Direct link to the copy of the Syllabus of the Research Methodology Course Work (highlighted) if Research Ethics is included
1. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Animal Science (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611386670.pdf) 2. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Applied Psychology (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611386734.pdf) 3. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Bengali (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611386593.pdf) 4. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Chemistry (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611387666.pdf) 5. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Commerce (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611312690.pdf) 6. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Education (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611313905.pdf) 7. Syllabus of M.Phil. Programme in Education (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611313954.pdf) 8. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in English (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611389001.pdf) 9. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Hindi (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611386820.pdf) 10. Syllabus of M.Phil. Programme in Hindi (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611312523.pdf) 11. Syllabus of M.Phil. / Ph.D. Programme in History (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611387737.pdf) 12. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Law (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611388555.pdf) 13. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Mathematics (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611388888.pdf) 14. Syllabus of M.Phil. / Ph.D. Programme in Philosophy (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611388369.pdf) 15. Syllabus of M.Phil. - Ph.D. Programme in Physics (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611386493.pdf) 16. Syllabus of Ph.D. Programme in Political Science (https://www.knu.ac.in/uploads/tempimagepdflink/1611388191.pdf)
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
KAZI NAZRUL UNIVERSITY Nazrul Road, Kalla More, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman West Bengal- 713 340
INSTITUTIONAL ANIMAL ETHICS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 27th December 2020 at 02.00 P.M
MEMBER PRESENT: Sl. No NAME DESIGNATION ATTENDANCE 1. Dr. Asamanja Chattoraj Professor PRESENT 2. Dr. Kuladip Jana Principal Scientist, Division PRESENT of molecular medicine, Bose Institute 3. Dr. Suprabhat Mukherjee Assistant Professor and PRESENT Coordinator (Dept. of Animal Science) 4. Dr. Sourabh Sulabh Assistant Professor PRESENT 5. Dr. Manas Paramanik Assistant Professor PRESENT
AGENDA: 1. Requirements for establishing minimum facilities for animal housing. 2. CPCSEA registration.
MINUTES: 1. Animal house should be completely separate for biosecurity purposes. 2. Separate floors should be assigned for separate work with a provision for a separate laboratory area. 3. The whole house should have provision for maintenance of temperature, humidity and circulation of air. 4. Other requirements: Quarantine room, Isolation room, washing and sterilization area, food and waste material disposal area, changing room. 5. For the time being a temporary setup will be established with basic minimum facilities for CPCSEA approval. Details for the same will be send by Dr. Kuladip Jana to Dr. Suprabhat Mukherjee.
Website: www.knu.ac.in : +91-341-2252024 Fax: +91-341-2271024
8/28/2020 Kazi Nazrul University Mail - [URKUND] Welcome to URKUND!
Maheswar Malo Das
[URKUND] Welcome to URKUND! 5 messages
[email protected]
Dear Maheswar Malo Das,
You have received this e-mail because your organisation Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol has access to URKUND, a pedagogical support system for plagiarism checking, and has requested that a user account be created for you. More information on URKUND is available at http://www.urkund.com/en/
A document intended to be checked should be e-mailed as an attached file to:
This analysis address is connected to your personal e-mail ([email protected]) and reports will be sent there when they are ready.
With best regards,
URKUND automatic registrar
-- Additional functionality ------
All users have a personal web based inbox for URKUND reports. To use your personal inbox, you first need to activate it via this link:
https://secure.urkund.com/account/signup/invite?token=d150wE0V6k7r70mxxpJnWFatw5% 2F5b9sq7GQtXf6zDOI%3D
Note that this link only works for 96 hours. Should you want to activate your user account later, you will need to contact our customer service for a new link.
-- User support ------
Our user guide is located here: http://static.urkund.com/manuals/URKUND_Userguide.pdf
In addition to user guides, URKUND also provides several forms of training to make it easier to start using the system. Contact the person in your organisation responsible for URKUND, or contact our Customer Support, for more information.
If you have questions about URKUND and its use, please contact our Helpdesk: +46 (0)8 738 5210 (Mon-Fri 08.00-16.30) or by e-mail to [email protected] Many questions are also answered at http://www.urkund.com/en/support
-- How we protect your personal information ------
When you submit a document to URKUND, we store your email for the purpose of managing versions of your document and so that the receiver of the document can know who submitted it. URKUND does not save your personal information for its own purposes but only on behalf of and under instruction from the organisation where you study or are employed. In this way, URKUND is the data processor for the organisation which uses the service. URKUND has implemented technical and company-wide policies to protect your personal information.
If you would like to know more about how your information is managed and protected, see URKUND’s Personal Information Policy. https://secure.urkund.com/static/documents/ENG_URKUND_Policy.pdf Digitally signed by MAHESWAR MALO DAS ------Date: 2020.08.28 This is an automatic e-mail message. You cannot reply to it 14:52:28 +05'30' https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2?ik=1ddf4be2c2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642932677528577746&simpl=msg-f%3A16429326… 1/2
Dr Santanu Banerjee Assistant Professor Date: Department of English Kazi Nazrul University Nazrul Road, Kalla Bypass More P.O.Kalla C.H., P.S. Asansol (North) Pin-713340, West Bengal www.knu.ac.in [email protected] Telephone (O) 0341-2270456 0341- 2271024 (Fax) Mobile: 91-9475002844
Certificate
This is to certify that the thesis “Exploring the Interface among Marginality, Power and Resistance in Postmillennial Indian Fiction in English: A Study of Select Novels of Kunal Basu, Neel Mukherjee and Aravind Adiga” submitted by Mr. Rakes Sarkar for the degree of Ph.D. for Kazi Nazrul University is a record of original work done under my supervision in the Department of English of Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol. I certify that the work is free from plagiarism and his indebtedness to other works and sources has been duly acknowledged.
I further certify that Mr. Sarkar has fulfilled the statutory requirements relating to the nature and period of research, publication of research article and presentation of seminar lectures on his thesis (as per Regulations relating to Doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees, Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol, to be implemented from the Academic Session 2013-14). This work now submitted in partial fulfilment of his Ph.D. (Arts) degree in English has not been submitted previously anywhere for any degree whatsoever either by him or by anyone else.
U R K U N D
Urkund Analysis Result
Analysed Document: Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172) Submitted: 9/4/2019 12:21:00 PM Submitted By: [email protected] Significance: 6 %
Sources included in the report:
Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx (D54185858) 4chapter1.docx (D32991806) 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf (D27266373) http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv-collaboratori/cv-ganguly-debjani https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/338932.Subaltern_Studies https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39aa/1ec800c676b8d6eed7a6eb4a6ed9c80499b4.pdf https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Selected-Subaltern-Studies/Ranajit-Guha/9780195052893 https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 http://blogs.ubc.ca/span501/ https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/the-most-unwanted-a-gripping-account-of- https://www.fortifyrights.org/publication-20181112.html https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/asia/rohingya-repatriation-myanmar-intl/index.html https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 c1432e97-d0e2-44b3-bbc9-cb5a898854e6
Instances where selected sources appear: U R K U N D
270 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
i Remapping the Subaltern after the End of Subaltern Studies: Representations, Exclusions and Silences Thesis Submitted to Kazi Nazrul University, India for award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Md Mursed Alam with the supervision of Dr. Anindya Sekhar Purakayastha July, 2019
ii Dedicated to The subalterns of the world whose lives and struggles keep us grounded
iii Declaration I certify that a. The work contained in the thesis is original and has been done by myself with the general supervision of my supervisor. b. The work has not been submitted to any other Institute for any degree or diploma. c. Whenever I have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, and text) from other sources, I have given due credit to them by citing them in the text of the thesis and giving their details in the references. d. Whenever I have quoted written maaterials from other sources, I have put them under quotation marks or in indentation and given due credit to the sources by citing them and giving required details in the references. Md Mursed Alam Date: 31.07.2019
iv Kazi Nazrul University Department of English Anindya Sekhar Purakayastha, PhD Associate Professor Department of English Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol, West Bengal India, 713340 [email protected] Fulbright Academic and Professional Excellence Fellow 2018-19 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the thesis entitled Remapping the Subaltern after the End of Subaltern Studies: Representations, Exclusions and Silences submitted by Md Mursed Alam to Kazi Nazrul University, India is a record of bona fide research work with my supervision and I consider it worthy of consideration for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University. Sincerely, Anindya Sekhar Purakayastha Date: 31.07.2019
v Contents Title Page Acknowledgements: vi Abstract: viii Introduction: 1 Chapter 1: The Theoretical Agenda of Subaltern Studies 19 Chapter 2: Mapping the Evolution of the Subaltern Studies Project 57 Chapter 3: Early Critiques of Sualtern Studies 112 Chapter 4: Contemporaray Critiques of Subaltern Studies 153 Chapter 5: Re-mapping the Subaltern in the Contemporary Conjuncture 194 Conclusion: 220 Bibliography: 223
vi Acknowledgements I believe no intellectual exercise is solely an individual enterprise. Our intellectual work is built on the labors of many others who thought before and continue to think with us and depends on practical support of many people. This research, too, benefitted from many people directly and indirectly. My mentor and friend Dr. Anindya Sekhar Purakayatha perhaps needs no customary thanksgiving. I had the privilege of his company since my college days and have grown in his intellectual camaraderie. I hope this research does justice to his expectations. The two-month teaching course offered by
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi
gave me the opportunity to share my research with the faculty members. I thank Prof Aditya Nigam, Prof Prathama Banerjee and Prof Awadhendra Sharan for their critical comments and
3 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
suggestions on my research. I thank Charles Wallace India Trust and Richard Alford for granting me the Charles Wallace Research Visit grant, providing me the opportunity to visit the British Library for my PhD research. I also thank Dr. Alex Tickell of the Open University, UK, Dr. Pavan Kumar Malreddy of Goethe University, Frankfurt, for showing interest in my work and for commenting on a chapter draft. I had the opportunity of getting feedback on different chapter drafts of this research at summer schools and conferences organised by institutes and organisations such as Institute of Social Protest, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany; University Centre Saint-Ignatius Antwerp (UCSIA), University of Antwerp, Belgium; University of Munster, Germany; Development Studies Association, UK annual conference 2016 held in the University of Oxford; The Calcutta Research Group Conference on Accumulation in Postcolonial Capitalism; Centre for Political Studies, JNU; Postcolonial Narrations Conference on Moving Centers and Traveling Cultures, held at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, etc. I thank the organisers for giving me this opportunity. I also thank all the esteemed faculty members of the Department of English, Kazi Nazrul University for their constant academic guidance and support. I also do acknowledge the support of my fellow PhD scholars in the department. I am privileged to have the inspiring association of some of my friends and students. For my indebtedness to Jim, no words are enough. He has been a constant comrade all through. I also thank Rabiul, Matin, Kalyan, Sarfaraj, Dhritiman, Mabud, Subham, Anik, Debarati Dutta for being with me and for research help. I thank my college authorities for research facilities, and also extend my thanks to my colleagues in the college- Syfujjaman,
vii Satyajit, Arupda, Arijit, Bikram, Akhilda, Ekram, Soumik as well as Debolina and Mustakim for helping me access materials and giving technical support. Dr. Mosarrap Hossain Khan, editor of Café Dissensus and Subhendra Bhowmik of Sidho Kanho Birsha University gave me constant support and encouragement during my research and I take the opportunity to thank them. Special thanks to Dr. Manas Dutta of Kazi Nazrul Univesity for his guidance and kind help during my Charles Wallace research grant application. I also remember the research facilities provided by Dr. Saswat Das of IIT Kharagpur. Prof. Soumyajit Samanta of University of North Bengal was also of significant help in the initial days of my research explorations. My deepest gratitude to my family members- my mother Tahera Bibi and my father Md Mojaffar Hossain, my two sisters and their husbands, my brother and sister-in-law, my niece Anisa, Sumaiya, Tarik and Faiz. I am extremely grateful to my in-laws Zahur Ahmed, Sivani Ahmed and Jewel Ahmed for their time and practical support. Without their everyday support it would have been difficult for me to finish the work. Seema gave me all the time to think and write while looking after the family herself and taking care of Nora, our daughter. She was there whenever I faced any self-doubt and provided the everyday back-up needed. I cannot thank her enough. I also remember my fruitful research association with Postcolonial Studies association of the Global South (PSAGS). Hope little Nora would one day read it and would forgive me for keeping away from her during the writing of the thesis. My apologies to many whom I could not acknowledge individually here.
viii Abstract This thesis is primarily a postcolonial theoretical project and it engages specifically with the Subaltern Studies Collective as a significant territory of postcolonial theorisation on subjectivity and politics. It seeks to revisit the Subaltern Studies project in the light of the new and emergent forms of subalternity, marginality and precarity in the current socio- economic
4 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
and cultural conjuncture in order to investigate how we can re-define/ re- conceptualise the subaltern today. Chapter I focusses on the central theoretical agenda of the project as expressed in Ranajit Guha’s various writings and talks and elaborated further by other members of the project. Chapter II attempts a historical chronicling of the project taking into account the different paradigm shifts within it. This study of the shifts in the project gives a historical background and legitimacy for remapping the subaltern in the current conjuncture. Subaltern Studies, from its very inception, was met with criticism. Chapter III maps the early critiques of Subaltern Studies while Chapter IV takes stock of the recent critiques of Subaltern Studies and the recent attempts at framing a post-Subaltern Studies framework of analysing the subaltern in the contemporary context. Chapter V maps the new and emergent subalterns under the current conditions of neo-liberal capital, right-wing majoritarianism, ethnocracy and new border regimes of hyper-nationalist dispensations. Through a discussion of one such emergent subaltern-precariats i.e. the Rohingya refugees Chapter V points out the glaring lacunas in existing postcolonial/ subaltern theorisations in addressing such ‘crisis diasporas’ (forced diasporas emerging out of conflict ridden territorial crisis), thus, calling for fresh optics in postcolonial theorisation. The thesis concludes by summarising some of the possible future directions for engaging with the subaltern today after the official closure of the project of Subaltern Studies as articulated in 2012 by Partha Chatterjee, one of the key members of the Subaltern Studies Group. As a project on postcolonial theorisation, the present research has a significant bearing on studying subaltern subjectivity and agency in contemporary literary and cultural theory. Though a reconceptualization of the subaltern question, this thesis would, thus, also talk about futural contours of theory from the Global South.
1 INTRODUCTION The present research is primarily a postcolonial theoretical project and it engages specifically with Subaltern Studies as a significant territory of postcolonial theorisation on subjectivity and politics. It seeks to revisit the Subaltern Studies project in the light of the new and emergent forms of subalternity, marginality and precarity in the current socio- economic and cultural conjuncture in order to investigate how we can re-define/ re- conceptualise the subaltern today. As a project on postcolonial theorisation, the present research has a significant bearing on studying subaltern subjectivity and agency in contemporary literary and cultural theory. Of late, there have been significant debates and discussions (Loomba et al, 2005; Goldberg and Quayson ed, 2002; Wilson, Sandru and Welsh ed, 2009; Malreddy et al, 2015) about the future directions and scope of postcolonial theory - about the (ir) relevance of its current analytical framework and ways of reconceptualising the field. Critics have alleged that postcolonial theorisation has bypassed the materialist concerns of praxis and continues with the culturalist paradigm and formalist critique of literary texts.
0: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 95%
Vivek Chibber’s book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (2013)
criticise postcolonial theory, in particular Subaltern Studies, for mystifying the corroding effect of capital and ignoring the material issues. Partha Chatterjee (2012) and Dipesh Chakrabarty’s (2013) recent articles also talk about futural projects of the Subalternist School of historiography. Both of them are significant members of the Subaltern Studies Collective and
5 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
therefore their argument for a reformulation of the Subalternist projects hold a lot of importance. This thesis, which seeks to remap the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture, would contribute in this ongoing debate on the future political agenda of postcolonial theory. Recently there also have been calls for theory from the Global South. Though a reconceptualization of the subaltern question, this thesis would also talk about futural contours of theory from Global South. Background to the Study The arrival of neo-liberal capital under the facilitating guidance of the state and its ever expanding hegemony have led to newer forms of domination and subordination. There has been massive expropriation of land and natural resources by finance capital. Primitive
2 accumulation has encroached on the “new commons” i.e. forests, minerals, fisheries, sand, ground water etc. As a consequence, there has been the dismantling of the tribals from their mineral rich habitat. The number of development induced refugees continues to grow. The mode of postcolonial development in its neo-liberal avatar has also sharply divided the urban and the rural. The bid to create “smart cities” and the consequent infrastructural development to attract foreign capital have led to massive inflow of migrant workers from the villages, which has created newer zones of rurality within the mega cities. Within this urban imaginary the “planet of slums” is expanding as a disturbing presence. The contemporary conjuncture is also marked by forms of subordination which may not come under the immediate purview of the economic; however they are nonetheless important. There is an ever increasing threat to the minorities from the right-wing ideology under the garb of developmental nationalism. The emergence of India as a “hard state” and the media disseminating the statist ideology, globalisation notwithstanding, has created a Kafkaesque world for the minorities and the dissident voices. The resurgence of ethno-democracy and majoritarianism coupled with post- 9/11 securitisation and Islamophobia have led to violence on the otherised marginalities and “foreign bodies”, and new border-regimes with changing calculus of techno-political control have taken shape. The postcolonial nation-state, one that emerged from the regimes of colonial violence, has gradually evolved into an agent of violence. The Dalit question, too, gains a new resilience under the various attacks on the dalits recently. However, the onslaught of the neo-liberal capital and the creation of newer domains of subalternity have led, discourses of governmentality notwithstanding, to antagonistic protests. These include the protest against land grabs for SEZ as in anti-Posco movement and anti-Singur movement, protest against the seizure of mineral rich tribal lands in Chattishgarh, social movements against the large scale displacement by infrastructural projects, protests by slum dwellers against eviction, opposition of retailers against shopping malls. These protests have been of two types- within the legal constitutional norms such as petitioning and demonstrations as well as violent protests against the state such as the Maoist insurgency. The government response to these violent protests have resulted in counter insurgency operations such as Operation Green Hunt, often backed by private vigilante force like Salwa Judum. The present excursus, thus, seeks to revisit the Subaltern Studies project and seeks to investigate, from the vantage point of these emerging forms of subalternity and subaltern resistance, how we can re-define the subaltern in the current conjuncture. What Prompted the Revisit?
3 The motivation for this research came from the recent debates over the Subaltern Studies project. In his 2012 article After Subaltern Studies, published in Economic and Political Weekly,
6 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Partha Chatterjee (himself being one of the chief architect of the Subaltern Studies Collective) has talked about the necessity of exploring ‘new projects’. He thinks that although the questions raised by Subaltern Studies as a new domain of postcolonial historiography are still relevant, the methodological and conceptual framework offered by the collective is insufficient to answer those questions in the contemporary. He talks about ‘new projects’ in the changed time. In his article, Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence published in 2013 and which can be viewed as his response to Partha Chatterjee, Dipesh Chakrabarty (another key member of the Subaltern Sstudies Collective) importantly distinguishes between Subaltern Studies as the series of publications initiated by Ranajit Guha which is over and Subaltern Studies as the field of studies which he thinks is ‘not dead or extinct by any means’. He writes- The field is a much larger and more enduring phenomenon than the series that originated from very particular times and authorial intentions.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 88%
The general interest in the lives and politics of the subaltern classes that Subaltern Studies stoked is here to stay, whether or not we agree with particular authors and their contributions in the field. (
Chakrabarty 2013, 23) Subaltern Studies, thus, as a field of continued study of the postcolonial condition is still alive and not defunct. This thesis, thus, takes up the challenge offered by Chatterjee and Chakrabarty and it begins from where they left or hinted at i.e. to remap the subaltern in the current conjuncture. In doing that I have to elaborate Chatterjee and Chakrabarty’s stand. Chatterjee points out that Subaltern Studies was a “conjunctural” project located within the socio-economic and cultural specificities of its time of inception. The civil and political unrest following the Emergency, the Naxalite peasant insurgency and the rebellion in Punjab and Assam challenged the authority of the state. These local concerns were overdetermined by the global issues of the 1970s and 1980s such as the peasant revolutions in China and Vietnam and the collective drew on the theoretical methodologies eclectically from across the globe. Such examples of lack of popular support and legitimacy of the Indian state led the collective to analyse the domain of peasant life and politics. The focus was on the study of peasant rebel and his consciousness. However, Chatterjee points out the drastic changes, in the last three decades, of the “objective conditions” within which the project of Subaltern Studies was located. He points out the radical shift in the attitude of the people towards the state:
4 Yet when economic liberalisation came in the early 1990s, it did not have to be imposed by authoritarian means. Something had clearly changed in Indian politics. Greater and greater sections of the people were developing a stake in the governmental regime and becoming aware of the instruments of electoral democracy as a means to influence that regime. The arms of administration were reaching deeper and wider into the domains of everyday life hitherto untouched by government. At the same time corporate capital was gaining position of unprecedented legitimacy within urban civil society, displacing the status once enjoyed by the postcolonial developmental state (Chatterjee 2012, 45). What are the consequences of
7 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
these changes in the political conditions of India for the project of Subaltern Studies? Chatterjee thinks that the “image of the subaltern rebel” “seemed in these new times “like a throwback to the days of the British Raj- a construct that historians of colonial India might find useful but one that would be of little help in understanding the contemporary Indian peasant” (ibid, 45). There arose the necessity of a new framework, “a new framework of democratic citizenship- complex, differentiated, perhaps fundamentally altered from the normative ideas of citizenship in western liberal democracies, but nonetheless citizenship, not subjecthood” (ibid, 46). Chatterjee, thus, declares, “Subalternity would have to be redefined” (ibid, 46). The discourse of governmentality, Chatterjee thinks, has changed the contours of politics of the subaltern groups and “it would be a mistake to try to understand these activities of contemporary mass politics within the theoretical paradigm of peasant insurgency” (ibid, 47). He thus talks about a paradigm shift of subaltern politics from negation to negotiation. Chatterjee talks about another significant area of Subaltern Studies, namely its engagement with the unconventional and non-canonical archive where he thinks new research has thrown “entirely new topics” (ibid, 47). The engagement with unconventional archive was occasioned by a search for the peasant consciousness, the subaltern voice. It was “prompted by our [the group] search for sources where the subaltern subject might be seen to be representing himself or herself” (ibid, 48). This search brought Subaltern Studies to “rich deposit of vernacular print literatures in the 19 th and 20 th century”, to the domain of popular culture. Chatterjee thinks that this “recent project” of vernacular-popular culture has important points to take note of. He points out that research in print literature in major Indian languages show the existence of “great variety of regional cultural formations that emerged in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and that demand significant reformulation of the questions of modernity and nationhood in South Asia” (ibid, 48) since the idea of nationhood was mediated by the regional linguistic formation. The focus on vernacular and the non-canonical
5 also demands a shift from “intellectual or high literary history to the historical construction of the national-popular” (ibid, 48). The regional linguistic and cultural formations are also highly graded and hierarchical which can throw up divergent and opposing impulses of interaction with modernity. This turn towards popular culture, Chatterjee thinks, has given a concrete form to what was only abstract in the theoretical formulation of Subaltern Studies. The Gramscian notion of people- nation was always behind the concept of subaltern classes and has informed the critique of Subaltern Studies of the postcolonial state as “dominance without hegemony” or passive revolution. But the description of the people-nation has been abstract or formulaic because “the people in the people- nation could not be specified”. But Chatterjee thinks I believe we now have a much richer stock of descriptions of the domain of the popular in the different linguistic regions of South Asia in the last century and a half to enable us to supply more concrete, nuanced and chronologically specific accounts of the formation of the national popular.(ibid, 48) The study of popular culture also led to the significant but so far unrecognised domain of the visual. The serious study of the visual culture such as in the popular movies, popular prints, calendars, book illustrations, advertisements, studio photographs etc can lead to the writing of a “political history of the popular in South Asia that would not simply be illustrative of, but in fact different from, the history written on the basis of conventional textual sources”.(ibid, 49) In a country, Chatterjee points out, where universal literacy is still a far cry the importance of the visual in
8 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
understanding the national-popular is hardly overstated. Chatterjee also talks about the recent shift from text towards the study of practices in various disciplines. The study of practices highlights the “autonomous status of embodied or institutional practices” (ibid, 49) and not read as manifestations of underlying concepts. Chatterjee thinks that it was Subaltern Studies that “shifted the attention away from intellectual history to ethnography”. But now ethnography is no longer concerned with uncovering the underlying conceptual structures of the activities of people and seeks to understand practices as activities that people carry out for their own sake. And that is why the “old conceptual structure of Subaltern Studies has become inadequate for the purpose”. (ibid, 49) Chatterjee is aware of the consequences this “shift to the ethnographic, the practical, the everyday and the local” (ibid, 49) entails. There is the fear of subaltern history not
6 travelling well. But he is optimistic that “if history students all over the world could read about daily life in a single village in the French province of Languedoc in the 14 th century or about the mental world of a solitary Italian miller in the 16 th century, then in principle there is no reason why they should not do the same with a book about the subaltern life in a village or small town in South Asia.”(ibid, 49) Chatterjee concludes by saying that he is not writing an elegy for Subaltern Studies. He ends: Even if the specific project called
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 100%
Subaltern Studies begun 30 years ago has run its course, it has managed to scatter, reinvent and insert itself in several subsequent projects.
The questions it asked have now taken other forms; to answer them, it is necessary to craft new theoretical concepts. Subaltern Studies was a product of its time; another time calls for other projects. (ibid, 49) In “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence”, Chakrabarty recounts a “retrospective and personal view” of Subaltern Studies. He points out that the project started when a group of young historians came together around the personality of Ranajit Guha. Although the project started as an “intervention in Indian, not even South Asian history”, over the times it “made waves in the world of the social sciences and the humanities generally” (Chakrabarty 201, 23). The members of the founding editorial collective “instead of forming any kind of an intellectual monolith, have individually pursued a diverse range of questions that both connect back to where they started from and evolved towards different futures” (ibid, 23). Chakrabarty points out that many of the issues with which Subaltern Studies started with “do not strike us today with the same force as they once did though some still command attention” (ibid, 24). He writes: The cult of peasant-based modern and armed revolutions that the Chinese and Vietnamese experiences once inspired among the young has been replaced by the talk of globalisation while migrants, asylum seekers, illegal workers, and refugees have emerged perhaps as the new subalterns of the present era. Gramsci, a key theoretical influence on Subaltern Studies, is still a respected name in many quarters, but he does not seem to occupy the same pedestal as Deleuze, Badiou, or even Agamben. Mao Zedong, on the other hand has suffered a decline both globally and within his own country. (ibid, 24) Does that then mean, Chakrabarty asks, that Subaltern Studies has become invalid? Was then the vision of peasant revolution on which the project was based “romantic and
9 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
utopian”? Chakrabarty points out that these are the questions which are asked not only by “outside
7 observers” but even by the “‘subaltern’ scholars themselves”. But instead of bemoaning or declaring an obituary he rather points out what he calls the “unintended but generative mistakes” (ibid, 24) of the project that still hold promise for the study of subaltern life and politics today. He goes on to elaborate on those generative mistakes: First he talks about the question of the archaic in the modern. He pots out that everyday life in the subcontinent is “marked by cohabitation and intermingling of practices and objects that look ancient and modern” (ibid, 24) such as the putting of the gods and the humans in the same field of vision in popular practices in India. Although this is not a new discovery, but Chakraarty asks how we can think about this phenomenon analytically? Before the coming of Subaltern Studies such aspects like religion and historical time, belief and its relation to practices, elite and folk religion etc, were understood in compartmentalised isolation or as “residues” or “leftovers” in the historicist and periodised understanding
0: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 87%
of time.
Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983)
made a departure by analysing, guided by French critical theory, the ideologies of hierarchy and domination in nineteenth century India through recourse to traditional notions of domination and hierarchy in Sanskrit ancient texts. Chakrabarty thinks that although we know from hindsight the difficulties or problems of the structuralist methodology but Guha’s exploration of the coexistence of the archaic and the modern was a valid endeavour. He then talks about the poststructuralist and deconstructive turn, after the intervention of Spivak, in the project which many misunderstood as “giving ammunition to Hindu right”. Although Chakrabarty is not “persuaded” by Spivak’s answer to her question, can the subatern speak?, he thinks that Spivak’s answer raised important question regarding the issues of representation and (im)possibility of retrieving subaltern presence in the writings of the subaltern historians. Chakrabarty clarifies that he would not pursue Spivak’s line of enquiry and talks about how Guha’s initial foundational question can help to analyse subaltern politics today. Chakrabarty points out that Guha’s analysis of crowd mobilisations of the 19 th century gives us “a most interesting and creative genealogy of crowd politics as it actually exists in India today” (ibid, 26). Like E. P. Thomson in Britain, Guha was motivated by the question, “How did popular politics develop and shape the democracy that India became after independence?”(ibid, 26). However, Guha’s approach was different from the English historians, as whereas Thompson and Rude individualised the crowd in Guha’s structuralist
8 understanding “the agency of the crowd is effected and legitimised precisely by its facelessness” (ibid, 27). How can Guha’s analysis help us to understand the subaltern politics today? Cakrabarty points out that one of the significant ways in which Indian democracy or emerging democracies such as South African ones is different from western liberal democracy
10 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
is in their use of “public ‘disorder’” as a political weapon. Crowd action, thus, cannot be dismissed as a problem of public disorder but has to be thought of as a “political problem” and the crowd has emerged as “a mainstream political actor” (ibid, 27). The “violent politics of the street” is “an integral part of how democratic politics are understood and practiced in India” (ibid, 27). Thus, Guha’s structuralist reading of peasant insurgencies in colonial India in Elmentary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India provides us with a “way, a method, of constructing a genealogy of the mass political subject in India”. (ibid, 27) Chakrabarty elsewhere argued that the project of Subaltern Studies did not theorise adequately on the question of democracy vis –a-vis the subaltern. The agency the crowd and street politics can, as he said, provide us a clue to address that lacuna. This takes us to conceptualisation of riot as a political concept and the riotous crowd as a political subject of social and political transformation. Chakrabarty’s hint here can lead to a theorisation of the crowd subjectivity drawing on the methodology of Guha. Chatterjee too has in his conceptualisation of the “politics of the governed” and “political society” tried to understand this fuzzy zone of subaltern politics vis-à-vis regimes of governmentality as expanding the democratic horizon. Research Questions: This thesis would try to build on the deficit of concretising a contemporary subalternist project and to do that it would proceed through the following research questions: 1. What was the originary hypothesis of Subaltern Studies project and how did it redefine and reinforce postcolonial theory and postcolonial agency by opening up new areas of studies hitherto untouched by mainstream postcolonial historiography, conventional Marxist historiography and Eurocentric theories of cultural studies? 2. What were the different stages of evolution, shifts and raptures in the three decades of subaltern historiography and what significant insights and new directionalities do we get through the different stages of paradigm shifts within Subaltern Studies? 3. How do we categorise different critics of Subaltern Studies? 4. What is the way ahead? What new theoretical plexus can we arrive at to reconceptualise/ re-define the subaltern in the current conjuncture?
9 Theoretical Framework To investigate these questions the thesis follows the theoretical framework of the Subaltern Studies project, the collective’s originary conceptualisation as well as the recent theorisations of the subaltern question. Although Subaltern Studies started with a historiographical concern, to investigate and to understand contemporary forms of subalternity and marginality it is necessary to revisit, to re-read and to re-examine the Subaltern Studies project. I would engage with the subaltern question as it was theorised by the Subaltern Studies collective and take account of the shifts and changes in the project. I would primarily focus on the works of Ranajit Guha, Partha Chatterjee, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Gayatri Spivak, Gyanendra Pandey. I would also engage with the criticism that was unleashed against the project, both previous and recent criticism (Sarkar; Chaturvedi, 2009; Ludden, 2012; Chibber, 2013). I would also engage with new theorisations – neo- Marxist, neo- Gramscian, critical theory- on the question of the contemporary subaltern and the precariat and the marginal to arrive at a new theoretical template for understanding the subaltern question in the current scenario. Literature Review There is a clear gap in the existing literature regarding an exhaustive study of the project of Subaltern Studies. Although we have some chapter length articles by two of the members of the Subaltern Studies collective (Chatterjee, 2010; Chakrabarty, 2002) there has been no systematic study of tracing the genealogy of the project taking into account the paradigm shifts in the project, the various
11 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
critical stance against the project and its contributions in theorising postcolonial subjectivity and agency in historical, literary and cultural discourse. There is also a paucity of works which critically engage with the questions raised by Subaltern Studies collective in understanding the emerging forms of subalternity in the contemporary India. The recent publications that seek to do so engage only with some aspects of the contemporary subaltern domain and important areas remain outside their purview. As the project unfolded in the 1980s it triggered heated debate in India regarding the methods of undertaking history of the subaltern. The initial critical response to the project came from the Marxist social historians and Marxist thinkers in the form of review articles published in Social Scientist. The attempt had been to point out the flip side of the project- its
10 methodological incorrectness, misconstrued notion of subaltern politics or its lack of innovation. However, this debate between the subalternists and the Marxist scholars proved to be lasting one with occational critiques and counter-critiques between them. The two important collection of critical articles (Ludden, 2002; Chaturvedi, 2000) takes stocks of the debate. However, these attempts are restricted to the debate between the subaltern and Marxist scholars, that up to the beginning of the new millennium), they do not, understandably, engage with recent debates. After the publication of Chatterjee and Chakrabarty’s articles in the EPW, there have been attempts at defining and re-defining subalternity and subaltern politics in the contemporary conjuncture. However, although some aspects of the present forms of exclusion and marginalisation have been explored there has been no concrete and exhaustive study of remapping the subaltern. In 2013 there was the publication of
0: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 95%
Vivek Chibber’s book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (
Verso, 2013) which came down heavily upon postcolonial theory and particularly on the Subaltern Studies project and its theorisations on hegemony and the history of capital in non- western countries. This neo- Marxist attack led to a heated debate (Chibber- Chatterjee, 2013, 2014; Spivak, 2014). The numerous reviews of this book (Brennan, 2014; Lazarus, 2016; Perry, 2015; Vanayak, 2013; Purakayastha, 2014; Murphet, 2014) once again ignited the debate over postcolonial theory and its limitations as well as the relevance of its emancipatory ideology. Chibber’s attack is, however, not wholly new- he comes in line of a long list of Marxist critiques who had criticised the project in past and is in line with contemporary works such as Gramsci Can Not Speak (Green, 2011) and Subalternity, Antagonism and Autonomy: Constructing the Political Subject (Modonessi, 2014). However, while Chibber’s way of attack and his rejection of the project of Subaltern Studies may be critiqued, there is also a need to engage with the questions raised by him and others when we talk about a revisit of the Subaltern Studies project and that has not been done so far. Recently there also have been important publications (Gudavarthy, 2012, 2013; Ganguly, 2015; Chandra, 2015; Nilsen and Roy, 2015) that engage with the question of subalternity and subaltern resistance in the contemporary India. Guvavarthy in his works like Re-framing Democracy and Agency in India: Interrogating Political Society, Politics of Post- Civil Society: Contemporary History of Political Movements in
12 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
India has interrogated Chatterjee’s concepts like political society and has foregrounded the nature of post-civil society politics in contemporary India. New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Subaltern Politics and Hegemony in Contemporary India edited by Alf Gunvald Nilsen and Srila Roy is
11 a significant contribution in this ongoing debate on reconceptualising subaltern politics in contemporary neo-liberal conjuncture. It critically engages with the legacy of the Subaltern Studies project and draws also from Chibber’s intervention for offering new ways of understanding the subaltern politics from the vantage point of contemporary new social movements in India. There have been two important edited volumes in 2015 that seek to take the debate on subaltern politics forward. Uday Chandra edited Rethinking Subaltern Resistance (Journal of contemporary Asia, 2015 Special Issue) and Debjani
0: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39aa/1ec800c676b8d6eed7a6eb4a6ed9c80499b4.pdf 78%
Ganguly edited
The Subaltern after Subaltern Studies (South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,
Special issue) attempt to locate the subaltern in contemporary India after the project of subaltern Studies is over. However, although these important collections seek to redefine subalternity and subaltern politics taking into account the contemporary subaltern subjects and their politics, they do not take into account the emergent forms of subalternity such as the refugees and migrants, the climate precariats etc without which an exhaustive mapping of the subaltern is inadequate. Again, books such as From the Margins to the Mainstream: Institutionalising Minorities in South Asia ( Hugo Gorringe et all, 2016) , Dalits and Adivasis in India’s Business Economy (Harris-White et.all, 2013) Caste in Contemporary India (Jodhka, 2014), What Ails Indian Muslims (Jal and Ali ed., 2016), Being Muslim in South Asia: diversity and daily life (Jeffrey and Sen, 2014), Muslim Political Discourse in Postcolonial India: Monuments, Memory, Contestation (Ahmad, 2014) show the exclusion of the Dalits, Adivasis and the Muslims in contemporary India and how they are fighting back their marginalisation and minoritisation. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class (Standing, 2011) highlight the precarious condition of those staking a life in times of neo-liberal capital. There is a need to engage with these existing and emergent forms of subalternity and subaltern politics. The edited books and the edited volumes sought to do that from various perspectives- neo- Gramscian, critical theory and neo-Marxist. There is a need to critically engage with these approaches and to investigate what further ways can be thought of in analysing and understanding subalternity and subaltern politics in the contemporary conjuncture. Thus, building on the theorisations of the Subaltern Studies collective (Guha, Chatterjee, Chakrabarty, Spivak, Pandey, Prakash) as well as on the recent attempts at rethinking the subaltern question (Nilsen and Roy, Chandra, Gudavarthy, Ganguly) this thesis seeks to re- define the subaltern in contemporary India at this critical juncture of state- subaltern interaction, exclusions and emergent domains of precarity and marginality.
13 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
12 Gaps in the Existing Studies The thesis would explore the gaps in the existing literature on the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. It would build on those gaps to chart a new cartography of exclusion, dispossession as well as subaltern subjectivity. This thesis addresses the following gaps in the existing literature on Subaltern Studies. - The question of the changing calculus of democracy, governmentality and the changed template of negotiation over negation, question of citizenship rights have not been taken on board adequately. - The issue of peasant and adivasi revolt against the corporate driven and state sponsored primitive accumulation need greater engagement. - The phenomenon of crowd as a mass political subject, as pointed out by Chakrabarty, has not been discussed in the existing literature. - In this age of anthropocene, there has been the proletarisation of the earth itself. Global capitalist economy is extracting the earth and the earth has emerged as the new subaltern. - The emergence of the refugee, the migrant, the developmental and ecological precariat as the new subaltern and its implications for postcolonial theorisation has not been explored. - The question of minorities, caste and gender in the current conjuncture of right wing majoritarianism and xenophobic nationalism has not been discussed. - The new theoretical optics provided by thinkers such as Agamben or Deleuze or Badiou, as hinted at by Chakrabarty, has not been explored in studying subaltern subjectivity and politics in the existing literature. The present thesis seeks to address these issues in order to map the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. To achieve that goal this thesis would follow the following schema: Chapter Division Introduction The introduction will define the problem area raised by the thesis which is how to re- define the subaltern as a historical category as well as a postcolonial category of subjecthood
13 in the current conjuncture. This problem arises out of the 2012 argument by Partha Chatterjee that Subaltern Studies project as it is known is over and new cartographies of subaltern agency and postcolonial subjectivity is to be defined in conjunction with contemporary requirements of governmentality, citizenship rights, marginalisation and new forms of disenfranchisement. This chapter would clearly schematise the research objective of the thesis, the methodology to be used and the different segments through which arguments would be built to arrive at possible conclusions. In that way this chapter would attempt a close reading of the two essays, one by Partha Chatterjee and the other by Dipesh Chakrabarty published in the Economic and Political Weekly to initiate the hunt for new theoretical trajectories which can re-define and retrace the subaltern in the contemporary context. Having engaged with the two seminal interventions, this chapter will encounter subsequent follow ups and rejoinders to understand the gap areas that emerges. Extensive literature survey as covered in this chapter establishes that while some scholars have focussed on certain aspects raised by Chatterjee and Chakrabarty a holistic characterisation of new subalternist project premised on contemporary condition is found lacking. This thesis would try to build on that deficit of concretising a contemporary subalternist project and the introduction would set the schema for undertaking the task. Chapter I: The Theoretical Agenda of Subaltern Studies Subaltern Studies sought to address a glaring lacuna in the dominant historiography of post-independent India. The subaltern scholars alleged that the intellectual formations of India has been unsettlingly elitist. The intellectual tradition in India – whether undertaken in nationalist or liberal-Marxist or the colonial historiography – has focussed on the social, economic and cultural elites while mapping the history of India. The
14 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
rallying cry of the project was to unsettle this “elitst bias” and democratise Indian history and polity by projecting the subaltern as “the maker of his own destiny” autonomous of elite intervention. In this chapter I would focus on the central theoretical agenda of the project as expressed in Ranajit Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Indurgency in Colonial India (1999, first publishe 1983) and his various contributions in the different volumes of Subaltern Studies such as the preface and the introductory manifesto of the Subaltern Studies I (1982), seminal essays like The Prose of Counter-Insurgency (1983), Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography (1989), Discipline and Mobilise (1992), the introduction to the Subaltern Studies Reader as well as his talks and interviews. My attempt would be to identify the
14 theoretical breakthroughs of Subaltern Studies and to analyse its implications for the study of Indian history, culture and literature. Chapter II: Mapping the Evolution of the Subaltern Studies Project In this chapter I would attempt a historical chronicling of the project as it unfolded. Inspired by Gramsci’s theorisation of the subaltern, the project focussed on the subaltern groups such as the peasantry and the adivasis and their revolt against the colonial state apparatus. Since the early focus was to restore the subaltern as the conscious agent of historical change, the project sought to locate the common aspects of insurgent subaltern consciousness. However, Spivak’s deconstructionist critique of the fallacy of retrieving/ representing the subaltern consciousness by the elite subaltern historians and the absence of gendered subalterns in the project led to changes in the project and after Guha’s stepping down as the editor of the project, it moved towards a postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism and post-Enlightenment modernity. Thus, followed the critique of science as an ideology, the championing of alternative modernity, the postcolonial difference, the deconstruction of monolithic ideologies in order to bring in the fragments etc. Thus, we see that from the very beginning there was a vector for change in the project as it responded to the changing socio- cultural milieu and changing theoretical economy. In this chapter I would briefly chart the history of the Subaltern Studies taking into account the different paradigm shifts in the project. This study of the shifts in the project gives a historical background and legitimacy for remapping the subaltern in the current conjuncture. Chapter III: Early Critiques of Subaltern Studies Subaltern Studies, from its very inception, was met with criticism. The early critique came from the Indian Marxist thinkers who objected to the revisionary Marxism of the subaltern scholars. They pointed out the methodological lapses, or supposed lapses, of the Subaltern Studies project and called for a return to the traditional Marxist understanding of class formation and ideology critique. As the project came to be associated with postcolonialism under the influence of Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak, there was the internationalisation of the project and although the generally Western academia responded to it positively, the poststructuralist critique of post-Enlightenment reason and modernity came under attack. Sumit Sarkar objected to the decline of the subaltern in the project that came into being in the name of the subaltern. Binay Bahl and others objected to the mere cultural understanding of subalternity and exclusion and pointed out the irrelevance of prevalent theoretical formation of the project. In this chapter I would briefly discuss the critics and their
15 propositions against the Subaltern Studies project and how the subalternists reacted to such criticism. Such critiques and counter-critiques would give a better understanding of the stakes of Subaltern Studies and help us in understanding the contemporary critiques of the
15 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
projects and conceptualising the possible ways of re-defining the subaltern in the present conjuncture. Chapter IV: Contemporary Critiques of Subaltern Studies Recently the project came under renewed criticism from the Marxist quarter. Vivek Chibber (2013) questioned the basic premises of the Subaltern Studies- the hypothesis of failed universalisation of capital in non-Western settings and the consequent abortive hegemony of the bourgeoisie as well as the different articulations of the various political, historical and cultural institutions in non- West. He charged the subalternists of unwittingly perpetuating orientalist notions of the East in the garb of highlighting the cultural particularities of the Orient. He further advocated that the univerasation of capital is a reality in today’s globalised world and a critique of capital and the framework of class politics is necessary. The Chibber-Chatterjee debate and the numerous reviews of Chibber’s book snowballed into an ongoing discussion over the methodology of studying subaltern life and politics. After discussing the Chatterjee-Chibber debate I would with the contemporary attempts at defining and re-defining the subaltern. Nilsen and Srila Roy (2015) take forward the critique of hegemony in contemporary India to show how the different subaltern groups are fighting their marginalisation. Uday Chandra (ed., 2015) seeks to chart a new project of subaltern politics as negotiation building on Chatterjee’s notion of ‘political society’, Camaroff and Camaroff’s idea of ‘lawfare’ and O’ Brien and Li’s concept of ‘rightful resistance’. Debjani Ganguly (ed., 2015) seeks to remap the subaltern after the end of Subaltern Studies in literary, cultural and cinematic representation. In this chapter I would take an account of the contemporary critics of the Subaltern Studies project. In doing that I would focus on whether there is a co-relation between the previous critics and the contemporary critics of the Subaltern Studies or whether they are saying something new. I would also see whether there is any connection between the comments of the critics of the Subaltern Studies project and what Chatterjee and Chakrabarty are saying. Such discussions and the recent attempts at re-defining the subaltern prepares the ground for the next chapter which investigates the possibilities of re-theorising the subaltern today. Chapter V: Re- mapping the Subaltern in the Contemporary Conjuncture
16 Having studied the historical trajectory of Subaltern Studies, its critical evaluation as well as the recent debates over the subaltern, this chapter takes up Chatterjee and Chakrabarty’s hypothesis of re-defining the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. In doing that this chapter would take stock of the emergent as well as continuing subaltern social groups and classes in the contemporary conjuncture. The contemporary history is marked by a heady mixture of neo-liberal capitalism, state backed capitalist accumulation, right-wing majoritarianism, toxic nationalism, xenophobic border vigilantism. This changed socio-cultural and economic setting has produced newer domains of subalternity and precarity while solidifying the existing social, cultural and economic hierarchies. Thus, the refugees and migrants, the developmental project induced proletariats and climate refugees, the plundered earth have emerged as new precarious domains while the dalits and minorities have faced renewed attack and the adivasis and peasants have become major victims of capitalist accumulative drive in the form of land grabs and SEZs. This chapter would elaborate on such groups while focussing particularly on the Rohingya refugee, to argue that the violent and precarious experience of the Rohingya calls into question the existing methods of understanding the subaltern and how the new project can be conceptualised from the vantage point of the contemporary émigrés, the rejects. Chapter VI: Conclusion After
16 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
analysing the debates, recent as well old, over the figure of the subaltern and taking stock of the emergent forms of subalternity and precarity in the contemporary conjuncture, in the conclusion we would talk about the future areas of research for undertaking the new projects for analyisnig subaltern life and politics. Works Cited: Chakrabarty,
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 88%
Dipesh. 2002. “A Small
History of Subaltern Studies”. In
Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies,
Dipesh Chakrabarty, 3-19. Delhi, Permanent Black. ———. 2013. “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (12): 23-27. Chandra, Uday. 2015. “Rethinking Subaltern Resistance: Subaltern Politics and the State in Contemporary India.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 45(4): 563-73 Chaturvedi, Vinayak, ed,. 2000. Mapping Postcolonial Theory and Subaltern Studies. London and New York: Verso.
17 Chatterjee,
Partha. 2004.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
The
Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New
Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2008. “
Democracy and Economic Transformation in India”. Economic and Political Weekly 43(16): 53-62. ———. 2010. “A Brief History of Subaltern Studies”. Empire and Nation: Essential Writings (1985- 2005),
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
New Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2011. Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. ——— .2012 “After Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47(35):44-49. ———. 2013. “
0: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 73%
17 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Subaltern Studies and Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (37):69-75. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital.
UK and US: Verso. ———. “Revisiting Subaltern Studies”. 2014. Economic and Political Weekly 49(9):82-85. Ganguly, Debjani. ed. 2015. “
0: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv-collaboratori/cv-ganguly- debjani 75%
The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 87%
Gohain Hiren. 2012. “Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (39):74-76.
Green, Marcus. 2002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
Rethinking Marxism 14(13): 1-24. Gudavarthy, Ajay, ed,. 2012 Reframing Democracy and Agency: Interrogating Political Society. London: Anthem Press. ———. 2013. Politics of Post- Civil Society: Contemporary History of Political Movements in India. Delhi: Sage. Loomba, Ania, et al, .2006. Postcolonial Studies and Beyond. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Ludden,
David,
ed. 2002. Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalisation of South Asia.
Delhi: Permanent Black.
Malreddy, Pavan Kumar et.al, ed,. 2015. Reworking Postcolonialism: Globalization, labour and Rights. New York: Palgrave and Macmillan. Nilsen, Alf Gunvald and Srila Roy. 2015. New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India. New
18 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 87%
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sarkar,
Sumit. 1997. "The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies." In Writing Social History, Sumit Sarkar, 82-108. Delhi: Oxford University Press
India.
18
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 84%
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In
Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. London: Macmillan.
Wilson, Janet, et al, ed,. 2009. Rerouting the Postcolonial: New Directions for the New Millenium. London and New York: Routedge.
19 CHAPTER I: THE THEORETICAL AGENDA OF SUBALTERN STUDIES Subaltern Studies is perhaps the most stimulating and most enduring contribution to emerge from South Asia in the field of epistemic re-orientation and building of theoretic framework for analysing South Asian history and politics in recent times. Although the project started with a clear historiographical agenda of re-directing the debates over Indian history vis-à-vis claims over historical agency of the subaltern and marginal sections of Indian society, the project expanded beyond historiographical concerns to incorporate issues of Indian democracy and politics of the people, critique of capitalism from the vantage point of South Asia, postcolonial critique of post-Enlightenment Eurocentric thought, and issues of radical and critical knowledge formation from the Global South. This chapter charts the intellectual and theoretical agenda of the Subaltern Studies project as formulated by Ranajit Guha, the founding father and the intellectual guru of the project taking into account the intellectual ferment of the debate over the subaltern in Indian history and the theoretical breakthroughs of the project that made a significant contribution in analysing subaltern subjectivity and agency hitherto unrecognised in the academic debates in Indian history and intellectual formation. Gramsci and the Subaltern The category “subaltern” used by the Subaltern Studies collective is derived from the carceral writings of Antonio Gramsci, the founder of the Communist Party of Italy. While in prison under the fascist regime of Mussolini, Gramsci wrote his notes that were later on published as The Prison Notebooks. He was reflecting over the reasons behind the failure of the communist party to bring about revolution in Italy which led him to rethink some of the Marxist orthodoxies. Although Gramsci used the term “subaltern” both literally and figuratively in The Prison Notebooks, his use of the term is generally viewed as a code for the “proletariat” to avoid censorship. However, the term “subaltern” has certain
19 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
flexibility compared to the category of the “proletariat” and accommodated within it the peasants and other social groups and struggles that were excluded in the rigid Marxist formulation of the working class. As Gramsci had to fight ill health and avoid the cencoship, his notes are often
20 sketchy and incomplete. However, in his analysis the subaltern was conceptualised as an integral part of the hegemonic processes of the formation of what he calls the “integral state”. In his conceptualisation, the initiative of the subaltern classes are episodic and they suffer the authority of the elite classes even when they rise in rebellion and can attain autonomy only by establishing their own hegemony. He writes: The
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 91%
history of subaltern social groups is necessarily fragmented and episodic. There undoubtedly does exist a tendency to (
at least provisional stages of)
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 90%
unification in the historical activity of these groups, but this tendency is continually interrupted by activity of the ruling groups:
it therefore can only be demonstrated when an historical cycle is completed and this cycle culminates in a success.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Subaltern
groups are always subject to the activity of ruling groups, even when they rebel and rise up:
only “permanent” victory breaks their subordination
and that not immediately. …
0: 4chapter1.docx 78%
Every trace of independent initiative on the part of subaltern groups should therefore be of incalculable value for the integral historian. (
Hoare and Smith ed. and trans. 1995, 55) Gramsci’s conceptualisation of the subaltern groups is tied up with the formation of the state in which the ruling classes and the subaltern social groups are engaged in a hegemonic struggle. As Gramsci writes, “The historical unity of the ruling classes is realised in the State…. (However)
20 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: 4chapter1.docx 92%
The subaltern classes,
by definition, are not united and cannot unite until they are able to become a “State”…” (
ibid 52). Gramsci, therefore, talks about a six-point methodology of studying the activities of the subaltern classes, starting from the “objective formation” and political initiatives of the subaltern groups to their achieving “integral autonomy” (ibid, 51). Gramsci in India and History from Below The writings of Gramsci was introduced to Ranajit Guha by his mentor Susobhan Sarkar, a member of the Communist Party of India. Although the 1957 edition of Modern Prince and Other Writings (translated by Luis M Marks and published by International Publishers) was available in India and although there was the publication of a review of this book in Parichay magazine in March, 1963 (Chaitra, 1369), it was Sarkar’s longish essay, “The Thought of Gramsci” published in the Mainstream magazine in 1968 that started serious discussion on Gramsi among the left intellectuals of Kolkata. Guha was made acquainted with Gramsci by Sarkar during Guha’s sutdenstship in Presidency College (now a university) where Sarkar was teaching history. Guha, who was actively involved in radical
21 politics from his student days, settled down as an academic, however with an activist bend of mind. Meanwhile, in Britain the formation of the New Left (late 1950s and early 1960s) and the Bermingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (1964-2002) sought to revise the dogmas of Marxism and instead of mechanical application of base and super-structure frame of analysis or what is sometimes called economic determinism, the importance of issues of culture and ideology were gaining ground. E. P. Thompson’s writings, especially his The Making of the English Working Class (1963), gave the impetus to such an endeavour. The “History from Below” framework initiated by the British social historians like Eric Hobsbawm, E. P. Thompson, Christopher Hill and others made methodological breakthroughs in writing history from the perspective of the peasants and other groups traditionally not covered under the category of the proletariat. Guha must have been aware of such initiatives during his stay at Essex and at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s his meeting with younger generation of historians from India and England both in England and in India led to the formation of the Subaltern Studies collective who used the Gramscian category of the “subaltern” in order to undertake a history from below in writing the history of colonial India. However, Subaltern Studies was not mere application of the “history from below” framework in India as would be made clear shortly. The Subaltern Studies Project The field of modern South Asian history, as both Partha Chatterjee (2010) and Dipesh Chakrabarty (2002) point out in their recent reminiscent pieces on the project, were dominated by two opposed approaches to Indian nationalism. The Cambridge School, headed by Anil Seal, propounded that Indian nationalism was a battle for power between the elites who “competed and collaborated” (as quoted in Chakrabarty 2002, 5) with the British for power and prestige. The historians in Delhi, represented by Bipan Chandra, saw Indian nationalism as “an epic battle between the forces of nationalism and those of colonialism”(ibid, 5). Both these versions were conspicuous by their elite bias and had nothing to say about the role played by the ordinary masses and peasants i.e. the subalterns of the country. The project of Subaltern Studies started with the
21 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
avowed objective of rectifying this elitism of both colonialist and bourgeois-nationalist historiography. In doing so Subaltern Studies collective, as Partha Chatterjee writes, focused on two things- mapping the difference of “political objective and method” of the subaltern groups from that of the
22 colonial and nationalist elites, and highlighting the “autonomy of subaltern consciousness” (Chatterjee 2010, 291). In an attempt to demonstrate the difference of subaltern politics, the group rejected the colonialist claim that the subaltern sections were “duped” into joining nationalist politics by the nationalist elite using primordial kinship ties and patron-client relations. The group also countered the nationalist claim that the political consciousness of the subaltern classes depended on the ideals and the inspiration of the elite leaders. They pointed out that there are many instances when the subaltern groups did not join the nationalist movement despite calls from the leaders, or withdrew in course of the movement, or even when they joined “the goals, strategies, and methods of subaltern politics were different from those of the elites” (Chatterjee 2010, 291). Towards a Coherent Theoretical Agenda of Subaltern Studies Although there were much internal debate and divergences among the members of the project and although the members of the project viewed this lack of a coherent theory as a strength rather than a weakness, a clear framework of analysis can easily be discerned from the works of Guha that guided the central arguments of the project. For a coherent theoretical agenda of the project of Subaltern Studies we have to, therefore, focus on the preface and the opening chapter of
0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/338932.Subaltern_Studies 100%
Subaltern Studies I (1982), Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (
first published in 1983, however for references the 1999 Duke University Press edition is used here), “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography” (1989) and “The Small Voices of History” (1994). Although most of the founding memebers of the collective were engaged with left politics in some form, the theoretical agenda of the project was guided by a dissatisfaction with the traditional Marxist frames of analysis. However, they remained Marxists in oroentaion and their project, at least initially, was guided by what can be called cultural Marxism. In what follows we would elaborate on the basic premises of the subalternist framework of analysing South Asian history and politics. Critique of Elitist Historiography In the opening chapter of Subaltern Studies I titled On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India and which can be viewed as a manifesto of the Subaltern Studies project, Guha mounts a scathing critique of the elitist historiography of colonial India, both the colonialist and the nationalist versions, discounting their ideological presumptions and exclusions. The sheer force of his argument and concentrated effort at rectifying the elitist bias is impressive. He opens thus, “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a
22 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
23 long time been dominated by elitism-
colonialist elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism” (Guha 1982, 1). Although much of the original radicalism and shocking blitzkrieg is lost in the academic overuse and long-time familiarity, the attack was unforgiving. Although the elitist historiography of the colonialist and nationalist versions was the “ideological product of British rule” (ibid, 1), Guha thinks that this elitism is carried forward by the neo-colonialist and neo-nationalist historiography in Britain and India respectively. Although opposed to each other in terms of their ideological orientation, both the colonialist and nationalist historiography “share the prejudice” that the Indian nation and Indian nationalism were “exclusively or predominantly elite achievements”- the colonialist and neo-colonialist version gave primacy to the colonial rulers, policies, institutions and culture while the nationalist and neo-nationalist versions upheld the role of the Indian elite personalities, institutions, activities and ideas (ibid, 1). In a behaviourist manner the colonial/neo-colonial historiography defines nationalism as a response of the native elites to the stimulus provided by the colonial institutions, opportunities and resources. In this version, nationalism is the outcome of the negotiation of the Indian elite with the colonial apparatus and the corresponding cultural complex. The Indian elite, driven not by any lofty idealism of forming the nation but by the “expectation of rewards in the form of a share in
0: 4chapter1.docx 100%
the wealth, power and prestige created by and associated with
the colonial rule” (ibid, 2), went through a play of “collaboration and competition” with the colonial authority and amongst themselves and that is what led to the constitution of Indian nationalism. The elitist nationalist/neo-nationalist historiography projects
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 75%
Indian nationalism as an “ideal venture in which the indigenous elite led the people from subjugation to freedom” (
ibid, 2). It invariably focuses on the heroic struggle of the Indian elite, their self-sacrifice, their antagonism with the colonial masters and their promotion of the cause of the people, not their collaboration with the colonial authority. Guha writes, “
0: 4chapter1.docx 71%
The history of Indian nationalism is thus written up as a sort of spiritual biography of the Indian elite” (ibid, 2) Both
these elitist historiographies, however, fail miserably
23 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: 4chapter1.docx 100%
to “acknowledge, far less interpret,
the contribution made by the
people on their own, that is, independently of the elite,
to the making and development of this nationalism” (
emphasis original ibid, 3). The “mass articulation” of nationalism is viewed in this historiography either
0: 4chapter1.docx 75%
negatively, as a law and order problem, or if positively at all, as a response to
a charismatic elite leader, but never as something consciously undertaken by them. The “poverty”/ “bankruptcy”/ “inadequacy” of
24 this “one-sided and blinkered historiography” is occasioned by a “narrow and partial view of politics” informed by “class outlook” i.e. the class positionality of historiography. This view of politics equates politics with the activities and ideas of those associated with the state apparatus- its institutions and other super-structural potpouris. Thus the elitist historiography, prejudiced by such a narrow view of politics, views politics or for that matter Indian nationalism as the “mutual transactions” between the native elites and the colonial rulers. Re-defining the Political: The Peasant as Conscious Political Subject Such a critique of elitist historiography was grounded on a radical move
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87%
to “rehabilitate” the subaltern as the “maker of his own destiny”. This,
however, entailed a revisioning of the political itself as subaltern politics had to be understood beyond the narrow and elitist notion of politics. This move, however, differentiated the project from being a mere mechanical application of the “history from below” frame of British social history. As Chakrabarty (2002) points out, the project had a different concepton of power emanating from the different historical setting of colonial India which led to a different conception of the political. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 82%
Subaltern historiography”, writes Chakrabarty, “entailed a relative separation of the history of power from any universalist histories of capital, a critique of the nation form, and an interrogation of the relation between power and knowledge…” (
24 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Chakrabarty 2002, 8). The “critical theoretical break” entailed a redefinition of the political because “both the Cambridge and the nationalist historians conflated the political domain with the formal side of governmental and institutional processes” (ibid, 8). Guha, thus, seeks to point out the different historical context of colonial India to map a different trajectory of the political of the subaltern sections of society whose struggles and actions could not be defined by the narrow institutional definition of politics in which the elite group operated. Guha (1999) points out that the image of the “pre-political peasant rebel in societies still to be fully industrialised” comes from Hobsbawm who hold that the people in societies before industrialisation lacked political consciousness or organisation, for example the acts of the social brigands, in Hobsbawm’s conceptualisation, are pre-political phenomenon compared to organised revolutionism (Guha, 1999, 5). Guha holds that Hobsbawm’s ideas are derived from European context and is inadequate for analysing peasant insurgency in colonial India, for “there was nothing in the militant movements of its rural masses that was not political” (ibid, 6) He elaborates on this important hypothesis by pointing out the specific nature of peasant subordination in colonial India that made their acts nothing less than political:
25 This could hardly have been otherwise under the conditions in which they worked, lived and conceptualised the world. Taking the subcontinent as a whole capitalist development in agriculture remained merely incipient and weak throughout the period of a century and a half until 1900. Rents constituted the most substantial part of income yielded by property in land. Its incumbents related to the vast majority of agricultural producers as landlords to tenant- cultivators, sharecroppers, agricultural labourers and many intermediate types of features derived from each of these categories. The element that was constant in this relationship with all its variety was the extraction of the peasant’s surplus by means determined rather less by the free play of the forces of a market economy than by the extra-economic force of the landlord’s standing in local society and the colonial polity. In other words, it was a relationship of dominance and subordination – a political relationship of the feudal type, or as it has been appropriately described as the semi- feudal relationship which derived its material substance
0: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 91%
from pre- capitalist condition of production and its legitimacy from a traditional culture still paramount in the superstructure. (
ibid, 6) In the semi-feudal economy based on landlordism which the colonial power supported, the relation of the peasant to the rentier zamindar was that of domination and coercion. The ‘collusion between sarkar and zamindar’ (ibid, 7) constituted a composite apparatus of dominance over the peasant which saw phenomenal growth of peasant indebtedness. Under the triple impact of agrarian legislation after Cornwallis’s Permanet Settlemet Policy (1793), demographic increase and larger money supply many mahajans and banias bought land from impoverished landlords, evicted tenants and in a favourable atmosphere, because of lack of proper rule protecting the peasants, the new landlords brought all their uxorious practices as rentiers. Guha explains: A cumulative result of all this was to make landlords into moneylenders – as much as 46 percent of all peasant debt in the then United Province was owed to landlords in 1934- and give rise to yet another of those historic paradoxes
25 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
characteristic of the Raj- that is, to assign to the most advanced capitalist power in the world the task of fusing
0: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
landlordism and usury in India so well as to impede the development of capitalism both in agriculture and in industry.
It was thus the hitherto discrete powers of the landlord, the money lender and the official came to form, under colonial rule, a composite apparatus of dominance over the peasant. His subjection to this triumvirate- sarkari, sahukari and zamindari- was primarily political in character, economic exploitation being only one, albeit the most obvious of its several instances for the appropriation of this surplus was brought about by the authority wielded over local societies and markets by the landlord-money
26 lenders and a secondary capitalism working closely with them and by the encapsulation of that authority in the power of the colonial state. (ibid, 8) Thus, the attempt of the peasant to destroy such extractive and coercive power structure was, as Guha says, “essentially a political task” (ibid, 8) and the peasant did not engage in it “in a fit of absent- mindedness” (ibid, 9). He risked everything by engaging in such a project and this risk: …involved not merely the loss of land and chattels but also that of his moral standing derived from an unquestioned subordination to his superior which tradition had made into his dharma. No wonder, therefore, that the preparation of an uprising was almost invariably marked by much temporization and weighing of pros and cons on the part of its protagonists. (ibid, 9) Often much consultations were held before any rebellion. Guha, thus, says, “There was nothing spontaneous about all this in the sense of being unthinking and wanting in deliberation. The peasant obviously knew what he was doing when he rose in revolt”. (ibid, 9) However, Guha thinks that it would be wrong to “overestimate the maturity of this politics” (ibid, 10) and compared to the standard class struggle or wide- spread anti- imperialist struggles of later period, the peasant movement of the early years of the colonial rule might represent a “somewhat inchoate and naïve state of consciousness” or what he calls “the very beginning of theoretical consciousness” which combined the presence of “two mutually contradictory tendencies” – the conservative one based on derived material from the ruling culture as well as the radical one oriented towards the redressal of the insurgent’s condition (ibid, 11). Subordination and antagonism are co-constitutive terms, for subordination can hardly be understood without acknowledging the antagonistic possibilities. And Guha wants to identify the “structures of resistance” which constitute the “rebel consciousness” (ibid, 12). Guha has focussed on the peasant insurgencies of the one hundred and seventeen years from the revolt against Devy Sinha in 1783 to the end of the Birasaite rising in 1900 because he wants
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 90%
26 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
to identify the “elementary aspects of rebel consciousness in a relatively ‘pure’ state before the politics of nationalism and socialism begin to penetrate the countryside on a significant scale” (ibid, 13).
It is this insurgent peasnt consciousness which, Guha pointed out,
27 would “rehabilitate” the peasant as the conscious political subject which is denied by colonial, nationlist and traditional Marxist historiography of colonial India. Two Domains of Politics: Elite Domain and Autonomous Subaltern Domain Guha’ attempt to establish the peasant subaltern as the conscious political agent led him to conceptualise Indian politics as constituting two divergent domains. Guha (1982) points out that the “un-historical historiography” of the coneventional colonial and nationalist history has no place for the “politics of the people” (emphasis original, Guha 1982, 4)). Guha thinks that parallel to the elite domain of politics, there was another autonomous domain of politics
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 91%
of the subaltern classes. He writes:
For
parallel to the domain of elite politics there existed throughout the colonial period another domain of Indian politics in which the principal actors were not the dominant groups of the indigenous society or the colonial authorities but the subaltern classes and groups constituting the mass of the labouring population and the intermediate strata in town and country-that is, the people.
