Review: Subaltern Studies: Questioning the Basics

Author(s): Tirthankar Roy

Reviewed work(s):
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalisation of
South Asia by David Ludden
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 23 (Jun. 8-14, 2002), pp. 2223-2228
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4412215
Accessed: 09/07/2009 01:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org
 Review article
Subaltern Studies:
Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical
History, Contested Meaning and
the Globalisation of South Asia
edited by David Ludden;
PermanentBlack, Delhi, 2001;
pp 442, Rs 695.
TIRTHANKARROY
ubaltern Studies, which completes
20 years of existence this year, has
generated as much disquiet and
confusion as creative scholarship in the
last decade. The recently published book
ReadingSubalternStudies,editedby the
eminent historian David Ludden, reprints
a set of critical essays, selecting from
comments on both the 'early' and the
'late' Subaltern Studies, and reproducing
some of the classic and influential re-
views. The essays visit central themes of
colonial Indian historiography.The book,
therefore,is essential materialfor students
of south Asian history.
By and large, the essays are criticisms
from insiders, in that the authors repre-
sented here all believe that the concept
'subaltern'inaugurateda significant chap-
ter in Indian historiography. The criti-
cisms stem from a sense that the idea
behind the word is restrictive, perhaps
increasingly so as Subaltern Studies
stepped out of the history of Indian na-
tionalism and moved into the cultural.
history of colonialism. But few here would
go so far as to argue for a rejection of the
term in writing the history of the poor in
colonial Indiaor contemporarysouth Asia.
The concept was first applied in a spe-
cific context, peasant insurgency. The
intention was to locate an autonomous
field of peasant consciousness that ex-
pressed itself through resisting repression
by the 'elites'. Quickly thereafter, 'sub-
altern' occupied a place at the centre of
colonial Indian historiography. In the
context of an unsettled debate between
'class' and 'caste', 'subaltern'seemed less
problematical than both, and became a
sort of benchmark for writing the history
Economic and Political Weekly June 8, 2002
Questioning
the
of the underprivileged people in south
Asia. The notionof an autonomousmindset
gave a clue to the question animating a
generation of political historians, why the
subalternsdid not come together as a class
with revolutionary potentials.
The methodological ascendancy is il-
lustrated well in this book, which is pri-
marilyaboutways of writing history rather
than about history itself. It is also illus-
tratedin the fact that the essays, including
Ludden's introduction, while criticising
SubalternStudies, employ the terms 'sub-
altern' and 'subaltemity' casually as if
their references are known and acceptable
to all readers. The most lasting impact of
this scholarly enterprise, it is evident from
the book, is in the language employed in
histories of the below.
But this ascendancy came at a cost. Even
as history and anthropology came closer
througha shared interestin repression and
resistance, other ways of thinking about
the experience of the poor and the under-
privileged - economic history foremost -
became submerged in the political mode
of reflection on the poor. More or less the
only dialogue between economic and
political historians that the Subaltern
Studies ever could generate was possible
with the Marxists for whom economics
itself is coercive and confrontational.
Ironically, outside that establishment,
economics and economic history were
steadily losing interest in coercive modes
of conduct at the same time that such
dialogues were going on. At any rate,
Subaltern Studies never seriously busied
itself in clarifying the relationship be-
tween the political and the economic. The
disciplinarybreachwidened with the 'late'
Subaltern Studies (VII to X in particular).
These essays are nearly indefinable as a
set. However, two things that do hold
several of them together are, an interest
in the subjugation and appropriation
implicit in western knowledge about
colonial societies, and a profound disin-
terest in economics.
In the section that follows, I present a
longer outline of this intellectual journey
and the questions that it faced from sym-
Basics
pathetic critics. Section II discusses
Ludden'scollectionin particular,and its
place in a rich historyof contemplating
SubalternStudies.Thatdone, I go on to
voice a critiqueof my own thatis much
less sympatheticthanthetyperepresented
here.In SectionIII,I wish to elaborateon
the causes and consequencesof the dis-
ciplinarybreachand closureof dialogue
thatthe SubalternStudiesbroughtabout
in the study of colonial India.
