Session 3: Community in India: Post-Colonial Theory and Subaltern Studies - Class Discussion

September 20, 2017

Introduction:

We began the discussion with the question of where did the idea of subaltern came from? 

Most historians prior to the 1980s, when writing about anti-colonialism and nationalism narratives, did not take into consideration movements, mobilisations and initiatives taken up by people outside the fold of the elite/middle classes. In other words, standard nationalist historiography represented the history of nationalist elites. Events of peasant uprisings and anti-colonial revolts by the masses were ignored or depicted as law and order issues. The Subaltern school emerged in an attempt to take in to account such struggles of non-elites and their participation in nationalism and anti-colonialism.  

Understanding mass movements:

History of this nationalism, as represented by the elite, excluded other forms of revolts and struggles of other groups. It seemed to indicate the idea that the masses lacked political consciousness and that such consciousness emerged through interactions with the elite.

The subaltern school debunked such notions and tried to address the question of how we understand mass movements? What were the main drivers of these movements? What happened to the minority groups during these struggles?

At that time, only political theories from the west were available, of Marx, Engels etc., on questions of citizenship, liberty etc... and they were unable to explain the Indian scenario where people did not comprise a 'proletariat' and where religion and caste identities played an important role in daily life and mobilisations. Thus, most of the early subaltern work on tribal rebellion attempted to move away from the hyper-rationalism of ideologies such as Marxisim and understand how early rebellions came about

Understanding subaltern identities and language of explaining identities:

In order to understand Subaltern identities, we need to consider questions like - what kind of archival sources should be referred to? Especially, when there is no record of peasant history of land ownership and other demographic details. Can we have a political theory which can work in this context.

The use of language within which to articulate subaltern struggles represented themes of European liberalism. The question then is, how do we use language which does not seem like it is aping western consciousness (European liberalisation).

The problem in discussions on identity is that, if we leave aside class struggles of groups, how do we understand the mobilisation of peasants against landowners, and struggles of farmers etc. We also need to understand how particular identities are created? What is the politics at this level? It is not the form that elite politics takes – 'organised'/structured/non-violent - but highly particular too and very grounded at the local level..

The debates about communitarianism v/s liberal individualism, religion:

It is important to contextualise the debate of communitarianism v/s liberal individualism when talking about community and identity in the Indian context. Partha Chatterjee’s pieces seek to overcome the binary that this debate rests on to show that the identity of a person in a community and as an individual is fluid and changes according to the various contexts.

What does religion and caste identity mean and what role does it play in the subaltern studies. Is it the practices of religion as in everyday popular culture which gets framed within religiosity or is it religion used as a communal tool to get their demands met?

The framing of the working class is fluid and emerges in a context of its own. It comes from a certain history, certain structures and institutions which the working class help to build that become a manifestation of class consciousness. Religion has been used as an appropriation tool which is political in nature.

The subaltern today:

A larger question which also arises in contemporary politics is whether the ‘subaltern’ exits today (as defined by the Subaltern school). For Gramsci, the subaltern was a political position that, by itself, was incapable of thinking the state and once the subaltern could imagine the state, he would transcend it. Today, when it seems like the subaltern has more engagement with the state than others, do we still think of them as 'subaltern'?

There is a need for a new conceptual lens or way of categorising communities that are on the margins, given that they are part of larger political movements and strongly entangled with the state. We need to understand how this politics works and shapes them.

Anu, Priya and Keya