Dharmashastra National Law University

Jabalpur

Academic Session: 2019-2020

History-I

Subaltern Historiography and Perspective of Subaltern

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Asmita Jatariya Tanish Gupta

Assistant Professor of History BAL/047/19

Section- A

1
 B.A.L.L.B (Hons.)

Semester-1

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special thanks to Vice Chancellor (Mr. Balraj Chauhan)
and Head of Department (Mr.V.S Gigimon) who gave me the golden opportunity to
do this project. I would like to express my gratitude to the subject teacher, Ms. Asmita
Jatariya without whose continuous guidance the project would have not been
completed.

2
3
 Abstract

By the term subaltern, a person of inferior rank is meant. It also covers marginalized
persons. The adoption of this term for subaltern studies is inspired by Antonio
Gramsci who used the term subaltern in place of proletariat. After the of term
subaltern by Gramsci only the term got momentum. Ranjit Guha, the founder of
subaltern studies group drew inspiration from Gramsci but did not use the term in the
same way as employed by Gramsci. Subaltern studies are basically understanding
history from marginalized section perspective. It is rewriting history free from elitist
prejudice. The main focus of this project is to trace the change in the Indian
historiography and understanding modern Indian history from subaltern perspective.
The objectives which are intended to be achieved at the end of this project are to
know about different schools of Indian historiography, to know how subaltern studies
emerged, view components of Indian history from subaltern perspective and at last, to
see the criticism faced by subaltern studies. The project analyzes both social and
economic aspects. For this, review of work of various thinkers of subaltern studies
group was looked upon.

4
5
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S. No. Title Page No.

1. Acknowledgement 2

2. Abstract 3

3. Chapter-1

Introduction 5

4. Chapter-2

School of Thought on Historiography 7

5. Chapter-3

Subalternity in its various forms 13

6. Chapter-4

Criticism of Subaltern Studies 19

7. Chapter-5

Conclusion 21

8. Bibliography 22

6
 Chapter- 1

Introduction

Background

7
A subaltern is someone with a low ranking in a social, political, or other hierarchy. It
can also mean someone who has been marginalized or oppressed. 1 There are superior
and inferior in the society. Subaltern are those people have no economic or political
power. These are lower ranked people who have been oppressed and exploited.

Subaltern means inferior or of lower rank. The term ‘subaltern’ has been derived from
Latin roots sub meaning below and alternus which means alternate. So, subalternus
means subordinate.

The term subaltern was used by Antonio Gramcsi, the Italian political thinker, in is
book ‘Prison Notebooks’. He used subaltern instead of proletariat. He was of the view
that subaltern classes are not unified cannot be unified until they form a state. Their
history is twisted and linked with the history of civil society. Subaltern’s history must
be studied separately. It should include the consequences of activities of subaltern
classes and importantly consequences of more authoritative activities of dominant
class upon subaltern classes as these actions are backed by the state.

Ranajit Guha founded the subaltern studies project which in 1982 started publishing
essays in a series called subaltern studies. Guha’s work was indeed influenced by that
of Gramsci’s but it was not simply applying Gramsci’s definition of subaltern or
interpreting his work in their own works. The subaltern studies group was dissatisfied
with the way history has been written. They considered it as one sided.

Guha explained subaltern as general attribute of subordination. The subordination can

be based on gender, caste, age or any other way. He argues that subaltern politics was
independent of ruling class politics. The subaltern did not originated from elite class
and its existence does not depend on the elite class. Subaltern studies group does not
completely disregard the elitist historiography but to them, there is other side of
history which has not been looked upon. This other side is history from the
perspective of subalterns.

1
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subaltern

8
Central Question

Change in the way of writing history from the view of marginalized section of
society.

Objectives

 To know about different schools of historiography with special focus on subaltern

historiography.

 To learn perspective of subaltern

 To trace the emergence of subaltern studies

 To know possible flaws of subaltern studies

Literature Review

Retracing the concept of the subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical

developments and new applications

The paper talks about concept of subaltern by taking into account major works of
Antonio Gramsci, Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. According to
Gramsci, subaltern are low rank people who are suffering from domination of ruling
elite class. They are denied participation in construction of culture and history of the
nation. His focus was on workers and peasants as subaltern. Ranajit Guha, inspired by

9
Gramsci, founded subaltern studies group in early 1980s. to him subaltern is a name
for quality of subordination in terms of caste, class, age, gender or in any other way.
Subaltern studies were seen as study of role of elite from view point of subaltern.
Spivak focused on women as subaltern, their voice disappeared between that of
British humanist discourse and Hindu native policy.

Methodology

Doctrinal research is done. Research papers and volume published of subaltern studies
group which are available online are read and based on them, the project is framed.

Scope

Here the socio-political aspects from subaltern perspective have been analyzed. The
scope its limited to studying the view point of subalterns by taking some incidents of
modern Indian history into account.

Limitation of the study

The work in subaltern studies are done only in period of modern India.
Books are not read. The volume of subaltern studies was difficult to
comprehend. So, much of information is missed.

