- What is Subaltern Approach
- Origin of Subaltern Approach
- Subaltern Perspective of Indian Sociology
- Subaltern Perspective of Ranajit Guha
- Subaltern Perspective of David Hardiman
- BR Ambedkar: Dalit as Subaltern
- Dalit Liberation: Subaltern Approach
- Critique of Subaltern Studies
Subaltern Approach: An Introduction
Subaltern studies originated in England towards the late 1970s, sparked by a proposal for a new journal in India put forth by a collaboration of English and Indian historians. It emerged as a response to critiques levelled at two dominant schools of modern Indian history: the Cambridge and nationalist-Marxist historians in 1982. Both these schools tended to depict the history of Indian nationalism as the achievement of a privileged elite, neglecting the contributions of the broader populace. This gap in historical narrative spurred the development of subaltern studies, presenting an anti-elitist approach that places subaltern groups at the centre of historical inquiry.
The term “subaltern” denotes a state of subordination based on factors such as caste, class, age, or gender, encompassing elements of both resistance and acquiescence. Essentially, it signifies a perspective from below, an understanding rooted in the experiences and perspectives of marginalized segments of society.
The subaltern approach seeks to redress the balance by foregrounding the politics of the masses in contrast to elite narratives. It not only examines peasant or tribal movements as historical objects but also recognizes them as agents in their own right, possessing a transformative consciousness that shapes their actions and histories.
Origin of Subaltern Approach
Antonio Francesco Gramsci, an Italian Marxist figure born on January 22, 1891, and passing on April 27, 1937, was a multifaceted individual known for his contributions to philosophy, political theory, sociology, history, and linguistics. Alongside his roles as a philosopher, journalist, linguist, writer, and politician, Gramsci co-founded and briefly led the Communist Party of Italy before being incarcerated under Mussolini’s Fascist regime.
Gramsci introduced the term “subaltern” in his prison notebooks, which were later translated into English in 1966. Originally, he used this term to denote peasants who were not integrated into Marx’s industrial capitalist framework.
In India, the field of subaltern studies addresses the historical gap between the narratives of power documented during British colonial rule and the histories of the common people. Dipesh Chakrabarty observes that subaltern studies emerged from anti-colonial perspectives rather than post-colonial ones, though the involvement of scholars like Gayatri Spivak has bridged the movement with postcolonial studies.
Subaltern Perspective of Indian Sociology
In discussions of populism, the focus is primarily on the common people or the masses, advocating for a perspective that looks at society from the bottom up, rather than through the lens of the elite. The subaltern approach delves into society through the comprehensive worldview and ways of life of the masses. It examines potential conflicts between individual and societal identity, spiritual and secular values, unity and diversity, as well as the tension between collective understanding and individuality.
This method holds significant importance in analysing movements among tribal peasants. It aims to rebalance by emphasizing the political agency of the masses in contrast to elite-driven politics. Subaltern historiography is primarily concerned with reconstructing alternative narratives, focusing on the politics and movements of ordinary people as they endeavour to shape their own history.
In sociology, various factors such as gender, caste, religion, race, or any hierarchical institution contribute to subordination. In simple terms, subaltern implies being subordinate. Subordination doesn’t always entail coordination; resistance can emerge, and at other times, people may acquiesce under dominant forces.
Contributors of Subaltern Perspective
The concept of the subaltern represents a significant development in post-colonial discourse, originating in the 1980s through the work of the Subaltern Studies Group. Coined by Ranajit Guha, the term “subaltern” encapsulates the overarching notion of subordinate status within South Asian society, encompassing factors such as class, caste, age, gender, and occupation. In India, scholars associated with the subaltern studies delve into the intricate dynamics between the subaltern populace and the ruling elite, dissecting the power dynamics and patterns of domination and subordination inherent in colonial structures.
Key figures in this intellectual movement include Ranajit Guha, David Hardiman, B.R. Ambedkar, among others. These scholars have contributed significantly to the understanding of subaltern perspectives within the Indian context. Below, we delve into detailed discussions of Ranajit Guha, David Hardiman, and B.R. Ambedkar’s contributions to this field of study.
