Ranajit Guha 401

2. E lem en ta ry A spects o f I n su r g en cy in C o lo n ia l In d ia (1983)

3. S u baltern S tudies (edited volumes 1 to 10).
Guha focuses on the follow ing aspects of the subaltern

19 perspective:
1. Defining the subaltern perspective through subaltern studies.
2. H ow did subaltern studies get to be recognized so?
Ranajit Guha 3. The idea of subaltern perspective.
4. The em erging subaltern perspective.
5. The inchoate quality associated w ith the subaltern perspective.
6. Peasant insurgency.
Guha tried to w rite the history of subaltern from the subal­
tern’s perspective. Then and then alone w ould it be possible to
notice the kind of role that the m ajority of the population, the
silent m ajority if you wish, played in directing the courts of
history. Inevitably, the issue is w ho was dom inating whom and
who revolted against the dom ination and in what kind ol manner
came to be central importance in these studies.

Defining the Subaltern Perspective through Subaltern Studies

Ranajit Guha, perhaps the most influential figure in postcolonial The word ‘subaltern’ usually meant a junior arm y officer in the
and subaltern studies, is also the founding editor of S ubaltern vocabulary of Indians till the 1980s. A t the best the meaning was
Studies. He taught history for m any years at the U niversity of extended to connote the alternate or subordinates. Then, Guha and
Sussex, England and also served as Professor of H istory, Research a team of scholars linked w ith him presented their series of
School of Pacific Studies, A ustralian N ational U niversity, academic essays. These essays came out in book-length volumes,
Canberra. G uha’s w orks have deeply influenced not only the virtu ally each year between 1982 and 1984 and then w ith a reduced
w riting of subcontinental history but also historical investigations frequency were eagerly awaited by the younger scholars in the
elsewhere, as w ell as cultural studies, literary theories, and social social sciences. The volumes were entitled as S u baltern Studies.
analyses across the world. Reading through the volumes one can make some sense of what the
subaltern perspective stands for, w hat kind of research falls w ithin
Methodology the am bit of subaltern studies and w hat is out of it, yet, to provide a
Guha used subaltern historiography as a method for his study of hard definition for it is impossible even after two decades of this
peasant insurgency. perspective coming into existence it retains an inchoate quality.
The best can be said, even though such defining is unfair to the
Writings fair am ount of insightful research that exists under the rubric, is
that the subaltern perspective is that which is perceived through the
G uha’s im portant w ritings are as follows:
various papers presented in the volumes entitled S u baltern Studies.
1. A R u le o f P ro p erty f o r B en gal: A n Essay on th e Idea o f the Of these it can be said that there are two versions. The first, which
P erm a n en t S ettlem en t (1963) exists from volum e 1 to 5, when the focus was on the study of
 Ranajit Guha 403
402 Ranajit Guha

