The framing of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) in relation to the postwar Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region grafted a political geography onto a broad range of ecological areas. Planners, drawing on climate models, classified the region in agro-ecological terms devised in reference to the tropics. Functionally, their logic shored up a focus on rainfed, or unirrigated, agriculture in semi-arid and arid lands. But their rendering of dry areas masked the geopolitical framing of international agricultural research in the postwar period. Born of the Cold War, ICARDA emerged from exercises of European imperialism, Great Power rivalries, and the improvisation of modern nation-states in Western Asia and North Africa. The chapter charts the imperial origins of international agricultural research in Syria, the Cold War on hunger, and CGIAR’s classification of arid regions, towards an account of (1) the geopolitical logic of international agricultural research and (2) dryland agricultural science as the ground for technological and political intervention in decolonized lands.

This chapter delves into the politics of factionalism in Gaza, its causes, development, the impact of external factors, and its effects. It surveys the main bones of contention within the Gazan elite, presents portraits of elite families and political personalities, and discusses the relationships between the Gazan elite and outside forces. It focuses on the rise of the Shawwa family and its allies the Busaysus, erstwhile supporters of the Husaynis, who at some point in the mid-1890s turned against them for unknown reasons and eventually were able to oust them from control over the city’s politics in 1898, when the leadership of the Husayni family was exiled by the Ottoman government to Ankara. The rise of the Shawwa–Busaysu coalition, whose source of power was the newly created municipality, was accompanied by a spatial divide of the city between the neighborhood of Daraj where most of the elite families, including the Husaynis, resided, and the relatively poor neighborhood of Shajaʿiyya, the stronghold of the opposition. This led to what here is termed “spatialized factionalism,” a new concept that is discussed at length. Gaza’s factionalism is then analyzed in comparison to late Ottoman cities in Bilad al-Sham.

In order to comprehend various interconnected aspects, such as the historical transformation of identities, shared places of worship and blended socio-religious customs, it is imperative for scholars of religion to adopt a comprehensive viewpoint that considers the dynamic nature of evolving religious cultures. Understanding the diverse religious landscape of South Asia requires going beyond rigid categorisations of ‘Hindu’ or ‘Muslim’ and instead recognising the historically embedded connections and conflicts among ‘locally’ developed religious practices. Without acknowledging these complex interrelationships, it is impossible to grasp the full extent of Indic religious diversity. Pre-existing elements of religious cultures may take different and separate routes, can mould and be moulded by social and political forces. But, despite these changes in the (re-)structuring of a new religious worldview, certain shared devotional aspects remain in vestigial forms.

When the Laldas religious order was established in the sixteenth century, it was based on various strands of ‘Sufi’ and ‘Bhakti’ doctrines that promoted the transcendence of two institutional religious identities, ‘Muslim’ and ‘Hindu’. In accordance with the teachings of the saint Kabir, Laldas formed a unique religious synthesis that gave priority to a popular expression of a distinct religiosity. The religious traditions associated with Laldas underwent a gradual transformation, eventually being categorised under a specific religious category. In this process, the concept of ‘religion’ itself, which is a dynamic and evolving network of power, also transformed its meaning. Whether it was the devotion of a ‘Sufi’ or ‘Bhakti’ saint or the creation of ‘locally’ based ‘Islamic’ and ‘Hindu’ reformist movements, they all interacted with one another in a highly intricate manner, often adopting features of their religious opponents in order to accomplish their own goals. The emergence of the Laldas order in the sixteenth century needs to be explored in this context of diverse religious trends vying to establish supremacy over each other. His teachings centred on the promotion of nonbinary identities deeply rooted in the local context of Mewat. He is revered to this day for his ability to bestow blessings and perform miracles. Studying the historical interconnections between different conceptions of ‘Sufism’ and ‘Bhakti’ allows for a clearer understanding of popular religiosity associated with Laldas, which stands in contrast to institutionalised expressions of ‘Islam’ and ‘Hinduism’.

Global history stands out by its intimate relationship to the processuality of history. As they put forms and structures of ‘global integration’ centre stage, global historians have not only made statements about the direction of history the foundation of how they define their area of study; they also ascribe at least partial explanatory power to them. The chapter argues that there is a lot to gain from stronger reflection on how global historians construe historical change over time. It delves into the theory of historical processes to develop more precise questions about directionality and presents responses global histories may offer to the teleological pitfalls of global integration. It also discusses the dialectics involved in processes of global integration and offers the outlines of a global history more attuned to the (unrealised) expectations and ‘futures pasts” among historical actors and to historical uncertainties produced under the impact of global interconnection. While the directionality/teleology problem poses particular challenges for global historians, it also can help think about multiple ‘guiding scripts’ global historians may use, refine and variegate in practice.