1. Ranjit Guha
2. Davide Hardiman
3. B.R. Ambedkar
1. Subaltern Perspective of Ranajit Guha
Ranajit Guha, born on May 23, 1923, in Siddhakati, Backergunje, Bengal presidency, is a prominent historian specializing in the Indian subcontinent. In 1959, he relocated to the United Kingdom to assume a position as a reader in the history department at the University of Sussex. Currently residing in Purkersdorf, Austria, with his wife Mechthild Guha, who is of German origin, Guha is best known for his seminal work, “Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.”
Regarded as a pivotal figure in postcolonial and subaltern studies, Guha is recognized as the founding editor of Subaltern Studies. He has held teaching positions at the University of Sussex in England and served as a Professor of History at the Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Guha’s scholarship has left a profound impact on the historiography of the Indian subcontinent and has influenced historical methodologies globally, as well as contributing to cultural studies, literary theory, and social analysis.
The emergence of subaltern studies in India as a postcolonial theory, primarily attributed to Ranajit Guha and his contemporaries including Partha Chatterjee, David Hardiman, Shahid Amin, Gyanendra Pandey, David Arnold, Sumit Sarkar, and Dipesh Chakrabarty, aimed at a re-evaluation of history from the perspective of marginalized communities.
Subaltern historiography, as developed by Guha and his associates, focuses on the history of subaltern groups, advocating for an approach that examines history from below, rather than from elitist viewpoints that often overlook the contributions of marginalized communities to historical narratives.
According to Guha, subaltern historiography delves into the experiences of peasants and tribal communities during India’s colonial period, a perspective often overshadowed by mainstream elitist historiography. He argues that overlooking the political agency of these marginalized groups and their contributions to the nationalist movement renders Indian history incomplete. Guha criticizes elitist historiography for idealizing Indian nationalism as solely driven by indigenous elites, neglecting the broader participation of the masses. He labels these elites as colonial and bourgeois nationalists.
Contrarily, elitist historical narratives often portray the dissent of marginalized groups as mere law-and-order issues, glorifying select elite leaders while disregarding the collective actions of the masses.
Subaltern historiography, however, emphasizes the political agency of marginalized groups within the nationalist movement, asserting that their actions were independent of elite influence. According to subaltern historians, the politics of these groups emerged distinctively from their own experiences and grievances, forming an autonomous sphere separate from elite politics.
Examining the peasant and tribal movements through a subaltern lens is significant as it highlights the divergent political dynamics between the people and the elites within the nationalist struggle. Guha outlines a structural dichotomy within society, separating the politics of the marginalized from those of the dominant groups. These marginalized groups encompass indigenous populations, labouring classes, and intermediate strata, each with their own motivations for resistance against elite domination. However, Guha notes the challenges of forging alliances among these diverse groups due to their differing ideologies and interests.
Guha also critiques elitist historiography for often portraying native elites as benevolent figures resisting colonial rule, despite their exploitative tendencies and lack of concern for the welfare of the masses. He argues that these elites were primarily motivated by a desire for power and privilege within the British Raj, rather than genuine concern for the people’s interests.
Guha suggests that Indian nationalism’s history resembles a spiritual narrative of the Indian elites. The colonial era witnessed movements, protests, and resistance from peasants, tribes and marginalized groups against colonial rule, each with varying intensity. These grassroots mobilizations and resistance efforts emerged independently of elite influence, originating from the people themselves.
Subaltern historiography delineates a dichotomy between the elite and the common populace. Elite political mobilization typically occurred from the top-down, while subaltern mobilization stemmed from grassroots initiatives. Subaltern politics drew upon traditional institutions such as clans, castes, kinship, territoriality, and family networks, as well as experiences of deprivation. In contrast, elite politics and mobilization were primarily driven by legalistic and constitutional considerations.