Chapter- 2

10
 Schools of thought on Historiography

Colonial or Imperialist Perspective

The base for colonial historiography was laid in 18 th and 19th century. Colonial
historiography is used in two sense. During the British rule, colonial historiography
was used for history of countries who were colonized. After independence, colonial
historiography is used to denote the approach of historians who ere influenced by
colonialist ideology. The focus has shifted from subject to the ideology.

With the arrival of Britishers in Indian political domain, Britishers started to write
about India. They started to trace Indian history. Charles Grant, one of the notable
writer, wrote on India in 1792. He belonged to evangelical school. His writings
reflected the justified position of British to rule over India. Scholars of this school
believe that God has sent white men to rule, it is their destiny to rule over India,
promote Christianity in order to make the people of India civilized.

Another writer was James Mill. He wrote History of British India which was
published in 1817. He divided Indian history into three phases- Hindu, Muhammadan
and British. He deliberately characterized third phase as British and avoided using
Christianity. He never visited India and his writings were based on work of others
prejudice. Even after this major flow his work was widely read. This was because
firstly, he belonged to influential political school, i.e., the Utilitarians and secondly,
he wrote what the Britishers want to read. He justified British rule upon India. He
classified Indian society as backward which could progress only under British rule.

Other works on Indian history during British regime were of civil servants who were
again Britishers. They shared a common attribute of condemning Indian society and
culture as uncivilized and justifying British rule and administration. They promoted
the idea of superiority of western civilization. They characterized India as
disintegrated, full of chaos and barbarity till the time British came to save them and
unified India. Britishers are there to civilize Indians. In short, colonial historiography
was an attempt to legitimize British rule and bring western culture dominance over
Indian one by using history as tool.

11
This would be incorrect to say that every historian during British rule followed same
ideology. There were historians, including Britishers, who sympathized with the
subjects of British rule. But the colonial historiography trend was dominating.

The teaching of history began with commencement of universities at Bombay,

Calcutta and Madras (1857-1858). The history book taught here were written from
colonial ideology. It lead to many unwanted positive impacts. Indian students in this
universities read European history along with Indian history. They learned higher
principles of liberty, fraternity and equality from lessons of Magna Carta, the Glorious
Revolution, the American War of Independence, etc. Students started to create a
critical outlook towards the way Indian history was portrayed. Trained students
engaged in research activities in search of true picture of Indian history. Rabindranath
Tagore said that history reveals country to people of that country. Biased outlook of
colonial historiography paved the way for nationalist interpretation of history.

Nationalist Historiography

British historians provoked a nationalist reaction. Nationalist historiography

developed as a response to colonial historiography. Both approaches traced Indian
history but through different perspective. Imperial historians regarded India as to be
destined to be ruled by Britishers. They asserted that historical evidence show India to
be a victim of foreign invasion and unfit for self governance and democracy. They
attempted to legitimize permanent autocratic British government which invoked
nationalist historians. Just like Indian nationalist movement developed as a response
to colonialism, nationalist historiography developed as an answer to colonial
historiography.

The purpose of nationalist historiography was to build national identity and restore
self esteem and glorified history of the country. Nationalist historiography tries to
rediscover India. Before 1947, work was done mainly on ancient and medieval Indian
history. Professionals historians did not take up modern period because they worked
under Britishers and criticizing British regime would result in lose of their jobs.

Nationalist historians tried to prove colonial historiography false. They used example
of Arthashastra by Kautilya to prove that Indian are equally efficient in managing the
country’s affair, administration, foreign relation and defence. They emphasized that
current political institutions in west were already existing in ancient India. They

12
declared India to be marked by spirituality, traditions and moral values than the
materialism of western civilization. This also seemed as an appeal to middle class
Indian families to resist their tendency of acquiring material goods and participate in
nationalist movements. The aim was to develop pride and nationalist feeling in the
times when they were faced with inferiority complex under Britishers to motivate
people to join nationalist movement.

Nationalist historiography of modern India hardly existed before 1947 as at that time
to be nationalist meant to be anti-imperialist. Since educational sector was controlled
by Britishers, nationalist historiography could not be included in academics. This does
not mean that there were no critiques of British before 1947. In fact, Indian
economists did criticized British economy in India.

Modern historians are divided as to when nation making process started. Some say
that it started since 19th and some are of the opinion that India existed as a nation since
ancient time. Nationalist historians agreed on India’s diversity. Nationalist
historiography was not free from defects. They ignored the inner conflicts in Indian
society. The history was based on upper caste bias and male domination. They did not
make in-depth analysis and ignored caste oppression, women and tribal.

Marxist Historiography

Marxist school of historiography is influenced by Marxism and the way Karl Marx
interpreted past, present and future of human. Their main focus is on materialistic
interpretation of history. It has become a dominant trend in the field of historiography.
A lot of historians are influenced by Marxist approach directly or indirectly. This
trend mainly developed in second half of 20th century in India.

