This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalization of South Asia
Anthem Press ,
A Brief History of Subalternity
UBALTERN STUDIES1 began its impressive career in England at the end of the 1970s, when conversations on subaltern themes among a small group of English and Indian historians led to a proposal to launch a new journal in India. Oxford University Press in New Delhi agreed instead to publish three volumes of essays called Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History <andSociety. These appeared annually from 1982 and their success stimulated three more volumes in the next five years, all edited by Ranajit Guha. When he retired as editor in 1989, Ranajit Guha and eight collaborators2 had written thirty-four of forty-seven essays in six Subaltern Studies volumes, as well as fifteen related books.3 By 1993, the group he remembers as originally being 'an assortment of marginalised academics'4 had sufficient international prestige for a Latin America Subaltern Studies Group to be inspired !by this interdisciplinary organisation of South Asian scholars led by Ranajit Guha.'5 Today, eleven (and counting) Subaltern Studies volumes have appeared. They include essays by forty-four authors whose allied publications apprpach two hundred, including translations in several languages,6 yet the core group still includes eight founders7 and Ranajit Guha's 'intellectual driving force'8 is still visible. Readings of Subaltern Studies began in India, where writing about Subaltern Studies began in book reviews. At first, each volume in the series was reviewed separately as a collection of essays, but by 1986
1989. and cultural studies. target. sociology. Intellectual cohesiveness has never been a project priority. or to speculate that cutting-edge ideas have dispersed globally like news on the internet. lightning rod. By 1990 the historian Burton Stein could cite the growing interest in Subaltern Studies as one sign that the 1980s were 'a decade of historical efflorescence' in South Asian studies. because inside and outside. when Selected Subaltern Studies-WAS published by Oxford University Press in New York and Oxford. In the introduction. but other brands are more powerful. Respondents. it is often the only brand of Iridian history that readers know by name. in their own place and time. orientalist images. and how much internal change is cause or effect of external change is unknowable. The intellectual history of subalternity has emerged outside and in opposition to Subaltern Studies as much as inside it. Europe.' Their seminal essays appeared in paperback in 1988. but is written for readers everywhere. and North America. or 1993. Each interprets subalternity contextually. Outsiders doing independent work on subaltern themes have embraced Subaltern Studies as a kindred project—for example. or to trace the influence of teachers and students. Subaltern Studies does not mean today what it meant in 1982. When approaching the intellectual history of subalternity. Its internal coherence has been less intellectual than personal and more formal than substantive. but ambiguously. anthropology. even in India. hitching post. magnet. it will not do to imagine that Subaltern Studies Introduction 3 dropped a weighty stone into a quiet pond. gold mine. 1985.10 The book brings together a dozen essays published in South Asia. and texts. Insiders have become outsiders. edited by Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Outsiders have built outer walls for Subaltern Studies and landscaped its environment to dramatise its distinctiveness. interlocutors. arguments.11 This book provides a reference guide for reading Subaltern Studies in a world context. from 1983 to 1997. Authors of these essays have all made their mark on the intellectual history of subalternity. subalterns have made little headway. I have compiled Reading Subaltern Studies to provide a non-subalternist introduction to Subaltern Studies. outside Subaltern Studies. "Academic work on subaltern themes quickly detached subalternity from its various inventors. Migrations of reading dispersed research on subaltern themes connected' by circulating terminologies. and fortress for scholars ranging across disciplines from history to political science. and its own institutional boundaries have always been permeable. or to measure the contribution of Subaltern Studies—let alone to unravel the inner history of the project—but rather to inform reading and discussion. my main task is to outline a history of contextuality at the intersection of Subaltern Studies and its readership. icon. and most of that context is outside India.12 In opposition to these. literary criticism. and in doing this I also indicate how the subject of subalternity has changed over the years. interpreters and translators have worked with Subaltern Studies material and redefined it by writing about it differently. outside forces moulded the project itself. being composed primarily by group loyalties and by invitations to join Subaltern Studies activities. 'subalterns. as we will see.2 Reading Subaltern Studies an accumulation of writing inside and outside the project had established a distinctive school of research whose adherents came to be called 'subalternists' or simply. ethnic stereotypes. where some readers accept and others reject the claim phat Subaltern Studies represents the real substance of subalternity. How did this change occur? Intellectual environments have changed too much to allow us to measure cause-andeffect in particular acts of writing and reading. Outsiders have become insiders. National narratives. though Subaltern Studies and essays reprinted here primarily concern India. a weapon. Outside India. As we will see. each in their own way. Change has occurred inside the Subaltern Studies project. subaltern subjects have been reinvented disparately. Readings of . and Hindu majoritarianism are vastly more influential. My goal is not to formulate a critique. This book proposes instead that a compact but complex history of reading and writing Jias constituted the subject of subalternity in a widening world of scholarship. Subaltern Studies occupies a subject position inside India. with a foreword by Edward Said. in a 1994 collection of essays in the American Historical Review. and it has appeared primarily in solidarity against critics. as the leaders often say. to assess the merits.9 In the 1990s Subaltern Studies became a hot topic in academic circles on several continents. Australia.
and cultures 'from below' which have dispersed terms. E.G. Antonio Gramsci (1891—1937) began to weave ideas about subaltern identity into theories of class struggle. but in addition.17 is often cited as an inspiration for the growing number of'bottom up' studies of people whose history had been previously ignored. methods. and soon after the Russian Revolution. though Gramsci himself was a communist activist whose prison notes were smuggled to Moscow for publication and translation.22 Hundreds of titles on rural history had appeared. Peter Gran argues. to locate Subaltern Studies in the context of relevant English language scholarship. it applied to vassals and peasants.1? By 1979.21 In the 1970s. N. The making of the English working class.' The word has a long past. who wrote biographies of Robert Clive. and 'religious fascism.26 whose epic of resistance to British rule had been reproduced in many popular media. cultural change preoccupies scholars and activists. Marxism is alive.25 Insurgency attracted special attention. its 'principal novelty' is its ability to represent India by being read into ideologies of difference and otherness. Reflecting this trend. Subaltern Studies is read against liberalism. histories. and Thomas Munro.15 Ironically. Historical Origins: Insurgency. In late-medieval English. women's history was popular enough in the US to merit source books and guides to research J9 In 1982. it denoted lower ranks in the military.4 Reading Subaltern Studies the Indian history contained in Subaltern Studies are inflected variously by national contexts in the world of globalisation.23 In 1976.' whereas in the US.20 In South Asia. authors writing 'from a subaltern perspective' published novels and histories about military campaigns in India arid America. Even the Indian Home Ministry feared revolution. which endeavours. suggesting peasant origins. Ranga and L. including cinema. in the ethnographic present. well after translations of The modern prince (1957) and Prison notebooks (1966) had appeared. In the US. Subaltern Studies deployed some of Gramsci's ideas16 at a critical juncture in historical studies.P. that in India. Thompson's 1963 book. The Great War provoked popular accounts of subaltern life Introduction 5 in published memoirs and diaries. mastered this genre. By the late 1970s.29 and elements . to see colonialism and nationalism as cultural phenomena. though they were not called that then.14 By 1982. and bits of theory used in Subaltern Studies among countless academic sites. and most scholars embrace politics in one form or another as a professional responsibility of citizenship. By 1700. Gleig (1796-1888). In India. Warren Hastings. more modestly.27 Romantic heroism attached to old rebel histories. and G. Eric Wolf published what can be called the first global history from below. decades before. scholars outside or opposed to communist parties (and to Marxism) have most ardently embraced his English books (as well as those of the Frankfurt School). some directly inspired by rebels like Kattabomman Nayakkar. To map the whole world of contested meanings lies far beyond the scope of this book. the history of subaltern groups was thriving. however. Such contextual differences differentiate readings of subalternity. By 1800. a separation that bolsters academic credibility. two new journals featuring studies of South Asian peasants had begun publishing in the US and UK. for instance.28 In this context. a rapid decline in state-centred historical research had already occurred and social history 'from below' was flourishing. and to distance academic work from partisan politics. Nationalism. more scholars took up studies of insurrection. to disdain Marxism.R. Eric Stokes announced the 'return of the peasant' to colonial history. colonialism includes capitalist imperialism (which is still at work in the world of globalisation). the 1857 centenary had stimulated new histories of rebellion. Natarajan pioneered this field. Gramsci's ideas were in wide circulation.13 Though globalisation circulates texts and ideas around the world. until Raymond Williams promoted his theory in 1977. But in South Asia. Marxism. it nonetheless divides reading environments. and Social Theory In the last forty years.24 Guides to sources promoted more local research. readers are generally encouraged to think about cultures in essentialist terms. scholars have produced countless studies of societies. the 1960s and 1970s raised concern about revolution in the present. the 1993 edition of The new shorter Oxford English dictionary included 'history' for the first time as a context for defining 'subaltern. Gramsci was not influential in the English-reading world.