Subaltern mobilization tended to be more violent, aggressive, and spontaneous, whereas elite mobilization was characterized by caution, control, and moderation. Therefore, the Subaltern Studies project aimed to present an alternative history—one cantered on the people, highlighting peasant assertions, consciousness, mystical visions, religiosity, and social bonds within their communities.
As a Marxist subaltern historian, Guha interprets the past with the intent of fostering radical change in historiography and consciousness. He contends that peasant and tribal insurgents should not be passive subjects of history but rather active agents in shaping their own history, possessing their own transformative consciousness.
2. Subaltern Perspective of David Hardiman
David Hardiman, an eminent scholar in the field of modern Indian history and one of the pioneers of the subaltern studies movement, was born in Rawalpindi, which is now part of Pakistan, in October 1947. Raised in England, he completed his undergraduate studies at the London School of Economics in 1970 and earned his D. Phil. in South Asian History from the University of Sussex in 1975. Currently, he holds the position of a professor in the Department of History at the University of Warwick in the UK.
Throughout his career, Hardiman has delved into the intricate tapestry of South Asian history, with a particular focus on the colonial era and its ramifications on rural society. His academic pursuits have spanned over a decade of extensive research and fieldwork in India. His expertise encompasses various facets of colonial rule, including its socio-political dynamics, the Indian independence movement, and the intersections of power and resistance.
Hardiman’s scholarly journey took a significant turn in the late 1970s when he became involved with a cohort of historians dedicated to exploring the social histories of marginalized communities in South Asia. Together, they adopted the Gramscian concept of ‘subaltern’ to underscore the dynamics of domination and subordination within society.
One of Hardiman’s notable contributions lies in his meticulous examination of the nationalist movement in Gujarat, Mahatma Gandhi’s home state. Here, he scrutinized the agendas of both Gandhian leadership and grassroots activists, shedding light on the intricate power structures prevalent in rural and tribal societies.
David Hardiman’s scholarly endeavours have not only enriched our understanding of modern Indian history but have also paved the way for a nuanced examination of the experiences of subaltern groups within the broader historical narrative.
David Hardiman has authored a book exploring Gandhi’s enduring legacy in both India and the global context. Drawing from his extensive research tenure as a fellow at the Centre for Social Studies in Surat (1983-1989), Hardiman delves into Gandhi’s profound understanding of societal dynamics. His work meticulously examines Gandhi’s involvement with pressing social matters of his time and evaluates his lasting impact on India’s socio-cultural landscape.
The work of David Hardiman can be divided as follows:
1. Hardiman’s Sociological Perspective of Subaltern
2. The Devi Movement in South Gujarat
3. Feeding the Baniya
1. Hardiman’s Sociological Perspective of Subaltern: As a member of the subaltern studies project led by Dr. Ranajit Guha, I focused on investigating the dynamics of domination and subordination within the context of India. My research was shaped by the ideas of prominent Western Marxist historians such as E.P. Thompson, who examined moral economy systems, and Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, who analyzed the complex interplay of exploitation and paternalism in the American South’s slave system. Additionally, I drew inspiration from the works of Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, D.D. Kosambi, Jairus Banaji, and Frank Perlin, integrating their insights into the foundational framework of my research.
2. Framework of the Subaltern Perspective: Sociologists have examined Indian society from various angles, with the subaltern perspective being one of them. David Hardiman utilized this perspective in his research titled “The Coming of Devi,” which delves into a movement among the adivasis of western India aiming to alter their established way of life. Despite similar movements occurring across tribal regions in India over the past century, they have often been marginalized in modern Indian history.
The subaltern perspective serves as a broad framework, but critics, like Guha, have identified several significant issues with it:
- The term “subaltern” lacks clear definition or identification.
- The subaltern perspective has a long history of use.
- The concept of the subaltern is relative, always defined in relation to something or someone else.
The term “subaltern” denotes something positioned “below,” yet what exactly it is below remains ambiguous and is defined through the practice of subaltern studies. Additionally, there is the challenge of distinguishing between the subaltern and the elite, which relies on contextual distinctions. A minor alteration, as observed by Hardiman in his examination of the Devi movement in Gujarat, could cast a tribal leader as either an exploiter or the exploited.