The basis of Marxist historiography is what Engels called ‘The Materialistic

Conception of History’. It is called materialistic because Marx has interpreted history

13
in terms of economic bases and materials. The economic structure is based on mode
of production. Marx was of the opinion that every society goes from six stages:

 Primitive communism- This stage existed from early men till the time civilization
begun. There was common labour. The product of labour was shared equally.
There was no private property, no exploitation of man by man. There were no
economic classes, so no exploiters and exploited.

 Slavery- Men is evolving and so is production method. They are using new and
advanced tools for production. With division of labour, there came exploiters and
exploited. Slaves were owned and used just as tools. Slaves were given product to
keep them away from starvation and rest was kept with slaveholder. There were
no incentives to encourage the slave to add more to the production.

 Feudalism- Increase in slave owning mode of production lead to formation of

new type of society. There was individual ownership of land, each producer
worked of his own gain. There were no slaves but neither were they free. Small
peasants were required to pay a fixed amount to feudal lords. There was
exploitation of serfs and small peasants by feudal lords.

 Capitalism- Feudalism enabled big landlords to seize the land of small peasants.
Some either became vagabond or migrated to urban areas in search of livelihood.
They had nothing to sell than their labour. This made necessary labour available
to capitalist to carry on production activities. This lead to creation of capitalist,
Bourgeoisie and the wage workers, Proletariat. There were people who were
neither employers nor workers like self employed businessman. They were not
workers, nor exploiters. Marx referred them to as petty bourgeoisie.

 Socialism- The factors of production are owned by the society but still there is
scope for individual property. Industrial production is held communally. It will
lead to benefits of the mass.

 Communism- There is no such thing as private property. It comes through a

violent revolution.

14
Major work in Marxist approach of Indian history was done by D.D.Kosambi. He
argued that Marx theory has not to be applied blindly. He further argued that history
should be seen in terms of class conflict. Marxist historians have tried to focus on
inner contradiction in Indian society, oppressed section like peasants, workers,
women, etc.

Subaltern Studies

Subaltern studies is a new trend in modern Indian historiography. Its main pioneer is
Ranjit Guha. The trend started in 1960s. The first six volumes of subaltern studies
were edited by Ranajit Guha and next volumes by other scholars. Historians
associated with this group were dissatisfied with the way history was written. They
consider is to be filed with elitist bias. They undertook the project to set the history to
a right position, to write it from common man’s perspective.

Subaltern studies group criticized three main trends in Indian historiography:

 Colonialist- It justified British rule claiming it to be a duty of Britishers to civilize

Indians.

 Nationalist- They saw all nationalist activities as a part of nation building process.

 Marxist- They saw people’s movements as a revolution for a socialist state.

There was no initiative to write about the way in which subalterns saw world and
involved in politics.

The term subaltern has a long history. In the middle age, it was used for serfs and
peasants in England. Afterwards, during 1700, it was applied for lower ranks in
military. The term however came to be used widely after the works of Antonio
Gramsci. Gramsci wrote his book from jail and his works were scanned. So, to avoid
seizure of his work, he used subaltern for broader implication of ‘class’. He used the
term to refer to marginalized section of the society. Ranajit Guha drew inspiration
from Gramsci but he did not employee the term as used by Gramsci. Instead he used

15
the term subaltern as given in Concise oxford dictionary which mean ‘of inferior
rank’.

Since the term subaltern in its present from traces its roots to Gramsci, it becomes
important to discuss about him. Gramsci was the General Secretary of the Italian
Communist Party. In November 1926, he became a prisoner in Mussolini’s jail for
twenty years. It was in the prison that a crippled Gramsci wrote his famous Prison
Notebooks. In this work, he put the word ‘subaltern’ in use. By ‘subaltern’, Gramsci
generally understood the peasants and workers standing opposite to the dominant
classes in contemporary Italy who had social power and hegemony. However, as
power was still confined in the land-owning classes in pre-industrial Italy, Gramsci
had particular concern for the peasants. For him the peasantry was a live force. He
recommended close examination of the subaltern consciousness of peasantry revealed
in popular belief and folklore. He held that it was not always right to consider the
peasants as coward and loyal who would submit with their identities lost amidst the
crowd of the proletariat. Instead, there was a latent form of will to struggle against the
dominance of the lord. Gramsci wanted to understand the nature of peasant culture
and consciousness to have an understanding of domination/subordination. For
Gramsci, the rebel peasant’s mentality was in most cases negative. But, at times it
flashes out to result into meaningful and effective action. Gramsci had a belief that if
the historical method were more complete, greater cohesion and political
consciousness might be found in the subaltern classes.

Originally, subaltern studies was started in England with Ranajit Guha at its back.
Subaltern studies was a completely new form of Indian historiography. Initially, it
aimed at three volumes to be published by it pioneer Ranajit Guha. It was a deliberate
attempt to do away from traditional way of writing. Writers, who were also
dissatisfied with the way history has been written joined the group. They started
writing and contributing in the volumes.