From this theoretical perspective. At the same time. when Hamza Alavi theorised peasant revolution. Thompson and George Rude50 and drawing liberally from theories of peasant struggles against global capitalism51—supported the idea that popular insurgency in British India emerged from enraged indigenous moral sensibilities.33J. Scott argued that anticolonial revolutions expressed an insurgent peasantry's moral economy and Samuel Popkin countered that rational calculations motivated competing rebel groups.48 Indian historians castigated Cambridge inattention to national ideals and popular forces. Sen on rebels in Bengal. debates raged in the early days of the Iranian revolution.B. Following the appearance of Anil Seal's The emergence of Indian nationalism: Competition and collaboration in the later nineteenth century. regional. formation of cliques. and national levels. which entailed new interpretations of the national past.49 Scott's approach—adapted from E. Tapan Raychaudhuri captured his critique of their work in the phrase. 1885—1947*2 also conveys the intensity of debates at the time by starting off with a thumping critique of historians (mostly at Cambridge University) who comprised the so-called Cambridge School of South Asian history. Their timing was critical. Jha studied Kol rebellions. Chaudhuri. By contrast.41 When the founders of Subaltern Studies first met in England at the end of the 1970s. Bailey. Desai's masterful collection. and power of specific class interests inside political parties and factions. the upward trend in research on popular insurgency accelerated: highlights include work by K.32 Stephen Fuchs explored tribal messianism.44 In 1979.G. where James C. American historians castigated Cambridge inattention to Indian culture at a time when a 'cultural school' of Indian history was developing around Bernard S.K. A major transition in political culture was under way.37 Ghanshyam Shah's early studies of Gujarat.34 and Muin-uddin Ahmad Khan studied early Fara'Idi rebels in Bengal.36 V. B. and his landmark 1983 book. and S.6 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 7 deepening.47 Its critics actually named the Cambridge School and made it seem more a 'school' than it was.38 a flurry of work on Mappillai revolts in Malabar.52 who insisted that politics operate inside institutions that organise competition for power.P. Sumit Sarkar argued on these lines to show that autonomous popular movements shaped Indian nationalism by provoking dialogue and tension with national leaders that produced various contingent outcomes.31 but in the 1960s. when early Indian studies of Indian rebels sought to recuperate insurgent mentalities. and not only in India. Modern India. One telling debate concerned Southeast Asia.35 In the 1970s. Provocation became its legacy. as we will see.39 Kathleen Gough and Hari Sharma's path-breaking Imperialism and revolution in South Asia. for a Cambridge 'school' developed around the study of Indian national politics just when disillusionment with India's national government was . Peasant struggles in India.'45 but we can now appreciate that Cambridge scholars had opened the historical study of political institutions in South Asia by exploring the agency of individuals.^ they had been hard at work unpacking the politics of Indian nationalism at the local. Raghavaiah's work on tribal revolts (published by the Andhra Rastra Adimajati Sevak Sangh). and Michel Foucault were beginning to influence English writers. Nationality had become a pivotal subject of contention and Cambridge had sparked controversy about two questions that stood out above others: What is the role of culture in nationalism? and: What is the relationship between states and popular politics? On both questions. class and other interest groups fought for power under the banner of nationalism at of its intellectual history go back to the 1920s. when Mujahedin fought Soviets in Afghanistan and Antonio Gramsci.C. among communists and in the Kisan Sabha. Sengupta. Similar academic oppositions occurred elsewhere. they were surrounded by decades of research on history from below and on insurgency in colonial India. 'animal politics. Sumit Sarkar used it to write a new kind of national history text with popular movements at centre stage.R. Cambridge had drained radicalism and national resurgence from Indian political history just when they were attracting more attention from scholars who were concerned to chart new national trajectories.30 Indigenous Indian theories of peasant revolt had emerged in the 1930s.*0 and A. Cambridge historians echoed Popkin and political anthropologist F.46 They had also begun to integrate studies of politics before and after 1947. Jurgen Habermas. the international expansion of historical studies fostered new schools of specialisation that defined themselves by opposition to one another.K. the academic study of insurrection came into its own. Cohn at the University of Chicago.
. in part because. [form] . fragmented. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism?* which abandoned class analysis. In the 1970s. A new kind of nationality was coalescing in a separate domain of popular experience. local struggles led by communists were potentially revolutionary.'54 even those who agreed with him—like Sumit Sarkar. Dhanagare. but insurgency had not become revolution. peasants. opposition to caste oppression. workers. the other. that 'the politics of the people . Why did nationalism provoke revolution in China and Vietnam. Tamil Nadu. dominant state institutions had managed to survive as though secure inside a mountain fortress high above the plains. and after 1947. ignored state politics. significant social change. an autonomous domain. even revolution.R. Opposing theories served opposing schools.that theories of caste are ruling class ideology. In fierce opposition to this line of argument. Muslims had acquired a separate political history61 that became more prominent in the context of Hindu majoritarianism. Historians were dividing along schisms in social theory into .60 Looking back from 1980 into the decades before 1947. historians were busy exploring disconnections between official nationalism and popular movements. an official history filled with elites and political parties. So did Benedict Anderson's book. and Gyanendra every level of the colonial system. because state institutions had remained substantially unchanged despite many decades of popular insurgency. but not India? How do oppressed people take over governments? How do nations redesign states? Why not revolution in South Asia? These were pressing questions. High-caste elites had always needed coercive power to keep low castes.. Politics. Despite the lack of revolution. and Globalisation Subaltern Studies joined debates about insurgency and nationality59 at the breach between popular unrest and state power.64 But communalism and regionalism did not attract Subaltern Studies.N. . struggling against one another. D.8 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 9 bourgeoisie had incorporated into a national system of electoral representation. in 1982.62 Regional movements became prominent—and most thoroughly studied by Cambridge historians63—after the 1956 reorganisation of Indian states along linguistic lines. electoral democracy. this possibility had become a serious problem. they continued to struggle from above and below inside national regimes.58 Shirting Ground: Nations. Majid Siddiqi. and tribal groups in place. Subaltern Studies dramatised this division. and in places like Tanjavur district. Hamza Alavi. Barrington Moore had explained the lack of revolution in British India by accepting the wisdom of Indology and social theory that India's caste culture and self-contained village societies made revolution impossible. So were culture and political economy. but all insurgency is self-limiting.65 which instead focused on the separation of political strata.55 Traditionally localised social hierarchies formed a fragmented political base. By 1983. A. nationalist agitation. a people's history filled with native culture and popular insurjgency. Class conflict could never engender revolutionary class solidarity. and class struggles by low-caste and untouchable (Dalit) workers did occur. producing conflict-ridden political movements and state regimes.57 In this perspective.. and tumultuous independence not only in 1947 (India and Pakistan) and 1948 (Sri Lanka) but also in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war. this connection sustained the possibility of radical change. impervious to class mobilisation. and argued that cultural forces produced national identity and passion. Elites needed states to suppress revolution.opposing schools that separated society and culture from state institutions and political economy. despite rampant crises. In 1966. Desai. Modern states did not prevent rebellion. The breach was widening at the time. when Ranajit Guha announced. Louis Dumont's influential Homo hierarchies: The caste system and its implications (published in English in 1966) presented a comprehensive model of Indian civilisation based on the logic of caste. Kathleen Gough and others asserted . which the modern urban . After all. first published in 1983. which was becoming increasingly isolated from state institutions and national elites. scholars were writing two kinds of national history: one. who soon joined the project—still assumed that diverging domains of nationality were connected. Nations and states were separating like oil and water. National politics had always included both popular insurgency and elite conservatism.56 Bolstering this argument. But even so. India's indigenous culture can sustain a diverse.
inside a subaltern space. 'Nehruvian socialism. Scott's Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance76 announced a broad move away from studies of revolution into the analysis of localised. Desai's Peasant struggles in India (1979) and Agrarian struggles in India after independence (1986) not only promoted the study of agrarian upheavals in the past. In 1986. which the alien rulers support so that their exploitation may continue. Ranajit Guha accounts for his own alienation from nationalism by citing the early seventies' 'drama of Naxalite clashes with the organs of the state and the violence of counterinsurgency measures. Scholars who claimed to speak for people who had been left out of nationalism marched away from scholars who continued to fuse popular history with national politics. After 1980. Books like A.' The World Bank and IMF forced structural adjustment on poor countries to open their markets. when a nationalist academic critique of empire inspired national politics and history at the same time. when he became President of the All-India Congress Committee. Ranajit Guha's Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency depicted tribal revolts as completely separate from nationalism. local democracy. critical attacks on the public sector widened what many scholars began to see as a permanent rift between people and states.74 and expressing radical aspirations among women. the way Gandhi used philosophy. they also opposed the technocratic developmentalism of the Green Revolution and the status quo politics of cultural traditionalism. farm finance. which engaged the past to inform national debates about land reform.66 Sumit Sarkar's Modern India gave workers' and peasants' movements more autonomous political space than any history text had ever done before. below.theory sidelined governments and valorised non-governmental organisations.68 A third generation of nationalists. In India.72 As new popular movements arose from many quarters in India—communal. Foucault's influence was spreading. an expanding gulf between the histories of peoples and states ripped many old bonds between academics and politics. this kind of scholarship goes back to the 1870s.10 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 11 Pandey had already published books on splits between the Indian National Congress and peasant movements.78 Development. The breach between popular and national history then expanded to vast proportions in the 1980s and 1990s. personal resistance to the power of elites and states.79 Constraints exerted by state power—theorised most trenchantly by fcL .70 In this intellectual environment. planning.'71 But more importantly for many others. and tribal groups75—old nationalism lost legitimacy and the Left and the Right fought for its legacy.R.67 In South Asia. what became known as their 'failure' came to symbolise state" failure generally. Popular resistance to state power became a prominent academic theme in the 1980s. Socialist regimes died from various causes. workers. One key feature stands out when we recall that histories 'from below' had originally emerged inside an intellectual fusion of historical research and national politics. 1930. history 'below' embraced history 'above. Subaltern Studies entered the academic scene by asserting the complete autonomy of lower class insurgency. including Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.' Gaps and failures separating levels and types of national activity seemed to be conjunctural problems to be overcome within a unified national history.73 regional. a new derogatory phrase entered political discourse.' Critics of state-led development stood up for the interests and cultures of the poor and marginalised. Indira Gandhi's Emergency in 1975 made the Indian state blatantly dictatorial. and in.77 As the Cold War came to an end. and other topics of hot dispute. Global capitalism fought states for power over national resources. James C. By the 1990s. Nehru used history to inform his politics. peasants. an array of scholars inside and outside Subaltern Studies had made everyday resistance a basic feature 6f life in South Asia. industrialisation. It is easy to forget how radical the intellectual work of the early Indian nationalists was in its day. built upon along legacy of critical scholarship. This changing intellectual climate has yet to be adequately historicised and can only be outlined here in the sketchiest manner. Nehru announced an enduring theme in historical research by saying. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher fought to 'get the state off our backs. 'the great poverty and misery of the Indian People are due not only to foreign exploitation in India but also to the economic structure of society.'69 Such pronouncements at the apex of nationalism stimulated many histories from below.