This
was an autonomous domain, for it
is
neither originated from elite politics nor did its existence depend on the latter. (
ibid, 4) This subaltern domain of politics is a continuation from the pre-colonial times adjusting itself with the conditions of the colonial rule, often developing new strains in terms of form and content. Far from being archaic and outmoded, this domain, as Guha thinks, is thus as modern as the elite politics, however, characterised, as it is, by “greater depth” in time and structure. Guha goes on to define the distinguishing modes of mobilisation of these two political domains. While elite mobilisation is organised vertically marked as it is by institutionalism in which the adaptation of British parliamentary system and residues of pre- colonial institutions came in use; the subaltern mobilisation is horizontal and “relied rather on the traditional organisation of kinship or territoriality or on class associations depending on the level of the consciousness of the people involved” (ibid, 4). While elite politics is “relatively more legalistic and constitutionalist in orientation”, subaltern mobilisation “relatively more violent”. The elite politics is “cautious and controlled”, the subaltern politics is “more
27 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
spontaneous” (ibid, 4-5). Guha further points out that the ideology of the subaltern domain “reflected the diversity of its social composition”. However, the outlook of the leading section dominated others at a given time and context. In spite of this ideological diversity Guha thinks that the
28 “notion of resistance to elite domination” was the one uniting feature of the subaltern domain (ibid, 5). This is because of the common experience of subalternity of the social constituents of this domain and this distinguished their politics from that of the elites. Guha, however, points out that this ideological element was “not uniform in quality and density in all instances”. Whereas in the best of the
0: 4chapter1.docx 100%
cases, it “enhanced the concreteness, focus and tension of subaltern political
action”; at other times, the “sectional interests disequilibrated popular movements” which led to “economistic diversions and sectarian splits’ undermining ‘horizontal alliances”. Dominance without Hegemony: Idioms of Dominance and Subordination in Colonial India The task of rehabilitating the subaltern as the conscious political agent involved, as has already been said, a redefinition of the political. This redefinition of the political was, however, premised on a different understaning of power in colonial context as Chakrabarty (2002) pointed out. Guha (1999) tried to outline some of the premises of this different understaning of power in Elementary Aspects of Peasant Inurgency in Colonial India while mapping the context of peasant subordination and their insurgencies. In his essay, “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiogry” (1989) Guha elaborates on his idea of the different arrangement of power in colonial India that underguards his re-definition of the political in colonial India. Guha’s theorisation here is highly important as his conceptualiation of the career of capital and the different arrangement of power in colonial modernity was more inclined towards postcolonial critique of Euro-modernity and had its imprint in the conceptualisations of alternative modernity for colonised socities and attempts at provincialisation of Europe (Chakrabarty 2010) as well as invited severe criticism from the Marxist quarter, the latest being that of Chibber (2013). Guha starts by criticising the complicity of liberal historiography in not acknowledging the subalterns as the subject of history. Liberal historiography, both colonialist and nationalist, shares the view that the colonial state was “an organic extension of the metropolitan bourgeois state” and colonialism “an adaptation if not quite a replication, of the classical bourgeois culture of the West in English rendering” (Guha 1989, 212). It was also viewed by both parties as “a positive confirmation of the universal tendency of capital” (ibid, 212). Thus, all the actions that made the stuff of elite politics “followed from an understanding to abide by a common set of rules based on the British constitutionalist, parliamentary model” (ibid, 213). Liberal historiography which is informed by the malaise of
29 this “mediocre liberalism” (ibid, 214) grafted onto colonial conditions, fails to criticise the historic anomaly in the action and the competence of the colonial and the nationalist elite i.e. the discrepancy between what is professed and what is practiced, between the ideal and the real. One of the contradictions of bourgeoisie culture “relates to the universalising tendency of
28 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
capital” (emphasis original, Guha 1989, 222). Here Guha defines the universalisation of capital as not only the creation of a “world market for the latter” but of involving the subjugation of “all antecedent modes of production, and replace(ment of) all jural and institutional concomitants of such modes and generally the entire edifice of precapitalist cultures by laws, institutions, values and other elements of a culture appropriate to bourgeoisie rule” (ibid, 222) Whether such a definition of universalisation is tenable or not, is a source of controversy and Chibber (2013) attacks Guha precisely on this ground (see chapter IV). However, in the attempt to create a “world market”, capital, it is held, destroys all barriers, “subjugate(s) every moment of production itself to exchange” (ibid, 222), suspends earlier modes of production, and “strives constantly to go beyond the spatial and temporal limits to its ‘self-realisation process’” (ibid, 223). Although all liberal thought emphasises this continuity, Guha points out, quite contrary to much Marxist views which read passages from Marx in isolation, that Marx in Grundrisse gives a critique of the “universalist pretensions of capital”. Guha points out that Marx talked “not about expansion alone, but about an expansion predicated firmly and inevitably on limitations capital can never overcome; not simply about a project powered by the possibility of infinite development, but a project predicated on the certainty of its failure to realise itself”(emphasis original, ibid, 224). Guha points out that the passage in which Marx talks about the all destructive march of capital expanding by dissolving the vestiges of feudal and primitive culture and economy, is followed by one which talks about the “restrictive conditions operating on it”. Guha quotes Marx: But from the fact (he writes) that capital posits every such limit( e.g. ‘national barriers and prejudices’, ‘nature worship’, ‘traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs ‘, ‘reproductions of old ways of life’, etc.) as a barrier and hence gets ideally beyond it, it does not by any means follow that it has really overcome it , and since every such barrier contradicts its character, its production moves in contradictions which are constantly overcome but just as constantly posited. Furthermore. The universality towards which it irresistibly strives encounters barriers in its own nature, which will, at a certain stage of its development, allow it to be
30 recognised as being itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence will drive towards its own suspension. (Marx quoted by Guha, ibid, 224) This shows, writes Guha, that instead of a well orchestrated and irresistible path of development for capital, Marx “envisages the development of capital’s universalist tendency to a stage where it ‘will drive towards its own suspension’” (emphasis original ibid, 225). The contradiction and discrepancy between “the universalist tendency of capital as an ideal” and “its frustration in reality” was very much evident in the “uneven material development” in the bourgeois society of Europe of Marx’s time, such as the “differentiated moments” of capitalist development in Germany, England, France and USA clearly bears out (ibid, 225). Such “anomalies and inconsistencies in bourgeois thought and activity” hold great significance for the study of colonialism as the study of colonialism in the liberal historiography of colonialist and nationalist versions is premised on the “universalist pretensions of British capital” (ibid, 227) and fails to “distinguish between the ideal of capital’s striving towards self-realization and the reality of its failure to do so” (ibid, 228). It is this “critical failure” of liberal historiography that has led to a misconstrued notion of power relations under colonial culture. This is why, Guha thinks, “dominance under colonial conditions has quite erroneously been endowed with hegemony” (emphasis original ibid, 228). Liberal historiography thus is led to “presume that capital, in its Indian career,
29 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
triumphed over the obstacles to its self expansion and subjugated all pre-capitalist relations in material and spiritual life sufficiently enough to enable the bourgeoisie to speak for all of that society as it had done in its historic incarnations in England in 1648 and France in 1789” (ibid, 228). Guha writes, “Resistance to the rule of capital has thus been made to dissolve ideally into a hegemonic dominance” (ibid, 228). This has led to the notion in colonial historiography that colonial rule in India was based on the subject’s consent, and in bourgeois nationalist historiography, the Indian bourgeoisie is shown to have secured the will of the people i. e. a hegemonic dominance in “representing all of the will of the people- …” (ibid, 228). Guha therefore thinks that the critique of historiography must begin with the critique of “the universalist assumptions of liberal ideology and the attribution of hegemony” (ibid, 228) in both colonialist and nationalist interpretations of Indian past. The failure of “British capital” in India to realise itself created a different power arrangement. The colonial state which worked as autocracy did not have any citizen, but only
31 subjects. Power operated there as a “series of inequalities between the rulers and the ruled as well as between classes, strata and individuals among the latter themselves” (ibid, 229). Power relationships in colonial India can be defined by the general relation of Dominance (D) and Subordination(S) which were themselves determined and constituted by a pair of interacting elements- Domination by Coercion(C) and Persuation (P), and Subordination by Collaboration(C) and Resistance(R). While Domination and Subordination mutually imply each other and this implication is logical and universal, the power relations arising from the reciprocity of C and P in D and that of C* and R in S is contingent, contextual and determined by given conditions. It is the varied distribution of the constitutive elements of D and S that differentiates the power relations in different societies. Guha explains-“...the character of D/S, in any particular instance, depend on the relative weightage of the elements C and P in C and C* and R in S...” (emphasis original, ibid, 231). Thus, Guha reads Gramsci’s notion of hegemony as a ‘condition of Dominance(D), such that, in the organic composition of the latter Persuation (P) outweights Coercion(C)’(ibid, 231). Thus, domination and hegemony are not antinomies- a belief which has led to a fallacious liberal conceptualisation of hegemonic uncoercive state. Guha writes- Since hegemony, as we understand it, is a particular condition of D and the latter is constituted by C and P, if follows that there can be no hegemonic system under which P outweighs C to the point of reducing it to nullity. (ibid, 232) This conception of hegemony, Guha thinks, has “double advantage”- as it discounts any liberal-utopian conceptualisation of an uncoercive state and as conceptualising “power as a concrete historical relation informed necessarily and irreducibly both by force and by consent” (ibid, 232). That power in the colonial context was articulated by the dynamics of Domination and Subordination and their constituent elements is beyond doubt. However, the sheer contingency of articulation of the constituent elements also meant that in changing context they would change their governing positions. Thus, a situation in which the power relations started in the form of C and C* might end up in a changed scenario to P or R, and vice versa. In the colonial context one important aspect of the power relation was that two different idioms were at work within each of the four constituents of Domination and Subordination- one derived from the “metropolitan political culture of the colonizers, the other from the pre-
30 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
32 colonial political traditions of the colonized. They derive, in short, from two distinct paradigms, one of which is typically British and the other Indian” (emphasis original ibid, 233). Thus, the primary constitutive element of Domination, Coercion operates on two distinct idioms-Order and Danda- one derived from the colonial metropolitan culture, the other from the pre-colonial political culture. These two operating together extended the colonial domination in unprecedented areas. The idiom of order as state violence thus made possible the coercive intervention of the colonial state in areas such as the management of the body of the subject exemplified in the use of begar or forced labour in various infrastructure works, in indigo factories, European plantations, and of course mandatory and forceful participation of the subjects to fight for England in the First World War. The colonial idiom of Order was complimented by the Indian idiom of Danda which had a kind of sacral aspect in the exercise of power for maintaining socio-political structure in various Indian literatures. Armed with this almost dharmic injunction, the local landlords secured or sought to secure the subordination of the ordinary people. The other constituent of domination, Persuasion had two idioms- the colonial idiom of improvement and the Indian one of Dharma. By skilful employment of the doctrine of improvement exemplified by various modernising works of the colonial state, liberal reforms and cultural “improvement” by introducing English literature, language and other potpourris, the raj wanted to minimise its alienation from its subjects. It was directed by the fear of resistance and worked as “political strategy to persuade the indigenous elite to ‘attach’ themselves to the colonial regime” (ibid, 242). The Indian elite on the contrary used the idiom of dharma, whereby the indigenous elites are shown as trustee of the people as excellently expressed in Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj, to persuade the people. This worked very well in reconciling the class antagonism and explains the “penetration of elite nationalism by the interests of big businesses” (ibid, 249). The idioms of order and danda in the constitutive element of coercion, and that of improvement and dharma in the constitutive element of persuasion made the engine of dominance run smoothly. The constitutive element of Collaboration(C*) in Subordination was informed by the British idiom of Obedience and the Indian idiom of Bhakti. The Humean idiom of Obedience to Authority is underlined by the Benthamite utilitarian ethos whereby the subject owed loyalty to the government for the sake of their own happiness. In colonial India, the sense of obedience and duty to the Empire was fruitfully brought to home in the formation of a disciplined army which saved the Empire withstand destruction in 1857. This sense of
33 obedience also led the Indian elite to collaborate with the British rule in India. Guha refers to Gandhi’s offer of help, on behalf of the Indian community in South Africa, to the British Empire in the Boer War to show how the subject valorised its loyalty to the ruler as something self-gratifying whereby the servant feels it to be “a privilege” when the master acknowledges the “latter’s servitude”. This idiom of obedience to the master, Guha thinks, continued to inform liberal-nationalist politics for “the cautious anti-imperialism of the elite never managed fully to emerge from the maze of bargaining and pressure-politics to assert, without equivocation, the subject’s right to rebel”(emphasis original ibd, 256). The British idiom of obedience was sustained by the Indian idiom of bhakti which had successfully secured loyalty and subordination in the power politics in pre-colonial cultures. Guha ingeniously reads in the principal modalities of Bhakti- the rasas, such as dasya, santa, sakhya, vatsalya and srngara- the very means which secured the collaboration in subordination by denoting the devotee to
31 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the position of deity’s servant. This sense of being willingly in bondage to the deity whereby the devotee becomes the dasa of the object of devotion is “an ideology of subordination per excellence” and all the “inferior terms in any relationship of power structured as D/S within the Indian tradition, can be derived from it” (ibid, 259). The final constitutive element in the relationship of D/S, Resistance is informed by the British idiom of rightful dissent and the Indian one of Dharmic Protest. The British idiom is situated in the contractual- transactional theory of state-citizen relation of Locke which is marked by constitutionality, legality and parliamentary norms of right to dissent. In colonial India it was manifested in the elite nationalist politics through assemblies, marches, lobbies, strikes etc. The Indian idiom of dharmic protest is not informed by the constitutional norms of right, but by the dharmic injunction to overthrow the incompetent or adharmic king if he fails to perform his rajadharma. As Guha writes: It derives from the righteousness of the defence of Dharma, or to emphasise more precisely the negative aspect of resistance – from the morality of struggle against adharma.... Translated into the politics of resistance under the raj this implied an effort to correct what appeared to Indians as its deviation from the ideals of government inspired by Dharma. The values informing that resistance was therefore charged with religiosity: vichara suggested a sort of providential justice that had nothing to do with the Englishman’s rule of law; nyaya meant broadly a legitimacy conforming to the ethics of Dharma, far removed from secular political morality in any modern sense (ibid, 268-269).
34 It is this “religiosity”, this “dharmic injunction” that differentiates subaltern politics from that of elite politics. Guha points out that the relation of D/S in colonial India is constituted by elements that derive their idioms from “two very different paradigms of political culture- one of which is contemporary, British, and liberal and the other pre-colonial, Indian and semi- feudal”. It is a relation between two matrices, namely Order, Improvement, Obedience, Rightful dissent and Danda, Dharma, Bhakti, Dharmic Protest. However, in the actual political practices the interplay between the paradigmatic derivatives of Domination and Subordination did not work by a process of simple aggregation, but by “braiding, collapsing, echoing and blending” in a fashion that gave it a specific character of its own (ibid, 270). Thus, each of the constitutive elements of D/S emerged in the colonial situation as a “new and original entity” (ibid, 271). Thus, the power relation of D/S in colonial India is a result of the overdetermination of the two different paradigms of political culture. Guha writes: ...(W)hat makes the relation of D/S specific and adequate to the conditions of colonialism is an ensemble of overdetermining effects constituted by what Lacan, in his interpretation of that key Freudian concept, has called a ‘double meaning’, with each political instance standing at the same time for ‘a conflict long dead’ and ‘a present conflict’-that is, for that process of condensation and displacement by which the ideological moments of social contradictions in pre-colonial India and modern Englandwere fused with those of the living contradictions of colonial rule to structure the relation D/S (ibid, 271). This makes the political conditions in colonial India paradoxical and original because of that. The paradoxical originality of the colonial situation is reflected in the colonial bourgeoisie who fought for democracy at home but “presided happily over a state without citizen”. In building a neo-feudal organization of property, the indigenous elites, on the other had, attempted to defend the pre-colonial feudal elements instead of destroying them. This co- existence of two paradigms of political culture constitutes the “central paradox” of colonial culture in India (ibid, 272). This actually proves,
32 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
thinks Guha, the failure of the universalist project of capital itself, for the “universalist drive of the world’s most advanced capitalist culture”, instead of producing the hegemony of the “ruling ideas” of a bourgeois capitalist culture in India, had to compromise with the pre- colonial political norms of India (ibid, 272). Why, then, in India “universalism failed to generate a hegemonic ruling culture?” (ibid, 274) The answer has to be sought in the very nature of colonialism as an “absolute externality”. Guha writes:
35 ‘The colonial state in India did not originate from the activity of Indian society itself. No moment of that society’s internal dynamics was involved in the imposition of the alien authority structure which provided the process of state formation both with its primary impulse and the means of its actualization’ (ibid, 274). It was thus “doubly alienated” from the Indian society- for the very logic of its lack of emergence or evolution as a bourgeois state from the feudal society, and for the sheer external imposition of it. This gave political culture in colonial India a particularity of its own whereby the power relation in India was not based on hegemony but on sheer domination. Guha explains: Its effect on the organic composition of D was to undermine the magnitude of P in relation to that of C within the moment of colonialism. In other words, D as a term of the central relation of power in the subcontinent meant Dominance without hegemony. (emphasis original ibid, 275) This characterisation of power in colonial India as “dominance without hegemony”- where the bourgeoisie failed to speak for the nation or to incorporate the subaltern interests into its political ageda to build hegemony points towards the sheer domination and coercion of bourgeoisie rule and also clears the way for a relative autonomy of the subaltern domain from that of the elite. Thus, subaltern politics followed a different grammar from that of the elite and their insurgencies were nothing less than political as it was aimed at challenging the domination and coercion of the elite, both colonial and indigenous. And to understand that different grammar of politics we have to understand insurgent peasant consciousness which Guha analyses elaborately in Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in colonial India. Structures of Insurgent Peasant Consciousness The attempt of subaltern historiography to rehabilitate the subaltern as the conscious political agent centered on retrieving the consciousness of the insurgent subaltern that underlie his actions. In Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1999) Guha’s primary task is to identify the elementary aspects underpinning the consciousness of the insurgent peasants. He discusses and elaborates on six aspects of peasant insurgency that give us an index of insurgent peasant consciousness, such as negation, ambiguity, modality, solidarity, transmission, and territoriality. As Guha’s theoretical optics here guided the discussion of subaltern insurgencies of the other memebers of the collective, at least in the early phase of the project, we have to take a fuller view of what Guha has to say.
36 Negative Consciousness Guha first talks about the “negative consciousness” of the subaltern classes which is marked by their awareness of the “distance” from the superordinate classes in terms of the “differentials of wealth, status and culture” (Guha 1999, 18). The subaltern’s identity of himself thus amounts to “the sum of his subalternity” (ibid, 18). Guha thinks that the revolt of the subordinate classes against that authority paradoxically “derived much of its strength from the same awareness” (ibid, 19). Taking a cue from Gramsci, Guha thinks: Taken by itself this did not of course constitute a mature and fully developed class consciousness. Yet it would be wrong not to regard this as the very beginning of that
33 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
consciousness…. This consciousness has a historical tendency to ‘come to surface’ locally among some of the more radical sections of the rural masses long before being generalised on a national scale in any country. (ibid, 18-19) Guha points out two modalities of negation involved in peasant insurgency in colonial India- discrimination and inversion. The first refers to the selective and concentrated use of violence against the enemy by the insurgent peasants. Guha writes: The definition of friend and foe could of course vary from one insurrection to another and occasionally between groups of protagonists within the same event depending on the conditions in which they operated and the levels of their consciousness. However, the fact that a discrimination of this order entered ino insurgent practice at all, must be understood as indicative of its rationale. (ibid, 20) Guha refers to The Peasant War in Germany and the French Revolution to point out the operation of selective violence or what Hilton calls “‘conscious hostility’” in the European cases and thinks that the Indian experience “agrees with the same pattern” (ibid, 22). He refers to the popular plundering of European properties during the Mutiny in Aligarh, the selective violence of the Kol and the Santal during 1832 and 1855 against the non-tribal “outsiders” or whom they called suds and dikus or the landlords, moneylenders and those members of the subaltern classes who worked with them. The spread of violence, however, was not “delimited by ethnicity” for often the attack on the government property and personnel turned to the native collaborators of the Raj as they realised the “linkage between the indigenous exploiters and the colonial authorities” (ibid, 26). Thus Guha thinks that the attack on the “symbiosis of Sarkar, sahukar and zamindar” is a political act:
37 By directing his violence against all three members of this trinity irrespective of which one of them provoked him to revolt in the first place, the peasant displayed a certain understanding of the mutuality of their interests and the power on which this was predicated. However, feeble and incipient, this represented the emergence of a political consciousness, even if no more than its very, ‘first glimmer’. (ibid, 27) Cautioning against the view that such insurgency was the work of the “instinct” characteristic of “primitive rebels” he further says, “It will be wrong not to see in all this the imprint of a consciousness trying to identify some of the basic elements of economic exploitation and the political superstructure which legitimised these” (ibid, 27). The second modality of negation characteristic of peasant insurgency was “the peasants’ attempt to destroy or appropriate for themselves the signs of the authority of those who dominate them” (ibid, 28). Such “inversive process” seeks to destroy the signs of authority. Guha differentiates between what he calls “prescriptive inversion” sanctioned by the ruling class ideology which allows the subordinate class to inverse the codes of dominance on a particular day in a ritualistic manner and the peasant inversion which is disruptive. The ritualistic inversion is predictive and works as a safety-valve device as such instances empties the rebellion of its content and reduces it to “a routine of gestures in order to reinforce authority by feigning defiance” (ibid, 31). The peasant insurgency carries the threat of “a permanent subversion of the local hierarchies of power which distinguishes a peasant rebellion from the simulated upheavals” (ibid, 36) of the ritualised inversion. Such radical subversion thus “constitutes a semiotic break” as it “violates that basic code by which the relations of dominance and subordination are historically governed in any particular society” (ibid, 36). Guha explains the insignias of colonial authority that the insurgent peasant sought to inverse. First comes official language which involves linguistic etiquette shown towards the
34 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
superordinate classes and the rebels inverted that by hurling abusive language towards the enemy. However, inversion of authority was not restricted to spoken utterance alone and was extended to graphic forms also. Guha writes: There was hardly a peasant uprising on any significant scale in colonial India that did not cause the destruction of large quantities of written or printed material including rent rolls, deeds and bonds, and public records of all kinds. (ibid, 50)
38 Since the written records often held the peasants in bondage, writing came to be considered as the sign of his enemy. However, not only burning the official records, the peasants often went further and tried to appropriate the signs of writing. Of non-verbal expressions of authority and the challenge to it by insurgent peasants included bodily gesture, distance maintained from the ruling classes and rule of differential heights, ban against up- turned moustache or use of shoe and umbrella, clothes which were considered as signs of status and prestige, riding horse or use of palanquin considered as insignia of authority, size and elegance of house etc. The peasants attacked the material symbols of the governmental and landlord authority and undermined the dominant semi- feudal culture that held them in a relation of dominance and subordination. Often when the religion of the opposing groups differed, the revolt involved desecration of temples or mosques as in the case of the peasant rising against the Hindu landlords in East Bengal. Desecration of religious shrines involved a battle of prestige. Guha writes: It was this fight for prestige which was at the very heart of insurgency. Inversion was its principle modality. It was a political struggle in which the rebel appropriated and/
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 85%
or destroyed the insignia of his enemy’s power and hoped thus to abolish the marks of his own subalternity.
Inevitable, therefore, b rising in revolt the peasant involved himself in a project which was, by its very nature, negatively constituted. The ‘names, battle-cries and costumes’ he assumed in order to carry this out were all taken from his adversaries. It was no doubt a project predicated on power, but its terms were derived from the very structure of authority against which he had been driven to revolt. He spoke thus in a ‘borrowed language’- that of his enemy, for he knew none other. (ibid, 75) Distinction between Crime and Insurgency Guha then distinguishes between crime and insurgency. Although an “inversive function” is common to both peasant insurgency and certain types of crimes, “crime and insurgency derive from two very different codes of violence” (ibid, 79). Insurgency is “by its very nature open and public event” and “stands in clear opposition to crime which must rely on secrecy to be effective” (ibid, 109). Although there is a “tendency towards an open and public affirmation” in such “intermediate types of rural violence” such as social banditry, but they
39 fall just short of rebellion (ibid, 109-110). An “open affirmation of intent” is more characteristic of rebels than social bandits and they make “no attempt to conceal violence by any pretence to conform to law and order” (ibid, 111). He refers to the rebellion of the Kols of Chota Nagpur and the parwana issued by Sido and Kanhu in which they claim to act on “the
35 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
order of the Thacoor” (ibid, 112). Often the rebel acted on the putative approval or blessing of the highest public authority as in the case of Deccan riots of 1875 in which the peasants believed that the queen of England herself was on the peasants’ side against their immediate oppressors. Insurgent violence, thus, assumed the “status of a public service” (ibid, 113) in the eyes of the rebels. Often they might also elect a rebel leader as “alternative source of authority” and might formalize it through ritual presentation of nazrana (ibid, 115). Often there is prayer to the elected authority to forgive the insurgents for their excesses and thus comes the validation or “sacralisation of rebel violence as a public service duly authorized by the head of a community and undertaken by its members for their own benefit” (ibid, 115). Guha emphasises the communal and corporate aspect of peasant insurgency: The mass, communal aspect of rebel violence follows thus from its open and public character and differentiates it from the typically individualistic or small-group operation of crime. A rebellion (to borrow Lefebvre’s term for the peasant revolt in France in 1789) is indeed a ‘collective enterprises’. It uses communal processes and forms of mass mobilization, expresses massive violence in the idiom of communal labour and encourages communal appropriation of the fruits of pillage in many cases. The communal process of mobilization is best witnessed in the parleys and assemblies which inaugurate most agrarian uprisings everywhere. (ibid, 115) Guha refers to the “processes of consultation and gatherings” as an important aspect of peasant insurgency. It follows the sequence of “confer, plan, assemble and attack” (ibid, 116). Such “consultative meeting”, “preliminary cogitation” or “frequent communal consultation” thus establish the “unquestionable legitimacy of violence” as Guha talks about the Santal hool (ibid, 117). Thus, such “autonomous peasant gatherings” were the “organs of peasant war” and the colonial administration was afraid of and often banned such gatherings where peasants gathered to publicly air their grievances. Such assemblies can also broaden the ambit and scope of the peasant insurgency as it can expand the initial local or community specific horizon of grievance and can turn it into a broad alliance of vast majority of peasants.Guha points out that the autonomous peasant mobilizations may often assume a religious form, but Guha thinks that “only rarely” insurgent peasantry adopted an explicit religious form in
40 colonial India and “rather secular idiom of communal festivity and corporate labour was what, more than anything else, characterized the agrarian uprisings of the period” (ibid, 124). Guha points out that the “corporate violence” of peasant insurgency may have four methods or forms of struggle such as wrecking, burning, eating and looting. All of them may not figure in one insurgency, but it is their “want of uniformity in their combinations and the uneven distribution of their relative weightage” that gives individually to each insurrection. However, it is these forms that make an insurrection “distinctively destructive and political in its character and put it in a class apart from crime” (emphasis original, ibid, 136). Wrecking or demolition of the symbols of enemy authority is common to all insurgency. To eliminate the signs of their subalternity was the first step towards turning things upside down. Thus, the familiar symbols of British presence in India such as indigo factories in case of indigo revolt or sadar station with the bungalows and administrative buildings were the principle target. With wrecking there was burning as a principle instrument of demolition. Infact, wrecking and burning “almost invariably went together”. Guha talks about the other two modalities of peasant insurrection, namely eating and looting. Although in German, English, French and
36 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Chinese peasant insurrections there are ample examples of the rebels eating or organising a sort of banquet at the house of the offenders as a sort of inversion or punishment and as remuneration for their “public service”, there are few cases of such example in India. Guha thinks that perhaps the historians failed to recognise the importance of such feasts and did not retrieve them from the primary material sources. However, looting or pillage was a ubiquitous method of peasant insurgency in colonial India. And grain and cattle were the primary objects of pillage. The initial response to looting by peasants of the superordinate classes was to characterise it as peasant dacoity. However, they failed to see the code stitching that occurred which differentiated the insurgency from ordinary crime. Looting was a direct instrument of attack, or self-defence, or reprisal or a punitive action and the loot was identified as spoils to be shared by all and not as criminal acquisition Guha argues that the four methods of peasant violence discussed above constituted a total and integrated violence. The “multiformity” or totality- the “coming together of many different forms of insurgent activity and its multifarious objects” is what differentiates it from crime. These destructive aspects of insurgency notwithstanding, Guha points out the minimum number of killing in the peasant insurrections in India. Guha analyses it in the following way:
41 The answer must be sought in two aspects of rebel consciousness- namely, its inertia and its negativity. It was not a liberated consciousness. On the contrary, with all its attempts to reverse the old relations of power it was still trapped in the old culture. That culture imbued the peasant with a sense of reverence for the body of anyone ranked as his superior. (ibid, 164) Thus, the rebels often fell short of overcoming the cultural/ religious conditions of his subalternity. However, Guha’s idea of peasant consciousness not being liberated might raise questions about historicism. Does he believe in transition then? Or in the role of party that can liberate the peasant consciousness from their pre-modern cultural vestiges? Guha, here, is not completely free from a historicist understanding. Perhaps the better way to understand it is that he shows the different modality and the consciousness of the insurgent peasant outside the juridical modern contractarian notion of politics that underlie elite politics in colonial India. The same division is still there as Chakrabarty (2013) points out the bifurcation between elite and subaltern politics against the background of contradictory development of democracy in India today. Solidarity Guha explains that whatever might be the modality of insurgency in a given context, its form and spirit relies on “two closely related patterns of corporate behaviour, namely emulation and solidarity” (ibid, 167). He describes how the peasants, seeing others in rebellion, copy them and rise in rebellion. Officials thus were afraid of “such imitative defiance of authority” and such “contagion” (ibid, 168). But what was the source of the peasant solidarity? Is it class solidarity or religious or ethnic or a combination of more than one? Guha takes a flexible approach denying neither the importance of class or caste or ethnicity or religion. He writes, “Class solidarity and other solidarities are of course not mutually exclusive: their boundaries overlap in most cases, although the predominance of one or the other element would tend to determine the basic character of a movement” (emphasis original, ibdi, 168) Referring to the Tebhaga movement and the Telengana insurrection, Guha holds that although they were “distinguished by the solidarity of the peasantry as a class or, to be more precise, as a congeries of classes”, but even there “the sense of fighting as a class or proximate classes was overdetermined to some extent by other loyalties” (ibid, 169). That these movements started spontaneously prove that “there was more to this than class
37 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
consciousness alone” or there was the “displacement of class solidarity by ethnic solidarity’. (ibid, 170). Guha writes, “The dye of a traditional culture was yet to wash off the peasants’ consciousness, and its articulation in insurgent violence, directed as it was against the very
42 foundation of that culture, was bound to generate some ambiguity” (ibid,170). Historians opposed to the peasants’ perspective misinterpret such movements as “communal or racial protest based respectively on sectarian or ethnic attitudes” ignoring the class content of the movements. And the historians on the left while emphasing on the class aspect tend to “underestimate or even overlook altogether the other affinities which help in the process of its mobilization”. Guha talks about this “duplex character” of peasant insurgency (ibid, 171). While referring to the Pabna disturbances of 1873 or Wahabi movement and Faraizi movement or the Mopla peasant uprising, he shows how along with class solidarity, religious solidarity played a part in the mobilisation, specially the use of mosque or Friday prayer or the participation of religious leaders in the movement against the predominantly Hindu landlords. Guha writes: Not to face up to the religious aspect of rebel solidarity and ascribe it to phony secularism is to falsify the intellectual history of the peasantry and eliminate, by a mere stroke of the pen, the discrepancy that
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
is necessarily there at certain stages of the class struggle between the level of its objective articulation and that of the consciousness of its subjects. (
ibid, 173) Thus, Guha talks about religion and ethnicity as correlate of class solidarity. He refers to the Kol insurrection and how the rebels during their raids spared the tribal households and attacked only the non-tribals, and also how the rebels were joined by other tribal people of the area which Guha views as “a particularly self-conscious act of collaboration” (ibid, 174). Even the tribal recruits to suppress the insurrection refused to fire at their tribal brothers. However, ethnic solidarity is not the only factor behind tribal peasant mobilizations as class solidarity cut across ethnic divisions among rural poor as the rebels did not harm the socially and economically subordinate (ibid, 176). However, referring to the Kol insurrection and Birsaite ulgulan Guha holds that the ethnic aspect can hardly be overlooked. Again, in the Santal rebellion of 1855 in which inter-tribal solidarity was much more pronounced and there was a horizontal alliance with non-tribal exploited elements “class solidarity triumphed over ethnicity here more decisively”. It shows the “formidable power of a rebel consciousness projected well beyond the sense of tribe and caste”. Guha writes: Solidarity produces an ethic: to rebel is good, not to rebel is bad. This follows directly from the communal character of rebellion: in so far as the latter is an expression of the will of the many, rebel solidarity functions both as an expression and an instrument of communal authority- as its standard as well as its sword. (ibid, 188-189)
43 Religious morality also provide rebel solidarity as for example in the Indigo revolt one Muslim ryot who wanted to withdraw could not do so because he was bound by his pledge he took by kissing the Koran. However, it was not religion alone that provided rebel solidarity as
38 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
during the 1857-8 revolt the forces of Khan Bahadur Khan were actively protected by the Kurmis of Bareilly from counter-insurgency measures. It was this “popular conscience” that provided much needed solidaity during times of constraints- In other words politics had managed to triumph over economics so that differences concerning particular aspects of the rent question yielded to a general consensus borne out of the peasants’ awareness of themselves as a community opposed actively to the community of their oppressors, the zamindars. (ibid, 190) However, what built and sustained such solidarity? Guha talks about two types of communal sanctions- cultural and physical that held the insurgents together. This is an aspect of peasant solidarity that was taken up by Vivek Chibber (2013) in his critique of Partha Chatterjee’s notion of peasant communal consciousness being immune to any material ineterst. Lets us quote what Guha says: The first of these was imposed usually as a threat to one’s status within the community either by defilement or by social boycott. … More ofteh, however, the price of dissidence from a common action would be the denial of cooperation by fellow villagers. This culd ruin a peasant economically as well socially… Rarely however, would sanctions against breach of solidarity remain confined to a purely non-violent exercise in a social boycott it was common for the latter to be accompanied by threats of physical violence, too. ((ibid, 190-91) That such threats were used by insurgents to the vascillators and that people vascillated was taken as proof by Chibber of the peasants considering the pros and cons of their involvement and prove, thinks Chibber, that they were guided by self-interest and not just by community consciousness. We would return to the debate in chapter four and let us elaborate on what Guha has further to say about peasant solidarity. The threat of violence against those undermining peasant solidarity i.e. the vascillators and fence-sitters, writes Guha, was conveyed visually and verbally. Guha distinguishes between the “forms of intimidation” adopted by dacoits during Swadeshi movement as anonymous threatening letters (henceforth
44 ATL) sent to their enemies and the insurgent peasant communication (henceforth IPC). While ATL is privately sent, IPC is open and public. In IPC there is liberal use of imperatives and the corporate character of the insurgency is emphasised. There is also the difference in terms of the relation between the author and addressees. While in ATL, the letter is addressed to enemies, in IPC the content is non-antagonistic in its character as the parties are potential allies. Although there is threat against the non-committers, it is prefaced by call for help. And this aspect differentiates IPC from ATL as the function of this communiques is to “emphasise the need for unanimity, co-operation and common action, to plead for solidarity rather than to discipline opponents” (ibid, 195). Pressing in cases where the advanced sections wanted to win over the backward sections is primarily an instrument of solidarity, of unification and not of punishment. Guha also points out that in “no peasant rebellion does the relation among the people remain non-antagonistic all the time” He writes: The peasantry produce not only rebels but also collaborators, informers, traitors. These latter personify the irreducible dregs of a backward consciousness which even the force of an insurrection cannot fully flush out. They stand for the servility, fear of change, fatalism and urge for self- preservation at any price which go with the proprietor’s mentality everywhere. Peasants themselves they turn against their class and community at the critical hour and act as the instruments of their own oppressors. (ibid, 198) Thus, “Solidarity/ Betrayal constitutes a well-defined element of rebel consciousness” (ibid, 199). To the rebels, betrayal stand for two forms of collaboration with
39 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
enemy- passive and active. Thus, indifference, vacillation, fence-sitting appear as hostile. Refusal to resist the enemy when needed or to join the collective enterprise of insurrection amounts to passive collaboration. Such non-conformity was thus punished as a deterrent. Active collaboration consisted of continuing the “traditional political relationship between the peasant and his enemy” such as paying the rent or continue to work for the landlord or the enemy. Such collaboration feeds on the “weaker elements of a rebel community to continue their submission to landlordism and other forms of enemy authority even when time is ripe for fanshen” (ibid, 204). The other forms of active collaboration involves the spies, approvers or agents of the enemy recruited from within the insurgent community. Doing decoys is another important form of active collaboration. Perfidy, defection, treachery in the insurgent ranks were used as means of pacification by the enemy. And the insurgent peasant felt that there
45 was no sin to kill the spies or other active collaborators. Let us now move on from peasant solidarity to the transmission of the insurgency. Transmission of the Insurrection Guha talks about the “process of encapsulation” (ibid, 224) in which the particular grievances that led to the uprising encapsulates within it the previous and unrelated grievances of the peasants borne out of their subalternity .The spread of peasant violence in colonial India was specific to what Guha calls “a pre-literate culture or, to be more precise, a pre-literate culture transiting slowly- very slowly indeed-towards literacy” (ibid, 226). And “rebel messages circulated more by spoken utterances than by writing” which Guha thinks “constitutes a distinctive feature of this genre of conflict in rural India” (ibid, 226). And “all rebel messages, whatever the means of their transmission, had the dual function of informing and mobilizing at the same time” (ibid, 227). Guha holds that insurgency spread by both verbal and non-verbal means. And non- verbal communications are of two kinds, aural and visual. Of the aural medium of transmission of insurgency there was the use of drum, flute and the horn. They acted as “surrogate of human speech” (ibid, 228). Such systems of aural signs of indigenous communication “came thus to symbolize at once an epistemological and political opposition between the rulers and the ruled” (ibid, 231) and the authorities prohibited the use of such instruments of peasant communication. Another class of non-verbal transmitters were visual sign, iconic and symbolic. The use of arrow in the Kol insurgency, the re-inscription of the “messenger bough” known as dhauree or dheori in which a branch of mango or sal or jack would be despatched to rally their fellow villages or tribesmen which again highlights the corporate nature of peasant insurgency. The circulation of tel (oil) and sindur (vermillion powder), chapatti were other means of non-verbal communication and transmission of insurgency. Often the vague and indefinite nature of a message leads to a re-signification of its semantic meaning thereby inspiring fear among the officials. Guha thinks that although verbal transmission of insurgency was inseparable from aural and visual modes, yet it was distinctive enough to constitute a class by itself. It constituted both graphic and non-graphic articulations. Of the graphic mode was letters written often by the literate members of the peasants, which is unusual in an illiterate community, and often by disgruntled members of the elite who because of their changed situations joined the peasant rebels. However, instances of elite participation in subaltern literacy was exceptional and not the norm. Often the peasant leaders would tactfully convert
40 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
46 the written signal into a visual one to provide it with a “new signifieds”, as for example Kanhu’s showing of the official documents and blank pages as written orders of the Thakur to the peasants to rise in rebellion. Of the non-graphic mode of verbal transmission of insurgency, there is the potent weapon called rumour and Guha elaborates on the nature and function of rumour as a means of rebel communication. A form of ‘anonymous speech” rumour is “both a universal and necessary carrier of insurgency in any pre-industrial, pre- literate society” (ibid, 251). Referring to the appointment of officials to check its spread by the Roman emperors, to Kautilya’s cautions against rumour and the “play of rumour on popular passion” during conflicts between patricians and plebeians in ancient Rome, during peasant revolt in England in 1381 and during Swing riots, during French Revolution and other cases, Guha holds that rumour is a “truly ubiquitous form of insurgent communication in many lands at many times”(ibid, 253). The panic that is associated with many rural uprising in colonial India was the “work of a series of gigantic rumours” (ibid, 253). However, instead of focussing on the alarmist aspect of rumour, Guha focusses on “it’s positive and indeed more important function in mobilizing for rebellion” (ibid, 254). He writes: It is precisely in this role of the trigger and mobilizer that rumour becomes a necessary instrument of rebel transmission. The necessity derives of course from the cultural condition in which it operates. For the want of literacy in a pre-capitalist society makes its subaltern population depend almost exclusively on visual and non-graphic verbal signals for communication among themselves, and between these two again rather more on the latter because of the relatively greater degree of its versatility and comprehensibility. But it is also by virtue of its character as a type of speech that rumour serves as the most ‘natural’ and indeed indispensable vehicle of insurgency. (ibid, 256) Rumour is “spoken utterance per excellence” and “responds to any given stimulus more urgently, emotionally and dynamically than written utterance” (ibid, 257). Guha writes, “It is this functional immediacy which develops in rumour its characteristic drive to seize upon important issues in periods of social tension and creates its larger public audienc for them… This force of impulse is what brings people together” (ibid, 257) Rumour thus generates solidarity among the peasants which confers two characteristic tendencies to rumour. . First, “it is precisely to this socializing process that rumour owes it phenomenal speed” (ibid, 257) and second, it also generally originates “in places where people assemble in large numbers” such as the market or bazar where “by virtue of its intimate association with economic exchange so essential to the life of the people” rumour as a popular discourse originate and disseminate (ibid, 258). Guha, moving away from viewing rumour as false news,
47 differentiates rumour from news. News has a point of origin and can be verified. But, rumour as an “anonymous type of popular discourse” (ibid, 260) is class apart from news. It is marked by ambiguity and “cognitive unclarity” which makes it a potent transmitting power- Ambiguity such as this is indeed what makes rumour a mobile and explosive agent of insurgency, and it is a function precisely of those distinctive features which constitute its originality- namely its anonymity and transitivity. Anonymity gives rumour its openness, transitivity its freedom. (ibid, 260-61) This anonymity and ambiguity often give room to improvisation “as it leaps from tongue to tongue” (ibid, 261). And such “improvisation contributes directly to the efficacy of rumour for rebel mobilization (ibid, 262)”. Guha refers to the rumour about the British trying to defile the sepoys and the civilians by polluting their cartridges and edible that united the Indians against their foreign rulers. In this case the
41 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
rumour of the cartridges using animal fat was improvised to the fear of the edible being polluted by the British. However, Guha points out that rumour can be improvised to the extent as allowed by the relevant codes of culture in which it operates. Rumour could also sacralise political action and political thinking and Guha refers to the rumours of the deliverer gifted with superior power than enemy or of the Persian army invading India to re-establish Muslim rule overthrowing Christian empire or rumour related to the sacerdotal function of the mediators etc. Guha talks about the relation between rumour and rebel consciousness. Pointing to the sacerdotal function of prophetic rumour, Guha says that peasants by viewing their action as directed by a higher authority beyond their control show signs of false consciousness. Guha, as he thinks in terms of the Marxist parlance, characterises such sacerdocal function or rumour as fasle consciousness. However, freed from such Marxist and modern secularist notion, sacerdocal function of rumour as subaltern mode of rebellion can be positively viewed as it might give a non-secular idiom of protest. However, few points about rumour as a mode of subaltern mobilisation can be made. Rumour, today, is spread through modern means of media, generated from the above, not below, for political and cultural leverage and for targeting weaker section. It is no more part of a traditional, pre- industrial society. There is the elite manipulation of rumour. However, in riotous rebellions, rumour can also play a positive role. Thus, while remapping subaltern politics in the current conjuncture such contradictory roles played by rumour can be taken into account.
48 Territoriality Guha takes up the issue of territoriality of peasant insurgency. Revolutionaries like Trotsky, Mao or Engels considered the localism of peasant insurgency as a limiting factor which fails to generalise the revolution. Guha characterises territoriality as made up of “a sense of belonging to a common lineage as well as to a common habitat” having two intertwined components, consanguinity and contiguity. Guha points out that the tribal peasant uprisings in colonial India were local in nature characterised by the concepts of ethnic space and physical space demarked and guarded from the foreigners/ the non-tribal out- groups called the dikus like Hindus, Muslims, Europeans, Marwaris, Biharis, Bengalis etc. Such characterisation of the non-tribal dikus came from the ethnic and class aspect of their exploitation. Dikus, meaning trouble-makres, came to acquire a “new and expressive moral connotation” and stereotypes of the dikus were developed as the looter, deceiver or exploiter. This accounts for the selective violence on the non-tribal in tribal peasant uprising in colonial India. They defined their ethnicity negatively as a mark of difference from the foreigners, they also used the idea of ethnos positively to assert their identity which made the insurgency involve the entire tribe as is expressed in the preparatory acts of ritual solidarity, ceremonial gathering and gerontic consultations and the tendency of rebel violence to permeate the entire tribal diaspora (ibid, 285-6). In the insurgent peasant consciousness physical space was also characterised both negatively as the land which has been taken away from them by the diku and positively as the lost homeland to be freed from the domination of their foreign and native oppressors. Guha says that a correlate of the category of physical space was time which in the insurgent peasants’ consciousness was associated with “a good past negated by a bad present” and the “mission of recovering the past as a future”. The satjuga or Golden age, with all its material as well as moral and cultural connotation which are corrupted because of contact with the dikus, came to define their subalternity: In general, the natural economy of their Golden Age has been replaced by a money economy, industry and commerce, their
42 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
freedom and self-sufficiency by the tyranny and exploitation of the dikus. … This decline in material well-being corresponds to its moral denegation. Thanks to the dikus, Munda society has been penetrated by alien influences. (ibid, 295) Thus, recovering their homeland becomes the important war cry for them. Guha points out that territoriality was not confined to tribal outlook and uprising alone and it constituted “an element of consciousness common to all of the rural populations including Hindus and Muslims and deeply ingrained in their view of society, politics and culture, secular as well as
49 religious” (ibid, 297). Among the Hindus, although territoriality was not identical with caste consciousness, it was one of its basic components which can be easily seen in the territorial segmentation of caste groups. Among the Muslims, too, single jat live in the same villages showing similar territorial segmentation like the Hindus. In such cases, the caste groups assert their identity positively by endogamy and common habitation and negatively by excluding the members from other villages. Territorial segmentation often gets spiritualised through the intervention of religion as border gods and goddesses are worshipped in villages. The villagers’ self-identity was positively defined through territorial solidarity and negatively through differentiating it from the neighbouring villages. Guha elaborates on the role of territoriality in peasant uprising through an investigation of the jacqueries of the Kunbi peasants who, although clearly motivated against material exploitation by the moneylenders, betrayed sense of territoriality by viewing the moneylenders as foreigners who were outside the moral and cultural habitus of the region. Territoriality thus defined the Kunbi peasant identity negatively by excluding the moneylenders as foreigners and positively by promoting solidarity. Guha holds that the Mutiny of 1857 shows greatly territoriality as a positive factor of mobilization among non-tribal peasantry which is clear from the rural sites as both the centre of insurgency as well as focus of counter-insurgency measures by the British. The sites of peasant violence during the Mutiny were the peasants’ relationships with their local enemies- official and non-official. Thus, moneylenders and the Sudder Station which came to represent the local site of the British government came under attack. The territoriality of the peasant uprising during the Mutiny also came from their ethnic character as large populations belonging to the same cast would congregate in contiguous areas for mobilization and attack. Village based primordial ties were important modes of peasant mobilization. “A local insurrection, whatever its immediate cause, tended invariably to adapt itself to the existing pattern of ethnic solidarity in a given area” (ibid, 316). However, caste solidarity was not the only mode in which territoriality operated in every case. There was also a locality larger than a village or pargana or a district in which two or more castes joined forces. Thus, “territoriality articulated as an intercaste mobilization involving many villages in several contiguous parganas”. Finally, Guha retuns to the question of whether territoriality help or hinder the spread of rebellion. He writes: The answer provided by the evidence presented above is positive. Territoriality, in the conditions of nineteenth century India helped. The reason clearly lay in a decalage, that is, in the fact that the two kinds of space
50 mentioned above (ethnic and physical) did not quite coincide even when they converged. (ibid, 330) However, he also points out the shortcomings of territoriality of peasant uprising. Quite clearly the domain of rebellion still fell far short of the domain of the nation, and the two arms of territoriality, that is, co-residential solidarity and primordial loyalty,
43 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
acted to no small extent in putting the brakes on resistance against the Raj.
Narrow localism raised its head and impeded the progress of the insurgents at critical moments. However, Guha writes: Yet all such limitations notwithstanding, where else except in this fragmented insurgent consciousness is one to situate the beginnings of those militant mass movements which surged across the subcontinent in 1919, and 1946? Territoriality was not indeed the stuff with which to build a revolutionary party, as Mao Tse-tung observed at his base in the Chingkang mountains. But no to recognise in it the elements of what made the broader and more generalized struggles of the Indian people possible in the twentieth century would be to foreshorten history. (ibid, 331-32) Guha studies insurgency “in its common form and in terms of its general ideas” (emphaisis original, ibid, 333). Guha writes: Altogether, it stands for a generality in which ideas, mentalities, notions, beiefs, attitudes, etc. of many different kinds come together to constitute a whole. Hwever, it is not a generality which is ‘something external to or something in addition to’ other features or abstract qualities of insurgency discovered by reflection. On the contrary, it is what permeates and includes in it everything particular’- a pervasive theoretical consciousness which gives insurgency its categorical unity and helps to sort out its specific and separate moments. (ibid, 333) This “theoretical consciousness” was “of course a child of its time” and was “predicated on a set of historical relations of power, namely the relations of dominance and subordination, as these prevailed in village India under the Raj until 1900” (ibid, 334). Guha clarifies that this particular period was chosen “only for the convenience of demonstration” and the “actual career of its consciousness extends well beyond the nineteenth century” and if one analyses carefully “the popular mobilizations accredited to nationalist and communist leadership-such as Rowlatt Satyagraha and Quite India or Tebhaga and Telengana, to take only a couple of instances respectively of each kind- one cannot help noticing the structuring similarities between their articulation and some of the ‘elementary aspects’” of insurgent peasant consciousness (ibid, 334). Guha refers to the recent works of Gyanendra Pandey in U.P. and Heningham in Bihar to point out that “Indian nationalism of the colonial period was not what
51 elite historiography had made it out to be” as it did not follow the rule book of Congress or tenets of Gandhism and “derived much of its striking power from a subaltern tradition going a long way back” and its presence was also felt in “many of the more extensive and vigorous struggles of the urban poor and the industrial workers too” (ibid, 335). Apart from that, in communal violence in which “corrupt sectarianism replaced class consciousness” the “distinctive traces of insurgency in its form- in the means and manner of mobilization, in signalling, in solidarity and so on” can be easily discerned (ibid, 3350. Guha writes: The tendency of all these rather different types of mobilizations to agree with the general form of insurgency derived essentially from the latter’s role as a paradigm. This had its root in the relationship of dominance and subordination characteristic of Indian society for a long period both before and during colonial rule. However, the tradition of oppression and exploitation predicated on that relation was only as pervasive as the counter- tradition of defiance and revolt. These were reciprocal terms which conditioned and reproduced each other cyclically
44 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
over the centuries, and were helped by the inertia of an age-pld pre-capitalist culture to congeal as a pair of mutually determining but antagonistic elements within it. (ibid, 335- 36) Guha points out that the “rival paragidms of landlord authority and peasant rebellion continued to inspire and sustain each other, generating many patterns of elitist thought and action with regard to the weak and the underprivileged in one case and those of subaltern resistance in the other”. Subaltern resistance could also “transfer, by atidesa, the formal attributes of insurgency to almost any militant activity”, even to communal violence (ibid, 336z0. However, when the content and form of the resistance accorded with each other, the elementary aspects of peasant insurgency could impress themselves even in short lived attempts at “effecting a mutual substitution of adhara and uttara in the power structure” (ibid, 336). Referring to contemporary events such as anti-nasbandi disturbances in rural Haryana and urban UP in 1976-7 the paradigm of peasant insurgency discussed in reference to colonial Indian can be easily seen. Thus, Guha even predicts the future of peasant insurgency- So long as landlord authority continues to function as a significant element in the ruling culture- and continue it will even after the genuine (as against the spurious) end of landlordism in the economy and in property relations-all mass struggle will tend invariably to model themselves on the unfinished projects of Titu, Kanhu, Birsa and Meghar Singh. (ibid, 336)
52 Insurgent Reading or Reading as Retrieving: Reading the Official Document against the Grain However, there is one problem of retrieving the peasant consciousness as there is a paucity of the documents produced by the insurgent rebels. And the colonial narratives as well as those from the peasant community who were above the peasant in status and tied to the zamindars had an elitist perspective. So, Guha quite ingeniously gives us a solution. He thinks that the task can be undertaken by reading the colonial narratives against the grain. He elaborates: …they have much to tell us not only about elite mentality but also about that to which it is opposed- namely subaltern mentality. The antagonism is indeed so complete and so firmly structured that from the terms stated for one it should be possible, by reversing their values, to derive the implicit terms of the other. When, therefore, an official document speaks of badmashes as participants in rural disturbances this does not mean (going by the normal sense of that Urdu word) any ordinary collection of rascals but peasants involved in a militant agrarian struggle. In the same context a reference to any ‘dacoit village’ ( as one comes across so often in the Mutiny narratives) would indicate the entire population of a village united in resistance to the armed forces of the state, ‘contagion’ -the enthusiasm and solidarity generated by an uprising among various rural groups within a region, ‘fanatics’-rebels inspired by some kind of revivalist or puritanical doctrines , ‘lawlessness’- the defiance of the people by what they had come to regard as bad laws, and so on. (ibid, 16) As we first come across peasant insurgency through the prose of counter-insurgency/ elite discourse, it is imperative on the part of the historian to read them in “reverse”, to turn it upside down to “reconstitute the insurgents’ project aimed at reversing his world”. Since the peasants and his enemies i.e. the Sarkar, sahukar and zaminadar were “mutually antagonistic elements of a semi-feudal society under colonial rule”, a “rural uprising turns thus into a site for two rival cognitions to meet and define each other negatively”. Critique of Statist Ideology and Retrieving the Small Voices of History In a short piece entitled “The Small Voices of History” (1996) Ranajit Guha talks about the need to retrieve the “small voices” that are drowned in the statist ideology of history. Although it is in line with his argument of rehabilitating the voices
45 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
of the subaltern, his agenda here is an advancement over the previous paradigm of focussing on peasant insurgency and is in line with the later shift of Suabltern Studies towards tretrieving the “fragment” and the minor voices that are unrecognised in the post- Enlightenement notion of modernist secular historiography which is in tune with the modernist projct of state
53 formation. Guha, here, criticises the statist ideology that is the determining logic of dominant historiography- whether colonialist, bourgeois-nationalist or Marxist. He thinks that it is the ideology of “statism” that “authorises the dominant values of the state to determine the criteria of the historic”. In this historiography the “commanding voice of the state” nominates the historic for us and leaves “no choice” for us “to listen to and conversing with the myriad voices in civil society”. “These are small voices”, Guha writes, “which are drowned in the noise of statist commands. That is why we don’t hear them” (Guh 1996, 3). Guha, thus, talks about the need-the extra effort, the special skills, the disposition- to “hear these voices and interact with them” for “they have many stories to tell-stories which for their complexity are unequalled by statist discourse and indeed opposed to its abstract and oversimplifying mode” (ibid, 3). Guha talks about the petitions of four villagers in a village of West Bengal to the local Brahmins for expiation of their sins of affliction through rituals. Although they are aware of the “secular” cause of the disease, the prescription they sought was not medical but was mediated through cultural and religious beliefs. This testifies to the failure of the colonial state to penetrate deeply enough into Indian society; it shows the resistance of people to the hegemonic project of colonial state –a hegemonic project carried through western science and in this particular case, the discipline of medicine and hygiene. The statist ideology of historiography, however, is built on the hypothesis of “a principal contradiction” against which other contradictions are written off. Thus, the resistance of the petitioners and their village community against the hegemonic and civilising mission of the colonial state could be happily read in statist framework of the contradiction between the colonisers and the colonised. This is, however, a very gross understanding of power relations. What about the contradictions which are outside the state? Guha’s Foucauldian understanding of power leads him to point towards the capillaries of power outside the state in the social fabric- say for instance the caste contradiction within that same village which creates its own power- inequalities. The ‘statist historiography’ fails to capture those contradictions. Guha asks: What kind of history of our people would that make, were it to turn a deaf ear to these histories which constitute , for that period, the density of power relations in a civil society where the colonizer’s authority was still far from established?’(ibid, 6) However, Guha points out that not only colonialist historiography, but both the nationalist and the Marxist historiography are characterised by this statist elitism. He points out the difference between these two versions of statism:
54 The difference is one between power realized in a well formed and well- established regime of many years’ standing and power that is yet to actualize; a dream of power. ...In either case (nationalist and Marxist) historiography is dominated by the hypothesis of a principal contradiction which once resolved would convert the vision of power into its substance.(ibid, 7) It is this “hypothesis of a principal contradiction” and the resignation, if not rejection, of other contradictions which leads to a statist understanding of power in both nationalist and Marxist historiography. And it is Marxist historiography whose statist claims Guha attempts to
46 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
expose here because it is more sophisticated and more formidable. He discusses at length the monumental work of P. Sundarayya on the history of the mass uprising of the peasants and the agricultural labourers, led by the Communist Party, against the princely state of Nizam of Hyderabad and later against the government of India after it annexed the kingdom. Guha shows how this history is governed by the statist logic of a “principal contradiction” between the peasants and labourers against the landlord state of Nizam or the Indian state, and the resolution of which is anticipated to lead to the capture of state power. The other contradictions, such as that of the male leadership and the increasingly disenchanted female participants of this struggle are brushed aside in the name of solidarity. Thus, this statist historiography failed to “hear what the women were saying” (ibid, 9). Despite all the praises of the women for their courage and sacrifice, the statist historiography of Sundaraiyya conforms to patriarchy as it fails to acknowledge the women’s agency in the movement and treated their role in terms of instrumentality. How, then, can we conceive of an alternative historiography which will be sensitive to the small voices of history? This involves re-writing of history. This re-writing would require challenging the univocity of “statist discourse” -a discourse which privileges one set of contradiction over others. This hierarchization needs to be destroyed. Equally important is the necessity to “put the question of agency and instrumentality back into the narrative” (ibid, 11). In the statist view of the insurrection the question of agency is located in the party or the leadership which is exclusively male. Thus, the agency of the women needs to be highlighted in the narrative of history; their voice needs to be retrieved. This will “activate and make audible the other small voices” which are also marginalised in the statist discourse. This requires more than an empirical revision. Guha writes, “I want historiography to push the logic of its revision to a point where the very idea of instrumentality, the last refuge of elitism, will be interrogated and re-assessed not only with regard to women but all participants” (ibid, 12). The agency of all the marginalised voices thus needs to be
55 highlighted. He finally comes to the narratological question. Since it is the very narrative structure which invests statist historiography with authority, he talks about disrupting the very narrative structure-its post-Enlightenment logic of coherence and linearity. He talks about a “certain disorderliness-a radical deviation from the model” whereby “chronology” will be replaced by “a capricious quasi-Puranic time which is not ashamed of its cyclicity”. The “overthrow of the regime of bourgeois narratology” will create the condition for a “new historiography” which will be devoted to
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 100%
the “voice of a defiant subalternity committed to writing its own
historiography” (ibid, 12). Subaltern Studies, as is clear from the above discussion, started with the avowed objective of rectifying the elitism of dominant historiograophy of colonial India, wheteher of colonial, bourgeoisie nationalist or Marxist orientation. It sought to “rehabilitate” the subaltern as the conscious subject of history, something denied by conventional historiography. This objective led Guha and others to recuperate the “rebel consciousness…its sovereignty, its consistency and its logic in order to compensate for its absence from the
47 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
literature on the subject…” (Guha 1999, 12). Rehabilitating the subaltern as political subject required a redefinition of power and the political itself in the context of colonial India and Guha proposed that subaltern politics followed a different grammar than elite constitutional politics. He, thus, bifurcated the domain of politics into elite and subaltern domain and pointed out that subaltern domain was relatively autonomous and the subaltern rebelled, out of the context of his/her subordination, following his/her own modalities. This agenda of rehabilitating the agency and subjectivity of subaltern fuelled Subaltern Studies and in the next chapter we would discuss how the project unfolded and what were the paradigm shifts within the three decades long project. Works Cited:
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincilizing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historial Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ———.2002. “
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 91%
A Small
History of Subaltern Studies”. In
Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies,
Dipesh Chakrabarty, 3-19. Delhi, Permanent Black. ———2013. “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (12): 23-27.
56 Chatterjee, Partha. 2010. “A Brief History of Subaltern Studies”. In Empire and Nation: Essential Writings (1985- 2005), Partha Chatterjee., 289-301. New Delhi: Permanent Black. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. UK and US: Verso. Green, Marcus. 2002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
Rethinking Marxism 14(13): 1-24.
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 50%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspects of the Historiography in Colonial India”. In Subaltern Studies
I, Ranaji Guha, ed., 1-8. Delhi, Oxford UP. ———.1999.
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
USA: Duke University Press. (
48 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
First published in 1983, Delhi: Oxford UP) ———.1989. “Dominance without hegemoy and Its Historiography”. In Subaltern Studies VI, Ranajit Guha, ed., 210-324. Delhi: Oxford UP. —— —.1996. The Small Voice of History. In Subaltern Studies IX, Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, ed., 1-11. New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.2009. “Gramsci in India: Homage to a Teacher”. In The Small Voice of History: Collected Essays, Parha Chatterjee, ed., 361-370. Delhi: Permanet Black. Sarkar, Susobhan. 1968. “The Thought of Gramsci”. Mainstream (Nov 2)
57 CHAPTER II: MAPPING THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUBALTERN STUDIES PROJECT The previous chapter dealt with the theoretical agenda of Subaltern Studies as formulated by Guha in his seminal works such as Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (first published in 1983, however for references the 1999 Duke University Press edition is used here) and articles such as “On Some Aspects of Peasant Historiography of Colonial India” (1982), “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography” (1989), “The Small Voice of History” (1996) etc. The central argument revolved around the question of rehabilitating the peasant and other subaltern groups as conscious political agent in Indian historiographical and political discourse. This move led Guha to debunk the fallacious logic that the peasants were pre-political entity whose actions were guided by irrartional and unthinking spontaneity and challenged the attempt of liberal historiography to appropriate the actions of the peasants in the elite-led career of Indian nationalism. To establish the subjectivity of the insurgent peasant, Guha mapped the different grammar of peasant politics and tried to locate the elementary aspects of the insurgent peasant consciousness. His attempt to establish the peasant subaltern as a political agent led him to characterise the different power arrangement in colonial India as “dominance without hegemony” that set the stage for understanding peasant politics beyond the liberal contractarian logic of parliamentary democracy. The Indians were not the citizens under the colonial rule and the subjection of the peasant to the triumvirate of sarkar, sahukar and zamindar made their action, as Guha said, nothing less than political. It can be seen that Guha does not discount the category of class and was still thinking in terms of historical evolution as can be seen in his characterisation of the insurgent peasant conscious as “somewhat inchoate and naive state of consciousness” “still imperfect, almost embryonic, theoretical consciousness”, “very beginning of a theoretical consciousness” (Guha, 1999, 11) etc. However, Guha was also thinking beyond the category of the class as can be seen from his categorisation of the subaltern not as an essential entity but as one open for semantic re-signification in different contextual arrangement. In this chapter we would map the evolution of the subaltern in the Subaltern Studies project taking into account the different paradigm shifts in the project. The early focus of the project was to chart the different peasant movements in colonial India. And Guha’s (1999) theorisation on peasant insurgency in colonial India guided the early analysis and conceptualisation of subaltern rebellion by the members of the collective. His theorisation on the collective nature of peasant politics, territoriality, role of
58 rumour as a mode of transmission and the role of religion and traditional morality in peasant mobilisation left a deep imprint on the works of the members. Peasant Communal Consciousness Community or community consciousness as opposed to the liberal individual citizen subject has informed Partha Chatterjee’s work from the very beginning and it can be found in his recent works on the “politics of the governed” (2002) and the “political society”
49 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
(2011). Theorising the peasant communal consciousness and how it guided the peasant uprisings is the focuss of Chatterje’s early writings in the project. In two related articles, “Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal, 1926-1935” (Subaltern Studies I) and “More on Modes of Power and Peasantry” (Subaltern Studies II), Partha Chatterjee theorises on three different modes of political power- the communal, the feudal and the bourgeois- which co- existed in the pre-industrial society in transition in colonial India. The crucial element of the communal mode of power is the land which provides the ties of communal network among the members. Political power here is vested on the authority of the entire collectivity. Chatterjee explains: Here the collective is prior; individual or sectional identities are derived only by virtue of membership of the community….Communal authority may be exercised through a council or elders or of leading families, or even by a chief or patriarch. The point is that authority resides not in the person or even in the office; it resides only in the community as a whole. The officials and councils are no more than mere functionaries. (Chatterjee 1983, 317) The idea of community continued as a “live(ing) force” in the “consciousness of the peasantry” and the feudal landlords and the agent of the state remained to them as “outside claimants on their obedience and their produce” (Chatterjee 1982, 18). The 1925-35 communalism or Hindu-Muslim relations in Eastern Bengal can be viewed in this perspective. The riots were the expressions of the “complex of feelings against feudal authority and commercial exploitation” (ibid, 26). The Hindu rent receivers were not thought to be part of the peasant-community and were viewed as enemy outsiders in terms of the peasant- communal ideology. The state too was a distant entity- capricious in nature. Thus, the various modes of power remained entangled in modern state formation. Chatterjee’s analysis of the peasant communal consciousness is guided by Guha’s (1999) theorisation of the peasant consciousness and the identification of friend and foe by the peasants in terms of belonging to their ethnicity or religion etc.,. Chatterjee’s theorisation of peasant communal
59 consciousness and how it left its imprimatur on peasant political action was met with criticism from the beginning (Alam, 1982; Sarkar, 2002) and we can mention of Chibber’s (2013) recnt attack in this connection (see chapter IV). Rebellious Hillmen and Peasant Protest of Awadh Guha’s theoretical optics guided David Arnold’s (“Rebellious Hillmen: The Gudem- Rampa Risings 1839-1924”) discussion of the rebellion of the hillmen of Gudem and Rampa on Eastern Ghats. Arnold thinks that the risings of Gudem and Rampa, demonstrate “two fundamental characteristics of subalternity in India” (Arnold 1982, 89). The risings show the hillmen’s oppositions to the “outsiders” who “threaten their territory and their customary ways of life” (ibi, 89). The outsiders consisted of the British colonial administrators, their Indian troops and police, the Telegu traders and contractors from the plains. In the face of outside intervention and control of their territory, the local elites- the members of the zamindars and mansabdari families and their subordinate chiefs or muttadars led the rebellion with varying degrees of popular support. However, as outside intervention grew and threatened their customary ways of life and identity, the peasants rose in rebellion and recruited leaders from the fragmented local elites. And it is this xenophobia and peasant territoriality which were the hallmark of peasant rebellion and which were later on mobilised by nationalist and communist leaders. Another aspect of subalternity that Arnold talks about is the internal division among the hillmen into local elites and the subordinate peasants. The peasants treated the chiefs with reverence and paid taxes and in return expected protection. This dependence
50 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
notwithstanding, the peasants were not reduced to unquestioning and mute followers; they did not lack the capacity of initiative and self-expression. However, as soocio-economic differentiation did not happen intensly in this backward area, the relation between the peasants and heir chiefs were ambiguous. Nonetheless, as Arnold points out, in this “internal tension and conflict” lies the “seeds of development of rural class identity and class conflict” (ibid, 90). Gyan Pandey in “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant Movement in Awadh, 1919-22”
analyses the peasant movement in Awadh in 1919-22. He locates the reasons behind the movement within the “pattern of agrarian relations” i.e. fall out of the Oudh Rent Act that benefitted the takukdars, zamindars and outside money lenders at the cost of the lower classes. Added to it were the population pressure on the land and the increasing
60 cost of living after the World War I. Kisan Sabhas were formed and Eka associations were established through which the peasants were organised and expressed their protest against the new taxes and unjust exploitation of peasants by the taludkars. They also interacted with the non-cooperation movement of the Congress. Religious symbols and religio-ethical norms were mobilised to unite the peasants; and the movement took on a violent form challenging the authority of the zamindars, and the government. The police was attacked and there were attempts at forming a parallel government at later stage of the movement. Critique of the Indian Faction and Peasant Ciommodity Production David Hardiman in “The Indian ‘Faction’: A Political Theory Explained” debunks the popular analytical framework that views Indian politics as an expression of factionalism in Indian society. Reminding us of Guha’s incisive critique of the Cambridge School, Hardiman points out that the theory of Indian factionalism is a continuation of the Oientalist view of Indian society as factitious. Discounting such views Hardiman points out that the fight of the peasants of Kheda against the British resembled class solidarity and class collaboration between the subalterns and the elite. Hardiman points out that class collaboration happens when the subaltern classes think that it is in their interest to collaborate with the members of higher classes and the historian’s task is to understand the ever shifting patterns of each class collaboration. In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Small Peasant Commodity Production and Rural Indebtedness: The Culture of Sugarcane in Eastern U.P., c. 1880-1920”,
Shahid Amin analyses the phenomenon of dependent agriculture against the backdrop of the development of commercial agriculture since the end of the nineteenth century. Amin holds that the analytical framework for the study of peasants need to take into account how the peasant experiences are interconnected with ‘the exigencies of agricultural temporalities’ (Amin 1982, 87). Working Class Condition: Critical Engagement with Marx Subalternists, from the beginning, tried to analyse subaltern politics by moving beyond the optics of conventional
51 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Marxst historiography. An attempt to theorise popular protests in India by keeping in mind the different Indian context can be seen from the beginning. Chakrabarty’s two articles (in Subaltern Studies II and III) on the working class of Calcutta jute mills make such an attempt. Chakrabarty’s analysis in “
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 100%
Conditions for Knowledge of Working-Class Conditions: Employers, Government and the Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1890-1940”
of the working-class history of Calcutta jute mill workers from 1890 to 1940 shows the inadequacy of Marx’s discussion of the development of capitalism and
61 working class consciousness in metropolitan Europe in analysing the history of working class in India. Chakrabarty argues that the development of capitalism in colonial Bengal was different from the one described by Marx as the colonial and native bourgeoisie, instead of destroying, rather adjusted with the pre-capitalist modes of production and culture. As for the culture of working class in colonial Bengal, compared to the bourgeois culture of equality ingrained in the consciousness of the English working class, Chakrabarty write: The Calcutta jute mill workers, being mostly migrant peasant from Bihar and UP, did not have a culture characterised by any ingrained notion of ‘human equality’ and were thus very unlike the workers of Marx’s assumption. Their’s was largely
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 86%
a pre-capitalist, inegalitarian culture marked by strong primordial loyalties of community, language, religion, caste and kinship. (Chakrabarty 1983, 263-264)
Thus, the fact that relations of production in Calcutta jute mill was different from the one described by Marx and the issue of cultural difference of the working class raise significant problems regarding the history of working class. The mill owners depended on the traditional authority of the sardar as supplier and the supervisor which led to widespread falsifying of service records of workers. Such failure of the disciplinary mechanism leads Chakrabarty to rethink the career of capital in colonial India. Chakrabarty looks beyond the “needs of capital” argument and proposes that the nature of supervisory authority in Calcutta jute mills was different from the one discussed by Marx. The bribe the sardar would take is not just an economic transaction, it also pointed to the sardar’s authority and the workers’ acceptance of it. A large part of the sardar’s authority was based on the fear of the sardar -often fear of physical assault. Chakrabarty also points out that like all authority the authority of the sardar also sought legitimacy which was provided by the culture in which he and the worker belonged to- What made the sardar’s authority effective? Our tentative answer would be ‘culture’, the culture to which both the sardar and the worker belonged. In essence this was a pre-capitalist culture with a strong emphasis on religion, community, kinship, language and other primordial loyalties. … Besides, the sardar’s mode of operation had certain crucial pre- capitalist elements. He usually recruitedon the basis of the often overlapping networks of
52 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
community, village and kin. (ibid, 308) The sardars often would build mosques or temples to cater to the religious needs of the workers. And, thus, the sardar’s authority lay in the force of community or kinship. A sardar was thus often more respected than feared. Chakrabaarty points out, “Sardari was thus
62 possibly an instance of a pre-colonial, pre-capitalist institution being adapted to the needs of industrialization in a colony” (ibid, 309). The authority of the sardar was thus different from the disciplinary authority that Marx talked about. In his much debated essay “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Trade Unions in a Hierarchical Culture: The Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1920-50”
featured in Subaltern Studies III, Dipesh Chakrabarty looks into the reasons behind the absence, despite favourable conditions, of strong organisation amongst the jute workers of Calcutta during the period of 1920-1950. He returns to the theme of the different career of capitalism, working class politics and modernity in colonial India which was theorised by Guha (1983, 1989, and 1994) and further elaborated by Chakrabarty in the essay discussed above. Chakrabarty points out that there had been two general strikes in 1929 and 1937 and definite rise in labour militancy. Yet there was an “apparent paradox” in the trade union movement- there was heightened militancy, yet there was little organisation (Chakrabarty 1984). There have been various attempts to explain this paradox by pointing to the lack of education of the workers. Others have suggested the lack of political education, i.e., of discipline and functioning of the unions, the linguistic separation of the workers from the outside, state repression as the reasons that might have retarded the growth of unions in jute industry of Calcutta. However, Chakrabarty thinks that such explanations premised on the lack of political education of the workers are “fundamentally problematic” and this “sidestep certain important issues of culture and consciousness” that we need to take into account while trying to understand the phenomenon of working class organisation in a “society entangled in a variety of pre-capitalist relationships” (ibid, 131). The “cultural issues” that Chakrabarty points to are related to “questions of power and authority” (ibid, 131). Referring to Gramsci, Chakrabarty points out that trade unions are bourgeois-democratic organizations based on bourgeois culture of formal equality and contructual norms. However, contrary to such notions of trade unions, the trade unions in Calcutta jute mills were “inchoate” for “even at their liveliest, unions of jute mill labour were never organisations based on a relatively disciplined body of workers subject to such institutional controls as membership rights and obligations, subscription rules, union constitutions or even regular meetings”(ibid,134). The existing unions suffered from acute financial problems that point towards “deep organizational maladies” (ibid, 136). The fraudulent behaviour of the leaders was a serious problem. Apart from that the power of the union leader was based on “personal loyalty”, direct leadership and his relation to his union
63 was characterised by the system of zamindari. Such personal control over workers and popular authority points towards an “alternative system of power and authority”. (ibid, 140) Chakrabarty points out that the relation between the leader and the workers was marked by
53 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
what Hegel theorised as the master-slave relationship- a relations of mutual dependence. Thus, the representative of the workers acted as the master. However, the workers were not just passive instruments of the leaders; they exercised their will in recognising the fact that in the prevalent context they can benefit by the will to serve: In referring to the bhadrolok trade union leaders as masters, then, we do not intend to portray the working class as a passive instrument of the leaders’ will. At issue is the question of the worke’s own will, his own consciousness, his shrewd realisation that under the circumstances he could sometimes best exercise his power by choosing to serve. The relation therefore was pregnant with tension and had its own moments of resistance as well. (ibid, 140-41) By referring to Foucault’s theorisation on the use of pain as spectacle by the poor, Chakrabarty thinks that in a pre- capitalist culture the acts of supplication by the workers could work as instruments of power on the compassion and pity of the zamindar-leaders. He thus thinks that this “feudal bond between the babu and the coolie” (ibid, 143) should be taken into account while analysing the history of trade unions in Calcutta as here “the representative invariably turned out to be a master, as only masters could represent”. (ibid, 145) Chakrabarty thinks that such a relationship between the leaders and the workers was not confined within the elite bhadroloks, the socialist ad communists leaders were not, despite their exemplary works for the workers, free from this feudal power relation between the representative and the worker. Their power and authority was predicated on their image of a renouncer- The claim to being a ‘real’ representative of the working class was thus based in this argument on the respect traditionally due in Indian society o the figure of the renouncer. It was a moral claim that arose from an old feudal system of morality.… The glory of the renouncer belonged to the ‘possessor’. To talk of sacrice thus was to talk of possession and henceforth of power. (ibid, 149-50) This moral claim to authority is different from the Leninist rationality of representation. And thus, the socialist leaders’ claim to representation through a process of identification through sacrifice is thus not free from “babu-coolie relation”. The “real representative” turns out to be “master” (ibid, 150). Chakrabarty asks why such an idea of renouncer steeped in medieval morality is employed for a discourse so self-consciously socialist. The answer to this question
64 cannot be found in any economic explanation. But rather the “culturally given relationships of power that entered the field of trade unionism” (ibid, 152) need to be taken into account. He points to the discrepancy between the ideologies of socialism that the leaders followed and the actuality in which they produced organisations based on personal loyalty, hierarchy and status. Thus, Chakranarty distinguishes between the ideology of socialism and culture which describes as the the signifying system through which “a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored” (Raymond Williams quoted by Chakrabarty, ibid, 151). He writes: Ideology in this case was not enough to erase the ties of power encoded in the culture. The ties derived from an older, feudal paradigm of power, and if we are to talk about a paradox in the history of the workers’ organisation then this is where the paradox has to be located: at the intersection of ideology and culture. (ibid, 152) Dual Revolt Guha’s analysis of peasant politics informs Henningham’s analysis of Quite Inida Movement in Bihar. In “Quite
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
54 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
India in Bihar and the Eastern United Provinces: The Dual Revolt”
Stephen Henningham focuses on the Quite India Movement and draws our attention to the dual nature of the movement- the Congress led non-violent mode of mobilisation and the violent subaltern initiatives. The unity in the movement between the two domains of politics was provided by the ideology of nationalism. However, Henningham points out that the subaltern initiative, such as looting, dacoity, participation in the attack on police stations, went beyond the Congress mode of mobilisation. Henningham, thus, follows in his analysis, the two different domains of elite and subaltern politics as theorised by Guha. Communalism and Subaltern Politics Among the members of the Subaltern Studies collective, Gyanendra Pandey systematically analysed the issues of communalism and subaltern politics and violence in India. In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Rallying round the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region, c.1888-1917”
Pandey analyses the communal strife that gripped the Bhojpuri speaking regions of eastern U.P. and western Bihar in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century following the Cow Protection Movement launched by Arya Samaj in 1882 in Punjab. The aim is to “locate the identity and interests of the different social groups” (Pandey 1983, 64) involved in the strife and “how struggles between (and within) castes and classes that are divided over
65 many different issues took on a sectarian form” (ibd, 64-65) and the circumstances in which large section of a community united under a demand or symbol against their neighbours. The Bhojpuri region was predominantly agricultural and was marked by the dominance of few landowning communities. However, during the colonial period- because of the colonial administrative initiatives and the development of capitalist mode of agriculture, social and economic dislocations were taking place. Among the Hindus, there was the economic dominance of Rajputs, Brahmins and Bhumihars who were the landowning classes and belonged to the sharif castes. They were however also the ones who were hit hard by the economic dislocations in the colonial period. Ahirs, kumris and Koeris are characterised as the tenant and cultivating castes. Although there was community cohesiveness because of lack of high differentiation, the social inferiority of the ahirs and others low caste communities gave birth to social mobility movement. It was spurred on by the new found economic prosperity of the trading castes and professionals and there spread a Gwala Movement for upper social mobility. Among the Muslims the Julahas aspired to the status of the ashrafs. Such efforts at self-purification and upward mobility coincided with the powerful movements of religious revivalism and reform in nineteenth century (ibid, 76). It was also “the product of the threat to a traditional sense of community that was very strong” (ibid, 76). It was against such background that “a number of newly organised ‘communal’ demands were injected into the Bhojpuri region” (ibid, 77). Critique of the Prose of Counter-Insurgency In a way the whole enterprise of Subaltern Studies has been to debunk the claims of official narratives about subaltern insurgency and to retrieve the voice of the subaltern in those narratives through a cunter-reading of official documents.