Ranajit Guha has been a vital character in field of subaltern studies. But the question
here is that how has he thought on different lines than others. The answer lies in the
life of Ranajit Guha. Guha was born in 1923, to a family of prosperous landowners in
East Bengal. He moved to Calcutta for his university education, and became caught
up in the heavily left-wing student milieu of the 1940s, during the last years of British
rule. In 1947, upon the attainment of Independence, Guha was sent as a student
representative to Europe by the Communist Party of India. He travelled widely in
Europe and the Middle East, and also took the Trans-Siberian railway to China shortly
after the Communist revolution there. He returned to India in 1953, and taught there

16
till 1959. Between 1959 and 1980 he worked in England, first at the University of
Manchester and then at the University of Sussex.

It was in 1970-71 when Ranajit Guha visited India for research, and encountered
several young Maoist militants whose idealism he was deeply struck by. As a
historian, this political experience led him in the direction of peasant studies.
Agriculture had long been an interest of his, and his first book, published in 1959 as A
Rule of Property for Bengal, had been a classic of its kind, a brilliant survey of the
intellectual history of land revenue arrangements in early colonial Bengal, and a study
of the evolution of the idea of private property in land as it was imposed upon Indian
conditions. Now, in the 1970s, the upsurge of peasant and tribal armed radicalism in
India drove him to study the history of similar movements in the past, and to try and
discern some sort of inner logic to them. It was at Sussex, in the 1970s, that he and a
group of his students and like-minded associates would begin to have discussions
about radical history that would eventually feed into the Subaltern Studies project.

In 1977, the group of scholars who would come to constitute the Subaltern Studies
collective started meeting – over the next three years there was intense discussion
among them, mainly in Sussex, London and Oxford. The group consisted of Guha at
the centre, several of his students, and several independent historians with similar
concerns, also influenced by encounters with Gramsci, Thompson, and 'history from
below'. By the early 1980s, some elements of a common perspective had been
sketched out, a perspective we might call 'subalternist'. What were these elements?
First, this group of scholars argued that there were two separate domains of politics in
colonial India: 'elite' and 'subaltern'. The first domain was characterized by forms of
activity that were recognized as 'political': it consisted of an engagement by educated
elites with the structures of power established by the colonial state. So elites
interacted with the state through petitions, public meetings, journalism, lobbying, etc.
The other domain, that of the 'subaltern', was very different in its composition. It was
generally regarded by historians as 'pre-political', since it articulated no clear demands
and seemed not to follow the established rules of politics. Very often, the violent
protests of peasants and tribals were ascribed to purely economic motives: agrarian
distress, it was argued, accounted for unrest. Guha and his colleagues argued that, on
the contrary, this was an eminently political domain.

In the very first volume of Subaltern studies, it was declared that since a long time
Indian historiography was dominated by elitism:

 Colonialist elitism or colonial historiography

 Bourgeois nationalist elitism

17
Both type of historiography have their origin from British rule. Now, there is a
requirement to write about subaltern group who neither originated from elitist politics
nor their existence depend on the latter2. The politics of subaltern differed from that of
elitist. For subaltern, the cause of revolts were traditional institutions such as caste,
tribal solidarity, etc. Elitist movements were vertical in nature, they involved people
of different position whereas subaltern movements were of horizontal nature. Elitist
movements were more of legal, controlled and were held after observing proper care.
Subaltern revolts were more violent and held instantly.

Subaltern came to be known as history from below independent from official

nationalism. It attracted attention of many historians. The objectives of subaltern
studies were:

 To show elitist characteristic of congress nationalist

 To criticize the attempts made by historians to merge people’s movement with

Congress nationalism.

 To construct a autonomous studies for subalterns and revive awareness about

them. It is a difficult task as material facts are not readily available.

There has been a shift in the subaltern studies. It has now changed from what it was
initially. There has been a shift from economic and social issues to cultural issues.
The meaning of subaltern has shifted from oppressed class in struggle against
dominant class to opposition against colonialism, modernity and enlightenment.

Overall, the purpose of subaltern studies to make people listen to the voice of
unheard, to rewrite history free from bias and prejudice of elite class.

2
Paper-VII INDIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY By Dr. Binod Bihari Satpathy; Pg-257

18
 Chapter-3

Subalternity in its various forms

The chapter aims to deal with subalternity of different forms or with different types of
subaltern groups by mainly focusing on the work done by subaltern studies group
member.

Peasants Revolts

Subalterns were marginalized by religion and tradition, their property seized by law
and it is a desirable state of affair during the period of colonial rule. To revolt could
mean to go against existing norms, to challenge the traditions and the turn the whole
institution upside down. Historians since long time has characterized such revolts as
spontaneous and unplanned events. But subaltern group proposes a thing contrary to
earlier historians. The events were equally planned and were a result of conscious
decision. Take for example blue mutiny of 1860 where peasants revolted against
British planters who were exploiting them by forcing them to plant Indigo. Peasants
first tried out every possible course of action like petition, deputation and at last
declared war against their oppressor. During Sepoy rebellion of 1857-58, actions were
result of planned activities among representatives of local peasant masses.3 Thus,
insurgency were motivated by deliberate actions of rural masses.