It is indisputablethat in some themes
of politicalhistory,the 'subaltern'made
a majortheoreticaland empiricalcontri-
bution. But as a historiographicaltool
appliedto the experienceof the poor or
thenon-elitepeoples,theterm'subaltern'
is by definitionlimitingratherthanhelp-
ful.Thisargument,whichappliesmoreto
the programmatic claimsandpronounce-
mentsratherthanto any specific studyin
theSubalternStudiesvolumes,consistsof
four basic arguments.
(1) Theterm'subaltern'is limitingprima-
rily because of the compulsionbuilt-in
withinthe very word 'subaltern'to con-
templateonly one axis of humaninterac-
tion over all others - the repressive - and
one formof agencyover others- protest.
The idea that the poor could make their
own history,a key message of the Sub-
alternStudies,is thereto stay. However,
the poorcoulddo so alongseveralfronts,
domination-submission-resistance being
one of these. Marketparticipation,for
example, was another.
(2) Marketandresourceconditionscould
weaken or strengthenrelationshipsof
subordination.
(3) The actionsof the colonial state,via
marketsor political means, could simi-
larlyweakenorstrengthensubordination.
(4) The colonial state and the colonised
subject relationshipcannot be seen as
fundamentallyrepressive.Essentially it
was an ambiguousand a changingrela-
tionship.For the same reason, colonial
knowledge too had a fundamentally
ambiguousrelationshipwith power and
repression.No total critiqueof colonial
knowledge about subject societies can
become convincing.
2223
 The lastsectionsummarisestheconclu- repression? There was no answer. Impli-
sions of the review essay. citly, the result of not thinking out this
relationship fully was a submergence of
the economic in the political. In the prac-
tice of south Asian history in the following
SubalternStudies began in the early- decade, the notion that repression and
1980sas a critiqueof the historyof anti- resistance should naturally be the focus
colonial movements as written in the when one is studying the history of the
dominantschoolsof politicalhistorythen poor has not been subjected to a serious
current.It was a critiqueof the historyof questioning.
anti-colonialismas an elite-led top-down Once repression was left to be all that
mobilisationeffort. The focus on elite matters to the historian, the journey of
interestsand actionswas commonto the Subaltern Studies from nationalism to the
so-calledCambridgeSchool and the ver- culturalhistory of colonialism was an easy
sion of nationalismwrittenby the more step. Post-structuralist gurus taught that
vocal participantsin anti-colonialmove- there is not one history of human progress,
ments.Peasantmovementsfiguredas sub- but repression and resistance are written
plots in this story of freedom struggle. into histories of progress, especially the
SubalternStudiesbroughtthe peasantto liberal humanist narrative of history as a
thecentre.SubalternStudiesalsoemerged progress of elite consciousness suggesting
froma dissidentleft background,related at the same time that those that fail to keep
with contemporary attemptsto writehis- up do so for their own shortcomings. A
tory from below, but discontentedwith critique of Orientalistknowledge emerged
orthodoxMarxistwayof reducingpeasant from the same roots. From about Subaltern
movementsto a sub-plotin the story of Studies VI, the subaltern was less a po-
struggleagainstcapitalistexploitation.In litical rebel and more a voice silenced or
neither did the peasant appear as 'the transformedin categories of westernknow-
conscioussubjectof his own history' to ledge about colonial societies. Domina-
cite RanajitGuha. tion was still the centre, but domination
These 'totalising' narrativessubordi- was seen less often in political-materialist
natedpeasantconsciousnessto structure terms and more often in cultural-discur-
or elite consciousness, both supplying sive terms.
models of externaldeterminationof the With this turn, three things happened.