87 Discursively deconstructing cultural power and recuperating everyday resistance became compelling projects for scholars who discovered the failures and betrayals of modernity. Ranajit Cuba's assertion that the Indian nation had failed 'to come into its own' evoked failed revolution. Nehru's regime was said to have failed the Indian nation. Eleven authors in the first three volumes— Shahid Amin. a post-nationalist reimagining of the Indian nation on the underside. and physically centralised. a struggle that gripped the world for a century and a hah0. state dependent capitalist firms. as supporters for Khalistan. Subaltern India emerged in fragments during the 1980s and 1990s. as did its readership and its critical appreciation. and representations came of age in a world of globalisation. the nation was being reconfigured. In 1982. and the Enlightenment. Scott's third book made 'seeing like a state' inefficient and implicitly oppressive.'85 Eric Hobsbawm called 1989 the end of'the age of extremes' and said about the 1990s that 'citizens of they*» desiecle tapped their way through the global fog that surrounded them. sometime after 1973.. industrial labour unions. re-theorised.'84 Subaltern Studies also became entangled with efforts to reimagine history itself. and New Departures The original substance of Subaltern Studies emerged from work-inprogress in the late 1970s. New approaches to nationality came forward.82 In this new context. . Benedict Anderson's Imagined communities sought to redress the failure of communists and Marxists to understand nationalism. very abstract level that is far removed from immediate experience and is apparently outside the effective control of the state machinery on the other. certain .83 and it changed form. literary turn. capitalist development. communism. Cultural studies became increasingly prominent. The failure of the modern state pervaded academic writing. it had new connotations.12 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 13 Foucault—were discovered in development institutions once thought progressive. and the rising prominence of his book in academic circles reflects a broad intellectual trend: political nationalism lost its grip on the historical imagination as nations were reinvented as 'imagined communities. but by 1990. and Sumit Sarkar—were . Eelam. Partha Chatterjee. regions. and socialism. 'apparently characterised by the weakening and partial dissolution of the institutions and centres of power that had been at the heart oTthe state-interventionist mode [of capitalist development]: national state bureaucracies. Gyanendra Pandey. Stephen Henningham. Das. Inventing Originality: Rejection. and as gjobal media produced glossy images of the Indian middle class for Indian consumption. David Arnold. and subcultures on the one hand and by a process of globalisation and concentration of capital on a new. parties. he said. Crossroads. positivism. Gautam Bhadra. Arvind N.'86 Epistemologies and ways of knowing history came under scrutiny as social theory took a linguistic. organisations.. The fragmentation of the Soviet Union. In 1983. typically hyperbolic.K. Canada. 'The bloody contest between capitalism and socialism unexpectedly came to an end in 1989 after. Chandra. but from the outset. and its ideas are intricately tangled in recent world trends. at the margins. outside nationalism. media. Dipesh Chakrabarty. . N. that an era of history had ended. reimagined. 'They knew very little else. Old empirical certainties of modernisation.' Those institutions have been undermined in two directions: by the emergence of a new plurality of social groupings. It is the first international collaboration to make a sustained impact on South Asian studies. David Hardiman. Moishe Postone summarised the changing historical context by saying that a new historical phase began.' But. which became more compelling at the Cold War's end. it rejected official nationalism and developed transnationally. a people's history free of national constraints. American cliche about this turning point for history when he said. and the US.81 A critique of the modern logic supporting state authority ran through intellectual streams of globalisation as national boundaries were collapsing under transnational flows. Subaltern Studies became an original site for a new kind of history from below.80 James C. and the Balkans was widely said to be the failure of Marxism. as we will see. Eastern Europe. movements. as Indian economists pushed for India's liberalisation from Yale and Columbia. and national progress were disassembled in the radical newness of post-modern and postcolonial writing. Cultural criticism became cultural politics.88 The politics of language. andxHindutva raised funds in England. into the third millennium . Thomas Haskell repeated a popular.
personnel. Amitav Ghosh. . but his colonial elitists surely came from Oxford and Cambridge and his bourgeois-nationalist elites must include almost everyone else. It would seem that over the years.92 His published work in the 1970s concerned intellectual trends surrounding one nineteenth-century text. 3).93 and his second monograph. A 'difference of generations. and students who came up through the ranks. Since 1982. but his brief discussion indicates that he believed colonialism spawned all historical writing about India before the rupture announced by Subaltern Studies. Gujarat. Susie Tharu. announcing the project's ambition 'to rectify the elitist bias' in a field 'dominated by elitism— colonialist ditism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism.95 "Subaltern Studies reinvented subalternity. Where the Marxists fit into his picture is unclear. A rule of property for Bengal: An essay on the idea of permanent settlement?1 was an intellectual history of colonial land policy. texts. and others).1 The importance of this opening act is suggested by its . and state institutions. first book. economic. 'The historiography of peasant insurgency in colonial India is as old as colonialism itself (p. colonialism appears to be a single. The leader of the project. They have not engaged in joint research or writing.90 His academic work sets him apart as sharply. Its conceptual emptiness at the time was underlined when Ranajit Guha quoted the Concise Oxford dictionary on the first page of Subaltern Studies I and then remained silent on Gramsci's use of the term. their compass bearings have been set collectively in tune with Ranajit Guha's. Tejaswini Niranjana. 'sets me a p a r t . by at least twenty-five years. His. Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency distilled data from studies of peasant revolts in the colonial period to evoke a theory of subaltern resistance. In addition to this close-knit group.'89 but four other collaborators had also published books before 1982. his major publications have appeared first in Subaltern Studies. A good metaphor would be a flock flying in formation. the term 'subaltern' had little meaning in South Asian studies. each author with his own compass. including those of the nationalist movement. They have flown collectively into currents of theory and research that were more his home territory than theirs when the project began. . and Tamil Nadu. Readers who responded to early volumes focused particularly on problems of defining 'subaltern' in relation to Gramsci. In his accumulated writings.14 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 15 doing close empirical work in social. By contrast. discursive structure of power inside a vast ethnographic present. They collaborate loosely. denying South Asia's previous 'history from below. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak launched a literary turn in the mid-1980s (followed by Sudipta Kaviraj. Kamala Visweswaran. David Hardiman. unified. which led to lively discussions outside Subaltern Studies. the project includes an unruly band of thirtysix (and counting) other authors who have contributed essays to Subaltern Studies. Ranajit Guha.' he says. He suggests the same thing in Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency: it begins by asserting that. among others. stand in stark opposition to subaltern India and its indigenous culture from the first day of British rule down to the rupture of Subaltern Studies?* Ranajit Guha might be said to be the Louis Dumont of colonialism. insiders who left the project. Cyan Prakash. it then describes the 'discourse on peasant insurgency' as 'a discourse of power' under the Raj (p. and it proceeds to cite interventions by Gramsci and Hobsbawrn without mentioning Indian histories of peasant insurgency. 1). Sumit Sarkar stands for the project's early commitment to social history.96 But the project actually made itself original by divorcing itself from Gramsci to invent a distinctively Indian subalternity. and discourse. which in his writing attains a comprehensive power like that of caste in Homo hierarchicus. Gautam Bhadra. David Arnold.' He did not elaborate. Dipesh Chakrabarty. Their continued collaboration has stabilised the project but they have worked separately and also published widely outside Subaltern Studies. seven scholars listed by Ranajit Guha as members of the project since 1982 (Shahid Amin. Partha Chatterjee. In 1982. and Gyanendra Pandey) began their careers doing specialised research on Uttar Pradesh. Bengal. To cite a few exemplars. Subaltern Studies launched itself with an act of rejection. They include outsiders who became Collective members. brought gender into view.97 Guha also opened Subaltern Studies by declaring a clean break with most Indian historians. Each brings something specific. and political history. with which he is most personally identified. but all in tune. was different. and Julie Stephens.