w ays of investigating Indian history had ceased to be insightful, had

politics and rebellion. The other exists from volume 5 onwards
become meaningless and left out of their am bit such large segments
w here the interest in politics and rebellion seems to have waned and
of Indian society that it was better that old w ay of doing history be
the focus has been shifted to constructing the articulation of
given up altogether. A t the same tim e, he suggested an alternative,
subaltern culture and its varied relationship w ith colonial power,
the hegemonic nature of dom inant culture and resistance to it in which repeatedly insisted w ould keep in focus the role of the
various forms is the focus in the second version of the subaltern subaltern, the underdog, those w ho were the canon folder in the
perspective. canons being fired in the history.
Between volum e 1 and 10 there w ere 76 published papers in M oreover, to follow the schema offered by Robert Merton,
S u baltern Studies. The most prolific contributors included Ranajit those pursuing the new paradigm created for themselves the role of
Guha, Partha Chatterjee (16 papers each); David Arnold, David gatekeepers. In most interesting tw ist of intellectual fates this was
H ardim an, G yanendra Pandey (five papers each); and Dipesh done not by ousting the old gatekeepers from the discipline of
C hakrabarty, Gautam Bhadra, G ayatri C hakravorty Spivak and history but by the device of dem arcating new gates for the disci­
Sahid Am in (more than one paper each). It was the w ritings of these pline and insisting that these gates led not m erely to the study of
people which seemed to set the tone for the subaltern paradigm history but to the society as a whole. The fact that the volumes of
though the fifth volum e onwards there was a distinct shift of focus S u baltern S tudies came out w ith a certain degree of regularity and
towards cultural studies and aw ay from the discipline of history. constantly published high quality academic essays made for greater
intellectual legitim acy of the entire intellectual enterprise.
How did subaltern studies get to be recognized so? A t least in the early years those professing the subaltern
Subaltern studies got recognition because of two things. V ery perspective did not control access to academic institutions. But
briefly, first and foremost, because they insisted upon it, and their sheer prolificacy was impressive. Six books and 27 articles
secondly, because others accepted it to be so. The sheer persistence were w ritten in two decades, m any of which were translated into
w ith which the volumes of subaltern studies kept appearing, the Indian languages, was a very high rate of intellectual productivity.
impatience w ith w hich they dismissed the then ruling perspectives T ill 1989 between them the subaltern collective had published 15
in history and the enthusiasm w ith which a whole lot of scholars volumes on diverse themes of their interest w ith only one
waited for them, talked about them and rubbished them, resulted in com m onality between them: that all of them were illustrative of
the creation of w hat m any believed was an en tirely new perspective the subaltern perspective and were also rated highly as competent
in the social sciences in India - the su b a ltern p ersp ectiv e. This was w orks of research. Little wonder that a significant num ber of
much in keeping w ith the kind of schema that Thomas Kuhn, the unrelated scholars too began to insist that a new ‘perspective’ of
celebrated historian of science, in his book The S tru ctu re o f S cien tific doing research had emerged. If everyone said so that it had, then
R ev o lu tio n s, had suggested in his discussion of how revolutions, it had.
m ajor paradigm shifts, happen in science. This im plied that there In its details, in the case of the subaltern perspective, the sheer
would be times when the norm al paradigms for research w ould be popularity of the idea among a large num ber of scholars, even w hile
broken, either because they had exhausted their explanatory
the initial volumes of S u baltern S tudies were published, was enough
potential or had sim ply lost the interest of the m ajority of
researchers in them. to allow observers to notice that an en tirely new perspective had
emerged. The chief indicator of the subaltern perspective having
The idea o f subaltern perspective arrived, as it were, insofar as the discipline of history was
concerned, was when one of its most virulent critics like M irdula
The statement made b y Guha in the first chapter of the S u baltern
M ukherjee, in 1988, spent considerable effort in explaining that the
S tudies (Volume 1) made some accusations. One, that the existing
 404 Ranajit Guha Ranajit Guha 405