3. The Devi Movement in South Gujarat: Hardiman employed a subaltern lens to examine the Devi Movement in the early 20th century within the South Gujarat (Western Maharashtra region). This movement, initiated by indigenous masses and commonly referred to as the ‘Devi movement,’ was a peaceful endeavour led by tribal communities. Spanning a significant geographical area and involving a substantial number of participants, its primary aim was to enact social reform among the tribal population.
He observed a notable absence of attention towards this tribal movement from various quarters including the contemporary government, newspapers, nationalist factions, and historians. Notably, there existed no comprehensive monograph detailing such movements, nor were they adequately documented. When nationalists did acknowledge these tribal activities, they often attributed them to the influence of Gandhi or to social workers of tribal descent purportedly working towards tribal upliftment.
Hardiman discerned that this perspective effectively negated any agency, decision-making capacity, or autonomy among the tribal communities. This denial of agency to tribal groups, and more broadly to other subaltern entities, aligns with criticisms levelled against the dominant perspective from a subaltern standpoint.
4. Genesis of Resistance: Numerous individuals and collectives endeavoured to caution the adivasis (tribals) about the perils of alcohol consumption. Among them were the rural elite and Bhajan-Mandal (Hymen chanting) groups within the village. However, a significant shift in the consciousness of the adivasis (tribals) occurred with the emergence of the Devi movement.
The Devi Movement originated as a grassroots resistance against moneylenders in western India. Originating as a modest gathering among the fisher-folk of Palghar taluk in late 1921, it later proliferated across other regions of Gujarat. The adivasis engaged in this social reform initiative not only to combat their own drinking habits but also to rebel against the control of Parsi liquor merchants who ensnared them in debt bondage, as well as against the dominance of large landlords.
The figure of ‘Devi’ was believed to have descended from the eastern mountains, conveying her demands through spirit mediums. These mediums, draped in red cloth, would address the assembled crowds, their heads shaking as they purportedly channelled the messages of the divine entity.
Then, they pronounced the commands of Devi:
- Stop drinking liquor and toddy.
- Stop eating meat and fish.
- Live a clean and simple life.
- Man should take bath twice a day.
- Women should take bath thrice a day.
- Have nothing to do with Parsis.
After the ceremony concluded, the young woman portraying Devi received either coins or gifts. Subsequently, they gathered for a communal meal (Bhandara). The introduction of the collective and the concept of ‘Devi’ significantly impacted the consciousness of the tribal community. This shift spurred their political organization, leading to improved living standards as they distanced themselves from the influence of moneylenders and Parsis. However, this resistance didn’t completely liberate the tribes. The dominance of the Parsis was supplanted by a more hegemonic rule from the tribal elite, albeit yielding some advantages.
In the areas where the Devi movement took hold, exploitative capitalist farmers struggled to establish themselves. The indigenous people (adivasis) maintained their dignity and autonomy even after the movement waned, continuing to engage in self-help initiatives and collective actions for the common good. This movement represented a distinctive assertion of self-respect by the tribal communities in the forested regions of southern Gujarat.
5. Feeding the Baniya: The book titled “Feeding the Baniya” delves into the intricate dynamics of power wielded by moneylenders over rural communities in India for centuries. This power, extending beyond mere economic influence, encompasses political and cultural dimensions as well. Despite resistance from the subaltern classes, the usurers managed to maintain their dominance, adapting to evolving state formations while exploiting and interacting with the classes they subjugated.
Hardiman explores the genesis of this power structure, examining how moneylenders ingrained themselves within successive state systems and how the exploited peasantry engaged with and resisted them. The cyclical nature of indebtedness perpetuates the enrichment of moneylenders at the expense of impoverished peasants, symbolizing the integration of small-scale agrarian societies into larger capitalist economies.