historyof the poor,the oppressed,andthe First, 'early' and 'late' Subaltern Studies
peasantsin particular.SubalternStudies became distinct. Second, Subaltern Stud-
recoveredpeasantconsciousnessas some- ies globalised itself very successfully.
thing distinct and independentof elite Third, the breach with economic history
actionsand elite consciousness.It did so became total. The subject of Subaltern
by arguingthat subalternsubjectivityis Studies was colonial societies and not the
constructedthroughresistance.The very poor any more. Every colonial is, by a wide
word 'subaltern', bringing in Antonio definition, a member of the subaltern
Gramsciinto the theorisation,implies a citizenry. Economics could be shut out
battle,in thiscase a battleto regainrights from history with a much clearer con-
or resistprocessesof repression,subordi- science.
nation,and marginalisation. Late Subaltern is hard to characterise.
Subalternityis heredefinedalong only But if there is any unifying theme that runs
oneaxis,thatof repression.Butit is evident through a fair number of the late-1990s
thatthereis anotheraxis along whichthe essays, it is 'insurrection of subjugated
'subalterns'chosen for doing Subaltern knowledges'. The phrase comes from
Studies can be located, their economic Michel Foucault, whose radical proposal
situation.There is no subalternwithout on historiographyhas two basic premises:
pooraccess to assets and incomes.There (1) theory serves political goal and (2) that
is no subalternwithoutdeprivation.Now theory rules, or claims validity, which has
deprivationis not static,and if not, it can the maximum power-effect. His proposal
independently influencesubalternity.From was an alliance of scholarship with dis-
the beginningSubalternStudieswas pro- qualified knowledge. Since theory exists
foundly inattentive to the relationship to serve power, the rehabilitation project
between these two axes, or even about had nothing to do with empirical verifi-
admittingthat there is an independent cation of the claims of different theories.
variablethatmightmatterto subalternity. 'Genealogies', in this sense, are 'precisely
Caneconomicchangestrengthen orweaken antisciences'. The project, however, was
2224 Economicand PoliticalWeekly June 8, 2002
noteasy to implementwithoutfallinginto
contradiction.In practice,it goes through
on the basis of a polarisationof included
andexcludeddiscourses.ButFoucaultalso
arguedthatdominationis everywhere,it
is the stuffthathumaninteractionis made
of. If dominationis everywhereandevery
discourse is simultaneouslydominating
and dominated,the projectfalls through.
Andif discoursesareindeedpolarisedinto
'unitary'and 'subjugated',the view of
power as havingno centrefalls through.
If the historianmustworkat all, the only
way he/shecan workis by assumingthat
in anyhierarchyof discoursestheremight
be anotherelementinvolved,theirclaim
to scientificity.This is not to deny that
dominationdoesworkthroughknowledge.
But a historianmust addressthe coinci-
dence or contradictionbetween power-
hierarchyand truth-hierarchy.
The late SubalternStudiesessays deal-
ing with colonialismhave not been very
discriminatingaboutthis problem.There
tends to be too muchfocus on one over-
arching form of unfreedom- colonial
power, and neglect of those regimes of
unfreedomthat 'disqualifiedknowledge'
of varioustypesserved.Colonialistsources
are discountedas expressionsof power
even as dependenceon such sourcescon-
tinues. Verification is of low priority,
leadingto essays thataretoo boundto the
words in texts. Narrativehistoryis dis-
trusted,so thathistoriesthatcannotbutbe
done in the narrativemode - economic
historyin particular-haveto be excluded.
Early SubalternStudies has been the
subjectof a lively debate.The late Sub-
alternStudies,while openingup the field
to incorporate a varietyof experiences,has
also generatedas muchalarmas dialogue.
