Historiography of Subaltern studies in Indian contexta minor

research Project.
Indranil Sarkar

Synopsis
Subaltern studies have already traversed a colourful span of nearly a
half century. Though Subaltern is viewed synonymous to postcolonialism, a clear notion of Subalternity has remained a far cry yet.
From origin to present, Subalternity has passed through various
stages; sometimes totally different from what it meant originally.
The change is so fast and frequent that a historiography of one of
the

youngest

postcolonial

ideas

has

been

felt

indispensable.

Basically, Subalternity means the hegemony of 'Bottom-Up'. It is

about the oppressed or the voice of the downtrodden in decoying
colonial rules. By Subaltern Spivak meant the oppressed subject or
more generally those of inferior rank. Subaltern studies defined
itself as an attempt to allow people finally to speak within the
jealous pages of elitist historiography. Subalternity has come out as
a necessary academic discursive study because the erstwhile History
in the colonial states was by the elites both national and European.
As a matter of fact, Subalternity is the mouthpiece of the underdogs
to voice the heterodoxy and hegemony of the suppressed and
subjugated.

The

pioneering

works

of

Ranjit

Guha,

Gayatri

Chakravorty Spivak and Dipesh Chakraborty have not only paved the
way but also given a solid direction to the Subaltern studies.
[200]

Introduction:-Subalterns are groups of people who exist outside of a

societys hegemonic system, often because of poverty or ethnic
discrimination (Rodriguez, "From Representation to Recognition"
The Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader, 5). Traditionally, they
have been misrepresented, if not excluded altogether from academic
research and study, which is conducted by intellectuals who
themselves are generally a part of the dominant hegemonic system
(Latin American Subaltern Studies Group 119).
History of Subalternity is not a single, linear truth, but rather a
collage of memories, experiences and interpretations. The job of the
historian is to explore the past from many perspectives and to
consider the complexities that have not only triggered a historical
episode but have also shaped its memory.
In the above light, the subalterns are the largest body of underdogs
that need to be reviewed in a naked eye keeping aside the erstwhile
coloured spectacles wearer elitist social historians.
Eric Stokes and Ranajit Guha initiated the SSG in the 80s. Ranajit
Guha, the mentor, began focusing narratives most clearly in his
"Manifesto" in Subaltern Studies-I and also in his classic monograph
The Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency. He pointed a
particular interest in the discourses and rhetoric of emerging
political and social movements, as against only highly visible actions
like demonstrations and uprisings in the colonial period. However,
the scope of enquiry of Subaltern Studies was applied as an
intervention in South Asian
Chakravorty

Spivok

historiography. Likewise Gayatri

highlighted

the

condition

of

women

as

Subaltern of the subalterns. Dipesh Chakraborty has been working

in the line of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivok and focusing the concept of

Subaltern of the subalterns not only in case of South Asian women
but equally applicable to the people of various ethnic sub-groups in
general. Presently the term subaltern is used in the fields of
history, anthropology, sociology, human geography, and literary
criticism. In a word, subalternity has been transformed from
intellectual discourse into a method of vigorous post-colonial
critique. It has become indispensible for any type of Cultural
studies.

[333]

Literature Review:-In 1992, Gayatri Chakravorty Spikov said in an

interview with New Nation writers conference in South Africa that in
post-colonial terms, everything that has limited or no access to the
cultural imperialism is subaltern. Instead of seeing Subalternity
simply as a voice of the oppressed, or the other, she held it as a
space of difference.
It was Italian Marxist and communist critic Antonio Gramsci (18911937), who was imprisoned for a long time by Mussolini's police,
coined the term Subaltern. By Subaltern he subjected underclass
in a society on whom the dominant power exerts its hegemonic
influence. And thus, subaltern history helps to lay bare previously
covered histories, previously ignored events, previously purposeful
hidden secrets of the past.
But, the credit of making it an academic branch goes to Prof. Ranjit
Guha, the revered Sussex University Professor, Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivok and of course, Prof. Dipesh Chakraborty.
Professor Guha initiated the study by publishing intellectual and
discursive academic writings along with his eight disciples in the

80s.It was named Subaltern Studies Group or simply SSG. The

Oxford University Press in New Delhi came forward to publish the
first volume in 1982.
Ranjit