Despite cheaper and more accessible loan options from institutions like the State Bank of India, villagers continue to turn to moneylenders due to the intricate web of local power dynamics. While economic factors play a role, Hardiman argues that ideological and hegemonic influences are equally significant. Moneylenders not only provide financial assistance but also establish a system of beliefs that reinforces their control over clients, despite underlying tensions and resistance.
The historical continuum of feeding moneylenders spans pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial eras, with significant shifts in the role of merchants and usurers. The institution of usury has evolved since Indian independence, reflecting broader societal changes. Hardiman’s examination, including his analysis of the Devi movement, offers a subaltern perspective on how villagers navigate these transformations while grappling with the shifting landscape of wider society.
3. B.R. Ambedkar: Dalit as Subaltern
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, known respectfully as Babasaheb, was a prominent figure in Indian history, renowned for his multifaceted contributions as a jurist, economist, politician, and social reformer. He championed the cause of the Dalit Buddhist movement and vehemently opposed social injustices and discrimination faced by the untouchables, also known as Dalits. Throughout his illustrious career, Ambedkar held several significant positions, including serving as British India’s Minister of Labour in the Viceroy’s Executive Council and later as independent India’s inaugural Minister of Law and Justice. Notably, he played a pivotal role as the chairperson of the Constituent Drafting Committee, earning him the distinction of being the primary architect of the Indian Constitution.
Ambedkar’s intellectual prowess was evident in his critical analysis of India’s caste system and its entrenched rigidity. He fearlessly addressed the plight of Dalits and tribal communities (Adivasis), highlighting the profound impacts of caste-based discrimination on marginalized groups. Despite the initial neglect of these issues during the early stages of the Indian national movement, Ambedkar remained steadfast in his commitment to challenging the caste hierarchy.
Born into a lower-caste family himself, Ambedkar dedicated his life to combatting the oppressive caste system that relegated Dalits to the margins of society. Following his education abroad, he returned to India and embarked on a career in law. In 1920, he established the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha in Bombay, aiming to advocate for Dalit interests and address their grievances through governmental channels. Ambedkar not only critiqued the caste system but also played a pivotal role in the movement to eradicate caste-based discrimination. His tireless efforts paved the way for Dalits to assert their rights to equality and opportunities on par with other castes.
Major writings of Ambedkar are:
1. The Untouchables, Who are They?
2. Who were Sudra?
3. States and Minorities
4. Emancipation of the Untouchables
5. Annihilation of Caste
In this discussion, the primary focus lies on Ambedkar’s perspective on the subaltern. This demographic consists of Dalits, who endure severe deprivation and are among the most marginalized and discriminated segments of Indian society.
According to B R Ambedkar, subaltern communities are those subjected to discrimination by dominant castes. Traditionally, lower-caste individuals are known as Dalits within the Hindu Varna system, but in contemporary political discourse, Scheduled Caste individuals are commonly referred to as Dalits. The term “Scheduled Caste” was initially introduced by the British colonial Government through the Government of India Act 1935.
Dalit Liberation: Subaltern Approach
With the emergence of Ambedkar in Indian politics during the 1920s, the discourse on social reform took on a new significance. He emphasized the imperative for the marginalized to take charge of their own struggles, asserting that only they truly understood their plight.
Ambedkar urged people to become aware of their circumstances and to rely on self-empowerment as the key to combating societal injustices. He worked tirelessly to uplift the spirits of millions who had been relegated to sub-human status, teaching them that liberty was not bestowed but earned through relentless struggle.
The elevation of the self, he argued, could not be achieved through external blessings but required individual effort and determination. Recognizing the lack of courage among the oppressed masses, particularly the Dalits, he provided them with a vision and purpose, encouraging them to assert their human rights through active engagement.
Ambedkar identified the symbiotic relationship between caste and Brahminical Hinduism, which perpetuated discrimination against marginalized groups. He attributed the oppressive nature of Indian society to the Hindu scriptures, guarded zealously by the elite, who deemed it sacrilegious for anyone else to access them.