Critiqueof both moreor less revolveson
a few fixedpoints,withwhatmightappear
as rathertiresome consistency.Four of
theseareespeciallyimportant.First,mak-
ing subjectivitythe centreof history,dis-
placingandattimesde-emphasisingstruc-
ture,exposed the programmeto the criti-
cism of neglectof thematerialcontextand
modesof exploitationin whichelite-sub-
alternrelationshipsare embedded.Since
thehistoryof structural changeis bynature
moretractablethanthe historyof subjec-
tivity, there was an in-built immobile
element in SubalternStudies. Second,
dividing the world into poles even as a
purelytheoreticaldevice, makesit diffi-
culttohandlesituationswhenevertheelites
andthe subalternsareseento be notfight-
ing with each other.Such situationstend
to be handledwith the notion of either is its representative
statusas the 'authentic its latervariant,representsbetweenhisto-
some kind of strategiccollaborationor voice of the post-colonialeast' in western riesof powerandanthropology.He ques-
'submissiveness'. Theword'cooperation' academiccircles. tions whetherwe are left with a worth-
does not exist, of course,for that would Thebookclassifiestheessaysintothree whileconceptof subalternity withtheshift
overturnthe whole programme. categories:earlycritiquesin India,critical fromresistanceandrevoltto 'a miasmatic
Third,a historythathas dominationat incorporationin the globalacademy,and descriptionof power' (p 240). He argues
itscentrecannotstandwithouta definition latercritiquesin India.The classification foranexamination of theprocessesthrough
of whatthe subalternfigurereallyis like illustratesthe themeof disparatereadings which power is 'produced, exercised,
untouchedby power.Fromearly on, this effectively while also delineatinga kind limited, and appropriated'(p 242).
need led to formulation of ideas of of chronologyin critical response.The Notable in the third set of essays
homogenised peasant communal con- firstset consistsof fourarticlespublished (KBalagopal, Vinay Bahl and Sumit
sciousness that has been the object of between1983and 1986,by JaveedAlam, Sarkar)is a well knownarticleby Sumit
repeatedcriticism.The formulationof the a review-articlebyeightauthors(Sangeeta Sarkar,which again questions the ten-
'subaltern'as a universalcategorydid not Singh, MinakshiMenon,PradeepKumar dency to assign to 'subaltern'and 'au-
go well with a critiqueof the idea of the Datta,BiswamoyPati,Radhakanta Barik, tonomy' more or less 'absolute, fixed,
universalhumansubject.Fourth,Subal- RadhikaChopra,ParthaDuttaandSanjay decontextualisedmeaningsandqualities'
ternStudiesfrom the beginningsuffered Prasad), Ranajit Das Gupta and B B (p 405). His particulartargetis one set of
froma need to define and locate axes of Chaudhuri.All four essays deal with contributionsin late SubalternStudies
domination, withinevitableexaggerations popularprotestmovements,the subjectof wherein'colonialruleis assumedto have
andoversights.InthelateSubalternStud- the earlySubalternStudies,andacknow- broughtabout an absolute rupture:the
ies, for example, overemphasison the ledgetheoriginalityof theproject.A great colonised subjectis taken to have been
colonial-indigenousbinarismled to un- dealof thismaterialconsistsof high-quality literallyconstitutedby colonialismalone'
derstatements of inequalitiesand oppres- critiquesof specific contributionsor sets (p 408).
sionswithinindigenoussocieties.Fromits of them.Overall,theyrevolveon moreor As I said, in none of these essays
start, SubalternStudies regressed into lessonemajorpointof criticism,thenotion 'subalternity'is in question.What is in
binarismjust as doggedlyas criticsques- of subalternautonomy. questionis the contextof its employment
tioned binarism. The second set consists of five essays, or the appropriation of the subalternby
Otherimportantpointshavebeen made by Rosalind O'Hanlon, Jim Masselos, SubalternStudies.Fromthepointof other
fromtimeto time.Butthefourmajorgoal- K Sivaramakrishnan, FrederickCooper, ways of doing 'historyof the below', a
postsbetweenwhichthesubalternballhas andHenrySchwarz.Thesewerepublished great deal in these debates might seem
been kicked aroundthe most are these between1988and 1997.At leastsome of drivenby fetishistic,habitual,or fashion-
ones:subjectivityversusstructureoragency themwerewrittenafterSubalternStudies ablemodesof thinking.Inthe restof these
versusdeterminacy,conflict versus col- had made the transitionfrom peasant essays I discuss four such points.