Guhas

Elementary

Aspects

of

Peasants

Insurgency

in

Colonial India is considered as the most powerful example of

Subaltern historical scholarship. By returning to the 19 th Century
peasants insurrection in Colonial India, he offered a fascinating
account of the peasants insurgent consciousness, rumours, mystic
visions, religiosity and bonds of community. In this interesting
account, Guha attempted to uncover the true face of peasants
existence in colonial India. The elitist historians could not feel the
pulse of the peasant sentiments. Mention can be made in this
respect to the essay by Shahid Amin called Gandhi as Mahatma :
Gorakhpur District, Eastern up, 1921-1922 [ Subalterns Studies III
OUP, Delhi, 1984]and his other essay Approvers Testimony, Judicial
Discourse: The Case of Chouri Choura [ Subaltern Studies V, OUP
Delhi, 1987.] Communalism also emerged as a significant theme in
Subaltern writings of 90s.Gyan Pandey has some notable works to
his credit about the Hindu Muslims riots in modern India. This theme
has become all the more important with the resurgence of Hindu and
Muslim fundamentalism in the recent times. Historian Gyan Prakash,
another Subaltern activist, in one of his essay once said that the real
significance of the shift to the analysis of discourses is the
reformulation of the notion of subaltern.
Guha as mentor and eight younger scholars based in India, the
United Kingdom, and Australia constituted the editorial collective of
Subaltern Studies until 1988. The series now has a global presence
that goes well beyond India or South Asia as an area of academic

specialization. The intellectual reach of Subaltern Studies now also

exceeds that of the discipline of history. Postcolonial theorists of
diverse disciplinary backgrounds have taken interest in the series.
Much discussed, for instance, are the ways in which contributors to
Subaltern Studies have participated in contemporary critiques of
history and nationalism, and of orientalism and Eurocentrism in the
construction of social science knowledge. At the same time, there
have also been discussions of Subaltern Studies in many history and
social science journals. Selections from the series have been
published in English, Spanish, Bengali, and Hindi and are in the
process of being brought out in Tamil and Japanese. A Latin
American Subaltern Studies Association was established in North
America in 1992. It would not be unfair to say that the expression
subaltern studies, once the name of a series of publications in
Indian history, now stands as a general designation for a field of
studies often seen as a close relative of post colonialism.
Gayatri Chakraboty Spivok in an essay entitled, Can the Subaltern
speak? wrote: The Subaltern cannot speak. There is no virtue in
global laundry lists with woman as a pious. Representation has not
withered away. The female intellectual has a circumscribe task
which

she

must

not

disown

with

flourish.

(p.

308)

[654]
Methodology: The paper is an attempt to encapsulate a transparent
historiography of the complex hegemonic periphery of the latest
global intellectual activities on Sublaternity. It is done reviewing the
contextual relevance of the opinions of both past and present
academics on the topic. However, opinions of Ranjit Guha, Gayatri

Chakravorty Spikov and Dipesh Chakraborty have been taken as

theoretical benchmark.

[60]

Analysis:-The Sussex University Professor Ranjit Guha initiated the

study of Subalternity in the 80s of the last century. His main purpose
was to unearth the falsity in Indian History which was written by
the Indian elites at the instruction of the Ruling elites. In this regard
it is to be remembered that India had no tradition of writing the
history. Though there were innumerable intellectual books beginning
with Ramayana and Mahabharata, there was no book on Indian
history. It began under the personal initiative of a few scholars of
East India Company who had to collect the history from Brahmin
Priests ( Indian elites).Naturally the history created by these early
academics was not the real history of the country. Only the elite
society

was

under

the

focus.

Because

of

Castism

and

Class

distinction, the Indian elites did not feel it necessary to say anything
about the largest section of the populace belonging to economic and
racial marginality. So, the history of India became the tales of elitist
personages where facts were manipulated with fictional fantasy and
hipocricy. The history of the country was the history of the Royal
families and their close associates. The subjects (another meaning
of Subaltern) were not considered to be mentioned at all.
Ranjit Guha was the first to notice this and felt the need to dig out
the true history of the country. He took the term Subaltern, a
coinage of the Italian Marxist critic Antonio Gramsci and began his
task of exploring the true India along with his eight disciples in the
Eighties and termed his ambitious project as SSG or Subaltern
Studies Group. Before we proceed further, let us see the evolution of
the term Subaltern first.

Originally

Subaltern

was

military

term

literally

meaning

Subordinate. It was the designation of a lower ranked officer in

British Army.
The

term

Subaltern

is derived from Late Latin subalternus,

"subordinate,from Latin sub,"under" +Latin alternus,"alternate,"fro

m alter, "other." Gramsci identified the subaltern as the social
groups who are excluded from a societys established structures for
political

representation.

