Ankita Podder

Sociology Hons. Semester I

Roll No. – 0817009

______________________________________________________________________________

THE SUBALTERN CRITIQUE OF ELITE HISTORIOGRAPHIES

Historiography is the method of doing history. It is the body of literature dealing with historical
matters, histories collectively. The elite historiography of Indian nationalism that had
perpetuated as the popular narrative had significantly ignored or sidelined the existence of an
alternative history which would be called the subaltern historiography. Subalterns are those who
have been ranked lower in the social hierarchy (is a derived military term). The subaltern
narrative is the history of the victorious and the vanquished. The subaltern critique assumes a
bottom up view and not a top down view of the nationalism in India and interrogates the
dominantly existing discourses. The elitist historiography projected the idea of a nation as an
eliteist idea and that transfer of power from the British to the Indians was only a former political
arrangement. The elite narrative propagated the idea that nationalism was an elite achievement
and through the consciousness it created, gave birth to a nation. The ‘Subaltern Studies
Collective’ was dissatisfied with how Indian nationalism was constructed. Many groups were not
given a voice in history. It is this historiography of Indian nationalism that Guha is critisizing.

Guha says that the history of Indian nationalism has for the longest time been dominated by two
kinds of elitist historiographies which had emerged as an ideological product of British rule in
India as the colonialist elitist historiography and the bourgeoisie-nationalist historiography,
which after independence came to be known as the neo-colonialist and neo-nationalist
discourses. The colonialist or neo-colonialist discourse is written primarily by the British; and
the nationalist and the neo-nationalist discourse by the bourgeoisie Indian elite. Guha criticizes
this historiography because it fails to cast a spotlight on the mass, the people who have worked
independently of the elite for the building and achievement of nationalism. The subaltern
historiography is the “un-historical historiography” which talks about the politics of the people.
Parallel to elite politics existed the subaltern politics. The subaltern group constituted of the
“mass of the labouring population and the intermediate strata in town and country- that is, the
people.” This autonomous domain could never be destroyed or be declared ineffective and
continued to operate vigorously because neither its origin nor existence depended on the elite,
but never found the equal recognition of its historiography in the presence of the dominant elite
historiography.
The elitist narratives of nationalism monopolize over the idea of the Indian nation and
development of class consciousness. The colonialist and neo-colonialist historiography credits its
achievements to British colonial rulers, policies, administrators, institutions and culture, and the
nationalist and neo-nationalist writings to Indian elite personalities, institutions, activities and
ideas. The narrative provided by the colonialists is that of stimulus and response of the Indian
elite to the policies and ways of administrations generated by the British. The British tried to
explain Indian nationalism as a process of educating the native elite by providing them a learning
experience through negotiations in order to govern the country. This historiography did not
regard the presence of any ideology for the good of the nation but simply used the baits of share
in wealth, power and prestige they offered the Indian elite as a way of dominating in the era of
Indian colonialism and nationalism. The nationalist narrative is however different. It paints a
picture of the Indian elite creating an idealist venture of leading the people from subjugation to
freedom. There are several versions of this narrative which choose to differ on the importance
given to such elitist organizations and institutions such as the Indian National Congress but what
is common to them all is to put up an image of the Indian elite not as collaborators to the bait
provided by the British but as saviors of nation who charismatically led the people to
independence by developing consciousness and being promoters of the cause of the people. The
“spiritual biography of the Indian elite” was to describe their “altruism and self-abnegation than
their scramble for the modicum of power and privilege granted by the rulers in order to make
sure of their support for the Raj.”

However, elitist historiography has helped us know more about the colonial state and the
operation of its various organs; nature of alignment of the classes which sustained it; ideology of
the elite as the dominant ideology of the period. It has also helped us know about the
contradictions of the colonialist and nationalist elites, their complexities and mutual coalitions,
and the role of important British and Indian personalities, institutions and organizations. Above
everything, such a narrative has brought to light the ideological character of the historiography
itself. The major failure of this kind of historiography is its inability to acknowledge the
contribution made by the people independently of the elite and to understand and asses the mass
mobilization except negatively, as a law and order problem. The only positive assessment is
vertical mobilization due to the charisma of certain elite leaders and manipulation of factions.
The involvement of the masses in their assertion for independence has been described as
diversion from ‘real political process’ which did not receive ideological appropriation. Guha
very rightly states the absence of great numbers of people in the narratives as devoid of
substance in of elitist historiographies in describing events such as the Anti-Rowlatt upsurge of
1919, the Quit India Movement of 1942, the Chauri-Chaura incident or militant demonstrations
of solidarity with the RIN mutineers. He says that such “one sided and blinkered historiography”
escapes the massive displacements caused due to “popular initiative asserting itself in the course
of nationalist campaigns in defiance or absence of elite control.” This naturally sets a narrow and
partial view of politics because it assumes a class outlook and provides hegemony to the
institutions introduced by the British for the government of the country for the laws, policies and
other elements of the super structure thereby presenting a history of the hunted as written by the
hunter. The history of the leadership and the history of the people who were in power is simply a
manipulated history with no true substance as mutual transactions which was the interface
between the native elite and colonial powers was all that was thought to be there to Indian
nationalism.