3
Subaltern Studies II, The prose of counter insurgency, Pg-2

19
Yet historians has explained this phenomena as natural and ignored subaltern
consciousness. They assumed peasants, tribal groups to be in a state of lawlessness
where they would naturally give a violent reflexive action in response of their
physical sufferings. They characterized them as a class deprived of economic and
political power, in a state of low civilization who would rebel instantly.

Now the question arises that how did historians opted such a erroneous interpretation
and had not rectified it. There are three types of discourses of historical writing during
British rule, primary, secondary and tertiary in chronological order.

Primary discourse was official in character. It came from not only those directly
employed under government but also who were connected to British rule for mutual
benefits. It was written for administrative purpose, to take decisions and formulate
future course of action. The statements of insurgents were recorded and reported for
official correspondence or they were treated as enclosures for arguments by
administration. Distinct feature of primary discourse is its two conditions. First, the
statements were recorder either then and there or immediately after the insurgency.
Secondly, these statements were of ‘participants’, by participants people involved in
revolt or person observing the scene is meant. These records act as a primary source
for historians.

Secondary discourse in simple words is processed form of primary discourse. It uses

primary discourse as an equipment and at the same time alters it. The works of writers
as a participant comes under secondary discourse and also the works of administrators
are include. The accounts of latter are considered to be more authentic though no
doubt that they were writing for the government but they wrote history as an outsider
making it more credible. The works of participants reflected their bias. Unlike
primary discourse, works in secondary discourse were published for public
readership.

Tertiary discourse is compilation of primary and secondary sources. When it comes to

tertiary discourse of peasants insurgency history, it has been manipulated like the
colonialist historiography. It deprived subaltern of characteristic of conscious subject
and included them as a contingent subject in others history. Such distortion make past
less accurate and since the focus here is on beliefs, ideas, attitudes, etc rather than
externalities, the task of representation becomes even more complex. Historiography

20
cannot eliminate such distortion but it can of course address it. What can be done is to
fully understand the past consciousness and then reconstitute it.

Ranajit Guha criticizes Hobsbawm for characterizing peasants revolts as pre-political.

Hobsbawm used ‘pre-political people’ and ‘pre-political population’ again and again
in his work The Bandit to describe a state of absolute or near absence of political
consciousness. In general, pre-political people are those 'who have not

yet found, or only begun to find, a specific language in which to express

their aspirations about the world.'4

Guha refuses to accept peasant consciousness as ‘pre-political’. He insists on

analyzing the discourses of kinship, caste, religion, and ethnicity through which
peasants themselves expressed their protest. According to Guha, everything in the
movements of rebel peasants in colonial India was political. This could scarcely have
been something else in the situation in which they worked, lived and understood the
world.5

Guha concludes that instead of being a leftover in a changing colonial world, the
peasant was a real element of colonialism and an indispensable part of the modernity
that colonial rule gave rise to in India. The peasants’ was not a backward
consciousness --- a mentality residual from the past. Guha’s argument implies that the
insurgent peasant in colonial India did infact read his contemporary world correctly.
Examining several cases of peasant uprisings in colonial India between 1783 and
1900, he shows that the rebels always tried to invert the symbols of authority of the
dominant classes by exercising their own codes of dress, speech and behaviour. Elitist
histories of peasant uprisings missed the meaning of this gesture and saw it as “pre-
political”.

4
https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/amit/books/guha-1999-elementary-aspects-of.html

5
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/172269/6/06_chapter%201.pdf

21
Women- Sati practice

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has extended the scope of subaltern studies and covered
variety of topics including feminism. She became an authoritative voice after
publication of her essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak’. She, through her knowledge of
cultural and critical theories challenged the view point of colonialism. She criticized
the approach that western world is above the ‘third world’ (it refers to developing
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America). Spivak raises the issue of marginalised
such as the one of subaltern women.

Spivak drew inspiration from Gramsci to use the word subaltern. She used the term
subaltern as it clearly depicts the accurate image of lower class people. Spivak
proposed a theory of subaltern. By subaltern she meant oppressed subjects. She raises
the issue of voice of women in Sati practice.

Males and females both co-exist in the society and both are required to conduct the
affairs of a family. They share equal responsibilities in the family but yet are seen at
different levels. Females were often labeled as second sex or weaker sex. Males were
treated dominant and females were treated as supporters and subordinate. This is
where topic of Sati comes into picture. After the death of husband, wife has no role to
play and she is expected to join her husband in his funeral pyre.

Sati is a Sanskrit word used for widow who in order to become good and loyal wife
joins her husband in his funeral pyre and united with her husband. This was
considered as an act of self immolation and not suicide. Both Dharmasastra and Rig-
Veda, ancient Hindu religious texts, treat the practice of widow self-immolation as a
sacred ritual for the dead husband, rather than an act of suicide.