The project launched itself a second time." Even readers who applauded Subaltern Studies found two features troubling. What outsiders wrote. which gave old terms new meanings and marked a new beginning for historical studies.' she says that readership 'has expanded beyond the horizons of students of (subaltern) history. resistance. in 1988 and 1997. providing it with the (predictable. First and foremost. in particular. political action. which was where it all began many years back. invented de novo by Subaltern Studies. By definition. through history. and not only histories rendered through the lens of class analysis. project members today see no discontinuity in this shift.103 Politics and representation are two aspects of subalternity.102 Kate Currie called the move that Brinda Bose calls 'broadening' a shift away from studies of subaltern politics in the vein of E. In 1997. as the editors of this collection describe it. Domination. society and culture. US-based scholars. and other old concepts could now be subalternised. but also Dipesh Chakrabarty and some others had discussed in earlier volumes. transformative politics. which Partha Chatterjee and Ranajit Guha. hegemony.' This expansion of critical and theoretical scope has benefited the fast growing body of South Asian sociocultural studies. Bernard S. Experiments were ongoing. the new substance of subalternity emerged only on the underside of a rigid theoretical barrier between 'elite' and 'subaltern. Thompson and Antonio Gramsci. the gaze of the project shifted from one side of the coin to the other. in 1985.' Choices were made. David Hardiman (1986) called this critical juncture a 'crossroads.100 This hard dichotomy alienated subalternity from social histories that include more than two storeys or which move among them. a rift soon opened between Subaltern Studies and Indian scholars committed to class analysis. that the project was forming its intellectual identity as the first three volumes of Subaltern Studies were leading into a second three. Galling Subaltern Studies 'a touchstone for research in South Asian history. Subalternity remained a fluid substance inside its two-storey structure. because subaltern social mobility disappeared along with class differentiation. and towards cultural history.106 and ended with Dipesh Chakrabarty's Invitation to a dialogue. usefully.P. Brinda Bose alludes to it in her review of Subaltern Studies IX. which historians study in records of action and discourse. who explored the language and textuality of discursive power.105 We can suppose that before 1985 no consensus definition of subalternity had emerged in the project. subalternity had been ignored by all scholars in the past. Some critical responses appear in the first four reprints in this volume.' In recognition of this shift—or broadening—the more recent volumes have brought together essays that are no longer confined to the discipline of history.16 Reading Subaltern Studies republication in two anthologies of selected essays. thus. routed.' which resembles a concrete slab separating upper and lower space in a two-storey building. and representations of subaltern subjectivity in the vein of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. the Collective's 'engagements with more contemporary problems and theoretical Introduction 17 formations. because subaltern politics was confined theoretically to the lower storey. to *Singh etal. and popular histories of nationalism. critical theory. Thus it appears.104 In the 1980s. it could not threaten a political structure. revolt. Two sides of one coin.' the first extended response to critics in the pages of Subaltern Studies (specifically. This alienated subalternity from political histories of popular movements and alienated subaltern groups from organised. Ranajit Guha indirectly confirmed that a second point departure did occur by saying the project began 'roughly' in 1986 and by omitting from his account of the early years two authors whose approaches were most clearly at odds in the mid-1980s—bright signposts at the crossroads—Sumit Sarkar and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. subordination. as Hardiman indicates. displaying. they both evoke anti-hegemonic possibilities. particularly in some essays . Then. Cohn and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. in the past and in the present. in 1985. Subaltern Studies /Yalso opened with a blunt statement of Ranajit Guha's annoyance with outside critics. all the old research became elitist. 1984). Second.101 Not surprisingly. but) dependable subalternist slant.' and reporting that 'each volume is ensured its loyal readership. and Hardiman's report from the 'crossroads' notwithstanding.98 Subalternity thus became a novelty. Subaltern Studies IV introduced the cultural perspectives of two prominent.
Post-colonial cultural criticism and literary theory had embraced Subaltern Studies. in the world of global circulation. A starting point for the shift-in-continuity can be found in Guha's seminal essay. but constancy—in its increasingly global context—expanded the field of subalternity into the transnational study of colonialism. ethnography. and reasoning should we use? Around these questions. factories. which was being embraced by the project. and related topics. 'this group of scholars is a self-conscious part of the vast post-colonial cultural and critical effort that would also include novelists like Salman Rushdie. Mahmud Darwish. and in 1987. This approach has organised an impressive collection of enduring scholarship on colonial texts. theoreticians and political philosophers. Colonial representations had begun to overwhelm subaltern activity in his insistence that a critique of colonial discourse is the starting point for Subaltern Studies. their identity and consciousness reflected India's colonial subjugation. In the interim. reprinted here. a shift in orientation certainly occurred. This was Ranajit Guha's academic home ground. Guha consolidates the continuity shift in his final essay for the last volume that he edited (SSVI). In the first four volumes of Subaltern Studies. Edward Said's Foreword to Selected Subaltern Studies described an academic tendency outside India. and tribal struggles. . Chaudhury reiterated that. 'The prose of counterinsurgency' (SSIf) which demonstrated how elite repression lurked in official accounts of popular struggles. twenty essays treat peasant. 'Dominance without hegemony and its historiography. (pp. saying.' which provides a comprehensive template for Subaltern Studies under the discursive power of colonialism. It has also enabled Subaltern Studies to speak as India's subaltern voice. ethnography.'107 Subaltern consciousness had always been a critical feature of subalternity.Subaltern Studies IV) cites 'the colonial subject' as the basic concern of theorisation and says. but Chakra-barty also says that members of the Editorial Collective 'are perhaps far more united in their rejection of certain academic positions and tendencies than in their acceptance of alternatives. specifically peasants. In 1988.' and others. Dipesh Chakrabarty's closing essay in Subaltern Studies IV indicates the na-ture of this resolution by affirming their basic concern with 'the thorny question of "consciousness" ' and by defining subalternity as 'the composite culture of resistance to and acceptance of domination and hierarchy. generally perceive their task as making a theory of consciousness or culture rather than specifically a theory of change' (p. merits of a nation.'108 But how is consciousness to be studied historically? What kinds of sources. Critical readings of colonial texts. Ingenious methods for uncovering fragments of subaltern nationality became the project's particular speciality. the substance of subalternity remained fluid and mixed. indigenous culture. The focus of Subaltern Studies is on the consciousness of the subaltern classes. as well as 'poets like Faiz Ahmad Faiz. vernacular resistance. prisons. methods.109 The meaning of subalternity in Subaltern Studies shifted as the framework of study increasingly stressed the clash of unequal cultures under colonialism and the dominance of colonial modernity over India's resistant. After 1986. . and on it the intellectual continuity of the project was constructed. but it contained much less material drawn from struggles waged by particular subaltern groups in colonial India and much more literary evidence concerning colonial constructions of culture and power. Ajit K. oral histories. 4). Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's Introduction to Selected Subaltern Studies (from . police. Methodologically. science. bureaucracy. Aime Cesaire. The project's underlying theory may have remained constant. . medicine. . communalism. ix-x). in the next six volumes. This coincided with a shift in the work of Subaltern Studies' collaborators who had begun their academic careers doing research on specific groups. specifically peasants' gave way in practice to the textuality of colonialism and resistance. worker. Subalterns in India became frag-. only five. and a whole host of other figures. Garcia Marquez. .18 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 19 The 'subaltern classes. recuperating subaltern subjectivity entails the analytical and rhetorical liberation of Indian culture from its domination by the colonial archive and by modernity. seems to have added pressure and provided a focal point for oppositions that helped to resolve internal ambiguities.' This approximates an official definition. Cohn how Subaltern Studies would be wedded to anthropological history by an insistence on the primacy of opposition between 'indigenous' and 'colonial' knowledge. 'The Subaltern Studies Collective . he had indicated in his introduction to a collection of essays by Bernard S.
112 With this material in hand. documenting their past. allowing them to speak. and dramatic forms.20 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 21 and ethnographic techniques are employed to reveal India's cultural roots in subaltern subjectivity. Problematic relations with Marxism. This book is only a starting place for reading subalternity historically. European. and misunderstood mentalities. and Enlightenment epistemologies. on the one hand. on the other. most of all.' again indicating that major scholars concerned with subaltern themes made room for Subaltern Studies in India without accepting it whole cloth. stand out. Ranajit Das Gupta. Subaltern Studies thus becomes a postcolonial critique of modern. Writing such history constitutes subversive cultural politics because it exposes forms of power/knowledge that oppress subaltern peoples and also because it provides liberating alternatives. however partially and tentatively.'114 Since he made this clarification. critics in Social Scientist. in this view. Sangeeta Singh et al. Though reviews appeared outside India in the early years. The two appendices list the contents of ten Subaltern Studies volumes and provide additional bibliography (to supplement footnotes) drawn primarily from an excellent Subaltern Studies website. A liberated imagined community can only come into its own. and Critique Essays about Subaltern Studies reprinted here represent a small but useful sample. represents a . historians and post-colonial critics stand together against colonial modernity to secure a better future for subaltern peoples.113 most readings occurred in India. symbolic. but reviewers indicate that there was plenty of room for Subaltern Studies in the Indian historical profession. all published outside India. historians need to shake themselves free of modernity's master narrative and from the shackles of chronological. But at the crossroads of the project in the mid1980s. Their intervention was in tune with contemporary concerns and most critical comments were more requests for clarification than hostile attacks. visible and missing.. I have organised readings into three groups to suggest one opening gambit for strategic reading. and Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri—indicates critical assimilation in India before 1986. The originality ojf Subaltern Studies came to be its striving to rewrite the nation outside the state-centred national discourse that replicates colonial power/knowledge in a world of globalisation. to restore the integrity of indigenous histories that appear naturally in non-linear. Subaltern Studies' growing diversity of research now coheres like the new cultural history. vernacular. an influential Marxist journal.110 Its search for hidden pasts evokes textual criticism. This new kind of national history consists of dispersed moments and fragments. Chakrabarty has remained the subalternist most concerned with Marxism. The second set of essays. linear time. learning to hear them. The political autonomy of subalternity was hotly contested as a general claim and in specific circumstances. which historians can strive to recuperate. and national history. the dean of agrarian historians in India. as apparently did critical quotes from ' authoritative Marxists like Gramsci and Rodney Hilton. talking back to powers that marginalise them. Critics' arguments that subaltern political activity could not be detached empirically or theoretically from 'elites'—even when detached from nationalist institutions—seem to have hit home. These may have combined to irk Ranajit Guha and to induce Dipesh Chakrabarty to clarify that the Subaltern Studies' approach to 'the thorny question of "consciousness" ' centred on 'the composite culture of resistance to arid acceptanceof domination and hierarchy. The first group of essays—by Javeed Alam. fragmentary testimonieSj and lost moments. in subaltern language and memory. where reviewers were most concerned with the contribution of individual Subaltern Studies essays to Indian historical writing at the time. Assimilation. where its authors already had a place. Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. A new kind of cultural essence for India is found in iconic residues of hidden identities. which subaltern historians seek in the ethnographic present of colonialism. For this project. readers can explore Subaltern Studies and read it dialogically to find what is said and not said. harsh critics preoccupied the project. called his 'Invitation to a dialogue' 'lucid' and 'convincing. 111 Reading Dialogkally: Context. expressions of difference. In this project. oral.