subaltern perspective was m erely so much old wine in a new bottle. speaking recognition (ibid.). Subaltern historiography treats
It if were m erely so, then there w ould have been little need for a ‘people’ (subalternity) as autonomous who are not dependent upon
senior historian to rubbish it thus and claim that she and others of elite. The ideological element in the subaltern domain is not
her ilk had been sensitive to it even before the term had come into uniform in quality and density and at times sectional and sectorial
existence. By this tim e a large num ber of scholars, even those who interests have been pursued (Singhi, 1996). Guha has used ideology
were only m arginally allied w ith the new perspective, began to pay in subaltern studies as a schema of interpretation of the past in
homage to it by claim ing some kind of kinship. It also helped that order to change the present w orld and that such a change involves a
the new perspective, some believed, actually had some fresh explan­ radical transform ation of consciousness (Dhanagare, 1993: 132).
atory potential. T ribal or peasants insurgents have not to be seen as a m erely
Emr fjing subaltern perspective ‘objects’ of in quiry but makers of their own history (Guha, 1983).
The influence is obviously M arxist. Acceptance of M arxism , as an
The initial statement about this perspective was laid down in the
ideology, has been much easier for Indian sociologists for several
first chapter o f S u baltern S tudies (Volume 1). Authored by Guha, it
reasons. M arxism provided a profound theoretical as w ell as
was in the form of points, all of them addressed to historians, all of
ideological fram ework w ith its rigorous logical and neat fram ework
which sim ply said that the existing w ay of w ritin g history had fully
for alternative society. It had both cognitive and emotive appeals
concentrated on the elite w hile being dismissive of the subalterns,
for concerned intellectuals. The existence of abundant literature in
the poor, the downtrodden etc. Guha insisted that m ostly the
writings of historians had locused on the Indian N ational the area helped the critique of western imperialism to find solace
Movement., and that too seen only Irom the perspective of the and shelter in the paradigm of M arxism .
leaders oi the movement. All else, he went on to impute, in the The subaltern studies have immense possibility of projecting,
history oi our society, was lei r either untouched or not examined constructing and analyzing the people’s lives, institutions,
enough or examined only as an adjunct of the mainstream of the problems, movements, values and the processes of their formation,
national movement. W hat was needed, Guha argued, was a structuration and restructuration at local and regional levels. The
subaltern perspective wherein society could be studied from the meanings thus need not be viewed from M arxist perspective but
point of view of the downtrodden, those w ho were the fodder in from Indian historiographical and culturological perspectives. In
the cannon of history, as it were. fact, at theoretical and ideological levels, it can provide the basis for
This is not to deny the analysis of some social scientists who explanation of social existence of Indian people and the w ay people
have revealed sensitive concern for specific dimensions of managed their lives. The Indian culturological perspective can be
problem atic oi Indian social reality. Scholarly traditions in history constructed at ideological, theoretical and empirical levels in terms
and in the ethnography oi India have provided signiiicant insights of continuity and change through analysis of classical texts and
into the peasant and tribal movements. Subaltern historiography folk-rural com m onality of existence. The relationship between the
seeks to restore a balance by highlighting the role of the politics of two provides significant fram ework to understand the Indian
the people as against elite politics played in Indian history social, cultural and personality systems, at local m icro level and
(Dhanagare, 1993). The contributions made by masses in m aking trans-regional macro level. It further provides a scheme to relate
society have gone unrecognized and unw ritten due to their social past w ith present, empirical w ith ideological, segmental w ith
placement and ignorance regarding means and mechanisms of pluralism and mundane w ith transcendental.
406 Ranajit Guha Ranajit Guha 407

The focus on peasants and w orkers movements by the presumption that w hatever is indigenous is the best for the m erely
subaltern studies reveals only one-dim ensionality of cognitive represent local forms of dom ination. But, such dilemmas have
fram ework, w hich could be constructed from sociology of people. ceased to bother those publishing in subaltern studies for a long
M ovem ent is a form of protest and assumes significance in the tim e now.
context of relationship of subordination, exploitation, suppression This new perspective seemed to get body as more and more
and organized efforts to protest against such a situation ideologi­ research was done under its rubric. A t the same tim e, w ithin the
cally. H owever, people’s lives are influenced by several ideologies, social sciences the ‘subaltern perspective’ attracted a lot of criticism
w hich operate through religion, social institutions, p olity and from the discipline of history, and also a considerable amount of
cultural practices. adm iration. Even its vocal critics like M ridula M ukherjee, a leading
The role of ideologues in the form of local heroes, com m unity historian w riting in the E co n o m ic a n d P o litica l W eekly, were
leaders, revered individuals, and aesthetic and literary figures needs pressed to say that they themselves were sensitive to this
to be understood in the context of role of ideology, not in terms of perspective even though th ey did not use the w ord ‘subaltern’ to
its contents and ideas but also in terms of their influence on the describe their concerns. Sociologists and anthropologists, watching
lives of people in everyday life, in their existence itself. from the sidelines the battles fought among historians, seemed to be
somewhat bemused. The journal C o n trib u tio n s to In d ia n S o cio lo gy
The inchoate quality associated with the subaltern perspective did carry reviews and review articles on subaltern studies but these
The subaltern perspective w ill remain quite inchoate. Yet it became articles did not go beyond identifying the insensitivity of the
fashionable to have a ‘subaltern perspective’, even though it was subaltern perspective to the formal institutional set-up of society.
not very clear as to w hat this particular perspective is, and how it The bemusement of the sociologists and social anthropologists was
differed in substance from the already existing practices of research substantially based in the recognition that m any of the concerns
and analysis in the social sciences. Just as earlier scholars who kept being expressed in the subaltern perspective were already a standard
up w ith the times were almost invariably ‘M arxist’ or ‘behaviour­ part of the field studies done on the caste system and various village
ists’ or what-have-you, so now were m any ‘subalternists’, whatever studies. B y the 1990s, however, even the sociologists in India,
that m ight mean. There were also a nagging doubt among some usually not very vocal about their kinship w ith historians, began to
observers that belonging to this perspective, or opposing it, was incorporate the ‘subaltern perspective’ in their theoretical under­
often a m atter of personal perspectives. Sum it Sarkar, for example, standings. Some of them, like A m itav Ghosh, even published in
once part of this perspective, veered aw ay and became a critic when S u baltern S tudies thereby adding, some w ould say, a new kind of
literature and culture-based studies began to dominate. His glam our. C ould this be taken to be the point at w hich it m ight be
discomfort was w ith the shift aw ay from politics that the later said that the ‘subaltern perspective’ had ‘arrived’?
essays in subaltern studies demonstrated. His charge that m erely
listing the contours of the culture of dom ination and subordination Peasant insurgency
was not enough of a critique of existing hegemonic politics has The historiography of peasant insurgency in India has frequently
never been met adequately by those professing to pursue the been a record of the efforts of the colonial adm inistration to deal
subaltern perspective. A t the same tim e, the subalternists have not w ith mass uprisings in the countryside. The colonialists tended to
addressed themselves to the charge that their constant focus on see insurgency as a crim e or pathology, seldom regarding it as a
cultural aspects and their effort to legitim ize the culture of the struggle for social justice. In his study of E lem en ta ry A spects o f
subaltern allows a valorization of indigenous cultures under the P easa n t I n su r g en cy in C o lo n ia l In d ia , Guha (1983) seeks to correct
 408 Ranajit Guha Ranajit Guha 409