22
People carried out the practice of widow self-immolation as it was permitted in the
Dharmasastra. Self-immolation has attained a spiritual significance and the rite is
highly male oriented where the domination of patriarchy is made visible through the
accomplishment of this widow sacrifice. The practice of sati helped the males to
demand respect from women. Women in the pre-independent India played the role of
a parasite. A parasite is a separate living organism like a woman and it does not have
independent existence. Once the main tree falls down, the existence of the parasite is
under threat. The tree and the parasite cease to exist at the same time. The woman is
not different from the parasite. The moment her husband dies, the woman loses her
identity as an individual and regains her individuality with her husband on the funeral
pyre.6

The views of widows(women) were not considered and they were forced to perform
sati. Britishers considered sati practice as a sign of barbarism. They abolished sati
practice justifying it by saying that it is white man’s burden to civilize the uncivilized.
But again, there were some women who under the influence of spiritual ritual wanted
to perform sati. Here too, the voice of women was not taken into account. At the back,
colonial administration used the body of women an a tool of British administration.
Through this, Britishers were able to justify their rule over India as mission to civilize
them.

The aim of the Spivak’s essay was not to get response but to put forward the view that
subalterns cannot speak and the situation of women is even worse. Though there exist
patriarchal society, women followed whims and fancies of her husband but they too
have their own voice which sometimes is dissenting and is of disapproval. Women
wanted to make clear their position whether they are for or against patriarchal
exploitation and atrocities. But their voice was never recorded. Now, it is very
difficult to recover that lost voice and include it in history. Hindu religion imposed
sati practice on women without taking their perspective into account. Britishers
abolished sati calling it “white men saving brown women from brown men” 7. But
none heard the voice of women. The voice of women was lost between the two
dominant voices.

The essay opened a flood gate of responses. Many critiques compared the term
‘speak’ with ‘talk’. This lead to change in interpretation. So, here a need arises to
discuss this words. The act of speaking is more active and it requires the participation
of at least one listener whereas the act of talking is passive and it can be done with

6
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/22597/10/10_chapter3.pdf

7
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Can the Subaltern Speak?

23
oneself. Speaking comes under inter personal communication and it involves at least
two persons communicating face to face. Talking comes under intra personal
communication where one talks to oneself and it is not intended for others to listen.

The elements of communication include: sender, receiver, message, channel, effect,

feedback and noise. Sender is the person sending the message and receiver is the one
who receives it. Message is the information being passed from sender to receiver.
Channel is the path used to transmit the message. Effect is the attitudinal change
which takes place in the receiver after receiving the message. Feedback is the
response of the receiver. Noise is the hindrance which causes distortion in information
passed. Spivak focuses on the element of noise. The communication that takes place
between a subaltern and a non-subaltern is actually distorted due to the element of
noise. The element of noise here is influenced by the racial, cultural and socio-
economic factors. The purpose of communication is achieved only when the intended
message is received by the receiver. Even when the sender puts all efforts to
communicate the intended message, the message may get corrupted by element of
noise.

The controversial statement made by Spivak that “the subaltern cannot speak” has a
lot of inherent meaning. The subaltern attempts and goes to any extent to make
authorities to hear them. But the real problem lies with the receiver, i.e., the
authorities. They are not ready to listen even when the subaltern want to make their
stand clear. The receiver here is not interested and is not in a position to conceive the
message. This element of noise acts as a hindrance and leads to failure of the purpose
of communication. It is due to the social and economic factors prevailing within a
region. The psychological context hardly exists when a subaltern tries to speak, as a
result, the communicative system fails to achieve its objective.

The women were tied under four walls of the house and were never given an
opportunity to speak. Even if they tried to speak, their message was not
communicated and could not convince others of their stand. The communication
system fails when the speaker is not able to convince the receiver. It was not that
subaltern were silent but the fault lies with the receiver who is unwilling to listen.

Racial Subalternity

24
European forefathers used to go to various countries with the purpose of establishing
trade and commerce. Colonialism had a specific game plan behind the venture. In the
name of civilizing the East and purify them from barbarity, the European forefathers
established their autonomous empire. In order to carry out the administration in new
colonies, the Europeans established political order and it was executed either by force
or by hegemony.

The differences between Britishers and Indians led to the creation of racial
discrimination between the white settlers and the natives. The so-called native elites
tried to identify themselves with the white settlers and the issue became all the more
complicated. The white settlers took advantage of this situation in exploiting the
country. They joined hands in executing various programme so as to bully the native
subalterns. In order to carry out the smooth functioning of all the activities, the white
imperialists advocated the policy of Divide and Rule. The native elites extended their
whole hearted support to the white settlers in suppressing the insurgency of the
subalterns.

As the colonies prospered in many parts of the country, the white settlers had to face
stiff opposition from the natives. At this crucial point, the native elites found it below
their dignity to support the uprising of the lower classes. The criterion for racial
superiority or inferiority was on the basis of colour and wealth. In order to share the
qualities of European masters of colonialism, the native elites discriminated the
subalterns and joined hands with the white settlers. This lead to emergence of racial
discrimination in the Indian society.