Masselos expressed discomfort with the idea that power and resistance inhabit every nook and cranny of social existence which had become familiar during Foucault's rising popularity. 'the global academy. a creation.' and which he distinguishes from real subaltern people. A boom also occurred in the number of international publications by core collaborators. the venerable house journal. In reality. for lack of a better phrase. Interestingly. Gramsci. . I would say that Subaltern Studies arrived in the global mainstream in 1993. He rejects Subaltern Studies' theoretical identification of subordinate social status with mentalities of resistance and literary penchant for dramatising class opposition. Like O'Hanlon. of the Cambridge School. both of which he traces to 'the activist world of the late 1960s and early 1970s.' which 'combines a polarised social category with the mentality of opposition.22 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 23 decade when readers incorporated Subaltern Studies into what I call. The subaltern seemed to him a stereotype of real subaltern people. intersect with what is happening around them. .117 appeared in Modern Asian Studies. He calls 'the subaltern .' She prefers Foucault's approach to power and echoes Scott's Weapons of the weak by exhorting historians'to look for resistances . he pitched his arguments to an audience of readers broader than Indian historians. Cohn had made the project's cultural critique of colonialism an elixir of new vitality for American-style cultural history. subaltern 'acts of resistance link up with. any theory of subaltern autonomy would tend to erase real subalterns from history. expanding its disciplinary range (as noticed by Brinda Bose). one of the first major review articles of Subaltern Studies outside India. O'Hanlon introduced the project to readers as a step in the right direction towards post-Marxist studies of popular culture that take power and resistance seriously. where gender assumed special significance— though women were then missing in Subaltern Studies. with whom he approvingly associates Sumit Sarkar.' represented here by academic institutions in the English-reading world. Rosalind O'Hanlon discussed the project at a Cambridge workshop on popular culture. Subaltern Studies called for such treatment. Sivaramakrishnan notes the dimming of the past at the start of his essay. after Ranajit Guha's alignment with Bernard S. heated exchanges followed a programmatic assertion by Cyan Prakash that Subaltern Studies had superseded older modes of history writing by pursuing post-colonial theory into the Indian past. Having said that 'it is widely accepted that the project of Subaltern Studies has provided the most provocative and interesting intervention in recent years.. and other Marxists.118 Then controversy subsided.. in its insistence that resistance itself should necessarily take the virile form of a deliberate and violent onslaught. as she noted. a reification of historians. . and more new authors contributed to Subaltern Studies. A few years later.' she goes on to consider both the project and its critics. Her reprinted essay first appeared in 1988.116 to flag another new audience. a field in which Subaltern Studies was rapidly embraced. she locates the origin of their 'confused' dialogue in a shared Marxist heritage. which she implies imparted to 'the dichotomy between domination and resistance . . the same year that Edward Said introduced the project to 'the Western reader/115 calling it a collection of post-colonial histories. K.' What he dislikes in Subaltern Studies he also dislikes in Marx. though he valued the Indian history in Subaltern Studies.' In his view. all the marks of dominant discourse. in the real world. in tune with a broad academic shift into studies of everyday struggles. as other schools of Indian history had not. The project came to mean different but relatively uncontroversial things to different kinds of people (especially on the Leftish end of the political spectrum) in various disciplines. Jim Masselos had all six volumes edited by Ranajit Guha in front of him when he set out to criticise subalternity as a condition of rebellion and resistant victimisation. O'Hanlon's essay. In 1992. he says. like those studied by French historians of mentalities. Subaltern globalisation took off at the project's second point of departure.' She thus points in the very direction that Subaltern Studies was moving in at the time. dispersed in fields that we do not conventionally associate with the political. including many reprints from Subaltern Studies. In 1986. Thus putting insiders and outsiders into one Indian intellectual space. interact with. He then uses both the .
The last group of essays indicates that inside India other subalternities developed in other struggles. K. Balagopal finds that Hardiman's subaltern autonomy is unrealistic because it ignores leadership and the need for intellectual tools that cross dike-subaltern divisions.the American Historical Review. Florencia Mallon did the same for Latin America.121 Even so. where the project remained firmly grounded. approaching subalternity merely through a cultural critique of colonialism stultifies Indian history as it stymies subaltern politics. and in this double context. In this view. along with changes in world capitalism. and in this context. he points to a specific. In addition. Here he recounts its history and clarifies . 'which has perpetually lain unrecognised beneath the veneer of historiographical appropriation. Cohn had been a pioneer and Sivaramakrishnan represents a new generation of scholars who want to bring material concerns with the environment and political economy back into the picture. literary context: cultural history as composed by Calcutta intellectuals. a home for identity and solidarity against the permanence of colonialism in the world of globalisation. one subalternist who stayed close to the ground in his research on tribal groups and moneylenders in Gujarat. Naxalite communists remain prominent in Andhra agrarian politics. left the project to become its critic. which called for him to read Subaltern Studies in the context of African history.' this metaphor evokes a cultural imperative to recover. politically engaged intellectuals were torn—a formulation that recalls Ashis Nandy's influential book. Between these two. Balagopal is one of many scholaractivists who focus research on everyday subaltern politics. Henry Schwarz leads back to India. Again she questions the utility of Subaltern Studies for scholars concerned with social justice. The last reprint is by Sumit Sarkar. he considers Ranajit Guha as an author in and of Indian cultural history. and to see power structures changing after independence.' Vinay Bahl extends and elaborates basic elements of this critique on a world stage. a native paradigm. rather. Thus academic contexts for global reading were becoming more diverse. and in India. because colonialism sustained and separated two paradigms. The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. From this perspective. more detached from the history of the project. where Bernard S. In the book chapter reprinted here. whether by outright colonists or by well-intentioned inheritors of colonialist thought. the double consciousness of India's middle class was formed.bifurcated metaphorical map. and during recent globalisation. His essay considers events in the late 1980s in Adilabad district.'19 Frederick Cooper wrote his essay for a forum in . published in 1983. In Guha's 'Dominance without hegemony and its historiography. Her central target is cultural definitions of'difference. they participate politically in differences produced by material inequalities and collective activities that also differentiate subaltern groups. it becomes possible to reread 'colonial constructions' and 'elite paradigms' as ideological elements that do not describe structures of power even under colonialism.' We can thus read the two-storey structure of subalternity as being essentially that of colonialism. where conflict at the intersection of tribal self-assertion and state coercion recalls the work of Kathleen Gough-and her colleagues in the 1970s rather than supporting ideas about autonomous subaltern 'moral outrage. That assignment itself indicates an arrival of sorts.24 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 25 project and its critics to discuss the disciplinary intersection of history and anthropology. and between these two. in Andhra Pradesh. in the Cold War. one Indian and one foreign. as metaphor. like Ramachandra Guha (though they have little else in common). two modes of being. but Cooper makes5ubaltern Studies work for him as a vehicle for discussing distinctive features of Africa's historical scholarship. choices were made: the otherness of subalternity became a place on a. he considers the work of David Hardiman.12° Guha's prose thus becomes a literary moment inside a cultural predicament. and at the crossroads of Subaltern Studies in the mid-1980s. he gives subalternity yet another new meaning.' Women and Dalits are not 'different' from elites as cultural groups and thus in the same boat as other subaltern subjects. a truly indigenous history. Subalternity was becoming multicultural. and readings. a turncoat subaltern who. she argues for the need to locate subalternity inside the history of global capitalism. she says.
respectively. We could expect Subaltern Studies to attain authority as an authentic voice of the post-colonial East in selfconsciously Western academic localities which have been shaped intellectually by Orientalism. changing bundle of historical forces rather than as a comprehensive structure. and colonialism. moreover. South Asian readers far from big city universities and research centres might feel most distant from the global academy and might tend to value the project's global success inversely to its local credibility. abstractly. The very existence of an inside and outside is today questionable as the project diversifies internally and merges externally with comparative colonialism. because debates in South Asia about multiple. to which I allude briefly above. at the time when Partha Chatterjee began to author its 'most lucid and comprehensive' statements of (what he calls) 'redirection. shifting. 124 The borders between Subaltern Studies and its Others are vague. and contested. not their own. ecological. Globally. Geographical patterns may exist. Readers in Bangladesh. developed and underdeveloped. First and Third World. migration and assimilation. They indicate rightly that historians outside the project tend to locate subalterns more carefully in changing environments that include economic. and equally local South Asian sites. and hybrid research is now most prominent in Subaltern Studies. consciousness.26 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 27 reasons for his departure and dissent.123 and in this perspective.122 They diverge especially on questions of autonomy.' He also pays special attention to contested meanings of Subaltern Studies in a time of rising Hindu majoritarianism (Hindutva). colonisers and colonised. In the global academy. venerable ideas constitute India as a singular. But locality is shifting: Brinda Bose and K. adaptive. Speaking for (Indian) subalternity as (Indian) subaltern could thus become a professional academic niche. in cultural studies and human rights. where scholars mobilise to oppose colonial forms of knowledge with post-orientalist critical theory. so my account of the project ended where he puts his emphasis. Because India stands for South Asia in the second term in each binary pair. To conclude. disparities have patterns. so readers can imagine the national 'fragments' in Subaltern Studies quite literally. post-colonial literary criticism. in the world of globalisation that makes Subaltern Studies what it is today. He describes immeasurably better than I or any other foreigner could ever do what it can feel like as an Indian scholar working in India to have India spoken for by Subaltern Studies so authoritatively in the wide world of globalisation.126 historical anthropology. unitary. however. which also have global dimensions. and so on. area studies. Anthologies abound with essays from both sides. the project continues to be creative. Nepal. however. Readers who identify strongly with the first term in each binary pair might tend to embrace the claim that someone from the other side can speak for it. There is no one intellectual history of subalternity and never could be. because it lives on local ground in disparate readings. Readers outside South Asia would be more likely to encounter South Asia in media. Dispersion and convergence. Europe and Non-Europe. India also has a theoretical location inside binary oppositions between West and East. South Asian space. and malleable. South Asian sites are extremely diverse and diverge along national lines. contested nationalities do not interfere with this reading. and there is much smuggling and border crossing. technological. political. Internally. Indian subalterns can thus represent India metonymically. it is important to stress that the bulk of research on subaltern subjects has always escaped Subaltern Studies. and Cold War ^anti-communism. because. have made subalternity a moveable feast with jumbled tracks leading in many directions. Two recent books provide a good opportunity for controlled comparison of contemporary historical theory and method inside and outside the project as applied to the study of tribal peoples in Western India. rich and poor. and post-Marxist. Subaltern Studies fit neatly into prevalent ideas about India's place in the world.125 cultural studies. modernity and tradition. Essays in this volume . global cultural studies. Pakistan. totally different. J have tried to minimise redundancies in this introduction. and Sri Lanka might tend to rea^ Subaltern Studies as an Indian national project. they tend to see colonialism as a diverse. and social history. privileged and downtrodden.127 and post-colonial studies. Balagopal represent two equally real. shifting.128 Many authors use Subaltern Studies but also draw on other sources. authorised and otherwise.