laboration,subalternas universalcategory insurgencyto insurgencymore broadly
versusthecritiqueof universalcategories, constituted. Powerandcolonialknowledge, Ill
and polarityversusplurality. therefore,aremorecentralthemesin these
writings.All of themrethinksubalternity The Repression Fetish
II in a widercontext,southAsia beyondthe
problems of nationalism (O'Hanlon, Theveryterm'subaltern' impliesabattle.
The last two years have seen quite an Masselos and Schwarz),bridgingdisci- It begs in a world-view and a historio-
outburstof reviews,reprints,and revisits plines(Sivaramakrishnan), andthehistory graphicalproject.Theworld-viewaccepts
to the centralconcernsof the Subaltern of African colonialism (Cooper). withoutquestionthatto studythe.history
Studies.The projectclearly has reached O'Hanlon'snow famousessay questions of the non-eliteis to studyresistance.One
somekindof acrossroads.DavidLudden's the domination-resistance paradigmas it startsthenwitha statementof faith:'what
volumeis different,however.Thepurpose was implementedin the early Subaltern is fundamentalto relationshipsin south
of thebookis 'toprovidea non-subalternist Studies,and arguesfor exploring'resis- Asian society is not negotiation...but
introductionto SubalternStudies' (p 2). tances of a differentkind...dispersedin domination'[O'Hanlon:149].By means
The authorsselected'all madetheirmark fields we do not conventionallyassociate of thisaxiom,SubalternStudiesprivileges
ontheintellectualhistoryof subalternity... with the political' and different, even one type of relation over all others. It
outside(sic) SubalternStudies'.Ludden's eccentric,in form(pp 180-81).Masselos equateshistorywithrepression.Itrecovers
introduction is one of the best surveysin too examines the domination-resistance subalternsubjectivitynecessarilyvia ne-
a short space of the roots of Subaltern motifandwhatit does for the historianof gation of colonial or elite repression.
Studies,its intellectualandpoliticalback- the subaltern.He detects a contradiction All this is cripplingas soon as we step
drop,thecriticalresponsesitspawned,and within 'autonomy'.If resistanceusually outof thatchapterin thehistoryof nation-
the transformation it itself went through. fails, which it did, subalternautonomy alismwhereit allbegan.Surelyagencycan
An important themeis disparitiesin read- disappears. does be pursuedin, say, the economicsphere,
'Inpractice...thesubaltern
ing 'subalternity'.Disparitiesare shaped not disappear ... Instead the subalternbe- via a group'sabilityto changeits condi-
by localcontexts.And by whatsubaltern comes hero' (p 209). Writinggood trag- tions through economic adversities or
studiesinsideoroutsideSubalternStudies edies is 'the underlyingagendaof these uncertaintiesby means of entrepreneur-
standsfor. Perhapswhatcountsthe most histories'.Sivaramakrishnan exploresthe ship,collectiveeffort,ormigration? Surely
to the continuationof SubalternStudies bridge that SubalternStudies,especially cooperationcan be, in principle,just as

Economicand PoliticalWeekly June 8, 2002 2225

significanta form of agency as protest? stood to gain from transactions.In those formation, and the exhaustion of land
These possibilitiesdo not mix with the cases,cooperation,cooption,communica- surplus.In the long run, real wages in
word 'subaltern'and, therefore,are by tion, andco-sharingthe rulesof the game agriculturedid not increase much even
definition shut out from the Subaltern arejust as importantaxes of relationship as returnto capital increased. There is
Studiesnarrative. as are repressionand resistance.A clear a simple explanationto this in termsof
Inturn,thathasmadeSubalternStudies, message from economic history is that demandand supply of resources.A sus-
and a largepartof colonial Indianhisto- economicchangesundercolonialismen- tainedexcess supplyof unskilledlabour
riography,insular.The retreatfrom dia- abled such transactionson a wide front. relative to capitaltended to depressthe
logueis the mostacutewherea dialogue Taketheexampleof theruraltanners-cum- worker'sbargainingpower. In a society
is needed the most, economic history. labourerswho migratedout of extremely already divided, unequal economic
Complaintsabout the insularityof the one-sidedruralrelationshipsto work in power could easily join with social
languageemployedby the laterSubaltern tanneries that came up in Dharavi or inequities to turninto an all-encompass-
Studiesauthorshave been made before. Calcuttain the interwarperiod.Forlarge ing subordination.