The subalterns were made to believe that they belonged to an inferior race and so

not fit for making any real contribution to the society. The white settlers always

emerged as champions of the superior race. Such type of comparisons subjugated

the will and aspirations of the subalterns. The white settlers very often resorted to

violence for the implementation of various policies.

In the colonial period, the settler-native relationship could be compared to that of

a master and a slave. The natives are conscious of their rights and free will so as to

be the soul masters of their land. But the natives are treated as secondary citizens

25
in their own land and this subjugation is made possible in the name of racism.

Indians were referred to as browns. The subalterns tried to retaliate against the white
supremacy for the sufferings that they had undergone. Even though they tried to
communicate their resentment, the authority could not have the patience to listen to
their plea. The natives suffered a lot as they were not equal with the so-called whites
and never a threat to their relentless leadership. The outcome of colonialism is that the
west still occupies the position of an ideal state in the minds of the colonized people.
Not only the lands of the people but also their minds were also being colonized.

Mahatma Gandhi from subaltern perspective

There is difference in perspective on Gandhi. Let us now look on Gandhi from

subaltern perspective. Gyan Pandey in his article, 'Peasant Revolt and Indian
Nationalism, 1919-1922' which deals with the revolt of the peasants of Awadh,
comments on certain limitations of Gandhism, the 'anti-peasant' attitude of Gandhi
and the instructions that he had given to the peasants to be followed while
participating in a movement. Faith in Mahatma gave the peasants strength to question
the might of their planters and landlords. The reverence for Gandhi is undoubtedly
partly due to the belief that he has great influence with the government. The peasants
believed that Gandhi was sent by the government to remove their grievances.

What Gyan Pandey wants to point out here is that the contradiction between what
Gandhi stood for and what peasants thought about him. So the support of the peasants
to Gandhi was not because of that he was against the colonial authority but because of
the belief that he came to free the peasants from the circle they are trapped in.
Peasants' immediate oppressors were zamindars. But what actually Gandhi wanted to
do was a class collaboration of peasants and zarmindars.

What Pandey was trying to find was out the 'anti-peasant' attitude of Gandhi in the
instructions which he had given to the peasant. In his opinion Gandhi was trying to
make the peasants speak for zamindars and Gandhi was not interested in dealing with
the questions regarding the problems of peasantry. He substantiate his argument by
debatable action of Gandhi. After peasants resorted to violence, Gandhi asked
peasants to surrender voluntarily but no such appeal was made to zamindars.

26
Shahid Amin too criticized the nationalist outlook on common people. He held that
the subaltern were assigned the role of becoming devotee of Mahatma and congress
leaders undertook the task to convert this feeling into an organized movement. The
relation between Mahatma and his devotee is that of political nature.

Like Shahid Amin, Sumit Sarkar is also tries to analyze the part played by the rumour.
He suggests three moments in the emergence of Gandhi. According to him, the
rumour fall into three main categories. First, there is his acceptance as an avatar, or a
being with extra ordinary power. Second, he is seen to confer immunity to his
followers. And third, there is a call for total transformation of the world. According to
Sumit Sarkar, it was because of his religious appeal that Gandhi got so much support
from the masses which his left counterparts failed in getting. And from this it appears
that it was because of lack of religious appeal that the leftists didn't get much support
from the masses. It seems like subaltern are interested in denying the influence of
Mahatma Gandhi and are giving a new look to Indian historiography.

Chapter- 4

Criticism of subaltern studies

Subaltern Studies has encountered sharp debates in India and abroad since the
inception of its career. Indian Marxist historians were among the first who bitterly
criticized the project during the 1980s. They mainly highlighted the points of
difference between Subaltern Studies and Marxism. To put it another way, the in
between lines came out on the treatment of Marx and Gramsci for an understanding of

27
Indian history. It is pointed out that subaltern studies initial aim was to produce better
Marxist theory. Still, what stood out were the problematic relations with Marxism.
The most comprehensive Marxist critiques were published during 1982-88 in Social
Scientist, a journal that had connections with the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
The critics pointed out that it is impossible to draw a clear line of demarcation
between elite and subaltern politics, either in terms of principles or by real life
experience. Thus, it was unacceptable that the politics of subaltern is of autonomous
domain.

Much hostile disagreement came in connection with the question of subaltern

consciousness. The claim for separate consciousness, the Marxists argued, ran counter
to the universally agreed notion of evolution and progress of human consciousness.
According to this notion, consciousness gradually develops through stages of
evolution. In the process, the consciousness of the progressive classes is historically
advanced than that of the multitudes. Again, in relation to consciousness, the
subaltern scholars emphatically spoke of the ‘autonomous domain’ that invited strong
objection. One important question was: where does autonomy come from and how?
There was a constant tension and discrepancy between the definition of the
autonomous domain of politics and the location of its practical stand.