55 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: http://blogs.ubc.ca/span501/ 78%
In “The Prose of Counter- Insurgency”, Guha characterises the historiography of peasant insurgency in colonial India
as a prose of counter-insurgency that denied any agency to the peasant in that narrative. Guha dismisses the view that insurgency was in any sense a spontaneous act on the part of the peasants. The peasant rose against the colonial regime and its native collaborators in a well calculated and conscious act. But the official documents describe peasant rebellions in terms of natural metaphor such as “thunderstorms”, “earthquakes”, “wild fires” etc. or viewed as an instance of the “periodic outburst of crime and lawlessness” ( as Guha quotes J. C. Price, 1983, 196). Sometimes peasant rebellions are understood by enumerating the causes- economic or political deprivation etc. and as a reflexive reaction to which the rebellion is thought to have happened. Thus, in such attempts, “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
insurgency is regarded as external to the
66 peasant’s consciousness and Cause is made to stand in as a phantom surrogate for Reason, the logic of that consciousness”. (
ibid, 3) From the start of the project, Guha and other members of the project talked about the religious elements of subaltern consciousness and looked beyond the modern secularist notion of politics that was the hallmark of elite politics. Guha was aware, as can be seen from his analysis of the prose of cunter-insurgency, of the limitations of historiography per se to capture the consciousness of the peasant (ibid, 35) and thus foreshadows Spivak’s critique. What Guha accuses bourgeoisie and Marxist historiography of i. e. ignoring peasant consciousness, is done on himself and the project by Spivak (1985) later in her deconstructive reading of the project. Famine and Peasant Consciousness Peasant consciousness has been the guiding frame of enquiry of Subaltern Studies, at least in the initial phase and in “Famine in Peasant Consciousness and Peasant Action: Madras 1876-8”, David Arnold uses “the crisis of the famine as a window onto subaltern consciousness and action” (Arnold 1984, 64). Arnold’s analysis of peasant consciousness and action is heavily influenced by
0: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983).
He talks about two important aspect of the Madras famine. The peasant response to famine was collective as evidenced from the rain making rites in which the whole village collectively took part regardless of economic position or caste distinctions and contributed to the joint endeavour seeking divine intervention. However, peasant collectivity disintegrated under the pressure of deepening drought as different sections of society had different interests to protect. The raiyats, the landholding peasants, collectively tried to secure remission of
56 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
revenue payments, the poor peasant collectively tried to secure a share of remaining grain stores or punish those who denied it. Contrary to Chatterjee, Arnold here points out that the peasants are able to look for self interest beyond peasant communal identity. Collectivity informed peasant action because it gave them anonymity and strength of number as against individual vulnerability and it also gave them “greater confidence in the legitimacy of their action” (ibid, 114). As famine, like a rebellion, was a collective experience it lived on in the collective memory as a historical marker attaining an enduring religious and social significance for the peasant community as a whole. The second important feature that Arnold talks about is the peasant conception of power operating within the peasant community. Normally the peasants accepted their position in the social hierarchy as it gave them a “relatively fixed position within the social order”
67 (ibid, 114). However, the “acceptance of that order entailed a belief that superordinate groups had certain responsibilities towards the peasants by virtue of the latter’s labour and services, from which superordinates had benefitted by virtue of their very possession of power” (ibid, 114). And when during droughts or famine the superordinates ignored their responsibility or failed to respond to their needs through appropriate exercise of their power, the peasants “believed themselves (to be) entitled to act- through petitions, entreaties, riots and appropriations-to remind them of their responsibilities or punish their neglects” (ibid, 114). Arnold thinks that the peasants “did not see themselves as without power to at least partially achieve this objective” (ibid, 114). He, however, points out the irony of the situation. Not unlike insurrection, during famine peasant solidarity or peasant power was not sufficient or sustained enough to bring about a drastic change in the power equation despite securing few relief; it on the contrary “render even more emphatic the peasant’s subordination to the moneylender, the trader, the landholder and the state” (ibid, 115). Gandhi Beyond Gandhi: The Subaltern Appropriation of Gandhi’s Message In “Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern UP, 1921-22” Shahid Amin gives an excellent study of how the subaltern classes interpreted the message of Gandhi quite independent of the local Congressmen and how their reading of the message of Gandhi led to direct actions that go beyond the familiar Gandhian creed. In the nationalist discourses the peasants are presented as ordinary darshan- seeking devotees of Gandhi and who are then led by the urban intelligentsia into an organised movement. Amin counters such elitist views by pointing out how the peasants understood the message of Gandhi in their own way and how that understanding led them to respond to the “current events and their cultural, moral and political concerns” (Amin 1984, 7). Gandhi visited Gorakhpur district in eastern UP on 8 February 1921 Stories and rumours about Gandhi began to circulate. Amin divides these stories into four categories- those testing the power of the Mahatma, those opposing the Mahatma, those opposing the Gandhian creed in general and with respect to dietary, drinking and smoking taboos, and finally boons granted and miracles performed in the form of recovery of things or regeneration of trees and wells. After a detailed discussion of these stories Amin points out the root of these in the popular religious belief in the power of a godly person. Gandhi was projected as someone with divine power to reward the true followers and punish those who disagreed to this new moral authority. The stories also relate to immediate activity and
57 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
68 environments, such as regeneration of wells and trees, and point to the material basis of belief. The offerings in the form of ritual propitiation to avoid supernatural retribution for doubting the power of the Mahatma to the cause of the National School Fund show how ritual actions can be reoriented to the nationalist goals. Then there is the circulation of “Gandhi note” which point to an alternative source of authority. The polysemic nature of the popular notion of “Gandhiji’s Swaraj” (ibid, 53) was given a “distinctly independent interpretation”, quite opposite to what the Congress leaders think of it. Swaraj was perceived by the peasantry as a new millennium in which there would be minimum taxes paid in kind and the prices of commodities would be very low. The peasants started to oppose the landlords by refusing to pay rent as the Swaraj was believed to be here and as it entered a more militant phase, tried to supplant the authority of the police preparing the way for the incident of Chauri Chaura of 1922. Elite History and Subaltern Supplement If Amin talks about how the subalterns decoded the message of Gandhi independent of the Congressmen, Pandey takes us to the attempts at history writing by the the native Indians that go beyond the colonialist paradigm. Although the history of colonial India is written on the basis of British official records, in “
0: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
Encounters and Calamities: The History of a North Indian Qasba in the Nineteenth Century” (1984),
Gyanendra Pandey re-examines a part of this earlier colonial history by using an historical account, titled Waqeat-o-Hadesat: Qasba Mubarakpur by Ali Hasan which chronicles the events of nineteenth century in the qasba of Mubarakpur in Azamgarh district of eastern U P. Pandey’s attempt is to analyse how the people of Mubarakpur perceived their own history i.e, the consciousness and perceptions of the people of the changes taking place in their qasba. As opposed to the colonial history, Waqeat-o-Hadesat: Qasba Mubarakpur, however, provides an alternative elite history, grounded but no less one-sided. Pandey makes use of a diary of a weaver called Abdul Majid and a petition of the weavers to locate the subaltern consciousness in nineteenth century Mubarakpur. Looking into the two histories of the qasba- the one produced by the colonial records and the one by Ali’s Waqeet, Pandey highlights the differences in their approach- whereas for the colonial account the accession of 1801 is the beginning of new era of law and order and important events in the area are catalogued in terms of their creation of law and order problem, in Ali’s account the accession of 1801 does not figure at all and the incidents are marked in terms of unnatural deaths of persons, whether in rioting or committing suicide. In
69 Ali’s account Muslim unity is highlighted which however does not lead him to ignore the Hindu-Muslim unity of the qasba. Whereas in the colonial account the efforts of the administrative officers are praised in keeping peace and preventing escalation of riots in the area, in Ali’s account the local leaders are given due place and mutual settlement of issues between the Hindus and Muslims are highlighted. In his account the qasba itself appears as the real hero, “What is honoured in Ali Hasan’s chronicle is a body of traditions, customs and values that were for him the life of the qasba” (Pandey 1984, 258). There were class and caste distinctions in the qasba. The sharif class of which Ali Hasan is a member had social prestige
58 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
and status over the razil /lower caste weavers. There are substantial agreement between the account of Ali Hasan and the diary of weaver Abdul Majid, for instance Muslim unity is highlighted and the honour of religious places and ritual practices are prioritised. There is also the complaint against the Hindu money-lenders’ insolence of money. However, there are obvious differences between Ali Hasan and Abdul Majid’s account. Whereas in Ali Hasan’s account no mention of the fate of the weavers because of the changes in the British administarive and economic policies is there, Abdul Majid gives detailed accounts of the daily life of the weaving community vis-à-vis their profession or the fortunes of the cloth trade. There is also ample evidence of the social division between the ashraf Muslims and razil or weaving community and he describes the social reforms movements by the weavers to change their social prestige. The concern with the immediate problem of subsistence also differentiates Abdul Majid’s account from that of Ali Hasan’s. In Abdul Majid’s account, as in Ali Hasan’s, we get the “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 70%
consciousness of the collective” or the community. However, “this consciousness of community was an ambiguous one,
straddling as it did the religious fraternity, class, qasba and mohalla” (
ibid, 269). Athough this community consciousness or unity is predicated on the honour of preserving the sanctity of religious places and the rights of ritual practices, there is bound to be struggles over the honour of the lower castes or the weavers in an increasingly insecure and fateful world. Thus, unlike Chakrabarty, community consciousness is not a given and is not immune to fissures of class and caste. Subaltern Militancy: Swadeshi and Non-Cooperation Movement and Subaltern Participation In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non- Co- operation, c. 1905 – 22”,
Sumit Sarkar presents a comparative study of the Swadeshi movement in Bengal (1905-08) and the Non-Co-operation Khilafat upsurge (1919-22) to
70 analyse “the nature, extent and consequences of ‘subaltern’ participation in nationalist politics” (Sarkar 1984, 271). While the Swadeshi movement was largely confined within the bhadralok group, the popular initiative in the Non-Co-operation Khilafat movement with radical social implications was strikingly different. Sarkar uses the contrast to analyse the conditions and nature of subaltern militancy in the anti-imperialist movement. Sarkar addresses the concerns already expressed over the simplistic two-fold division of society into the elite and the subaltern and the presumed rejection of class as a category in the Subaltern Studies project. He thinks that such a notion is misleading and is “far from the intentions of
59 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the group responsible for the introduction of this Gramscian concept into modern Indian historiography” (ibid, 273). He points to the danger of “prejudging the existence of distinctly articulated and self-conscious classes in a largely pre-industrial society” (ibid, 273) and thinks that “we do need some omnibus terms for such situations” (ibid, 273). He writes: Subaltern is no more free of ambiguities and problems than its rough equivalents (for example, ‘popular’, ‘mass’, ‘lower-class’ ); it does have the advantage however of emphasizing the fundamental relationships of power, of domination and subordination. Nor does the subaltern concept exclude more rigorous class analysis where the subject or material permits it. (ibid, 273) Sarkar intends to use the term “subaltern” as a “convenient short-hand for three social groups: tribal and low-caste agricultural labourers and share-croppers; land-holding peasants, generally of inter-mediate caste-status in Bengal (together with their Muslim counterparts); and labour in plantations, mines and industries (along with urban casual labour)” (ibid, 273). He also points out that there are considerable overlapping and conflicts within the groups and subdivisions included in the category of subaltern as it “includes exploiters as well as exploited” (ibid, 273). Sarkar points out that the “fundamental rationale” for using such an omnibus term like the subaltern is to point out their “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 76%
relatively autonomous political domain with specific features and collective mentalities” which distinguishes them from the “domain of the elite politicians who in early twentieth century Bengal came overwhelmingly from high caste educated pro-professional groups connected with zamindari or intermediate tenure- holding” (
ibid, 273). Sarkar points out that the problem in much writing on subaltern history which focus exclusively on the moments of conflict with the relative indifference to ‘longer time spans of subordination or collaboration’ (ibid, 273). Sarkar thinks that this goes against the Gramscian framework which points to the control exercised by the elites on the
71 subalterns, even in their moments of revolt. In the footnote Sarkar points out that although Guha refers to this Gramscian framework in the opening chapter of Subaltern Studies I, in the articles and in Guha’s own piece this point gets neglected. Such a tendency presents the subaltern either as completely passive or leads to the “opposite stereotype of heroic revolt” undertaken by the subaltern. Thus, Sarkar points towards a different approach- What one needs to keep in mind is a vast and complex continuum of intermediate attitudes of which total subordination and open revolt are only the extreme poles. … in practice subordination/ rebellion and all that might lie in between would naturally always develop in relation to specific issues, grievances and social relationships. Here the essential point requiring emphasis and explanation is the coexistence and complex interpenetration of extremely varied types of consciousness and activity: caste, communal, class, regional or national. … The worker active in a strike might well have participated in a communal riot before and ight do so again; the interpenetration of issues logically very different but in practice almost indistinguishable is even more evident in peasant movements; and similar complexities and contradictions are apparent often in the politics of the elite, too. (ibid, 273-74) He provides a complex picture of subaltern participation in anti-imperialist struggle which he thinks is “a
60 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
sub-set in the broader theme of subaltern awakening” and “the one does not automatically lead to the other without a variety of complex mediations in which the specific socio-economic structure of a region, historical traditions, efforts at mobilization by the elite- nationalist groups and ideologies- and British strategies all play a part”. (ibid, 276) He points out that the existing writings on popular participation in the anti-imperialist struggles underestimate the extent of popular initiative. The Cambridge School assumption of factionalism hold that the subaltern are mobilised by their patrons. Mere economic explanations also cannot do justice. The prevalent writings thus hold that “subaltern groups lack any relatively autonomous culture or mind of their own, and only respond mechanically to economic pressures or are mobilised through initiatives from the top”. (ibid, 277) Sarkar wants to unearth a “collective mentality underlying apparently very different forms of popular militancy” (ibid, 277). Through the analysis of “recurrent patterns” whether in caste movement or economic struggle, he thinks that a “structure of popular mentality can be reconstructed in the Levi-Straussian sense of an implicit largely unconscious logical system lying beneath the surface of myths, beliefs, values and activities” (ibid, 277). Such an exploration of “popular consciousness” is provisional as it is based on moments of revolt, and much research has to be done in popular cultural and religious traditions and engagement with
72 other disciplines such as social anthropology needs to be undertaken for further research into it. The Swadeshi movement of 1905-08 never went beyond the Hindu upper caste bhadralok groups- such as students, journalists, teachers, doctors and lawyers who had rent interest in the form of zamindari or tenure-holding. The class and caste inhibitions of the bhadralok did not allow them to mobilise the peasants and labourers. However, the rumours of the conflict between the government and the patriotic gentry led to the upsurge of the communal riots that targeted the Hindu zamindars and money-lenders and caste movements that protested against the upper caste control over religious affairs, and sought to end menial work at the household of the upper caste zamindars. Sarkar thinks that the peasant and lower caste movements cannot be explained only in terms of economic pressures as non-economic issues like human dignity, community sentiments played an important role here. However, during the Non-Co-operation-Khilafat movement, the popular participation and initiative was significantly different. Such initiatives include sporadic hat-looting, jail- breaks, resignations by policemen, non-payment of chaukidari and Union Board taxes, agrarian conflicts, hostility to settlement operations, no-rent etc. Sarkar points out that all such initiatives were fuelled by the conviction that Gandhi raj is coming or is already existent. Sarkar tries to explore the “structures of collective mentality” (ibid, 305) that led to such movements. He thinks that the impact of economic pressures or middle-class political movements on the subaltern initiatives can best be understood in terms of “their impinging or activizing such pre-existing structures” (ibid, 305). He points out that at the centre of popular outbreaks was the concept of breakdown- “breakdown in the pattern of coercion/hegemony which ‘normally’ keep the subalterns in their place despite misery and exploitation” (ibid, 305). Opposition to oppression in normal times in not only dangerous but also morally wrong. So, “a rumour of breakdown is needed to weaken this hegemonic control” (ibid, 305). There was the breakdown of economic pressures and in such a situation new oppressors or often socio-religious or cultural outsiders, for example the Hindu zamindars in East Bengal during the Swadeshi movement, become the target of the peasants. Often golden-age myths justify the actions of the peasants, for
61 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
example the pond fish looting of the tribal in the Midnapor district on the basis that the jungles were ones free for them. Rumour of breakdown in authority can trigger violent peasant activities. Myths of alternative power structure, such as the coming of Gandhi raj, often provided the moral justification to the peasant movements.
73 Often there happened to be a magico-religious character behind the breakdown of authority; thus often we witness the rumour of magical power of Gandhi in his struggle against the British. The rumours often act, Sarkar refers to Barthes, as text without author and are interpreted differently in different context. All these elements constitute the structure of popular mentality that are expressed in the moments of struggle and strife. However, he warns that this structure is not a fixed one and is open to variations under different contexts, such as regional, different social composition, temporal, different interpretation of symbols and myths etc. Against the isolated study of subaltern history through the narrow economic or political registers Sarkar thinks: What is needed above all is an ideal of totality: the study of popular movement in India has to break out of the confines of the narrowly economic and narrowly political alike, and develop into social history into broadest sense of that much abused term. (ibid, 317) He thinks that existing studies of Gandhian nationalism or Left movements focus on the spontaneity-consciousness debate. He suggests that the study of the structures of popular mentality or consciousness keeping in mind the necessary variations can be of significant benefit. He writes, “A more systematic analysis of variations in structures of collective mentality might go some way towards enriching the subject and broadening its perspectives” (ibid, 320). Critique of Civil Society: Gandhi and the Appropriation of Popular Protest In “Gandhi and the Critique of Civil Society”, Partha Chatterjee analyses the Gandhian ideology using the Gramscian ideas of the conflict between the fundamental classes and the “people-nation”, the establishment of hegemony through the creation of “national- popular consensus” and passive revolution. Differing from the prevalent view of Gandhian ideology as the critique of modern civilization, Chatterjee thinks that Gandhian ideology provides a critique of civil society. Unlike the other nationalists he quite emphatically rejects their focus on rationalism, scientism and historicism. Gandhi’s moral and political thinking “arises from an epistemic standpoint situated outside the thematic of post-enlightenment thought” (Chatterjee 1984, 176). However, despite the “inherently peasant-communal character” of Gandhi’s critique of civil society, Chatterjee thinks that Gandhian ideology should still be correctly viewed within the framework of historical development of elite-nationalist thought in India:
74 It was an ideology conceived as an intervention in the elite nationalist discourse of the time and was formed and shaped by the experiences of a specifically national movement. It is only by looking at it in that historical context that it becomes possible to understand
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 95%
the unique achievement of Gandhism: its ability to open up the possibility for achieving perhaps the most important historical task for a successful national revolution in a country
62 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
like India, namely the political appropriation of the subaltern classes by a bourgeoisie aspiring for hegemony in the new nation-
sate. (ibid, 176) Thus in the Gandian ideology there remained the difference between the leaders and the masses. The peasants were politically mobilized but they do not participate, they are part of the nation but are distanced from the nation-state. The passive revolution of the Indian bourgeoisie using Gandhian ideology achieved a limited hegemony and fragmented moral leadership. Subaltern Studies was, as Guha writes in the preface (Subatern Studies IV), “originally planned as a series of three volumes” (Guha 1985, vii). But the project was re-launched in 1985 because, as Guha says, of the interest it generated among the South Asianists, in India and abroad and the new questions and uncertainties it gave birth to among young scholars(ibid, vii). Subaltern Studies IV came up with contributions from younger scholars such as Ramachandra Guha, Swapan Dasgupta, and Tanika Sarkar. It also came up with a discussion section in which productive engagement with the project was initiated. Thus, this volume included two articles, one by Gayatri Spivak that questioned some of the basic premises of the project from a deconsctructive point of view and the other by Dipesh Chakravbarty in which he replied to the critics of Subaltern Studies in the journal Social Scientist and invited them for a dialogue (we would discuss it in the next chapter along with the critical points of the critics of Subaltern Studies). This vlomume included contribution of Bernard S Cohn which, along with Spivak’s piece, is taken up by critics, as David Ludden writes, as giving an early sign of a shift within the project from the study of peasant protests towards cultural perspective, textuality and discursive understanding of power (Ludden 2002, 17). In what follows we would take stock of the contributions in this volume along with the debate wthin the project at this critical juncture. Moral Economy, Territoriality and Adivasi Protest Variants of the “moral economy” thesis of Scott was applied, although critically, in the analysis of subaltern protest. We can talk about Ramachandra Guha’s analysis of subaltern prtest in Kumaun or Hardiman’s critical analysis of Bhils-sahukar relation in
75 Gujarat. In “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
Forestry and Social Protest in British Kumaun, c. 1893-1921”, Ramachandra Guha
shows how the commercialisation of the forestry and the systematic loss of control over the forest resources led to the disruption of the traditional relationship between the ruler and the ruled marked by moral economy. Discontent grew and it was expressed in the forms of desertion, non-compliance with imposed regulations or at times direct confrontation with the state as shown in the beggar and forest campaigns of 1921 which resulted in refusal of beggar and discriminatory burning of forest or incendiarism. The Congress leaders from the town supported the cause and organised the peasantry. Guha, however, makes it clear that the politics of the peasants were not derivative of the nationalit politics:
63 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 94%
While this unity and sense of purpose necessarily made their actions political, the politics of the peasantry was clearly not derivative of the politics of urban nationalism. Apart from a hazy perception of Gandhi as a saint whose qualities of heroic sacrifice were invoked against the powers of the
government,
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
the utar movements had little in the nature of an identification with the Congress as such. (
Ramachandra Guha 1985, 87) The response of the peasant was a continuation, in terms of the moral idiom of the protest, of the traditional form of social protest known as dhandak in which the king was reminded of his failure to perform his duties of protecting the prajas. If Ramachandra Guha talks about the traditional idiom of protest reminiscent of the “moral economy” thesis, Swapan Dasgupta (“Adivasi Politics in Midnapur, c. 1760-1924”) deals with the adivasi politics in the Jungal Mahal areas of Midnapur district to reiterate the paradigm of separate subaltern domain of life and politics. The onset of colonial rule and the introduction of permanent settlement policy brought about several changes in the indigenous tribal society and “an element of differentiation not known before” (Dasgupta 1985, 104). With colonial domination came the intervention of the rapacious plain-people or the dikus. This resulted in the destruction of the traditional mandal system of tribal social hierarchy and brought about large-scale land alienation and rural indebtedness. The introduction of railway and the influx of money economy meant the ruthless commercial exploitation of the forests and the resultant conscription of customary rights of the adivasis over the forests. Thus, as Dasgupta writes, “land question became the primary focus of discontent” (ibid, 115). This
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 81%
loss of political power- the process of subjugation, dispossession and usurpation of traditional rights- was “a lived communal experience” (
ibid, 115). The initial response of the adivasis to
76 their economic and political subjugation was one of bewilderment which then turned into outright resistance which took on the form of destroying the symbols of the new owner’s authority such as setting fire to the bazar and the kutchery. Dasgupta writes:
64 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 93%
While ethnicity played a major role in the make-up of these insurrections, it was the communal feeling of loss and powerlessness which triggered them off. To the adivasis the loss of land was not merely a matter of economic deprivation, but an affront to their dignity, their izzat, a theme recurrent in subaltern perception. (
ibid, 117) Dasgupta reiterates that the notion of honour plays an important role in the adivasi consciousness. The adivasi resistance also moved out of a localized reaction to a generalized insurrection against the alien authority which has destroyed their moral economy and their traditional way of life and culture. The adivasis were emotionally and spiritually attached to their land and it is this spiritual deprivation and a nostalgia for a golden past in which their rights over the forest were not curtailed fuelled the insurrection. There was also intra- subaltern solidarity as the adivasis were supported by the low caste Hindus and the Muslims. As dasgupta writes it was a “true festival of the oppressed”(ibid, 133). Dasgupta talks about the adivasi uprising during the 1921 and 1923 which corresponded with the non-co-operation movement. Although individual Congress leaders took active part in mobilising the adivasis, Dasgupta thinks that there was a pre-existing subaltern consciousness/ subaltern domain with which the elite domain intersected. The image of “Gandhi Maharaj” was accepted as providing a legitimate moral force to the community. However, after the initial spark the role of Congress became “progressively redundant” and
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
the santals were “collectively reasserting lost traditional rights as a conscious, political act of
insurgency” (ibid, 128). The communal dimension of the insurrection is evident in the haat looting, in the judicious discrimination in their attack and in the traditional modes of mobilisation. What is striking is the apparent fearlessness of the adivasis against the colonial authority while haat or tank looting. Dasgupta thinks that such fearlessness and solidarity of the adivasis point towards
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 84%
an “alternative conception of justice born out of fundamentally different sets of values” (
ibid, 134). In “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 84%
65 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Jitu Santal’s Movement in Malda, 1924-1932: A Study in Tribal
Protests”, Tanika Sarkar
deals with the Santal movement in Malda throughout the period of 1924-1932 in which the Santals of the Barind areas of Malda under the leadership of Jitu Santal revolted
77 against their suppression which culminated in the symbolic act of occupation of Adina Mosque in 1932. In “Four Rebels of Eighteen – Fifty – Seven”, Gautam Bhadra aims
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
to “rehabilitate some of the rebels of 1857 who have already been forgotten by historians or scantily treated …” (
Bhadra 1985, 230). Bhadra’s piece is the only one of its kind because no other member of the collective tried to analyse the subaltern protsts in the pre-colonial times. He deals with four such leaders, Shah Mal, a small landlord, Devi Singh, a peasant cultivator, Gonoo, a poor tribal youth and Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah. Bhadra follows Gramsci in his portrayal of the fragmentary and episodic narratives of such revolts of 1857 which threw up “multiple elements of conscious leadership” (Gramsci quoted by Bhadra, ibid, 273). The leaders and their movements had limitations. However, Bhadra thinks that it is the ordinariness of these rebels which is their distinguishing feature and it is the recognition of the strength and the weakness of such rebels that would be the task of the new historiography. He points out:
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 88%
To seek after and restore the specific subjectivity of the rebels must be major task of the new historiography. That would be a recognition of the truth that, under the given historical circumstances in which he lives, man makes himself. (ibid, 275) The Subalterns of
the State: The Madras Constabulary If Bhadra takes us to the pre-colonial times, Arnold takes up another untouched segment, the constables of the colonial state. In “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
Bureaucratic Recruitment and Subordination in Colonial India: The Madras Constabulary, 1859-1947”
David Arnold
departs from the elitist study of colonial bureaucracy which equates the history of the colonial state with that of the Indian Civil Service. Instead of the relatively fewer European civil
66 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
servants his focus is on the vast majority of the subordinate personnel of the colonial state who came from the native population. He wants to examine the means by which the colonial state recruited and disciplined its subordinate personnel. There was systematic classification and categorisation of the Indian society in which the traditional caste system and the Victorian pseudo-scientific notions and racial theories were employed. This was used for the co-option and inclusion of the Indians in the colonial bureaucracy. Thus, lower castes were completely weeded out, certain castes were viewed as innately criminal and were barred from the bureaucracy. Martial race theory was employed by which Muslims and upper castes such as the Khsastriyas and Brahmins were heavily
78 employed in the constabulary. As for the relation between the police and the people, there was the difficulty of separating the constables from the people because of various institutional limitations and because of alternative unofficial relationships between police and indigenous society. It was found in three respects. Firstly, the strong social and cultural ties of the constables remained with them which created problem because communal affinities often led to conflicting loyalties between community and state (Arnold 1985, 35).
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 35%
Secondly, the power of the police was “colonised and co-opted by the local elites” (ibid, 33) and used for their own benefits. Thirdly, the police used the power of their position to “establish their predatory and exploitative hold over others” (
ibid, 33) which prevented growth of solidarity between the constables and the people and the people viewed them as oppressors. “And
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 84%
at such times”, writes Arnold, “it was in opposition to the police that the subordinate classes defined their subalternity”(
ibid, 41). In “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
The Command of Language and the Language of Command”, Bernard S. Cohn
analyses how the British colonial administration mastered the Indian languages such as Persian, Sanskrit, Hindustani, Bengali to use it as a language of command or to use the knowledge for power over the colonised country and its people. ‘The conquest of India’, Cohn writes, ‘was a conquest of knowledge’ (Cohn 1985, 276). Bernard’s piece, however, is the first essay since the inception of the project that did not deal with any peasant movement and has
67 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
as its focus analysis of the formation of the dominant discourse. Spivak’s Intervention: Towards Deconstructive Historiography Apart from Bernard’s article Subaltern Studies IV also features a critical piece by Gayatri Spivak that, as many point out, marked a defining moment for the future trajectory of Subaltern Studies. In “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography” Gayatri Spivak praises how the members of the Subaltern Studies collective are “bringing hegemonic historiography into crisis” (Spivak 1985, 332) through their attempted “discursive displacement” (ibid 333). However, Spivak’s deconstructive reading of the works of the collective leads her to point out the limitations of the project. She points out how their revisionist writing of history is at odds with their methodology focussed as the project is on retrieving the pure consciousness of the subaltern subject as equivalent to Marxist class consciousness. Such an attempt is positivistic and is in line with the post- Enlightenment discourse of sovereign political subject. Deconstructing such “metaphysics of consciousness”
79 (ibid 339) Spivak conceptualises the subject as the “subaltern subject effect” (Ibid 341) which is discursively produced. As Stephen Morton explains, Spivak points out that the subaltern scholars’ attempt to recover suabaltern consciousness “bestows false coherence onto the much more complex and differentiated struggles of particular subaltern social groups” and runs the risk of “objectifying the subaltern and thereby controlling” them (Mortn 2003, 53). Another significant lacuna of the project that Spivak points out is the complete neglect of the gendered subaltern in the project and wherever she comes, she is used instrumentally which actually highlights her “subject-deprivation” (Spivak 1985, 360). Apart from this intervention by Spivak, her essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak” and other writings and interviews problematized the issue of representation of the subaltern in the elite discourses. She conceptualised the subaltern as occupying a position of absolute alterity, as “lack of access to mobility” (2005, 475) “cut off from lines of access to the centre” (2000a, 319), effectively displacing her ability to speak or to be heard in the prevalent socio-political structure. Thus, the subaltern not only cannot speak, she cannot organise or represent, for as the moment she speaks she is no more the subaltern. And because of the politics of representation, there is no pure space from which the well-meaning scholars and activists can hope to speak for or represent the subaltern interest. As Green (2002) points out while comparing her theorisation of the subaltern with that of Gramsci’s, “For her, representation and organization are key to subalternity and once they are achieved the subaltern cease to be subaltern” (Green 2002, 19). Spivaks’s intervention hints at a shift in the project away from the study of self-consciouss subaltern subject towards deconstruction, textuality. Thus, we can see a shift from conscious subaltern subject to the question of power and how subalternity is constituted in the elite discourses. As Nilsen and Roy write, “This poststructuralist shift from conceptualising the subject as autonomous of (elite) discourse to seeing it as an ‘effect of discursive systems’ was a major outcome of spivak’s intervention” (Nilsen and Roy 2015, 9) Subaltern Studies at the Crossroad That the project was standing at a crossroad at the time of its re-launch in 1985 is made clear by David Hardiman reporting on the second Subaltern Studies conference held in Calcutta in January 1986. He writes that compared to the first conference held in Canberra in 1983 “the focus was less clear” (Hardiman 1986, 288) as the individual members developed their own directions. The conference, he writes, had two different sets of papers- one dealing with the theme of domination and subordination which
68 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
however did not come up with “much fresh light” and the other focussed on textual analysis. After discussing the papers briefly and
80 the exchanges surrounding them, Hardiman writes that a clear disunity can be perceived among the members. He writes that the project stood at a crossroad with two possibilities and “it could go either of the two directions” (ibid, 290). He writes, “One road leads towards greater concentration on textual analysis and a stress on the relativity of all knowledge; another towards the study of subaltern consciousness and action so to forward the struggle of a socialist society”. (Hardiman, 1986, 290) Sudipto Kaviraj argued that the “chief value of the project so far had been to deconstruct existing historical theory” which however “had not been carried in a sufficiently rigorous or sophisticated manner” and the project should undertake such a task. He also suggested that the project has to go “beyond Marxism, for Marxism is not compatible with the thorough-going relativism of such an exercise” (ibid, 290). Hardiman writes that Guha “tended to agree with this” arguing that as Subaltern Studies “was born under a sign of negation” it “had to seek first to attack and break down existing historical paradigms” to “construct an alternative paradigm” (ibid, 290). Gayatri Spivak’s interventions in the conference and suggestion about the use of deconstructive tools for reading elite texts for unearthing how subalterns are fixed in their subordinity by elites can also be taken into this perspective. Against this “the Marxist argument” pointed out that the project should continue to focus on subaltern consciousness and action critiquing feudal and bourgeoisie hegemony in India leading towards a socialist society in India. Hardiman writes although the detractors of this position criticised it as a “Marxist Hind Swaraj” it could provide “commendable quest for new ways forward” (ibid, 290). Such a position further requires focus on the “actual workings of the political process” (ibid, 290) namely how the subaltern and elite domain braid together and react to each other over time. Textual analysis, from this position, seems “clever but ultimately empty exercise” (ibid, 290). Subaltern Studies set out with constructive aim of making the subaltern classes as the subject of their own history and any deconstruction, without political target, can lead to pure relativism. Guha himself seemed ambiguous “for while on the one hand he said that the project was based on negation, on the other hand he asserted very strongly his sentiment for not merely interpreting, but above all for changing the world, and that his quest was essentially a political one.” (Hardiman, 1986, 290). Hardiman writes that Guha was not over-concerned about the differences within the group as the lack of a “subaltern theory” or a clear-cut model or paradigm was actually a strength and not a weakness and that only after a considerable amount of work an alternative paradigm can be envisioned. Hardiman points out that such “embryonic bifurcation” did not lead to resolution of the differences within the group (ibid, 290).
81 Thus, we can see that the project stood at a crossroad and since the publication of Subaltern Studies V and especially after the stepping down of Guha as the editor after the publication of Subaltern Studies VI, the project moved away from an exclusive focus on the subaltern groups and classes towards textual and discourse analysis. However, in Subalern Studies V, Guha sought to address the criticism of a lack of gendered subaltern in the project by his piece, “Chandra’s Death”. It also included Spivak’s analysis of the literary representation of the subaltern in Mahasweta Devi’s Stanadayini. The issue of gender would be taken forward by later contributors such as Susie Tharu, Tejaswini Niranjana and others. Thus, we can see
69 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
that there was a vector for change within the project and it incorporated the newer domains of subalternity in the history of its evolution. Chandra and the Question of Gender Subaltern In “Chandra’s Death”, Ranajit Guha, through an innovative reading of the legal statements surrounding the death of Chandra, tries to retrieve the subjectivity of the women who played an active role to save the honor of Chandra, a Bagdi widow who got pregnant out of an illicit liason. Bagdis belonged to the lowest rank in the colonial society in terms of class and caste. When Chandra got pregnant after few months’ illicit relationship with Magaram, Magaram deserted her and threatened Chandra’s mother Bhagabati Chasin to take her daughter home or she would be sent to the bhek. Faced with this crisis Chandra’s family mobilised the kinship network and arranged for an abortion of Chandra. Guha describes the kinship network that was involved in all this. Guha talks about two types of solidarity, one brought about by the fear of a patriarchal society, its disciplinary method of exclusion from caste, and “another solidarity activated by a different, indeed contradictory, principle- namely empathy” (emphasis origiinl, Guha 1987, 160). Magaram’s suggestion of abortion was a ploy to save his face. However, for the women who gathered around Chandra it was the only historically available alternative to save Chnadra from being condemned to a ghetto of social rejects. It was thus a “consciously adopted strategy to prevent the social destruction of another woman” (ibid, 162). Thus, it was “an act of resistance against a patriarchal tradition…in the guise of conforming to them” (ibid, 162). The women “generate ((d) most of the movement”, took “the initiative for all that follows Magaram’ threat” (ibid, 162). Guha ends by elaborating on this alternative solidarity of women: Not an ‘open revolt’ armed with trumpet and banner, it is still a visible and loud enough protest in a society where initiative and voice are given to man alone. For when a victim, however timid, comes to regard herself as an
82 object of injustice, she already steps into the role of a critic of the system that victimizes her. And any action that follows from that critique contains the elements of a practice of resistance. In rallying round Chandra at the hour of her rejection by Magaram and the samaj he spoke for, the women of Majgram transcended the limits of kinship relations. In choosing abortion as an alternative to bhek, they defied the sentence of living death that had been already pronounced upon Chandra. (ibid, 165) After Spivak’s critique pointing to the absence of the gendered subaltern in the project, this is the first case in which Guha deals with the question of patriarchy and issues of women’s subjectivity. A critical engagement with Foucalut’s discourse of sexualiy as a disciplinary method and an engagement with Simon de Beauvoir led Guha to focus on the reistance of the Bagdi women which is not as pronounced as that represented by peasant insurgency. He looks inside that peasant society and its patriarchal hold that supresses women and how the women resists that. This piece is an example of a reading characteristic of the subalternist approach of retrieving the unheard voices and subjectivities from the dry archival/ official/ legal records. Examining the Colonial Discourse: Legality, Medical Discourse and Subalternity In “
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 100%
Approver’s Testimony, Judicial Discourse: The Case of Chauri Chaura”,
70 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Shahid Amin draws our attention to the judicial discourse and how it structures the process of the trial and the pronouncement of judgement. Through a discussion of the Chauri Chaura trial, Amin shown how the Approver’s Testimony (AT) played a central role in the discursive practices of the judiciary which is premised on establishing culpability. Amin thus points to the “procedural and power grids” (Amin 1987, 167) through which judicial statements are constituted by an “interplay between the legality and politics of the trial” (ibid, 168). In this discourse the establishment of crime not as an isolated unmotivated incident but one with a pre-history which helps to explain the premeditation thereby establishing the culpability of the accused is important. Thus, in the case of Chauri Chaura the testimony of Mr Shikari who was an accomplice to the crime and an “approver” of the prosecution’s view of those crimes is crucial. The construction of the AT gives a narrative, a logical sequence and a meaning to the incidents preceding the incident of Chauri Chaura thereby establishing the charge of conspiracy. The AT is thus superimposed on the consciousness of the rebels in the official reconstruction of the event. The Judge too accepted the AT as the materiel for its own discourse of establishing culpability. He puts forward some doubt towards the instrumentality of the AT and sought to corroborate it by other evidences and witnesses, but he largely accepted the AT and its discourse of criminality while passing judgement on the accused.
83 However, by pronouncing judgement on the line of criminality the judge was guided by the politics of the colonial state, as accepting that those associated with the incident were fighting against the local organ of the repressive state and in the hope of bringing in a new political order would be to grant them political role. Thus, judicial discourse and colonial politics intersected in the pronouncement of judgement on the incident of Chauri Chaura. There is an element of eclecticism as Foucault, Barthes, Paul Ricour are brought in to establish the argument. Amin’s interrogation of the judicial discourse vis-à-vis the construction of criminality and subalternity can give interesting insights in analysing how the judiciary functions today, especially in pronouncing judgement on the subalterns, like dalits, Muslims and the poor. Questions such as “collective conscience” in pronouncing judgement can be analysed for a better understanding of the interplay of power, discourses of nationalism and marginalisation of sections of Indians. Through a discussion of the early years (1896-1900) of the Indian plague epidemic, in “Touching the Body: Perspectives on the Indian Plague, 1896- 1900” David Arnold shows how the colonial state’s interventions in the form of anti-plague measures to administer and control the Indian body faced “political and cultural backlash” (Arnold 1987, 56). The body became the “field of contention between indigenous and colonial perceptions, practices and concerns” (ibid, 56). Arnold discusses the contestations surrounding the plague to understand the “developing relationships between indigenous elites, subaltern classes and the colonial state” (ibid, 56). The initial phase of the anti-plague measures witnessed the assertion of strength of the colonial state, political opportunism and its forceful backing of western medical expertise. The measures included the “interception, examination and confinement of the body”, inoculation, and use of military to house search etc., in total disregard of the social customs, religious sentiments of the people. The people also resisted by evasion, concealment, and even attack on hospital or colonial officials. In the Indian response there was divergence between the middle class and subaltern attitude towards the anti-plague measures. Among the subaltern classes the anti-plague measures gave rise to rumours of the colonial powers trying to poison the people, to dissect their bodies
71 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
for medical necessities, and about an impending catastrophe. Such “rumours as a form of popular discourse” (ibid, 76) points out the deep suspicion of the people about the nature and method of western medicine as well as the real intentions of the colonial state. They also points to the people’s suspicion towards the Indians who appeared as agents and accomplices of the state. The elite response to the anti-plague measures was ambiguous. The elites such as Tilak tried
84 to dispel the superstitious reactions of the common masses. They, however, sought to assert their political power by projecting them as the leaders of the masses without whom the government can hardly succeed in its anti-plague measures. The colonial state which initially used the anti-plague measures as another assault on the growing political assertiveness of the Indian middle classes by undermining their role in the anti-plague measures, later on had to make concessions because of the protests of the people to anti-plague measures. The government rolled back some of its coercive measures, sought to take help of the elites to persuade people to take proper measures to fight plague. It also gave various concessions to the elites such as freeing them from indiscriminate inspection along with the lower classes and castes at the stations, allowing their sick to be privately isolated at their home etc. Thus, the fruits of the subaltern protest against the anti-plague measures were ripped by the elites. Thus, although the subaltern classes initially were suspicious of the elites later on consented to their suggestions regarding the government measures against plague which also shows the growing hegemony of the middle class over the subaltern sections of society. Elite- Subaltern Intercation In “The Bhils and Shahukars of Eastern Gujarat” David Hardiman discusses the relationship between the Bhils and the shahukars of the Eartern Mahals of the Panchmahal district of Gujarat. The shahukars exercised tremendous power over the Bhils. Although the Bhils had a tradition of rebellion against tyranny, they did not rise against the shahukars frequently. Hardiman analyses two approaches that sought to explain the paradox. The evolutionist paradigm hold that the Bhils, being primitives, are ignorant of the complexities of modern social and economic institutions and are therefore condemned to be dependent on the intermediaries. Education, it is hold in that approach, can only take the Bhils towards the path of progress and civilization. Such an elitist view, characristic of the bourgeoisie, is found also in some Marxist quarters which hold that the Bhils need socialist education for a successful politics to overcome oppression. The culturalist paradigm blame the cultural trait of the Bhils which are opposed to thriftiness and are prone to pleasure seeking. Such culturalist explanations of Bhil poverty is also hold by the colonial officials. Hardiman proposes an “alternative approach” by pointing out that the relation between the Bhils and the sahukars should be understood in terms of its particular historical context which brought two societies with different organising systems and moralities together without the moral hegemony of the one over the other (Hardiman 1987, 5).
85 The shahukars provided the Bhils the the handouts for food grain, seed grain for sowing the land, and money for paying the land tax. In return they took a major portion of the produce of the Bhils. The shahukars acted as the patron of the Bhils whom they often provided security and saved them from the harassment of the government officials. The shahukars lived in the towns while he Bhils lived in the villages. So the figure of the shahukar was a bit distant to them and the Bhils did not have to face daily humiliation from the
72 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
shahukars. This might be one reason why the Bhils did not rise against the shahukars quite often. As opposed to the shahukars’ ethos of acumulation, the Bhils believed in sharing of resources which reinforced the community solidarity of the Bhils. They showed “an aristocratic contempt for financial prudence” (ibid, 24). As Hardiman writes: Despite this respect which the Bhils had for the power of the shahukars, they did not accept their moral hegemony. Far from internalising the values of the dominant class, the Bhils maintained their distance, believing strongly in the superiority of their culture and way of life. They did not accept the religion of the shahukars, having for the most part their own deities and refusing to accept the sanctity of Brahmans. (ibid, 23) Although the Bhils’ approach to the dominant shahukars was marked by deference to their power, they did rise against the shahukars. In 1899, as there was a crop failure because of lack of adequate rain, the shahukars, who did not get credit from the urban seth, sent the Bhils from their shops empty handed. The Bhils who tried to sell wood in the towns were harassed by forest officials. Moreover, although there was enough food grain in the town, the large grain dealers, instead of giving them to the Bhils, were exporting them elsewhere for higher gains. As a consequence, the Bhils, because of a prospect of hunger, petitioned to the Deputy Collector of the town and later looted the bazar. The attack was a “community affair” (ibid, 42) and the Bhils acted against the “monied people as a class” (ibid, 42). The attack was a result of the feeling that the shahukars instead of helping the Bhils by giving grains acted in a “morally outrageous manner” (ibid, 42). The rising thus stemmed from a feeling of “moral outrage rather than starvation” (42). Hardiman’s analysis of the relation between the Bhils and Shahukars here is strongly influenced by the paradigm set by Guha in Elemnary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. Hardiman’s emphasis on the community and “community solidarity” (ibid, 23), “two systems of social organisation and morality” ibid, 23) remind us of Guha’s poweful analysis of peasant insurgencies in colonial India. Hardiman also offers a critique here of the “moral economy” thesis as argued by Scott as he points out
86 that what works as a “moral code” in the “moral economy” thesis is nothing but the balance of poewer in a patiular context (ibid, 44-50) and validates the importance of class analysis . Subaltern Studies V included two pieces in the rubric of discussion, one by Asok Sen where he critically analyses the position of capital, class and community in the Subaltern Studies project, and the other by Ajit K Chaudhury titled, “In Seaarch of Subaltern Lenin”. Here Ajit K. Chaudhury talks about the importance of the Leninist concept of the outside in his theorisation of socialist consciousness. Subaltern Studies deals with subaltern consciousness, particularly as mapped during the time of an insurrection. It is thus focussed on the “analysis of subaltern consciousness in a pure form unadulterated by the outside interference of organised political parties” (Chaudhury 1987, 273). Subaltern Studies therefore is silent about Lenin or his concept of imputed consciousness. Chaudhury holds that for Lenin “outside” or “outsider” is a theoretical category and in Leninist frame it includes groups situated outside the field of labour-capital contradiction. In this view the highest form of revolutionary consciousness emanates “out of the dialectic of the outside and the inside”. He thus points out the importance of the “outside” for a socialist consciousness rather than pure peasant consciousness. The Mentality of Subalternity In “The mentality of Subalternity: Kantanama or Rajdharma”, Gautum Bhadra maps the features of subaltern mentality. He holds that submissiveness to authority and defiance together constitute subaltern mentality in which the
73 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
“idioms of domination, subordination and revolt” are “inextricably linked together” proving that domination or subordination is never complete (Bhadra 1989, 54). He explicates his view of subaltern mentality through his analysis of Kantanma or Rajdharma, a text written by Deawn Manulla Mandal of Farkanda of the zamindari of Kashimbazar raj in 120 BS (1842-43) couple of years before the death of Krisnna Nath Nandi, the zamindar. Written in the tradition of medieval mangal kavya, the moral universe that guides the relation between the raja and the praja in the text is that of the principle of rajdharma derived from smritis, puranas and epics which sets up mutual responsibility between the landlord and his subject. The praja is morally bound to respect the landlord to pay his due rents and if the praja refuses to do this the landlord has the right to punish. However, this deference to the landlord and the moral sanctity given to his authority notwithstanding if the raja or landlord fails to perform his duty to the praja, he would be divinely chastised or be sent to hell. Thus, the good raja is one who does not take unnecessary
87 abwabs (cesses and charges in addition to rent and revenue) from the praja. Manulla describes the King Krishna Nath performing rajdharma who does not take abwabs, and the king Harinath, the grandfather of Krishna Nath who transgressed his rajdharma by not hearing the pleas of his subject is punished by Niranjan or God as although he is placed in the heaven he still suffers there and cannot enjoy. Thus, Manulla shows that the raja who stands above the praja is himself subject to God’s authority. Thus, through this description of heaven and hell Manulla “upholds the hierarchy or authority” (ibid, 87). Bhadra is aware that there might be objection that how far Manulla, a village headman is representative of the poor peasant and how far his story does help us to “understand the culture of the subordinate classes” (ibid, 89). He answers by saying that although Kantanama may not be a substitute for the “thought-world” of a landless peasant, but
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 86%
the “cognitive map that Manulla had of the world may easily have been shared, though not necessarily wholly, by a poor peasant” (
ibid, 90). He also says that if subalternity is not a static and fixed property of particular classes and is “a process and a relationship” which people enter into or reproduce in different contexts of hierarchy, then the text of Kantanama is interesting in showing how a text written to please the landlord “carry within it its own moments of irony, fear, resistance and resentment” (ibid, 90). The peasants’ rise in rebellion “because of their faith in a moral order” and in their “urge to restore justice” (ibid, 90). The peasant in his moments of subjection “internalises the principles of rajdharma and on whose basis he might recognise or challenge any violence of it” (ibid, 90). He points out the interplay of religion, subalternity and revolt. He writes, “The religious message that teaches submission also forms the basis of rebellion. Again, at the very moment of insurrection, peasants are quite capable of accepting a theory of kingship such as rajdharma while rebelling against a particular king” (ibid, 91). Caste and Possibilities of an Internal Critiqe In “Caste and Subaltern Consciousness”, Partha Chatterjee seeks to map the consciousness of the subordinate caste groups by analysing their religious practices and principles that are opposed to the Brahminical religion. Chatterjee thinks that
74 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the Marxist critique of caste is inadequate as such a critique, based on the notion of bourgeois equality is an external critique and only an immanent critique of caste can surmount a challenge to the case system. For an immanent critique to emerge we need to begin with the immediate reality of caste- its sheer diversity, each jati having its particular quality. He refers to
88 Dumont’s notion of the caste system which holds that caste is a hierarchical system grounded on the notion of purity and pollution and dharma provides its ideological force which holds together the different castes within the whole of the caste system. Such a synthetic theory of caste essentialises caste by arranging caste along a continuous hierarchical line in respect to purity. Chatterjee refers to Dipankar Gupta’s critique of Dumont which holds that there is not just one caste ideology/ dharma but several and thinks that Gupta’s critique if adequately theorised can provide an immanent critique of caste ideology because it would lead us to recognise that the opposing and contradictory notions of dharma of the minor sects to that of the dominating Brahmanical ideology is fundamentally unresolved or if unified at all “not at the level of the self-consciousness of ‘the Hindu’ but only within the historical contingencies of the social relations of power”. (Chatterjee 1989, 186) Chatterjee refers to the deviant or mendicant sects which broke out from the officialisation of Guadiya Vaishnavism which reasserted the caste hierarchy within a religion that was rooted in mysticism and was marked by anti-intellectualism and anti-caste stance. The doctrine of these minor sects are marked by eclecticism drawing on dominant as well subordinate traditions and is marked by simultaneous acceptance and rejection of domination. He finally refers to a preacher from the lowest caste group, the Hadis called Balaram whose doctrine pitted itself against the Vedas, the shastras and the practices of caste. This sectarian ideology was opposed to the Brahmanical religion and also distanced itself from Vaishnavism. Such a rebellious move is the conscious rejection of the dominant religion that proclaims universality. However, despite this rebellion Balaram does not reject the caste system altogether, he only turns it downside up by placing the Hadis as the superior caste in the hierarchy. The ideology of caste remains even in this conscious attempt to overcome it. Thus, the consciousness of the subaltern classes such as subordinate caste groups is marked by the opposing tendency of acceptance and refusal of the dominant universalising ideology. Thus, the political project of abolishing the caste system should be based on an immanent critique of caste, not on the bourgeoisie notion of freedom and equality which has already led to the perpetuation of caste in India through affirmative actions, but by “finding an adequate ground on which it can be superseded by a new universal form of community” - … there does exist a level of social life where labouring people in their practical activity have constantly sought in their ‘common sense’ the forms, mediated by culture, of such community. The problem of politics is to develop and make explicit what is only implicit in popular activity, to give to is process of mediation the conditions of sufficiency. The point , in other words, is to undertake a criticism of ‘common sense’ on the basis of
89 ‘common sense’; not to inject into popular life a ‘scientific’ form of thought springing somewhere else, but to develop and make critical and activity which already exists in popular life. (ibid, 208-9) Keeping in mind Chatterjee’s article it can be said that the charge that Subaltern Studies did not engage with caste is not wholly tenable as Chatterjee talks about
75 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
caste and subordinate caste groups. However, it comes through the prism of his notion of community. It is also not clear what exactly he talks about as the solution for the caste system. Another important point should be mentioned here. The critique of Eurocentrism in the project starts systematically here as he talks about the specificity of Indian experience and caste as an example of that. His rejection of Marxist solution is also based on that. He thinks that an Indian problem needs specifically Indian solution and it can be sought in the common sense of the subordinate castes. Kalki-Avatar: A Micro-history of Bikrampur In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Kalki-Avatar of Bikrampur: A Village Scandal in Early Twentieth Century Bengal”,
Sumit Sarkar describes how Prasanna, a chandal had taken over and inverted the re- enactment of the kalki avatar myth by a Brahmin sadhu and his bhadralok disciple. He appropriates the process along with fragments from epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata to terrorise the Doyhata bhadralok. Lalmoham Majumdr of Doyhata in Bikrampur invited in his house the Brahman teacher turned sadhu called Kalachand and his two low caste disciples- the chandal, Prasanna and the Bhuimali, Ananda. The sadhu proclaimed himself to be the kalki avatar. There was an arrangement for the re-enactment of the myth of kalki avatar at the end of which the sadhu was supposed to reveal his real self and would put an end to the kali yuga. Ananda was projected as Yama and there would be a ritual slaughter of Ananda which was supposed to put an end to koliyuga. But suddenly Prasanna takes the initiative, burns the houses around in ritualistic imitation of the burning of Lanka by Hanumana, asks Lalmohan to sacrifice his son and when Lamohan refuses to do that he asks the women of the house to strip, pay obeisance to Kalachnad, touch the purifying fire. Lalmohan’s wife Rajlakshmi gets special treatment as her public hair is burnt, and a kalki is thrust into her vagina and asked to kick her husband three times in the forehead. Some of the men are also forced to strip and one person had his sacred thread burnt. The myth of koliyuga and Kalki-avatar were the staple of the low literature of Batatala and was championed by and catered to the low gentry and ordinary people. And in the Doyhata incident the myth of koliyuga, an inverted world with shudra and
90 woman on top and which needs to be brought to an end by the kalki avatar who would bring back order restoring proper caste and gender hierarchy played the crucial role. The re- enactment of the myth of koliyuga was “suddenly hijacked” by the chandal Prasanna and “fundamental reversal of initiative” happened with Prasanna at the helm (Sarkar 1989, 29). Perhaps because of this reversal of role and hierarchy, and the “inverted appropriation of motif and value of Brahminical culture” (ibid, 7) the bhadralok of Bikrampur and the press in Calcutta made scant reference to the incident and failed to make it into a social scandal although it had all the ingredients of a scandal. Internationalisation of the Project and Shift towards Postcololonial Theorisation Although Subaltern Studies received critical acclaim in India throughout the 1980s, it was “overlooked in North America and even in Britain of multiple Marxisms” (Chaturvedi 2000, xi). In 1988 Subaltern Studies “formally arrived” in the Anglo-American academic world with the publication of Selected Subaltern Studies Reader with seminal essays from volume I-V and a first serious discussion of its agendas began in
76 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
journals such as Modern Asian Studies and The Journal of Peasant Studies. The most systematic discussion came from scholars associated with the University of Cambridge. Like the Indian reception of it, Subaltern Studies in England met with “trenchant critique which sought to reveal the internal discontinuities between the original manifesto and practice of writing history” (ibid, xii). In the USA, however, Subaltern Studies received enthusiastic reception. It became “hugely influential” in the US academy which, Chaturvedi thinks, can be gauged in part by the ways in which it coincided with the emergence of identity politics and multi-culturalism. It was received, at least initially, not for its historiograophical or political commitments, but as an example of how for the first time after independence the Indians are showing “sustained signs of appropriating the capacity to represent themselves” ( Ronald Inden quoted by Chaturvedi, ibid, xii) . In addition to it, there was Said’s patronisation of the project which coincided with the internal division within the project and the rise of postcolonial theory. Chaturvedi writes: In addition, Edward Said’s patronage of the project in his Foreword to Selected Subaltern Studies, coincided with the internal bifurcation of the project as well as with the genesis of the body of literature commonly known as postcolonial theory. It was here that, for the first time since its beginnings, Subaltern Studies was articulated as a postcolonial project. With its arrival in the USA, there was a substantial increase in the influence of literary criticism and postcolonial theory on the subsequent development of the project. Since then most of the contributions to the Subaltern Studies series have moved
91 towards culture, conceived in terms of textual and discourse analysis, and away from the economic base as the central zone of power and contestation. Subaltern Studies, as practiced in volumes VII-X (992-99), has assumed increasingly pronounced post-Marxist forms, as it has accommodated itself to the culturalist atmosphere of US humanities departments. (ibid, xii) However, this shift towards postcolonial theory, post-Marxist discursive analysis of subalternity, the critique of post-Enlightenment rationality can be viewed both negatively and positively. It was negative as there was the “decline of the subaltern”, to quote Sumit Sarkar, in the Subaltern Studies project. It can be viwed as productive as it opened up new avenues of enquiry and the role of discursive and epistemic practices in the constitution of subalternity can not be altogether ignored. Thus, from Subaltern Studies VII, we see a shift towards postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism and Euro-modernity and the championing of postcolonial difference which was taken further in the attempts at writing post-foundational history from the vantage point of the fragment and the margins of the totalitarian discourses of post-Enlightenment modernity and statist ideology by Gyan Prakash (2000a, 2000b) Gyanendra Pandey (1997) and Dipesh Chakrabarty (2000a, 2000b). From this time onward Subaltern Studies found its way into the historical analysis in different parts of the world, such as Latin America and Africa (Mallon, 1994; Latin American Subaltern Studies Group, 1993). Religion, Community and Subalernity Subalern Studies VII engages with the interaction of religion, community and subalternity. In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
The Colonial Construction of ‘Communalism’: British Writings on Banaras in the Nineteenth Century”,
77 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Gyanendra Pandey draws our attention to the process of British re-writing of Indian history through the “construction” of communal riot narrative. In this reductionist reading Indian history is reduced to the history of the state as communal strife and its prevention is viewed as a matter of law and order which the beneficial British rule is bringing to the society (Pandey 1989, 152). The construction of this master narrative of communalism leads to the characterisation of the past or the pre-British period as “essentially chaotic and unruly” and the British administration as enlightened, orderly, rational and experienced which is there to bring law and order. In this narrative, all riots are treated as same despite their geographical and temporal difference as “simply the reflexive actions of an irrational people” (ibid, 166).
