Ranajit Guha on Elitist Historiography

An Analysis
The essay On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India by Ranajit Guha analyses
and compares neo-colonialist historiography and neo-nationalist historiography from the elitist
perspective. The essay also touches upon the subaltern groups contribution to Indian
Nationalism, which has been overlooked by the elite historiographers.
There are sixteen points discussed in the essay with reference to bourgeoisie nationalist,
colonialist, elite and subaltern tendencies in the writing of Indian history. The essay speaks of
both pre-colonial and post-colonial India with reference to Nationalism.
The author begins by establishing the differences between the history written by British elite
groups and Indian elite groups. The British adopt a method of neo-colonialism or the use of
economic, political and other pressures to control or influence a former dependency such as
India. This method is adopted chiefly by British writers but not without Indian imitators. On the
other hand, the neo-nationalists attribute the entire credit of achieving Indian Independence to
native (Indian) elite groups. There are liberal British historiographers who support this idea along
with the Indian historiographers.
The one commonality however, is their prejudice to the elite class making them predominant
heroes who brought about the nationalist consciousness in an otherwise subdued India.
In the neo-nationalist sense the Indian elite groups are made up of Indian elite personalities,
institutions, activities and ideas. It seems correct, for, the Indian neo-nationalist history credits
the whole of the struggle for Independence as an act performed by a group of elitist lawyers such
as Gandhi, Nehru, Ram Mohan Roy, Tilak, Gokhale, Patel, Rajagopalachari and others.
In the neo-colonialist sense the elite groups are made up of British colonial rulers, administrators,
policies, institutions and cultures. The neo-colonialist definition of Indian Nationalist portrays it
as a function of stimulus and response. A good example would be the text book depiction of the
1857 War of Independence as Sepoy Mutiny. This portrayal attempts to classify the 1857
rebellion of the Indian soldiers as a mere reaction to a provocation of their religious sentiments
(The Enfield Cartridges). It also portrays the native elite as a group of people who were in a
learning process, trying to assimilate a huge governing structure and understand its principles.
This too is not due to any great idealism but only because the native elites seemed to want to
gain power, wealth and positions of pride. The Zamindars and princes (bourgeois) are always
represented as the subordinate natives who would commit treason for their own ends. They were
also depicted as being divided, inefficient, dull and easily surmountable.
As opposed to the neo-colonialist depiction, the native elitist historiographers depict the elite
nationalists as idealists who led the people from subjugation to freedom. There are several

versions in this sort of historiography depending on varying degrees of emphasis on individuals

and institutions. The chief aspects highlighted about the indigenous elite nationalists are:
1. Their goodness and its phenomenal expression in the form of Indian Nationalism.
2. Their antagonistic stance against the colonial regime.
3. Their role as promoters of the cause of the indigenous people.
4. Their altruistic and self-abnegating characters.
Guha puts it across very satirically and sardonically by placing an opposition next to each of
these tall claims.
They have completely tried to evade the accusations of being collaborationists, exploiters and
oppressors who scrambled for power and privilege, making them appear like spiritual men he
says.
There are certain advantages in elite historiography. It helps:
1. In understanding the colonial state structure.
2. In knowing the various state organs and their operation during certain historical
circumstance.
3. In knowing the nature of alignment of the classes.
4. In the identification of elite ideology as dominant during certain periods.
5. In understanding the contradictions between Indian and British elite groups, their
oppositions and coalitions.
6. In classifying the roles of certain important people and organizations of the Indian and
British elite groups.
The ideological characteristics of such historiography, is made evident by these interpretations.
The people or the subaltern groups and their contributions have been looked at as mere response
to an elite inspiration and influence. The British elite represents the subaltern nationalist
upsurges as a law-and-order problem and the Indian elite represents it as the response to the
charisma of a certain leader. They use the term vertical mobilization of factions to describe
these leaders moving the whole nation towards a common goal. This sort of falsehood and
misrepresentation gets exposed where history has to explain phenomena such as the Rowlatt
Movement and the Quit India Movement where the people acted against the colonialists without
any elite control or guidance.

