minority communities. While Turkey has denied the existence of cultural differences between Kurds and Turks and sought to eliminate the Kurdish-Turkish boundary through a highly repressive assimilation policy, Israel has not attempted to transform the cultural identity of its Palestinian citizens. On the contrary, preserving the Jewish-Arab boundary has been an integral part of the exclusion of Palestinians in the Jewish State. I argue that these contrasting nation-state building strategies, one based on assimilation, and the other, on separation, led to two distinct modes of governance, which constrained state officials in different and unexpected ways in day-to-day relations with minority communities. Specifically, I claim that Turkey’s rotating bureaucracy over its Kurdish population, and Israel’s government via Arabists (Jewish “experts” of Arab culture) constituted two distinct modes of governance. These modes of governance generated different forms of state knowledge over the minority, which, in turn, led to varying levels of state capacity and catalyzed different styles of everyday resistance within the minority community. The paper aims to contribute to recent studies that examine the sources of state power not exclusively in the outcomes of consciously designed policies, but in everyday practices, and in ways of knowing and seeing institutionalized in bureaucracies.