92 In “Power, Religion and Community: The Matobo Case”, Terence Ranger challenges the common sensical colonial idea of community and community consciousness as organic, primordial and given, incapable of change. He points out that the one hundre and fifty years of Zimbabwean history presents with a “whole series of successive imagined identities” (Ranger 1992, 225). The sense of ethnically fixed ideas of community came with the colonial notions of classification and ethnography. He also challenges the common sense assumption that communities were small, tribe-oriented face-to face microcosms and points out that there were “different scales of interaction” (ibid, 225)based on trade, pilgrimage, hunting etc. which prove that “communities and identities were flexible and adaptable” (ibid, 226). He questions another common sense assumption that communities were egalitarian units and points out that rural areas were highly competitive places where competition ranged over best land, women, young men, cattle and there was place for accumulation by pre-colonial big men or colonial plough entrepreneurs. Thus, the notion of a bounded face-to-face community was a colonial ideology to legitimise its control. He also points to the colonial notion of religion which was grafted onto the African views of religion projecting it as ethnically bounded. Countering such a view of religion, Ranger points to the cultic notion of religion that was “adaptive and innovative” (ibid, 227) and how it answered to the need of African re- imagination of identities. Through the discussion of the Matobo High God shrine, he shows how the religious institution interacted with the notion of community dynamically and historically. The subaltern perspective found its resonance in Africa and Latin America where the historians were critically and creatively applying the subaltern approach to analyse African and Latin American history and Ranger’s article is a testimony of such an attempt. In “Myths, Symbols and Community: Satnampanth of Chhatisgarh”, Saurabh Dube focuses on the construction of the community of Satnampanth as an oppositional symbolic order through a bricolage of the rituals and practices of the hegemonic social order and alternative popular traditions. Headed by the mythic figures, Ghasidas and Balakda, the “new symbolic order” was “marked by an interrogation and critique of the relationship of power within the region”. The Satnampanth developed over a long time in the first half of the nineteenth century among the Chamars in Chhattisgarh who were pushed to social margin by the Brahminical Maratha/ Bhonsla administration and the British colonial administration which retained some of the revenue systems of the Bhonsla administration. Dube focuses on how religion and caste play important role in structuring of subaltern beliefs and practices (their historical consciousness) and instead of focusing on moments of overt
78 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
93 rebellion, he highlights how the subordinate social groups resisted the dominant social order through a resignification of religious idioms. The constitution of Satnampanth shows how a fledging religious community resists the dominant and hegemonic cultural idiom through an “appropriation and re-positioning of the signs” (Dube 1992, 146) of the dominant order based on hegemonic ritual hierarchy of purity and pollution. The Satnampanthis appropriated the Brahmanical practices of purifying the body by abstaining from meat, liquor, tobacco and certain vegetables associated with pollution and started wearing the sacred thread. However, they also rejected idolatry and the authority of the priest through the establishment of the village Bhandari. Such appropriation of the hegemonic ritual practices as well as rejection of divine hierarchy through the rejection of idolatry and priesthood drawn from alternative popular traditions helped the Satnampanthis re-signify the appropriated ritual practices for a counter-hegemonic struggle. Thus, they conceptualise a transformation of the oppressive world through the construction of the Satnampanth community. However, the new religious idiom that sought to subvert the dominant order was also constrained by the hegemonic limit as the Satnampanth “reproduced the significance of old meanings” (ibid, 146). In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
A Religion of Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class”,
Partha Chatterjee engages with the mediatory role of the Calcutta middle class in the formation of the nationalist movement. As in any other colonial setting, the Calcutta middle class plays the pivotal role in the formation of dominant forms of nationalist culture and social institutions. Chatterjee deals with the role of religion that gives us an access to the hegemonic ideologies of the Calcutta middle class. The colonial middle class in Calcutta, as elsewhere, was caught in a “simultaneous process of subordination and domination” as political and economic domination of the colonial elite was counterpoised by indigenous cultural leadership. Nationalist project is a hegemonic project that involves cultural practices of the middle class placed in such dual position of subordination and domination. Chatterjee discusses the Ramakrishna phenomena to point out how the construction of a new religion for urban domesticity helped the hegemonic project of the Calcutta middle class. Thus, he reads the Kathamrita as a text that documents the “fears and anxieties of a class aspiring to hegemony” or as a text that paradoxically “reveals to us the subalternity of an elite” (Chatterjee 1992, 42). Chatterjee points out three themes which he thinks are important for an understanding of “nationalism as a project of mediation” (ibid, 65). First, the appropriation of the popular,
94 sanitised and mediated for a moral-ideological construction of hegemonic nationalism by the enlightened leadership. Second, the classicisation of tradition which gave a Vedic past to the national culture. Islam presented a problem in this Hindu understanding of the nation and national culture because Islam could claim an alternative classical tradition. Islam could only be incorporated as a “foreign element, domesticated by shearing its own lineage of a classical past” (ibid, 67). Thus, popular Islam was incorporated “in doubly sanitising form of syncretism” (ibid, 67). The third involved the “structure of the hegemonic domain of nationalism” (ibid, 67). As nationalism inserted itself in the national state, it was defined by the ideology of modern-
79 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
liberal democratic state with its differentiated notion of public and private domain. The state was supposed to “protect the inviolability of the private self in relation to other private selves” (ibid, 67). However, the moral-intellectual leadership of the middle class “operated in a field constituted by a very different set of distinctions- those between the spiritual and material, the inner and the outer, the essential and the inessential” (ibid, 67). Chatterjee explains- In this field, the domain of the inner was proclaimed a domain of autonomy, where the nation was uncolonized and sovereign, long before the battle with colonial rule had been fought out and settled. The hegemonic project here could hardly make the distinctions of language, religion, caste or class a matter of indifference to itself. The project was that of a ‘cultural normalization’, like bourgeoisie hegemonic projects everywhere, but with the all-important difference that it had to choose its site of autonomy from a position of subordination to a colonial regime which had on its side the most universalist justificatory resources produced by post-Enlightenment rationalist discourse. (ibid, 67-68) Chatterjee points out that the “cultural construction of the “inner identity of nationhood” could not be contained within the idea of the “private” as it incorporates a classicisation of the past and an “appropriation of the popular around the reconstructed forms of ‘community’” (ibid, 68). Pointing out the difference between the state process with its notions of public and private and the cultural construction with the attendant notions of inner and outer domain, Catterjee highlights the difference between the western and Indian forms of nation formation and its continued implications: Unlike the hegemonic project in the liberal democracies of Europe, the forms of encompassment of the family within civil society and of civil society within the state, effectively devaluing all other contending conceptions of community, could only be implanted in India in the domain of state process (he field of the public/ private) and not in that of cultural construction (the field of the inner/outer). The two have remained out of joint and often in
95 open antagonism, testified by the simultaneous and often antagonistic existence in India today of a state which dominates without being hegemonic and of several hegemonic projects still in search of dominance. (ibid, 68) Mandal Commission Report, Hindutva and the Neo- liberal India: Subaltern Studies in a New Context Subaltern Studies VIII was published in 1993, a after the demolition of Babri Masjid. The agitation against the Mandal Commission Report advocating special constitutional protection to the lower caste Hindus and the rise of Hindu Right, the vigorous campaign of the affiliates of the Sangh Parivar that culminated in the demolition of Babri Masjid changed the political discourse of the country. On the other hand, India opened its economy in 1991. India was thus caught in opposite pulls- the drive for liberalisation, globalisation and privatisation saw the simultaneous emergence of religious chauvinism and cultural nationalism. As a conjunctural project the obvious field of investigation for the project of Subaltern Studies could have been underscoring the processes by which the Muslims of India were being subalternised and disenfranchised and how the dalits and the OBCs were made to bear the brunt of a Hindutva project that was premised on further marginalisation of them. However, no exploration of the Muslim question or the dalit or adivasi issue was taken up. Partha Chatterjee’s essay, however, responds to the rise of Hindutva through an analysis of nineteenth century Bengali historical discourse as a prelude to the current conceptualisation of India as a Hindu nation. Premised on the modern historical consciousness brought in by the colonial historiographical discourse and activated by the Orientalist eulogisation of the Hindu past as golden age that was destroyed by the invasion of
80 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Islam, the Bengali historians provided the paradigm that evolved into the current conceptualisation of India as a Hindu Rastra. Analysing some of the views of Bankim, who spoke eloquently of the efflorescence of Bengali culture under the Sultanate period in Bengal, Chatterjee thinks that an alternative conceptualisation of the nation-state as a confederation of different nationalities, rather than a centralised state premised on a singular history of the nation, could provide a different trajectory. This engagement with the Bengali middleclass continues with Dipesh Chakrabarty’s article that explores how the Bengali middle class responded to the onslaught of colonial modernity by securing the purity of their domestic sphere from the contaminating influence of the outer world. Reminiscing of Chatterjee’s analysis of the nationalist resolution of the women question through division of the outer and inner domains, Chakrabarty points out the Bengali middle class’s dichotomous response to modernity as expressed in the
96 discourse of improvement in the civil society and retaining the kula and traditional cultural ethos in the domestic life although modified in a creative engagement with the colonial modernity. The difference-deferral of Bengali modernity thus came out with the new domesticity that emphasised on the image of the woman as a grihalakshmi with all the virtues of docility, self-sacrifice, beauty and pleasure coupled with the necessary knowledge of the needs of life as opposed to the memsahib, a sort of self-willed woman or alakshmi. This exclusive focus on the Bengali middle class was roundedly criticised by Ramachandra Guha (1995) in his review of Subaltern Studies VIII. He castigates this tendency by saying that subaltern studies can now conveniently be called Bhadrolok Studies. If Chatterjee and Chakrabarty deal with the Bengali Bhadralok, Hardiman brings the focus back to the subaltern social groups in his essay “Power in the Forest: The Dangs, 1820- 1940”. He examines the shifting power equations in the Dangs that brought the Bhills up in arms against the colonial power. The independent and forest-driven life of the Bhills was first contained after the British conquest and the appointment of the Bhill chiefs as the agents of the British. The commercialisation of the forest and maximisation of timber extraction by the colonial power from 1840s brought in a radical change in the life of the Bhills and their access to forest that provoked continued resistance during the period upto 1914 after which colonial extraction continued peacefully. Hardiman explores the “important shifts of power, with an erstwhile ruling class-the Bhills-becoming overtime a subaltern community” (Hardiman 1994, 94). Arnold’s interesting piece “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge and Penology in Nineteenth Century India”
points out that the prison as a site of colonial power and knowledge production did not function as a Foucauldian panopticon as it could not control and discipline the inmates. There were parallel power centres operating in the prison and the prison often simulated the social hierarchies outside, such as of caste and religion shown in the different culinary and cooking arrangement for the inmates. Thus, Arnold writes, “Despite the iron fetters and the high walls, despite the exercises in internal exile and overseas transportation, the prisoner remained ineluctably, even defiantly, part of his or her own society” (Arnold 1994, 186). Pandey in his
81 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
essay The Prose of Otherness seeks to study the partition and the attendant violence beyond the statist discourse which seeks to neutrailise the violence by viewing it as a tragic but necessary episode in the biography of the nation and
97 points out that partion history written from the perspective of the pain, the suffering and the muted traumas might lead to change in perception. Expansding the Horizon of Subaltern Studies The Preface to Subaltern Studies IX relates that although the volume continues with the “past practices” of covering “aspects of subalternity in colonial and contemporary South Asia”, there is an attempt to “expand our intellectual horizon” (Amin and Chakrabarty 1996, vii). What does that expansion of horizon signify? Amin and Chakrabarty, the editors of this volume, inform that although the project started with “specific agenda bearing on develpments within modern South Asian history”, it has now “expanded beyond the discipline of history” and “display our engagements with more contemporary problems and theoretical formations” (bid, vii). One aspect of this engagement with contemporary problems is obviously the chapter on Dalibahujan politics by Kancha Illaih and the editors inform us that they “look forward to more of this this” (ibid, vii). However, there is still no mention of the Muslims post-1992 Babri Masjid demolition or the contemporary question of neo-liberal capital and how it is reformulating the political in India. Ajay Skaria in his article “Writing, Orality and Power in the Dangs, Western India, 1800-1920” shows how writing can be a weapon of control and domination. The consolidation of the colonial rule in the Dangs in the 1840s and the commercial extraction of timber resulted in consistent implementation of written agreements and legalisations that played a crucial role in colonial subordination of the Dangs. Apart from being a modern form of technology writing was perceived useful because of the rhetoric of fixity which ascribed fixed and stable meaning to the written document compared to oral or pre-colonial modes of writing. Supported and sustained by the principle of inviolability, manipulative reading of documents by colonial interpretive community and the sheer domination of colonial power writing thus was viewed as a weapon of subordination by the colonised non-literate subaltern groups. Their response to writing thus involved either “strategic illiteracy, where the claim to be ignorant (of the meaning of the documents they signed) became a means of resistance” (Skaria 1996, 44) or appropriation of writing itself. Skaria draws our attention to the contemporary times by referring to the appropriation of writing by Krisnna Kuver, the adivasi leader of the Satipati movement of Gujarat and Maharastra, who is fought/ defied the legitimacy of the Indian state. Skaria writes that Kuver’s books which are mostly unintelligible to those unfamiliar to its idioms and symbols are “assertions of the subaltern right to write” (ibid, 58) affirming “the subaltern perception of writing as a desirable,
98 dangerous instrument of elite domination, one that has to be both challenged and incorporated” (ibid, 58). Gyan Prakash in “Science between the Lines” explores how western modernity embodied in the form of science had to negotiate with the indigenous context leading to hybridised forms losing its originality. Supplementing the view that sees western modernity and science as constituting “second colonisation” that radically transformed the indigenous society and cultural identity creating modern secular forms of hierarchy and social identity, Prakash thinks that modernity in India should be viewed as a form of translation and this “in- between translation of modernity produced a ghostly double of the original” (Prakash
82 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
1996, 62). The authority of science was thus never complete and at moments “the tyrannical authority of science staggered before tradition it represented and sought to master’” (81) giving way for the return of “the repressed knowledges and subjects” (ibid, 81) to “reclaim some ground to force a translation and transformation of power” (ibid, 81-82). And the Indian elite, not by the sheer superiority of western scientific discourse, but by “forcing such a transformation” “claim to represent subaltern forms of culture and staged as a force that would guide India’s march to modernity”. (ibid, 82) The inclusion of Kancha Illaih’s article “Productive Labour, Consciousness and History: The Dalit Bahujan Alternative” addresses an important gap in Subaltern Studies i.e. the Dalitbahujan question. The essay is a kind of manifesto for an alternative paradigm of historiography from the Dalitbahujan perspective. Illaih accuses that mainstream historiography, including Subaltern Studies, has not incorporated the Dalitbahujan perspective. The post-Mandal Hindutva politics seeks to co-opt the Dalitbahujans- Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classs- into the fold of Hinduism who are for centuries “carefully and violently kept separate and defined as different from theirs’” (Illaih 1996, 166). To counter such attempt to “keep us in their fold as political elements who have now acquired a right to vote” Illaih highlights the cultural, moral and philosophical practices of the Dalitbahujans that sharply differentiates them from the Brahmins. The aim is to raise the “Dalitbahujan consciousness” about themselves in order to start the process of building a Dalitbahujan hegemony. In “‘Rowdy-Sheeters’: Subalternity and Politics” Vivek Dhareshwar and R. Srivastan focusses on the discourse that produce the figure of rowdy as a threatening and chaotic other of the modern citizen of the urban area. They point to the caste, class and community as “definitive factors in the production of the rowdy”. The police and media perspective of the rowdy is that “a rowdy is almost never an upper-caste Hindu. He is either a Scheduled Caste,
99 Backward Class, or Muslim, all belonging to a socio-economic (non-) class which by definition resides in a basti or slum” (Dhareshwar and Srivastan 1996, 208). The construction of the rowdy as a criminal and lumpen element reminds us of the colonial construction of the “criminal tribes and castes”. Dhareshwar and Srivastan point out that modern politics of citizenship and rights by their definition produce its other, the rowdy and excludes them from the arena of modern politics. Susie
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 95%
Tharu and Tejaswini Niranjana (“Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender”)
point out the problems of conceptualising contemporary theory of gender in “the mandal/ mandir/ Fund-bank years” (Tharu and Niranjana 1996, 234) in which “the hegemonic mobilizations of a ‘feminist’ subject” (ibid, 260) has created new fault lines within the existing feminist politics such as the question of caste and community. They point out the strong public participation of women in the movements such as anti-Mandal agitation, Chundru rape protest and Ramjanmbhoomi movement that silenced the voice of the Dalit and Muslim women and projected the Dalit and Muslim male as oppressive. However, it also calls for “possibilities of new and more radical alliance” (ibid, 260) in support of the Dalit movements or engagement in anti-communal initiatives. In “
83 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
A Market for Aboriginality: Primitivism and Race classification in the Indentured Labour Market of Colonial India”,
Koushik Ghosh highlights the “interweaving of race and labour” (Ghosh 1999, 9) in indentured labour market in colonial India. He points out how the abolition of slavery led to increased demand for aborigine coolie from India for the sugarcane plantations in Africa helping “the end of slavry overcome by indenture” (ibid, 25). Evolutionary race theory and evolutionary anthropology went into classifying Indian society in which the primitives, who were situated at the lowest rank of the evolutionary discourse of race and aboriginality, came to be identified as valuable labour force. The “colonial fetish for aboriginality” with official and unofficial recruitment networks led to the recruitment of aborigines from Jharkhand in tea plantations in Assam and other places. In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Colouring Subalternity: Slaves, Concubines and Social Orphans in Early Colonial India”,
Indrani Chatterjee talks about the slave-concubines and social orphans of early colonial period who are ignored in the study of Indian slavery. In “Taming Traditions: Legalities and Histories in Twentieth-Century Orissa” Ishita Banerjee Dube maps the “character and transformation of a subaltern religiosity” (Dube 1999, 98). The Mahima Dharma in Orissa started as a challenge to the authority of the Raja and the Brahman in mid-nineteenth century. However, as feuds broke out within the sect, the settlement of the case in court led to the change from a heterodox religious practice to an institutionalised and ordered religion. In “Spatializing
100 Histoy: Subaltern Carnivalizations of Space in Tiruppuvanam, Tmilnadu”, Sundar Kaali talks about the spatial politics/ carnivalization of spatialities of the subalterns in Tiruppuvanam to show how “subversive subaltern forces manage to insinuate themselves into elite traditions”(Kaali 1999, 142) Vijay Prasad in “Untouchable Freedom: A Critique of the Bourgeoisie-Landlord Indian State” discusses the “promise and betrayal” of Dalit freedom in the context of the development of India as a bourgeoisie-landlord state. The formal equality guaranteed by the state does not preclude the violence on the Dalits. Prasad proposes that a new agenda for Dalit empowerment should postulate a “fusion between dalt politics and the politics of exploited and dispossessed people in general” (Prasad 1999, 200). Community, Gender and Violence Ann-Barabara Graff (2003) in her review of Subaltern Studies XI points out that this volume “marks a new thematic direction in the series” as it moves beyond the exclusive focus on community and violence in the context of “peasant uprisings” and highlights the imbrication and interplay of community, gender and politics of violence in South Asian societies (Graff 2003,269)While Amir Mufti discusses how Manto’s Urdu writings and the figure of the prostitute destabilise and disrupt the normalisation of the emerging Hindu national culture imagined through the de-sexualised wife/Mother, Niranjana points out the politics of representation by discussing how the complex configuration of the “new woman” as sexually liberated and commercially enfranchised in Maniratnam’s movies is
84 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
inscribed and implicated within the “new national imaginary” that came into being after the liberalisation of Indian economy and the rise of Sangh Parivar. Satish Deshpande explores the “spatial strategies implicated in the hegemonic aspirations of Hindu communalism in India” (Deshpande 2005, 167) He points out the difference in the spatial strategies of conceiving the nation-space between Savarkar who conceived India as a sacred geography and Nehru who conceived it as an economic geography. The inclusive Nehruvian nation-space, Deshpande argues, is being reversed by the Hindutva affiliates by strategic construction of heterotopias around a space/ site such as the Ranjanmabhoomi. Flavia Agnes argues that we need to broaden the scope of matrimonial laws “to encompass the economic rights of women and children who are trapped within complex socio-economic system” (Agnes 2005, 107) She points out the economic and residential rights present in the diverse customary laws, such as Islamic, Hindu or Roman laws and points out that a mere call for Uniform Civil Code without taking account of these strands of practices will not solve the different needs of women of different communities.
101 Pradeep Jeganathan and Qadri Ismail deal with question of community, gender and violence in the context of Sri Lanka thereby taking the focus away from India which had been the privileged site for discussion for Subaltern Studies. Contrary to the prevalent anthropological understanding of violence in the Sinhala culture of lajja-baya (shame-fear) Jegannathan locates the source of violence in the Sinhala society in the masculine notion of fearlessness. Qadri Ismail points out how the process of constituting the nation contains within it tissues of contradictions and instabilities borne out of the “inherently hierarchical and exclusionary impulses of nationalism” (Ismail 2005, 214). Return to the Subaltern Social Groups and Classes Prachi Deshpande while reviewing Subaltern Studies XII rightly points out that the volume once again brought back the spotlight on the specific social groups, such as Muslims and Dalits in this case, and the “preoccupation with the making of elite nationalist historiography harks back to one of the project’s original concerns” (Deshpande 2006, 3703). This is an important point as this is the last volume of Subaltern Studies and the project was making a move to its originals concerns before it was dismantled in 2012. There seems to be a focus back from subalternity and the discursive formation of marginality to the subaltern social groups and how they are (un/mis-)represented in the official historiography. However, it cannot be said that questions of discourse and representation were left out as they are still potent weapons of constituting subalternity and exclusion. In his opening article of Subaltern Studies XII, titled “Representing the Musalman: Then and Now, Now and Then”, Shahid Amin takes a critical look at the rise of “majoritarian politics” and “majoritarian history” in India since mid 1980s. The rightist agenda of writing a majoritarian history, a “New Hindu History”, has taken the centre stage of political deliberation and seeks to redraw the contours of secular India. In this schema the Muslim rule in medieval India appears as a matter of shame to be avenged to realise the idea of a majoritarian history and to “demarcate” the natural citizens of India. This view of history mixes history or historical facts with religious beliefs and memory of a collective past in the project of nation-building. The sense of belonging to a nation is forged by creating and replicating a sense of “us” and “them” through icons, stories and narratives. This construction of community and narratives has a claim to history and to a particularistic remembrance of past. Against the background of the rise of the claim for majoritarian history, Amin thinks that history writing, to counter this majoritarian drive, must engage and thereby
85 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
expose “the ways in which pasts are remembered and retailed” and focus on “the relationship of such pasts to people’s sense
102 of belonging” (Amin 2005, 2). The historian’s task would be “not just to unravel what happened between India’s two, or three, or four largest communities, but also to show how these communities remember, understand, explain and recount pasts and presents to themselves” (ibid, 2). Amin thinks that the periodic struggle over the writing of history primers in our country is located in this problematic. In this article Amin tries to show how the musalmans of Hindustan are remembered. He attempts to understand “the common sense” about North Indian Musalman, the “distinguishing elements of their otherness” and how the recognition of their “everyday difference” is marked by a memory of them carrying a different history (ibid, 3). This “otherisation” of the Musalman is a matter of fabrication; constructed by a “mix of history, memory, ideas of innate difference” in the changed political context which holds the Musalmans as outsiders. This construction of the other is also a political fabrication of popular remembrance in standardised accounts of the past. Amin discusses various literary and non-literary texts of late 19 th century to show how this fabrication is achieved by the construction of the other for the construction self/ identity and questions “the notion of a supposedly authoritative representation of popular remembrance” (ibid, 3). Amin first tries to show “how the nation represents its people to itself” (ibid, 4). Focusing on the topoi of Turkish cap (the fez) he captures how the stereotypical idea of the innate difference of the Muslims is reproduced by the national integration posters. In the national integration posters a Muslim is represented having beard and wearing a Turkish cap. But Muislims in India do not wear Turkish cap. Thus the topi is projected as an “essential marker of the otherness of things Muslim” (ibid, 8). Because of the widespread dissemination and social acceptance of these images we recognise and interpret those different from us by these “hegemonic visible signs” (ibid, 9). Amin thinks that stereotypical imaging of the Muslims is part of a larger process of fabrication of past. “The urge to define ourselves vis a vis others” (ibid, 9) manifests itself in a mix of history, belief, memory and imagination. This imagination, Amin says, “thrives on facts without context and events without history” (ibid, 9) to construct the otherness of the other. This construction of the Muslims as the other provided the logic of the writings of late 19 th century Hindi writers like Bharatendu Harishchandra, Balkrishna Bhatt, Radhacharan Goswami, Pratap Narayan Mishra who founded the early modern Hindi prose. The essentialist construction of “Hindi/ Hindu” was facilitated by the projection of its other “Urdu/Muslim”. In their writing the virulence against the Muslims and Muslim rule is clearly discernible. But Amin tries to locate whether these writers were merely transcribing what was
103 popular remembrance of the Muslim rule or they were fabricating it. Discussing the tension between the popular remembrance and authorial transcription in detail by a discussion on various folk popular remembrances of the Muslim rule Amin shows that these Hindi writers were actually fabricating popular remembrance to construct “radically modified representations of a supposedly singular and common past” (ibid, 17) and a radically different Muslim community. This construction/ fabrication of a standardised past were not limited to literary writings alone but can be located in social science, agricultural writings as well as ethnographic studies of various cultural artefacts such as dupattas. Thus, Amin points out how the notion of Musalman as the other is constructed variously in the past and can have a
86 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
rightist manoeuvring in the present. Faisal Devji and Ansari deal with Gandhi’s response to the Khilafat Movement and Mapilla revolt respectively. While Devji categorises Gandhi’s response to the Khilafat movement in terms of a call for Hindu-Muslim friendship as ‘practice of prejudice’ that goes beyond the liberal notion of rational interest and talks of an unconditional support to the friend’s claim i.e. Muslim demand for khilafat, Ansari points out the limitations of such practice of friendship in Gandhi’s response to the Mappila rebellion where his uncritical acceptance of the stereotypes of Mappila as the fanatic further distanced and demarcated the Mappila. Anupama Rao and Milind Wakanakar discusses dalit politics in India. While Rao points out that the legal understanding of “caste crime” takes into account the physical, linguistic or psychological violence it fails to question caste sociability or the practice of caste in society from where the caste violence comes, Wankarar talks about the creation of an autonomous dalit religion/ tradition by Kabir and points out the anomaly of the secular Nehruvian attempt to appropriate him. Prathama Banerjee talks about the alternative to modern historicism provided by imagination or kalpana in Bengali art, history and literature that questioned the racilaised notion of progress and embraced different temporalities sensitive to the lifeworld of tribal and other communities. She however, points out that such imaginative alternative was available in art and was not translated in the social field for accommodating different groups. In the above discussion we have tried to map the evolution of the project of Subaltern Studies by analysisng the contributions in the specific volumes of the project. We have thus taken into account the shift in the project and it widening horizons. The project, in accordance with its theoretical agenda of rehabilitating the subaltern as the consciousness political subject of history, initially focussed on retrieving the insurgent subaltern consciousness and the contributors focussed on different peasant insurgencies in different
104 parts of India. Guha’s theorisations of subaltern subjectivity was the guiding frame of analysis for the project. However, we have seen that internatal divergence, especially with the embracing of Foucauldian analysis, within the project was visible as far back as the re- launching of the project in 1985. The shift towards cultural analysis, postcolonial critique and textuality came with the intervention of Spivak’s deconstructive critique of the project and Said’s recommendation of the projet as an instance of postcolonial cultural critique. The focus on textuality was carried forward by Gyan Prakash, Amitava Ghosh, Sudipta Kaviraj and others. We have also seen that Subalern Studies was adaptive and accommodative and the vector for change in the project led it to embrace the subaltern domains of gender, caste, and minorities. However, the shift from Marxist cultural analysis towards a post-Marxist discursive and textual analysis was not welcomed by many and Subaltern Studies was met with severe criticism both in India and abroad. In the next two chapter, we would elaborate on the critical issues raised by the critics of the project. Works Cited: Agnes, Flavia. 2000. “Women, Marriage and the Subordination of Rights”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 106-137. New Delhi: Permanet Black.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 89%
Alam, Javeed. 2002. “Peasntry,
87 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Politics, and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation
to Marxism”.
In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 43-57. Delhi:
Orient longman.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Amin, Shahid. 1982. “Small Peasant Commodity Production and Rural Indebtedness: The Culture of Sugarcane in Eastern
UP, c 1880-1920”. In
Subaltern Sudies I, edited by Ranajit Guha, 39-87. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1984. “Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern UP, 1921-22”. In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-61. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1987. “
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 89%
Approver’s Testimony, Judicial Discourse: The Case of Chauri Chaura”.
In Subaltern Sudies V,
edited by Ranajit Guha, 166-202. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2005. “Representing the Musalman: Then and Now, Now and Then”. In Subaltern Studies XII, edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria, 1-35. New Delhi: Permanet Black.
105 Ansari, M.T. 2005. “Refiguring the Fanatic: Malbar 1836-1922.” In Subaltern Studies XII, edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria, 36-77. New Delhi: Permanet Black. Arnold, David. 1982. “Rebellious Hillmen: The Gudem-Rampa Risings, 1924-39”. In Subaltern Sudies I, edited by Ranajit Guha, 88-142. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1984. “Famine in Peasant Consciousness and Peasant Action, Madras: 1876-8”. In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 62-115. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1985. “Bureaucratic Recruitment and Subordination in Colonil India: The Madras Constabulary, 1859-1947”. In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-53. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.1987. “Touching the Body: Perspectives on the Indian Plague, 1896-1900”. In Subaltern Sudies V, edited by Ranajit Guha, 55-90. Delhi: Oxford UP. — ——. 1994. “
88 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge and Penology in Nineteenth- Century India”.
In Subaltern Sudies VIII, edited by David Arnold and David Hardiman, 148-187. Delhi: Oxford UP. Banerjee, Prathama. 2005. “The Work of Imagination: Temporality and Nationhood in Colonial Bengal”. In Subaltern Studies XII, edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria, 280-322. New Delhi: Permanet Black.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 96%
Baxi, Upendra. 1992. “The State’s Emissary: The Place of Law in Subaltern Studies”.
In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 247-264. Delhi: Oxford UP. Bhadra, Gautam. 1983. “Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India”. In Subaltern Sudies II, edited by Ranajit Guha, 43-59. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1985. “Four Rebels of Eighteen- Fifty-Seven”. In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 229-275. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1989. “The Mentality of Subalternity: Kantanama or Rajdharma”. In Subaltern Sudies VI, edited by Ranajit Guha, 54-91. Delhi: Oxford UP.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 73%
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 1983. “”Condition
for Knowlede of Working-Class Conditions: Employer, Government and the Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1890-1940”.
In
Subaltern Sudies II, edited by Ranajit Guha, 259-310. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1984. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Trade Unions in a Hierarchical Culture: The Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1920- 50”.
In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 116-152. Delhi: Oxford UP.
106 ———. 1994. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 78%
The Difference-Differeal of a Colonil Modernity: Public Debates on Domesticity in British India”.
In Subaltern
89 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Sudies VIII, edited by David Arnold and David Hardiman, 50-88. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2000a. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 256-280. UK: Verso. ———. 2000b. Provincilizing
0: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 70%
Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historial Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Chatterjee, Partha. 1982. “Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal, 1926-35”. In
Subaltern Sudies I, edited by Ranajit Guha, 9-38. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.1983. “More on Modes of Power ans Peasantry”. In Subaltern Sudies II, edited by Ranajit Guha, 311-350. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. “Gandhi and the Critique of Civil Society”. In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 153-195. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1989. “Caste and Subaltern Consciousness”. In Subaltern Sudies VI, edited by Ranajit Guha, 169-209. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1992. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 87%
A Religion for Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class”.
In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 40- 68. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.1994. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Claims on the Past: The Genealogy of Modern Historiography in Bengal”.
In Subaltern Sudies VIII, edited by David Arnold and David Hardiman, 1-49. Delhi: Oxford UP.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 88%
Chatterjee, Indrani. 1999. “Colouring Subalterniy: Slaves, Concubines and Social Orphans in Early Colonial India”.
In Subaltern Sudies X, edited by Gautam Bhadra, Gyan Parakash and Susie Tharu, 49-97. Delhi: Oxford UP. Chaturvedi, Vinayak. 2000. “Introduction”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, vii- xix. UK: Verso. Chaudhury, Ajit K. 1987. “In Search of a Subaltern Lenin”. In Subaltern Sudies V, edited by Ranajit Guha,
90 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
236-251. Delhi: Oxford UP. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. UK and US: Verso.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Cohn, Bernard S. 1985. “
The Command of Language and the Language of Command”
In
Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 276-329. Delhi: Oxford UP. Das, Veena. 1989. “Subaltern as Perspective”. In Subaltern Sudies VI, edited by Ranajit Guha, 310-324. Delhi: Oxford UP.
107 Dasgupta, Swapan. 1985. “Adivasi Politics in Midnapur, c. 1760-1924”. In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 101-135. Delhi: Oxford UP. Deshpande, Satish. 2000. “Hegemonic Spatial Strategies: The Nation-Space and Hindu Communalism in Twentieth-century India”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 167-211. New Delhi: Permanet Black. Deshpande, Prachi. 2006. “Muslims and Dalits as Subaltern” (Review of Subaltern Studies XII). Economic and Political Weekly, 41(34): 3701-3703. Devji, Faisal Fatehali. 2005. “A Practice of Prejudice: Gandhi’s Politics of friendship”. In Subaltern Studies XII, edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria, 78- 98.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 70%
New Delhi: Permanet Black. Dhareshwar, Vivek and R. Srivasan. 1996. “‘Rowdy- Sheeters: An Essay on Subalternity and politics”.
In Subaltern Sudies IX, edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, 201- 231. Delhi: Oxford UP Dube, Saurabh. 1992. “Myths, Symbols and Community: Satnampanth of Chhatrisgarh”. In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 121-158. Delhi: Oxford UP.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Dube, Ishita Banerjee. 1999. “Taming Traditions: Legalities and Histories in Twentieth- Century Orissa”.
In Subaltern Sudies X, edited by Gautam Bhadra, Gyan Parakash and Susie Tharu, 98-125. Delhi: Oxford UP. Ghosh, Amitava. 1992. “The Slave of MS. H.6.”. In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 159-220. Delhi: Oxford UP.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 91%
91 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Ghosh, Koushik. 1999. “”A market for Aboriginality: Primitivism and race Classification in the Indentured Labour Market of Colonial India”.
In Subaltern Sudies X, edited by Gautam Bhadra, Gyan Parakash and Susie Tharu, 8-48. Delhi: Oxford UP. Graff, Ann-Barbara. 2003. “Subaltern Studies IX: Community, Gender and Violence” (Review). Critical Sociology 29(2): 269-274. Green, Marcus. 20002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
Rethinking Marxism 14(3): 1-24.
0: c1432e97-d0e2-44b3-bbc9-cb5a898854e6 87%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspect of the Historiography of Colonial India”. In
Subaltern Sudies I, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-8. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.1983. “The Prose of Counter-Insurgency.
In Subaltern Sudies II, edited by Ranajit Guha,1-42 . Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1985. “Preface”. In In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, vii-viii. Delhi: Oxford UP.
108 ———. 1987. “Chandra’s Death”. In Subaltern Sudies V, edited by Ranajit Guha, 135-165. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1989. “Dominave without Hegemenoy and Its Historiography”. In Subaltern Studies VI, 210-309. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1992. “Discipline and Mobilize”. In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 69-120. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1996. “The Small Voice of History”. In Subaltern Sudies IX, edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, 1-12. Delhi: Oxford UP ———. 1999.
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 83%
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. USA: Duke University Press. (
first published in 1983, Delhi, Offord UP).
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Guha, Ramachandra. 1985. “Forestry and Social Protest in British Kumaun, c. 1893-1921”.
In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 54-100. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1995. “Subaltern and Bhadralok Studies” (Review article). Economic and Political Weekly, 30(33): 2056-2058. Hardiman, David. 1982. “The Indian “Faction”: A Political Theory Examined”. In Subaltern Sudies I, edited by Ranajit Guha, 198-231. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1984. “Adivasi
92 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Assertion in South Gujarat: The Devi Movementof 1922-3”. In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 196-230. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1985. “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 87%
From Customs to Crime: The Politics of Drinking in Colonial South Gujarat”.
In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 165-228. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1986. “Subaltern Studies a Crossroad”. Economic and Political Weekly, 21(7): 288- 290. ———. 1987. “The Bhils and Shahukars of Eastern Gujarat”. In Subaltern Sudies V, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-54. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1994. “Power in the Forest: The Dangs, 1820-1940”. In Subaltern Sudies VIII, edited by David Arnold and David Hardiman, 89-147. Delhi: Oxford UP.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 89%
Henningham, Stephen. 1983. “Quite India in Bihar and the Eastern United Provinces: The Dual Revolt”.
In Subaltern Sudies II, edited by Ranajit Guha, 130-179. Delhi: Oxford UP. Hill, Christopher V. 2000. “A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, ed. By Ranajit Guha and Subaltern Sudies IX” (Review Article). The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(1): 197-199.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Illaih, Kancha. 1996. “Productive labour, Consciousness and History: The Dalitbahujan Alternative”.
In Subaltern Sudies IX, edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, 165-200. Delhi: Oxford UP.
109 Ismail, Qadri. 2000. “Constituting Nation, Contesting Nationalism: TheSouth Tamil (Woman) and Separatist Tamil Nationalism in Sri Lanka”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee an d Pradeep Jeganathan, 212-282. New Delhi: Permanet Black. Jeganathan, Pradeep. 2000. “A Space for Violence: Anthropology, Politics and the Location of a Sinhala Practice of Masculinity”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 37-65. New Delhi: Permanet Black. Kaali, Sundar. 1999. “Spatializing History: Subaltern Carnivalizations of Space in Tiruppavanan, Tamil Nadu”. In Subaltern Sudies X, edited by Gautam Bhadra, Gyan Parakash and Susie Tharu, 126-169. Delhi: Oxford UP. Kaviraj, Sudipta. 1992. “The Imaginary Institutions of India”. In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 1-39. Delhi: Oxford UP. Ludden, David. 2002. “A Brief History of Subalternity”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
93 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 1-39. Delhi:
Orient longman. Morton, Stephen. 2003. Gayatri Chakrabarty Spivak (Routledge Critical Thinkers). New York: Routledge. (First Indian Edition 2007) Mufti, Amir R. 2000. “A Greatet Story-Writer than God: Genre, Gender and Minority in Late Colonial India”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 138-166. New Delhi: Permanet Black. Niranjana, Tejaswini. 2000. “Nationalism Refigured: Contemporary South Indian Cinema and the Subject of Feminism”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 1-36. New Delhi: Permanet Black.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 87%
Pandey, Gyanendra. 1982. “Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant Movement in Awadh, 1919-22”.
In Subaltern Sudies I, edited by Ranajit Guha, 143-197. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.1983. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Rallying Round the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region, c. 1888- 1917”.
In
Subaltern Sudies II, edited by Ranajit Guha, 60-129. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1984. “‘Encounter and Calamities’: TQasba in the Nineteenth Century”. In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 231-270. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1989. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
The Colonial Construction of “Communalism’” British Writings on Banaras in the Nineteenth Century”.
In Subaltern Sudies VI, edited by Ranajit Guha, 132-168. Delhi: Oxford UP.
110 ———. 1994. “The Prose of Otherness”. In Subaltern Sudies VIII, edited by David Arnold and David Hardiman, 188-221. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1997. “
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu- Muslim Riots in India Today”. In
94 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-33. New Delhi: Oxford UP. Prakash, Gyan. 1996. “Science Between the Lines”. In Subaltern Sudies IX, edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, 59-82. Delhi: Oxford UP ———.2000a. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87%
Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third Worls: Perspectives from Indian Historiography”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 163190-126. UK: Verso. ———. 2000b. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 85%
Can the ‘Subaltern’ Ride? A Reply to O’Hanlon and Washbrook”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and
introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 220-238. UK: Verso. Prasad, Vijay. 1999. “Untouchable Freedom: A Critique of Bourgeois-Landlord Indian State”. In Subaltern Sudies X, edited by Gautam Bhadra, Gyan Parakash and Susie Tharu, 170-200. Delhi: Oxford UP. Ranger, Terence. 1992. “Power, Religion and Community: The Matobo Case”. In Subaltern Sudies VII, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, 221-246. Delhi: Oxford UP. Rao, Anupama. 2005. “Death of a Kotwal: Injury and the Politics of Recognition”. In Subaltern Studies XII, edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria, 140- 187. New Delhi: Permanet Black.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Sarkar, Sumit. 1984. “The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non-
Cooperation, c. 1905-22. In Subaltern Sudies III, edited by Ranajit Guha, 271-320. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1989. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
The Kalki-Avatar of Bikrampur: A Village Scandal in Early Twentieth- Century Bengal”.
In Subaltern Sudies VI, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-53. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2002. “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
95 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
edited by David Ludden, 400-429. Delhi:
Orient longman.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Sarkar, Tanika. 1985. “
Jitu Santal’s Movement in Malda, 1924-32: A Study in Tribal Protest”.
In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 136-164. Delhi: Oxford UP.
111
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Skaria, Ajay. 1996. “Writing, Orality and Power in the Dangs, Western India, 1800s-1920s”.
In Subaltern Sudies IX, edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, 13-58. Delhi: Oxford UP Srivastava, Sanjay. “Subaltern Studies XI: Community, Gender and Violence” (Review Artile). Asian Journal of Social Science, 31(1):128-133. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1985. “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography”. In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 330-363. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1988. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 64%
Can the Subaletrn Speak”. In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 271-313.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ———. 1987. “A Literary Represenntation of the Subaltern: Mahasweta Devi’s ‘Stanadayini’”. In Subaltern Sudies V, edited by Ranajit Guha, 91-134. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2000a. “Discussion: An Afterword on the New Subaltern”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 305-334. New Delhi: Permanet Black. ———.2000b. “The New Subaltern: a Silent Interview”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 324-340. UK: Verso. ———. 2005. “Scattered Speculations on the Subaltern and the Popular”. Postcolonial Studies 8(4):475-486.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 100%
Tharu, Susie and Tejaswini Niranjana. 1996. “Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender”.
In Subaltern Sudies IX, edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, 232- 260. Delhi: Oxford UP. Wakankar, Milind. 2005. “The Anomaly of kabir: Caste and Canonicity in Indian Modernity”.
96 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
In Subaltern Studies XII, edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria, 99-139. New Delhi: Permanet Black.
112 CHAPTER III: THE EARLY CRITIQUES OF SUBALTERN STUDIES Subaltern Studies emerged as a critical tool and as an academic saboteur in Indian academic historiography by challenging the dominant narratives of Indian nationalism- whether of colonial, bourgeois national or traditional Marxist variations which were conspicuous by their total disregard for the struggles of the subaltern/popular classes. The project appeared in a specific historico- political conjuncture. It was, as Guha writes, “a child of its times…” (Guha 1997, xiii). The radical popular protests of the 1960s and 1970s, especially of the peasants, the imposition of Emergency, and the highhanded response of the Indian state to the civil unrest of the times created a legitimacy crisis of the Indian state. The Indian left party’s support for the oppression of the state created a need to move beyond the categorical imperatives of traditional left. Subaltern Studies sought to provide an alternative epistemology and a new paradigm for understanding colonial history as well as contemporary times. As Guha writes, “We sought to situate these questions in the context of colonial past. For, the end of colonial rule had done nothing to replace or substantially alter the main apparatus of colonial domination- that is the state….the predicament of the present referred directly back to the immediate past…” (Guha 1999, 363). In doing this the Subaltern Studies collective, however, was influenced by the social history of Hill, Habsbawm and especially of Thompson and their variation of “history from below”. Thus, Subaltern Studies emerged with the expressive purpose of “rectifying the elite bias” of Indian historiography which presents
0: 4chapter1.docx 80%
the history of Indian nationalism as “a sort of spiritual biography of the Indian elite” (
Guha 1982, 2). Ranajit Guha writes:
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism-
colonialist elitism and bourgeoist nationalist elitism…Both these varieties of elitismshare the prejudice that the making of the Indian nation and the development of the consciousness–nationalism-which informed this process, were exclusively or predominantly elite achievements (Guha 1982: 1). The “statism which prevails in nationalist and Marxist discourses” denied the “small voices of history” to be heard (Guha 1996, 7). Subaltern Studies attempted to foreground the masses as the agents of their own history as it sought
0: 4chapter1.docx 94%
to acknowledge “
the contribution made by the
97 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
people on their own that is independently of the elite
to the making and development of this nationalism” (
ibid. 3). Subaltern Studies, thus, sought to liberate the disenfranchised voices of history and empower the masses.
113 However, the project, from the very beginning, faced criticism, both well-meaning and hostile. The members of the collective responded to the critics, clarified their stand and explained their theoretical innovations which were met with counter-claims from the critics, thus generating both healthy and acrimonious debate. We should, however, view these debates as generative and productive for the project, as such debates helped to concretise the stand of the project, highlighting its premises and sometimes leading to fruitful changes in the project. Thus, both the members of the collective as well as the critics of the project should be viewed as contributing to the analysis of subaltern culture and politics in South Asia. In what follows we would map the early critiques of the project that came in tandem with the evolution of the project. The contemporary critiques i.e. which came mostly after the official end of the project would be dealt with in the next capter along with the attemts at remapping the subaltern after the end of the project. Early Response to Subaltern Studies: Debates over methodology and Subaltern Politics The early critical response to Subaltern Studies came from the Indian Marxists, and in the form of reviews of specific volumes of Subaltern Studies in the journal Social Scientist. Suneet Chopra (1982) in his review pointed out the inadequate understanding of the Gramscian terms and categories employed by suabletrn Studies and its deviation from the Gramscian methodology of analysing subaltern politics. Javeed Alam, however, takes the critique further. He thinks that the charge of mere inadequacy of understanding of Gramscian terms hardly takes away anything from Guha’s forceful critique of the “myopic vision of elitist historiography” (Alam 2002, 45). However, he takes issue with the “dismissive attitude” of Subaltern Studies of the Marxist historical analysis which is clubbed together with elitism of nationalist and colonial historiography ignoring its distinctive methodological contribution in understanding peasant politics. His critique is directed to the central, “almost axiomatic” and “meta-theoretical position”, assigned to the notion of “autonomous domain” of peasant life-world and politics (ibid, 44). He argues that the subaltern scholars give uncritical primacy to the autonomy of subaltern domain categorised as a “mental space” operating between the world of organised politics and economic forces governing a particular phase of capitalist development. That subaltern consciousness is not marked by rebellion only and can harbour contradictory and opposing tendencies is clear from the fact that while in Pandey’s contribution the various castes and communities could come together in their opposition to exploitation, in Partha Cahtterjee’s reading the peasant consciousness of the Pabna district of colonial Bengal led to Hindu –Muslim riots. That peasant consciousness is
114 open to manipulation or influence by radical ideologies is called off. Whether the struggles of the subaltern groups can lead to a transformative politics for a change in their conditions of living or take a regressive move depends on the political organisation and the leadership. However, the conceptualisation of subaltern domain, Alam thinks, as a distinct
98 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
sphere free from any contaminating influence from the outside makes it theoretically impossible. However, many peasant rebellion failed to achieve its objective because of lack of organisation or leadership or because of manipulation by the ruling classes. The utmost significance given to peasant subjectivity encapsulated in rebellion led to ignorance of moments of subjection or compromise. The categorisation of autonomous space does not take into account the historical forces of capitalist development and the role played by the ruling classes. In a pre-capitalist society in transition the ruling classes such as the bourgeoisie aspiring for hegemony goes into alliance with landlordism in order to disrupt and disorganise peasantry using the contradictory elements in peasant consciousness and thus contain the peasant movements. In such a situation “if it gives any autonomy to any group, it gives to the landlords” (emphasis original, ibid, 50). Referring to Gramsci’s theorisation on the subaltern politics, Alam points out that whereas Gramsci highlights the problems faced by the people to become
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 90%
an indepenst force, “Ranajit Guha, by a theoretical leap transforms peasant politics into an ‘autonomous domain’” (
ibid, 51). Alam pints out that autonomy is not located in the pre-capitalist worldview of the peasants but is a “dialectical possibility born of struggle and revolutionary advance” (ibid, 51). He complaints that the theorisation of peasant consciousness by the subalternists is unchanging and unreflective. He writes: Let us face the fact that the pre-reflective, acritical consciousness of the peasantry however much it could help resistance and rebellion against depredations, could not be the basis of new nationalist stirrings nor of anti- feudal sentiments unless newer ideologies- bourgeois or proletarian –got braided with the pre-capitalist peasnt consciousness. (ibid, 51) Alam further charges that the dissatisfaction with the Marxist categories such as class has led the project to a conceptual eclecticism culled from bourgeois social science discourse. Imprecise terms like “elite” “dominant groups” “upper classes” are used at the expense of “the ruling classes” (ibid, 52). Respondng to Chatterjee’s article (Suabletrn Studies I) on the modes of power, Alam points out that Chatterjee’s notion of peasant community lacks historical foundation and is unmarked by class differentiation (ibid, 53). He questions the very use of the schema of modes of power as an analytical tool for understanding social relations. He thinks that Chatterjee’s point about the co-existence of different modes of power
115 is “flawed” as he conceptualises it “in a static, spatial sense and not in their changing relational salience”. (ibid, 54) He thinks that the contributors, in a move to go beyond the base- superstructure argument, has pegged their argument on the superstructural elements that makes them closer to the Frankfurt School rather than Marxist revolutionary theory developed by Lenin. While reviewing Subaltern Studies II, Sangeeta Singh et,al reviews the individual contributions which however has a general significance in terms of their views of the Subaltern Studies project. Countering Guha’s charge that historiography of peasant movement in colonial India has neglected the insurgent peasant as conscious agents and turning their action as something spontaneous, they point out, quoting Gramsci on
99 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
spontaneity, that spontaneity does not preclude conscious motive and Guha tries to establish something which is already universally recognised. They charge Guha of idealism because in his rejection of socio-economic factors in analysing peasant consciousness it is rendered “supra-historical” unfettered by any objective historical forces (Singh et al 2002, 60). They further point out the crippling effect of bringing in linguistic analysis for historical matters. They hold that there is nothing called “paradigmatically pure peasant consciousness” or religious consciousness of the peasants which is detached from the social, economic and political content and it should be viewed as “a part of social totality” (ibid, 69). They also question the uncritical celebration of peasant agency as there is “no supra-historical transcendental subject” and “human essence is the ensemble of social relations, a product of history” (ibid, 70). Thus, to understand the efficacy of social transformation, we need, they think, to go beyond subjectivity and analyse the changes in social context. In his review of Subaltern Studies III Ranajit Das Gupta praises the project for providing “a new analytical thrust to recent writings on modern Indian history and society”. However, he raises few important points about the project. First, the subaltern historians have largely ignored the works on similar themes by historians such as R. P. Dutt, L. Natarajan or Suprakash Roy or those who wrote in 1960s and 1970s. Second, the contributors have largely focussed on moments of conflict and protest and thereby underplayed the “dialectics of collaboration and acquiescence on the part of the subalterns and the wider range of relationships and attitudes between resignation and revolt” (Gupta 2002, 110). Third, there is a “danger of displacement of class categories and class struggle” and contributors such as David Arnold and Sumit Sarkar are aware of it (ibid, 110). Fourth, the meaning of
116 autonomous domain is not made clear and in exaggerating the autonomy of the subaltern politics there is a “total negation of the significance of non-subaltern mediation or of organic link between the unorganised domain and organised domain” (ibid, 110). In “Subaltern Autonomy and the National Movement”, B. B. Chaudhuri reviews Subaltern Studies IV. After individually discussing the articles in the volume, he raises two points about the over all theoretical concerns of the project. First, he thinks that the rigidity of the question of subaltern autonomy still persists and second, he thinks that there is a neglect of interaction between elite and subaltern politics in the works of the Subaltern Studies collective. He points out that sometimes the involvement of the elite in subaltern politics changes the content of the elite politics, a theme which, he thinks, the project may take up (Chaudhury 2002, 132). Thus we see that the early response of the critics to Subaltern Studies was more or less positive and dialogic. The critics were critical of the revisionist Marxism of subaltern scholars and had a critical take on the methodology of the project, especially its two-fold division of politics and the autonomy of the subaltern domain. The critics, it can be said, were accommodative and an environment of fruitful dialogue was there. Reply to Criticism and Invitation for a Dialogue In his reply to Alam, Partha Chatterjee points out that Alam’s criticism of the autonomy of subaltern domain is based on a “considerable misunderstanding” (Chatterjee 1983, 58). The autonomy of the subaltern domain, in the conceptualisation of the subaltern scholars, does not preclude domination. As domination is understood as a “relation of power” (emphasis original ibid, 59) there has to be a relative autonomy of the subaltern domain for that relation of power to work. Otherwise, it would mean a complete subsumption of the subaltern life “into the life-history of the dominant classes” (ibid 59). Chatterjee objects
100 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
to Alam’s functionalist understanding of subaltern politics because he judges subaltern politics by the consequences of their action i.e. by their progressive content and “the act do not mean anything at all” (ibid 59). Chatterjee points out that such a conceptualisation of subaltern politics makes it closer to elitist nationalist historiography. Chatterjee reiterates the agnda of the project that the task of history writing in India must break down the “false ideological totalities” (ibid, 61) of national-colonial opposition and
117 bring the struggles of the subaltern classes to the forefront and for that the subaltern has to be assigned his due consciousness. As for Alam’s criticism of his conceptualisation of the modes of power as static, Chatterjee points out that the orthodox Marxist line in India is still caught up, as can be seen from the debate over the mode of production in agriculture, in the line of capitalist transition set by Lenin in his opposition to the Populists and his project seeks to chart a diferent understanding of the so called “incompleteness” of transition to capitalism as something not to be completed but to be understood as it is. In this “review of a review” i.e. the reply to Singh et al’s review of Subaltern Studies II in Social Scientist (vol. 12, no.10, October 1984), Dipesh Chakrabarty invites the reviewers and the critics of Subalern Studies for “an open and continuing dialogue”. He points out that the “subalterns”
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 85%
are “not a ‘sect’ with a single point of view”. They are “more united in their rejection of certain academic positions and tendencies than in their acceptance of an easy alternative” (
Chakrabarty 1985, 364). He admits that “‘the alterative’ that Sualtern Studies itself represents is itself in the process of formation” and is therefore open to constructive criticism (ibid, 364). Instead of giving point by point rebuttal, Chakrabarty engages with the “terms of the debate” that guide the reviewers. He picks up the “important points” of the critics for critically engaging with them while clarifying the positions of the Subaltern Studies collective. First, the reviewers charge Guha of idealism as his study of peasant consciousness is “not determined by any objective historical forces” They see same idealism in Chatterjee’s piece on ‘Modes of Power’. Second, they charge Guha of positivism or what they call neo- positivism for “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
all knowledge is to be derived from the experience of the subject”.
Third, they charge the contributors of the project of following a simpleminded tendency of dividing
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 91%
101 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the world into “two opposing totalities”- the elite and the subaltern, the feudal mode of power and the peasant communal mode of power.
This is informed by
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 95%
a “’Hegelian view of the totality which includes two paradigmatically opposed forces’” (
Chakrabarty quoting the critics ibid, 366). It thus ends up inverting the world of historiography by which the importance which was once accorded to the elites is now due for the subalterns. In thus viewing society in terms of a simplistic two-fold division, it is charged, “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 83%
Subaltern Studies tends to undermine and supplant the Marxian method of class-analysis” (ibid, 367). Fourth, since it ignores class analysis and “one-sidedly emphasises subaltern action alone”
it is viewed as “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
ill equipped to analyse the role and effect of colonialism in modern Indian history”.
It thus ends up as a
118 supporter of colonial historiography and there is little difference, methodologically, between Subaltern Studies and the so called Cambridge School with its emphasis on caste, religion and factional identities. Chakrabarty thinks that the charges do not necessarily add up as for example how Guha can be both Hegelian and positivist at the same time. Chakrabarty thinks that
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 87%
the essay is “essentially an exercise in showing up the supposedly non-(anti-)Marxist nature” of the Subaltern Studies project (
ibid, 367). Chakrabarty thinks that the Marxism the reviewers subscribe to which talks about the division of society into the economic infrastructure and the political ideological superstructure is only one version of Marxism as the scholarship on this in the last twenty
102 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
years have shown. And it is the reviewers’ inability to recognise “alternative varieties of Marxism that closes of the debate” (ibid, 369). He points out that Marx’s thoughts “were not without their tensions” and “gave rise to several and often different readings”. Chakrabarty however makes it clear that by acknowledging the diversity of interpretation of Marx, he
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 85%
is not entering a liberal plea for submerging Marxism in a plurality of interpretations (
ibid, 369). Chakrabarty points out that nationalist history of colonialism had been marked by economic frame of analysis. And in the 1970s there has been a revival of Nehruvian or nationalist-Marxist critique of colonialism. The study of popular movements thus has been “overwhelmingly economistic”:
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 92%
An inexorable economic ‘rationality’ was seen to be at work in all instances of popular unrest and we saw the replication, in India, of the kind of Marxism that, in the context of English history, had obec been happy to understand the ‘machine breakers’ of the early nineteenth century as simply carrying out wage-bargaining in a different form. Even where popular unrest had to do with religious demands, historians sought credit for discovering that the unrest was actually economic in ‘content’ and religious only in ‘form’, while the demands themselves were a matter of ‘manipulation’ either by the colonial authorities or the local elites. (
Chakrabarty 1985, 370) Chakrabarty thinks that the traces of this nationalist- Marxism can be viewed in the reviewers. He notices it in the reviewer’s complaint against Pandey’s article for not adequately elaborating on the colonial context or on the manipulation by the elites of the subaltern which actually lead to communal clashes. For the reviewers, the common people are not communal or less communal than their elite manipulators. However, Chakrabarty thinks that such
119 failures on the part of the subalternists is actually a conscious choice not to give
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 67%
primacy to the economic in investigations of “issues of culture nd consciousness in modern South Asian history”.
He writes, “
103 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 92%
For this alleged
failure is actually our conscious refusal to subordinate the internal logic of a ‘consciousness’ to the logic of so called ‘objective’ or material
conditions” (
ibid, 373). Thus, nationalist-Marxist analysis sets up colonialism as “an overarching explanatory construct”. Chakrabarty thinks that by deriving consciousness form the narrow objective conditions, such Marxist analysis actually serves the cause of liberal-bourgeois nationalism for it ends up blaming the problems of casteism, communalism, regionalism to colonialism alone and it serves the cause of the nation or the liberal-bourgeois nationalism. Chakrabarty points out that
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 88%
Subaltern Studies “begins by questioning the category of the ‘nation’ and poses the failure of the ‘nation’ to come to its own as a fundamental problem of modern Indian history”.
He elaborates that in contemporary India there are “two kinds of political ‘languages’”- one, involved with the project of nation-building which derives its meaning from issues of state, political representation, citizenship rights etc, and the other language derives its grammar from the
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 100%
relationships of power, authority and hierarchy which pre-date the coming of colonialism,
although modified by interacting with the institutions and ideas imported by British rule. There have been increasing juxtapositions of these two political languages in mass politics in today’s India. However, such juxtaposition also led to “moments of great awkwardness” as the subaltern often interpreted the message of the political leaders in their own way and which led to
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 80%
violent contradiction to the stated goals and methods of the nationalist leadership. Thus,
104 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Subaltern Studies seeks to “understand the consciousness that informed and still informs political actions taken by subaltern classes on their own, independent of any elite
initiative” (ibid, 374). However, he reiterates that such autonomy or independence is relative. This, Chakrabarty says, does not imply that subaltern consciousness is placed outside history (ibid, 374). Guha refers to
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 88%
the trimurti of Sarkar-sahukar-zamindar in his book Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India
and he
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 75%
makes it clear that subaltern consciousness “bears distinct imprints of nineteenth-century colonial context”.