Theearly-subalterns continueda dialogue numbers of such people the colonial The secondprocesswas marketforma-
withtheMarxists,forbothshareda vision economy provided escape routes from tion, which could in principleempower
of the world polarisedalong repression servitudeand famine. Notwithstanding and liberatesome subalterngroupsfrom
lines.A muchmoredecisive barriercame the fact that these moves could lead non-market formsof subordination. Itcould
inplaceinrespectof non-Marxistperspec- them to new inequalities,these moves do so by breakingthe obligationuponthe
tive in economichistoryand south Asian representways in which the subaltern subalternsto supplyproductandlabourto
historiography in general. could attemptto change own status by thelocal 'elites',therebyweakeningsome
Why this closure? K Sivaramakrishnan 'co-sharing'therulesof thegamewiththe elite-subalternrelationships.It couldhap-
answers, because 'political-economic elite.Subalternity, then,becomesa special pen via simple exit from one set of rela-
approaches divested the subaltern of case, a contingentsituation.If therewas tionships,suchas migrationfromruralto
agency'(p 216). Behindthis glib one-line no battle,therewas no subaltern.Unless urbanareas,a themesurprisinglyundeve-
dismissallies partlyan inertiaaboutkeep- we havegood groundsto believethatmu- loped in SubalternStudies.It could hap-
ing up to date and partly a trainedin- tuallyprofitabletransactionswereimpos- pen by steps that did not reducedepen-
capacityto incorporateeconomic dyna- sible, conditionsof battle,whetherthese dence in labour-capital relationships,and
mics.Modemeconomicslooks at agency arosefrompeasantconsciousnessor eco- yet increased the non-elite's choices by
of theeconomicsubjectin a morenuanced nomicreversals,haveto be seen in a more increasingtheiraccess to subsistenceand
fashionthanthe primitivetools of exploi- generalcontextthatalso includescondi- occupationalmobility. Most rural-urban
tation and repressionin which colonial tions of compliance, cooperation, and and agriculture-industry shifts had such
Indianhistoriography, in a slipshodway, participation. implications.