There can be little doubt about an inherent contradiction that lies between the
meaning of this autonomous domain of politics and its experimental foundation.
Ranajit Guha is right in his argument that civil disobedience movement momentous
contest was not in any way inspired by the elite leadership. But the argument for self-
sufficiency of peasant consciousness is not tenable. In the history of our freedom
movement, there are many such cases, which can be called upon to prove that popular
spontaneity can have contradictory historical consequences – sometimes leading to
communal riots, and sometimes making possible militant unity. But subaltern
historians have used the same paradigm in explaining these contradictory historical
incidents. In other words, even conflicting evidences let subaltern historians make the
same theoretical claim for autonomous action and domain because of their one-sided
emphasis on the subjectivity of the peasantry.

Responding to Guha’s notion of autonomy, Richard Fox writes that there is no doubt
about the fact that an Indian history must include the subalterns. But the latter should
not be taken as independent or autonomous. In his view, it is good that the subaltern
scholars argue for an indigenous and authentic history. However, they cannot exist
despite the historians they disapprove as bourgeois nationalists. Fox says that Indian
history happened from the bottom up, but also from the top down and the middle
round, in a complex interdependence and manipulation that neither elite nor subaltern

28
histories and historians alone can hope to capture. Fox blames Ranajit Guha for
recoiling into historical particularism. As he argues, Guha eludes the questions of a
thorough class analysis of colonial and independent India. He picks up the notion of
‘subaltern’ simply by taking away from it any general critical significance. In Fox’s
observation, without a class analysis, it is hard to explain how the subalterns came to
oppose colonialism and the indigenous elite without assuming some traditional
cultural legacy that forced Indian subalterns into opposition or even confrontation.

Subaltern studies has reopened the long-believed historical events and brings
historical inquiry to the foundations of Indian society. It has disagreed especially with
an established political system, organization or belief. In contrary, it had failed to
recognize the diversity of Indian society and has ignored the differences in power and
status that were present prior to colonization. Subaltern studies have been criticized
by saying that Subalternists romanticize the past as they held the view that pre-
colonial communities knew nothing of power relations and communal conflict. Thus,
the scope of Subaltern Studies School of historiography is also narrow in character.

Subaltern Studies emphasized the subordinated class consciousness. The ‘Subaltern

consciousness’ is a significant but controversial concept. It means the consciousness
about oneself and realizing that they had been dominated by the other. The subaltern
consciousness will replace the dominant culture by a living culture of the majority in
the history of the Indian society. But their lies a contradiction in the work of subaltern
group. According to Gayatri Spivak, the subalterns can never speak for themselves
and had always been dependent on elite to talk about their rights, because the
subalterns are not conscious of their status in society.

The contextual factors of Subaltern Studies have been changed in post-1988 period
i.e. after Ranajit Guha’s retirement from the editorial team of Subaltern Studies.
Subaltern Studies School has been actively engaged in post-colonial discourse and
stepped out of Indian nationalism and moved into the cultural history of colonialism.
There has been a shift in intellectual focus. It now paid total attention to British
colonial discourse and failed to study discourse of Hindus, Muslims and other
colonized subjects though it emerged out of Indian history. It is now an
interdisciplinary project, the goals of which have been changed.

29
 Chapter-5

Conclusion

30
The Subaltern School of Historiography has highlighted a range of themes. They
portrayed the marginalized sections of society and provided a different approach and
criticized the statist discourses. They highlighted the role of indigenous resistance and
promoted the role of those who have talked about the marginalized sections of
society. The importance of subaltern school cannot be denied as it has given primary
focus to those who had rarely been given due significance in society. The declared
aim of the subaltern studies was to produce historical analyses in which the subaltern
groups were given primary importance.

The subaltern studies asserted itself as a radically new form of history-writing in the
context of Indian history. The History written till now is one-sided, partial and not
showing true picture of low level group in society. A group of people is deprived of
proper position. A great man or intellectual group cannot create history. True history
is not of superior group but it is shaped from the group of common people. Subaltern
studies became an original site for a new kind of history from below, a people’s
history free of national constraints, a post-nationalist imagining of Indian nation, on
the other side, at the margins, outside nationalism. This work brings together all the
historians through the new trend of writing ‘Subaltern studies’, so that the recipients
of success should get justice and in the same way true history will be written.

31
 Bibliography

1. Unit 19 Colonial Historiography egyankosh

2. Dr.Y.Ramesh, Schools Of Thought on Indian Historiography - An Interpretation

3. Dr. Binod Bihari Satpathy, Indian Historiography

4. Historical Materialism, Understanding and Changing the World A scientific

Marxist-Leninist explanation of mankind’s development from primitive society to
socialism and today’s world, www.marxist.org

5. Subaltern Studies II, The Prose of Counter Insurgency, Ranajit Guha

6. The Subaltern School of Historiography by Naila Pervaiz

7. Chapter 3 Gayatri Spivak’s Theory of Subalternity, Shodhganga

32