He further writes, “
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 92%
But our refusal to see this consciousness as being in any ultimate and causal sense determined by this context is our refusal to accept the base-superstructure metaphor …” (
ibid, 374-375). As for the charge of positivism, Chakrabarty writes:
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 94%
The insurgent consciousness that Guha analyses is constructed on the basis of categories which are derived from Marxism and which are only remotely
120 connected to ‘categories’ that peasants use in their daily lives to make sense of the world. Yet this peasant ‘experience’ has to find a place in any project that aspires to categorise and understand peasant
consciousness. (ibid, 375) Against the charge of reducing class relations into a simplistic binary division of society into elite and subalter, Chakrabarty thinks that at times binary division is a convenient analytical tool for better explaining the issue at hand. However, he further says that “
105 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 87%
to talk about ‘elite clases’ and ‘subaltern classes’, as Gramsci does in his Prison Notebook, is still to talk in terms of classes” (
ibid, 375). However, he thinks that
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 87%
the word “subaltern” in Subaltern Studies represents more than this. He elaborates: It refers to the specific nature of class relationships in India, where the relationships, at almost all levels, are subsumed in the relations of domination and subordination between members of the elite and subaltern classes… the language of class in India overlapps with the language of citizen-politics only in a minority of instances. For the greater part of our daily experience, class relations express themselves in that other language of politics, which is the politics of nation without ‘citizens.’… ‘
Subalternity’-
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 96%
the composite culture of resistance to and acceptance of domination and hierarchy – is a characteristic of class relation in our society, where the veneer of bourgeois equality barely masks the violent, feudal nature of much of our systems of power and
hierarchy. (ibid, 375-376) Chakrabarty thinks that
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 68%
the persistence of such issues in the face of industrialization and capitalism cannot be explained by
giving primacy to economic infrastructure. Subaltern Studies has opened up this debate and the
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 82%
Marxist historians of India should “not repeat the received orthodoxies of Marxism, but restore to Marx’s thoughts the tensions original to them” (
106 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
ibid, 376). He reiterates that
0: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies- Iv_djvu.txt 98%
it is by “accentuating these tensions that we may be able to extend the Marxian problematic to cover the peculiar problems thrown up by our experience of capitalism” (
ibid, 376). C. A. Bayly’s Critique: Issues of Subaltern Differentiation, Historical Totality and Rise of Far Right In “Rallying Around the Subaltern”, C. A. Bayly writes that although four volumes of Subaltern Studies have been published up to 1988, what constitutes the Subaltern project as a “historical revision” still remains unclear? The Subalterns acted as a catalyst in generating a widespread interest in subaltern politics which was confined previously within a substantial minority. But wherein lies the distinctiveness of approach of the Subalterns compared to the earlier historians on rural India from 1950s or their own contemporaries such as Majid Siddiqi, Jim Masselos, Raj Chandravarkar, Anand Yang, Rajat Ray, David Ludden who
121 wrote in the Journal of Peasant Studies in the 1970s? Does the change in historical orientation lie in source material or theory or empirical evidence? As for source material, they have not deployed a mass of new statistical material and indigenous records or techniques of oral history to supplement colonial documentation. However, their strength has been in “rereading and mounting an internal critique” of colonial official documents. In terms of theory as well they have not been able to advance any sustained and developed theoretical approach. Rather there has been a retreat from theory and overarching argument in the name of avoiding economism. The theoretical underpinning of the group has been “highly eclectic”. He writes: In fact, the Subaltern authors generally use theory as the elite historians used it, as a piquant garnish for footnotes, though in the process Foucault, Gramsci and Derrida have been stirred in with weber, Marx or Pareto. The historical analysis here does not really accord wholeheartedly with French post-structuralism or ‘anti-humanists’. (Bayly, 2000, 117-118) He thinks that the only distinguishing element about their approach from the contemporary writers on similar themes is perhaps the rhetorical device of the term “subaltern”. He writes, “What appears mainly to distinguish the Subalterns from their predecessors and co-workers in the field of popular and rural history in a rhetorical device, the term subaltern itself, and a populist idiom”. (ibid, 118) Subaltern Studies came onto the scene, Bayly points out, in the post-Emergency period riding on the mood of still unextinguished peasant insurgencies stoked by the Naxalite movement and a frustration with the official Left’s accommodation with the authoritarian measures of Indira Gandhi in the name of economic development. However, Bayly points out the global academic climate in which the project was situated as it was also influenced by the intellectual debates within global academia. The move away, writes Bayly, from “social structure to consciousness”, autonomy, and difference was influenced by theories ranging from Levi-Strauss’s exploration of the savage mind and French post-structuralism to E. P. Thompson. Thus, came Amin’s moral community based on folk- religious values or Chatterjee’s peasant commune. Bayly points out that the new right in USA and in Britain were using the same ideological ploy; the only difference in emphasis was that consciousness freed from teleological or economic moorings was located in religious values
107 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
and nationalism for them and not in subaltern struggle. Drawing attention to the rise of the far right in India, Bayly asks how would the memebers of the collective differentiate their position and fight
122 against the Hindu right who could appropriate their emphasis on notions of consciousness, religious symbolism in subaltern protest or self-righteous violence had they been a bit more intellectually sophisticated? How would they account for the recent rise in ethnic and religious conflict in India? Has there been a split in the category of the subaltern or in the peasant or worker community? If so, sustained work is needed to show the class and group formation within the peasantry. There needs to be a reconstruction of elite politics to point out the limits of subaltern autonomy, a theorisation of the state and its relation to prevailing political and economic forces to contextualise the subaltern action and the subaltern as a social actor. Subaltern Studies also needs to address the question of historical change or questions such as why subaltern insurgency happens in a particular time and not at other time, what were the determinants of change, how peasant solidarity developed and how it petered out. The subalternists seem to postulate that there is an unchanging peasantry or unified peasant consciousness defined by struggle with colonialism which seems to reproduce the notion of “oriental peasant mentality” postulated by the contemporary district officials. Compared to others in the group Hardiman and Gyanendra Pandey addresses the question of historical change but Bayly thinks that their concern for subaltern autonomy “deflected them from moving towards a ‘total history’ in which elite politics, institutions and economic and social distinctions among the peasantry play a critical role in limiting and forming subaltern action”(ibid, 121). Contrary to the subaltern scholars’ proposition of peasants’ propensity to violent action, Bayly writes – Even at the height of these spectacular disturbances only a minority of villagers were involved in prolonged violent disturbances. In a paragraph from the much-quoted C.I.D. report on the Kishan Sabha which does not find its way into the analyses in Subaltern Studies, the writer makes it that ‘it is only a foolish landlord who cannot build up a party to support him in his villages’. Again at the height of the Depression and the no-rent movements in 1931 a remarkably high proportion of peasants still paid up. It is not at all clear that reistance, let alone violence, is a defining characteristic of the poor or exploited. This may be an unfortunate fact, but it is not one that historians can ignore. (ibid, 126) He further points out that an analysis of peasant movement would be flawed if it fails to take into account the sectionalism of peasants or workers. He thus reiterates that subaltern groups
123 cannot be viewed as amorphous, homogenous groups and the differentiation within the subalterns should be kept in mind. He writes: Down almost to the very bottom of society every subaltern was an elite to someone lower than him. Close attention has therefore to be paid to the form of appropriation and rural subordination within villages, to relative access to land, and to broader economic conjunctures. Stressing the autonomy of the peasant as the Subaltern authors have done has served a valuable purpose in enriching what was in danger of becoming a somewhat mechanical and abstract historiography. Simply to stress that autonomy, as they are sometimes inclined to do, is not very helpful in any attempt to specify the nature of historical change. In practice the Subaltern historians quite often allude to these issues, but the rhetorical devices of ‘subaltern’ and ‘peasant resistance’ often impede them in more subtle analysis. If, however, the great volume of good work in Subaltern Studies can
108 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
now be taken and reintegrated with other types of history then something interesting might well emerge. (ibid, 126) Thus, we see that Bayly offers constructive suggestions for the project to rethink some of its basis premises. Apart from such questions of historical totality and materiality, which recur in the critiques against Subaltern Studies as would be clear from the discussion that follow, what about the question of the subject that Subalern Studies seeks to recover? O’Hanlon addresses the same question. O’Hanlon and the Question of the Subject In “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies and Histories of Resistance in Colonial South Asia”,
Rosalind O’Hanlon, while giving a general review of the first four volumes of Subaltern Studies critically engages with the theoretical claims underpinning the project by placing it within the wider theoretical concerns expressed in the Western academia after the structuralist, post- structuralist and deconstructive turn which has seriously undermined the post-Enlightenment autonomous rational Western subject’s pretence of giving authoritative knowledge about the non-Western societies and cultures. She praises the project’s attempt at recuperating “the presence”-the suppressed histories and identities of the subaltern groups in colonial South Asia – denied in colonial nationalist or Marxist historiography. However, she thinks that the project’s pre-occupation with the category of the subaltern as a conscious human subject- agent making history on their own leads the subaltern-subject to slip into an essentialist humanism. She thinks that a way out of this theoretical confusion can be found in the post- structuralist and deconstructive critique of the sovereign subject whereby the recovery of the histories of the subaltern groups can be sought without slipping into a
124 “metaphysics of presence”. The confusion that beset some of the contributors and the critics alike over the dichotomous division of the elite and subaltern domains needs a nuanced theorisation of domination operating in society. The project can thus benefit from a reconceptualization of domination and resistance by engagement with Althusser’s rumination over the interaction of the economic, the political and the cultural-ideological or by a critical engagement with Foucault’s notion of how power operates in entangled forms and by taking into account the everyday resistance or micro-politics of the suppressed groups. She writes: Rejecting this we should look for resistance of a different kind: dispersed in fields we do not conventionally associate with the political; residing sometimes in the evasion of norms or the failure to respect ruling standards of conscience and responsibility; sometimes in the furious effort to resolve in ideal or metaphysical terms the contradictions of the subaltern’s existence, without addressing their source; sometimes in what looks only like cultural difference. From this perspective, eve withdrawal from or simple indifference to the legitimating structures of the political, with their demand for recognition of the values and meanings which they incessantly manufacture, can be construed as a form of resistance. (O’Hanlon, 2002, 180) Thus, O’Hanlon projects a future roadmap for Subaltern Studies in which direction, as David Ludden points out, the project was already moving (Ludden 2002, 22). Marxist Critique of the Moral Economy Thesis The “moral economy” perspective of the variant of Scott provided a theoretical optic to the members of the project especially in anlysisng the relation between
109 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the dominat groups and the subalterns in society which was bound by a traditional moral code of reciprocal wellbeing and obedience respectively. The break of this moral code gave the legitimacy to the subalterns to rise up against the dominant groups in a just war. In “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
Moral Economists, Subalterns,
New Social Movements and the (Re-) Emergence of a (Post-) Modernised (Middle) Peasant”,
Tom Brass advances a Marxist critique of the Subaltern Studies project’s theorisation of peasant struggle. He points out that the postmodernist critique of the project of the Marxist categories of class and historical development towards socialism follow the trajectory of analysis starting with Chayanov’s self-sufficient middle peasant, channelized through the theorisations of moral economy thesis variously expressed in the works of Alavi, Wolf and Scott and presently carried forward in the neo-social movements. In such analysis class is replaced by undifferentiated notion of peasantry and Guha’s notion of subaltern as an all- embracing term can be thought of as an example. Brass thinks that the moral economy
125 thesis and the everyday forms of resistance theorised by Wolf or Scott pit the individuated peasant against the state for subsistence needs and effectively deny the mass revolutionary politics of any possibility of radical transformation. Such theorisations, by ruling out the class composition of political movements and socio-economic contradictions of their political programme and by a decoupling of state and class leads to an inappropriate theorisation of peasant politics which, while leading to “political and analytical deprivileging/ demise of class”, accepts re-construction of hegemonic democracy as the political horizon and not socialism. Through a comparative analysis of peasant mobilizations in Latin America and India he seeks to reassert the analytical importance of Marxist categories in understanding peasant politics. A similar critique of the moral econo my thesis is given from the context of food grain riots in Adilabad by K Balagopal and we would return to it later in the chapter. In what follows we would chart the shifting paradigm of writing subaltern history as enunciated by Gyan Prakash and the debate surrounding that. Post-foundational Hisoriography and Debate over Saidian Framework In a move to supplement the initial framework of Subaltern Studies Gyan Prakash came up with the notion of postfoundational history that led to/ renewed the debate between the subalternists and the critics. Let us first discuss Prakash’s notion of post-foundational history and how it seeks to go beyond the initial theoretical frames of Subaltern Studies. In “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: perspectives from Indian Historiography”
Gyan Prakash calls for a post-Orientalist post-foundational historiography of the Third World by combining Marxist, post-structuralist, deconstructionist and postmodernist perspectives. He develops his argument by pointing out the foundational nature of Indian historiography
110 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
whether of colonial, nationalist or Marxist variety. The colonial-orientalist historiographical discourse essentialised India as the spiritual and traditional other of the materialist and rational self of the West thereby justifying the intervention of the West. The nationalist historiography, while opposing the colonial characterisation of India as inert and backward posited India as sovereign and capable of rationality and republicanism. Although there are differences between the nationalist historiography, say for example between that of those who defined India in terms of Hindu culture and the glories of ancient India and that of Nehru who viewed Indian past as secular, both worked, Prakash thinks, within the Orientalist problematic as it posited India as an undifferentiated essentialised entity. Its “subject thus was always India, and the interest of the
126 nation were always at stake” (Prakash 2000, 170). Cultural anthropology and area studies of Europe and America again reproduced the Orientalist image of India governed by unchanging traditions. What about the Marxist and social histories or “post-nationalist foundational histories” as Prakash calls them? Although Marxist social historiography debunked this myth of undivided Indian self as ideological fiction that glossed over the class hierarchies, they used categories which are “fixed and essential”. They placed India within the historical narrative of transition to global modernity. It characterised colonial modernity through the frames of aborted capitalism which has a clear teleology set by post- Enlightenment modernist ideology. Thus, colonial-oriental, nationalist or Marxist historiography, in Prakash’s concepttualisation, was foundational. Prakash seeks to differentiate his notion of post-foundational history from the earlier framework of Subaltern Studies. Prakash thinks that Subaltern Studies marked an important departure by deploying post-structuralist arguments in conceptualising subalternity as effects of power relations. The subaltern perspective “breaks the undivided entity of India into a multiplicity of changing positions which are then treated as the effects of power relations” (Praksah 2000a, 179). The focus was on recovering the history of the subaltern groups whose “identity resides in difference”. Subaltern Studies, thus, moved beyond the colonial or nationalist frameworks and their foundational categories. However, its primary target was to write “histories freed from the will of the colonial and nationalist elites” (ibid, 180). The new post-foundational historiography that Prakash seeks to conceptualise goes beyond that in its emphasis on “epistemological procedures and institutional interests” (ibid, 181) that exclude and suppress different histories of the people in the discursive closures of modernity expressed in state and the ideologies of progress, reason, modernization. The post- foundational historiography draws on the insights of Said, Derrida’s critique of “metaphysics of presence”, the postmodernist notion of de-centring, Foucault’s genealogical approach and other minor discourses and theories of difference that share Parkash’s concern that cultural forms and historical events are contingent, above all, on power relations. They thus help us in re-drawing our attention on the differences and the fragments of the nation- state instead of appropriating them in the career of the state. Instead of searching for a unitary India, they help us to locate the heterogeneity and multiply accented nature of India. He writes, “This post-foundational move, implicit in the recent writings, affiliates the new Third- World historiography with post-structuralism and together they both echo the postmodernist decentring of unitary subject and hegemonic histories” (ibid, 185). However, he differentiates
111 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
127 his position form the postmodernist apolitical celebration of difference and calls for a politics that recognises and seeks to build solidarity with the differences that are suppressed within the West in its drive towards modernity enabling cross-border solidarity. The post- foundational historiography recognises the alterity of the history of the suppressed groups and does not drown it in the din of modernity. Sharing Ashis Nandy’s critique of Enlightenment Reason and Progress in exposing “the mythic character of colonial and postcolonial fables of modernity”, Prakash talks about the oppositional post-foundational historiographical agenda that can retrieve and emancipate the “mythographies”, the different and hidden histories and identities of colonialism’s victims. Prakash’s article generated a heated argument with Rosalind O’ Hanlon and David Washbrook. In their article “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism and Politics in the Third World”,
Hanlon and Washbrook criticise Prakash’s endorsement of post-structuralist and postmodernist perspectives in understanding colonial history of India as they fail to provide an adequate methodology and an emancipatory politics. They hold that since Derrida, on whose work Prakash bases his theory of post-foundational history, reveals only the non- objective and arbitrary nature of categories, his work does not help us in the “basic, inescapably active, and interventionist task of historical interpretation” (O’Hanlon and Washbrook 2000, 194) which needs some categories, invented and not given, as basic tools for that interpretive acts. This makes “starkly inappropriate” Prakash’s “highly purposive agenda of historical reconstruction and political engagement” (ibid, 195). Prakash uncritically holds that Marxists and social historians operate with “reified and ahistorical categories” such as class, individual and structure which are, contrary to his view, usually contextualised in their making and unmaking, emergence and decline (ibid, 195). They take issue with Prakash’s point that analysing Indian history in terms of capitalist development makes the Marxists complicit in the hegemony so inscribed and charges that the disparagement of Marxist analysis of capitalism as a system of political economy renders it as “a potentially disposable fiction” (ibid, 196). They point out that historians and scholars whose work Prakash projects as examples of post-foundational history such as Bernard Cohn, Nicholas Dirk, Ashis Nandy they themselves narrate India in essentialist terms. O’ Hanlon and Washbrook also point out the problems of representation and the inadequacy of political praxis inherent in Prakash’s conceptualisation of post-foundational history. The postmodernist critique of the systemic analysis of the struggles of the oppressed groups as totalising leaves the burden of representation on those groups. The self- representation of the oppressed groups presupposes that there is a unitary subject who speaks
128 authentically. This however is denied by postmodernism. Prakash tries to overcome this problem by proposing a rainbow coalition of different marginal groups- understood in terms of gender, language, race, class etc.- who can speak to and for others and for themselves. However, implicit in such a position is the belief that the oppressed groups share a common platform. However, they do not always share the same agenda and are at times fiercely antagonistic which leads to the problem of “privileged self-representation” of one group or the
112 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
other. While it is important that the oppressed groups would self-represent themselves based on their experience and struggle, it is not “different from the nativist view, inherent here, that they have some kind of inherently superior validity” (ibid, 200). They also object to the viability of an emancipatory political project that is based on Foucault’s notion of dispersal of power which refuse to take the question of capitalist oppression. They write, “The principal casualty of inadequacy must be politics, for what kind of resistance can be raised to capitalism’s systematic coercion if that resistance apparently denies their existence?”(O’Hanlon and Washbrook 2000, 201). Such a view of politics leads us to Nietzschean act of pure autonomous will. The conceptualisation of subalternity and subject positions as effects of power relations that “reside in difference” fails to give us any conception of experience and political agency borne out of that experience as “it is not clear how a dispersed effect of power relations can at the same time be an agent whose experience and reflection form the basis of a striving for change” (ibid, 202). They historicise the rise of postmodernism in the Western, particularly American history and anthropology departments by referring to Jameson’s critique of postmodernism as the logic of late capitalism that inhibits any critique of capitalist oppressions. They refer to the work of Clifford and his attempt to overcome the problem of representation of other cultures by highlighting the role Clifford assigned to the indigenous ethnographer. One implication of such understanding has been that postcolonial cultures are now viewed as free to self- represent themselves by their indigenous intellectuals. However, only privileged indigenous scholars supported by the intellectual and institutional practices have the privilege of self-representing themselves. Politics understood in terms of cultural relativity thus leads to obscuring the questions of capitalist coercion and celebration of cultural difference and its self-representation through native scholars- But the solution it offers –methodological individualism-the depoliticizing insulation of social from material domains, a view of social relations that is in practice extremely voluntaristic, the refusal of any kind of engaged politics – do not seem to us radical, subversive or emancipatory. They are on
129 the contrary conservative and implicitly authoritarian as they were indeed when recommended more overtly in the heyday of Britain’s own imperial power. (ibid, 215-16) They hold that Prakash’s position is “shot through inconsistencies” because Said, on whose work Prakash develops his argument, is also marked with inconsistencies. Said employed many of the Foucauldian notions; however, he did not reject the conventional humanist techniques of representation and universalist notions of freedom. Thus, they think, Prakash tries to “ride two horses at once”. In “Orientalism Revisited: Saidian Framework in the Writing of Modern South Asian History” Sumit Sarkar criticises the disabling influence of Saidian framework in writing modern South Asian history. The Saidian framework has led to a critique of post- Enlightenment rationalist power knowledge in the form of colonial discourse analysis which hypothesises the domination of colonial discourse of modern secular and rationalist ideology over the colonised societies and cultures. Such a framework, thinks Sarkar, led Chatterjee to characterise Indian nationalism as a “derivative discourse” thereby robbing the colonised of any agency. Sarkar points out the implications of such analysis for studying colonial society: Assumptions of total domination foreclose investigation of elements of resistance or partial autonomy and rob subordinate groups of agency…. Such assumptions also tend to grossly simplify and homogenise power relations. In the Saidian framework, for example, the focus remains relentlessly on colonial domination alone. The indigenous and pre-colonial roots of
113 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
many forms of caste, gender or class domination are generally ignored for the dominant assumption is of a kind of total rupture or tabula rasa with colonialism completely remoulding such indigenous structures, making them dependent or derivative. (Sarkar, 2000, 242) The Saidian framework led to a homogenised understanding of colonial discourse as well as the pre-colonial society. That there have been counter-Enlightenment traditions emerging from Europe itself is not mentioned. Whether post-Enlightenment thought means the progressive potentials of critical reason as enunciated by Habermas or it means the instrumental reason is not clearly mentioned. Sometimes it is reduced to what common- sensically known as “rational” or “logical” the limitation of which in Europe paradoxically smacks of Eurocentricism. That some sections of the colonised society such as the lower castes and the women might use the colonial state and its legal-juridical instruments to fight against injustices borne out of local traditions are thus discounted in the analysis. Movements by, or on behalf of, women and lower castes clearly raise severe problems for the application of Saidian framework to the history of colonial India, for very often these groups
130 did try to utilize Western ideologies and colonial law, justice and administrative as major resources. If reforms like banning of sati, the legalization of widow-remarriage, measures brought about primarily through pressures from some Indians and usually after considerable official hesitation, are to be condemned as instances of surrender to Western values we are back to the crudest and mot obscurantist forms of nationalism. (ibid, 247) The critique of Western rationality a la Said resulted in romanticised notions of undifferentiated pre-colonial and pre-modern society and culture which can be posed as resistant to or outside of colonial rationality. Such argument leads to neo-traditionalist notions of seamless and unchanging cultural traditions un-riven by hierarchies of class, caste or gender. Thus, Sarkar referring to Chatterjee’s notion of “peasant-communal” intellectual writes that “the differences between the ‘traditional intelligentsia’ overwhelmingly Brahman or at least upper-caste and male and peasant communal-consciousness are apparently of no importance whatsoever: caste or gender divides do not seem to matter” (ibid, 246). The celebration of such peasant communal sentiment located in religion and outside the modern state sponsored secularism led Gautam Bhadra to characterise the Ramjanmabhoomi movement as a genuine subaltern upsurge against secularist ethos of the state. Thus, the huge monetary investment, media manipulation and the upper caste leadership of the RSS-VHP led movement are not taken into account at all. In his response published as “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Can the Subaltern Ride? A Reply to O’Hanlon and Washbrook”,
Gyan Prakash criticises O’Hanlon and Washbrook for providing a “stark dichotomy” of either/ or logic which disavows any ambiguity or what he calls “productive tension that the combination of Marxist and deconstructive approaches generate” (Prakash, 2000b, 220). He writes: They are uncomfortable with those recent writings that employ Marxist categories to analyse patterns of inequalities and exploitation while also using deconstructive approaches to contend that Marxism is part of the history that institutionalised capitalist dominance- approaches which argue that although Marxism can rightfully claim that it historicises the
114 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
emergence of capitalism as a world force it cannot disavow its history as a nineteenth- century European discourse that universalised the mode-of- production narrative. (ibid, 220) Thus, by posing “historical writing and deconstructive criticism as opposite” they “overlook the possibility of exceeding the limits that history imposes on criticism” (ibid, 221). In their desire for mastery over historical analysis they repudiate “the ambivalence”/ “the difficult but enabling strategy” that using the deconstructive frameworks generates. Referring to Bhaba’s
131 notion of ambivalence that generated a rupture in the colonial discourse that was based on simultaneous domestication and recognition of difference in the mimic men whereby mimicry led to mockery, Prakash points out that O’Hanlon and Washbrook reject the equivocality implicit in a post-foundational approach to history in preference for a “discourse that longs for mastery and has the ability to survey the field from a panoptic position and speak in singular voice” (ibid, 222). He also charges that O’Hanlon and Washbrook’s “grossly misread and summarily dismissed” the insights that could be gained from Derrida, Foucault, James Clifford and others. For example, Derrida is dismissed as only repeatedly pointing out the subjective nature of knowledge. But Prakash point out that Derrida discloses that “origins operate by erasing the signs of their own production” to “undo foundations, to open up the structure of difference for re-articulation”. He denies O’Hanlon and Washbrook’s charge that the refusal to thematise Indian history in terms of the development of capitalism means that capitalism is a disposable fiction. He points out that “making capitalism the foundational theme amounts to homogenizing the histories that remain heterogeneous within it” (ibid, 228). His position does not deny the importance of class, but points out that “class is inevitably articulated with other determinations, power exists in a form of relationality in which the dominance of one is never complete” (ibid, 228). He also objects to O’Hanlon and Washbrook’s proposition that Marxist historians overcome Eurocentricism by showing the indigenous forms of capitalism. He points out that the indigenous forms of capitalism are viewed as variants of the universal model of European capitalism. He writes: My critics claim that capitalism, rather than homogenising difference necessarily, is perfectly capable of utilising and generating heterogeneity. But the notion that capitalism is a founding source responsible for originating and encompassing difference amounts to appropriating heterogeneity as a self-consolidating difference, that is, refracting ‘what might have been the absolutely Other into a domesticated Other. … When capitalism is made to stand for History -so that the heterogeneity of the histories of the colonised subaltern with those of metropolitan proletariat is effaced- absolute otherness is appropriated into self-consolidating difference. (ibid, 231) As opposed to totalising analysis of foundational historiography, the post- foundational historiography that he proposes seeks to retrieve the suppressed heterogeneous histories and identity of the people- This means that history becomes possible in the structure of marginalised others: Western discourses may have constituted and transformed colonial and postcolonial subjects, but they cannot determine the agency that these
132 subjects find in the contradictions and equivocality set in motion in discursive fields. The assertion of this heterogeneity, the insistence that the histories of the metropolitan proletariat and the colonised worker are discrepant, even if both are exploited by capitalism, therefore, is to insist on difference as the condition of history’s possibility, and to rearticulate it differently
115 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
than White mythology. It neither implies the dismissal of foundations as disposable fictions, nor does it recommend nihilistic destruction. (ibid, 236) Prakash’s critique of the foundationalist history and his advocacy for post-foundational post- orientalist history of the third world was a move to think of subaltern history beyond the intial framework of Subaltern Studies. It is in line with the advocacy of the fragment and margin that are drowned in the statist ideology that Guha (1996) talks about in “The Small Voice of History” and has its resonance in Chakrabarty’s (2000b) arguments in Provincializing Europe and Pandey’s (1997) defence of the fragmentary narratives for a counter-hegemonic historiography. We would return to these issues in Chakrabarty and Pandey’s response to the critics of Subaltern Studies towards the end of this chapter. Let us first continue with the critical arguments that were advanced against Subaltern Studies. Change of track: The Disapperance of the Subaltern from Subaltern Studies Sumit Sarkar, a turncoat subalternist, gave a detailed analysis of the changing paradigm of Subaltern Studies. He alleged that the project which came into being in the name of the subaltern, forgot the subaltern in the later phase of the project. Sarkar points out that the shift in Subaltern Studies came with the change of guard when Ranajit Guha retired as editor; and under Partha Chatterjee and others the project moved from the focus on subaltern classes to the critique of Western rationality and its modernizing project under colonialism and the postcolonial nation state. This shift has been succinctly captured by Sarkar: A quick count indicates that all fourteen essays in Subaltern Studies I and II had been about under priviledged groups in Indian society-peasants, tribals and in one instance workers. The corresponding figure for volume VII and VII is, at most four out of twelve. Guha’s preface and introductory essay in the first volume had been full of references to ‘subaltern classes’, evocations of Gramsci, and the use of much Marxian terminology. Today, the dominant thrust within the project- or at least the one that gets most attention-is focused on critiques of Western power-knowledge, with non-Western community consciousness as its valorized alternative. (Sarkar 2013:400). Sarkar thinks that change within a project which is decade long is “understandable and even welcome”. However, there should have been an “internal analysis of the shifting meaning of
133 the core term ‘subaltern’ and why it has been thought necessary to retain it despite a very different discursive context” ibid, 400). Sarkar thinks that this shift within Subaltern Studies has been in tandem with the shift in the global academic and political arena. He writes, “What makes the shifts within Subaltern Studies worthy of close attention are their association with changes in academic (and political) moods that have had a virtually global range” (ibid, 400- 01). Subaltern Studies emerged in the early 1980s, as Sarkar points out, “in a dissident- Left milieu, where sharp criticism of orthodox Marxist practice and theory was still combined with the retention of a broad socialist and Marxian horizon” (ibid, 401) There were, thinks Sarkar, “obvious affinities with the radical-populist moods of the 1960s and 1970s, and specifically with efforts to write ‘histories from below’” (ibid, 401). The “common ground” lay in “the combination of enthusiastic response to popular, usually peasant, rebellions with growing disillusionment with organised Left parties, received versions of orthodox Marxist ideology, and the bureaucratic state structures of ‘actually existing socialism’” (ibid, 401). The flickers of Maoist struggle in the villages and the hope aroused by post-Emergency electoral defeat of Indira Gandhi provided the impetus. Methodologically the works of the British Marxian social historians specifically Thompson, Hill and Hobsbawm were a clear influence. Thompson’s
116 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
influence, who visited India in 1976-7 and addressed a session of the Indian History Congress was more pronounced than others. Sarkar writes: Ranajit Guha seems to have often used ‘subaltern’ somewhat in the way Thompson deployed the term ‘plebeian’ in his writings in eighteenth century England. In the largely pre-capitalist conditions of colonial India, class formation was likely to have remained inchoate. ‘Subaltern’ would be of help in avoiding the pitfalls of economic reductionism, while at the same time retaining a necessary emphasis on domination and exploitation. (ibid, 401) As Thompsonsian radical social history was not that respectable in the West, the early Subaltern Studies volumes and
0: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India
remained largely ignored in the West. However, the popularity of “transformed Subaltern Studies” in the West is due to its favourable reception from the post-modernist counter- establishment academic circle (ibid, 402). Sarkar points out the reason behind the transformation of Subaltern Studies and its favourable reception in the West. He points out its “ability to move with the times” as with “the withering of hopes of radical transformation through popular initiative” the conceptions of “seamless, all-pervasive, virtually irresistible
134 power-knowledge have tended to displace the evocation of moments of resistance central to histories from bellow of the 1960s and 1970s” (ibid, 402). For this “transformed Subaltern Studies” domination is- … conceptualized overwhelmingly in cultural discursive terms, as the power – knowledge of the post- Enlightenment West. If at all seen as embodied concretely in institutions, it tends to get identified uniquely with the modern bureaucratic nation- state: further search for specific socio-economic interconnections is felt to be unnecessarily economic redolent of traces of a now finally defeated Marxism, and hence disreputable. ‘Enlightenment rationalism’ thus becomes the central polemical target, and Mrxism stands condemned as one more variety of Eurocentrism. Radical, Left-wing social history, in other words, has been collapsed into cultural studies and critiques of colonial discourse, and we have moved from Thompson to Focault and, even more, Said. (ibid, 402). Thus, when subordination is viewed as merely cultural and discursive, insubordination can only be cultural and cultural difference came to be celebrated as the new autonomous zone. Community consciousness is thus pitted against western rationality, the celebration of the fragments as opposed to the nation–state, the arbiter of enlightenment rationality. Thus, there is the move to re-write history from the grounds of difference. Dipesh Chakrabarty in his essay “Marx after Marxism: Suabletrn Histories and the Question of Difference” points out that the shift from attempts at writing better Marxist histories to critique of universalism and/ Eurocentrism inherent in Marxism and liberal thought has been occasioned by the interest Spivak and Said took in the project. However, differing from Chakrabarty Sarkar thinks that the shift within the project can not merely be explained by referring to changed circumstances or outside intellectual influence but can be located in the conceptual ambiguities and implicit tensions in the project from the very beginning. Sarkar points out the achievements of early Subaltern Studies in terms of “widening horizons and concrete historical research”. As opposed to the dominant historiographical tradition that viewed anti-colonial movement as a combination of
117 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
economic pressure and elite mobilisations, Subaltern Studies sought to “explore the neglected dimension of popular or subaltern autonomy in action, consciousness and culture” (403). However, Subaltern Studies was “too dismissive about predecessors and contemporaries” working on the subaltern politics and the “claims of setting up a new ‘paradigm’ were certainly overflamboyant” (ibid, 403) However, Sarkar thinks that a “new theoretical- or at least polemical- clarity was added
135 to the ongoing efforts at exploring histories from below”. After the “initial excitement” worn away, the works of the collective seemed to be repetitive adding empirical details to the initial hypothesis of subaltern autonomy. The drive towards theoretical alternative was present from the very beginning as evidenced from Guha’s attempt to locate the elementary aspects of peasant insurgent consciousness through deployment of Levi-Straussian structuralism. The crucial shift in the project came with Partha Chatterjee’s notion of “peasant communal consciousness” or the move from “subaltern” through “peasant” towards “community”. Chatterjee’s two essays in Suabletn Studies vol I and II, expanded the notion of “autonomy” “into a categorical disjunction between two “domains” of politics and “power”- elite and subaltern” (ibid, 404). However, while Guha restricted his analysis to peasant insurgency in colonial India, Chatterjee took a leap towards generalising his hypothesis claiming that peasant community follows the same characteristics everywhere. Thus, “a tendency emerged towards essentialising the categories of ‘subaltern’ and ‘autonomy’ in the sense of assigning to them more or less absolute fixed, decotextualised meanings and qualities”(ibid, 405). Although the postmodern admirers of Subaltern Studies blame these essentialising tendencies to residues of Marxism, Sarkar writes, “
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 100%
Reifying tendencies can be actually strengthened by the associated detachment from socio- economic contexts and determinants out of
a mortal fear of economic reductionism”. (ibid, 405) Sarkar thinks that this essentialising tendency continued pace the intervention of Gayatri Spivak. This essentialising move took Subalternn Studies further away from the Marxian world of Thompson, who while looking for alternative collectivities of mobilisations never completely gave up on class or whose rejection of the base-superstructure model did not collapse into culturalism. By referring to Gramsci’s six- point thesis on subaltern history Sarkar further points out that in Gramsci social groups were not detached from the “sphere of economic production” or did not constitute a distinct autonomous domain but were mutually constituted. Sarkar points out that Chatterjee’s terminology of distinct domains represented a crucial move away because it tended to make them absolute and homogenous within their separate domains making it difficult for an immanent critique of structures as has been theorised by the Marxian dialectical approaches. Sarkar writes: Domination construed as irresistible could render autonomy illusory. Alternatively, the latter had to be located in pre-colonial or pre-modern spaces untouched by power, or sought for in fleeting, fragmentary moments alone. Late Subaltern Studies in practice has oscillated around precisely these three positions, of ‘derivative discourse’, indigenous ‘community’, and ‘fragments’. (ibid, 407)
118 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
136 Sarkar thinks that such a bifurcation of worlds of domination and autonomy could be found in many intellectual trends in 1960s and 1970s- such as in the “acculturation thesis” of modern French popular culture, Foucult’s power-knowledge or Said’s critique of Orientaism. Said’s thesis of post-Enlightenment power-knowledge was grafted onto colonised intelligentsia robbing them off any agency and projecting them as victim of “derivative discourse”. Beyond this was the domain of community consciousness associated with peasantry and embodied in the figure of Gandhi. Such bifurcation of domains also made them homogenous stripping them of all complexities and internal hierarchies: Colonial cultural domination, stripped of all complexities and variations, faces an indigenous domains eroded of internal tensions and conflicts. The possibility of pre-colonial forms of domination, however modified, persisting through colonialism, helping to mediate colonial authority in vital ways, may be even functioning autonomously at times-for all of which there is ample evidence- is simply ignored. The differences between the ‘traditional intelligentsia’, overwhelmingly upper- caste (or elite Muslim) and male, and bound up with structures of landlord and bureaucratic domination, and peasant-communal consciousness, are apparently of no importance whatsoever; caste, class and gender divides have ceased to matter. (ibid, 408) Sarkar points out the paradoxical implications of such a shift of binaries from elite/subaltern to colonial/ indigenous or Western/ Third world cultural nationalism: A project that had started with a trenchant attack on elite nationalist historiography had now chosen as its hero the principal iconic figure of official Indian nationalism, and its most influential text after Elementary aspects was built entirely around the (partial) study of just three indisputably elite figures, Bankimchandra, Gandhi, and Nehru. (ibid, 408) Sarkar thinks that this move perhaps was facilitated by “an unnoticed drift” even in Guha’s theorisation in the preface of Subaltern Studies where he talks about “the historic failure of the nation to come to its own”. With the publication of Selected Subaltern Studies in 1987 in US with a foreword by Said and an editorial note by Spivak, Subaltern Studies attained an international fame. Using the Saidian framework the initial critique of nationalism gave way to critiquing the Indian nation- state as the expression of the original Western Enlightenment project imposed through colonialism. Sarkar writes: The mark of late Subaltern Studies therefore became not a succession of phases but a counterposing of reified notions of ‘community’ or ‘fragment’,
137 alternatively or sometimes in unison against this highly generalised category of the modern nation-state as the embodiment of Western cultural domination. The original separation of the domains of power and autonomy culminates here in an oscillation between the ‘rhetorical absolutism’ of structure and the ‘fragmented fetishism’ of the subject-to apply to it the perceptive comments of Perry Anderson, a decade ago, about the consequences of uncritically applying the linguistic model to historiography. (ibid, 409) Sarkar talks about the missed chance of developing an alternative methodological approach of “micro history” as was evidenced in the essay Chandra’s Death by Guha or Sarkar’s own essay Kalki Avatar or Gyanendra Pandey’s works on local memory by exploring small town gentry chronicle or diary of a weaver. The notions of community as evidenced in such essays is marked by internal hierarchy and power dynamics. Chatterjee’s “The Nation and Its Fragments” introduced another binary, “material”/ “spiritual” or “world” and “home”. Sarkar thinks that perhaps to answer the critique that Chatterjee’s earlier theis of “derivative dscourse” robbed the colonised subject of any agency, he talks about their role creating an autonomous world of
119 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
literature, art, educations etc. While in his theorisation there is a surrender of colonised subject to the extern material world, in the inner domain of culture they waged the struggle of autonomy. However, Chatterjee is completely silent about the struggles of the women and the subordinate castes for autonomy. Chatterjee’s valorisation of the inner domain of culture does not take into consideration the patriarchal and caste privileges. And such a notion of autonomy of cultural domain untainted by outside influences smack of Orientalist misconceptions. Sarkar writes, “And yet the material/spiritual, West/East divide is of course almost classically Orientalist, much loved in particular by the most conservative elements in Indian society in both colonial and post- colonial times”(ibid, 412). Sarkar thinks that such moves in Subaltern Studies takes it closure to the positions of neo-traditionalist anti- modernism advocated most powerfully by Ashis Nandy. However, such valorisations of tradition and community and the condemnation of secularism and modernity makes many of the hypothesis of Subaltern Studies dangerously close to the Hindu Right’s condemnation of secularism, liberal nation-state. Sarkar points out the disabling effect of late Subaltern Studies for political mobilisations in India where depoliticisation has not yet occurred and where large number of people are still engaged in political battles ranging from class, caste, feminist or civil rights issues. Pointing out the disarming effect on such struggles Sarkar writes:
138 Any meaningful understanding of or identification with such developments is undercut by two kinds of emphasis quite central to late Subaltern Studies. Culturalism rejects the importance of class and class struggle, while notions of civil, democratic, feminist and liberal individual rights – many of them indubitably derived from certain Enlightenment traditions – get delegitimised by a repudiation of the Enlightenment as a bloc. (ibid, 421) Referring to the changes in Indian economic policy brought by globalising processes and the rise of Hindutva forces, Sarkar thinks that valorisation of cultural difference might unwittingly fall prey to the regressive forces: The political inclinations of the subaltern scholars and the bulk of their readership is certainly very different, but some of their work nowadays seems to be unwittingly feeding into softer versions of not entirely dissimilar moods. Words like ‘secular’, ‘rational’, ‘progressive’ have become terms of ridicule, and if ‘resistance’ (of whatever undifferentiated kind) can still be valorised, movements seeking transformation get suspected of teleology. The decisive shift in critical registers from capitalist and colonial exploitation to Enlightenment rationality, from multinational to Macaulay, has opened the way for a vague nostalgia that identifies the authentic with the indigenous, and locates both in the past of an ever-receding community , or a present that can consist of fragments alone. Through an enshrinement of sentimentality, a subcontinent with its manifold concrete contradictions and problems become a kind of dream of childhood, of a grihalakshmi presiding over a home happy and beautiful, by some alchemy, in the midst of its patriarchy. (ibid, 421-22) He further points out the eclipsing of the forces of neoliberalisation by refering to Chatterjee’s critique of bureaucratic rationalism of Nehruvian planning and yet complete silence on the “other rationality of the ‘free’ market’” (ibid, 422) that have dismantled the bureaucratic rationality of Nehruvian planning in his book Nation and Its Fragments published in 1993. Such silences are glaring for a project that seeks to offer oppositional politics. Sarkar’s forceful critique of Subaltern Studies questions some of its basic hypothesis and its disabling political effect. Such critique of the culturalist frame of Subaltern Studies is carried on by other critics. The Culturalist Frame: Irrelevance of Subalternist Paradigm for Social Justice In “Relevance (or
120 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Irrelevance) of Subaltern Studies”, Vinay Bahl seeks to evaluate “the relevance of subaltern studies to an understanding of working class history and the future of working class emancipation in a world which is dominated by global capitalist economy”(Bahl 2002, 358). He thinks that the “Subaltern Studies group has deviated from the very course which they had set” (ibid, 358). He thinks that the aim of Subaltern Studies
139 was to remove the “elitist bias” from Indian history- to “remove the top-down approach” and “replace it with the study of the culture of the people”. However, they are partly successful in their attempt through their study of the “form of value-oriented culture of people and psychoanalysis (as a substitute for social analysis) which is generally based on textual analysis” (ibid, 359). He praises the fact that the emphasis on textual analysis has generated an “unprecedented hunt” for regional texts and an interest in varied discourses. What their analysis lack, however, is an engagement with material culture of the people, such as clothes, food, furniture, living and working conditions, housing, technology and financial system and “failed to show how material culture is produced by human agency in the process of social interaction” (ibid, 359). Thus, it fails to offer any viable emancipatory politics for the masses. The concern of Subaltern Studies with the subaltern meant that it was committed to social justice. However, the move in Subaltern Studies to critique the western cultural domination from the vantage point of difference constricted the emergence of an emancipatory politics. Through his reading of Dipesh Chakrabarty’s study of jute workers of Calcutta in which he showed how the jute workers failed to overcome the primordial cultural ties and hierarchies to emerge as a class and his call for provincializing Europe through highlighting the cultural specificity of India, Bahl thinks that Chakrabarty’s analysis, as that of Subaltern Studies, falls in the cultural trap. It feeds into the classic orientalist tropes and developmental theories’ views that Third World traditional societies represent a cultural backwardness compared to modern West. Thus, in his effort to avoid metanarrative Chakrabarty falls in the cultural trap ignoring the material concerns of social existence. Bahl writes: Although subaltern studies rejects metanarratives, their own conditions and emergence remain primarily within the metanarrative. Today the subaltern field heavily depends upon post-modernist ideas (which emerged in the West) and methods for textual analysis while at the same time claiming to ‘provincialise Europe and its history’. (ibid, 360-61) Bahl furher writes that such cultural analysis and promotion of difference along caste, gender and religious lines helps the ruling classes who exploit such fissures within the working class to continue their exploitation without facing protests. Refering to his own analysis of the TISCO workers’ movement at Jamshedpur, Bahl shows how the workers, despite divisions of caste, region, religion and language, could come together transcending such divisions for two long decades. In capitalist democracies the democratic structure is kept alive by the struggle of the workers who fight for better living conditions and improved wages. The capitalist system gives in to the pressure up to a point beyond which it tries to obviate the protests
140 through the discourses of various social groups seeking individualist solutions to their problems instead of directing their anger against them. Thus, the promotion of difference in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality etc. ‘legitimises’ the efforts of the capitalist world. He finds the promotion of the idea of difference by Subaltern Studies as a problem because “in the world outside the academy, differences show in murderous ethnic
121 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
conflict and continued inequalities among and within societies, classes and gender” (ibid, 386). Thus, Bahl thinks that we need to be careful about reinventing “differences” among people along race, nationality and gender lines and while “undermining their commonalities based on material conditions” (ibid, 386). He further points out that identities are not fixed and “changing identities do assume specific concrete patterns against particular sets of historical and social circumstances” (ibid, 387). And therefore one needs to understand the “‘differences’ within different groups” (ibid, 387). Again differences has to be understood in terms of the overall context which is conditioned by changes in historical and productive forces which in turn has stratified impact on the consciousness of the individuals which leads each segregated movement to respond to other similar movements from its own perspective. Referring to the three movemnts- Naxalite, Dalit and Feminist which criticize each other for neglecting their respective causes while overall context remains the same Bahl writes, “The net result is diversity proves more a fetter than a potential transformer”. (ibid, 389) Bahl thus questions the very premise of politics of Subaltern Studies as understood through celebration of difference: Therefore, we also need to ask what is the politics of subatern studies? What are they trying to achieve by writing the history of differences? This question is pertinent because subaltern studies came into being when all types of people’s movements in India were being repressed. Subaltern studies seemed at that time to be the one speaking for the oppressed. Today, that voice has become the voice of ‘differences’ only, which is leaving no hope for a better future for the oppressed. Poor people are told that to be different (inequality, ‘indigenous’ culture) is natural and that they should live with it and celebrate it and should have no discussion on how to change it. (ibid, 389-90) Subaltern Studies thus fails to give us a proper analysis of the intricacies of integration of the world economy on a capitalist system putting huge pressures on regions and states to adjust to transnational capital infringing on its sovereignty and autonomy. Globalization often has been found to generate differences coming in creative contact with local circumstances and Subaltern Studies seem to celebrate such difference which are generated and reinforced by world economic forces. Thus, Bahl thinks the current theoretical conceptions of Subaltern
141 Studies “amount to little more than a hallucination whenever it is brought face to face with the concrete exigencies of society structured in dominance”. Bahl thinks that the “original tension in subaltern studies did not go away” and instead of Chakrabarty’s call for keeping the idea of “difference” alive as a philosophical question, Bahl thinks that the project should be restored to its original agenda of emancipatory politics. Moral Economy Revisited: The Materialist Dimension of Subaltern Uprising In “Drought and TADA in Adilabad”, K. Balagopal questions the moral economy thesis which guided the analytical frame of some of the members of Subaltern Studies collective, namely Hardiman and Ramachandra Guha. By analysing the food riots in Adilabad in October 1988 in which the Gonds, Kolams and Lambadas tribes attacked the traders and money-lenders, Balagopa points out the inadequacy of moral economy thesis which holds that the dominant groups such as landlords, traders or moneylenders are bound by a moral obligation to the subaltern peasants and the breech of which by the dominant groups leads the dominated groups to legitimate protest. Balagopal thinks that such a thesis actually works as a hegemonic ideology or a legitimising morality that reproduces the relation of domination. Any relationship that is based on domination is governed by the moral standard or a social conscience that “define a perimeter
122 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
beyond which the behaviour of the oppressors becomes ‘outrageous’ and the rebellion of the oppressed become socially legitimate” (Balagopal 2002, 352) The values and ideas generated by the material life of the masses is coloured by the ruling class ideology and what appears as moral is itself an aspect of domination. The moral standard is the outcome of the struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed and to take the struggle further and to make their situation better what is needed is political leadership provided by advanced elements from the oppressed groups or by the dissident elements form the oppressors. Balagopal writes: That leadership can popularise, spread, and thereby legitimise the notion of struggle against oppression itself and not just against the breach of norms that are sanctioned by the oppressors. The annulment of the perimeter of moral legitimacy, and the definition of a new dividing line that has a lower level of tolerance of injustice usually takes place hand in hand with the coming together in political solidarity of diverse individuals of the oppressed group. (ibid, 353) Contrary to the notion of subalternists, Balagopal calls such a perspectival change as advancement in consciousness as it can see evil in domination itself. He points out that perhaps food riots took place because of mere hunger than Hardiman would have us believe.
142 The difficulty in understanding popular consciousness, Balagopal thinks, is that they express their protests in socially acceptable idioms. If a peasant beat up a landlord he may have hundred reasons, but he would talk about molestation of his wife as it would arouse social opprobrium. In the case of Adilabad where there was “encounter” killing every weak, the revolting peasant would express their revolt in a morally acceptable norm. However, underneath such legitimate dimension of popular consciousness, there is also the illegitimate dimension which springs from their material domination and insecurities that go beyond the accepted moral code and is distinctly seditious. This illegitimate aspect of peasant consciousness is hardly captured in the commissioner’s and collector’s reports on riots on which often the Subaltern Studies’ readings are based. In this article Balagopal raises questions about the methodology of Subaltern Studies and its neglect of the material causes for peasant uprisings. After a detailed discussion of the points of the later critics against Subaltern Studies, especially their objections to the shift in the project towards a more culturalist understanding of subalternity and politics, let us discuss what the subalterists have to say against such critiques. In what follows we would discuss the clarificatory points of subalternists and the points they raised and the lacunas they located in the stands of the critics. We would conclude by summarising the main points of the critics and responses of the subalternists which will clear a way for the contemporary critiques of the project. Provincializing Enlightement Rationalism and Third World Historiography: Chakrabarty’s Response to the Critiques In “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies” (2000
a) Dipesh Chakrabarty answers the recent criticism against Subaltern Studies advanced by Sumit Srkar, Tom Brass and K Balagopal who hold that it has gone reactionary by moving away from the critiques of capitalism and concern for social justice and socialism of earlier
123 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
volumes to a post-structuralist, deconstructionist and post-modernist critiques of Enlightenment rationalism which, according to the critics, if not directly helping, is completely inadequate to advance a critique of the rise of Hindutva because of its political manoeuvring of similar idioms. Chakrabarty thinks that such critiques of postmodernism is familiar in the West where critics like Christopher Norris in works such as The Truth of Postmodernism criticises postmodernism as politically irresponsible, if not
143 downright dangerous. Chakrabarty takes this “opportunity to discuss why maintaining a critical relationship to Enlightenment rationalism may be of value in developing a third-world historiography”. (Chakrabarty 2000a, 258) He takes the criticism of Sarkar as a point of departure to develop his counter-argument. He clarifies his position by stating that “maintaining a critical position with respect to the legacies of European Enlightenment does not entail a wholesale rejection of the tradition of rational argumentation”. (ibid, 259) He adds that his analysis is “grounded in that tradition while being critical of it”. He advances a three- fold argument- first, a form of hyper- rationalism in the analysis of Indian Marxists has made them incapable of engaging with religion, “something without which India cannot be imagined” (ibid, 259); second, the colonial modernity makes us aware of “the unreasonable origins of reason” (quoted by Chakrabarty ibid, 259); and third, he points out the importance of post-sructuralist and deconstructionist philosophies in developing frameworks for studying subaltern histories under conditions of colonial modernities. Chakrabarty points out that scientific modernity in colonial period was introduced as an antidote to religion, specifically Hinduism which was viewed by the missionaries and the administrators as bundle of superstition and magic. The introduction of scientific spirit and secular education would, it was hoped, dispel the superstitious beliefs of the natives thereby making the conversion to Western knowledge and Christianity, which was projected as a rational faith, easier. Chakrabarty thinks that such scientific-rational ideology has influenced heavily the modern academic knowledge formation in India making the scholars insensitive to and even antipathic to anything that smacks of religious. Such intellectual bankruptcy and paralysis of imagination has marked the reductive understanding of the Indian Marxists of religious practices. Chakrabarty thinks that the analytical frameworks derived from colonial modernity and Enlightenment over-emphasis on reason has created a “peculiar split in our self-recognition or self-representation” (ibid, 261). He refers to the phenomenon of extended family and kinship that mould us as subjects which cannot be properly understood through the notions of autonomous individual and individual rights. He particularly refers to the notion of kinship of friendship seen in European derived public spaces and institutions like schools or universities or offices. Again, religion “shapes and structures our perception, cognition and affect” (ibid, 262) expressed in various forms of sociability practiced as rituals which cannot be accessed by a framework which views it as irrational in rational/irrational dichotomy. He thinks “The problem is rather that we do not have analytical categories in academic discourse that do justice to the real, everyday and multiple ‘connections’ we have
144 to what we have in becoming modern have come to see as non-modern” (ibid, 262) Analysing Sarkar’s own study of the Swadeshi movement where Sarkar noted the important role played by religion in the movement, Chakrabarty points out that a reductive approach borne out of secular-modern view of politics led Sarkar to accept religion as a means but not
124 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
as a goal in itself: Sarkar’s failure to give us any insights into the ‘religious’ that constantly erupts into the political in Indian modernity is not a personal failure. It is a failure of hyper- nationalism, a failure that marks the intellect of the colonial modern. It occurs within a paradigm that sees ‘science’ and ‘religion’ as ultimately and irrevocably, opposed to each other. (ibid, 265) Chakrabarty thinks that the origin of modernity has been a violent process, often leading to internal colonisation and domination in Western countries where peasants were violently transformed into national citizens. In the colonised countries such as India it arrived as a legitimising ideology of the colonial violence. We cannot merely criticise colonialism as a socio-economic formation and take colonial modernity uncritically. Chakrabarty then advances a framework which talks about a democratic dialogue with the subaltern- a “historiography that actually tries to learn from the subaltern” (ibid, 272). He thinks that such a position would “transcend the position that earlier Subaltern Studies took as its point of departure” (ibid, 272). He points out that there is a certain “pedagogic drive” in current subaltern historiography, whether of liberal or socialist persuasion, that try to “teach the oppressed of today how to be the democratic subject of tomorrow”(ibid, 273). He thus calls for an open-ended dialogue with the subaltern the terms of which is not a priori structured by any teleological assumptions or outcomes. He writes that the earlier Subaltern Studies was guided by this pedagogic move: In pedagogic histories, it is the subaltern’s relationship to the world that ultimately calls for improvement. Subaltern Studies, the series, was founded within this gesture. Guha’s insurgent peasants, for instance, fall short in their understanding of what is required for a ‘comprehensive’ reversal of the relation of power in an exploitative society (Guha 1983). (ibid, 274) Chakrabarty thinks that a similar impulse is in the approach of Gramsci who thinks that the fragmented subalterns would be able to transcend their subalternity only when they can unite in the state through the guidance of the organic intellectual. Chakrabarty thinks that in a
145 society structured by the state, the subaltern needs knowledge-forms that are tied to their reality. Such pedagogic-dialogic mode is welcome, or may be inevitable. But it still remains undemocratic. He talks about an alternative option: Can we imagine another moment of subaltern history, where we stay- permanently, not simply as a matter of political tactics- with what is fragmentary and episodic, precisely because that which is fragmentary or episodic does not, cannot, dream of the whole called the state and therefore must be suggestive of knowledge forms that are not tied to the will that produces the state? This is where we, the middle classes, children of the state, go to the subaltern in order to learn, learn to imagine what knowledge might look like if it were to t serve histories that were fragmentary and episodic. What would Indian history be like if it were imagined as fragmentary? Not ‘fragmentary’ in the sense of fragments that refer to an implicit whole, but fragments that challenge not only the idea of wholeness but the very idea of the ‘fragment’ itself ( for if there were not to be any wholes what would be ‘fragments’ be ‘fragments’ of? Pandey 1992:27-55, Chatterjee 1993.) (ibid, 274) The existing frameworks, whether liberal or socialist, are characterised by a monomania that hold that divergent and plural cultures and ways of being are ultimately comprehensible to any one system of representation, that “it is intellectually possible to envision a good society on this earth for every one even if we are ignorant of the circumstances and cultures of others” (ibid, 275). He thus posits: To go to the subaltern in order to learn to be radically ‘fragmentary’ and ‘episodic’ is to move away from the
125 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
monomania of the imagination that operates within the gesture the knowing, judging, willing subject always already knows what is good for everybody, ahead of any investigation. The investigation, in turn, must be possessed of an openness so radical that I can only express it in Heideggarian terms: the capacity to hear that which one does not already understand. In other words, to allow the subaltern position to challenge our own conceptions of what is universal, to be open to the possibility of a particular thought-world, however concerned it might be with the task of grasping a totality being rendered finite by the presence of the Other: such are the utopic horizons to which this other moment of Subaltern Studies calls us. (ibid, 275-76) He writes that our life is not accessible through the framework of a particular philosophy and that is why we should turn to philosophers like Derrida or Lyotard or Levinas, not because they are fashionable in the West but because they are the philosophers of difference.
146 Chakrabarty says that Sarkar’s fear that a critical understanding of the legacy of Enlightenment would help the Fascists is based on “spurious assumptions”. Although he agrees that in Europe fascism drew from disenchantment with post-Enlightenment rationalism, it does not mean that a critique of post-enlightenment rationalism must always end up being fascist. There is a tradition of critique of Enlightenment in Europe itself starting from Romanticism to Nietzsche to Habermas. In India also people like Gandhi, Tagore and others have shown tremendous creative energy in conceptualising alternative ways of being and it would be sad if we ceded this entire heritage to the Hindu exteremists out of a fear that our romanticism must be the same as whatever the Europeans produced under that name in their histories, and our present blunders, whatever these be, must be the same as theirs in the past. What, indeed, could be a greater instance of submission to a Eurocentric imagination than that fear? (ibid, 277) Historian’s History and the Fragment: Gyanendra Pandey’s Response Gyanendra Pandey in his article, “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories”
responds to the objections and criticisms directed against attempts at writing history from the margins or fragments. He points out that the new perspective brought in by writing history from fragments has added new questions to the previous writings of history from below in Subaltern Studies- the “question about the status of historical narrative itself and how we might try to narrate alternative histories” (Pandey 2000, 281). He thinks that the objections of the Marxists and the social historians against this history from fragmentary narratives are driven by political concerns for commitments to received unities such as societies, communities, nation-state and progress and by the larger philosophical questions of ignoring the totality i.e. the big picture by the proponents of history from fragments. He points out that the exercise of history writing is dependent on narratives as what the historian collects or explores as facts come through narratives and narrative fragments. He points out that the narratives preserved by the state in archives and other institutes owe their existence to and address concerns of security of and control by the ruling classes. However, buried underneath are narrative fragments that present a different version of the historical events and incidents
126 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
than those authorised by the state or what he calls the “historian’s history”. These fragments found in official or unofficial records, the “suppressed narratives and perspectives” are appropriated by the state or drowned in the statist historiography. It is this “popular archive” or “folk archive”, analysed critically, provide “an
147 appeal for a different kind of historical practice to recover the possibility of another kind of history”(ibid, 285). Pandey points out that historians can use their sources in two ways- as expressions of truth or as sites of contending histories and politics. He thinks that the earlier Subaltern Studies was guided by the former belief, while the later writings have been more reflexive: The early writings in Subaltern Studies, for example, retained a belief in some kind of ultimate truth which the historian could uncover by peeling back the layers of elitist historiography and interpretations and delving into the historical records. More recent studies in this vein have been a great deal more reflexive, recognising at once the extraordinary difficulty of recovering and representing the ‘authentic’ voice. (ibid, 285) Narratives are produced and conditioned by power equations and different interests of the groups involved in the production of those narratives. Even narratives produced by subordinated groups have to engage, negotiate and challenge the ruling ideologies and through a careful and critical reading of these narratives an alternatives perspective can be found. He directs our attention to the “ambiguous and contextual character of the category of the subordinated and disprivileged” (ibid, 287). And thus an attention to the “specificities of the construction of subaltern voice” in the available narratives is necessary (ibid, 287). Quoting Du Bois’s point on the experiences of the African-Americans living as a “problem” with a “double-consciousness”, he points out that the supressed groups such as the untouchables, raped and abducted women during Partition, slaves (one may add the Muslims under the rightist regime of the present government in India) or for that matter other subordinate groups like the African- Americans have “truncated, fragmentary and often self- contradictory accounts” (ibid, 288). He writes that “certainty of knowledge, the clarity of History and the consistency of ideological ‘truth’ are costly luxuries in such conditions” and it would be “foolish ambition” to look for “well-ordered, disciplined, unified script (voice)” (ibid, 289). However, “these are conditions that make for the possibility (indeed, the necessity) of historical narrative very different from the historian’s history that we have come to privilege over the last two hundred years” (ibid, 289). For the modern, scientific historians, “history is unified, unidirectional and fully interconnected….the overarching categories, the wider questions, the ‘big why questions’ of this history are given…(which) have to do in the writing of modern history, with Progress,
148 with the spread of Science, Rationality and Enlightenment, and in the political sphere, the victory of concepts like nations and nationalism, development and modernization, equity and justice”(ibid, 289). Although these concepts are increasingly fraught, for the historians they “have no history and themselves require little investigation” (ibid, 289). These “preconstituted objects of enquiry” leads to “historical blind spots” (ibid, 289). Thus, in the nationalist historiography, all that is of pre-colonial, pre-capital times and fragments are appropriated in the natural and linear progress towards the coming into being of the nation. This naturalised history of nationalism is so dominant that faced with communalism, the nationalist historians differentiate the good nationalism from bad or communally- oriented nationalism and try to investigate why it deviated from the true natural path rather than coming up with different
127 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
questions which might challenge the very idea of the unified nation and its naturalised history. He writes: It is a difficult, and, perhaps an unsettling question to ask high we might construct differently the history of ‘India’ in the pre-colonial (i.e. pre- capitalist) times, ‘medieval’ or ‘ancient’. What would an ‘Indian history’ of the last 3,000 (or 5,000) years look like if seen fom the deep-south of present day India, or from its northern-eastern extremities, or from the perspectives of dalits(‘untouchables’) or of women or of religious preachers (Brahmans, bhikus, sanyasis, Sufis), in one area or another. But it I a question that needs to be asked. (ibid, 292-93) Refuting Habib and Panikar’s objections to fragments as occluding the total picture of the historical progress, he writes: What inspires their defence of ‘old history’ is the comforting familiarity of fixed objects of investigation, established methods of research and writing, and known courses of history, all underwritten the liberal assumption of an inexorable, linear progress towards nationhood and modernity. By contrast with this condensed, or elaborated study of the already-constituted object of inquiry- through a microscope or telescope- the study of the fragment or the voice from the edge aims to uncover alternative viewpoints, other perspectives, and other ways of writing, to try and capture other perspectives. The ‘fragment’ in this usage is not just a ‘bit’- the dictionary’s ‘piece broken off- of a pre-constituted whole. Rather it is a disturbing element, a ‘disturbance’, a contradiction, shall we say, in the self-representation of that particular totality and those who uncritically uphold it. (ibid, 296) Summarising the Points of Contention between the Critics and the Subaltern Historians Let us now summarise the points raised by the critics against the Subaltern Studies project and the replies of the subaltern historians. The main critical thrust came from the
149 Indian Marxist quarter who objected to the revisionist Marxism of the subaltern school. They objected to the methodological inadequacy of the subalternists, the two-fold divion of Indian polity and the characterisation of subaltern domain as autonomous of any elite intervention which, they pointed out, ignored the complex interaction between elite and subaltern politics. They objected to the very definition of the term “subaltern” as amorphous and undifferentiated category. They also objected to the subalternists’ inappropriate attention to the material issues of subalter life and ignoring the historical totality in which the subalterns lived and acted. Such avoidance of material concerns, the critics felt, led the project towards culturalism. As the project evolved towards postcolonial theory, the uncritical cherry picking of Western theoretical tools such as deconsctruction and postmodernism was also criticised as it, the critics felt, obscured the realities of inequality and material oppression and led to uncritical celebration of the fragments and margins. The subalternists, in reply, pointed out that Indian context demanded a critical, at times creative, application of the Marxist theoretical tools and they were looking for theoretical optics that would help to better understand subaltern life and politics in the South Asian context. They were trying to understand how power operates in the South Asian context and how the subaltern sections are resisting their subordination. They pointed out that power and oppression can not be simply reduced to economic relations and questions of cultural domination, caste and religious subordination should be taken into account. They consciously tried to think beyond the category of the class and later in the project highlihhted the issues of fragment and “small voices” that are drowned in the dominat discourses of statism, scientism and post- enlightenment rationality. They, thus, thought about post- foundational historiography to take into account the marginal and minor sections of the society. However, the debate between the
128 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
subalternists and its critics continued even after the end of the project in 2012. In the next chapter we would focus on the continued debate over subaltern life ad politics. We would notice that some the concerns expressed by the critics as discussed in this chapter would be repeated by the contemporary critics. However, they also came up with significant new arguments for consideration.
150 Works Cited:
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 89%
Alam, Javeed. 2002. “Peasntry,
Politics, and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation
to Marxism”.
In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 43-57. Delhi:
Orient longman. Bahl, Vinay. 2002. “Relevance (or Irrelevance) of Subaltern Studies”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 358-399. Delhi:
Orient longman. Balagopal, K. 2002. “Drought and TADA in Ailabad”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 343-357. Delhi:
Orient longman. Bayly, C. A. 2000. “Rallying Around the Subaltern”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 116-126. UK: Verso. Brass,
129 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: 4chapter1.docx 79%
Tom. 2000. “Moral Economists, Subaltern,
New Social Movements and the (Re-) Emrgence of a (Post-) Modernised (Middle) Peasant”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 127-162. UK: Verso. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “Invitation toa Dialogue”. In Subaltern Sudies IV, edited by Ranajit Guha, 364-376. Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2000a. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 256-280. UK: Verso. ———. 2000b. Provincilizing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historial Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Chatterjee, Partha. 1983. “Peasants, Politics, and Historiography: A Response”. Social Scientist, 11(5): 58-65.
Chaturvedi, Vinayak. 2000. “Introduction”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, vii- xix. UK: Verso. Chaudhuri, Binay Bhusan. 2002. “Subaltern Autonomy and the Nationl Movement”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 120-132. Delhi:
Orient longman. Chopra, Suneet. 1982. “Missing Correct Perspective”. Social Scientist, 10(8): 55-63.
151
0: c1432e97-d0e2-44b3-bbc9-cb5a898854e6 78%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspects of the Historiography in Colonial India”. In Subaltern Studies
130 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
I, Ranaji Guha, ed., 1-8. Delhi, Oxford UP. ———. 1996. “The Small Voice of History”. In Subaltern Studies IX, Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, ed., 1-11. New Delhi: Oxford UP. — ——.1997. “Introduction”. In A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, edited by Ranajit Guha, ix-xxii. New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2009. “Gramsci in India: Homage to a Teacher”. In Ranajit Guha The Small Voice of History: Collected Essays, edited by Partha Chatterjee, 361-370. Ranikhet: Orient Blackswan. Gupta, Ranajit Das. 2002. “Significance of Subaltern Mediation”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 108-119. Delhi:
Orient longman.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
O’Hanlon, Rosalind. 2002. “
Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies and Histories of Resistance in Colonial South Asia”.
In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 135- 186. Delhi:
Orient longman.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
O’Hanlon, Rosalind
and
David Washbrook. 2000. “After Orientalism,: Culture, Criticism and Politics in the Third World”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 191-219. UK: Verso. Latin American Subaltern Studies Group. 1993. “Founding Statement”. Boundary 2 20(3): 110-121.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 92%
131 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Mallon, Florencia E. 1994. “The Promise and Dilemna of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History”.
The American Historical Review 99(5):1491-1515.
Ludden, David. 2002. “A Brief History of Subalternity”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 1-39. Delhi:
Orient longman.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
Pandey, Gyanendra. 2000. “Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 281-299. UK: Verso. ———. 1997. “
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu- Muslim Riots in India Today”. In
A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-33. New Delhi: Oxford UP.
152 Prakash, Gyan. 2000a. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87%
Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third Worls: Perspectives from Indian Historiography”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 163190-126. UK: Verso. ———. 2000b. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 85%
Can the ‘Subaltern’ Ride? A Reply to O’Hanlon and Washbrook”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and
introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 220-238. UK: Verso.
132 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 100%
Sarkar, Sumit. 2002. “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 400-429. Delhi:
Orient longman. ———. 2000. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 77%
Orientalism Revisted: Saidian Frameworks in the Writing of Modern Indian History”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and
introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 239-255. UK: Verso. Singh, Saneeta, et al,. 2002. “Subaltern Studies II: A Review Article”. In
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 58-107. Delhi:
Orient longman.
153 CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY CRITIQUES OF SUBALTERN STUDIES In the previous chapter we mapped the debate between the Subaltern Studies scholars and the critics who objected to some of the basis premises of the project. The debate ranged from the subaltern scholars’ attempt to devise a new methodology and trajectory for analysing the politics and agency of the subaltern social groups and classes in colonial and postcolonial India, the adequacy or inadequacy of the conventional Marxist and liberal theories in analysing the history of the subaltern classes to the the specificity of Indian modernity taking into account the claims and counter-claims of the subaltern historians and the critics. However, the debate we charted covered the early critics of Subaltern Studies up to the turn of the century. Recently there have been new debates and new questions have come up regarding the legacy of the project. There have been significant discussions regarding further investigation of subaltern politics in South Asia today. Of the recent contributions in the debate we have to mention
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
133 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (2013),
Alf Gunvald Nilsen and Srila Roy edited New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India (2015), Hugo Gorringe edited From the Margins to the Mainstream: Institutionalising Minorities in South Asia (2015). Ajay Guvavarthy’s Re-framing Democracy and Agency in India: Interrogating Political Society (2012), Politics of Post-Civil Society: Contemporary History of Politicall Movements in India (2013) have interrogated Chatterjee’s notion of “political society” and has foregrounded the nature of post-civil society politics in contemporary India. Apart from these books, there have been the publication of two important edited volumes in 2015 that seek to take the debate on subaltern politics forward. Uday Chandra edited Rethinking Subaltern Resistance (Journal of contemporary Asia, 2015 Special Issue) and Debjani
0: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39aa/1ec800c676b8d6eed7a6eb4a6ed9c80499b4.pdf 78%
Ganguly edited
The Subaltern after Subaltern Studies (South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,
Special issue) attempt to locate the subaltern in contemporary India after the project of Subaltern Studies is over. In this chapter we would take stock of the recent critiques of Subaltern Studies, more specifically the debate and discussions generated by Vivek Chibber’s book. The book is the latest in the long list of critiques of Subalter Studies and its importance can be gauged from the heated exchanges it led to between Chibber, Partha Chatterjee and Gayatri Spivak, as well as from the numerous reviews , both positive and negative, of the book. After charting the debate surrounding Chibber’s critique, this chapter would engage with the recent attempts at
154 remapping and redefining the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. As this thesis seeks to remap the subaltern, the charting of the recent attempts at redefining the subaltern would give a background to it as well as possible new directions. Vivek Chibber’s Intervention: The Specter of Capital Of the recent contributions on the debate over Subaltern Studies and its theoretical legacy the most provoking has been
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (2013).
Since the book generated a lot of discussion not only over the legacy of Subaltern Studies, but also about the whole project of postcolonial theory, a detailed discussion of the basic arguments of the book is warranted for further discussion and critical insight for the current project. At the beginning let us keep in mind that Chibber’s critique is not wholly new; rather it is the latest in the long line of critiques of Subaltern Studies and postcolonial theory as would be clear from our discussion of some of them in the previous chapter. Chibber repeats some
134 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
of the critical insights of the other critics, at times giving new intensity and force to the argument. However, his original insights are worth taking note of for a discussion of the legacy and relevance of the framework of Subaltern Studies. Let us also mention that Chibber’s incisive critique of the project does not exhaust the original insights of the project or its relevance for a future redefinition of the subaltern. Chibber takes Subaltern Studies as “the most illustrious representative of postcolonial studies in the scholarship on the Global South”. Chibber summarises, for a critical discussion, the basic theoretical propositions developed by Subaltern Studies collective into six theses which fall under two broad themes- specificity of colonial capitalism; and the specificity of colonial modernity and dislodging of Eurocentrism. Let us briefly mention the six theses that Chibber summarises as the basic arguments of project. Thesis1 deals with the non-hegemonic character of colonial/Indian bourgeoisie. Unlike their European counterparts, the bourgeoisie in colonial India- both the local as well as those who came from the metropole- accommodated to the interests of the feudal lords instead of taking on them. As a consequence, they failed to take the subaltern classes under their umbrella in a national-popular struggle. And the bourgeoisie came to power without any hegemonic coalition with the peasants and workers and their rule is, thus, marked by dominance and not hegemony.
155 Thesis 2 talks about the issue of derailment of capital’s universalizing drive. For the Subalternists, capital’s universalisation depends on two related concerns- the formation of the hegemonic social coalition between the bourgeoisie and the peasants and the workers. The second concern is that of liberalisation of political culture- citizenship, formal equality for all, political freedom, contractualism, secularism etc. And since the bourgeoisie in colonial India accommodated to feudal economic and cultural practices, it is accepted as the abandonement of the universalising drive of capital in India. This historical sociology is very significant for postcolonial theory / subaltern theory as it is viewed as pointing to a different political trajectory for the colonies. As the colonial society is different from modern Europe, the borrowed theoretical categories from West, the argument goes, cannot explain the postcolonial realities. Thesis 3 deals with the issue of pluralisation of power in colonial and postcolonial settings. Since the former colonies have a different trajectory of modernity than the West because the bourgeoisie failed in its “heroic mission” of transforming the social order, there would be the co-existence of antediluvian power relations with the modern one. This for Chakrabarty “fundamentally pluralizes the history of power in global modernity and separates it from universal history of capital” (quoted in Chibber 2013, 15) Thesis 4 is concerned with the persistence of two separate domains of politics in the former colonies. Since the bourgeoisie failed to or did not uproot the traditional economic and cultural practices, there is the co-existence along with modern political practices of the separate subaltern domain with its own cultural idioms and political grammar. Opposed to the modern democratic politics based on citizenship rights, the subalterns mobilise along the axis of religion or community, not for individual or class interests. Thus, the peasant mobilisations along caste or religious lines can hardly be called “prepolitical” or “premodern”, they are thoroughly political and modern because they are reflective of a “fundamentally different character of colonial modernity” (ibid, 16) Thesis 5 deals with the Subalternists’ exposure of what they think as spurious colonial nationalism. While the colonial apologists view the
135 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
colonial state as agent of progress as it modernised the society and culture of the colony, the nationalist historiography endow the bourgeoisie nationalist leaders with spurious legitimacy.
156 Thesis 6 deals with the Eurocentrism of classical theory. Since the colonial and postcolonial societies are structurally different from and has different trajectory than the West, the existing framework would not be helpful in understanding their social experiences. The theoretical categories based on the western experiences are inappropriate for understanding the East and “Western theories cannot be grafted onto Eastern realities” (ibid, 17). Thus, critique of Enlightenment discourse- especially of Marxism- became a central theoretical agenda of Subaltern Studies after Chakrabarty’s (2000) Provincializing Europe. Closely connected with the critique of historicism, is what the subaltern scholars call “fragments”- “those elements in social life that cannot easily be assimilated into dominant discourse or structures- minority cultures, dissident tracts, oppositional gesture”(ibid, 19). Dominant social theory ignores the fragments because they focus on the dominant or mainstream, or when they recognise them fold them back as part of the mainstream. Thus, fragments resist dominant structures and should be recognised as an “antidote to the hubris of totalising theories” (ibid, 19). Chibber claims that the Subalternits’ “claim for a fundamental difference with regard to capital, power and agency are all irreducibly flawed” (ibid, 22). And the exposition of the “failure of the arguments from difference, so central to postcolonial theory” (ibid, 22) can undermine their claim that we must “rethink our understanding of capitalism, politics, history, agency…” (ibid, 23). This is not to claim that there are no differences between the East and West, but “if they are variant of the same basic form, theories generated by the European experience would not have to be overhauled or jettisoned, but simply modified” (ibid, 23). Giving positive evidence that capitalism creates similar forms of authority in the East and West, Chibber wants to show the analytical power of the theories that the Subalternists impugns. Chibber thinks that Subatern Studies fails to deliver on “two basic promises”- an adequate theory for understanding modernity in the East, and as a platform for radical critique (ibid, 23). After elaborating on what he thinks as the basic theoretical premises of the Subaltern Studies project, he goes on to expose their shortcomings by analysing the works of the three founding members of the collective, namely Ranajit Guha, Partha Chatterjee and Dipesh Chakrabarty. He first takes on the thesis of the failed universalisation of capital and specificity of colonial modernity as theorised by Ranajit Guha.
157 Guha, in Subaltern Studies I (1982) talked about two distinct domains of politics with distinct political grammar and different mobilizing strategy which means that the Indian bourgeoisie failed to integrate the culture of the subaltern classes into an all-embracing political community or what Guha says they failed to speak for the nation. In “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography” (1989) Guha elaborates on what he pithily mentioned in Subaltern Studies I. He points out that
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 65%
136 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the existence of these two separate domains point towards the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to “
come into its own”. For Guha the universalization of capital encompasses two related points- capital’s self-expansion, and the creation of liberal political culture. He begins by economic dimension of capitalism but shifts to and gives more emphasis on the political and liberal culture. In Guha’s view the peculiarity of colonial modernity was the result of the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to perform its historic task. Unlike their European counterparts in the classic cases of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ in England in 1640-48 and France in 1789, the Indian bourgeoisie abandoned its mission to transform Indian society and polity. Capital abandoned its universalising mission as this historic break occurred. However, Chibber discusses in detail the two revolutions that Guha uses as a contrastive framework of analysis to question the basic premise of Guha’s argument. He holds that the Indian case was not unique at all and it is rather similar to other experiences of state formation or political modernity. So, there was not such a contrast and the Indian experience was not a deviation from the norm. He discusses the revolutions in England in 1640-48 and France in 1789 to bring his point home that in both the cases it was not the heroic bourgeoisie which willingly came up with a revolutionary agenda to include the interests of the subaltern classes and successfully forged a hegemonic coalition. Rather they were only eager to extend their own political clout, resented the ascendancy of the “lower orders” and whatever concession was granted to the subaltern classes was done under pressure from the subaltern classes who mobilised for their own rights. The economic trajectories of these two revolutions were also different from what Guha thought them to be. While in England it was not the capitalist who were up against the feudal system, the English agrarian economy by the time had already been transformed into capitalist rent seeking economy and so three was no feudal system to fight against. Rather it was the capitalist gentry who rose up against the absolutist measures of Charles I because it undermined their economic and political interests. It also resulted into an “elite pact” after the revolutionary upsurge of the peasant and labouring classes subsided and there was no genuine inclusion of their authentic demands in their political program. Although in
158 France, it was the bourgeoisie who fought against the feudal system, it did not brought about a clear capitalist economy. The immediate impact of the revolutions was “the building of new and more powerful states, authoritarian in their dealings, narrow in their social bases, and aggressive in their external polities”. As for the contribution of these revolutions to the birth of liberal polity, it was very weak and can hardly be called the harbingers of political liberalisation. Chibber writes, “What they bequeathed was an oligarchic state with an expanded scope for political participation- but only for members of the ruling order who had hitherto been excluded” (Chibber 2013, 77) Thus, we see that the English and French revolutions which Guha had in mind as the classic cases of bringing in capitalist economic structures and liberal political regimes are actually misguided. And thus the thesis that the Indian bourgeoisie during the rise of Indian nationalism fell short of their English and French predecessors does not hold much water. Again Guha claims that the Indian bourgeoisie, compared to the European ones, failed to create a genuine liberal political culture and transform the society. The “mediocre liberalism” failed to produce an encompassing political culture which is at the heart of crisis ridden polity of postcolonial India. Thus, in Guha’s
137 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
theorisation whereas the European bourgeoisie secured their consensual dominance, the Indian bourgeoisie “settled for dominance without hegemony”. Here, too, Guha “dramatically misconstrues the European experience” where the “bourgeois revolutions” Guha talks about only “installed a political regime with an expanded set of rights for non-noble elites, but with no real intention of enfranchising labouring groups” (ibid, 87) Although Guha rightly impugned the liberal credentials of the Indian capitalists, compared to the European revolutions, the Indian experience seems “more democratic, more integrated, and more inclusive than was England’s in 1720 or France’s in 1815” ( ibid, 89). Guha’s analysis was warranted by the political crisis of the 1970s which led Guha to justifiably think that there was a deeper structural division between the elite political culture and the subalterns. But the argument he brings in to analyse this - that the Indian bourgeoisie failed to build a genuine liberal political culture and successfully integrate the subaltern classes in its rule- was based on a misconception that European capitalists did exactly the same. This also led him to mistakenly conclude that capital’s universalising tendency was averted in the colony and the Indian bourgeoisie failed to live up to its assigned role- that it refused to confront landed property, failed to hegemonise the national movement and resorted
159 to coercion keeping the gap between the two domains intact. But Chibber says, “In sum, dominance without hegemony- as Guha defines it- is not an aberration associated with the postcolonial world or the sign of a failed bourgeoisie revolution. It is, and has been, the normal face of bourgeois power” (ibid, 91). Thus, Guha or the Subalternists do not provide a critique of liberalism. On the contrary they are “the new Whigs” providing a liberal apologia for capital. Chibber points out that such a view has a Marxist pedigree as Marx himself incorporated some of the views of the liberal historians of the French and English revolutions- especially he found the view of the bourgeoisie’s fight against feudalism appealing because it converged with his idea of the development of societies from one production model to another. However, although Guha borrows from Marx on this, he “hearkens back to its Whig roots” and is not critical of the liberal story unlike Marx. He, unlike Marx, does not give any credit to the subaltern classes and focuses solely on the heroic role of the bourgeoisie: But in Dominance without Hegemony, the subaltern classes rarely emerge as an actor, as a “historical subject’. Throughout the analysis they are always the object of the bourgeoisie strategy. …This derives from an internalization of the Whig interpretation of the classic revolutions in which a heroic bourgeoisie ushers in a new era, independent of popular pressure, thereby generating Guha’s distorted counterfactual. (ibid, 98) Chibber defends, contrary to the Subalternists, the universalisation of capital. Chibber thinks that the existence of a separate subaltern domain with its distinct political and cultural idiom is consistent with the dominant bourgeois political culture. So, he calls for a rejection of Guha’s “historic sociology” while emphasising on the universalising drive of capital. Subalternists hold that universalisation of capital means the attendant formation of liberal political culture by a hegemonic bourgeoisie who have successfully integrated the interests of the subaltern classes. Since in India the bourgeoisie failed to speak for the nation, a non-universalising capital produced bourgeoisie domination without hegemonic capitalist culture. It produced capitalism without capitalist hierarchy and is marked by the persistence of direct interpersonal exercise of power which is arbitrary and often violent. And this is not because of an incomplete transition to capitalism, but because of the failure of capital to universalise.