is still trapped. Subaltern Studies, as Incorporating economichistorycreates Both these processes suggest that the
Sivaramakrishnan remindsus, brokedis- a fundamentaldiscord within the para- possibilityof a change in elite-subaltern
ciplinaryboundariesbetweenhistoryand digm of repressionand resistance.Eco- relationship- either way - can derive from
anthropology. Butit is not,as he suggests, nomics indeeddoes remainin the back- redistributionof economicopportunities,
the inflexibilityof economicsthatdrove dropof a greatdeal of the earlySubaltern ratherthanvia politicalrepressionor re-
historyto the armsof anthropology. Studies,concernedmorespecificallywith sistance to such repression.This is the
Admittedly,the end of a dialoguewas the peasants.In these narratives,moreor lessonof economichistory.TheSubaltern
not confinedto the SubalternStudies.In less all thateconomicsdoes is accountfor Studies,however,is constrainedto ignore
a way it was partof a generalcrisis in the the initialconditionsof a polarity.Subal- it. A suggestionsuch as marketscan in
socialsciences.Untilthe 1980s,thebelief tern Studies has conceded to the principle be seen as liberatingis blas-
thateconomicchangeandculturalchange 'economistic'Marxistsa possibilitythat phemy, in the context of the readingof
were interdependent was widely held in powercan and usuallydoes move in sev- colonial modernity that the Subaltern
both economicsand historyand was the eral fields simultaneously- economic, Studieshas takenfromthe post-structur-
ground for a dialogue. Marxism and social, and political - and draw upon a alist masternarrative.Not surprisingly,
modernisationtheorysuppliedmodelsof varietyof resources.But materialcondi- the only type of economic history or
interactionbetweenthe economicandthe tions and distributionof resourcesplay vision of long-termeconomicchangethat
cultural.With theirdecline, the belief in almost no role in the dynamicsof elite- the SubalternStudies can be somewhat
interdependence itselfreceded.Economists subalternrelationship. Thissingle-minded comfortablewith is the neo-dependency
grapplewith culturequite independently andstaticconcernwithpowerwouldseem, one that necessarilysees marketsin the
of any help from historians,who by and froma moderneconomichistoricalpoint colonial setting as repressivetools. An
largefindeconomicstootiedto a moderni- of view, both inane and archaic. exampleof thiscompatibilityis Ludden's
sation languageand thereforepolitically A non-Marxisttypeof historiography is own referencesto economicglobalisation
incorrect. likelyto suggesttwocharacteristicdynam- that predictablystop at ArturoEscobar.
ics in colonial Indian economy, one The critiqueof modernitythatthe Sub-
Market-Participation and Agency strengtheningand the other weakening alternStudiesbringsinto Indianhistorio-
subordination of thenon-eliteby theelite. graphyfrompost-structuralism leaves no
Theidentitybetweennon-eliteandsub- The formerwas the growing imbalance roomforeconomicsto playanyrolein the
ordinationdoes not work in situations betweenlabourand capitaldue to popu- positionof the non-elites.Therearethree
whereboth the elites and the non-elites lationgrowth,pooreffortathumancapital conceptualdifficulties.Economicsallows

Q~~~~~~~22~~~~26~~ ~Economic and PoliticalWeekly June 8, 2002

opennessin the outcomeof transactions,
whereasSubalternStudiesimpliesthatall
roadsof changeare closed except active
or passive protest. Second, economics
cannotgive upthe languageof modernity.
The notion of 'modernisation'is deeply
entrenched in economics, and derives
fundamentallyfrom the measurabilityof
an improvementin well-being.Third,and
perhapsmost importantly,the theoriesof
economicmodernisation increasinglylook
like a more open and less ethnocentric
versionof modernisationtheory,insofar
as these believe in the necessityof insti-
tutionalchangesfor economicgrowthto
happen. Growth-inducinginstitutional
changes do not necessarilyinvolve har-
nessingpoweranddomination,butsome-
times turninghierarchiesto cooperation
while runningorganisationsor managing
resources. In that sense, economic
modernisationcan involve greaterfree-
dom. To yield some groundto economic
history amountsto admittingthat there
are indeed trajectoriesof progress and
that societiesare unequallyplacedalong
these trajectoriesin their social charac-
teristics. Repressiondoes not have the
universalitythatit does in a Foucaultian
world.Instead,it is one kindof condition,
sometimesconducivetogrowthsometimes
adverse.
The Colonial State and
Subalternity
Subalternity sinksintofuzzinessunless
one can effectivelypolarisethe elite and
the non-elite,the rulersand the ruled.To
deal withthisproblemsome polaritiesare
exaggeratedin SubalternStudies. Right
from the beginning,the point was made
thattherewere differenttypes of repres-
sive relationshipsin colonial India.One
of them was alongthe state-subjectaxis.