this failure to understand the aims and motives of the insurgent. He W ar or N ehru’s discovery of the peasantry of his home province
adopts the peasant s view point and examines “the peasant rebel’s soon afterwards.
awareness of his own w orld and his w ill to change it”. The study
Guha's Framework Summarized
covers the period 1783-1900 and identifies some of the elem entary
aspects that characterized peasant rebel consciousness in this Background
period.
1. Educated and training in ancient history
The object of this w ork is to try and depict the struggle not as a
2. Interests in subaltern studies
series of specific encounters but in its general form. The elements of
this form derive from the very long history of the peasant’s Aim
subalterm ty and his striving to end it. If one looks carefully at the
To examine the peasant rebel’s awareness of his own world.
popular m obilizations accredited to nationalist and communist
leaderships - at R ow lett Satyagraha and Q uit India or at Tebhaga Assumption
and Telengana, to take only a couple of instances respectively of
Subaltern historiography seeks to restore a balance by highlighting
each kind - one cannot help noticing the structural sim ilarities
between their articulation. the role of the politics of the people as against elite politics.
The book consists of eight chapters including introduction and Methodology
epilogue. The m ain chapters are: N egation, A m biguity, M odality,
1. Subaltern historiography
Solidarity, Transm ission and T erritoriality.
2. Ethnography
The study reflects a set of historical relations of power,
3. Comm on approach of studying history from the top to down
nam ely, the relations of dominance and subordination, as these
prevailed in village India under the British Raj until 1900. It has Typology
been said: “The history of all past society has consisted in the devel­
1. Customs
opment of class antagonism that assumed different forms of
2. Records
different epochs. But whatever form they m ay have taken, one fact
is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of on part of Issues
society by the other” (Guha, 1983: 12).
Different aspects of Indian society, nam ely,
The antagonism is rooted deeply enough in the m aterial and
1. Subaltern studies
spiritual conditions of their existence to reduce the difference
2. Peasant insurgency in India
between elite and subaltern perceptions of a radical peasant
movement to a difference between the terms of a binary pair. A
rural uprising turns into a site for two rival cognitions to meet and
define each other negativity. « Select Bibliography
It is clear in the light of the findings that Indian nationalism of
Dhanagare, D.N. (1993), Themes and Perspectives in I n m a n Sociology, Jaip u r:
the colonial period was not what elite historiography had made it R a w a t P u b licatio n s.
be. On the contrary, it derived much of its striking power from a G uha, R an u t (1963), A Rule o f Property fo r Bengal: An Essay on the Idea o f the
subaltern tradition going a long w ay back before the M ahatm a’s Permanent Settlement, P aris.
intervention in Indian politics towards the end of the First W orld