In

the

1970s,

the

application

of subaltern began to denote the colonized peoples of the South

Asian Subcontinent, and described a new perspective of the history
of an imperial colony, told from the point of view of the colonized
man and woman, rather than from the points of view of the
colonizers; in which respect, Marxist historians already had been
investigating

colonial

history

told

from

the

perspective

of

the proletariat. In the 1980s, the scope of enquiry of Subaltern

Studies

was

applied

as

an

intervention

in

South

Asian historiography.
In the nineties and the first decade of the 20 th century the subaltern
authors have detected multiple layers of subaltern people living not
only under the colonial hegemony but all over the world even in
countries like UK and USA and naturally the span had taken the
shape of a multi-layered hue.
In Post-colonial theory,

the

term Subaltern describes

the

lower

classes and the social groups who are at the margins of a society
a subaltern is a person rendered without human agency, by his or
her social

status.[2] Nonetheless,

the

literary

critic

and

theoretician Gayatri Spivak advised against a too-broad application

of the term, because: . . . subaltern is not just a classy word for

oppressed, for [the] Other, for somebody whos not getting a piece
of the pie. . . . In post-colonial terms, everything that has limited or
no access to the cultural imperialism is subaltern a space of
difference.
In this sense it is problematic to say who are actually Subalterns.
Does it simply mean just the oppressed? The working class is
oppressed. But they are not subaltern in the true sense of the term.
Similarly there are many people who want to claim subalternity now
a day. Theyre within the hegemonic discourse, wanting a piece of
the pie, and not being allowed, so began shouting and calling
themselves subaltern said Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in an
interview

with

Africa (1992)

the

New

Nation

Writers

Conference

in

South

[3]

In this regard an erstwhile Presidential candidate may be recalled. He

requested the MPs to elect him claiming himself an oppressed
subaltern from North East, which in reality, he was not. Instead, he
was an elite from the Northeast. The same trick has been applied by
many politicians and social parasites for getting a piece of pie to their
dish. Thus the study of Sublaternity deserves extreme caution.

Prof.Dipesh Chakrabortys example of the subaltern is the Indian

rural masses. He argues that within the notion of the modern Indian
state, citizenship requires certain subject-positions that many rural,
illiterate Indians do not have. What is often taken for granted in any
idea of the citizen is a number of things, including the more
positivists

understanding

of

history.

For

the

Indian

peasant,

however, Chakrabarty argues that their mytho-historical conception

is so different, that they are NOT, in fact, citizens of India. Their

worldviews are different enough that they are elided by the state
apparatus. Other examples of the subaltern are indigenous groups or
lower-caste, lower-class women who are marginalized in such a way
as to not have a voice.
Summing up: Though youngest in academic arena, Subaltern studies
have undergone remarkable changes. Today it doesnt simply mean
what it meant at the beginning. It is not just the story of the
underdogs. It has become a platform of the Others to ventilate
their mind and manners.

Secondly, though began as a topic of

History, the area of Subaltern studies has spread to Sociology,

Politics, Anthropology, Geography and even literary criticism within
these 46 years. Moreover, the enormous potentiality of the subject is
smelt in almost all the socio-cultural domains of human activities. It
is not wrong to speculate that very soon the academics would feel
Subalternity

indispensable

for

any

type

of

Cultural

Studies.

Although it is amusing to note the subaltern scholars getting a

special reverence in the academic arenas just because of their
Bottom-Up endeavours, it is a pointer to the enormous potentiality
hidden within the subject. [150]
Bibliographical References:-

i.Books:1.Twentieth century Literacy Criticisms. Delhi : Atlantic. Gandhi Leela. 1999.

2.Post Colonial Theory : A Critical Introduction, Delhi: OUP.
3.Guha, Ranajit. 1982. (Ed.) Subaltern Studies, Writings on South Asian History and
Society (7 volumes). Delhi : OUP.
4.Guha, Ranajit. 1982. (Ed.) Subaltern Studies II The Prose of Counter Insurgency,
Delhi: OUP.
5.Guha, Ranjit. 1982. The Prose of Counter Insurgency is Subaltern Studies II, pp.
6.Guha, Ranajit. 1983. Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
Delhi : OUP.
7.Ludden, David. 2001. (Ed.) Reading Subaltern Studies. Delhi : Permanent Black.

8.Sarkar, Sumit. 1997. The Decline of the Subaltern in Writing Social History, Delhi
: OUP

ii. Website resource links:1.www.wikipedia.org

2.www.blackwellreference.com
3. www.iairs.org
4. www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
5. www.internationalgramscisociety.org

[Total Words-2265:i.s/09-06-2016]