The Bohras under the British Raj

A Community within a Colonial Order

By the nineteenth century, the Dawoodi Bohra community was firmly established as a Gujarati-speaking trading community concentrated in the ports and towns of western India — Surat, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and beyond — long after the seat of the Tayyibi dawat had moved from Yemen to India (see Bohra History, Dawat In India). The consolidation of British rule across the subcontinent, culminating in the formal transfer of power to the Crown in 1858 CE after the suppression of the 1857 uprising, placed the community within a new legal and administrative order.

For a mercantile community, British rule was double-edged. The expanding networks of colonial commerce, railways, and steamship routes opened opportunities for Bohra traders, whose enterprise reached across the Indian Ocean to East Africa, Arabia, and beyond (see Bohra Merchant Networks). At the same time, British courts introduced a secular forum in which questions about the internal authority of the dawat — once settled entirely within the community — could now be contested before judges applying English-derived principles of trust, property, and personal law.

This article traces three interwoven threads of the colonial period: the legal cases that tested and ultimately affirmed the authority of the Dai al-Mutlaq, the reform debates that arose within the community, and the institutional modernization and relocation of the dawat seat that accompanied these contests.

The Courts and the Authority of the Dai

The most consequential colonial-era development for community governance was a series of lawsuits that drew the office of the Dai al-Mutlaq into the courtroom. The central legal question was whether the Dai — believed by the faithful to be the divinely guided representative of the Imam in his occultation (see Dai Al Mutlaq Institution) — held the religious and proprietary authority claimed for the office, including trusteeship over community endowments and offerings.

The best-known of these is the Chandabhoy Galla case (also rendered Chandabhai Gulla), filed in 1917 CE and decided in 1921 CE before the High Court of Bombay, with Justice Marten presiding. The suit was brought by the Advocate General of Bombay, Sir Thomas Strangman, at the instance of dissenting community members, and concerned the trusteeship of funds donated through a galla (donation box) kept near the revered tomb of Chandabhoy in Bombay. The plaintiffs challenged the proprietary control of the 51st Dai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA), partly by questioning the validity of the chain of succession leading to his office. The court found in favour of the Dai, recognizing the religious properties as devoted to charitable purposes with the Dai as their sole trustee — while also affirming the principle that, as a matter of civil law, even a religious leader remained accountable before the court. The case became a touchstone for understanding how the dawat’s authority would be recognized within a secular legal system.

A second major contest, the Burhanpur Dargah case, arose from a dispute over waqf (endowment) property at Burhanpur and turned on the validity of succession to the office of Dai by nass — the explicit designation of one’s successor (see Nass In Bohra Tradition). After protracted litigation beginning in the 1920s, the matter ultimately reached the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which in 1947 CE found sufficient evidence of nass and recognized Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA) as the rightful Dai al-Mutlaq. Because the Privy Council was then the highest appellate authority for British India, this affirmation carried particular weight. (Some accounts of the case’s earlier stages and the precise numbering of the historical Dais involved differ; readers should treat such details with caution.)

Together these judgments meant that, by the close of the colonial era, the religious authority and trusteeship of the Dai al-Mutlaq had been tested in the highest courts available and broadly upheld.

Reform Debates and Internal Dissent

The same colonial courts and the spread of modern education, printing, and political ideas also gave rise to reformist currents within the community. From the early twentieth century onward, some Bohras — often younger, urban, and English-educated — sought greater transparency in the administration of community funds and institutions, and questioned the scope of the Dai’s temporal authority over members’ affairs.

These debates were sharpened by doctrines and practices that emphasized the centrality of the Dai’s permission and guidance in community life. Reformist groups at times turned to the new colonial legal avenues to press their case, just as they had in the property litigation described above. The leadership, for its part, defended the integrity of the office as a matter of religious obligation rooted in the Tayyibi understanding of the Imam’s occultation and the Dai’s role as his representative.

This tension between reformist critique and the defence of established religious authority did not resolve in the colonial period; it became a long-running feature of community life that continued well beyond Independence. For the purposes of this history, it is enough to note that the reform debates of the Raj era were as much a product of colonial modernity — its courts, presses, and educated publics — as the legal cases that ran alongside them. Readers should approach the competing narratives of this still-sensitive subject with care and balance.

Modernization and the Move to Bombay

Alongside litigation and debate, the colonial period saw a deliberate modernization of community institutions under the long leadership of the 51st Dai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA), who assumed office in 1915 CE (born 1888 CE, died 1965 CE; see Syedna Taher Saifuddin). His tenure spanned the height of the Raj, the freedom struggle, and the Partition of 1947 CE.

A central legacy of this era was the strengthening of the community’s premier seat of learning. The academy founded in Surat around 1810 CE as Dars-e Saify by the 43rd Dai, Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin (RA) (see Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin 43rd Dai), was substantially reorganized and expanded during the twentieth century, eventually taking the name Aljamea-tus-Saifiyah (see Aljamea Tus Saifiyah). Under the colonial-era and post-Independence leadership, the curriculum was broadened and the institution placed on a more formal footing, reflecting a wider drive to combine traditional Fatimid-Tayyibi learning with the demands of a modern age.

The administrative reorganization of this period also included the gradual relocation of the dawat’s administrative seat from Surat — long the cultural and scholarly heart of the community (see Surat Bohra History) — to the commercial metropolis of Bombay. Several accounts place this shift around 1920 CE and associate it with a restructuring of the central administration of the dawat. Bombay’s position as a hub of commerce, transport, and communication, and its proximity to the community’s expanding overseas networks, made it a natural centre for a community whose reach was increasingly global. Surat nonetheless retained its standing as a seat of learning and tradition for decades, and the move is best understood as a gradual transfer of administrative gravity rather than an abrupt break.

Legacy of the Colonial Encounter

The encounter with the British Raj left a durable imprint on the Dawoodi Bohra community. In the courtroom, the authority of the Dai al-Mutlaq was tested against the secular categories of trust and property law and emerged broadly affirmed, while the same legal system established that religious office did not place its holder beyond civil accountability. In community life, colonial modernity catalyzed both reformist questioning and a confident, institution-building response from the leadership.

By 1947 CE, the community entered independent India and the new state of Pakistan with a centralized administration based in Bombay, a strengthened educational institution in Aljamea-tus-Saifiyah, and a body of legal precedent affirming the office of the Dai. These foundations would shape the community’s remarkable global expansion in the second half of the twentieth century under the 52nd and 53rd Dais.