Bagchi. The construction ofcommunalism in colonial North India (Delhi: Oxford University Press. The following alphabetical list of forty-four Subaltern Studies authors comes from the Subaltern Studies website (http://www. VHI is subtitled Essays in honour of Ranajit Guha). Asok Sen. It shows the number of publications listed there on May 15.virginia. 1920-1947: The land question (Calcutta: Published for Centre for Studies in Social Sciences by K. 1987).g. 6. Gyanendra Pandey (4): The ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. Chandra. 3. 'The project' refers to the organised activity of the core group in Subaltern Studies. Spellings have been standardised to Indian academic usage for the sake of uniformity. Veena Das. 1985). Das. 3. 1 vii. 1989). **Gautam Bhadra. Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian history and society (vol. **Partha Chatterjee. 1983). they refer to bibliographic citations in Appendix 2. Dipesh Chakrabarty (2-7). A Subaltern Studies Reader. Ranajit Guha (1-7). 1983). and Popular movements and middle-class leadership in late colonial India: Perspectives and problems of a history from below (Calcutta: K. David Arnold (4): Police power and colonial rule. without asterisks. Modern India. and (editor).K. and Nationalist thought and the colonial world: A derivative discourse? (London: Zed Books. 1989). to develop Subaltern Studies as a body of knowledge. and Sumit Sarkar (2): A critique of colonial India (Calcutta: Papyrus. 1986). Their contents are listed in Appendix 1.htm). In this list. Subaltern Studies refers to all the texts inside and outside Subaltern Studies by authors in Subaltern Studies. **Dipesh Chakrabarty. 1997). 1 VI. 1983). 14. the relevant SS volume number appears next to authors who have only one ^publication. 6. David Hardiman (1-7). 1986-1995. The Indian nation in 1942 (Calcutta: K. we can expect a continued profusion of reading disparities in diverging local circumstances. Das. The following authors had one article each and many also published important books in the 1980s: N. 1981). 1885-1947 (Delhi: Macmillan. In the foo'tnotes.A. Cooper *1994—indicate reprints in this book. Cohn. This tally is not exhaustive. 110. Partha Chatterjee (1-7). 1917-1934 (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press.P. In this essay. primarily its Editorial Collective.P. Bagchi. David Hardiman (4): Peasant nationalists of Gujarat: Kheda district. the number of articles that they contributed to SSIVI appears in parentheses: Shahid Amin (3): Sugarcane and sugar in Gorakhpur: An inquiry into peasant production for capitalist enterprise in colonial India (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. 1 II. Change in the Collective after 1989 is indicated in prefatory citations and also by the editorship of later SS volumes.28 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 29 and citations in the bibliography indicate many more reading possibilities. xiv. 18.P. Bagchi. Ranajit Guha (4): Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency in colonial India (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ajit K. Chaudhury. In years to come. N. Tanika Sarkar. Bernard S.K. SSXI has been published in 2000 by Permanent Black. Subaltern Studies volumes are abbreviated as SSI. p. and An Indian historiography of India: A nineteenth-century . lv. + Indrani Chatterjee. Stephen Henningham. Swapan Dasgupta. Bernard S. Gautam Bhadra (2-7). Low. Two asterisks (**) mark the ten core members for SS/V7(see note 2). 2. edited by Ranajit Guha (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. . 12. Madras. and The coming of the Devi: Adivasi assertion in Western India (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. Gyanendra Pandey (1-7).P. the editorial team included Shahid Amin (1-7). 1 u. Ranajit Guha provides a list of books by 'members of the Collective since 1982. the italicised phrase Subaltern Studies refers to the series of edited volumes that appear under the full title. Dipesh Chakrabarty (3): Rethinking working-class history: Bengal. In the following list of books by editorial team members. Chandra. Arvind N. Chaudhury. Julie Stephens. 4. Abbreviated authordate references with asterisks—e. NJ: Princeton University Press. 1926-1934: A study in imperfect mobilization (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. 1990). Ajit K. Partha Chatterjee (4): Bengal. Gautam Bhadra (3). agenda and its implications (Calcutta: K. Veena Das. second edition with foreword by D. and Sumit Sarkar (3-7). xxii. Upendra Baxi. Authors marked with a plus sign (+) appear in volume x and were not listed on the website as of May 15. SSII. 1999. 1986). Arvind N. New York: St Martin's Press. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Cohn. Authors who have left the SS project to become critics are marked with one asterisk (*). published by Oxford University Press. 1859-1947 (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. note 9. For SS volumes 1-7.edu/area-studies/subaltern/ssallau. David Arnold (1-7). 1984). from 1982 until 1999. p. 1 X. Latin American Subaltern Studies Group 1993.' in A Subaltern Studies Reader. 5. 1999: **Shahid Amin. Only one other author contributed more than one article to SSI-VI: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (3): In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics (New York: Methuen. 1978). Swapan Dasgupta. 1988). . **David Arnold. Without italics. 1988). Bagchi. Ramachandra Guha. 8. and Susie Tharu. etc. 1987). 1890-1940 (Princeton. 1984).lib.
Rajayyan. and class struggle: Examples from India and the United States. Ranajit Guha's list of'members since 1982' is this: Shahid Amin. 27. David Arnold. Teresa Watts. 36-43. within which he locates readings of Subaltern Studies. . Horace Newcomb. 1 ix. 1999. 11. 1 X. + Sundesh Kaali. pp. 51-99. Eric Stokes. 19. n. Andrea Hiridihg. 24. A Subaltern Studies Reader. Gautam Bhadra. edited by David Ludden (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Sirajul Islam." in A. Tanika Sarkar. 1 X. Asok Sen 1 V. Additional assistance from Jeremie Dufault. Ranajit Guha. Saurabh Dube.See Todd Gitlm. + Chrisopher Pinney. 26. Dipesh Chakrabarty. **David Hardiman. **Sumit Sarkar* 4. 4. Marxism and literature (London: Oxford University Press. 1974). 2. xxii.21. Srivatsan.' Ministry of Home Affairs. community. Roll. 1 IX. 1978). ix. 6. + Ishita Banerjee Dube. 14. and Gyan Pandey were generous with their time. 'The dialogics of history: Consensus and contention in the tellings of a past. edited by Meghnad Desai. pp. racism. South Indian rebellion: The first war of Independence. 'Subaltern Studies.' Television: The critical view. began in 1973. Tejaswini Naranjana. 1800-1801 (Mysore: Rao and Raghavan. 1974). 16. + Rosemary Sayigh 1 X. In writing this introduction and compiling reprints. 25. 'The causes and nature of current agrarian tensions. 1979). + Sudesh Mishra. Frank Cass. David Ludden. Julie Stephens. which became Peasant Studies (University of Pittsburgh). R. + Kaushik Ghosh. see Contesting the nation: Religion. David Hardiman. 1 IX. After a national study. 1977). Partha Chatterjee. The peasant and the Raj: Studies in agrarian society and peasant rebellion in colonial India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13. and Dee Brown. Dominic Strinati. See Cooper *1994. editor. and Prakash 1994. An introduction to theories of popular culture (London: Rputledge. and Rise and fall of the poligars ofTamilnadu (Madras: University of Madras. I Introduction 31 7. Linda Oh. 1972). 8. and the politics of democracy (Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1 IX. 20. The Journal of Peasant Studies. and Gyanendra Pandey.knee: An Indian history of the American „ West (New York:' Bantam Books. 17. Gyan Prakash. 28. Europe and the people without history (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. SSVIII. 9. Chaudhury 1985. In the US. Vivek Dhareshwar and R. 1996). 1963. Women's history sources: A guide to archives and manuscript collections in the United States (New York: Bowker.R. 1982). . Washington State University. Rudolph. 1 IX.* 1 IV.' unpublished paper from Working Paper Series. Pesai. 1977). 1 VI. and Ashok Rudra (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Raymond Williams. two pioneering books are Eugene Genovese. 12. Preface. 18. published in India as Making India Hindu: Community. Chopra 1982. Ramachandra Guha. **Ranajit Guha.B. Department of Comparative American Cultures. Partha Chatterjee. Mallon 1994.' in Agrarian power and agricultural productivity in South Asia. David Nelson gave bibliographic help. and Sue Yi speeded the project along. 9. 15. 1 ll. **Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Many thanks to one and all. 1995). Sumathi Ramaswamy. 1.30 Reading Subaltern Studies 1 IV. I received invaluable assistance from Lauren Nauta. roll: The world the slaves made (New York: Pantheon Books. R. 1 iv.' unpublished Master's Thesis. Shail Mayaram. Pullman: Washington. Dina Siddiqi and Necladri Bhattacharya read drafts and provided constructive criticism. 23. Arnold 1984. Karnal Visweswaran. p. the ministry concluded that persisting inequalities 'may lead to a situation where the discontented elements are compelled to organise themselves and the extreme tensions building up with the "complex molecule" that is the Indian village may end in an explosion. 1996). On Hindutva. Stephen Henningham. Peter Gran. Susanne H. I vii. London. Susie Tharu. Das Gupta *1985. See K. is elaborated in his Beyondeurocentrism: A new view of modern world history (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. conflict. Department of Anthropology. 6. 1994). Agrarian struggles in India after Independence (Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1986). 22. Rukun Advani shared archival data and did the final editing at Permanent Black. Bela Malik was the chief driving force behind this project. Jordan. and The Peasant Studies Newsletter. New York: Pantheon Boob. 'Productive power in agriculture: A survey of work on the local history of British India. Kancha Ilaiah. Bury my heart at wounded. 1 x. fifth edition (New York: Oxford University Press. Rural history of Bangladesh: A source study (Dhaka: Tito Islam. 1 vn. and the politics of democracy in India. Stein 1990. 22. 'Prime time ideolpgy: The hegemonic process in television entertainment. Gyan Prakash. insights. + Vijay Prashad 1 X. began in 1972. University of Pennsylvania. and recollections. Amitav Ghosh. Ajay Skaria 1 IX. Many others read parts of the manuscript and gave me good ideas. His comparative approach to political cultures. 12. 1986. MSS Pandian. 1984). editor. 2 IX. Yang 1985. David Lloyd. 1 X. 1971). 10. **Gyandendra Pandey. 9. Sudipta Kaviraj.