Such inadequate history whose efficiency is doubly crippled by beliefs such as the ones
upholding the colonialist superstructure and class outlook can never give the native nationalists
as much importance as they deserve. The subaltern groups mobilized themselves. Guha calls
them an autonomous domain. Though colonialism intruded into elite nationalism several times
and rendered it ineffective, the subaltern nationalism continued to operate vigorously by a)
adjusting and adapting to changing conditions and b) developing new ideas in form and content.
Subaltern politics considered mobilization as a horizontal activity that touches upon social
groups of equal status at any point in time. The elitist groups practiced vertical mobilization that
touched upon several levels of colonial hierarchy. Such elitist mobilization depended on the
movements of the British parliamentary institutions and such. For example, Patel who unified the
Princely States after independence did it with great difficulty by using vertical mobilization.
Horizontal mobilization involved kinship, territorial and class associations at the level of
consciousness of the people involved. This was simpler and pragmatic. It was spontaneous and
violent unlike the controlled, legalistic, and cautious mobilization methods of the elites.
Peasant uprisings and such subaltern revolts had a constant element of antagonism to elite
domination. This ideology was in varied degrees. Sometimes it helped by increasing the
concreteness, focus and tension in subaltern politics. At other times, by its communal interests, it
resulted in bigotry and confusion. Two things that drove the subaltern class in a certain path was
their understanding of exploitation and of productive labour. This was a distinct factor that set it
apart from elite politics.
Despite the living contradictions that stopped the subaltern politics from actualization in history,
clear demarcations ideology, operation and spontaneity can be made between subaltern politics
and elite politics. The failure of the bourgeoisie in speaking for the nation is evident. Their
hegemony created a dichotomy which cannot be ignored by an interpreted of history. Ignoring
the vast differences in ideologies between the subaltern and the elite could mislead the history
reader.
These two factions are not watertight compartments sealed off from one another. They still
overlap due to bourgeoisie attempts to integrate them. These efforts succeeded when backed by
anti-imperialist motives. They failed miserably causing nasty strife among the sects when the
anti-imperialist motives were not firm and when compromises were made with the colonialists. A
good example would be the partition of India and Pakistan.
Due to the inability of the working class to rise above the local limitations, and the lack of good
leadership, history has interpreted their national struggles as fragmented local rebellions for
economic, political and petty reasons. The inadequacy of the bourgeoisie and the working class
has resulted in a historic failure.
The end result could have been either a democratic revolution under the bourgeoisie hegemony
or a new-democracy under the subaltern hegemony. Unfortunately, it was neither.
Ranajit Guha concludes with a need to resolutely fight against elitist historiography by I)
rejection of spurious and unhistorical monism and II) recognition of the co-existence and

interaction of the elite and subaltern domains of politics. The purpose of the writers of subaltern
studies, he says, is to create a convergence of elitist views and ideas opposing it. Criticism and
discussions that ensue would help in learning a great deal more about how to preserve the
integrity of historiography.
Glossary:
Historiography: The writing of history, the study of history-writing.
Historicism: The theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history.
Subaltern: A marginalized group rendered voiceless by oppression.
Elitism: Advocacy of or reliance on leadership or dominance by a select group.
Bourgeois: Upholding the interests of the capitalist class.
Neo-colonialism: The use of economic, political and other pressures to control or influence other
countries esp. former dependencies (a country or province controlled by another.)
Neo-nationalism: An ideology supporting the creation of a nation-state.
Idealism: The practice of forming or following after ideals.
Ideological: The system of ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory, the manner of
thinking characteristic of a class or individual.
Vertical: Involving at the levels of hierarchy of an organization.
Mobilization: Organize for service or action.
Hegemony: A leadership by one state or confederacy.
Dichotomy: Division into two (sharply defined)
Localism: Limitations arising from attachment to a local custom or ideology.
Monism: The doctrine that only one ultimate principle or being exists.