Parallel to elite politics exists the subaltern politics which constituted of the people. Elite politics
was considered modern politics while the subaltern politics was considered traditional. But in the
nationalist movement, it continued to operate vigorously and adjusting itself to the state of the
country under the British and in many respects developing new strains in both form and content.
Subaltern politics throws light on those aspects of mobilization which were often shadowed by
elitist historiographies. “Mobilization in the domain of elite politics was achieved vertically
whereas in that of subaltern politics was achieved horizontally.” Elite mobilization was more
complying, legalistic and constitutionalist in orientation while the subaltern mobilization was of
a relatively violent character. Popular mobilizations manifested in the form of peasant uprisings.
On many instances large masses of working people and petty bourgeoisie in the urban areas
became participants to these insurgencies.

The ideology of the subaltern lay in the diversity of its social composition with a prime concern
at a particular time and particular event. However, what binds them above this is their class
consciousness against elite domination. This ideological element was not uniform in its quality
or density but in cases which demanded concreteness and focus, subaltern politics strengthened
itself. At times the subaltern politics was divided through sectarian interest and economic
diversions to undermine horizontal mobilization. What unified them was their very condition of
oppression and their distinction from the dominating idea of Indian politics. Their exploitation
and their consciousness as a group helped them demarcate their domain of subaltern politics
from that of elite politics. The elitist historiography has failed to narrate the coexistence of these
two domains which is a historical truth, which Guha describes as the “failure of the Indian
bourgeoisie to speak for the nation.” There arose a structural dichotomy is the writing of Indian
history as a result of this failure which is a massive error in narrative of the struggle itself.
However, this dichotomy did not mean that these two domains were sealed off and protected of
each other. Instead, there was a great deal of overlapping when few elements of the Indian elite
tried to integrate them with their prime objective being anti-imperialist producing great results
and sometimes they even complied with constitutionalist and legalist ways. The fact remains that
when these two domains merged, it gave rise to explosive situations indicating that when masses
were mobilized by the elites for their own objectives, popular politics left an imprint on the
upper classes and catalyzed nationalism for independence.

Subaltern politics is not without its failures. It was not powerful enough to develop a full-fledged
struggle for liberation. The working class was neither able to build a strong class consciousness,
nor was it firmly allied with the peasantry and as a result failed to complete the mission which
the bourgeoisie had failed to realize. The result of this was numerous small uprisings which
waited in vain for leadership to raise their crescendo above localism and make it a nationwide
anti-imperialist campaign. The result of this sectional struggle was the fading was of the voices
of these small groups in parochial lanes of economics and politics which needed revolutionary
leadership but was far too fragmented to form and carry forward the national liberation
movement.

Guha addresses the sidelined fact that as a nation we have collectively failed ourselves due to our
inability to merge these two domains at all times to provide a much stronger and unified
resistance. The absence of the bourgeoisie democratic revolution – the classic type under the
hegemony of the bourgeoisie or the modern type under the hegemony of the workers and
peasants which is the ‘new democracy’ is the “failure which constitutes the central problem of
the historiography of the problem of colonial India.” The subaltern historiography resolute the
role played by elitists as not only important but also necessary, and heavily criticizes its
unhistorical monism characteristic view of Indian nationalism. Guha offers a conclusion saying
that any historiography and any narrative of history must include all groups that have been
involved in bigger or smaller ways. If coexistence and interaction of elitist and subaltern
domains of politics in India happened on a much larger scale, then as a nation the collective
efforts of every small unit would have resounded and the subaltern narrative of the people would
not have to fight for a standing in its own struggle for independence.