The Manusmriti prescribed severe punishment for acts deemed sacrilegious. Ambedkar critiqued Hinduism, viewing the Vedas, Smritis, and Shastras as tools of oppression against the untouchables. His perspective unveiled the true nature of these texts.
In his work “Annihilation of Caste,” Ambedkar argued that the Smritis and Shastras weren’t expressions of true religion but rather systems designed to oppress untouchables, denying them basic rights and equality. He advocated for the dismantling of such a discriminatory religion, stating that working towards its destruction was not irreligious.
Ambedkar’s subaltern approach aimed at the emancipation and empowerment of Dalits, offering an alternative to the dominant Hindu nationalist discourse represented by figures like Raja Rammohan Roy, B.G. Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru.
He articulated a form of nationalism, dubbed ‘Dalit-Bahujan Samaj,’ which incorporated the subaltern philosophies of figures like Jyotirao Phule and Periyar E.V. Ramaswami Naicker. This nationalism opposed Hinduism and Brahminical dominance, striving for a casteless and classless society where birth and occupation didn’t determine one’s status.
Ambedkar’s critique of pre-colonial Brahmanism within this framework highlighted the inegalitarian nature of the caste system, wherein Brahminical castes exploited productive castes. He provided insights into safeguarding Dalit interests within the caste-ridden social structure of India.
Critique of Subaltern Studies
The original Subaltern Studies group emerged from the realms of historical and cultural inquiry, with the concept of the subaltern evolving to denote marginalized communities resisting the dominance of the elite. This perspective has transcended disciplinary boundaries, influencing literature, anthropology, women’s studies, gender studies, and sexuality studies worldwide. Often intersecting with post-colonial studies, Subaltern Studies has seen significant expansion.
Gayatri Spivak’s influential essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, and Rosalind O’Hanlon’s critique highlighted the collective’s insufficient consideration of gender in discussions of subalternity, noting the absence of women who were often relegated to the margins of colonial narratives.
Criticism of Subaltern Studies has centered on its perceived oversimplification of class dynamics, with David Ludden arguing that the rigid distinction between “elite” and “subaltern” resembles a theoretical barrier akin to a physical partition, hindering comprehensive analysis. This critique suggests that the alienation inherent in subaltern politics prevents effective challenges to entrenched power structures.
Edward Said, in his seminal work “Orientalism,” underscored how Subaltern Studies contributed to deconstructing the binary of self/Other prevalent in nationalist discourses. Scholars such as Gyanendra Pandey, Partha Chatterjee, and Shahid Amin responded by employing Subaltern Studies methodologies to scrutinize the notion of a monolithic national identity, advocating for a more pluralistic understanding that embraces fragmentation.
In addition to modern criticisms directed towards the publications of the subaltern studies group from the 1980s, Vivek Chibber in 2014 presented an extensive critique in his work titled “Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital.” This critique is recognized as one of the most thorough examinations of subaltern studies as a theoretical framework. Chibber not only addresses the issue of binary thinking but also explores subaltern studies’ position within Marxism, highlighting its shortcomings in delivering on its fundamental promise to develop a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of modernity in the Eastern context. Moreover, Chibber argues that subaltern studies fail to provide a robust platform for radical critique.
References:
Selected Subaltern Studies, Edited by Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, https://global.oup.com/academic/product/selected-subaltern-studies-9780195052893?cc=us&lang=en&
Subaltern Studies Reader, Ranajit Guha, https://www.upress.umn.edu/9780816627592/subaltern-studies-reader-1986-1995/
The Political Philosophies of Antonio Gramsci and B. R. Ambedkar, Edited By Cosimo Zene, https://www.routledge.com/The-Political-Philosophies-of-Antonio-Gramsci-and-B-R-Ambedkar-Itineraries-of-Dalits-and-Subalterns/Zene/p/book/9781138578661?srsltid=AfmBOop4mMRNrfdbSqcCtva_r2-Epwxya2BNUHKXdGz_Nc_fLx2GW2S7