138 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Persistence of such antediluvian forms of power, thinks Chakrabarty, pluralises the power in global modernity and such power relations cannot be explained by the categories
160 of political economy and hence a new set of categories are needed to analyse power relations in former colonies. But such a notion, thinks Chibber, is based on an erroneous conception that in capitalist societies ruling authorities need not rely upon direct coercion to extract surplus, that power is only exercised through impersonal force of structural pressure. Guha’s coupled notion of universalisation talk about two aspects- the self-expansion of capital; and the attendant political and cultural transformation. Chibber de-couples the definition to highlight that capital can universalise without the creation of a liberal political culture. What he means by the universalising drive of capital is the insertion into the market logic- the imperative of surviving in the competitive market leads to acceptance of the particular strategy of economic reproduction or what is called accumulation of capital. It is this market dependence which is what capital universalises: Capitalism grows as farms take their revenues after every cycle of production and plow them back into acquiring ever more capital, in order to strengthen their position in the market. Marx refers to this process as the accumulation of capital. What capitalism universalises, then, is a particular strategy of economic reproduction. It compels economic units to focus single-mindedly on accumulating ever more capital. Economic managers internalise it as their goal because it is built into the structural location of being a capitalist; it is not something capitalists have to be convinced to do. Wherever capitalism goes, so too does the imperative. (ibid, 111) As for the persistence of antediluvian forms of power relations, Chibber says that there is nothing uniquely Indian about it. Such cultural and ethnic ties remained with the workers because the jobbers pulled the workers from their ethnic and religious communities. And such ethnic and racial divisions were capitalised on by the employers whose primary task is to extract maximum labour effect from the workers. Labor market is a site of “generalised insecurity” and to avoid risk of insecurity workers relied on their familial, ethnic and religious ties which further hardens the existing difference within the working class. Thus, hierarchies are also constructed through reproduction of capitalism. Employers can use social hierarchy to divide and conquer and thereby to secure maximum labor effect. Hierarchy often produces deference and the employers capitalise on it and sometimes actively promote it. Capitalists also ensure their command through state- sanctioned coercion and that’s why they vie for political power and resist welfare measures by the state. Employers can also use private
161 militia for smooth functioning of the shop floor. Thus, the capitalists try to ensure dominance over the labor process through mobilising legal, extra-legal, financial, cultural measures. And these measures were used in the capitalist settings of England and USA for a long time after the capitalist system came into being. And their absence should be viewed as an achievement gained by the democratic mobilisations of the labouring classes and not of a heroic bourgeoisie who are quite happy with an illiberal political culture. Thus, Subaltern Studies, as over sensitive it was over the fear of economic reductionism, completely did away with economic analysis and ignored the very mechanisms that made it rational for the capitalists to sustain and reinforce social hierarchy. Instead of analysing how capital reproduces status and caste hierarchies, they took it as a sign of the failed universalisation of capital. After demonstrating that universalising capitalism does not necessarily mean
139 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
homogenisation of all power relations, and is accommodative of different power relations, sociological or even interpersonal or direct exercise of domination, Chibber addresses the issue of the postcolonial theorists’ habitual objection to Marx’s concept of “abstract labour” as another example of the deficiencies of universalising theories that do not talk to the non- Western realities. Although there are differences within the postcolonial theorists who object to Marx’s concept of abstract labour, the basic premise of their argument is that Marx’s concept is immune to the spatio-temporal or historical differences of the labour power as it holds that capitalism accumulates by homogenising all social differences- racial, ethnic etc. - into the abstract concept of labour. Among the Subalernists, Chibber takes up Chakrabarty’s issue with the Marxian notion. Chakrabarty takes “historical difference as symptomatic of capitalism’s failed universalising mission and builds an entire theory around this failure”. (ibid, 133) Chakrabarty sees the concept of abstract labour as Marx’s reliance on Enlightenment ideals of juridical equality and abstract citizenship and thinks that Marx’s “reliance on it forces him to ignore myriad differences between social formations and among real human beings” (ibid, 131) and cautions postcolonial historians to be suspicious of such “universal grid on the diversity of social experience and human existence” (ibid, 131). Chibber holds that such understanding of abstract labour as a homogenising category is based on a flawed reading of Marx. Although Marx talked about the destruction of old prejudices and allegiances under the pressure of capitalism, it cannot be thereby concluded that it would result into homogenisation of all social differences. Marx was aware that
162 capitalism can very well sustain and use racial differences when necessary, as for example when he talked about the use of Irish Labour to weaken trade union activities in England. Countering the tendency to equalise abstract labour with homogeneous labour, Chibber holds that Marx’s systematic arguments on social reproduction would show that “persistence of racial or ethnic divisions within the labor force is consistent with the concept of abstract labor”. (ibid, 134) Chibber thinks that Marx’s concept of “abstract labor” has two crucial components- the common element in all actual and concrete labors that is used in the production of various commodities as use value, and abstract labor that “endows the commodity with exchange value” (ibid,135). Chibber explains the reason whyy labor must remain differentiated. He writes, “Labouring activities must remain differentiated because they are tied to the differentiation of the use-values that they create. And use-values are desirable precisely because they satisfy very different needs and therefore be endlessly ramified” (ibid, 136). Chibber explains what he means by universalisation of capital which is the subsumption within the market logic. To survive in the competitive market, the farms must focus on profit maximisation and accumulation. And this logic of profit leads to an epochal shift in the utilisation of labor: So, once goods change from being use-values pure and simple, to carriers of exchange value the producers of those goods are forced to change the way they utilize labor. Their labor inputs are now rewarded not simply on the quality of the use-value they produce but whether or not they produce it as well as efficiently as other producers. This means that the labor itself has to be offered at benchmark levels of efficiency. … labor in other words is rewarded in the market on its general feature, not its particular ones. It is rewarded as abstract labor- labor as such, general labor, average labor- even though it must be mobilized in its concrete forms. (ibid, 139-40) So, abstract labor is not a distinct kind of labor, but just “a dimension of concrete labors” (emphasis original ibid, 140). It
140 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
refers to “properties that the latter have in common, properties which can be compared with one another and which are rewarded by the market” (ibid, 140) i.e. the laborers’ productive efficiency. This definition of abstract labor crucially highlights that universalisation of capitalism or the market logic is consistent with social hierarchies. It can happen in various ways often with the active promotion of the capitalist. The employers can either resort to racial or ethnic grouping as a sorting mechanism i.e. on certain groups’ occupational specialisations, or he
163 can hire based on his racial prejudices i.e. that candidates from certain groups can be chosen over candidate from other groups even though they offer similar level of efficiency simply because the employer might think them to be racially more efficient. The employers at times use the social divisions to “extract maximum labor effort from their labor force” (ibid, 142). Abstract labour thus does not mean nameless, faceless labor-units which can be replaced any time. It does not mean so because “workers’ labouring capacity cannot be separated from their persons”(ibid, 144). And what the capitalist care about is the labor effort from their workers. So, they can dissolve certain hierarchies, if necessary, and can mobilise others to get the maximum labor effort from their workers. After establishing the point that abstract labor can very well explain the enduring social heterogeneity of the working class, Chibber returns to the question why in Europe after capitalism is firmly established there has happened social transformation which has escaped the former colonies. Chibber thinks that Subaltern Studies is right that there is a real difference, but it has “misdiagnosed its cause”. The reason why democratic changes happened in Europe is not because of the heroic role the bourgeoisie played there but because of the pressure and the democratic struggle of the labouring classes. The key to the emergence of integrated political culture is not the bourgeoisie led, but the labor-led social-coalition. However, in making the bourgeoisie the agent of bourgeois –democratic political formations, Guha “not only made a colossal scholarly and analytical blunder, he also foreclosed the possibility of a genuine comparative study of the postcolonial world’s path to modernity , based on real comparisons instead of the imaginary ones that populate the pages of Subalternist scholarship’” (ibid, 150) Chibber takes up the issue of cultural specificity in the works of Partha Chatterjee and Dipesh Chakrabarty. Chatterjee, basing his argument on his reading of Guha’s findings in Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India, and through his own empirical study of the mobilisations of peasants in late colonial Bengal holds that peasantry in India has a distinct political psychology and peasant mobilisations are motivated not by individual interests but originates along the “axis of local community”. The peasant is bound to community by sense of duty and obligation and their agency is to be located in the “peasant- community ideology” and not in bourgeoisie rationality. Individual self-interest is “‘outside the discursive universe of the peasant’” and thus mainstream historiography needs to rethink about peasant mobilisations in India.
164 However, Chibber shows that Chatterjee misreads the findings of Guha and his own empirical data contradicts his arguments. For Chatterjee, in Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India Guha, apart from the patterns and strategies of peasant mobilisation as a window to peasant consciousness, also “discovered a deeper element, fundamental to peasant consciousness in colonial India- the role of community”. Chatterjee
141 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
then goes onto counterpose community consciousness to individual interest as way of pointing out the distinct peasant psychology of mobilisation. The community provided with a pre-given structure of mobilisation and community leaders had to just give a direction to the movement. Thus, it is communitarian identity and not rational interest / “bourgeoisie consciousness” that motivates the peasants. However, Chibber points out that in Elemntary Aspects, “What seems central to peasant psychology is not the sense of duty or obligation, but the appreciation of risk, the regard for their interests, and the hesitation to bear the costs of collective action” (ibid, 162). The peasant had to fight against the triumvirate of colonial state, the landlords and the moneylenders. Peasant solidarity was not pre-given but had to be forged and sometimes it would take weeks or a month. Chibber also points out that Chatterjee’s own study of peasants in late colonial Bengal belies his notion that community identity and not interests motivated the peasant to mobilise. The very fact that in the south western part of Bengal the peasants rose up also against the jotedars proves that “peasant- community ideology” did not blind them to the fact of their exploitation at the hands of internal enemies. Chatterjee’s arguments also end up endorsing the external agency in need for the mobilisation of the peasant as they are “incapable of identifying ‘inside’ exploiters”- a point that clearly contradicts Chatterjee’s claim of subaltern agency. As to why their mobilisations petered out, it is not because of ideological limitations, but may be due to organisational, political or even economic factors. As for the Muslim peasants in East Bengal, they did not rise up against the rich Muslim peasant because internal differentiation was not that strong and the internal jotedars were not that exploitative and were necessary for mobilising against the zamindars who happened to be Hindus. This also proves that the peasants were led by practical necessity because they needed these comparatively richer peasants if they wanted to successfully mobilise. Chatterjee is also silent about the implications of the issue of internal differentiation which discounts his thesis. The fact that internal differentiation happened proves that some peasants were driven by self- interest. Those who became jotedars they became so by accumulating land from the poor peasants whom they gave loans on land. Had they not been driven by interest they would
165 have helped the poor peasants by giving money in necessity and not on land. Chibber writes, “
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 84%
They chose to pursue their individual interests. In other words these smallholders acted on precisely the “bourgeoisie consciousness” that Chatterjee insists they lacked” (
ibid,174). Chibber takes up the issue of the “unique psychological disposition of the Indians” or the question of the overriding significance of culture and consciousness in Chakrabarty’s study of Bengal jute mills in early twentieth century. Chakrabarty, like Chatterjee, hold that the subaltern classes
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 67%
142 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
are not motivated by material needs, but are driven by their valuation of community, honor, religion, and other normative ends.
He counterposes, like his colleagues in the collective, cultural ideologies to interest. By taking Chakrabarty’s own study of a worker who retains his attachment to the traditional regious institution, Chibber points out that such ties might have also helped the worker to survive. So, materialist or structuralist explanation of the worker’s attachment to traditional cultural does not negate culture. After establishing that social actors are cognizant of their basis material needs, Chibber takes up the general criticism against materialist theories of agency. Such criticisms hold that materialist explanations ignore the cultural embeddedness of the agent- think them as asocial automata or hedonists. However, Chibber thinks that materialist explanations do not deny the agents’ cultural commitments. It accepts the limitations of culture as source of agency. Chibber argues that having a motivation for economic/ physical well-being can also lead agents to political liberties. He points out the struggles of the working class in the 19 th century Europe to gain political liberty since the capitalist sought to oppress/ keep the workers at bay by the economic as well as political manoeuvring. Chibber thinks the same is true for the twenty first century in which economic exploitation is carried out by diabolical political powers. Thus, Chibber defends two universals- the universalising drive of capital and the universalising interest of the subaltern classes and these two factors are driving the modern epoch. In Provincializing Europe, Chakrabarty maps a different career for capital in the non- west. He distinguishes between History 1 and History 2 to put forward his critique of the habitual story of capitalism given by the Marxists. By History 1 he means those institutions which are essential to the “life-process” of capitalism and contributes to the reproduction of capital. They are posited by capital and become a part of capitalist history. This is the
166 universal history of capital. However, Chakrabarty includes not only capitalism and its universalising drive in History 1 but he also includes the universalising categories of western Enlightenment such as citizenship, nationalism, industrialism, and Reason. Opposed to History 1, Chakrabarty posits, is History 2 which resists assimilation into the universalising logic of capital. Although the institutions, social practices and social relations are not extraneous to capitalism, they are not part of capitalism’s life-process and does not contributes to its reproduction. It encompasses the “diverse ways of being” rooted in particular cultures of any given region and is independent of the reproductive logic of capital and retains its integrity. So, while History 1 is part of the universal history of capital, History 2 undermines its universalisation. However, although Chibber broadly agrees with the distinction that some institutions are essential for capitalism while others are not, he points out the misconclusions of Chakrabarty. Chibber points out that universalisation should be understood in the narrower sense in which capitalist globaliosation means only universalisation of practices relating to economic production and rejects the basic premise on which Chakrabatrty elaborates his theory of History 2 as resistant or disrupting to capitalism. Chibber thinks that Chakrabarty makes an absurd claim that universalisation must obliterate and subordinate all social practices to the dictates of capitalism. As to the point of History 2 modifying or disrupting the logic of capital, Chibber distinguishes between type-transforming and type-preserving disruptions and points out that History 2 is only type- preserving. Capitalism is consistent with
143 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
or happy to coexist with such social practices that pose no threat to its self-reproduction. He writes: The mere fact that some social relations have their own particular rules, independent of the rules generally characteristic of capitalism, does not allow us to conclude that the universalising process has been interrupted. It follows that capital can universalise it rule and establish its control over economic reproduction even while myriad components of social life maintain their autonomy. … Chaakrabarty is therefore quite mistaken to conclude that, just because history 2 might retain its ow integrity, it has the effect of interrupting capital’s universalisation. (ibid, 228) Chibber then points out that the sources of disruption of History 1 lies not in History2 but in History 1 itself. The enlightenment universals such as freedom, democracy citizenship help to conceptualise the worker’s interests and the worker’s resistance, apart from capitalism’s structural pathologies, has often led to changes and disruption to the capitalist system.
167 Chibber further points out that there is no necessary antagonism between History 1 and History 2. The absence of antagonism between History 1 and History 2 can be shown through the consideration of abstract labor. While Chakrabarty uses the example of abstract labor to prove that History 1 must subjugate History 2, Chibber points out that abstract labor does not mean the extinction of cultural distinctions. Thus, if the capitalists can extract the necessary labor effort from the worker it is happy to allow and even patronise the local cultural differences. Thus, there is no contradiction between History 1 and History 2. The problem or nonproblem of historicism arises from Chakrabarty’s theorisation of Two Histories. However, as Chibber points out that capital’s universalisation does not necessarily mean the subordination of all social practices to its logic of accumulation. As for the problem of disruption and ruptures in capital’s reproduction, the Marxists ‘maintain that the source of disruption is in the subaltern classes’ universal drive to defend themselves against domination. As for the accusation that historicism denies historical contingency and suffers from determinism, the answer, Chibber maintains, should not be jumping into the bandwagon of uncritical celebration of contingency but to point out that capitalism, when fully formed, does constrain some possibilities. If that is the case, then Marxists can hardly be charged of unwarranted determinism by pointing out the reality. The only legitimate criticism can be if they are unduly deterministic. As for Chakrabarty’s charge that the Marxists claim to have identified a constitutive principle, if not a blue print for the future, Chibber points out that constitutive principle does not mean that the future is known beforehand. It points out that “future social institutions will be powerfully constrained by pressures linked to capitalism- pressures like capital accumulation, the social power of the bourgeoisie, the demands of wage labor and so on” (ibid, 241). This is what is meant by constitutive principle which closes off certain futures. Then, Chibber thinks, it hardly is an outrageous claims on the part of the Marxist. Two points follow from here. First, “capitalism is not only compatible with social difference, but systematically produces it” (ibid, 243). Second, that “social difference is in fact causally related to capitalist reproduction” and “diversity must, of necessity, draw on the universalising categories of post-Enlightenment theories” (ibid, 243). Chibber talks about three sources of diversity in capitalism. First, it reinforces existing heterogeneity for its own interest. Second, it produces new heterogeneity in its movement from one region to another. It creates variants within it, each exhibiting their own temporal and spatial particularities.
144 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
168 Capitalism promotes development but the development promoted is highly differentiated and uneven. “Capitalism is anything but a purely homogenising dynamic” (ibid, 245). Third, capitalism might be indifference to existing heterogeneity. Capitalism often solidifies the difference instead of destroying because it serves its own purpose. He talks about the colonial employers’ reliance on traditional ruling classes to provide them with labor and to maintain political stability. Thus, here we see History 1 is promoting History 2- the opposite of Chakrabarty’s theorisation. Chibber then takes up Chatterjee’s theorisation of nation and nationalism to highlight the absence of any constraint put by capitalism on such institutions in his hypothesis. Chatterjee characterised anticolonial nationalism as a “derivative discourse”- a misconstrued ideology of emancipation that is trapped in the very framework that it seeks to displace. One of the signs of anticolonial nationalism being prisoner of colonial ideology is its acceptance of modernisation for the nation-state. That nationalist leaders like Nehru pursued modernising agenda proves that they have not been able to break free of colonial ideology. However, Chatterjee does not answer whether nationalist leaders pursued modernisation out of pressure from geo-political and global capitalist order or out of their choice. In rejecting any constraint put on the choices of the nationalist elites by geo-political forces, Chatterjee ends up over emphasising the role of ideology / ideas and undervaluing effects of existing structures. In his The Nation and Its Fragments, Chatterjee revises his theses. He critiques the “modular” concept of nation-state propounded by Anderson which Chatterjee thinks denies any specificity to colonial nationalism. He critiques the theorisation of Anderson because he fails to recognise the distinctiveness of colonial nationalism because they theorise nationalism through the prism of the state- where nationalism is presented as an ideology in pursuit of state power. This is another instance of nationalism as modernising political discourse. But Chatterjee thinks that it would be erroneous if we view colonial nationalism as political ideology because “the essential elements of this discourse are forged long before it even contemplates the pursuit of power” (ibid, 278). In opposition to this Chatterjee theorises his view of colonial nationalism as consisting of two domains- the outer
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 50%
material domain, the domain of economy and statecraft, of science and technology in which the West has superiority and the
inner spiritual domain, the domain of cultural identity. Chibber criticises Chatterjee as rephrasing the familiar Orientalist portrayal of the East as rendered by Bankim Chatterjee in the nineteenth century. Chatterjee also presents his theory not simply as an
169 exposition of Indian nationalism, but purports to give a general theory of nationalism for the whole colonial world as he says that his ‘formula’ is the ‘fundamental feature of anti- colonial nationalisms in Asia and Africa’. Chibber points out: It is hard to see the nationalism of, for instance, Sukarno, Nasser, Sun Yat- sen, the arab Baath parties, Yasir Arafat, and Nelson Mandela as anything other than the bourgeois modernising variant to which Nehru ascribed. They all made compromises with traditional practices, to be sure. But it would be stretch to describe themas setting up an “iiner” and an “outer” domin, and valorising the reproduction of
145 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the former. All of them proclaimed a commitment to modernisation, both in the material domain and the spiritual one. Indeed, in many of these cases, the dominant nationalisms not only expressed a commitment to modernization but found themselves at loggerheads with conservative variants that fit Chatterjee’s description. (ibid, 279) Chibber thinks that Chatterjee’s theory would fall flat if we bring it in to describe the anticapitalist nationalisms of the post-war era, such as of Ho Chi Min, Samora Machel, Mao Zedong, Amilcar Cabral etc. or the anticolonial movements inspired by socialism. At the end of his book Nationalist thought and the Colonial World he perhaps realised flaws of his thesis and says that anticolonial nationalism is not because of its acceptance of Reason , but because it failed to challenge the marriage between Reason and capital. It then completely overhauls his whole argument developed throughout the book. But he does not reject his hypothesis and the minute attempts at anticapitalist critique is just to deflect criticism against his theses (ibid, 282). Chibber thinks that Nationalist thought and the Colonial World took ‘Subaltern Studies away from its roots in Cultural Marxism and towards the greener pastures of poststructuralist irrationalism’ and “the collectives most illustrious members have never looked back” (ibid, 283). After a thorough discussion of the basic theoretical premises of Subaltern Studies, Chibber accuses Subaltern Studies of being a conservative ideology that obfuscates proper analysis of global capitalism. Subaltern Studies, in Chibber’s view, denies the possibility of a radical critique and continues with the orientalist conceptions of the East. He points out that
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 90%
Subalternists attributed to the bourgeoisie a “democratic mission that it in fact rejected and fought against” (
ibid, 286). Such a thesis is central to Guha’s work while Chakrabarty and others in the collective also subscribed to the proposition. Such a premise led the Subalternists to presume that the problem of violence and authoritarianism is many postcolonial countries is the result of their bourgeoisie failing to live up to their historic
170 mission/ European bourgeoisie. Such a fallacious conception is also behind their belief that democratic consciousness within the working class requires prior transformation of political culture by the bourgeoisie. Chibber accuses that the Sublternists have a “highly romanticised story about power relations in capitalism” (ibid, 286) and thus fails to understand how power really operates in a capitalist society. The forms of domination and violence exhibited by the employers are mistakenly thought to be departures from capitalism and political economy is projected as insufficient to analyse such forms of power. However, Chibber thinks that such a mode of power has always been the preferred mode of power by capitalists. Thus, Chibber says “Subaltern Studies airbrushes out the violence out of modern capitalism” (ibid, 287). Chibber further accuses that Subaltern Studies “underestimates capitalism’s ability not only to tolerate heterogeneity- “difference”- but to actively promote it” (ibid, 287). The Subalternists’ presumption that universalisation mean social homogenisation led them to deny capitalism even in places where it is most active. Subaltern Studies propagated the idea that the “Eastern agents operate with an entirely different political psychology than do Western agents”(ibid, 288) which has been a oldest canard in Orientalist
146 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
worldview. Such a prognosis that the Eastern agents are not motivated by material needs etc. are deeply ideological as it supports the denial of such rights to the people by the imperial and colonial forces. The anticolonial movements have demonstratively rejected such propositions. However, Subaltern Studies spreads such views in the name of radical critique. It also “assigns science, rationality, objectivity, and similar attributes to the West instead of regarding them as common to both cultures” (ibid, 289). Such a notion is present in Chatterjee’s analysis of colonial nationalism and it also runs through Dipesh Chakrabarty’s analysis. Chibber also thinks that Subaltern Studies “in the name of celebration of the local, the particular- whether as History 2, or as the “fragment”- ends up justifying an exoticization of the East” (ibid, 289). Such an essentialisation of the East is most strong in Chakrabarty who argues that since universalisation means homogenisation of social difference “the departure from the homogenising drive” is resistant to abstract logic of capital (ibid, 289)The minute examination of such practices are then presented as linked to emancipatory theory. Thus Chibber writes: “Traditional Orientalism is hereby repackaged as resistance to capital”(ibid, 289)
171 Chibber takes Robert Young’s valorisation of postcolonial theory and Subaltern Studies in particular as the latest inheritor of the great radical traditions starting from Marx himself. In Young’s analysis, thread from Marx directly leads to Subaltern Studies. However, Chibber differentiates Subalten Studies from the anticolonial thinkers like Cabral, Nkrumah and Fanon who were conscious of the reality of capitalist universalisation, and of the basic humanity that binds together East and West which Chibber says the Subalternists reject as nostrums. Chatterjee criticised the anticolonial thinkers of the twentieth century as prisoners of colonial thematic as unless they reject humanism, and until they believe in science and rationality they cannot be taken seriously. Thus, Chibber rejects Subalternist hypothesis as a valid analytical framework or as anti-colonial critique. He writes, “Given its irrationalism, its embrace of an Orientalist sociology, and its romanticization of capitalism, postcolonial theory has little or no connection to the theoretical lineage invoked by Robert Young” (ibid, 290). By pointing out the flaws in the Subalternists’ analysis Chibber’s aim is not to deny an attempt at provincialize Europe. He praises the attempt as a laudable exercise. However, he holds that postcolonial theory is incapable of carrying out such an agenda. Chibber suggests the alternative. He talks about two points. To provincialize Europe we must stop “continually harping on some unbriddgeable gap that separates East from West” and must show that “both parts of the globe
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 83%
are subject to the same basic forces and the same basic history” (
emphasis orginal ibid, 291). The two forces he talk about are “the two universalisms- the universal logic of capital (suitably defined) and social agents’ universal interest in their well- being which impels them to resist capital’s expansionary drive” (ibid, 291). The second point that chibber talks about is that Marxian analysis in the twentieth century has tried to do just the same i.e. understanding the specificity of the East. Ever since the Russian revolution Marxists have tried to understand the peculiar effect of capitalism in the non-west. He talks about the works of Lennin’s theory of imperialism and the “weakest link”, Kautsky’s work on
147 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
agrarian question, Trotsky’s work on uneven and combined development, Mao’s theory of New Democracy, Gramsci’s distinction between state legitimacy in Eastern and Western Europe. Whatever might be the flaws of their analysis they are not Eurocentric nor do they promote an essentialised view of the East. Chiber refers to the global meltdown of 2007-08 which had a worldwide impact and the Arab Spring whose political demands highlight the needs and interests of the people. These two factors could have effectively dismantled postcolonial theory from its proud position in the academia.
172 However, there are two obstacles in this dismantling process. The enormous material investment in the form of journals, humanity’s chair in the academia etc. would make it difficult to do away with postcolonial theory and the huge number of scholars and intellectuals who have built their career on promoting it would also hardly let it go so easily. Therefore a great deal of effort is needed for displacing postcolonial theory from the academia. As is clear from the lengthy discussion, Chibber seeks to debunk some of the basic theoretical premises of the project of Subaltern Studies and accuses it as a conservative ideology that obfuscates the real workings of global capitalism and thereby fails to provide us with a viable critique of capitalism. Chibber’s powerful critique generated a heated bebate among the scholars of postcolonial theory and numerous reviews of the book were written (Vanaik, 2013, Levien, 2014; Murphet, 2014; Purakayastha, 2014; Brennan, 2014; Lazarus, 2016; etc.). While some hailed the book as an important and powerful intervention (Vanaik, Purakayastha, Levien), some welcomed the critique but criticised Chibber for ignoring the wealth of research in materialist postcolonial theorisations (Lazaraus, Brennan) while others (Murphet, Nigam, 2014) rejected it as presumptuous and uncritical bashing of postcolonial and subaltern theory. The publication of the book also led to a heated debate between Chibber and Chatterjee, and Spivak. Let us discuss the debate briefly before we can come up with our own assessment of Chibber’s book from the perspective of the probem this thesis explores i.e. remapping the subaltern in the current conjuncture. Chibber-Chatterjee Debate & Its Fall out on Future Theorisation Partha Chatterjee responded to Chibber’s book initially at the Historical Materialism Conference at New York University on 28 April 2013 and later published the text at Economic and Political Weekly. Chatterjee refuted the claims of Chibber in his response. First, Chatterjee points out that Chibber’s historical counterfactual to Guha’s notion of postcolonial India as bourgeoisie dominance without hegemony is occasioned by a “gross misunderstanding of Guha’s claims” (Chatterjee 2013, 69) for Guha’s hypothesis was “intended as a critique of liberal historiography and the liberal ideology it represented and not as a historical sociology of bourgeois revolutions of Europe as Chibber understands it to be”. (ibid, 69) All Guha wanted is to expose the liberal claims that British rule in India and the rule of the postcolonial Indian liberal bourgeoisie had consent of the people. He further points out that when Guha compared the “non-hegemonic character of Indian bourgeoisie” he did
173 not do so by referring to the bourgeoisie of seventeenth or eighteenth century England or France but compared them with “the bourgeoisie of the nations of western Europe and North America after the second world war” (ibid, 70) Second, Chatterjee refutes Chibber’s definition of universalising tendency of capital as the universalisation of the “compulsions of market dependence” and abstract labour as the measure of the “socially necessary levels of efficiency”. Chibber invokes these definitions of universalisation of capital and of abstract
148 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
labour to criticise Chakrabarty’s hypothesis that the jute workers of Bengal were still attached to their traditional religious and cultural ties thereby highlighting the failure of the universalising tendency of capital. Chatterjee, refering to Marx, points out that abstract labour in Marx means the ‘common homogenous dimension of labour-power as a commodity’ (ibid , 71) and defends Chakrabarty. Third, against Chibber’s critique of Chatterjee’s notion of peasants not following individual self-interest in their political mobilisations, Chatterjee points out that he never meant that the peasant in Bengal did not follow economic self- interest. However, he distinguishes between the peasants pursuing their economic self-interest in their everyday social activity and the reasons behind their participation in political mobilisations. Chatterjee holds that the economic self-interest of the peasants did not translate into their political struggle. He writes, “…there was a discontinuity between the everyday and the extraordinary, the economic and the political, the domain of self-interest and that of community solidarity”. (ibid, 73) He further refutes Chibber’s argument that there must be some universal needs, for instance physical well-being, which are independent of culture. Chatterjee points out that Chibber’s defence of basic human needs is “independent not only of culture but of modes of production, state formations, power-structures and all other historical configurations: slaves, serfs, peasants, workers everyone could be said to be defending his univerasal need” (ibid, 74) and such a conception leads us to a kind of “universal bio-politics” or “zoo politics” (ibid, 74). Fourth, Chatterjee responds to Chibber’s hypothesis that the historical differences of culture, religion, caste or ethnicity pointed out by subaltern scholars such as Chakrabarty and Chatterjee are consistent with the universalising tendency of capital and thus the distinction between History 1 and History 2 as posited by Chakrabarty is a non- problem. Chatterjee responds by referring to the historical difference between the development of capitalism in the West and the non-West. He points out that wheras in capitalist Europe there was the dissolution of the peasantry, there is “continued reproduction to this day of a peasantry under the rule of capital in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.” (ibid, 75). And such historical difference posit that there would be more rapacious methods involved in the development of capitalism in non-European countries in the form of
174 primitive or primary accumulation and the peasants and workers are “resisting capital in ways that had never been followed before” (ibid, 75). Thus, pointing out this uncertainty of history, Chatterjee writes, “The critics of universalism argue that the outcomes are unknown, indeterminate, and hence unpredictable”. Chatterjee “does not rule out the rise of new universalist principles, but these, they (the subaltern scholars) insist, must be forged anew”. (ibid, 75) In his response to Chatterjee, Chibber (2014) points out that Chatterjee, instead of meaningfully engaging with his arguments, have tried to avoid them, at best distorted them and has thrown a smokescreen on the debate in order to defend the central hypotheses of subaltern studies collective. In his reply he refutes, with textual evidence from the writings of the three members of the Subaltern Studies collective, the counter-arguments of Chatterjee. Refuting Chatterjee’s claims Chibber point out that Guha in “Dominance without Hegemony and Its Historiography” criticised not merely the liberal ideology but had tried to show the failure of the universalising tendency of capital in India, that he meant by “bourgeoisie” not the “urban professionals” but the capitalists and that when he compared the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie he meant not the liberal ideologies of post second world war Europe and America but seventeenth and eighteenth century England and France. Contrary to Chatterjee’s
149 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
charge that Chibber ignored the issue of wage labour in his definition of abstract labour, Chibber points out that wage labour is elemental in definition of abstract labour and charges that Chatterjee instead of answering his claim that how universalisation of capital is consistent with the cultural and ethnic differences, goes on to defend Chakrabarty distorting Chakrabarty’s own claims. He further points out the apparent incomprehensibility of Chatterjee’s argument when he says that the peasant can recognise their interests in day to day existence but completely forgets that in political mobilisations where only community consciousness prevails. Chibber points out that Chatterjee’s response can best be viewed as a “performance” “designed to alley any anxieties that his followers might have about the foundations of their project in the wake of PTSC”. (Chibber 2014, 85) Spivak-Chibber Exchange Spivak’s excoriating review of Chibber’s book was answerd back by Chibber. Spivak points out that Chibber’s acceptance of Subaltern Studies as the “definitive example of
175 postcolonial theory” leads him to completely ignore the vast field of postcolonial theorisation from Pan Africanism (including Negritude), Latin American postcolonial theory, Latin American subaltern studies and even the other important members of subaltern studies collective in South Asia such as Shahid Amin or Shail Mayaram. Instead of providing a constructive criticism of postcolonial studies, Chibber is “stumped by his desire to ‘correct’ everybody” (Spivak 2014, 185).Spivak points out that Chibber fails to understand the difference between “capital” and “capitalism”. She writes:
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 100%
Capital is the abstract concept, Capitalism and /or socialism are two opposed means of human control of capital requiring coercive/ persuasive ideology and policy. …
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 80%
Capital ‘universalises’, then as now, because it seeks to establish the same standard of exchange, whatever the level of ‘development’. This is how capital’s behaviour become different. Capital- ism finesses this by talking ‘civilization’ mission, then as now. At the same time, capitalism produces difference in order to be capital (produce and use surplus). This is called class. (
Spivak 2014, 187) She points out that Chibber mis-reads Chakrabary as Chakrabrty does not deny universalisation of capital but only points out that the translation to History 1 ‘does not happen in one way’ (ibid187). Spivak points out that Chibber lacks nuance or any sense of auto-critique and is complicit with the same tendency he charges others to be for “
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 100%
If he thinks they ignore class, they think rigid class analysis ignores subaltern social groups” (
ibid 186). She further points out that Chibber confuses between the proletariat and the subaltern. She writes, “
150 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 92%
The main problem is that subaltern social groups are not the international proletariat. That is the basic message of Gramsci’s essay on the historiography of subaltern classes” (
ibid 188) Thus, the South Asian subalterns mobilised the discourse of religion “to find an objective concept of collectivity”. (ibid 188) However, as Chibber takes the “subaltern” as the “synonym” for the “proletariat” he offers the “usual mechanical Marxist utopian pronouncement” (ibid 189). Spivak refutes Chibber’s defence of universal human needs like physical well-being. She writes:
There is no grand narrative on the level of ‘physical well-
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 95%
being’…..
The moment you from body to mind, from physical well-being to fighting for physical well- being, there is language, history and ‘permissible narratives’ (Said 1984, 27-48). For example, the mother think honour, the daughter thinks reproductive rights. What history happened in between?...
0: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 100%
If physical well-being were a race- free, class-free , gender-free grand narrative there would be no point in having any theories of justice, politics, human rights and gender compromise. (
ibid 189)
176 She repeats Chatterjee’s charge that Chibber confuses between bourgeoisie and capitalist. But extends the point by saying that while Chibber thinks that Guha or Chatterjee was ascribing to the capitalists a democratic function, they were perhaps pointing out that the postcolonial bourgeoisie like Gandhi and Nehru were stalling the possibility of socialism, that Nehru was selling capitalism in the name social democracy, that the postcolonial bourgeoisie was helping to reproduce the capitalist social relations in the garb of narratives of development or improvement, that economic development is not synonymous with human development. She further points out that Chibber fails to understand “how discourse works at the social construction of reality” (ibid 193-94) and his dismissal of the structuralist ad post- structuralist influence on Subaltern Studies which allowed the subalternists to rethink left politics amounts to ranting. Spivak does not deny the universalization or as she calls uniformization of the exchange logic of capital. But she insists on the different career of modernity in the non-west and the different tropes of resistance and agency of the subaltern in that context and defends Chakrabarty’s appeal for “complexity and not top-down approach” in the application of analytical frames of Western Marxism; or religion providing a different
151 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
template of resistance to the insurrectionists as theorised by Guha. She points out that a feminist reading of Chibber’s valorisation of the subaltern might point out how the issue of gender is taken into any consideration by him. She complains that Chibber did not pay enough respect a Guha’s text which has attained the prestige of a “primary text” being led by his correct-fetishism. Ultimately Chibber’s endeavour amounts to preservation of “Little Britain Marxism” (ibid 185) While going through Spivak’s essay, it is clear that she repeats some of the points, such as Chibber’s confusion of “bourgeoisie” for “capitalsts”, against Chibber raised by others, for example Chatterjee (2013). That Chibber conflated Subaltern Studies with postcolonial theory leaving out different strands of theoretical articulations the logic of which was, Chibber repeats in his reply, made clear in his book itself. Chibber dismisses Spivak’s criticism that Guha’s work falls under the category of a primary text that needs to be “memorialized and interpreted, but not assessed” as displaying a “essentially theological mindset” (Chibber 2014b, 620). He also rejects the familiar criticism of his book that it is an attempt to restore the orthodoxies of “Little Britain Marxism” pointing out that his assessment of subalternists are made not from orthodox Marxist arguments but by assessing their own arguments. He further points out that he does not confuse the difference between capital and capitalism, as Spivak says, but is actually “utilizing it” (ibid 622). However, one
177 important point that Chibber does not answer is the conflation of “the subaltern” with “the proletarian” which is important because the members of Subaltern Studies project based their argument from the perspective of the subaltern which exceeds class. Another important point is that neither Chibber nor Spivak or the Subalternists deny the difference of postcolonial modernity. Chibber only points out that it is consistent with capitalist universalization. Points of Contention: Chibber and the Possible Directions for Remapping the Subaltern From the above discussion it is clear that Chibber’s book provoked a heated debate. However, few points can be taken on board when we are thinking about remapping the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. First, although Chiiber’s critique of the Subaltern Studies project has some important points and we can gain from him in redefining the subaltern today, his approach is highly dismissive of the Subaltern Studies project. A productive engagement with the project could provide us a direction for future understanding of subalternity and subaltern politics. Second, Chibber conflates Subaltern Studies with postcolonial theory. Although there is a clear connection of the later phase of Subaltern Studies with postcolonial theory, postcolonial theory and postcolonial studies is a much broader field and Subaltern Studies, too, started with a different orientation in the early 1980s in India. He not only misses the contribution of other members of the collective, he even ignores the materialist critiques in postcolonial theory expressed by other postcolonial scholars as pointed out by Neil Lazarus (2016). Third, he engaged only with the early works of the three members of the project and is completely silent about how they have moved beyond the initial theorisation of the subaltern and tried to rethink the subaltern question differently. Partha Chatterjee, for instance, has moved beyond the initial stand of subaltern politics as autonomous domain negating the state and has conceptualised subaltern politics as negotiation with the governmental organs for various needs. Importantly Chatterjee’s politics of the governed involves much mobilising for the subsistence benefits, needs, entitlements which even revises Chatterjee’s own theorisation of the peasant politics as needs and interests comes into their politics. Dipesh Chakrabarty and others have also started new projects with implications for remapping the subaltern in
152 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the current conjuncture and which are completely missed by Chibber. Fourth, Chibber gives us no clear direction for a future project for analysing subaltern politics. There has been occasional suggestions which reverts back to a Marxist politics of working class protest and class analysis as the method. However, contemporary subaltern politics cannot be reduced to working class politics and class, although it is an important optic of understanding exclusion and subordination cannot exhaust
178 subalternity which goes beyond class and has multiple axis such as caste, religion, and ethnicity. While class and caste or ethnicity intersect in producing entrenched hierarchies and exclusion, questions of caste, gender, ethnicity, religion can not be subsumed within class. The contemporary cases of caste atrocities and mob lynching of Dalits and Muslims in India or the attack on minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Myanmar cannot be explained with class perspective only. Fifth, the Subaltern Studies project started with the objective of looking beyond class and working class politics. While they have overdone it by bypassing class in the later part of the project, Chibber seems to overdo class politics and ignore the importance of discourse and epistemologies in producing marginalities, obscuring exclusions and silences. An analysis of those discursive formations of subalternity, thus, cannot be completely bypassed. Sixth, there has been a familiar attack on post-structuralist and deconstructionist approach employed by the subaltern scholars. Chibber, too, engages in such uncritical attack. However, deconstruction is not merely a losing way in the whirlwind of textual analysis. Deconstruction also alerts us about the exclusionary practices of discursive constructions and calls for an ethical opening to the other- the fragments, the silent who are excluded or muted in the dominant discourse. Thus, deconstruction can lead us to justice, as without being sensitive to the other or the silenced we would end up ignoring them in the praxis. Seventh, although the universality of physical well-being can hardly be ignored, can we also ignore other issues such as of culture or religion that go beyond considerations of material needs? A utilitarian approach of physical well-being cannot exhaust people’s understanding of needs. Eighth, there is clear overlap between Chibber’s critique and the early critiques of Subaltern Studies. Often, Chibber seems to rehears what has been said before. It is clear from the debate between Chibber-Chattejee-Spivak that they do not deny the universalisation of capitalist logic of expropriation. The Subalternists hold that the universalisation of capital did not lead to homogenisation of the social, cultural and political institutions under capitalist modernity. While Chibber think that heterogeneity is compatible, at times actively promoted, with capitalist universalisation, the Subalternists hold that this different career of capitalist modernity in the non-West requires different sets of theories which are specific to the context. Thus, they seem to agree that heterogeinty exists and how that heterogenous social formations are implicated in the dominat forms of power in the current conjuncture of neo- liberal capitalism and right-wing majoritarianism and how this situation leads to emergent forms of subalternity and how to remap them can be the future project for the study of subaltern life and politics today. In what follows we would take stock of the recent attempts at remapping subaltern poitics in the current conjuncture. This would
179 give a better picture of the recent theoretical debates over issues of exclusion and marginalisation today. Neo-Gramscian Reformulation of Subaltern Politics Since Partha Chatterjee’s (EPW 2012) call for a “new project” for understanding subaltern politics in
153 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
contemporary India and the Chibber-Chatterjee face-off over Chibber’s book, there have been several attempts at rethinking subaltern politics. Alf Gunvald Nilsen and Srila Roy edited New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India (2015) is a significant contribution in this ongoing debate on reconceptualising subaltern politics in contemporary neo-liberal conjuncture. It critically engages with the legacy of the Subaltern Studies project and draws also from Chibber’s intervention for offering new ways of understanding subaltern politics from the vantage point of contemporary new social movements in India. What is subaltern politics? Nilsen nd Roy points out that subaltern politics in a broad sense refer to “the political activity of social groups who are adversely incorporated into determinate power relations” (Nilsen and Roy 2015, 1). Subaltern politics can range from “everyday forms of resistance, via rights-based campaigns on the terrain of civil society and participation in electoral democracy, to armed struggles for revolutionary transformation” (ibid, 1). What underlies such politics is the “articulation of oppositional agency- that is, challenges to the extant structuring of power relations and the multiple forms of marginalisation that are produced by this structuring” (ibid, 1). The book tries to conceptualise the dynamics of these processes as they unfold in contemporary India. What characterises the contemporary conjuncture in India and what forms of subalternity and subaltern politics is it giving shape to? The neo-liberal regime in India has produced paradoxical consequences. On the one hand India is emerging as the next economic powerhouse. On the other hand, there is also the persistence of entrenched poverty, widening inequality, the agrarian crisis, the exploitation of laborers in informal sector. This is giving birth to new forms of subalternity or consolidating the older ones. Nilsen and Roy write, “Socio-economic marginalisation in turn intersects with structures of power based on caste, gender, and sexuality to create the pattern of exclusion, vulnerability, stigma, and disenfranchisement that define subalternity in contemporary India” (ibid, 2). This has also created numerous contestations from below. There have been the armed struggles of the Maoists. The neoliberal forms of empowerment and the rights based legislations has also
180 reconfigured the material interactions between the state and India’s marginalised creating spaces within which the marginalised groups renegotiate their relationship with the state. Nilsen and Roy write: The current conjuncture then is one in which multiple forms of subaltern politics are locked in a confrontation with what Corbridge and Harris refer to as ‘elite revolts’: hegemonic projects that seek to mould India’s economy , polity and society in ways that consolidate the power of the country’s dominant social groups. (ibid, 4) There is a need, Nilsen and Roy think, to arrive at new “conceptual optics” to understand the “oppositional agency and political projects of subaltern groups” (ibid, 4) in this conjuncture. In this attempt at re-theorising subaltern politics in contemporary India, Nilsen and Roy seek to critically engage with the Suabletrn Studies project, for although they are concerned with the contemporary forms and dynamics of subaltern politics, the project, despite being rooted in historiographical concerns, has been of “singular importance in orienting scholarly attention towards the significance of popular politics and mobilisation from below in Postcolonial India” (ibid, 5). Thus, they are not aiming a “new singular template” but propose a “critical but constructive dialogue with the conceptual legacies of the Subaltern Studies project” to suggest “possible ways in which to move towards new understandings of the agency that subaltern groups develop to negotiate and resist the workings of power from above in contemporary
154 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
India.” (ibid, 5) Given the analytical extension and overuse of the term it is difficult to explain what it means to be subaltern. The term “subaltern” has sometimes meant “empirical groupings” (as for the early subalterns) or more generally it meant “relations of dominance and subordination” as opposed to subordinate groups alone. In fact, the meaning of the term subaltern is characterised by this tension between “empirical designations of identity positions” and a “critical understanding of how power, subordination and agency are constituted within a specific set of social relations”. The move from subaltern to subalternity characterises a “shift of perspective from identity to power” (ibid, 6). Nilsen and Roy point out that Guha defined the subaltern rather loosely as that part of the population-the working classes, the peasantry, and subordinate classes-who were not part of the elite. Subalternity was further associated with subordination and
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 82%
subaltern was used as “as
a
name for
the general attribute of subordination in South Asian society whether this is
181
expressed in terms of class, caste, age, gender and office
and in any other way.”(
ibid, 6) It was conceived in a “dichotomous relationship with the elite” as it constituted an “autonomous domain” outside the elite sphere. The project attempted to “recover” the agency of the subaltern which was denied in elite historiography. However, it is Spivak’s intervention that signalled a “turn away from using ‘subaltern’ as an empirical designation of identity positions and towards postcolonial studies and a critical perspective on power relations’(ibid, 7). Spivak criticises the project for its implicit essentialism and positivism. It is essentialist as it “negates the heterogeneity of subaltern groups and transforms them ‘into an undifferentiated, humanist and implicitly male subject agnt’” (ibid, 8). Such a “project of recovering ubaltern agency is also positivist” as it “presumes a ‘firm ground’ or even an ‘idealistic bed-rock’, namely, subaltern consciousness that one can access unmediated by discourse, representation or experience” (ibid, 8). Spivak’s intervention meant three things- there is “no escape from the politics and ethics of representation” (ibid, 9). Consequently there is “no pure space from which intellectuals and social movements can hope to speak on behalf of, or represent, subaltern interests” (ibid, 9), and there is “no autonomous space outside of power relations” (ibid, 9). Nilsen and Roy think that this “poststructuralist shift from conceptualising the subject as autonomous of (elite) discourse to seeing it as an ‘effect of discursive systems’ was a major outcome of spivak’s intervention”(ibid, 9) But, Spivak’s
155 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
alternative conceptualisation of subalternity is found to be problematic because “it suggests a position of absolute exteriority in relation of hegemonic formations-the condition of being cut off from lines of social mobility- and in that it deprives subaltern groups of agential capacities” (ibid, 11). Nilsen and Roy contends that the subalterns can develop oppositional agency even in extremely oppressive context (ibid, 12). How to re-theorise subalternity in the current conjuncture then? Nilsen and Roy talks about three axes of delineating subalternity- 1. Relational- subalternity is above all a positionality of adverse incorporation in a certain set of socio-historical power relations 2. Intersectional- subalternity is constituted along several axes of power, whose specific empirical form must be deciphered in concrete empirical settings
182 3. Dynamic- subalternity does not preclude agency, but agency arises and develops within and in relation to dominant discourses and political forms. This “expansive, relational and intersectional” account of subalternity locates it in “wide social field of power relations to address plurality of context specific manifestations of power” (ibid, 12). Such an approach refuses to view subalternity just as a class category or in any single axis, it also does not subscribe to subaltern agency as “being entirely subsumed, as in Spivak, under the power of dominant discourses, or being, as in Guha, entirely voluntarist” (ibid, 12). Such a reconceptualisation of subalternity can be developed by going back to Gramsci. Political mobilisation and struggle of the subaltern does not take place “in some autonomous domain, but in and through the institutions and relations through which hegemony is constituted”. The subaltern people struggle against their adverse incorporation into the socio- political institutions that try to hegemonies the interests of the dominant groups, but at the same time their struggle is “conditioned by and mediated through” the prevalent hegemony. This conceptualisation of the subaltern “takes us somewhat beyond the impasse identified earlier, between positing a subaltern subject that is entirely autonomous and one that is entirely subject to structures of dominance and silenced”( ibid, 15). Nilsen and Roy also seek to think beyond the concept of hegemony as theorised by Guha who theorised the colonial and postcolonial state as a result of dominance without hegemony. They refer to Chibber’s critique of Guha’s notion of hegemony as necessarily clearing a space for rethinking hegemony. They want to return to Gramsc’s original conceptualisation of hegemony which conceptualised hegemony in a processual term, as “a continuous process of formation and superseding of ‘unstable equilibrium’… between the interests of the fundamental groups and those of the subordinate groups” (ibid, 19). Such a concept of hegemonic formulation they hold has ample potentiality in analysing the neoliberal turn in India. The neoliberal project reflects elite interests. However, there have been attempts to garner consent from below. The emergence of the rights based democratic turn also point out the negotiated character of neoliberalism as a hegemonic project in contemporary India. Subalternity and subaltern politics in the current conjuncture is firmly embedded in the particular historical and social conjuncture of neoliberal hegemonic formation and is also potentially transformative of the same through the use of available political technologies.
183 Nilsen and Roy’s proposal for a return to Gramsci was also expressd in their critique of the theorisation of the subaltern in Subaltern Studies by Marcus Green (2002) and Massimo Modonesi (2013). A similar call for a return to Gramsci is expressed recently by Peter D Thomas. Thomas thinks that the subaltern is conceptualised by the Subalternists as a figure of
156 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
exclusion, removed from the modern institutions of citizenship of the state. He seeks to revise Gyanendra Pandey’s theorisation of the “subaltern citizen” by returning to Gramsci’s theorisation of the subaltern who is represented, not as a figure of exclusion, but as “integrally and actively “included” or integrated into the hegemonic process” of what Gramsci calls the “integrated bourgeois state”. The terms citizenship and subalternity in The Prison Notebooks, as Peter D Thomas points out, “are in a relationship of co-constitution” highlighting the ongoing process of formation of hegemony. Instead of “citizen subaltern” or “subaltern citizen” in which one of the term qualifies the other, he prefers the coterminous figure of the “citizen-subaltern” or “citizen sive subaltern” as, he thinks, it more adequately theorises the “constitutive relationship between freedom and un-freedom in political modernity” (Thomas 2016, 16) Discourse of Governmentality and Subaltern Politics of Negotiation Partha Chatterjee (2004, 2011) in his recent writings has moved beyond the framework of Subaltern Studies to understand subaltern politics in contemporary India as politics of negotiation. Kanyal Sanyal’s diagnosis of the capitalist development in India can be viewed as providing a background to such politics of negotiation. Sanyal in Rethinking Capitalist Development (2007) interestingly draws our attention to the question of governmentality to explicate the nature of postcolonial capitalist accumulation in neo-liberal India. Under the pressure of global developmental discourse and local electoral democracy the state takes up various counter measures to primitive accumulation. Drawing on Foucault’s views on governmentality, Sanyal points out that “the outside of capital”- the poor peasants, petty producers and the mammoth informal sector – who bear the brunt of primitive accumulation- needs to be politically managed. The political and ideological justification of capital accumulation can be achieved by transferring some of its gains to this “need economy” which harbors a huge number of self-employed labourers. It is the “taking care of its castaways” that guaranty the peaceful march of capital in postcolonial India. Sanyal writes:
184 The arising of capital leaves in its wake a surplus population- those 'who have lost their access to the means of labor but are unable to sell their labor- power as a commodity. They constitute a space outside capital’s own realm, the space of poverty, and although capital is economically self –subsistent, its political and ideological conditions of existence depend on how this space is negotiated…. This requires that a part of the capitalist surplus be transferred from the domain of capital for implementing anti-poverty programs; development now means a reversal of primitive accumulation.(Sanyal 2007, 175) So, the governmental techniques, such as giving entitlements to the poor and productive resources such as credit, inputs and technology to constitute the need based production activities to the informal sector, attempts to reverse the process of primitive accumulation. This logic of governmentality is endorsed by Partha Chatterjee with slight modification as he talks about the “reversal of consequences of primitive accumulation”, instead of reversal of primitive accumulation per se. So, what kind of radical politics the subaltern can come up with? What are the options available to them? Partha Chatterjee draws our attention to the implications of economic transformation and the role of democracy in India after neo-liberal reforms. He thinks that while neoliberal capital has gained unparalleled legitimacy among the elites of civil society, the unprecedented reach of the administrative functionaries of the state in the hitherto un- accessed subaltern domains leaves nothing outside the state. The externality of the state against which the subaltern struggle was pitted is no longer a valid analytical tool. Subaltern politics, Chatterjee thinks,
157 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
needs to be re-thought via governmental discourse. Therefore, the politics subalterns are engaged with is the “politics of the governed” i.e. the politics of negotiations with the administrative bodies for survival benefits. However, can politics of negotiation bring about any significant change in the condition of the subaltern? Ajay Gudavarthy (ed. 2012) has highlighted the limitations of such politics in bringing about any structural transformation in the life of the subalterns. However, Chatterjee (2012, 2017) points out that his concept of “political society” describes the empirical reality of subaltern politics today and at times small changes can cumulatively bring about some positive changes in the life of the subaltern. Rethinking Subaltern Politics: Resistance as Negotiation
185 Uday Chandra (ed. 2015) seeks to provide a roadmap for a new project after the end of Subaltern Studies. In doing that he basically re-applies Chatterjee’s framework of subaltern politics as negotiation. As opposed to subaltern politics as negation which was the framework Subaltern Studies, Chandra decides to track a different path by analysing subaltern politics as working within the state. He talks about the “new wave of scholarship” that provide influential conceptual frameworks for rethinking subaltern politics - “rightful resistance”, “lawfare”, and “political society”. These conceptual frameworks “shifts scholarly attention from peasant rebellion and social revolution towards an understanding of what O’Brien (2013, 1058) calls ‘within system form[s] of contention in the reform, not revolution, paradigm’”. (Chandra 2015, 566) These frameworks also “share a kinship with a well-known within-system form of contention namely, Scott’s ‘everyday forms’ of resistance”(ibid, 566). Scott’s mode of resistance talks about about those “less –than- revolutionary acts of peasants and other subalterns who display a ‘calculative rationality’ in negotiating the terms of their subordination”(ibid, 566). However, Chandra also points out the difference in the conceptual framework of Scott and those of the O’ Brien and Li (rightful resistance), Comaroff and Comaroff (lawfare) and Chatterjee (political society). Unlike Scott they do not think that resistance is “autonomous of hegemonic forms of power, nor do they work with an unsustainable distinction between the public and hidden selves of subaltern actors” (ibid, 566). However, these forms of “‘contentious politics’”, refering to Tilly and Tarrow Chandra says, “can and do lead to progressive social change, but they do not necessarily imply regime change or revolutionary politics” ibid, 566). Chandra further elaborates: For our purposes, these recent works on subaltern-state relations in South Asia and elsewhere dovetail nicely with our ambition to articulate a narrower working definition of “resistance” that is rooted in the logic of negotiation rather than negation. (ibid, 566) Rightful resistance, as O’Brien and Li(2006) define, based on their fieldwork in China, is “a form of popular contention that operates near the boundary of authorised channels, employs the rhetoric and commitments of the powerful to curb the exercise of power, hinges on locating and exploiting divisions within the state, and relies on mobilising support from the wider public”.(ibid, 566) Thus, those who operate in this framework “recognise the structures of power and domination in society and work within those structures to articulate their claims, exploiting crevices and cracks in social arrangements to push forward subaltern political agenda”. (ibid, 566) O’Brien and Li refers to the strategy used by the peasants in China where they routinely complain of the everyday behaviour of the local party functionaries and
186 bureaucrats to the higher echelons of the Chinese Communist Party and seek redressal of their problems by employing the rhetoric of the party in their favour and not by challenging it.
158 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Thus, they are able to negotiate the structures of power and rework them in their favour. Chandra dismisses the possible complaints of “votaries of more radical politics” who might be disappointed by these reformist agendas for social change by saying that “the material and non-material consequences for subaltern lives are not easy to dismiss altogether” (ibid, 567). He reminds us of Gramsci’s notion of “war of position” by which the subaltern classes were able to negotiate the structures of power that subordinate them in a manner that is least costly to them. Another “within system form of contentious politics” is “lawfare” which, as defined by anthropologists Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff, refers to the “use of legal means for political and economic means” (ibid, 567). Chandra quotes Comaroff and Comaroff who in their edited volume Law and Disorder in the Postcolony hold that “[it]t is not just self- imaginings, interests, identities, rights and injuriesthat have become saturated with the culture of egality. Politics itself is migrating to the courts…Class struggles seem to have metamorphosed into class actions”. (Camaroff and Camaroff quoted by Chandra, ibid, 567) Their example vary from the struggles of the indigenous peoples’ fight over land and resources in North America, legal fight of the victims of gas leak at Union Carbide in Bhopal, India in the Indian courts, to the fight of the bushmen for lagal right to return to Kalahai reserve in Botswana etc. This “judicialisation of politics”, Comaroff and Comaroff hold “has an “insurgent potential” in so far as it permits “the little peoples and marginal populations of the world” to use the law and its instruments strategically to better their lives”. (Camaroff and Camaroff quoted by Chandra, ibid, 567). Chandra refers to Nandini Sundar’s (2009) findings about popular struggles over law and their growing importance in liberalised democratic set up in India. Lawfare, much like rightful resistance, “does not talk about regime change or any revolutionary consequences” (ibid, 567). But it offers the subaltern actors “the means to engage in a Gramscian “war of position” vis-à-vis the structures that subordinate and oppress them” (ibid, 567). Chandra then refers to Partha Chatterjee’s concept of “political society”. Unlike previous theorisations on subaltern politics in the subaltern studies tradition which saw the state as external to subaltern lifeworld, Chatterjee “placed the modern state at the centre of subaltern politics”. “Subaltern actors”, explains Chandra, “operate in a Bourdieusian ‘field’ in which
187 they despite their marginal structural position, strategically manipulate the promises of the postcolonial state to their advantage” (ibid, 568). Although “Chatterjee never terms these subaltern negotiations ‘resistance’”, but Chandra insists, “his theoretical framework and his many examples everyday life speak directly to the revised notion of resistance” (ibid, 568) he wants to propose. There are obvious differences between these three theoretical frameworks as there are overlaps. And these differences and overlaps caught in a “fruitful and productive” tension, help “rethink resistance today and to revitalise it as a valid and useful concept” (ibid, 568). Although O’ Brien, the Comaroffs and Chatterjee build their theoretical framework based on different parts of the world “what unites them and puts them in the same critical intellectual tradition as Scott’s ‘weapon of the weak’ is a desire to understand the ways by which subaltern actors seek to undo, however partially, the conditions of their subordination” (ibid, 568). Chandra writes, “To redefine resistance as negotiation is to, above all, place the modern state at the heart of subaltern politics. Subaltern resistance is thus not extrinsic but intrinsic to everyday power relations within which the state is embedded as a multi-layered leviathan” (ibid, 568). Institutionalising the Marginalities Another version of this state-
159 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
subaltern interaction can be found in Hugo Gorrringe et al conceptualisation of the institutionalisation of marginalities. Different kinds of exclusion and marginalisation- social, political or economic- of various social groups-whether understood in terms of class, caste, religion, gender, sexuality, age or regional disparity- and the attempts to accommodate them in the mainstream continue to be predominant issue for different societies in South Asia. Hugo Gorringe et, al edited From the Margins to the Mainstream: Institutionalising Minorities in South Asia advances our understanding of the complex and contested processes of inclusion and accommodation of the marginal actors in South Asia. In doing that, the writers seek to go beyond/supplement the standard social movement and political science writings on institutionalisation that restrict their analysis on formal politics and seeks to understand its socio-political implications. Gorringe et al hold that “political institutions are constituted by social relations and need to be understood in the context of wider social relations and structures” (Gorringe et al ed, 2015, XXIV). Thus, democratisation does not mean representation in political institutions only, it is also a process that “alters social relations and enables marginal actors to gain the capacity to raise their
188 voices and be heard both in formal institutions and in civil society more generally” (ibid, XXIV). The challenges posed to socio-political hierarchy might, however, prompt backlash from the dominant groups whether in the form of repression, co-option or negotiation which seek to reproduce the status-quo. Thus, the marginal actors often find them adversely incorporated- included in terms that relegate them in the peripheries of institutions thereby hampering their participation in the decision making processes, often forcing compromise with their core agenda, and can leave them enfeebled or de-mobilised. However, this volume insists, this is not the end of the story. Institutionalisation is a continuous process; the struggle goes on and the outcome needs to be understood beyond the simplistic notions of success or failure. This “from the below” approach of institutionalisation or how the mobilisation and assertions of the marginal actors and their consequent institutionalisation, adversely or otherwise, can lead to enhance their capability for public action which would guide their journey ahead from the margins to the mainstream promises reach dividends for re- conceptualising subaltern politics and oppositional agency in contemporary South Asia. A Similar version of the same problematic of subalerternity and social exclusion and how the excluded and marginalised are struggling to change their position is put forward by ashok K. Pankaj and Ajit K. Pandey (2014). They sought to analyse the question of “subaltern reproduction” i.e. “why and how does a society produce and reproduce subalterns?” They highlight the roel of “ideology, knowledge and power to reproduce subalterns and subalternity in Indian society” and attempts to “map the dominant trajectories of emancipation and assertion adopted by the subaltern…” (Pankaj and Pandey ed. 2014, vii). Extra Historical Temporalities and the Subaltern A different framework other than the imbrication of institutionalisation and state- subaltern interaction is presented by Prathama Banerjee. In her article, “The Subaltern: Political Subject or Protagonist of History?” in the special issue of South Asia: Journal of Asian Studies Prathama Banerjee draws our attention to multiplitous and divergent temporal conceptions of the contemporaneity which she thinks is not coterminous with modernity, and is marked by the existence or co-existence of the secular and the theological, the modern and the traditional, the historical and the extra-historical. She
160 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
talks about the need to “own up to the question of extra-historical temporalities” (Banerjee 2015, 49) and non-secular, spiritual aspects of subaltern politics. She writes, “
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 93%
It is only with a theoretical acknowledgement of
189 such heterogeneous temporalities and experiences that we can thematise anew subaltern politics and subaltern lives” (
Banerjee, 2015, 49). Choosing Precarity Apart from these diverse attempts at redefining the subaltern, there has been a call for supplanting the term “subaltern” with that of “Precarity”. Simon During in his article, Choosing Precarity (2015) holds that the category of the subaltern has lost its analytical purchase in these times of neo-liberal capitalism. He analyses the socio- economic aftermath of the 1968 revolutions the ant-statist and the reformist social agendas of which have been fused into the neo-liberal logic. He investigates and evaluates the intellectual trajectories of the “subaltern problem” – the division between the intellectual elite and the subaltern- in such leftist intellectual enterprises such as Subaltern Studies, Cultural Studies, and Postcolonial Studies that came on the intellectual scenario in the post-1968. The subaltern paradigm, he holds, cannot analyse the contemporary forms of precarious conditions of life of the “post- Fordist work-seeking, famine or terror-fleeing nomads who have no secure entry into states and societies” (During 2015, 36). However, he also holds that this precarity is not specific to those in the lower ranks of society and also marks the conditions of life of many in the middle class. He writes: So the terms under which the subaltern problem has long been understood no longer hold. That is also because new, more extensive and less visible patterns of global dispossession are gaining ground. Relatively geographically and culturally stable relations of domination and subordination are being replaced by relatively unstable and dispersed conditions of deprivation and insecurity. Intimations of imperilment are extended more widely across various societies in a situation where global social insecurity is backed by planetary ecological insecurity. (ibid, 19) He thus looks beyond the concept of the subaltern and advances the category of the “precariat” to better capture the lifeworld of those living precariously. He explains: ‘Precarity’ effectively invokes the insecurity of all those who live without reliable and adequate income or without identification and/or residency papers. No, access to the institutions and communities best able to provide legitimacy, recognition and solidarity. More radically, if more loosely, it also points to those whose work, often hand to mouth, serves the interests of ethical orientations that cannot be smoothly aligned to the instrumental values that have come to reign over global capitalism. The arts and the humanities figure largely among these. Even First World members of the
190 middle classes , including intellectuals and, I would wager, some readers of this essay, are increasingly unprotected against material insecurity and find themselves, at the very least, at risk of precarity. (ibid, 20) Although ‘precarity” can be seen as the very condition of life of human beings in this world, Simon During thinks that … the secular notion that uneasiness and instability are primary to human existence is kept alive precisely under capitalism since it is a mode of production that , in effect, invests in insecurity, which therefore reaches a certain
161 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
fulfilment in today’s global precarity. (ibid, 22) He analyses the novel of Amit Chaudhuri, The Immortals to talk about the “literature of precarity” that captures “the serial, restless and vulnerable contextlessness” of those global precariats that “includes people from many classes, religions and cultures as they are swept into capitalism’s most recent phase” (ibid, 37). In this chapter we have mapped the recent debates surrounding the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. We have discussed at lenghth Chibber’s questioning of the basic premises of the Subaltern Studies project and took stock of the Chibber-Chatterjee-Spivak debate to pont out that although Chibber’s book raises important points about the theoretical premises of the Subaltern Studies project, his ultimate dismissive stance does not help us much in taking the question of remapping the subaltern in the contemporary conjuncture. We have aslo discussed elaborately on the recent attempts at redefining the subaltern -from the neo-Gramscian stance of Nilsen and Roy to the post-Subaltern Studies approach of Chatterjee, Chandra, Banerjee etc. We have also seen how the neo-liberal conjuncture and the emergent forms of precarities have questioned the very analytical potential of the term “subaltern” and new terms like precarity, instead of subalternity, is being thought about to characterise the condition of living in the neo-liberal times. In the next chapter we would take stock of the emergent forms of subalterniies and precarities in the current conjuncture of neo- liberal capital and right-wing majoritarianism and would analyse, from the vantage point of one of those emergent forms of subalterns namely the Rohingya refugee, whether we need to move beyond the term “subaltern” as Simon During suggests? Works Cited: Banerjee, Prathama. 2015. “The Subaltern: Political Subject or Protagonist of History?” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1: 39-49.
191 Brennan, Timothy. 2014. “Subaltern Stakes” (Review Article). New Left Review, 89:67-87. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2013. “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (12): 23-27. Chandra, Uday. 2015. “Rethinking Subaltern Resistance: Subaltern Politics and the State in Contemporary India.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 45(4): 563-73 Chatterjee,
Partha. 2004.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
The
Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New
Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2008. “
Democracy and Economic Transformation in India”. Economic and Political Weekly 43(16): 53-62 ———. 2011.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
162 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2012 “After Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (35):44-49. ———. 2013. “
Subaltern Studies and Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (37):69-75. ——— . 2012. “The Debate over Political Society”. In Reframing Democracy and Agency: Interrogating Political Society, edited by Ajay Gudavarthy, 305-322. London: Anthem Press. ——— . 2017. “Land and the Political Management of Primitive Accumuation”. In The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession, and Capitalist Transition, edited by Anthony P. D’Costa and Achin Chakrabarty, 1-15. UK: Oxford UP. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. UK and US: Verso. ——— .2014.“Revisiting Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 49 (9):82-85. ——— . 2014. “
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 88%
Making Sense of Postcolonial Theory: A Response to Gayatri Cahkrabarty Spivak”. Cambridge Review
of International Affairs 27(3): 617-624. During, Simon. 2015. “Choosing Precarity”. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1: 19-38.
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 70%
Ganguly, Debjani. ed. 2015. “
The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 87%
Gohain Hiren. 2012. “Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (39):74-76.
Gorringe, Hugo, et al., ed. 2016. From the Margins to the Mainstream: Institutionalising Minorities in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage. Green, Marcus. 2002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
Rethinking Marxism 14(3):1-24.
163 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
192 Gudavarthy, Ajay, ed,. 2012 Reframing Democracy and Agency: Interrogating Political Society. London: Anthem Press. ———. 2013. Politics of Post- Civil Society: Contemporary History of Political Movements in India. Delhi: Sage.
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 42%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspect of Colonial Historiography”. In
Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History & Society,
ed. by Ranajit Guha, 1-8.
New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1999.
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
USA: Duke University Press. (
First Published in 1983 New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———.1989. “Dominance without hegemoy and Its Historiography”. In Subaltern Studies VI, Ranajit Guha, ed., 210-324. New Delhi: Oxford UP. Lazarus, Neil. 2016. “Vivek Chibber and the Specter of Postcolonial Theory”. Race and Class, 57 (3): 88-106. Levien, M. 2014. “Subalternists Scrutinized”. Europen Journal of Sociology 54(3): 485-497. Modonesi, Massimo. 2013. Subalternity, Antagonism, Autonomy: Constructing the Political Subject. UK: Pluto Press. Murphet, Julian. 2014. “No Alternative” (Review Essay). The Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literay Theory, 1(1): 157-163. Nigam, Aditya. 2014. “Postcolonialism, Marxism and Non-Western Thought”. Centre for Scientific Socialism Occational Lecture Series 8. 1-28. (Accessed from the website of CSDS, New Delhi on 20-05-2019). Nilsen, Alf Gunvald and Srila Roy. 2015. “Introduction: New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India”. In New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India, edited by Alf Gunvald Nilsen nd Srila Roy, 1-27. New Delhi: Oxfod UP. Nilsen, Alf Gunvald. 2015. “Passages from Marxism to Postcolonialism: A Commnt on
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital”.
Critical Sociology 43(4-5): 559-571. Pankaj, Ashok K. and Ajit K. Pandey, ed,. 2014. Subalternity, Exclusion and Social Change in India. Chennai: Foundation. Purakayastha, A. S. 2014. “Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital” (Review Article). Journal of Postcolonial Writing 50(3): 369- 370 Spivak, Gayatri Chakrabarty. 2014. “Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital” (Review Article). Cambridge Review of International Affairs 27(1): 184-198.
193 ———.2000. “The New Subaltern: a Silent Interview”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 324-340. UK: Verso. Thomas, Peter D.2018. “Refiguriing the Subaltern”. Political Theory 00(0):1-24. Vanaik Achin. 2013.
164 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
“Powerful Critique of Postcolonial Theory” (Review Article). Economic and Political Weekly 48 (28): 27-31.