' : The American Historical Review. An Anthropologist among the historians and other essays (New York and Delhi: Oxford University Press. 132-51. A. 'Peasant revolt: An interpretation of f> I : . 1973.' Contributions to Indian Sociology. The 29. 4. 1965). 1979. Desai had opened up this line of inquiry in 1948. The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press. Peter Novick.' in Socialism in India.192-212. 1979. 1977). reprinted from Modern Asian Studies. Tapan Raychaudhuri. 747-63. 1973. 1964). editor. . New York: Asia Publishing House. Hamza Alavi. 1973). with an introduction by Ranajit Guha. 8. AtisK.32 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 33 Moplah violence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.P. Bagchi. 1979. 1995).dream: The 'objectivity question' and the American historical profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979). 46. 92.' he argued that. Moplah uprising. 23-62. 22. NS 8 (1974). 3. This engendered a community of economic. 35. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 'The Mappilla Outbreaks: Ideology and social conflict in nineteenth-century Kerala. 'Peasant classes and primordial loyalties. 1974).G. Scott.' in The imperial impact: Studies in the economic history of Africa and India. 1919-39. 39. Jagdish Chandra Jha. His Social background of Indian nationalism (Bombay: Popular Prakashan. 1988). political and other interests [among] the members of each of the new social classes on an all-India national basis. 42. 1. pp.' 47.R. 'Pluralist politics in British India: The Cambridge cluster of historians of Modern India. Stephen F. 'Traditional society and political mobilisation: The experience of the Bardoli Satyagraha (1920-8). 35. 1948. 38. but his most relevant work is Revolutionary peasants (Delhi: 1949). pp. 1976).. 688-707. 'Indian nationalism as animal politics. Kalyan Kumar Sengupta. p. 36. Natarajan. E. 1. The Fakir a nd Sannyasi uprisings (Calcutta: K. 33. 1850-1900 (Bombay: 1953). This was due to the fact that they were integral parts of a single national economy of India and Jurther. James C. 49. Cohn. collection of articles. 37. 1968. edited by B. 'The moral economy of the English crowd in th«r eighteenth century. 32. 1987).' Peasant Studies. edited by John Gallagher. and 1966) was the first 'attempt to give a composite picture of the complex and variegated process of the rise of Indian nationalism and its various manifestations. 43. That noble. see Locality.' In a long chapter on the 'Rise of new social classes in India. For an early. an edited translation of Jharkhandke kisan (Delhi: Manohar.G. Conrad Wood. Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. they lived under a single state regime. pp. History of the Fara 'Idi Movement in Bengal (1818-1906) (Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society.1959. 2.' Past and Present. See Bernard S. Ranga had been writing since the 1930s. Hopkins (London: Athlone Press.R. 1985. 1921-1923 (Delhi: Agam Prakashan. 'Agrarian movements in Bihar and Bengal. 190-229.' Journal of Asian Studies. New York: Monthly Review Press.' Indian Economic and Social History Review. Rebellious prophets: A study of messianic movements in Indian religions (Bombay. 76—136. 1971). 1873-1885(New Delhi: People's Publishing House. 1972). 30. Gordon Johnson and Anil Seal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 41. George Rude. 1978). Italics original]. xii.P. N. 1983. 23-7.' Bengal Past and Present. See Stein 1990. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1972). citing Jamini Mohan Ghosh's Sannyasis in Mymensingh 31. The Kol insurrection of Chota-Nagpur (Calcutta: Thacker & Spink.R. and Pabna disturbances and the politics of rent. 214. Dasgupta. 1. 50.5. Sunil Kumar Sen.1971. 1973. and -'The story of a peasant revolt in a Bengal District. Samuel Popkin. 'one striking characteristic of the new social classes was their national character. province and nation: Essays on Indian politics 1870—1940. See also Howard Spodek. edited by Clive Dewey and A. . 1975. Agrarian struggle in Bengal. 1. 1965). 40. 50. Peasant struggles in India (Bombay: Oxford University Press. 44. Tribal revolts (Nellore: 1971). reprinted 1981. 1979). reprinted 1954. 48. and 'Tribal revolts in chronological order: 1778 to 1991. The specificity of tribal rebellion was established early on: see V: Raghavaialv 7>/<W revolts (Nellore: Andhra Rastra Adimajati Sevak Sangh. 2. Peasant uprisings in India. [T]hey felt an urge to organise themselves on an all-India scale and [to] start [a] movement to advance their common interests on a national basis [pp. 85-98. Nanda (Delhi: Vikas Publications.' reprinted in A. 'Agrarian disturbances in Eastern and Central Bengal in the late nineteenth century. 34.' The Historical Journal. See also L. 84. and more generally. See Sukhbir Choudhary. Desai. Thompson. 1971. The rational peasant: The political economy of rural society in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1946-1947 (New Delhi: People's Publishing House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walter Mauser Jias documented one intellectual who changed popular thinking in Sahajanandon agricultural labour and the rural poor: An edited translation ofkhetmazdoor (Delhi: Manohar. Dale. 220-78. 1994) and SwamiSahajanand and the peasants ofJharkhand:A view from 1941. 1992).
2. 1870—1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinventing revolution: New social movements and the socialist tradition in India (Armonk: ME Sharpe. 54. The sole spokesman: Jinnah. 25-54. . D. 1972). 1981). 250-78. 72. Amrita Basu. Barrington Moore. 3. 74. 1978). edited by A. histories. 1993). Agrarian Bengal: Economy.' Past and Present.' Review. Agra University.A. Das Gupta 1985. Gyanendra Pandey. See. Bipan Chandra. and Communal and pan-Islamic trends in colonial India.' Economic and Political Weekly. 1975-6 is taken to be the turning point in many discussions of recent trends in Indian political culture: see Uma Chakravarti. *R. 58. 1880-1905(Delhi: People's Publishing House.' in Agricultural production and Indian history. the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.' Journal of Peasant Studies. 56. 1969). 1946-7. 1975). xii. 1972). 1-35 71. 54. in which the quote is on p. 1985). Alam 1983. 3. His inaugural essay in . See John Broomfield. and Gerald D. I have argued for the enduring connection between research in agrarian history and debates about development policy in 'Agricultural production and Indian history. 'Saffroning the past: Of myths. class." Indian Economic and Social History Review. 1975). Tariq Ali. London: Verso. 1. 'Mass movement or elite conspiracy? The puzzle of Hindu nationalism. p.' 63. 1968). and 'Agrarian conflict. Subaltern Studies Reader.N. edited by David Ludden. 1993). 1997). 9. Moin Zaidi (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Applied Political Research. The social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern* world (Boston: Beacon Press. An excellent case study is Sanjib Baruah. 360-78. Hindus of the Himalayas: Ethnography and change (Berkeley: University of California Press. January 31. pp. 1972. Caste. 1998. See Eric R. 60. and politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3. Legacy of a divided nation: India's Muslims since independence (Boulder: Westview Press. Selected Subaltern Studies. Dhanagare. 'Hindu-Moslem relations in Swadeshi Bengal. 'The regional elites: A theory of modern Indian history. 1750-1976. David Washbrook. 40. 1977. The Muslims of British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A tryst with destiny: A study of economic policy resolutions of the Indian National Congress passed during the last 100 years. Mushirul Hasan. Berreman. Agrarian movements and Gandhian politics(Agra: Institute of Social Sciences. South India: Political institutions and political change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. On traditionalism and developmentalism in agrarian power relations. 3. social structure. See also Andre Beteille. 1918—1922 (New Delhi: Vikas. 57. See Peter Hardy. 1966). 1966. pp. 1999). 1947—1977: The gradual revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 55—80. 225-32. 1983). The rise and growth of economic nationalism in India: Economic policies of the Indian national leadership. The emergence of provincial politics: The Madras Presidency. An agrarian history of South Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Agrarian unrest in North India: The United Provinces. Can Pakistan survive? (London: Verso.' in Orientalism and the post-colonial predicament. edited by Mushirul Hasan (Delhi: Manohar. 1999).SIS/containing this formulation is also the first essay on 'methodology' in the 1988 collection of seminal essays. 74. 1965). 163-216. Gail Omvedt. India against itself: Assam and the politics of nationality (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 112-41. 'Orientalist empiricism and transformations of colonial knowledge. Sumit Sarkar. and right-wing agendas.' in Contesting the Nation. A good account of this environment is Francine Frankel. 51. Copland 1983.' Indian Economic and Social History Review. 65.'Peasant protest and politics: The Tebhaga movement in Bengal. The ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. 1976. 1986). 62. 1966). Strategems and spoils: A social anthropology of politics (New York: Schocken Books. 75. 1985). Majid Hayat SJddiqi. Peasant wars in the twentieth century (New York: Harper. First English edition (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 73.34 Reading Subaltern Studies Introduction 35 64. 59. 1976). 61. 70. 1969). See David Ludden.'Agrarian relations in Southeast India. 1971). 66. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 67. pp. edited by C. 279—90. see David Ludden. Christopher Baker and David Washbrook. . 69. religion and politics: The Moplah rebellions in Malabar in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. 68. 1966). 52. 1978. however. Wol f. Kathleen Gough. see crowd in history: A study of popular disturbances in France and England. and power: Changing patterns of social stratification in a Tanjore village (Berkeley: University of California Press. Ayesha Jalal. 53. 1978). 55. For comparable cases. India's political economy. and Rural society in Southeast India (New York: Cambridge University Press. Sugata Bose. 1730-1848 (New York: Pantheon. p.