194 CHAPTER V: REMAPPING THE SUBALTERN IN THE CONTEMPORARY CONJUNCTURE Subaltern Studies emerged in the 1980s in India as a critique of the exclusionary nationalist historiography of South Asia by mobilising the figure of the subaltern as the position of that critique. Early Subaltern Studies, guided by the theoretical innovations of Guha, conceptualised the figure of the subaltern as synonymous with the insurgent peasant whose political agency and modes of mobilisation was highlighted to establish the subaltern as the conscious political subject. Later on, the focus on the insurgent peasant gave way to the study of the discursive production of subalternity in a move from the subaltern subject to the question of power dynamics. However, as the initial context of conceptualising the subaltern changed there have been attempts at reconceptualising and redefining the subaltern both by the members of the Subaltern Studies collective as well by scholars outside it, especially since the official closure of the publication of the volumes of Subaltern Studies. In this chapter we would first talk about the new socio-political and economic conjuncture for a better understanding of the emergent figures of the subaltern. We would take stock of the emergent forms of subalternities and existent subalternisations in contemporary India and would engage with one such emergent subaltern figure i.e. the Rohingya refugees against the backdrop of recent attempts at refiguring the subaltern today. As this thesis engages with the issue of remapping the subaltern and the exclusions and silences in the contemporary political and cultural discourses about them, the focus on the Rohingya refugees, a new subaltern, would extend the recent attempts at reconceptualising the subaltern as they are silent about the migrant and the refugee question. The Contemporary Conjuncture: Neo- liberal Capital, Ethno-Nationalism and Border- Regime The contemporary conjuncture is marked by two contradictory tendencies- the arrival of neo-liberal capital and the rise of right- wing majoritarianism and ethno-nationalism. Post- 90s there has been a massive re- structuring of Indian economy with deregulation, trade liberalization, financial sector reforms and privatization. As a result there has been the rise to hegemony of international finance capital in civil society through this globalization. The priority to attract investment and to capture capital flight led to a race among states for attracting capital via concession. The consequences of this are captured brilliantly by Prabhat
195 Patnaik: The essence of these changes lies in a reduction in the strength of the workers and peasants. The fact that state policy tends to focus on appeasing finance capital entails a withdrawal of the state from its role in supporting and protecting petty production against the onslaughts of big capital. This exposes petty producers (such as peasants, craftsmen, fishermen and artisans), and also petty traders to a process of expropriation. Such expropriation occurs both through a direct take over by big capital of their assets, like land, at a throw away prices, and also through a reduction in their “flow” incomes, and hence their capacity to survive, i.e. to carry on with “simple reproduction”. The disposed petty producers throng urban areas in search of work, adding to the number of jobseekers. (Patnaik 2014, 40) So, what we see is that capital accumulation under neo-liberal regime continues in both forms, accumulation by expansion and as primitive accumulation. The existing industrial capitalist accumulation continues unabated by extracting “surplus labor” via job cuts (Patnaik), income
165 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
deflation of the working class aided by the introduction of newer technologies in production. Alongside this, primitive accumulation, often facilitated by the state, has taken various forms, such as accumulation by dispossession, encroachment and coercion. Let us see the features and dynamics of these two accumulative processes in neo- liberal India and what new forms of subalternity they have produced. There has been massive expropriation of land and natural resources by finance capital. Primitive accumulation has encroached on the “new commons” i.e. forests, minerals, fisheries, sand, ground water etc. The creation of new enclosures such as Special Economic Zones (SEZ) by the foreign and the domestic corporate investors is massive source of capital accumulation creating newer domains of exclusions and oppressions. The blatant disregard of the institutional and legal safeguards in dismantling the tribals from their mineral rich habitat /habitus is another testimony of unabashed postcolonial accumulation of capital. The mode of postcolonial development in its neo-liberal avatar has sharply divided urban and rural India, sometimes referred to as two Indias, India of light and India of darkness. While affluent mega cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore, Chennai, and Nagpur are browbeating for their economic growth, a careful analysis will make it clear that it is the flow of the casual labour from other underdeveloped states of India that functions as the catalyst behind their massive change. The “jobless growth” of Indian economy has created a huge sector of self-employed worker. There is also the casualisation of worker under this neo-liberal growth story. The job cuts, wage deflation and eviction of slum dwellers for city planning and urban development are some of the interconnected areas of primitive accumulation in contemporary India. Apart
196 from such enumerative figures of the subaltern domains, the question of minoritis, the Dalits are significant peripheries of exclusion and marginalisation. The rise of xenophobic nationalism and border vigilantism has also led to designating “internal enemies” and “foreign bodies” such as migrants and refugees as threats. Such statelessness of the refugees presents before us a wholly new situation of exclusion and silencing. Neo-Subalterns So, what we are witnessing is that the process of postcolonial capitalism both in its advanced and primitive accumulative form is throwing up newer domains of subalternisation and domination, such as the forceful dislocation and eviction of a huge number of people because of various developmental projects, the expulsion of the adivasis from their mineral rich areas, the de- peasantisation because of agricultural crisis. This however has not led to proletarianisation of the work force because of lack of intake capacity of the formal capitalist sector which on the contrary went for casualisation of workers. This has pushed a significant chunk of people to the precarious and subhuman condition of work as unorganized labour, a huge informal sector of subsistence labour engaged in daily “need economy”. The outflow of people from rural areas in search of work is expanding the horizon of the “planet of the slums”. However, these processes and the subsequent subalternisation of people are not new. But the scale and intensity of these processes have risen exponentially under neoliberal regime of primitive accumulation. It is to locate and characterize this phenomenon that we are applying the term “new subaltern” drawning on and extending Spivak’s theorisation on the new subaltern. Spivak thinks that in the era of neo-liberal capital the earlier notion of the subaltern as one “removed from all lines of social mobility” should be replaced with the figure of the “new subaltern’”conceived at the cusp of the dialectic of the local and global - S/he is no longer cut off from lines of access to the centre. The centre, as represented by the Bretton woods
166 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
agencies and the World Trade Organization, is altogether interested in the rural and indigenous subaltern as source of trade-related intellectual properties or TRIPs. (Spivak 2000, 319) She conceptualises this “new location of subalternity” though the gendered subaltern whose subalternisation elides the discourse of development and democracy of the NGOs and the international civil society calling for, as Spivak says, the need for “learning to learn from below” (ibid 327) Although Spivak rightly focusses on the new subaltern produced by the neo- liberal capital as it works at the social, political and bio-political level, she misses on the important questions of land grabs, minoritisations of the Dalits, Muslims and other minorities,
197 the question of the regugees and migrants. In the subsequent section we would be dealing with recent attempts at refiguring the subaltern and later would enage with the questions of the Rohnga refugees against such background. But first let us briefly summarise the recet attempts at redefining the subaltern. Recent Attempts at Redefining the Subaltern In the previous chapter we have discussed some of these attempts at re-defining the subaltern. Let us briefly summarise those attempts at refiguring the subaltern in a post- Subaltern Studies framework. Return to Gramsci: In this group we can include scholars like Marcus Green (2002) Nilsen and Roy (2015), Massimo Modonesi (2013) and Peter D. Thomas (2018). In their different ways they are reconceptualising the subaltern by a return to the original conceptualisation by Gramsci of the subaltern as a figure incorporated in the formation of the integrated bourgeois state. Conceptualised thus the subaltern can be analysed in the contemporary conjuncture as a figure tied up with the hegemonic processes of the ruling classes; as resisting that hegemony and even engaged in counter-hegemonic processes. Democracy and the Subaltern as the excluded or the Outside: Partha Chatterjee’s (2004, 2011) conceptualisation of the “politics of the governed” or the “political society” re-think the subaltern as the outside of the modern juridical notion of the citizen who are engaged in negotiation with the governmental bodies for various entitlements. Chakrabarty (2013), too, points to the contradictory development of democracy in India and directs us to the figure of the crowd as an eruptive force remisniscent of the peasant insurgent of the colonial period. Gyanendra Pandey’s (2006) definition of the “subaltern citizen” who, although are given citizenship rights, are not mainstreamed or whose rights are under threat is a variant of this mode of reconceptualising the subaltern. Chandra’s (2015) definition of subaltern politics as “politics of negotiation” also falls under the same thematic of refiguring the subaltern as a negotiating agent engaged in negotiation with the democractic state.
198 Urban Subalternity: David Arnold (2015) recently talked about the lack of focus of Subaltern Studies on the urban subalterns. He thinks that an exclusive focus on the peasant subaltern led the members to highlight the culture and the insurgencies of the peasants who resisde in the villages. He himself (2019) has sought to address this lacuna in his works on the urban subaltern spaces. We can here refer to the work of Ananya Roy (2011) on the urban spatialities. In her piece, “Slumdog Cities: Rethinking Subaltern Urbanism”, Ananya Roy provides a spatial understanding of subalternity. Thinking through the idea of “subaltern urbanism” she comes up with four categories such as –peripheries, urban informality, zones of exception and gray spaces. She builds on Spivak’s critique of the Subaltern Studies project and focuses on the conditions of subalternity- not on ontology, but on the formative processes of subalternity. She thinks that these conditions are cross-class conditions and looks for these
167 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
conditions not in slums only but everywhere in the urban. Ananya draws on Abdoumaliq Simone’s concept of the periphery as an “space-in-between”. It is a space- not unlike the slum- produced through the interventions of humanitarianism, urban restructuring, capital inflows, policing and control. It is also a potentially generative space – a source of innovation and adaptation. Thus the concept of periphery transcends territorial location- such as slum- and can be anywhere in the city marked by the power relation. Urban informality works as a logic through which “differential spatial value” is produced and managed. She holds that informal urbanisation is as much the purview of the wealthy urbanites as it is of slum dwellers. However, some informalities are endured and formalised through state legitimacy and other informal spaces are untimately reclaimed through urban renewal process. Thus, informality as a heuristic device serves to deconstruct the very basis of state legitimacy and its various instruments: maps, surveys, property, zoning and law. Zones of Exception are created by the entrepreneurial state through its differential deployment of state power. Thus, zones of superior privileges co-exist with zones of cheap-labor regime. Unlike Agambenian notion of exception, zones of exception are a specific legal-lethal logic of rule that is present in the seemingly ordinary spaces of the city. This performative spacing works through the law to annul law. Gray spaces function between the whiteness of legality/approval/safety and “blackness” of eviction/destruction/death. These gray spaces are sometimes tolerated but not unless criminalising them and can anytime be rendered into blackness of destruction. Life in these spaces thus is bare life lived as daily routine and not as exception.
199 The Subaltern as the Proletarian: We have discussed in the previous chapter while discussing Chibber’s book both the possibilities and the limitations of this class based understanding of the subaltern. While class is an important issue in this global neo-liberal capitalist regime, class cannot exhaust the different forms of exclusion, dispossession and disenfranchisement. New theories for reconceptualising the Subaltern: The categories of the Homo Sacer (Agamben, 1998), or the Precariat (Standing, 2011; During, 2015) or “political Sociey” (Chatterjee, 2011) offer us new conceptual tools for conceptualising the subaltern. In what follows we would discuss the figure of the Rohingya refugees against the backdrop of these recent attempts at redefing the subaltern in the current conjuncture. The Rohingya who are caught at the web of state violence, cross-border refuge seeking and the constant threat of being evicted presents before us new situation; and a new category for remapping the subaltern is warranted from their perspective. In South Asian countries violence has different trajectories and ontological enumerations ranging from ethno-political, structural, religio- cultural, caste, gender to epistemic templates. Within this context, the rise of ethno- democracy and majoritarianism coupled with post-9/11 securitisation and Islamophobia have led to violence on the otherised marginalities and “foreign bodies”, and new border-regimes with changing calculus of techno-political control have taken shape. The postcolonial nation- state, one that emerged from the regimes of colonial violence, has gradually evolved into an agent of violence itself. At the onset of this colonially inherited violence of the postcolonial- colonising state, this chapter attempts to understand the violence perpetrated on the Rohingyas in Myanmar and their travails in Bangladesh and India where they sought refuge after being brutally driven out from Myanmar in a bid to deepen the ethnic territorial control. The Rohingyas are perhaps the most persecuted ethnic minority in the world and according to the United Nations, the recent persecution of the Rohingyas by the Buddhist Myanmar
168 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
military amounts to ethnic cleansing and genocide. The development of Myanmar as an “ethnocratic state” has unleashed a cycle of state violence on the Rohingyas often manipulating legal instruments in the process and in cahoots with non-state religious actors. Characterised as “Asia’s new boat people”, the Rohingyas have become “stateless in the world of nation-states” (Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samaddar ed. 2018, 2, 5) we would take stock of their statelessness or nowhere-nation
200 condition and the consequent precarious and uncertain life in order to analyse its implications for postcolonial theory today. First, we would focus on the becoming of the Rohingyas as stateless homo sacer in Myanmar in the wake of the military violence unleashed upon them. Following this, we would engage with their relocation and negotiation as refugees in Bangladesh and India, further highlighting the fact that their attempts to escape violence and statelessness remain largely unfulfulled even in their refuge and exile. In the context of these developments in South Asian border politics at large, we would reflect on the recent debates on postcolonial subalternisation (Chatterjee, 2004, 2011, 2012; Chakrabarty 2013; Chibber 2014; Ganguly 2015; Chandra 2015) making a theoretical claim that a “new project” on subalternity in South Asia must emerge from the vantage point of forced migration, refugees and stateless people. According to The Oxford Handbook of Refugees and Forced Migration (2016), there is a lack of consensus among scholars about who is a refugee and how to define and understand forced migration. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2017 estimated the number of forcibly displaced population worldwide to be around 65.3 million among whom 21.3 million are living as refugees in the developing countries (Farzana 2017, 1). Thus, forced displacement and statelessness have become critical issues in the current historical conjuncture. Statelessness is a legal condition in which a person is denied nationality or citizenship of any country. The Article 1 of the 1954 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as someone “who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law”. (as quoted in Bloom, Tonkiss and Cole ed. 2017, 55) Although this legal definition of statelessness called de jure stateless covers those who are not given citizenship automatically at their birth or fails to get it through the legal provisions of a state, there is the category of de facto stateless or stateless persons in practice – those who are not formally denied or deprived of nationality, but because of lack of proper document, or despite documents, are denied access to various human rights that a citizen normally enjoys. (Majumdar 2018, 109). In light of these definitions, the stateless Rohingyas who are fleeing ethnic and religious persecution in Myanmar and undergo constant travails in their countries of refuge have become a no-where people, or what I call a “no-where-nation precariat”. The concept of precariat, as developed by Guy Standing (2011, 2012) designates those social groups and classes who are forced to live a precarious and insecure life as a consequence of the changing social and economic policies pursued by the states under neo-liberal economic regimes- groups such as youth engaged in casual works, the unemployed, the disabled and the old agers entering into
201 insecure under-paid jobs, the migrants, the criminalised etc. They have “precarious job, without a sense of occupational identity or career in front of them, they have no social memory on which to draw, no shadow of the future hanging over their relationships, and have a limited and precarious range of rights” (Standing 2012, 591). Standing thus conceptualises
169 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the precariat in the context of the neo-liberal economic hegemony. However, the figure of the precariat as one who has no economic or social security and bears limited or no rights can also, I argue, be extended beyond the context of neo-liberal capitalist oppressions to understand those social groups who are forced to a life of precarity and insecurity by state violence or to the victims of majoritarian and xenophobic politics. I, therefore, propose to extend and re-contextualise this concept to designate the stateless Rohingyas as one of the prominent figures of the contemporary precariat who have been violently denied political, social and economic security in their own country that has rendered their lives as most insecure, precarious and uncertain, not only in Myanmar but also in their countries of refuge. India, Bangladesh and Myanmar have a shared colonial history and before the borders of modern nations-states separated them, they shared the same border under colonial rule. These three countries along with South-East Asian countries like Malaysia and Thailand comprise a geography of violence in terms of the Rohingya Muslims. Dubbed as ‘Asia’s new boat people’, reminiscing the Vietnamese boat people, their stateless precarious condition is often compared with that of the Palestinians under occupied territory (Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samaddar ed 2018, 5; 11). Following Caitlin Ryan’s categorisation of the Palestinians in the occupied territory, Madhura Chakrabarty suggests that the stateless non-citizens can be termed as “subjected non-subjects” – without rights, but not without the state’s disciplinary interventions and discrimination (Chakrabarty 2018, 109). The Rohingya who currently live in a state of legal limbo are subjected to biopolitical control by the coercive state apparatus. For an analysis of the precarious condition of the Rohingya in South Asia, we need to understand the context and the history of the production of statelessness of the Rohingya in Myanmar which amounted to virtual displacement of all their rights in their place of origin and in subsequent countries of refuge. The following section outlines the history of the Rohingyas in postcolonial Myanmar and their legal dismemberment that led to the cycle of violence as well as their persecution. Ethnocracy, State Violence and the Production of the Rohingyas as Stranger The Rohingyas are an ethnic, religious and linguistic minority in the Buddhist-majority Myanmar as well as in their province Rakhine (formerly known as Arakan). At the heart of
202 the persecution and discrimination of the Rohingyas, as Azeem Ibrahim points out, is “the shifting legal definition of the Burmese citizenship” (2016, 48). After the independence of Myanmar from the British colonial rule, the Rohingyas in the newly established nation-state of Myanmar were placed in a special category compared with other ethnicities. Although the democratic government of Prime Minister U Nu in the 1950s accepted that the Rohinyas were an indigenous ethnic group, the 1947 Constitution did not grant them full citizenship. Why were the Rohingyas the only group to be singled out? The 1947 revolt of the Rohingyas for independence and the supposed 1948 petition by the Rohingya representatives to the government of Myanmar for inclusion of Rakhine/Arakan to East Pakistan might have led to suspicion about their loyalty to the state of Myanmar. However, the Rohingyas’ revolt pales in comparison with other revolts by Shans, Karens, Chins and other frontier minorities in Burma for seccession. With reference to the Rohingyas, there was a pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment arising from colonial rule, given that Muslims were given a preferred treatment and easy faciliation of immigration from India which deprived the Burmese of employment. But other Muslim minorities, both in Rakhine and other parts of Myanmar, were given full citizenship (Ibrahim 2016). Perhaps the issue of migration from India was a vexed one. However, the
170 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Rohingyas were more or less viewed as one of the groups in Myanmar’s multi- ethnic fabric, and it was expected that their legal citizenship status would be solved in near future. As per the Article 11 (iv) of Myanmar’s Constitution, the Rohingyas were given National Registration Certificate (NRC) with full legal and voting rights. They were told that they need not to apply for citizenship certificate as they were one of the indigenous races who lived in Burma since time immemorial. During the period of 1948-1961, between four and six Rohingyas served as members of parliament and even after General Ne Win’s military coup in 1962, which established direct military rule in Myanmar, they remained in parliament as supporters of the Burma Socialist Programme Party. The main targets of discrimination at this period were those who were viewed as Indian migrants and were treated as foreigners. However, as Azeez Ibrahim writes, “this distinction between the labour migrants and the Rohingyas was slowly eroded after the military took over in 1962” (Ibrahim 2016, 50). Although the military rule initially did not directly attack the Rohingyas and some continued to sit in parliament supporting the military’s Burmese Road to Socialism project up until 1965, the situation changed steadily thereafter. In the wake of the 1974 Emergency Immigration Act, which imposed ethnicity based identity cards or the National Registration Cards, the Rohinyas were only provided with Foreign Registration Certificates (non-national cards). This move of the military regime is viewed as a diversionary tactic from the failure of
203 the Burmese Road to Socialism project and the economic crisis. Thus, the Rohingyas became a soft target for diverting people from pressing economic hardships, a pattern which would be repeated frequently. The Article 145 of the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma defined citizenship as “[a]ll persons born of parents both of whom are nationals of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma” (quoted in Ibrahim 2016, 50). As Rohingyas had not been treated as formal citizens in 1947, they were no citizens of the state. Their NRC of 1947 was also replaced with Foreign Registration Certificate. The 1977 Operation Nagamin, which marked the first concerted attempt by the military to discredit the Rohingyas as foreigners, led to a sudden rise of violence against the Rohingyas by the Buddhist community and the army and as a result over 200,000 refugees fled to Bangladesh in 1978. The next crucial legal step was the 1982 Burmese Citizenship Law in which different categories of citizenship were assigned to ethnic groups on the basis of their residence in Burma since 1823, prior to the British takeover. This is a vital step in producing the Rohingyas as strangers in their own country as citizenship was only granted to those ethnic groups who were thought to have lived in Burma before the British annexation. Within this context, the denial of citizenship rights to the Rohingyas was often justified by referring to the erroneous perception that the Rohingyas are actually Bengalis who were brought by the British as labourers, and that the ethnic Rohingya identity was made up later by them to get citizenship. Although the Muslims in the Arakan province lived there since the beginning of the MraukU dynasty (1430-1785), if not before, it is also alleged that the so-called Rohingyas did not live in the Arakan prior to British rule. Thus, under the 1982 legislation, the Rohingyas were denied citizenship based on the ethnic classification of 1947, as they had not been designated as belonging to the core ethnic group of the new state. However, the ambiguity surrounding the whole process allowed the Rohingyas to participate in the 1990 election. The denial of citizenship meant restriction on movement, lack of access to education, loss of land and increase of violence which led to the rise of refugees fleeing to Bangladesh. In the aftermath
171 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
of the 1988 political revolt (in which Buddhist monks supported agitating students and played an active role) and the subsequent electoral defeat of and annulment of the 1990 election result by the military, there is an increase in the persecution and violence against the Rohingyas. The 1991-1992 period witnessed 250,000 Rohingyas fleeing to Bangladesh against the backdrop of forced labour, beating, rape, land confiscation and the creation of non- Rohingya settlement on the land taken from Rohingyas and often
204 built by forced labour of the Rohingyas (Ibrahim 2016, 52). Bangladesh, too, forcibly returned the Rohingyas in violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or more specifically, the 1951 Refugee Convention. Those who returned found their land taken over by the military for building army camps or settlement of non-Rohingyas which renewed tension and subsequent repression of the Rohingyas and their migration to Bangladesh. Thus, there is a “racial aspect to the overall pattern of legal discrimination against the Rohingyas” (Ibrahim 2016, 53). Those who fled to Malaysia remained stateless refugees, as Malaysia would not return them or give them proper refugee status. Myanmar’s return to democracy (2008-2015), instead of solving the problem, has indeed worsened the crisis for the Rohingyas. After the Saffron Revolution, in which Buddhist monks participated, there was a close alliance between the National League for Democracy (henceforth NLD) and Buddhist organisations. While the NLD is very much focused on the personality of Aung San Suu Kyi, for the mass base, it has to depend on Buddhist monks. The well-organised Buddhist groups, many of whom demand expulsion of the Rohingyas, exerted considerable influence over the NLD’s practical politics. Thus, the NLD-Buddhist alliance has been destructive to minorities like the Rohingyas, as the ideological leaders advocating their persecution came from Buddhist monks who demanded the tying up of citizenship with Buddhism. Thus, attacks on Rohingyas, whether by the military or Buddhist groups, became a public way of showing their commitment to Buddhism. And the most saddening thing about the attacks on the Rohingyas, as has been reported in the global media, is the indecipherable silence of the leader of the NLD, Suu Kyi. Buddhist groups like the 969 Movement, which demand for a religiously pure state, have not only galvanised an ideological opposition to the Rohingya Muslims but are intent on preventing the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) or the NLD to turn towards more humane policies. Under this extremist group and pressure from their leaders, especially monk U Wirathu, Rohingya Muslims were targeted in the name of cow protection, their shops were boycotted, inter-faith marriage involving Rohingyas banned and forced child control measures aimed at Muslim minorities were implemented. Such actions by Buddhist groups have spurred on the already existing religious-ethno-nationalism which sought to identify Myanmar as religiously Buddhist and ethnically Burman. The 2012 massacre of Rohingyas which started with the rape and murder of a Rakhine woman by three Muslims and quickly evolved into a public campaign against their entire community, can also be termed as ethnic cleansing. The NLD is in alliance with regional ethnic Rakhine parties like Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) and Arakan
205 National Party (ANP) which want to expel the Rohingyas. The campaign was widespread, organised through social media, which projected the Rohingyas as a moral threat, and there was widespread violence against the Rohingyas, often supported by the security forces, resulting in the relocation of Rohingyas to internal refugee camps (Ibrahim 2016). Many
172 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Rakhine political leaders aimed at making refugee camps permanent, have repeatedly denied the Rohingyas the means of earning a living except through precarious work. Locals, too, are attacked if they help or associate with the Rohingyas. The 2014 Census did not allow the Rohinyas to be enrolled if they did not identify themselves as ‘Bengalese’. The result was the loss of identity cards which had been used as a justification for throwing the Rohingyas into camps. Taken together, persecution and exclusion of the Rohingyas have been normalised, leading to their desperate journeys in search of shelter or means of living, either in Bangladesh or other countries. Many have fallen prey to human traffickers and work as slaves in Thailand’s prawn fishing industry. The uncovering of mass graves in 2015 at the Thailand- Malaysia border points to the violence unleashed upon displaced Rohingyas in the trafficking camps (Holmes 2017). In the following section, I shall contextualise their precarious life in exile, particuarly in Bangladesh, where they are caught up between regimes of hospitality and control, between reluctant invitation and violent rejection. Hospitality and Control: The Rohingyas in Bangladesh For the overwhelming majority of the Rohingyas fleeing religious persecution and ethnic violence in Myanmar, Bangladesh is their first destination. Located across the River Naf, Bangladesh seems to be preferred for easy accessibility and the cultural, linguistic and religious affinities between the Rohingyas and the Chittagonian Muslim Bengalis. The latest exodus of the stateless Rohingyas to Bangladesh started on August 25, 2017, when the Myanmar military launched a brutal crackdown on the Rohingyas following an attack by a group of armed Rohingyas called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) on the police and military posts killing twelve officers. The Myanmar government declared ARSA a terrorist group, and in the crackdown that followed at least 7,000 Rohingya were killed between August 25 and September 24, 2017 alone (Albert and Chatzky 2018). According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), this has resulted in more than 723,000 Rohingyas fleeing to Bangladesh, most of whom arrived
0: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency 83%
in Bangladesh in the first quarter of the crisis. An estimated 12,000 reached Bangladesh during the first half of 2018.
With the existing 300,000 Rohingyas who fled to Bangladesh because of ethnic violence in the last three decades the total number of Rohingyas in Bangladesh has now
206 reached more than 1 million (Bearak 2017). The vast majority of the Rohingyas seeking refuge in Bangladesh during the influx have been children with more than 40 per cent under the age of twelve. The Rohingyas in Bangladesh
0: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency 68%
sought shelter in the two refugee camps of Kutupalong and Nayapara in Cox’s Bazar district.
With these new spontaneous settlements, Kutupalong has
173 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency 80%
become the largest refugee settlement in the world with more than 600,000 people living in an area of just
thirteen square kilometres with consequences for infrastructural and other basic services. Bangladesh has not acceded to the 1954 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or its 1967 Protocol, and in the absence of a legal and administrative framework for refugees, the fate of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh depends on the changing ideology and electoral calculus of the political regimes in the country. They are therefore not recognised
0: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 100%
as refugees but rather as Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN),
which denies them the legal status of a refuge and the concomitant rights. Despite the mentioned cultural, linguistic and religious similarities between the Rohingyas and the Chittagongian Bangladeshis, and despite the historical fact that the Arakan and Chittagong region were once under one administrative unit, the Bangladesh government views them not as Bengalis but as temporary asylum-seekers who must return to Myanmar. The Bangladesh government’s view, as Kazi Fahmida Farzana points out, can be summed up into three points: first, the Rohingyas flee the repressive policies of the Myanmar authorities in Arakan; second, they are economic migrants; and third, there is a tendency in the Rohingyas to go abroad using Bangladesh as their transit route (Farzana 2017, 64-65). Thus, the Bangladesh government invariably treats the Rohingya issue as an external problem and holds that the refugees must eventually be repatriated. After the first refugee exodus in 1977, the Bangladesh government treated the Rohingyas sympathetically and set up camps along the border of River Naf to the side of Cox’s Bazar-Teknaf highway. As the Bangladeshis were treated hospitably by its neighbours (India) during its independence struggle in 1971, the newly established state of Bangladesh took the opportunity to show its hospitality to the Rohingya refugees who were fleeing persecution just like the Bangladeshis had a few years back. However, the Bangladesh government viewed it as a temporary measure, which implied that the refugees would need to return to Myanmar soon. The Bangladesh government started diplomatic attempts with Myanmar and consequently an agreement was signed in July 1978. The bilateral agreement holds that Myanmar would repatriate those ‘lawful residents of Burma’ that have a NRC and family group photo. This, however, was indicative of the Myanmar government’s reluctance
207 to repatriate, largely because the Rohingyas were denied NRCs due to strict citizenship laws. It was agreed that after repatriation, both countries would work together to prevent the “illegal crossing of the border by the persons from either side” (quoted in Farzana 2017, 67). When the repatriation process began, there were very few who returned voluntarily. However, with the simplification of the repatriation process later, there was a sudden rise in the number of those who returned. The news (or rather rumour) that there was vacant land in offer as per
174 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the repatriation agreement and that there has been improvement in security situation might have led to this sudden rise and by December 29, 1979 a total of 187,197 refugees returned to Myanmar (Farzana 2017, 68). The second measure exodus of refugees happened in 1992 in which the UNHCR took part in providing relief and helping in the repatriation of the Rohingyas. Once again, the Myanmar government agreed to the repatriation proposal but did not take the Rohingyas back as citizens but as ‘temporary residents of Arakan’. Even in this phase, there was criticism of the repatriation process and many humanitarian reports pointed out the non-voluntary nature of repatriation. However, the Bangladesh government denied the use of force. Why did Bangladesh accept the proposal when the Rohingyas were not repatriated as citizens? Perhaps, the Bangladesh government thought that such an agreement would at least resolve the issue temporally, if not permanently. On October 30, 2018, Bangladesh and Myanmar signed an agreement in Dhaka to start the repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar which was scheduled to begin on November 15. Despite concerns expressed by various rights groups about the continuing adverse and hostile situation for the Rohingyas in Myanmar, the Bangladesh government decided to go ahead with the plan and started the registration of the Rohingyas which generated fear among those residing in the camps that they might be sent back. The human rights group Fortify Rights reported that Bangladesh security forces threatened and physically assaulted the Rohingya leaders to collect so-called Smart Cards containing biometric data. (Fortify Rights 2018). The Smart Cards were being issued from June 2018 onwards by the UNHCR and the Bangladesh government for proper documentation of the refugees and to ensure better access
0: https://www.fortifyrights.org/publication-20181112.html 97%
to services and assistance. The cards affirm in writing that the Bangladesh government will not force returns to Myanmar. However,
this generated fear among the Rohingyas that they might be repatriated based on the verification mechanism of the cards. According to Fortify Rights (2018), in November, a man even tried to commit suicide after hearing that his family was on the list of the 2,000 Rohingyas to be sent back. Most of them fear that they might be killed or would return to an uncertain and threatening
208 life in Myanmar with their land confiscated, houses burnt down and without the assurance of a citizenship. The Myanmar officials hold that those who return would be placed in temporary ‘transit camps’ and would be sent to their respective villages after a verification of their address. However, many of the villages from where the Rohingyas fled are now in use as military camps and other infrastructural projects. The scheduled repatriation on November 15 failed because those who were supposed to be sent back hid in different camps and nearby jungles to escape repatriation. This has further put the process of repatriation initiated by Bangladesh and Myanmar under question. As of now, Bangladesh is continuing the diplomatic efforts with Myanmar to ensure a “voluntary, safe and dignified” return of the Rohingyas to Myanmar. This is the third repatriation process since the Rohingya influx began in 1970s and in all likelihood, it would not be resolved soon (Bhuiyan 2018). The Rohingyas in Bangladesh live a tenuous life in the overcrowded camps without proper sanitation, health facilities,
175 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
freedom of movement and livelihood. They often get help from the locals, for example, in enrolling their children in regular schools and colleges, benefitting from the status and influence of the Bangladeshis. However, their presence also creates tension with the local community who have divided opinions about the Rohingyas. For some, the daily commodities and services became costlier because of the excess of demand and short supply generated by the huge number of the refugees (Bhattacharyya 2017). An Xchange survey on the Bangladeshi perspective, which shows how the two communities are getting on with each other, also points out the security concerns and complaints of the locals such as increase of robbery and drug trafficking after the arrival of the Rohingyas. The survey concludes:
0: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 97%
The government’s focus on a policy of repatriation rather than integration, has made it difficult for both communities to mix in healthy and meaningful ways and move forwards; both communities have been left to their own devices to survive and co-exist, which can be seen in the concerns expressed by the local Bangladeshi communities in the survey results. (Xchange 2018) On
the other hand, the Rohingyas provide cheap labour. Although they are not allowed to work, the Rohingyas often participate in informal markets, which further alienate them from the local community. The view that the Rohingyas steal the job of the locals can also be found in the way Bangladesh views the issue of the ‘boat people’ in Malaysia. The younger Rohingyas who are frustrated with the constricting life in the camps without jobs become
209 desperate to escape and try to migrate to Malaysia or India. Madhura Chakrabarty’s (2018) interview with Rohingyas from Bangladeshi camps shows that the parents in the community often find their teenage boys missing and only later, they come to know that their sons tried to migrate to Malaysia. As Bangladesh is one of the highest migrant labour exporting countries in the world, those Rohingyas illegally migrating to South-East Asian countries for jobs caused consternation about foreign remittances. The repeated reference to the push and pull factor by Bangladesh officials that the Rohingyas abuse Bangladesh as a launching pad for migrating to another country clearly undermines the pressing issue of the Rohingyas as political asylum-seekers and threatens to project them as economic migrant (Chakrabarty 2018, 113-14). Chakrabarty further points out that much of the writings of Bangladeshi scholars and the mainstream media look at the Rohingyas from an internal security perspective. Thus, the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh are viewed as recruiting grounds for Islamist militants, and the Rohingyas are often characterised as “threatening the moral and economic fibre of Bangladeshi society”. (Chakrabarty 2018, 114)The arrival of Rohingyas is thus viewed as destabilising the border region and damaging the strategic bilateral relation with Myanmar (Chakrabarty 2018, 115). In other words, the Rohingyas, whether in the camps or outside, whether documented or unregistered, have to straddle a life of insecurity and precarity, and have to deal with harassment and constant fear of being sent back to Myanmar. According to Fahmida Farzana: Within Myanmar they are stateless, and beyond the border, in Bangladesh, they are refugees. Rohingya refugees, documented or undocumented, in Bangladesh suffer doubly, from statelessness and refugee-hood. For those
176 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
in refugee camps have no idea when their refugee-hood will end. For Rohingyas who live outside the camps as illegal migrants, their plight and risk is even greater. Although staying in one place, their movements are highly restricted, and their life is put in stringent confinement. (2017, 81) Thus, to escape such confinement, the Rohingyas try to migrate to South-East Asian countries like Malaysia or Thailand. More often than not, they seek refuge in India which the subsequent section will examine further. The Rohingyas in India: Infiltrators and Security Threat?
210 The stateless Rohingyas come to India mainly via Bangladesh after staying there for some time, often few years, in search of security and livelihood. The precarious condition in the camps in Bangladesh and lack of employment opportunities as well as increasing hostility towards them by the Awami League Government make them desperate to cross the border of the northeastern part of India, often through the help of human traffickers. They come to India as refugees, as asylum seekers and for livelihood. But their desperate journeys end up in slums and unauthorised colonies with no access to proper sanitation, food, drink and shelter. Although there is a difficulty in determining the exact number of Rohingyas in India – given the huge number of undocumented refugees and asylum-seekers – available figures put the number between 40,000 and 50,000 (Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samaddar 2018, 4). The Rohingyas in India are distributed across various parts in India. As India did not ratify the 1954 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, it does not have a formal refugee policy in place. However, India ratified such international bodies as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) in 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (CERD) in 1968 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which India participated in drafting and also acceded in 1979 to The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR) that seeks to ensure certain social, economic and cultural rights to refugees. India has also allowed to function and work with the UNHCR, which provides Refugee Status Determination (RSD) cards to the refugees to ensure various protections and rights for refugees in India. In 2011, the Indian government announced Long Term Visas (LTV) for Rohingyas and Afghan refugees and by December 2015, India issued over 98 LTVs to Rohingya refugees (UNHCR 2016). However, although India has often been praised by the UNHCR for its tolerant approach towards refugees, the lack of a formal policy framework makes the refugees increasingly vulnerable to the changing political climate of the country. Thus, refugees often receive what Ranabir Samaddar calls “calculated hospitality” (quoted in Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samaddar ed. 2018, 120), that is, a game of care and power. The 1955 Citizenship Act of India that followed the jus soli mode of citizenship, meaning “right of the soil” for everyone “born in India on or after 26 January, 1950, regardless of their descent, ethnicity, or national identity” (quoted in Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samaddar 2018, 136). However, these inclusive citizenship laws were changed with the Citizenship (Amendent) Act, 1987 and citizenship was based on jus sanguinis mode. The citizenship claims were further restricted by the New Amendment of 2004 that forbid ‘illigal migrants’ from acquiring citizenship through citizenship registration and naturalisation. Thus,
211 following the 1946 Foreigner’s Act and the Indian Passport Act 1929, India categorises anybody who enters the territory of India without valid documents as an‘illegal immigrant’. On
177 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
January 8, 2019, Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 that seeks to provide citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan and the current BJP regime in Assam seeks to give citizenship only to the Hindus out of the 40 lakh odd people who were not included in the National Register of Citizens (NRC). These changes, if finally approved, will have huge ramifications for refugees and asylum seekers in India, particularly for the Rohingyas who are seen primarily as Muslims; infiltrators, potential security threats, if not veritable contaminators of the moral fabric of the nation. After coming to India, the Rohingyas depend on informal family networks to get a place to stay in. They often try to go to Hyderabad believing that the city’s large Muslims community would welcome them. Their other destinations include the camps in New Delhi (perhaps because of the UNHCR office) and Jammu. However, not all Rohingyas directly approach the UNHCR after coming to India. Lack of knowledge of the presence of the UNHCR, poverty and continuous migration, as Sahana Basavapatna points out, are major problems (Basavapatna 2018, 53). The UNHCR, for its part, takes a long time to complete the process of Refugee Status Determination (RSD), issuing many with an ‘under consideration certificate’ only, which leaves many illegal subjects to stay with their relatives who might already have UNHCR cards. This situation exposes them to the threat of being picked by the police or undermines their bargaining power in the job market. Getting a job is difficult as language, legality and cultural barriers get in the way. And the Rohingyas often depend on middlemen, landlords and humanitarian agencies to secure odd jobs like domestic workers, security guards, rag pickers etc. Although they may get material help from Muslim organisations and international aid agencies, this does not facilitate their acceptance among the local community in the charged atmosphere of suspicion. Sometimes even the mandate refugees are spoken of in the single breath as Bangladeshis. Suchismita Majumdar, in her study of the jailed Rohingyas in West Bengal, points out that sometimes Rohingyas with refugee cards are arrested while they move out of Delhi to meet their relatives in jails in West Bengal. Thus, even the refugee card cannot guarantee a safe and hospitable environment. The Rohingyas in India are viewed as a security threat, often alleged with links to terrorist organisations in Pakistan. Although there has been no proof, Rohingyas are always suspected as a potential target of radicalisation, or as drug peddlers that are connected with human trafficking. Thus, whenever there is a bomb blast at a religious site, especially at Buddhist or Hindu sites, the media promptly pronounces the judgement resulting in witch-
212 hunts of the Rohingyas in and across various slums. For instance, after the Bodh Gaya blasts in July 2013, there were raids in the Rohingya camps in Hyderabad, Telangana. The situation became worse when in November 2014, Khalid Mohammed, a Rohingya Muslim from Myanmar, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for links to the blast in Khagragar of Burdwan district in West Bengal. This put the entire community under suspicion. On February 10, 2018, there was a suicide attack on the Indian Army base camp in Sunjwan, Jammu. In the assembly,
0: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 100%
BJP MLA and Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Kavinder Gupta
directly blamed the Rohingyas in Jammu for this: “
178 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees 100%
Had these Rohingya refugees not been around the camp, the attack would not have taken place” (
quoted in Sofi 2018). Following this, there was also an attack by the crowd on the refugee settlement area. Here, it is important to note that the politics between Jammu and Kashmir come into play, as the Rohingyas are viewed as threating the demographic profile of Hindu- majority Jammu.
0: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 82%
At a press conference on April 7, 2017, Rakesh Gupta, president of Jammu Chamber of Commerce and Industry, declared the Rohingyas “criminals” and threatened to launch an “identify and kill movement” if the government did not deport the refugees (
Javeed 2018). India deported seven Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar in October 2018 who did not hold UNHCR cards and were deemed illegal immigrants. Officials hold that India does not recognise the UNHCR card, having rejected the UN’s stand that the deportation of Rohingyas violates the principle of non-refoulement – sending back refugees to a place where they face danger. The state authorities have been asked to prepare biometrics of the Rohingyas living in India so that they could be repatriated (Pasricha 2018). “Anyone who has entered the country without a valid legal permit is considered illegal”, A. Bharat Bhushan Babu, a spokesman for the Ministry of Home Affairs is quoted. “As per the law”, he goes on, “anyone illegal will have to be sent back. As per law they will be repatriated” (quoted in Das 2018). The majoritarian agenda pursued by the current regime of the Narendra Modi and Amit Shah duo places the issue of repatriation of the Rohingyas along with the migrants from Bangladesh as a populist measure for garnering electoral dividend for the upcoming General Elections in April and May 2019. Addressing an election rally in the central state of Madhya Pradesh on October 6, 2018, BJP chief Amit Shah asserted that all illegal immigrants were “like termites eating into the nation’s security”. Shah further added, without specifically mentioning any group of migrants: “Elect us back next year and the BJP will not allow a single one of them to stay in this country” (quoted in Das 2018). No wonder the future of the Rohingyas in India remains uncertain and tenuous.
213 Being Stateless: Where Else Can They Go? Rethinking the Subaltern after the Refugee Crisis What does this violent story of the persecution and precarious existence of the Rohingyas signify about the postcolonial nation-state, and what implications does it hold for subaltern or postcolonial theory today? The category of the postcolonial nation, envisaged as a category of resistance and unified struggle, has gradually ended up becoming a tool of violent electoral supremacy, ethnic nationalism and majoritarianism resulting in virulent forms of state-bio- power in the Foucauldian sense and control, regulate and even wage war against those who are marked as the deviant, abnormal or the internal enemy. To reinforce the same logic of bio-power, as Georgio Agamben (1998) has argued, the state renders those considered a threat to state policies to bare life or to the status of Homo Sacer – an entity that
179 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
is delegalised and/or disowned by the state so that such a life does not come under any legal protection. This is a complete form of statelessness that becomes vulnerable to all forms of possible persecution. Thus emerges, as Anindya Purakayastha and Saswat S. Das argue in a different context, the incarnation of the postcolonial state as a Prospero-state that brackets Caliban as an alien in his own land – a situation that demands serious rethinking of initial postcolonial theorisations of the nation-state.(Purakayastha and Das 2017, 36) In a bid to address some of these questions, this chapter has attempted to narrate the seemingly un- narrated or under-narrated (i.e. the refugee question) in the parlance of existing postcolonial theoretical coordinates that subtend dominant academic positions on postcolonial studies. So far, postcolonial theory or subaltern historiography have justifiably raised the peasant question or the class/caste/gender question in its argumentative templates, but the stateless/ state-persecuted refugee as a new subaltern category is yet to be addressed by postcolonial thinkers. The partition of the Indian sub-continent did result in an unprecedented exodus of refugees, something postcolonial critics have engaged with, but the contemporary refugee crisis seems different in its nature and in geo-political ramifications. The Rohingya refugees, like their Syrian and African counterparts, evoke neo-imperial and xenophobic implications, something rather new in its manifestation which requires new forms of theorisation of citizenship, bordering and subalternties. Even the very category of the subaltern, which figures as an axiomatic category in any configuration of postcolonial or decolonial theory, needs to be reconfigured in view of the crisis diaspora and the precarious bare life of the contemporary Homo Sacer – the stateless, the minorities, xenophobia victims and the war subalterns in Syria, among others.
214 The Subaltern Studies project was launched in the 1980s with the specific aim of rectifying the “elitist bias” in postcolonial historiography. It sought to bring in the voices of the hitherto unrecognised “subaltern social groups and classes”, such as the peasants, the adivasis etc., as the “maker of his (/their) own destiny”, independent of elite intervention. The project continued for three decades with twelve volumes published by Oxford University Press and Permanent Black, gaining world-wide recognition. However, in his 2012 article “After Subaltern Studies” in Economic and Political Weekly, Partha Chatterjee, a prominent member of the project, declared that the project is over. He asserted that although the questions raised by Subaltern Studies are still relevant, the methodological and conceptual framework offered by the collective is insufficient to address the contemporary political realities and subjectivities. Chatterjee therefore deliberates on ‘new projects’ (44) in changed times to rethink the subaltern. As if responding to Chatterjee’s call, in an essay titled “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence” (2013), Dipesh Chakrabarty importantly distinguishes between Subaltern Studies as the series of publications initiated by Ranajit Guha and Subaltern Studies as a theortical discourse. The latter, Chakrabarty writes, is “not dead or extinct by any means”. (23) The publication of
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 52%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital (2013) stoked a heated debate on the relevance of the
180 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
analytical frame of subaltern theory and in the aftermath, there have been attempts (Ganguly 2015; Chandra 2015) to rethink the subaltern question in the present conjuncture. In his recent writings on the ‘politics of the governed’ and ‘political society’, Chatterjee (2004; 2011) has sought to reframe the debate on subaltern politics. In his formulations, the rights-based contractarian notion of citizenship can hardly account for the politics of the vast number of the population that negotiate with the state and various agencies for securing minimum entitlement for eking out their survival. Chatterjee’s idea of political society or the politics of the governed – distinct from civil society and based lon egal-juridical claims – fail to offer any solution to massive humanitarian crises like that of the Rohingyas. The notion of politics of the governed proves inadequate to address the plights of stateless people such as the Rohingyas who are violently denied any formal citizenship which even the political society (the postcolonial populace), in Chatterjee’s words, can claim. Such violent denial of basic citizenship rights severely affects the negotiating agency of the stateless, often resulting in counter- violence, such as that of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. It may also lead to perilous trans-borderal journeys and a subsequent life of being under constant threat of being driven out in their countries of refuge. This therefore marks a deficit in Chatterjee’s theory of the politics of the governed, as the stateless are not even governed – just pushed to the brink
215 of nowhereness, rendering them as unrecognised non-subjects into a non-space of the non- governed. In her seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt traces the production of “homelessness on an unprecedented scale, rootlessness to an unprecedented depth” (Arendt 1976, vii) in the first half of the twentieth century to the totalitarian ideologies and movements such as anti-semitism, Stalinism and imperialism. Arendt calls these new groups of people in Germany the “heimatlosen”, the stateless. In the context of competing foundationalist ideologies and internal incoherences in postcolonial nation-state formation, it is entirely possible to apply Arendt’s idea of “heimatlosen” to the Rohingyas, thereby calling for a reconceptualisation of the category of the subaltern in postcolonial discourse. The Subaltern Studies project replaced elitist historiography with subaltern historiography but the categorical baggage of the project is inadequate, to say the least, in the wake of the recent crises of the displaced, the migrants and the nowhere people. There is a grave need for renewing and/or reconceptualising the category of the subaltern through a critique of ethno- regionalism or identity-centric border vigilantism in order to bring trans-borderal and global solidarities to the forefront rather than the foundational categories of the postcolonial nation. Works Cited Agamben, Georgio. 1998. Homo Sacer. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Albert, Eleanor and Andrew Chatjky. 2018. “The Rohingya Crisis.” Council on Foreign Relations, December 5. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rohingya-crisis Arendt, Hannah. 1976. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego New York London: Harcourt Brace & Company. Arnold, David. 2015. “Subaltern Studies: Then and Now”. In New Subltern Politics: Reconceptualisng Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India, edited by Alf Gunvald Nilsen and Srila Roy, 257-269. New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2019. “Subltern Streets: India, 1870-1947”. In Subaltern Geographies, edited by Tariq Jazeel and Stephen Legg, 36-57. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Basavapatna, Sahana. 2018. “Where Do #IBelong?: The Stateless Rohingya in India.” In The Rohingya in South Asia: People Without a State, edited by Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury and Ranabir Samaddar, 43-73. New York: Routledge. Basu Ray Chaudhury, Sabyasachi and
181 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Ranabir Samaddar., ed. 2018. The Rohingya in South Asia: People Without State. New York: Routledge.
216 Bearak, Max. 2017. “How Bangladeshis Are Coping with Half a Million New Rohingya Refugees.” The Washington Post, September 29. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ asia_pacific/how-bangladeshis-are-coping- with-half-a-million-new-rohingya- refugees/2017/09/29/4a6624ca-a1ee-11e7-b573- 8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html? utm_term=.85956ca2e499 Bearak, Max. 2017. “Bangladesh is Now Home to Almost 1 Million Rohingya Refugees.” The Washington Post, October 25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/25/bangladeshisnowho metoalmost1millionrohingyarefugees/? noredirect=on&utm_term=.afd4b9a2f508 Bhattacharyya, Rajeev. 2017. “In Bangladesh Local Living Near Rohingya Camps Hope for Quick Repatriation of Refugees.” The Wire, December 13. https://thewire.in/external- affairs/locals-living-around-rohingya-refugee-camps-in- bangladesh-hope-for-quick- repatriation Bhuiyan, Humayun Kabir. 2018. “
0: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- 87%
Rohingya Repatriation: ‘Do the Write Thing’, Bangladesh Writes to Myanmar.” Dhaka Tribune,
December 3. https://www.dhakatribune.com/
0: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- 100%
bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- repatriation-do-the-right-thing- bangladesh-writes-to-myanmar
Bloom, Tendayi, Katherine Tonkiss and Phillip Cole, ed. 2017. Understanding Statelessness. London and New York: Routledge. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2013. “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence.” Economic and Political Weekly 48(12): 23-27. Chakrabarty, Madhura. 2018. “Rohingya in Bangladesh and India and the Media Planet.” In The Rohingya in South Asia: People Without a State, edited by Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury and Ranabir Samaddar, 109-33. New York: Routledge. Chandra, Uday. 2015. “Rethinking Subaltern Resistance: Subaltern Politics and the State in Contemporary India.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 45(4): 563-73 Chatterjee,
Partha. 2004.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
The
Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New
182 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2011. Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2012. “After Subaltern Studies.” Economic and Political Weekly 47(35): 44-49. ———. 2012 “
After Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47(35):44-49. ———. 2013. “Subaltern Studies and Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (37):69- 75.
217 Chaudhury, Sabyasachi Basu Ray and Ranabir Samaddar, ed. 2018. The Rohingya in South Asia: People Without State. New York: Routledge.
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 83%
Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital. New York: Verso.
Crabapple, Molly. 2018. “Where Else Can They Go?” New York Review of Books (65)19: 14- 16. Das, Krishna N. 2018. “India’s Rohingya Refugees Struggle with Hared, Fear as First Group is Expelled.” Reuters, October 7. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar- rohingya-india- insight/indias-rohingya-refugees-struggle-with-hatred-fear-as-first- group-is-expelled- idUSKCN1MH04P During, Simon. 2015. “Choosing Precarity”. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1: 19-38. Express News Service. 2018. “
0: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/the-most-unwanted-a-gripping-account-of- 62%
The Most Unwanted: A Gripping Account of Rohingya Refugees Living in India.” The Indian Express, June 26. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/the-most-unwanted-a-gripping- account-of- rohingya-refugees-living-in-india-4464103/
Farzana, Kazi Fahmida. 2017. Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Elena, Loescher Gil, Long Katy and Nando Sigona, ed. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fortify Rights. 2018. “Bangladesh: Protect Rohingya Refugees, End Threats and Intimidation.” November 12. https://www.fortifyrights.org/ publication-20181112.html Ganguly, Debjani., ed. 2015. “
0: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv-collaboratori/cv-ganguly- debjani 75%
The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1.
Green, Marcus. 2002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
183 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
Rethinking Marxism 14(3):1-24. Hirsch, Asher and Nathan Bell. 2017. “What Can Hannah Arendt Teach Us About Today’s Refugee Crisis?” Border Criminologies, October 10. https:// www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder- criminologies/ blog/2017/10/what-can-hannah Holmes, Oliver. 2017. “Thailand Convicts Traffickers After 2015 Mass Grave Discovery.” The Guardian, July 19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ jul/19/thailand- convicts-dozens-of-traffickers-after-mass-graves-discovery Ibrahim, Azeem. 2016. The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Hidden Genocide. London: Hurst.
218
0: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 85%
Javeed, Auqib. 2018. “Pall of Fear Engulfs Rohingya in Jammu: ‘Where Will We Go, What
CanWeDo’.” The Citizen, March 4. https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/ index/3/13183/
0: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 100%
Pall-of-Fear- Engulfs-Rohingya-Camps-in-Jammu-Where-Will-We-Go-What-Can-We-Do
Kannabiran, Kalpana, ed. 2016. Violence Studies. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Knowles, Caroline. 2017. “Strangers at Our Door.” Ethnic and Religious Studies Review 41(8): 1512-13. Majumdar, Suchismita. 2018. “The Jailed Rohingya in West Bengal.” In The Rohingya in South Asia: People Without a State, edited by Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury and Ranabir Samaddar, 91-108. New York: Routledge. Modonesi, Massimo. 2013. Subalternity, Antagonism, Autonomy: Constructing the Political Subject. UK: Pluto Press. Nilsen, Alf Gunvald and Srila Roy. 2015. “Introduction: New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India”. In New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India, edited by Alf Gunvald Nilsen nd Srila Roy, 1-27. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pandey, Gyanendra. 2006. “The Subaltern as Subaltern Citizen”. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(46): 4735-4741. Pasricha, Anjana. 2018. “Rohingya Refugees in India Rattled After First-Ever Deportations.” Voa News, October 14. https:// www.voanews.com/a/rohingya-refugees-in-india-rattled- after-first-ever- deportations/4612749.html Patnaik, Prabhat. 2014. “Neo-liberalism and Democracy”. Economic and Political weekly, 49(15): 39-44. Purakayastha, Anindya and Saswat S. Das. 2017. “Shakespeare in Dantewada: Rescuing Postcolonialism Through Pedagogical Reformulations and Academic Activism.” In Postcolonial Justice, edited by Anke Bartels et al., 37-59. Leiden: Brill. Rabinow, Paul, ed. 1994. Ethics Volume 1: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. London: Penguin. Regan, Helen and Salman Saeed. 2018. “‘
184 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/asia/rohingya-repatriation-myanmar-intl/index.html 100%
If We Go, They Will Kill Us’, Rohingya Refugees Fear Repatriation to Myanmar.”
CNN, November 15. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/asia/rohingya-repatriation-myanmar- intl/index.html Samshad, Rizwana. 2017. Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
219 Roy, Ananya. 2011. “Slumdog Ciies: Rethinking Subaltern Urbanism”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2): 223-238. Singh, Deepak K. 2010. Stateless in South Asia: The Chakmas between Bangladesh and India. New Delhi: Sage. Sofi, Umar. 2018. “
0: https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees 100%
Amid Rumours and Violence, Rohingya Refugees Dream of Safety in Jammu.”
The Wire, November 27. https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2000. “Discussion: An Afterword on the New Subaltern”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 305-334. New Delhi: Oxford UP. —— —.2000. “The New Subaltern: a Silent Interview”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 324-340. UK: Verso. Standing, Guy. 2011. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London; New York: Bloomsbury. ———. 2012. “The Precariat: From Denizens to Citizens?” Polity 44(4): 588-608. Thomas, Peter D.2018. “Refiguriing the Subaltern”. Political Theory 00(0):1-24. UNHCR. n.d. “Bangladesh Rohingya Emergency.” https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency UNHCR. 2016. “LTV Procedure for Refugees Expedited in India.”. UNHCR, January 16. https://www.unhcr.org.in/ index.php?option+com_news&view=spotlightd&id=14<em id=1 Xchange Foundation. 2018. “
0: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 100%
The Rohingya Amongst Us: Bangladeshi Perspectives on the Rohingya Crisis Survey.” Xchange,
August 28. http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- perspectives-on-the-rohingya-crisis-survey/
220 CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION Having comprehensively addressed the genealogy, evolution and problematisation of the Subaltern Studies Collective, we can conclude by registering the following observations: Limitations of the orthodox Marxist Critique: Chibber’s orthodox Marxist critique and his outright rejection of postcolonial theory and Subaltern Studies is ultimately unhelpful in taking the project forward. His rejection of any social and political difference and his advocacy of a programmatic politics of class is ultimately unhelpful. His hypothesis is entirely dismissive and unproductive. Hermeneutic Reading of New Definitions: Partha Chatterjee`s remark that the Subaltern Studies project in its existing format is over has to be interpreted in a hermeneutical or productive way and not in any dismissive manner. The
185 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
‘end’ is not hinting at exhaustion of subaternity or the project. Chatterjee, my study shows is meaning that the subaltern study project has ended up in achieving what it wanted to achieve that is a virtual mainstreaming of the idea of the subaltern. The hauntology of the excluded and the silencified/muted has been registered by the Subaltern Studies project and it has also succeeded in altering existing tools and optics of social science research or humanities research and therefore postcolonial theory has gained tremendously to understand its areas of domination and agency through the idea of the subaltern. That has been achieved, and Chatterjee is surely hinting at an expansive project keeping in mind the present conjuncture. Political Society as the Current Subaltern Domain: But how to expand or extend the questions the project raised and what new methodology can be used? I think Partha Cahtterjee’s theorisation of popular politics as the ‘politics of the governed’ or as ‘political society’ can provide, despite shortcomings as pointed out in the previous chapter in reference to the Rohingya refugees, a new optics or methodology. As opposed to the liberal contractarian notion of civil-societal politics of the rights-bearing citizens, he theorises ‘political society’ as the politics of the different population groups that negotiate with the administrative organs of the state for various entitlements and subsistence benefits. The state, too, make exceptions in the norm in fulfilling
221 those claims by the different groups. Thus, this ‘interest based and subsistence negotiation’ of ‘political society’ is marked by paralegal, illegal and the irrational. It is in this nebulous zone of confrontation and negotiation, occasional failure and success that subaltern politics has to be understood. The peasant as the central subaltern agency was the key non- elite voice that enabled us to understand anti-colonial struggle in its entirety, and today the agential role of the political society, as a non-norm centric grid of postcolonial political agent is an expansion from the central figure of the peasant theorised so wonderfully by Guha. It haunts the neoliberal capital that divides postcolonial societies in the neat differentiating zones of corporate capital and non-corporate capital, or between need economy and accumulation economy. Everyday cases of farmer`s suicide, issues of loan waiver as part of electoral policies or policies of governmentality continues to remain there and any theorisation of everyday postcolonial politics must incorporate these zones of silences, absences, and exclusions which civil society discourses elide continuously. So this research proves that the subalternity after the end of subaltern theory is a burgeoning character, it is a multiplicity and that does not suggest a regression of agency rather it hints at the rise of more non-civil society stakeholders asserting their citizenship claims, consolidating the subaltern voice further. Heterogeneity of the Emerging Subaltern Domain: The multiplicity and polyphonic nature of postcolonial political society is en-voicing other zones of elisions or exclusions such as developmental refugees, ethnic refugees, nation- boundary-refugees, other precariats, minorities, queers, - all these groups are being enfolded by grids of modern electoral politics and subalternity after the “end” of Subaltern Studies project is emerging hydra headed. It locates the complexity of the entire scenario of political negotiations, demand making, assertions, affective manipulations, etc and all these are on the rise. The futural continuation of the subaltern project acknowledge these emerging areas of popular sovereignty or popular politics to understand the uniqueness of political reality in the Global South. Need-economy, Accumulation-economy, Exclusions & New Representations: New theories of community, need based economy as opposed to accumulation economy, irrational
186 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
or paralegal manipulations to neutralise corporate economic plunder, etc are the future of subaltern studies research and that will have its impact on forthcoming theories of literary representation, social science theory and political trajectories – or what we
222 may call theory from the south. One of the important area of future research, this research feels, can be the changing nature of peasant politics/dissidence, the shift from insurgency to governmentality negotiations, the exact nature of need economy and community affiliations – areas that can provide a counter-model, etc. Subalternity and Aporias of Affective Politics: On the question of religion however, this present research has an area of concern. If affective politics is one of the important zones of political society, this research holds that the idea of affective politics can be a double edged sword. Chatterjee (2012, 2017) himself has agreed to that by pointing out that affective politics can be manipulated for majoritarian political purposes. Such mis-appropriation or religious manipulations for electoral gains may lead to new forms of subalternity, examples are vigilante mobs, lynch crowds, etc. who rely on affective spectacular modes and need inter community rivalry as the axis of political agency, leading to multiple modes of precarity. Politics of the Nation-ed and New Subalternity: Recent world wide rise of neo-nationalism and xenophobia opens up possibilities of reexploring the findings of the Subaltern Studies project as in the Indian context, the homogeneous empty time of nation has always been pitted against the heterogeneity of different community claims. So the recent rise of ultra-nationalism or what we might call the politics of the nation-ed can also be critiqued and problematised through the reappropriation of the Subaltern Studies project.
223 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Texts: Selected Reading of Subaltern Studies Volumes and Anthologies
Guha,
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 95%
Ranajit
ed,. 1982.
Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 66%
Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India. ———. 1983.
Subaltern Studies
187 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
II:
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India. ———.1984.
Subaltern
Studies III:
Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India. ———.1985.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 71%
Subaltern Studies
IV:
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India. ———.1987. S
Subaltern Studies V:
Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India. ———.1989. S
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 96%
Subaltern Studies VI: Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
188 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
India. ———.1997. A Subaltern Studies Reader: 1986-1995. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1999.
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 83%
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. USA: Duke University Press. (
first published in 1983, Delhi, Offord UP.
Guha,
Ranajit and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ed,. 1998. Selected Subaltern Studies: New York:
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 62%
Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha and Gyanendra Pandey,
ed,. 1992.
Subaltern Studies VII:
Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press
India.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 92%
Arnold,
David and David Hardiman, ed,. 1994. Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in Honour of Ranajit Guha.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press India.
Amin,
Shahid and Dipesh Chakrabarty,
ed,.1996.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 72%
Subaltern Studies IX:
189 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India, 1996.
Bhadra, Gautam and Gyan Prakash, and Susie Tharu,
ed,. 1999.
Subaltern Studies X:
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha and Pradeep Jeganathan, ed,.2000. Subaltern Studies XI: Community, Gender and Violence. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
224 Mayaram, Shail, M. S. S. Pandian,
and Ajay Skaria, ed,.2005. S Subaltern Studies XII: Muslims, Dalist and the Fabrications of History. New Delhi: Permanent Black. Critical Editions, Journal Issues and Articles Chakrabarty,
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 88%
Dipesh. 2002. “A Small
History of Subaltern Studies”. In
Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies,
Dipesh Chakrabarty, 3-19. New Delhi, Permanent Black. ———. 2013. “Subaltern Studies in Retrospect and Reminiscence”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (12): 23-27. Chandra, Uday ed.2015. “Rethinking Subaltern Resistance” (Special Issue). Journal of contemporary Asia 45(4): 563-73. Chaturvedi, Vinayak, ed,. 2000. Mapping Postcolonial Theory and Subaltern Studies. London and New York: Verso. Chatterjee,
Partha. 2004.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
The
Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New
Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2008. “
190 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Democracy and Economic Transformation in India”. Economic and Political Weekly 43(16): 53-62 ———.2010. “A Brief History of Subaltern Studies”. Empire and Nation: Essential Writings (1985- 2005),
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100%
New Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2011. Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2012 “After Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47(35):44-49. ———. 2013. “
0: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 73%
Subaltern Studies and Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 (37):69- 75. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital.
UK and US: Verso. ———. 2014. “Revisiting Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 49(9):82-85. ———. 2014. “
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 87%
Making Sense of Postcolonial Theory: A Response to Gayatri Chakravorty”. Cambridge Review
of International Affairs 27(3): 617-624. Ganguly, Debjani. ed. 2015. “
0: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv-collaboratori/cv-ganguly- debjani 75%
The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1.
0: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 87%
Gohain Hiren. 2012. “Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (39):74-76.
225
Green, Marcus. 2002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
191 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Rethinking Marxism 14(13): 1-24.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Ludden,
David,
ed. 2002. Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalisation of South Asia.
Delhi: Permanent Black.
Nilsen, Alf Gunvald and Srila Roy. 2015. New Subaltern Politics: Reconceptualising Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India. New
0: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 87%
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sarkar,
Sumit. 1997. "The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies." In Writing Social History, Sumit Sarkar, 82-108. Delhi: Oxford University Press
India.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 84%
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In
Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. London: Macmillan.
Secondary Texts and Articles Agamben, Georgio. 1998. Homo Sacer. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ahmed, Hilal. 2014. Muslim Political Discourse in Postcolonial India: Monuments, Memory, Contestation. New Delhi: Routledge.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm 89%
Alam, Javeed. 2002. “Peasntry,
Politics, and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation
to Marxism”.
In
192 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia,
edited by David Ludden, 43-57. Delhi:
Orient longman. Altern, Hannah. “Subaltern Studies: From Writing with (Socialist) Passion to Following the (Postmodern) Fashion”. History in the Making 1(2): 58-64. Arendt, Hannah. 1976. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego New York London: Harcourt Brace & Company. Arnold, David. 2015. “Subaltern Studies: Then and Now”. In New Subltern Politics: Reconceptualisng Hegemony and Resistance in Contemporary India, edited by Alf Gunvald Nilsen and Srila Roy, 257-269. New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 2019. “Subltern Streets: India, 1870-1947”. In Subaltern Geographies, edited by Tariq Jazeel and Stephen Legg, 36-57. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Bagchi, Amiya Kumar. 1985. “The Ambiguity of Progress: Indian Society in Transition”. Social Scientist 13(3): 3-14. Balibar, Etienne and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. 2016. “An Interview on Subalternity (Published in Partnership with Editions Amsterdam)”. Cultural Studies 30(5): 856-871.
226 Banerjee, Prathama, Aditya Nigam and Rakesh Pandey. 2016. “The Work of Theory: Thinking Acoss Traditions”. Economic and Political Weekly 51(37): 42-50. Banerjee,
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87%
Himani. 2000. “Projects of Hegemony: Subaltern Studies’ “Resolution of the Women’s Question”. Economic and Political Weekly: 35(11): 902-920.
Basu Ray Chaudhury, Sabyasachi and Ranabir Samaddar., ed. 2018. The Rohingya in South Asia: People Without State. New York: Routledge. Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi. 1983. “History from Below”. Social Scientist 11(4): 3-20. Bhowal, Sanatan. 2016. The Subaltern Speaks: Truth and Ethics in Mahasweta Devi’s Fiction on Tribals. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Bhukya, Bhangya. 2017. “Widening the Frames of Subaltern Studies” (Review). Economic and Political Weekly 52(4): 30-33. Bilimoria, Purushottama and Dina-Al-Kassim,ed,. 2014. Postcolonial Reason and Its Critique: Deliberations on Gayatri Spivak’s Thoughts. New Delhi: Oxford UP. Bloom, Tendayi, Katherine Tonkiss and Phillip Cole, ed. 2017. Understanding Statelessness. London and New York: Routledge. Brennan, Timothy. 2014. “Subaltern Stakes” (Review Article). New Left Review, 89:67-87. Brown, Judith M. 1988. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Subaltern Studies III: Writings on South Asian History and Society” (
Review Article). The English Historical Review 103(407): 527-528. Chandavarkar,
193 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
0: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0 96%
Rajnarayan. 1997. “The Making of the Working Class: E.P.Thompson and Indian History”. History Workshop Journal 43: 177-196.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
Chakrabarty,
Dipesh. 1993. "
Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian's Perspective," Economic and Political Weekly 28 (22): 1094-1096 ———. 1991
a. “Rethinking Working Class History”. Economic and Political Weekly 26(17): 1117-1119. —— —. 1991b. “History as Critique and Critique(s) of History”.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 73%
Economic and Political Weekly 26(37): 2162-2166. ———. 1992. "
Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for 'Indian' Pasts?"
In Representations,
no. 37 (Special Issue: Imperial Fantasies and Postcolonial Histories): 1-26. ———.1993. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 85%
Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian’s Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 28 (22): 1094-1096. ———.1998. "
Minority Histories, Subaltern Pasts”. Economic and Political Weekly 33(9):473-479.
227 ———. 2000
a. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 256-280. UK: Verso. ———. 2000b. Provincilizing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and
194 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Historial Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ———. 2000c. “Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography”. Nepantla: Views from South 1(1): 9-32. ———. 1995. "
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies," Economic and Political Weekly 30(14):751-759.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1982. “Bengal Politics and the Muslim Masses: 1920-1947”. The Journal of Commonwealth and Compartive Politics 20(1): 25-41. (Published online on 25 March 2008). — ——. 1983. "Peasant, Politics and Historiography: A Response," Social Scientist 11 (5): — ——. 2001. “Democracy and the Violence of the State: Apolitical Negotiation of Death”. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 2(1):7-21. (Published online on 10 December 2010). ———. 2005. “Empire and Nation Revisited: 50 Years after Bandung”. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6(4): 487-496. 58-65. —— —. 2008. “Peasant Cultures of the Twenty- First Century”. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 9(1): 116-126. ———.ed,. 2010. Ranajit Guha: The Small Voice of History (Collected Essays). Ranikhet: Permanet Black. ———.2010. Empire and Nation. Essential Writings 1985-2005. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. ——— . 2012. “The Debate over Political Society”. In Reframing Democracy and Agency: Interrogating Political Society, edited by Ajay Gudavarthy, 305-322. London: Anthem Press. ——— . 2016. “Rethinking Postcolonial Capitalist Development: A Conversation between Kalyan sanyal and Paryha Chatterjee”. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 36(1): 102-111. ——— . 2017. “Land and the Political Management of Primitive Accumuation”. In The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession, and Capitalist Transition, edited by Anthony P. D’Costa and Achin Chakrabarty, 1-15. UK: Oxford UP.
228 Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 2001. “intellectual/ Political Commitments: An Interview with Partha Chatterjee”. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 2(1): 23-34.
0: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 86%
Chibber, Vivek. 2006. “On the Decline of Class Analysis in South Asian Studies”. Critical Asian Studies 38(4): 357-387.
Chopra, Suneet. 1982. “Missing Correct Perspective”. Social Scientist, 10(8): 55-63. Deshpande, Prachi. 2006. “Muslims and Dalits as Subaltern” (Review of Subaltern Studies XII). Economic and Political Weekly, 41(34): 3701-3703.
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
Dhanagare, D.N. 1988. “Subaltern Consciousness and Populism: Two Approaches in the Study of Social Movements in India”. Social Scientist 16(11): 18-35.
During, Simon. 2015. “Choosing Precarity”. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1: 19-38. Fraser, Nancy. 2008. “Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics”. New Delhi: Critical
195 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Quest. Gidwani, Vinay. 2009. (Subalernity”. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, ed N. Thrift and R. Kitchen: 65-71. Goldberg, David Theo and Ato Quayson, ed,. 2002. Relocating Postcolonialism. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell. Gorringe, Hugo, et al.,ed. 2016. From the Margins to the Mainstream: Institutionalising Minorities in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage. Gosh, Anjan, et al., ed. Theorizing the Present: Essays for Partha Chatterjee. New Delhi: OUP India. Gottlob, Michael,ed,. 2003. Historical Thinking in South Asia: A Handbook of Sources from Colonial Times to the Present. New Delhi: Oxford UP. Graff, Ann-Barbara. 2003. “Subaltern Studies IX: Community, Gender and Violence” (Review). Critical Sociology 29(2): 269-274. Green, Marcus. 20002. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”.
Rethinking Marxism 14(3): 1-24. ———. 2011. “
0: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88%
Rethinking the Subalern and the Question of Cencorship in Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks”,
Postcolonial Studies 14(4): 387-404. Gudavarthy, Ajay, ed,. 2012 Reframing Democracy and Agency: Interrogating Political Society. London: Anthem Press. ———. 2013. Politics of Post- Civil Society: Contemporary History of Political Movements in India. Delhi: Sage.
229 ———. 2014. Maoism, Democracy and Globalisation: Cross-currents in Indian Politics. Delhi: Sage. Guha, Ramachandra. 1995. “Subaltern and Bhadralok Studies” (Review). Economic and Political Weekly, 30(33): 2056-2058. ———. 1998. “Beyond Bhadralok
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 89%
and Bankim Studies”. Economic and Political weekly 31(8): 495-496.
Gupta, Dipankar. 1985. “On Altering the Ego in Peasant History: Paradoxes of the Ethnic Option”. Peasant Studies 13(1): 5-24.
Hariss-White, Barbara, et al. 2014. Dalits and Adivasis in India’s Business Economy: Three Essays and an Atlas. Gurgaon: Three Essays Collective. Hauser, Alter. 1991. “
0: https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Selected-Subaltern-Studies/Ranajit- Guha/9780195052893 100%
Selected Subaltern Studies by Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak” (
196 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Review Article). The American Historical Review 96(1): 241-243. Hill, Christopher V. 2000. “A Subaltern Studies Reader: 1986-1995 & Subaltern Studies IX” (Review). The Journal of Asian Studies 59(1): 197-199. Hoare,
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 78%
Quintin, and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, ed. 1996. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.
Chennai: Orient Longman Private Ltd. Jal, Murzban, and Zaheer Ali. 2016. What Ails Indian Muslims. Delhi: Aakar Books. Jodhka, Surinder S. 2014. Caste in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Routledge. ———. 2013. Interrogating India’s Modernity: Democracy, Identity and Citizenship (Essays in Honour of Dipankar Gupta). New Delhi: Oxford UP. Jones, Steve. 2006. Antonio Gramsci (Routledge Critical Thinkers). New York: Routledge. (First Indian Edition 2007) Joshi, Sanjay. 2003. “Subaltern Studies XI: Community, Gender and Violence” (Review). The Journal of Asian Studies 62(4): 1273-1274. Kaiwar, Vasant. 2015. “The Postcolonial Orient: The Politics of Difference and the Project of Provincializing Europe” (Review). Race & Class 58(4): 106-119. Kannabiran, Kalpana, ed. 2016. Violence Studies. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Komath, Chandran. 2011. “Subaltern Studies and the Dalit Subalterns”. Economic and Political Weekly 46(16): 4-5. Kopf, David. 1996. “Subaltern Studies, Volume 8” (Review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 116(4): 754-755. ———. 1999. “Subaltern Studies, Volume 9” (Review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 119(1): 192-193.
230 Lal, Vinay. 2005.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
The History of History: Politics and Scholarship in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford
UP. ———. 2001. “Subaltern Studies and Its Critics: Debates over Indian History…” (Review Article). History and Theory 40(1): 135-148. Latin American Subaltern Studies Group. 1993. “Founding Statement”. Boundary 2 20(3): 110-121. Lazarus, Neil. 2011. “What Postcolonial Theory Doesn’t Say”. Race and Class 53(1): 3-27. 2016. “Vivek Chibber and the Specter of Postcolonial Theory”. Race and Class, 57(3): 88- 106. Levien, M. 2014. “Subalternists Scrutinized”. Europen Journal of Sociology 54(3): 485-497. Loomba, Ania, et al.2006. Postcolonial Studies and Beyond. New Delhi: Permanent Black. Malreddy, Pavan Kumar et.al, ed,. 2015. Reworking Postcolonialism: Globalization, labour and Rights. New York: Palgrave and Macmillan.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 92%
Mallon, Florencia E. 1994. The Promise and Dilemna of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History”.
The American Historical Review 99(5):1491-1515.
197 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Menon, Nivedita and Aditya Nigam. 2007. Power and Contestaion: India Since 1989. Hyderabad: Orient Longman. Modonesi, Massimo. 2014. Subalternity, Antagonism and Autonomy: Constructing the Political Subaject. Pluto Press. Morton, Stephen. 2003. Gayatri Chakrabarty Spivak (Routledge Critical Thinkers). New York: Routledge. (First Indian Edition 2007. Mudgal, Vipul, ed,. 2016. Claiming India from Below: Activism and Democratic Transformations. New York: Routledge.
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 82%
Mukherjee, Mridula. 1988. “Peasant Resistance and Peasant Conciousness in Colonial India: ‘Subaltern’ and Beyond”. Economic and Political Weekly 23(41): 2109-2120.
Nigam, Aditya. 2006. The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular-Nationalism in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. “Reflections” (Interview of Partha Chatterjee by Aditya Nigam). Development and Change 45(5):1059-1073. ———. 2014. “Postcolonialism, Marxism and Non-Western Thought”. Centre for Scientific Socialism Occational Lecture Series 8. 1-28. (Accessed from the website of CSDS, New Delhi on 20-05-2019).
231 ———. 2016. Afro-Asian Solidarity and the “Capital” question: Looking Beyond the Last Frontier”. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 17(1): 33-51. Nilsen, Alf Gunvald. 2015. “Passages from Marxism to Postcolonialism: A Commnt on
0: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital”.
Critical Sociology 43(4-5): 559-571. Pandey, Gyanendra. 2006. “The Subaltern as Subaltern Citizen”. Economic and Politial Weekly 41(46): 4735-4741. ———. 1997. “
0: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu- Muslim Riots in India Today”. In
A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995, edited by Ranajit Guha, 1-33. New Delhi: Oxford UP. — ——. 2000. “
0: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html 100%
Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories”.
In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 281-299. UK: Verso. ———. 2016. “Racialization of Subaltern Populations across the Globe: The Politics of Difference”. The Review of Black Politica Economy 43(2): 87-99. Panikkar, K.N. 1983. “In Search of New Pastures”. Economic and Political Weekly 18(33):
198 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
1432-1433. Pankaj, Ashok K. and Ajit K. Pandey, ed,. 2014. Subalternity, Exclusion and Social Change in India. Chennai: Foundation. Parry, Benita. 2012. “What is Left in Postcolonial Studies?”. New Literary History 43(2): 341-358. Pathak, Avijit. 1998. Indian Modernity: Contradictions, Paradoxes and Possibilities. New Delhi: Aakar Books. Pati, Biswamoy. “Norms and Forms of the Bengali Middle Class” (Review of Subaltern Studies VII). Social Scientist 21 (12):49-52. Patnaik, Utsa. 1988. “Editoria”. Social Scientist 16(11): 1-2. Prakash, Gyan. 1994. “Subaltern Studies as Postcolonial Criticism”. The American Historical Review 99(5): 1475-1490. Purakayastha, A. S. 2014. “Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital” (Review). Journal of Postcolonial Writing 50(3): 369- 370. ———. Forthcoming. 2019, “Flawed Postcolonial Historiography?: Subaltern Theory after the Vivek Chibber Partha Chatterjee Debate” (Book chapter). New Delhi: Aakar. Purakayastha A. S. and Saswat S Das. 2012. “Absolutist Democracy Homo Sacer and the Resistance of Bare Life”. History and Sociology of South Asia 6(2):111-121.
232 ———.2017. “Shakespeare in Dantewada: Rescuing Postcolonialism Through Pedagogical Reformulations and Academic Activism.” In Postcolonial Justice, edited by Anke Bartels et al., 37-59. Leiden: Brill. Rabasa, Josse and Javier Sanjenes C. 1994. “Introduction: The Politics of Subaltern Studies”. Dispositio 19(46): v-xi. Rabinow, Paul, ed. 1994. Ethics Volume 1: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. London: Penguin. Restrepo, Luis Fernando. 2005. “The Latin American Subaltern studies Reader by Ileana Rodriguez”. Dispositio 25(52): 373-383. Rodriguez, Ileana. 2005. “Is There A Need For Subaltern Studies?”. Dispositio 25(52): 43- 62. Rohini, S. “Whither Subaltern Studies?”. Economic and Political Weekly 37(29): 3076-3077. Roy, Arundhati. 2005. An Ordinary Person‟s Guide to Empire. New Delhi: Penguin. ———. 2009. Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. New Delhi: Penguin. Roy, Ananya. 2011. “Slumdog Ciies: Rethinking Subaltern Urbanism”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2): 223-238. Saldanha, Denzil.2015. The Subaltern Subject in Structured Historical Process: Towards an Epistemological Approach. Delhi: Aakar. Samaddar Ranabir. 2009. “Primitive Accumulation and Some Aspects of Work and Life in India”. Economic and Political Weekly XVIV (18): 33- 42. ———. “The Material Expansion of Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly XLVI (16):34-35. ———. “What is Postcolonial Predicament”. 2012. Economic and Political Weekly XLVII (9): 41-50. Sanyal, Kalyan. 2007. Rethinking Capitalist Development. New Delhi: Routledge. Singh, Deepak K. 2010. Stateless in South Asia: The Chakmas between Bangladesh and India. New Delhi: SAGE. Srivastava, Sanjay. 2003. “Subaltern Studies XI: Community, Gender and Violence” (Review). Asian Journal of Social Science 31(1): 128-133. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2000a. “Discussion: An Afterword on the New Subaltern”. In Subaltern Studies XI, edited by Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan, 305-334. New Delhi: Permanet Black. ———.2000b. “The New Subaltern: a Silent Interview”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and introduced by Vinayak Chaturvedi, 324-340. UK: Verso.
233 ———. 2005. “Scattered Speculations on the Subaltern and the Popular”. Postcolonial Studies 8(4):475-486. Standing, Guy. 2011. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London; New York: Bloomsbury. ———. 2012. “The Precariat: From Denizens to Citizens?” Polity 44(4): 588-608. Tharu, Susie. “Subalternity and Culture in India”. Economic and Political Weekly 27(9): 434. Thomas, Peter D.2018. “Refiguriing the Subaltern”. Political Theory 00(0):1-24. Vanaik Achin. 2013. “Powerful Critique of Postcolonial Theory”. Economic and Political Weekly XLVIII
199 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
(28): 27-31. Vanaik, Achin and Rajeev Bhargava, ed,. 2010. Understanding Contemporary India: Critical Perspectives. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. Wilson, Janet, et al,ed,. 2009. Rerouting the Postcolonial: New Directions for the New Millenium. London and New York: Routedge. Yang, Anand A. 1985. “
0: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 81%
Subaltern Studies II: Writings on South Asian History and Society” (
Review). The Journal of
Asian Studies 45(1): 177-178.
Bengali Writings Bhadra, Gautam.1994. Iman o Nishan: Krisak Choitanyer Ek Odhyaya. Kolkata: Subarnarekha Pvt. Ltd. Chatterjee, Partha. 2015. Itihaser Uttoradhikar. Kolkata: Ananda. Sen, Ashok. 2005. Itihaser Thik Thikana. Kolkata: Seridhan. Banerjee, Nirmal. 2010. Gramsci Charcha. Kolkata: Kristi.
200 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Hit and source - focused comparison, Side by Side:
Left side: As student entered the text in the submitted document. Right side: As the text appears in the source.
Instances from: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx
15 100% 15: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Ludden, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason David, is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. ed. 2002. Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalisation of South Asia.
Delhi: Permanent Black.
20 100% 20: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Subaltern The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason groups are always subject to the activity of ruling groups, even is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a when they rebel and rise up: source in Urkund's Archive.
only “permanent” victory breaks their subordination
201 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
24 100% 24: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason 23 long time been dominated by elitism- is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
26 75% 26: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 75% Indian nationalism as an “ideal venture in which the indigenous elite led the people from subjugation to freedom” ( The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
30 87% 30: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87% to “rehabilitate” the subaltern as the “maker of his own destiny”. This, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
31 82% 31: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 82%
202 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Subaltern historiography”, writes Chakrabarty, “entailed a The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason relative separation of the history of power from any universalist is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a histories of capital, a critique of the nation form, and an source in Urkund's Archive. interrogation of the relation between power and knowledge…” (
37 85% 37: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 85% or destroyed the insignia of his enemy’s power and hoped thus to abolish the marks of his own subalternity. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
52 100% 52: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% insurgency is regarded as external to the The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason 66 peasant’s consciousness and Cause is made to stand in as a is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a phantom surrogate for Reason, the logic of that consciousness”. source in Urkund's Archive. (
57 76% 57: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 76% relatively autonomous political domain with specific features and collective mentalities” which distinguishes them from the The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason “domain of the elite politicians who in early twentieth century is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a Bengal came overwhelmingly from high caste educated pro- source in Urkund's Archive.
203 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
professional groups connected with zamindari or intermediate tenure- holding” (
74 86% 74: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 86% the “cognitive map that Manulla had of the world may easily have been shared, though not necessarily wholly, by a poor The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason peasant” ( is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
83 100% 83: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 43-57. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
91 100% 91: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
107 100% 107: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
204 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason and the Globalisation of South Asia, is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. edited by David Ludden, 1-39. Delhi:
112 87% 112: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87% Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third Worls: Perspectives from Indian Historiography”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
113 85% 113: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 85% Can the ‘Subaltern’ Ride? A Reply to O’Hanlon and Washbrook”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
116 100% 116: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 400-429. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
205 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
122 100% 122: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism- The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
124 90% 124: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 90% an indepenst force, “Ranajit Guha, by a theoretical leap transforms peasant politics into an ‘autonomous domain’” ( The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
149 100% 149: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies and Histories of Resistance in Colonial South Asia”, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
151 100% 151: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
206 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason perspectives from Indian Historiography” is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
152 100% 152: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism and Politics in the Third World”, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
153 100% 153: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Can the Subaltern Ride? A Reply to O’Hanlon and Washbrook”, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
156 100% 156: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies” (2000 The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
207 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
159 100% 159: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 43-57. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
160 100% 160: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 358-399. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
161 100% 161: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 343-357. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
163 100% 163: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
208 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies”. is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
164 100% 164: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Chatterjee, Partha. 1983. “Peasants, Politics, and Historiography: A Response”. Social Scientist, 11(5): 58-65. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
165 100% 165: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 120-132. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
167 100% 167: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 108-119. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
209 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
168 100% 168: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% O’Hanlon, Rosalind. 2002. “ The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies and Histories of is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a Resistance in Colonial South Asia”. source in Urkund's Archive.
169 100% 169: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 135- 186. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
171 92% 171: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 92% Mallon, Florencia E. 1994. “The Promise and Dilemna of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a The American Historical Review 99(5):1491-1515. source in Urkund's Archive.
172 100% 172: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
210 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason and the Globalisation of South Asia, is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. edited by David Ludden, 1-39. Delhi:
175 87% 175: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87% Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third Worls: Perspectives from Indian Historiography”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
176 85% 176: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 85% Can the ‘Subaltern’ Ride? A Reply to O’Hanlon and Washbrook”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, edited and is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
178 100% 178: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 400-429. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
211 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
179 77% 179: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 77% Orientalism Revisted: Saidian Frameworks in the Writing of Modern Indian History”. In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Postcolonial, edited and is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
180 100% 180: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 58-107. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
229 66% 229: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 66% Delhi: The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Oxford University Press is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. India. ———. 1983.
Subaltern Studies
II:
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
212 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Oxford University Press
India. ———.1984.
Subaltern
Studies III:
Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
230 71% 230: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 71% Subaltern Studies The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason IV: is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press
India. ———.1987. S
Subaltern Studies V:
Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi:
213 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Oxford University Press
231 96% 231: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 96% Subaltern Studies VI: Writings on South Asian History and Society. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a New Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
Oxford University Press
233 62% 233: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 62% Oxford University Press. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Chatterjee, Partha and Gyanendra Pandey, is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. ed,. 1992.
Subaltern Studies VII:
Writings on South Asian History and Society.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press
235 72% 235: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 72% Subaltern Studies IX:
214 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi: The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a Oxford University Press source in Urkund's Archive. India, 1996.
Bhadra, Gautam and Gyan Prakash, and Susie Tharu,
ed,. 1999.
Subaltern Studies X:
Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha and Pradeep Jeganathan, ed,.2000. Subaltern Studies XI: Community, Gender and Violence. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
224 Mayaram, Shail, M. S. S. Pandian,
244 100% 244: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Ludden, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason David, is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive. ed. 2002. Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalisation of South Asia.
215 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Delhi: Permanent Black.
248 100% 248: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalisation of South Asia, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a edited by David Ludden, 43-57. Delhi: source in Urkund's Archive.
249 87% 249: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 87% Himani. 2000. “Projects of Hegemony: Subaltern Studies’ “Resolution of the Women’s Question”. Economic and Political The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Weekly: 35(11): 902-920. is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
250 100% 250: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Subaltern Studies III: Writings on South Asian History and Society” ( The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
255 100% 255: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100%
216 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies”. is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
256 100% 256: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of Subaltern Studies," Economic and The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Political Weekly 30(14):751-759. is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
264 100% 264: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 100% The History of History: Politics and Scholarship in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
265 92% 265: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 92% Mallon, Florencia E. 1994. The Promise and Dilemna of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a The American Historical Review 99(5):1491-1515. source in Urkund's Archive.
217 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
266 82% 266: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 82% Mukherjee, Mridula. 1988. “Peasant Resistance and Peasant Conciousness in Colonial India: ‘Subaltern’ and Beyond”. The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason Economic and Political Weekly 23(41): 2109-2120. is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
270 81% 270: Arvind Kumar Deptt of History School Of Social Sciences.docx 81% Subaltern Studies II: Writings on South Asian History and Society” ( The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a Review). The Journal of source in Urkund's Archive.
Asian Studies 45(1): 177-178.
218 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: 4chapter1.docx
21 78% 21: 4chapter1.docx 78%
Every trace of independent initiative on the part of subaltern The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason groups should therefore be of incalculable value for the integral is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a historian. ( source in Urkund's Archive.
22 92% 22: 4chapter1.docx 92%
The subaltern classes, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a by definition, are not united and cannot unite until they are able source in Urkund's Archive. to become a “State”…” (
25 100% 25: 4chapter1.docx 100%
the wealth, power and prestige created by and associated with The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
27 71% 27: 4chapter1.docx 71%
The history of Indian nationalism is thus written up as a sort of The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason spiritual biography of the Indian elite” (ibid, 2) Both is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
219 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
28 100% 28: 4chapter1.docx 100%
to “acknowledge, far less interpret, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a the contribution made by the source in Urkund's Archive.
people on their own, that is, independently of the elite,
to the making and development of this nationalism” (
29 75% 29: 4chapter1.docx 75%
negatively, as a law and order problem, or if positively at all, as a The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason response to is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
36 100% 36: 4chapter1.docx 100%
cases, it “enhanced the concreteness, focus and tension of The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason subaltern political is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
121 80% 121: 4chapter1.docx 80%
220 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the history of Indian nationalism as “a sort of spiritual biography The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason of the Indian elite” ( is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a source in Urkund's Archive.
123 94% 123: 4chapter1.docx 94%
to acknowledge “ The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a the contribution made by the source in Urkund's Archive.
people on their own that is independently of the elite
to the making and development of this nationalism” (
162 79% 162: 4chapter1.docx 79%
Tom. 2000. “Moral Economists, Subaltern, The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a New Social Movements and the (Re-) Emrgence of a (Post-) source in Urkund's Archive. Modernised (Middle) Peasant”.
221 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf
18 91% 18: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 91%
history of subaltern social groups is necessarily fragmented and history of subaltern groups is necessarily fragmented and episodic. There undoubtedly does exist a tendency to ( episodic. There undoubtedly does exist a tendency to […]
19 90% 19: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 90%
unification in the historical activity of these groups, but this unification in the historical activitiy of these groups, but this tendency is continually interrupted by activity of the ruling tendency is continually interrupted by the activity of the ruling groups: groups […] (
35 91% 35: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 91%
of the subaltern classes. He writes: of the lower classes: […] parallel to the domain of elite politics there existed throughout the colonial period another domain of For Indian politics in which the principal actors were not the dominant groups of the indigenous society or the colonial parallel to the domain of elite politics there existed throughout authorities but the subaltern classes and groups constituting the the colonial period another domain of Indian politics in which mass of the labouring population and the principal actors were not the dominant groups of the indigenous society or the colonial authorities but the subaltern 10 the intermediate strata in town and country – that is, the classes and groups constituting the mass of the labouring people. This was an autonomous domain, for it neither population and the intermediate strata in town and country-that originated from elite politics nor did its existence depend on the is, the people. latter. ( This
222 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
was an autonomous domain, for it
is
neither originated from elite politics nor did its existence depend on the latter. (
43 50% 43: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 50%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspects of the Historiography in Guha, R. (1982): On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India”. In Subaltern Studies Colonial India. In: Ibid. (ed.): Subaltern Studies
I, Ranaji Guha, ed., 1-8. Delhi, Oxford UP. ———.1999. I: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-8. Guha, R. (1983): Elementary Aspects of Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
46 100% 46: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 100%
Conditions for Knowledge of Working-Class Conditions: Conditions Employers, Government and the Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1890-1940” for Knowledge of Working-Class Conditions: Employers, Government and the Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1890-1940.
155 100% 155: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 100%
223 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Reifying tendencies can be actually strengthened by the Reifying tendencies can be actually strengthened by the associated detachment from socio-economic contexts and associated detachment from socio-economic contexts and determinants out of determinants out of
204 42% 204: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 42%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspect of Colonial Guha, R. (1982): On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Historiography”. In Colonial India. In: Ibid. (ed.): Subaltern Studies
Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History & Society, I: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-8. Guha, R. (1983): Elementary Aspects of ed. by Ranajit Guha, 1-8. Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford UP. ———. 1999.
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
219 83% 219: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 83%
Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Chibber, V. (2013): Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital. New York: Verso. Capital. London/New York: Verso.
257 86% 257: 2281222P_Socio5075_Assignment1.pdf 86%
Chibber, Vivek. 2006. “On the Decline of Class Analysis in South Chibber, V. (2006): On the Decline of Class Analysis in South Asian Studies”. Critical Asian Studies 38(4): 357-387. Asian Studies. In: Critical Asian Studies 38 (4),
224 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national-identity-and-sovereignty.pdf
3 88% 3: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 88% The general interest in the lives and politics of the subaltern classes that Subaltern Studies stoked is here to stay, whether or The general interest in the lives and politics of the subaltern not we agree with particular authors and their contributions in classes that Subaltern Studies stoked is here to stay, whether we the field. ( agree or not with particular authors and their contributions in the field.
9 100% 9: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% The The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most Most of the World. of the World. New New Delhi: Permanent Black 2011: Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2008. “
10 100% 10: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% New Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2011. Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia New Delhi: Permanent Black 2011: University Press. ——— .2012 “After Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47(35):44-49. ———. 2013. “ Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. 2012: ‘After Subaltern Studies’, Economic and Political Weekly,
225 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
13 87% 13: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 87% Gohain Hiren. 2012. “Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (39):74-76. Gohain, H. 2012. ‘Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective’, Economic and Political Weekly,
58 95% 58: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 95% the unique achievement of Gandhism: its ability to open up the possibility for achieving perhaps the most important historical the unique achievement of Gandhism was ‘its ability to open up task for a successful national revolution in a country like India, the possibility for achieving perhaps the most important namely the political appropriation of the subaltern classes by a historical task for a successful national revolution in a country bourgeoisie aspiring for hegemony in the new nation- like India viz the political appropriation of the subaltern classes by a bourgeoisie aspiring for hegemony in the new nation-
184 65% 184: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 65% the existence of these two separate domains point towards the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to “ The co-existence of these two domains or streams… (indicated) the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to
187 50% 187: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 50%
226 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
material domain, the domain of economy and statecraft, of material is the domain of the ‘outside’, of the economy and of science and technology in which the West has superiority and statecraft, of science and technology, a domain where the West the had proved its superiority and the
196 82% 196: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 82% subaltern was used as “as subaltern' is used as the 'name for the general attribute of a subordination in South Asian society, whether this is expressed in terms of class, caste, age, gender and office, or in any other name for way' ( the general attribute of subordination in South Asian society whether this is
181
expressed in terms of class, caste, age, gender and office
and in any other way.”(
198 100% 198: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% The The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most Most of the World. of the World. New New Delhi: Permanent Black 2011: Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2008. “
227 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
199 100% 199: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2012 “After Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47(35):44-49. New York: Columbia University Press. 2012: ‘After Subaltern ———. 2013. “ Studies’, Economic and Political Weekly,
202 87% 202: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 87% Gohain Hiren. 2012. “Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (39):74-76. Gohain, H. 2012. ‘Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective’, Economic and Political Weekly,
218 100% 218: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% The The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most Most of the World. of the World. New New Delhi: Permanent Black 2011: Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2011. Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. University Press. ———. 2012. “After Subaltern Studies.” New York: Columbia University Press. 2012: ‘After Subaltern Economic and Political Weekly 47(35): 44-49. ———. 2012 “ Studies’, Economic and Political Weekly,
228 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
237 100% 237: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% The The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most Most of the World. of the World. New New Delhi: Permanent Black 2011: Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2008. “
238 100% 238: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 100% New Delhi: Permanent Black. ———. 2011. Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia New Delhi: Permanent Black 2011: University Press. ———. 2012 “After Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly 47(35):44-49. ———. 2013. “ Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. 2012: ‘After Subaltern Studies’, Economic and Political Weekly,
242 87% 242: http://banking.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/national- identity-and-sovereignty.pdf 87% Gohain Hiren. 2012. “Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (39):74-76. Gohain, H. 2012. ‘Subaltern Studies: Turning around the Perspective’, Economic and Political Weekly, 225
229 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt
34 90% 34: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt to identify the “elementary aspects of rebel consciousness in a 90% relatively ‘pure’ state before the politics of nationalism and socialism begin to penetrate the countryside on a significant to study the elementary aspects of rebel consciousness in a scale” (ibid, 13). relatively *pure* sute before the politics of nationalism and socialism begin to penetrate the countryside on a significant scale, (ibid.)
38 100% 38: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt is necessarily there at certain stages of the class struggle 100% between the level of its objective articulation and that of the consciousness of its subjects. ( is necessarily there at certain stages of the class struggle between the level of its objective articulation and that of the consciousness of its subjects’;
39 100% 39: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt acted to no small extent in putting the brakes on resistance 100% against the Raj. acted to no small extent in putting the brakes on resistance against the Raj* (
230 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
55 70% 55: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt consciousness of the collective” or the community. However, 70% “this consciousness of community was an ambiguous one, consciousness of the “collective” — the community. Yet this con- straddling as it did the religious fraternity, class, qasba and sciousness of community was an ambiguous one, straddling as it mohalla” ( did the religious fraternity, class, qasba^ and mohalla’ (3.269). ‘[
59 100% 59: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Forestry and Social Protest in British Kumaun, c. 1893-1921”, 100% Ramachandra Guha Forestry and Social Protest in British Kumaun, c. 1893—1921
RAMACHANDRA GUHA
60 94% 60: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt While this unity and sense of purpose necessarily made their 94% actions political, the politics of the peasantry was clearly not derivative of the politics of urban nationalism. Apart from a hazy While this unity and sense of purpose neces- sarily made their perception of Gandhi as a saint whose qualities of heroic actions political, the politics of the peasantry was clearly not sacrifice were invoked against the powers of the derivative of the politics of urban nationalism. Apart from a hazy perception of Gandhi as a saint whose qualities of heroic sacrifice were invoked against the powers of govemment,*^^
231 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
the
61 100% 61: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the utar movements had little in the nature of an identification 100% with the Congress as such. ( the
utar movements had little in the nature of an identification with the Congress as such.
62 81% 62: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt loss of political power- the process of subjugation, dispossession 81% and usurpation of traditional rights- was “a lived communal experience” ( loss of the political power of the adivasis. For them the entire process of subjugation, dispossession and usurpation of traditional rights was a lived communal experience.
63 93% 63: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt While ethnicity played a major role in the make-up of these 93% insurrections, it was the communal feeling of loss and powerlessness which triggered them off. To the adivasis the loss While ethnicity played a major role in the make-up of these of land was not merely a matter of economic deprivation, but an insur- rections, it was the communal feeling of loss and
232 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
affront to their dignity, their izzat, a theme recurrent in subaltern powerlessness which triggered them off. To the adivasis the loss perception. ( of land was not merely a matter of economic deprivation, but an affront to their dignity, their izzaty a theme recurrent in subaltern perception.^®
64 100% 64: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the santals were “collectively reasserting lost traditional rights as 100% a conscious, political act of the Santals were collectively reasserting lost traditional rights as a conscious, political act of
65 84% 65: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt an “alternative conception of justice born out of fundamentally 84% different sets of values” ( an alternative conception of justice born out of fun- damentally different sets of values.
66 84% 66: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Jitu Santal’s Movement in Malda, 1924-1932: A Study in Tribal 84%
Protests”, Tanika Sarkar Jitu Santal’s Movement in Malda, 1924-1932: 136
A Study in Tribal Protest
233 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
by Tanika Sarkar
67 100% 67: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt to “rehabilitate some of the rebels of 1857 who have already 100% been forgotten by historians or scantily treated …” ( to rehabilitate some of the rebels of 1857 who have already been forgotten by historians or scantily treated,
68 88% 68: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt To seek after and restore the specific subjectivity of the rebels 88% must be major task of the new historiography. That would be a recognition of the truth that, under the given historical To seek after and restore the specific subjectivity of the rebels circumstances in which he lives, man makes himself. (ibid, 275) must be a major task of the new historiography. That would be a The Subalterns of recognition of the truth tha^, under the given historical circumstances in which he lives, man makes himself.
The Command of
69 100% 69: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Bureaucratic Recruitment and Subordination in Colonial India: 100% The Madras Constabulary, 1859-1947” Bureaucratic Recruitment and Subordination in Colonial India: David Arnold The Madras Constabulary, 1859 - 1947 *
234 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
DAVID ARNOLD
70 35% 70: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Secondly, the power of the police was “colonised and co-opted 35% by the local elites” (ibid, 33) and used for their own benefits. Thirdly, the police used the power of their position to “establish Secondly, the power of the police was colonized and co-opted by their predatory and exploitative hold over others” ( local elites, especially the rural dominant classes, in support and furtherance of their in- terests. And thirdly, perhaps most commonly, the police utilized the power they derived from the state to establish their own preda- tory and exploitative hold over others.
71 84% 71: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt at such times”, writes Arnold, “it was in opposition to the police 84% that the subordinate classes defined their subalternity”( At such times it was in opposition to the police that the subordinate classes defined their subalternity.
72 100% 72: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt The Command of Language and the Language of Command”, 100% Bernard S. Cohn The Command of
235 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Language and the Language of Command
BERNARD S. COHN
104 87% 104: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt From Customs to Crime: The Politics of Drinking in Colonial 87% South Gujarat”. From Custom to Crime: The Politics of Drinking in Colonial 165 South Gujarat
125 85% 125: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt are “not a ‘sect’ with a single point of view”. They are “more 85% united in their rejection of certain academic positions and tendencies than in their acceptance of an easy alternative” ( are not a ‘sect’ with a single point of view; they are perhaps far more united in their rejection of cer- tain academic positions and tendencies than in their acceptance of any easy alternatives.
126 100% 126: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt all knowledge is to be derived from the experience of the 100% subject”. all knowledge is to be derived from the experience of the subject’.
236 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
127 91% 127: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the world into “two opposing totalities”- the elite and the 91% subaltern, the feudal mode of power and the peasant communal mode of power. the world into ‘two opposing totalities' — the elite and the subaltern (in Bhadra and Pandey), the feudal mode of power and the peasant communal mode of power (
128 95% 128: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt a “’Hegelian view of the totality which includes two 95% paradigmatically opposed forces’” ( a profoundly Hegelian view of the totality which includes two paradigmatically opposed forces’ (5
129 83% 129: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Subaltern Studies tends to undermine and supplant the Marxian 83% method of class-analysis” (ibid, 367). Fourth, since it ignores class analysis and “one-sidedly emphasises subaltern action alone” Subaltern Studies tends to undermine and supplant the Marxian method of class-analysis.
Fourthly, because it ignores class-analysis and one-sidedly emphasizes ‘subaltern* action alone.
237 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
130 100% 130: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt ill equipped to analyse the role and effect of colonialism in 100% modern Indian history”. ill equipped to analyse the role and effect of colonialism in modern Indian history.
131 87% 131: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the essay is “essentially an exercise in showing up the 87% supposedly non-(anti-)Marxist nature” of the Subaltern Studies project ( The essay is essentially an exer- cise in showing up the supposedly non- (or anti-) Marxist nature of the Subaltern Studies project.
132 85% 132: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt is not entering a liberal plea for submerging Marxism in a 85% plurality of interpretations ( is not to enter a liberal plea for submerging Marxism in a plurality of interpretations.
133 92% 133: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt 92%
238 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
An inexorable economic ‘rationality’ was seen to be at work in all An inexorable economic ‘rationality* was seen to be at work in all instances of popular unrest and we saw the replication, in India, instances of popular unrest and we saw the replication, in In- of the kind of Marxism that, in the context of English history, had dia, of the kind of Marxism that, in the context of English history, obec been happy to understand the ‘machine breakers’ of the had once been happy to understand the ‘machine-breakers* of early nineteenth century as simply carrying out wage-bargaining the early nineteenth century as simply carrying out wage- in a different form. Even where popular unrest had to do with bargaining in a different form. Even where popular unrest had to religious demands, historians sought credit for discovering that do with reli- gious demands, historians sought credit for the unrest was actually economic in ‘content’ and religious only discovering that the un- rest was actually economic in 'content* in ‘form’, while the demands themselves were a matter of and religious only in ‘form*, while the demands themselves were ‘manipulation’ either by the colonial authorities or the local a matter of 'manipulation* either by the colonial authorities or elites. ( the local elites. '
134 67% 134: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt primacy to the economic in investigations of “issues of culture nd 67% consciousness in modern South Asian history”. primacy given to the economic in investigations of issues of culture and conscious- ness in modem South Asian history.
135 92% 135: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt For this alleged 92%
failure is actually our conscious refusal to subordinate the For this alleged ‘failure* is actually our conscious refusal to internal logic of a ‘consciousness’ to the logic of so called subordinate the internal logic of a ‘conscious- ness* to the logic ‘objective’ or material of so-called ‘objective* or ‘material* conditions. ‘
239 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
conditions” (
136 88% 136: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Subaltern Studies “begins by questioning the category of the 88% ‘nation’ and poses the failure of the ‘nation’ to come to its own as a fundamental problem of modern Indian history”. Subaltern Studies begins by questioning the category of the ‘na- tion’ and poses the failure of the ‘nation’ to come to its own as a fundamental problem of modem Indian history.
137 100% 137: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt relationships of power, authority and hierarchy which pre-date 100% the coming of colonialism, relationships of power, authority and hierarchy which pre-date the coming of colonialism,
138 80% 138: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt violent contradiction to the stated goals and methods of the 80% nationalist leadership. Thus, violent contradiction to the stated goals and methods of the Subaltern Studies seeks to “understand the consciousness that nationalist leadership. informed and still informs political actions taken by subaltern classes on their own, independent of any elite The central aim of the Subaltern Studies project is to understand the consciousness that informed and still informs political
240 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
actions taken by the subaltern classes on their own, independently of any elite
139 88% 139: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the trimurti of Sarkar-sahukar-zamindar in his book Elementary 88% Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India the trimurti of sarkar-sahukar-zamindar in Guha’s book Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India
140 75% 140: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt makes it clear that subaltern consciousness “bears distinct 75% imprints of nineteenth-century colonial context”. makes it amply clear that the ‘consciousness’ he studies bears distinct imprints of its nineteenth-century colonial context.
141 92% 141: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt But our refusal to see this consciousness as being in any 92% ultimate and causal sense determined by this context is our refusal to accept the base-superstructure metaphor …” ( But our refusal
375
Invitation to a Dialogue
241 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
to see this consciousness as being in any ultimate and causal sense determined by this context is our refusal to accept the base- superstructure metaphor
142 94% 142: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt The insurgent consciousness that Guha analyses is constructed 94% on the basis of categories which are derived from Marxism and which are only remotely The insurgent consciousness that Guha analyses is constructed on the basis of categories which are derived from Marxism and 120 connected to ‘categories’ that peasants use in their daily which are only remotely connected to ‘categories’ that peasants lives to make sense of the world. Yet this peasant ‘experience’ use in their daily lives to make sense of their world. Yet this has to find a place in any project that aspires to categorise and peasant ‘experience’ has to find a place in any project that understand peasant aspires to categorize and understand peasant
143 87% 143: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt to talk about ‘elite clases’ and ‘subaltern classes’, as Gramsci does 87% in his Prison Notebook, is still to talk in terms of classes” ( to talk about ‘elite classes’ and ‘subaltern classes’, as Gramsci does in his Prison Notebooks^ is still to talk in terms of classes.
144 87% 144: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the word “subaltern” in Subaltern Studies represents more than 87% this. He elaborates: It refers to the specific nature of class
242 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
relationships in India, where the relationships, at almost all the word ‘subaltern’ in Subaltern Studies represents more thap levels, are subsumed in the relations of domination and this/ It refers to the specific nature of class relationships subordination between members of the elite and subaltern classes… the language of class in India overlapps with the 376 language of citizen-politics only in a minority of instances. For Subaltern Studies IV the greater part of our daily experience, class relations express themselves in that other language of politics, which is the politics in India, where the relationships, at almost all levels, are of nation without ‘citizens.’… ‘ subsumed in the relations of domination and subordination between members of the elite and subaltern classes. To go back to our earlier metaphor, the language of class in India overlaps with the language of citizen-politics only in a minority of instances. For the greater part of our daily experience, class relations express themselves in that other language of politics, which is the politics of a nation without 'citizens’.
145 96% 145: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the composite culture of resistance to and acceptance of 96% domination and hierarchy – is a characteristic of class relation in our society, where the veneer of bourgeois equality barely the composite culture of resistance to and acceptance of masks the violent, feudal nature of much of our systems of domination and hierarchy — ^is a characteristic of class relations power and in our society, where the veneer of bourgeois equality barely masks the violent, feudal nature of much of our systems of power and
243 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
146 68% 146: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt the persistence of such issues in the face of industrialization and 68% capitalism cannot be explained by The persistence of these relationships in the face of industrializa- tion and capitalism cannot be explained by
147 82% 147: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt Marxist historians of India should “not repeat the received 82% orthodoxies of Marxism, but restore to Marx’s thoughts the tensions original to them” ( Marxist historians of India, the task today is not to repeat the received orthodoxies of Marxism, but to restore to Marx’s thoughts the tensions original to them.
148 98% 148: https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet.dli.2015.99385/2015.99385.Subaltern-Studies-Iv_djvu.txt it is by “accentuating these tensions that we may be able to 98% extend the Marxian problematic to cover the peculiar problems thrown up by our experience of capitalism” ( it is only by accentuating these tensions that we may be able to extend the Marxian problematic to cover the peculiar problems thrown up by our experience of capitalism.^
^
244 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/Refiguring_the_Subaltern
14 88% 14: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
42 88% 42: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
100 88% 100: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
203 88% 203: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
245 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
222 88% 222: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
243 88% 243: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
259 88% 259: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern”. Gramsci Cannot Speak: Representations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s Concept of the Subaltern
260 88% 260: https://www.academia.edu/36492611/ Refiguring_the_Subaltern 88% Rethinking the Subalern and the Question of Cencorship in Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks”, Rethinking the Subaltern and the Question of Censorship in Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks
246 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv-collaboratori/cv-ganguly-debjani
12 75% 12: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv- collaboratori/cv-ganguly-debjani 75% The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1. The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies: Genealogies and Transformations’ South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,
221 75% 221: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv- collaboratori/cv-ganguly-debjani 75% The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1. The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies: Genealogies and Transformations’ South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,
241 75% 241: http://www.fondazionealmamater.unibo.it/risorse/files/cv- collaboratori/cv-ganguly-debjani 75% The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1. The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies: Genealogies and Transformations’ South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,
247 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/338932.Subaltern_Studies
23 100% 23: https://www.goodreads.com/book/ show/338932.Subaltern_Studies 100% Subaltern Studies I (1982), Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India ( Subaltern Studies Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India
248 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39aa/1ec800c676b8d6eed7a6eb4a6ed9c80499b4.pdf
7 78% 7: https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39aa/1ec800c676b8d6eed7a6eb4a6ed9 Ganguly edited c80499b4.pdf 78%
The Subaltern after Subaltern Studies (South Asia: Journal of Ganguly, D. (2015). South Asian Studies, The subaltern after subaltern studies: Genealogies and transformations. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 38 (1), 1-9.
182 78% 182: https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39aa/1ec800c676b8d6eed7a6eb4a6ed9 Ganguly edited c80499b4.pdf 78%
The Subaltern after Subaltern Studies (South Asia: Journal of Ganguly, D. (2015). South Asian Studies, The subaltern after subaltern studies: Genealogies and transformations. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 38 (1), 1-9.
249 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Selected-Subaltern-Studies/Ranajit-Guha/9780195052893
262 100% 262: https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Selected-Subaltern- Studies/Ranajit-Guha/9780195052893 100% Selected Subaltern Studies by Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak” ( Selected Subaltern Studies by Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
250 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en
4 100% 4: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 100% Subaltern Studies begun 30 years ago has run its course, it has managed to scatter, reinvent and insert itself in several Subaltern Studies (...) begun 30 years ago has run its course, it subsequent projects. has managed to scatter, reinvent and insert itself in several subsequent projects” (
16 87% 16: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 87% Delhi: Oxford University Press. Delhi, Oxford University Press; Sarkar, Sarkar, Sumit, 1997, “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Sumit. 1997. "The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies." Studies”, in In Writing Social History, Sumit Sarkar, 82-108. Delhi: Oxford University Press Writing Social History, Delhi, Oxford University Press,
73 100% 73: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 100% Approver’s Testimony, Judicial Discourse: The Case of Chauri Chaura”, Approver's Testimony, Judicial Discourse: The Case of Chauri Chaura",
85 89% 85: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831?lang=en 89%
251 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Approver’s Testimony, Judicial Discourse: The Case of Chauri Approver's Testimony, Judicial Discourse: The Case of Chauri Chaura”. Chaura",
In Subaltern Sudies V, in Subaltern Studies V,
177 100% 177: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831? lang=en 100% Sarkar, Sumit. 2002. “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies”. In Sarkar, Sumit, 1997, “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies”, in
201 70% 201: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831? lang=en 70% Ganguly, Debjani. ed. 2015. “ Ganguly, Debjani, 2015, “ The Subaltern After Subaltern Studies” (Special Issue). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (38)1. The Subaltern after Subaltern Studies: Genealogies and Transformations”, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,
245 87% 245: https://books.openedition.org/etnograficapress/831? lang=en 87% Delhi: Oxford University Press. Delhi, Oxford University Press; Sarkar,
252 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Sumit. 1997. "The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies." Sarkar, Sumit, 1997, “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern In Writing Social History, Sumit Sarkar, 82-108. Delhi: Oxford Studies”, in University Press Writing Social History, Delhi, Oxford University Press,
253 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/subalternBib.html
17 84% 17: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 84% Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson Marxism & The Interpretation of Culture. Cary Nelson and and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. London: Macmillan. Lawrence Grossberg, eds. London: Macmillan, 1988.
150 100% 150: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% Moral Economists, Subalterns, Moral Economists, Subalterns, New Social Movements and the (Re-) Emergence of a (Post-) Modernised (Middle) Peasant”, New Social Movements, and the (Re-) Emergence of a (Post-) Modernised (Middle) Peasant,"
157 100% 157: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories” Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories,"
170 100% 170: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% O’Hanlon, Rosalind O'Hanlon, Rosalind, and David Washbrook, " and
254 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
David Washbrook. 2000. “After Orientalism,: Culture, Criticism After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism, and Politics in the Third and Politics in the Third World”. World,"
173 100% 173: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% Pandey, Gyanendra. 2000. “Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories”. Pandey, Gyanendra. "
Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories,"
246 84% 246: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 84% Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson Marxism & The Interpretation of Culture. Cary Nelson and and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. London: Macmillan. Lawrence Grossberg, eds. London: Macmillan, 1988.
252 100% 252: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% Chakrabarty, Chakrabarty, Dipesh. " Dipesh. 1993. " Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian's Perspective," Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian's Perspective," Economic and Political Weekly. Economic and Political Weekly 28(22): 1094-1096 ———. 1991
255 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
253 73% 253: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 73% Economic and Political Weekly 26(37): 2162-2166. ———. 1992. " Economic and Political Weekly Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for 'Indian' Pasts?" v.33:no.9 (28 February 1998), p. 473-479. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. "Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for In Representations, 'Indian' Pasts?" Representations
254 85% 254: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 85% Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian’s Perspective”. Economic and Political Weekly 28(22): 1094-1096. ———.1998. " Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian's Perspective," Economic and Political Weekly. Minority Histories, Subaltern Pasts”. Economic and Political Weekly 33(9):473-479. v.28:no.22 (29 May 1993), pp. 1094-1096. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. "Minority Histories, Subaltern Pasts," 227 ———. 2000 Economic and Political Weekly
258 100% 258: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% Dhanagare, D.N. 1988. “Subaltern Consciousness and Populism: Two Approaches in the Study of Social Movements in India”. Dhanagare, D. N. "Subaltern consciousness and populism: two Social Scientist 16(11): 18-35. approaches in the study of social movements in India," Social Scientist (
256 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
261 89% 261: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 89% and Bankim Studies”. Economic and Political weekly 31(8): 495-496. and Bhadralok Studies," Economic and Political Weekly 30 (19 August 1995) pp. 2056-2058. Gupta, Dipankar. "On Altering the Gupta, Dipankar. 1985. “On Altering the Ego in Peasant History: Ego in Peasant History: Paradoxes of the Ethnic Option," Peasant Paradoxes of the Ethnic Option”. Peasant Studies 13(1): 5-24. Studies 13, 1 (
269 100% 269: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/SouthAsia/Ideas/ subalternBib.html 100% Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories”. Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories,"
257 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau.htm
44 100% 44: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant Movement in Awadh, 1919-22” Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant movement in Awadh, 1919- 1922,"
45 100% 45: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Small Peasant Commodity Production and Rural Indebtedness: The Culture of Sugarcane in Eastern U.P., c. 1880-1920”, Small Peasant commodity Production and Rural Indebtedness: the Culture of Sugarcane in Eastern
U.P., c. 1880-1920,"
48 100% 48: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Trade Unions in a Hierarchical Culture: The Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1920-50” Trade Unions in a Hierarchical Culture: The Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1920-50,"
49 100% 49: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% India in Bihar and the Eastern United Provinces: The Dual Revolt” India in Bihar and the Eastern United Provinces: The Dual Revolt,"
258 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
50 100% 50: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Rallying round the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region, c.1888-1917” Rallying round the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region, c. 1888-1917,"
56 100% 56: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non- Co-operation, c. 1905 – 22”, The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non-
Co-operation, c.1905-22,"
75 100% 75: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Kalki-Avatar of Bikrampur: A Village Scandal in Early Twentieth Century Bengal”, Kalki-Avatar of Bikrampur: A Village Scandal in Early Twentieth Century Bengal,"
76 100% 76: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% The Colonial Construction of ‘Communalism’: British Writings on Banaras in the Nineteenth Century”, The Colonial Construction of 'Communalism': British Writings on Banaras in the Nineteenth Century,"
259 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
77 100% 77: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% A Religion of Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class”, A Religion of Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class,"
78 100% 78: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge and Penology in Nineteenth Century India” The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge and Penology in Nineteenth-Century India,"
79 95% 79: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 95% Tharu and Tejaswini Niranjana (“Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender”) Tharu, Susie and Tejaswini Niranjana. "Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender,"
80 100% 80: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% A Market for Aboriginality: Primitivism and Race classification in the Indentured Labour Market of Colonial India”, A Market for Aboriginality: Primitivism and Race Classification in the Indentured Labour Market of Colonial India,"
260 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
81 100% 81: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Colouring Subalternity: Slaves, Concubines and Social Orphans in Early Colonial India”, Colouring Subalternity: Slaves, Concubines and Social Orphans in Early Colonial India,"
82 89% 82: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 89% Alam, Javeed. 2002. “Peasntry, Alam, Javeed. "Peasantry, Politics and Historiography: Critique of Politics, and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation New Trend in Relation to Marxism," to Marxism”.
84 100% 84: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Amin, Shahid. 1982. “Small Peasant Commodity Production and Rural Indebtedness: The Culture of Sugarcane in Eastern Amin, Shahid. "
Small Peasant commodity Production and Rural Indebtedness: the Culture of Sugarcane in Eastern
86 100% 86: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100%
261 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge and Penology in The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge and Penology in Nineteenth- Century India”. Nineteenth-Century India,"
87 96% 87: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 96% Baxi, Upendra. 1992. “The State’s Emissary: The Place of Law in Subaltern Studies”. Baxi, Upendra. "Discussion - The State's Emissary: The Place of Law in Subaltern Studies,"
88 73% 88: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 73% Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 1983. “”Condition Chakrabarty, Dipesh. " for Knowlede of Working-Class Conditions: Employer, Government and the Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1890-1940”. Conditions for Knowledge of Working-Class Conditions: Employers, Government and the Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1890-1940,"
89 100% 89: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Trade Unions in a Hierarchical Culture: The Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1920- 50”. Trade Unions in a Hierarchical Culture: The Jute Workers of Calcutta, 1920-50,"
90 78% 90: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 78%
262 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
The Difference-Differeal of a Colonil Modernity: Public Debates The Difference-Deferral of a Colonial Modernity: Public Debates on Domesticity in British India”. on Domesticity in British India,"
93 87% 93: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 87% A Religion for Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class”. A Religion of Urban Domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the Calcutta Middle Class,"
94 100% 94: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Claims on the Past: The Genealogy of Modern Historiography in Bengal”. Claims on the Past: The Genealogy of Modern Historiography in Bengal,"
95 88% 95: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 88% Chatterjee, Indrani. 1999. “Colouring Subalterniy: Slaves, Concubines and Social Orphans in Early Colonial India”. Chatterjee, Indrani. "
Colouring Subalternity: Slaves, Concubines and Social Orphans in Early Colonial India,"
96 100% 96: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100%
263 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Cohn, Bernard S. 1985. “ Cohn, Bernard S. "The Command of Language and the Language of Command," The Command of Language and the Language of Command”
97 70% 97: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 70% New Delhi: Permanet Black. Dhareshwar, Vivek and R. Srivasan. 1996. “‘Rowdy- Sheeters: An Essay on Subalternity and politics”. New Delhi) 16, no.11 (Nov 1988) pp. 18-35. Dhareshwar, Vivek and R. Srivatsan. "'Rowdy-sheeters': An Essay on Subalternity and Politics,"
98 100% 98: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Dube, Ishita Banerjee. 1999. “Taming Traditions: Legalities and Histories in Twentieth- Century Orissa”. Dube, Ishita Banerjee. "Taming Traditions: Legalities and Histories in Twentieth-Century Orissa,"
99 91% 99: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 91% Ghosh, Koushik. 1999. “”A market for Aboriginality: Primitivism and race Classification in the Indentured Labour Market of Ghosh, Kaushik. " Colonial India”. A Market for Aboriginality: Primitivism and Race Classification in the Indentured Labour Market of Colonial India,"
264 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
103 100% 103: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Guha, Ramachandra. 1985. “Forestry and Social Protest in British Kumaun, c. 1893-1921”. Guha, Ramachandra. "Forestry and Social Protest in British Kumaun, c. 1893-1921,"
105 89% 105: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 89% Henningham, Stephen. 1983. “Quite India in Bihar and the Eastern United Provinces: The Dual Revolt”. Henningham, Stephen. "Quit
India in Bihar and the Eastern United Provinces: The Dual Revolt,"
106 100% 106: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Illaih, Kancha. 1996. “Productive labour, Consciousness and History: The Dalitbahujan Alternative”. Illaih, Kancha. "Productive Labour, Consciousness and History: The Dalitbahujan Alternative,"
108 87% 108: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 87% Pandey, Gyanendra. 1982. “Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant Movement in Awadh, 1919-22”. Pandey, Gyan. "
265 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism: The Peasant movement in Awadh, 1919- 1922,"
109 100% 109: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Rallying Round the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region, c. 1888- 1917”. Rallying round the Cow: Sectarian Strife in the Bhojpuri Region, c. 1888-1917,"
110 100% 110: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% The Colonial Construction of “Communalism’” British Writings on Banaras in the Nineteenth Century”. The Colonial Construction of 'Communalism': British Writings on Banaras in the Nineteenth Century,"
114 100% 114: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Sarkar, Sumit. 1984. “The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non- Sarkar, Sumit. "
The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non-
115 100% 115: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100%
266 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
The Kalki-Avatar of Bikrampur: A Village Scandal in Early The Twentieth- Century Bengal”. Kalki-Avatar of Bikrampur: A Village Scandal in Early Twentieth Century Bengal,"
117 100% 117: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Sarkar, Tanika. 1985. “ Sarkar, Tanika. " Jitu Santal’s Movement in Malda, 1924-32: A Study in Tribal Protest”. Jitu Santal's Movement in Malda, 1924-1932: A Study in Tribal
Protest,"
118 100% 118: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Skaria, Ajay. 1996. “Writing, Orality and Power in the Dangs, Western India, 1800s-1920s”. Skaria, Ajay. "Writing, Orality and Power in the Dangs, Western India, 1800s-1920s,"
119 64% 119: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 64% Can the Subaletrn Speak”. In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 271-313. Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Marxism and The Interpretation of Culture. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg,
267 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
120 100% 120: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 100% Tharu, Susie and Tejaswini Niranjana. 1996. “Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender”. Tharu, Susie and Tejaswini Niranjana. "Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender,"
158 89% 158: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 89% Alam, Javeed. 2002. “Peasntry, Alam, Javeed. "Peasantry, Politics and Historiography: Critique of Politics, and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation New Trend in Relation to Marxism," to Marxism”.
234 92% 234: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 92% Arnold, Arnold, David and David Hardiman, eds. Subaltern Studies VIII: David and David Hardiman, ed,. 1994. Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in Honour of Ranajit Guha. New Delhi: Oxford University Essays in Honour of Ranajit Guha. Press India, 1994. 240 New Delhi: Oxford University Press India.
247 89% 247: https://asianstudies.github.io/area-studies/subaltern/ ssallau.htm 89% Alam, Javeed. 2002. “Peasntry,
268 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Politics, and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation Alam, Javeed. "Peasantry, Politics and Historiography: Critique of New Trend in Relation to Marxism," to Marxism”.
269 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/15042/14089/0
8 88% 8: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 88% Dipesh. 2002. “A Small Dipesh Chakrabarty, “ History of Subaltern Studies”. In A Small History of Subaltern Studies,” Habitations of Modernity: Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies ( Studies,
40 100% 40: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 100% the “voice of a defiant subalternity committed to writing its own the voice of a defiant subalternity committed to writing its own
41 91% 41: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 91% A Small A Small History of Subaltern Studies,” Habitations of Modernity: History of Subaltern Studies”. In Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies ( Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies,
47 86% 47: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 86%
270 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
a pre-capitalist, inegalitarian culture marked by strong a pre-capitalist, inegalitarian culture marked by strong primordial loyalties of community, language, religion, caste and primordial loy- alties of community, language, religion, caste, kinship. (Chakrabarty 1983, 263-264) and kinship”. 30 For Chakrabarty,
228 95% 228: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 95% Ranajit Ranajit Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian ed,. 1982. History and Society ( Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History and Society.
236 88% 236: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 88% Dipesh. 2002. “A Small Dipesh Chakrabarty, “ History of Subaltern Studies”. In A Small History of Subaltern Studies,” Habitations of Modernity: Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies ( Studies,
251 96% 251: https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/ download/15042/14089/0 96% Rajnarayan. 1997. “The Making of the Working Class: E.P.Thompson and Indian History”. History Workshop Journal 43: Rajnarayan Chandavarkar, “The Making of the Working Class: 177-196. E.P. Thompson and Indian History,” History Workshop Journal, 42 (1997): 177-196;
271 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: http://blogs.ubc.ca/span501/
51 78% 51: http://blogs.ubc.ca/span501/ 78%
In “The Prose of Counter- Insurgency”, Guha characterises the In The Prose of Counter-Insurgency, Ranajit Guha analyses the historiography of peasant insurgency in colonial India historiography of insurgency in Colonial India.
272 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya-
216 87% 216: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/rohingya- crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- 87% Rohingya Repatriation: ‘Do the Write Thing’, Bangladesh Writes to Myanmar.” Dhaka Tribune, Rohingya Repatriation: ‘Do the right thing’, Bangladesh writes to Myanmar | Dhaka Tribune
• • • • • • •
217 100% 217: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/rohingya- crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- 100% bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2018/12/03/rohingya- repatriation- do-the-right-thing-bangladesh-writes-to-myanmar Bangladesh • Rohingya Crisis Rohingya Repatriation: ‘Do the right thing’, Bangladesh writes to Myanmar
273 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/the-most-unwanted-a-gripping-account-of-
220 62% 220: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/the-most-unwanted- a-gripping-account-of- 62% The Most Unwanted: A Gripping Account of Rohingya Refugees Living in India.” The Indian Express, June 26. https:// the-most-unwanted-a-gripping-account-of-rohingya-refugees- indianexpress.com/article/india/the-most-unwanted-a-gripping- living-in-india-4464103/ • India account-of- rohingya-refugees-living-in-india-4464103/ Advertising The Most Unwanted: A gripping account of Rohingya refugees living in India
274 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.fortifyrights.org/publication-20181112.html
210 97% 210: https://www.fortifyrights.org/publication-20181112.html 97% to services and assistance. The cards affirm in writing that the Bangladesh government will not force returns to Myanmar. to access services and assistance.” The cards affirm in writing However, that the Bangladesh government will not force returns to Myanmar. However,
275 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear-
212 100% 212: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/ index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 100% BJP MLA and Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Kavinder Gupta BJP MLA and Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, Kavinder Gupta
214 82% 214: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/ index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 82% At a press conference on April 7, 2017, Rakesh Gupta, president of Jammu Chamber of Commerce and Industry, declared the At a press conference on April 7 last year, Rakesh Gupta, the Rohingyas “criminals” and threatened to launch an “identify and president of the Jammu Chamber of Commerce and Industry, kill movement” if the government did not deport the refugees ( declared that the Rohingya refugees were “criminals”. He threatened to launch an “identify and kill movement” if the government did not deport the refugees.
223 85% 223: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/ index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 85% Javeed, Auqib. 2018. “Pall of Fear Engulfs Rohingya in Jammu: ‘Where Will We Go, What JAVEED | 4 MARCH, 2018 Pall of Fear Engulfs Rohingya Camps in Jammu: ‘Where Will We Go, What
224 100% 224: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/ index/3/13183/Pall-of-Fear- 100%
276 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Pall-of-Fear- Engulfs-Rohingya-Camps-in-Jammu-Where-Will-We- Pall of Fear Engulfs Rohingya Camps in Jammu: ‘Where Will We Go-What-Can-We-Do Go, What Can We Do’
277 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/asia/rohingya-repatriation-myanmar-intl/index.html
225 100% 225: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/asia/rohingya- repatriation-myanmar-intl/index.html 100% If We Go, They Will Kill Us’, Rohingya Refugees Fear Repatriation to Myanmar.” If we go they will kill us': Rohingya refugees fear repatriation to Myanmar
278 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees
213 100% 213: https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees 100%
Had these Rohingya refugees not been around the camp, the Had these Rohingya refugees not been around the camp, the attack would not have taken place” ( attack would not have taken place.”
226 100% 226: https://thewire.in/rights/jammu-rohingya-refugees 100%
Amid Rumours and Violence, Rohingya Refugees Dream of Amid Rumours and Violence, Rohingya Refugees Dream of Safety in Jammu.” Safety in Jammu
279 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency
206 83% 206: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency 83% in Bangladesh in the first quarter of the crisis. An estimated 12,000 reached Bangladesh during the first half of 2018. in Bangladesh. Most arrived in the first three months of the crisis. An estimated 12,000 reached Bangladesh during the first half of 2018.
207 68% 207: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency 68% sought shelter in the two refugee camps of Kutupalong and Nayapara in Cox’s Bazar district. sought shelter in and around the refugee settlements of Kutupalong and Nayapara in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar district.
208 80% 208: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/campaigns/rohingya-emergency 80% become the largest refugee settlement in the world with more than 600,000 people living in an area of just become the largest of its kind in the world, with more than 600,000 people living in an area of just 13
280 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi-
209 100% 209: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 100%
as refugees but rather as Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals as refugees, but rather as “Forcibly Displaced Myanmar (FDMN), Nationals” (FDMN),
211 97% 211: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 97%
The government’s focus on a policy of repatriation rather than The government’s focus on a policy of repatriation rather than integration, has made it difficult for both communities to mix in integration, has made it difficult for both communities to mix in healthy and meaningful ways and move forwards; both healthy and meaningful ways and move forwards; both communities have been left to their own devices to survive and communities have been left to their own devices to survive and co-exist, which can be seen in the concerns expressed by the co-exist, which can be seen in the concerns expressed by the local Bangladeshi communities in the survey results. (Xchange local Bangladeshi communities in the survey results. Building on 2018) On
227 100% 227: http://xchange.org/bangladeshi- 100%
The Rohingya Amongst Us: Bangladeshi Perspectives on the The Rohingya Amongst Us": Bangladeshi Perspectives on the Rohingya Crisis Survey.” Xchange, Rohingya Crisis Survey | Xchange
281 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70
5 87% 5: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 87%
of time. of Ranajit
Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983) India (1983),
32 91% 32: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 91%
from pre- capitalist condition of production and its legitimacy from pre-capitalist conditions of production and its legitimacy from a traditional culture still paramount in the superstructure. ( from a traditional culture still paramount in the superstructure’. 31
33 100% 33: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
landlordism and usury in India so well as to impede the landlordism and usury in India so well as to impede the development of capitalism both in agriculture and in industry. development of capitalism both in agriculture and in industry’. 32
53 100% 53: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983). India (1983),
282 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
54 100% 54: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
Encounters and Calamities: The History of a North Indian Qasba Encounters and Calamities”: The History of a North Indian Qasba in the Nineteenth Century” (1984), in the Nineteenth Century’,
154 100% 154: 97e2ba0d-4ea8-4f93-af22-3497e53dda70 100%
Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India India (1983),
283 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de
2 95% 2: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 95%
Vivek Chibber’s book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Vivek Chibber’s (2013) new book Postcolonial Theory and the Capital (2013) Specter of Capital
6 95% 6: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 95%
Vivek Chibber’s book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Vivek Chibber’s (2013) new book Postcolonial Theory and the Capital ( Specter of Capital
11 73% 11: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 73%
Subaltern Studies and Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 Subaltern studies and capitalism’, Economic and Political Weekly, (37):69-75. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Vol. 48, No. 37, pp. 69–75. Chibber, V., 2013, Postcolonial Theory Specter of Capital. and the Specter of Capital,
92 70% 92: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 70%
Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historial Difference. New Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Jersey: Princeton University Press. Chatterjee, Partha. 1982. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chatterjee, P., 1982, “Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal, 1926-35”. In Agrarian relations and communalism in Bengal 1926–35, in
239 73% 239: ddce29f0-4d83-4cc3-8343-4eeae8f935de 73%
284 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Subaltern Studies and Capital”. Economic and Political Weekly 48 Subaltern studies and capitalism’, Economic and Political Weekly, (37):69- 75. Chibber, Vivek. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Vol. 48, No. 37, pp. 69–75. Chibber, V., 2013, Postcolonial Theory Specter of Capital. and the Specter of Capital,
285 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20
188 90% 188: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 90%
Subalternists attributed to the bourgeoisie a “democratic subalternists attribute to the bourgeoisie a democratic mission mission that it in fact rejected and fought against” ( that it in fact rejected and fought against.
189 83% 189: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 83%
are subject to the same basic forces and the same basic history” ( are subject to the same basic forces and are therefore part of the same basic history’ (291).
190 100% 190: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 100%
Capital is the abstract concept, Capitalism and /or socialism are Capital is the abstract concept, capitalism and/or socialism are two opposed means of human control of capital requiring two opposed means of human control of capital, requiring coercive/ persuasive ideology and policy. … coercive/persuasive ideology and policy.
191 80% 191: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 80%
Capital ‘universalises’, then as now, because it seeks to establish Capital ‘universalizes’, then as now, because it seeks to establish the same standard of exchange, whatever the level of the same standard of exchange, whatever the level of ‘development’. This is how capital’s behaviour become different. ‘development’. This is, in different ways, colonialism and Capital- ism finesses this by talking ‘civilization’ mission, then as imperialism. This is how capital’s behaviour becomes different.
286 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
now. At the same time, capitalism produces difference in order Capital-ism finesses this by talking ‘civilizing mission’, then as to be capital (produce and use surplus). This is called class. ( now. At the same time, capital produces difference in order to be capital (produce and use surplus). That is called ‘class’.
192 100% 192: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 100%
If he thinks they ignore class, they think rigid class analysis If he thinks they ignore class, they think rigid class analysis ignores subaltern social groups” ( ignores subaltern social groups.)
193 92% 193: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 92%
The main problem is that subaltern social groups are not the The main point is that subaltern social groups are not the international proletariat. That is the basic message of Gramsci’s international proletariat. That is the basic message of Gramsci’s essay on the historiography of subaltern classes” ( essay on the historiography of the subaltern classes.
194 95% 194: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 95%
being’….. being [1998]). The moment you go from body to mind, from physical well-being to fighting for physical well-being, there is The moment you from body to mind, from physical well-being to language, history and ‘permissible narratives’ (Said 1984, 27–48). fighting for physical well-being, there is language, history and For example, the mother thinks honour, the daughter thinks ‘permissible narratives’ (Said 1984, 27-48). For example, the reproductive rights. What history happened in between? mother think honour, the daughter thinks reproductive rights. What history happened in between?...
195 100% 195: 6a27cd31-86f8-4d94-9eb8-86571f629f20 100%
287 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
If physical well-being were a race- free, class-free , gender-free If physical well-being were a race-free, class-free, gender-free grand narrative there would be no point in having any theories grand narrative, there would be no point in having any theories of justice, politics, human rights and gender compromise. ( of justice, politics, human rights and gender compromise. (
288 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77
1 100% 1: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi
102 83% 102: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 83%
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. USA: Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India Duke University Press. ( (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, [1983] 1999),
111 100% 111: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu- Muslim Riots In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu Muslim Riots in in India Today”. In India Today’, in
174 100% 174: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu- Muslim Riots In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu Muslim Riots in in India Today”. In India Today’, in
197 93% 197: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 93%
289 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
It is only with a theoretical acknowledgement of It is only with a theoretical acknowledgment of such heterogeneous temporalities and experiences that we can 189 such heterogeneous temporalities and experiences that we thematise anew subaltern politics and subaltern lives. 28 can thematise anew subaltern politics and subaltern lives” (
232 83% 232: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 83%
Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. USA: Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India Duke University Press. ( (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, [1983] 1999),
263 78% 263: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 78%
Quintin, and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, ed. 1996. Selections from Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (eds and trans.), the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (
268 100% 268: 6c0b7b92-3dde-4a54-982f-70be6f56ba77 100%
In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu- Muslim Riots In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu Muslim Riots in in India Today”. In India Today’, in
290 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7
181 100% 181: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital Vivek Chibber's Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (2013),
183 100% 183: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital Vivek Chibber's Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (2013).
185 84% 185: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 84%
They chose to pursue their individual interests. In other words They chose to pursue their individual interests. In other words, these smallholders acted on precisely the “bourgeoisie these small- holders acted on precisely the "bourgeois consciousness” that Chatterjee insists they lacked” ( consciousness" that Chatterjee insists they lacked (
186 67% 186: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 67%
are not motivated by material needs, but are driven by their are not motivated by a defense of their interests; instead, they valuation of community, honor, religion, and other normative are driven by their valuation of community, honor, religion, and ends. other normative ends."
200 88% 200: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 88%
291 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Making Sense of Postcolonial Theory: A Response to Gayatri Making sense of postcolonial theory- a response to Gayatri Cahkrabarty Spivak”. Cambridge Review Spivak," Cambridge Review
205 100% 205: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital”. Vivek Chibber's Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital
215 52% 215: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 52%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital Vivek Chibber's Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (2013) stoked a heated debate on the relevance of the is a bomb. Through the critique of the
240 87% 240: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 87%
Making Sense of Postcolonial Theory: A Response to Gayatri Making sense of postcolonial theory- a response to Gayatri Chakravorty”. Cambridge Review Spivak," Cambridge Review
267 100% 267: a045c74c-007d-4674-ad7a-08d02599b3a7 100%
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital”. Vivek Chibber's Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital
292 U R K U N D Ph.D. Thesis Before Print.pdf (D55261172)
Instances from: c1432e97-d0e2-44b3-bbc9-cb5a898854e6
101 87% 101: c1432e97-d0e2-44b3-bbc9-cb5a898854e6 87%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspect of the Historiography of GUHA, Ranajit: «On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India”. In Colonial India», in
166 78% 166: c1432e97-d0e2-44b3-bbc9-cb5a898854e6 78%
Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspects of the Historiography in GUHA, Ranajit: «On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India”. In Subaltern Studies Colonial India», in Ranajit Guha (ed.): Subaltern Studies
293