103. Subaltern Studies Reader. xm. 1998). Arnold 1984. . edited by Wolfgang Sachs (London: Zed Books. 91. 59-74. 79. 1997). Concerning his act of rejection. Mukherjee 1988. 87. 'Neel-Darpan: The image of a peasant revolt in a liberal mirror. revised and extended edition (London and New York: Verso. 396-428. 1992). 85. 2. 102. 558-9. xxii. Mukherjee 1988. 1996. edited by Craig Calhoun (Cambridge and London: MIT Press. 175-6. 1959). 1981). 20-56. See Craig Brandist. *Das Gupta. nationalism. David Arnold. Durham NC. 84. 1997). 9. 'Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought.' Journal of Peasant Studies. Gyanendra Pandey. *O'Hanlonl988.entry is David Lloyd. 1998). second edition.' New York Review of Books. 88. Subaltern Studies Reader. Lochan 1987. edited by Gyan Prakash and Douglas Haynes (Berkeley: University of California Press. Arturo Escobar. 95! Subaltern Studies XI introduces a new editor. *Das Gupta 1986. 47. A critical review of the general trend is in Bryan Palmer. The Congress in Tamilnad: Nationalist politics in South Introduction 37 India. Gupta 1985. Its counterpoint is Eric Stokes. Hauser 1991. Ranajit Guha says. 'The official and the popular in Gramsci and Bakhtin. p. p. Lineages of the present: Political essays (Delhi: Tulika. Partha Chatterjee 1995. 92. and the role of intellectuals: An interview. Moishe Postone. xiv. *Bahl 1997. 77.36 Reading Subaltern Studies Between resistance and revolution: Cultural politics and social protest. pp. Contesting power: Resistance and everyday social relations in South Asia. first edition 1994). or. *Masselos 1992. Peasant nationalists of Gujarat: Kheda district. development and social movements. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1978). 1975). ix. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. The age of extremes: A history of the world. pp. *Chaudhury 1986. Delhi: Orient Longman. pp. the cultural logic of late capitalism (Durham: Duke University Press. 1992). Thomas L. English utilitarians and India (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1982. Mukherjee 1988. 97. gender. He also wrote some other short pieces. 104. Sathyamurthy (1990) has the most extensive account of his work. pp. reprinted with ^ a foreword by Amartya Sen by Duke University Press. For biography and publications. 5-7. and is subtitled Community.Book Review. James Scott. 78. Frederic Jameson. *Masselos 1992. 1992. 101. *Bahl 1997. David Hardiman. 'The new aristocracy. Alam 1993. culture and society. 4 December 4. see SSVIII. 1919-1937(London: Curzon Press. Yadav 1989. 'Political theory and historical analysis. The ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. 81. 31-3. Brass 1991. 'a statement of this kind was irreverence approaching sheer impudence for many in authority. 96. 1926-1934: A study in imperfect mobilization (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. 1995). Currie 1995. 86. S. 1991). Benedict Anderson.' in Habermas and the public sphere.. 1-46. Gyanendra Pandey 1992. Alam 1983. Chatterjee 1983.' Theory.' A Subaltern Studies Reader. See *Sivaramakrishnan 1995. Paris: 1963. The emergence of a new discourse of nationality is much discussed. 76. ix. 1914—1991 (New York: Vintage. *Das Gupta 1986. p. 80. Descent into discourse: The reification of language and the writing of social history (Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 'Cooper 1994. pp.' in The politics of culture in the shadow uf capital. 1996. *Sarkar 1997. 1991). 173-98. *J. 90. 100. *Singh et al 1984. Sumit Sarkar had also published a Bibliographical survey of social reform movements in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. *J. O'Hanlon and Washbrook 1992. 89. Mishra 1983.' in Aijaz Ahmad. and Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world (Princeton: Princeton University Press. . The. 21. 93. May 1996. Stein 1990. *Balagopal 1989. A useful point of . See The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power. *Balagopal 1989. 1986. and O'Hanlon and Washbrook 1992. pp. 98. Eric Hobsbawm. Chaudhuri 1986.' Social Text. 1917-1934 (Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. Chopra 1982. s 99. Perusek 1992. SumitSarkar. 82. Haskell. edited by Lisa Lowe and David Lloyd (Durham: Duke University Press. *Alam 1983. 1993). Bayly 1988. *Bahl 1997. edited by Richard Fox and Orin Starn (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Pradeep Jeganathan. and violence. 1997. 2. 1977). 'Nationalisms against the state. June 1997. 1991). n.1. Swadeshi movement in Bengal 1903-1908 (New Delhi: People's Publishing House.Alam 1983. *Singh etal 1984. pp. 6. 105. A good discussion in the South Asian context is 'Culture. and Siddiqi 1985. 94. no. 83. Bayly 1988. Post-modernism. *Das Gupta 1986. 1973). 222-8. Freitag 1984. New Haven: Yale University Press.1974.
Hardiman 1996. 111. 'Can the Subaltern speak?' also appeared in 1988. and others. Dipesh Chakrabarty. This reframing of Indian history was later elaborated by new Collective member. O'Hanlon and Washbrook 1992. in Marxism and the interpretation of culture. See note 107: 115. Methodological statements are in Amin 1995. Chatterjee 1995.' 557K pp. 1999). nation. and Sumit Guha.. 1994. 113. Subalterns and sovereigns: An anthropological history of . Dirks (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.237 109. 121.' 55K P. Lynn Hunt. this critical drive. Some Decent illustrative examples (with relevant bibliographies) include Sumit Guha. have not gone unnoticed. 1996). 1989).94. edited by Nicholas B. Cohn. Aamir Mufti. 116.K. and Agrarian environments: Resources. and approaches to a flat and undifferentiated uniformity" (p.lib. 1992b. Although the big guns of the academic press are yet to open up—that old-fashioned artillery operates with the tardiness of a medieval siege and takes its time to be moved into position—a sufficient number of reviews have already appeared and raised a host of questions. Henry Schwarz. . Ortner (Princeton: Princeton University Press. xx—xxiv. Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. and Prakash 1990. Scott 1995. 2000).. 1997. edited and with an introduction by Lynn Hunt (Berkeley: University of California Press.edu/-dludden. we are delighted to acknowledge. 123. Brennan 1984. Selected Subaltern Studies. In near ruins: Cultural theory at the end of the century. and post~coloniaiperspectives. 126. See Ludden. pp. 124. Cyan Prakash 1990b. styles. Introduction 39 Brass 1991. and mildness in Western India . representations. 128. In his Introduction to A Subaltern Studies Reader. edu/area-studieslsubalternlssallau. edited by Arun Agarwal and K. and rule in India. 1999). 1994). Chetan Singh. 127. See Bernard S. http:// www. . Dirks (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1997). edited by Joyce Appleby. 1854-1996 (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sivaramakrishnan. Winter 1994. and Sherry B. 20. 1800-1950 (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Dangerous liaisons: Gender.sas. . 'The post-colonial aura: Third world criticism in the age of global capitalism. It is this negativity. Colonialism and culture. 1997). 364. 122. Ajay Skaria./ Colonialism and its forms of knowledge: The British in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ranajit Guha often gives the Impression of a battle raging. especially pp. Dirks. 19. . 1200-1991 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. see Arif Dirlik. and Margaret Jacob (New York: Norton. 376. Durham: Duke University Press. v. edited by Lisa Lowe and David Lloyd. 118. The politics of culture in the shadow of capital. 1992a. edited by Nicholas B. Culture/Power/History: A reader in contemporary social theory. Chakrabarty 1992b.ables Subaltern Studies to disturb the charmed and almost soporific smugness of established scholarship. 1992). This site (http://www. and Ella Shohat (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Natural premises: Ecology and peasant life in the Western Himalaya. 328-56. An anthropologist among the historians. 120. 114. 108. and Telling the truth about history. 117. 1999). Pandey 1995. edited by Nicholas B. The 557/7 preface includes this: 'These publications. Philip McEldowney. Prakash 1990b. K. 1998).htm) was developed by Frank Conlon. (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sivaramakrishnan (Durham: Duke University Press. Yang 1985.. Negativity is therefore the very ration d'etre 3& well as the constitutive principle of our project. Modern forests-. Sivaramakrishnan. An agrarian history of South Asia. 110. frontiers. which en.38 Reading Subaltern Studies 106.1 107. 'In search of a Subaltern Lenin. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's widely cited article. Geoff Eley.' Critical Inquiry. 271-313. edited by Anne McClintock. 119. Modern forests: Statemakingand environmental change in colonial eastern India (Stanford: Stanford University Press. and Nandini Sundar. 1994). Also McGuire 1986.upenn. 'Invitation to a dialogue. 112. Environment and ethnicity in India. Relevant material is also available through my homepage. ix). See The new cultural history. Ranajit Guha characterises the ethos of the Collective as an 'insistence on a solidarity that would not reduce individual voices. Introduction to Cohn. 125. I992a. Hybrid histories: Forests. 1998).Bastar. 1997). For a critical discussion of post-colonial formulations. p. Environment and ethnicity. 1998. Freitag 1984.. edited by Gary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (London: Macmillan). Virginia.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.