Outsidethat,therewas a dense network
of subordination amongand betweenthe
so-calledsubalterns.Along the colonial-
state-colonial-subjectaxis, subalternityis
easierto definebecausethese were theo-
reticallydistinctpoles in the exercise of
power. Inside the indigenous world of
repression,subalternitycannot be either
defined or located precisely, for every
repressedperson or group was also a
repressorin turn.
A greatdeal of the emphasisof Subal-
ternStudies,andespeciallythatof Ranajit
Guha's own writings,falls upon the co-
lonial state.SubalternStudiesrightfrom
its political history origin through its
Economicand PoliticalWeekly June 8, 2002
cultural studies reincarnationis primarily
a critique of the colonial state. There are
several problems with this emphasis on
state-subject relation. First, it is arbitrary.
Second, colonial and indigenous networks
of politics were mutually interacting, and
one cannot be described without the other.
Third, it greatly narrows the scope of
historiography.A great many poor people
in south Asia were in remote contact with
the state. Artisan communities, for ex-
ample, were groups that the colonial state
was never seriously interested in. Such
people remain outside history whenever
historiography gets too bogged down in
what the British and theircollaboratorsdid
or thought.
Fourth, it smuggles in a bad faith. The
notion that here was one big stem of
oppression and all the others were its
branches ignores the fact that oppression
had indigenous and diverse roots, and
colonialism suppressedmany of these roots
because it needed to establish its own
authority.Many SubalternStudies authors
and their critics recognise the existence of
indigenous repression.But nowhereis there
a serious admission of the possibility that
the effects of state power could be reduc-
ing the effects of other types of power. And
yet, one dimension of the much-maligned
'colonial modernity' was the attempt to
empower some groups repressed in the
indigenous networks of power. Tenancy
and moneylender legislation are well
known examples. Another dimension of
colonial modernity was elite actions di-
rected at empowerment of the non-elites,
such as social reforms or women's edu-
cation. Subaltern Studies is constrained to
emphasise instead complicity between
indigenousandcolonial elites. A less loaded
readingwould see thatcolonial power stood
in a relation of ambiguity with indigenous
centres of power.
For the same reason, colonial know-
ledge too had an ambiguous relationship
with power and repression.
Ambiguity of Colonial
Knowledge
The attempt to read 'coloniality' in
colonial knowledge in the late Subaltern
Studies is compromised by the need to rely
almost wholly on colonial documents for
the purpose. There is simply no other
information structure of comparable de-
tail, volume, and observational intent that
this vast body of knowledge can be weighed
against. Of course colonial knowledge was
biased.But how biasedit was thereis no
way of measuring,because there is no
standardavailable outside this body of
knowledge. In some exceptionalcases,
SubalternStudiescontributorshavemade
innovationsin this regard.But by and
large,beliefs aboutthe degree of bias in
colonial sourcesmust remainstatements
of faith.
Colonial knowledge had to create an
informationbase beforeit could process
it. For example, pre-colonialand indi-
genousstructuresof knowledgesupplyno
worthwhileinformationat all on occupa-
tions thatengagedthe non-elite.Thereis
nothingtherethatis remotelycomparable
withwhatcolonialsources,includingand
especiallythe fashionablymalignedcen-
suses or caste surveys,supplied.Colonial
knowledge,beforeit could becomein the
language of Bernard Cohn fully
'categorised,classified and bounded'to
functionas a tool for hierarchisation, had
to come into existence as information.
Now,thisis afarmoreindeterminate project
thanthe critiquesof colonial knowledge
make it out to be.
First,the very process,if it represented
a consolidationof power and hierarchy,
was also equally a radical inversion of
the profound indifference with which
the pre-colonial elite documentedthe
experienceof the underprivileged classes.
Colonial knowledge, in its re-hierarchi-
sationaspect,was anexpressionof power.
But colonialknowledge,in counteracting
the silencesleft overfromhierarchiesthat
ruled in the past, was empowerment.
Second, precisely because the project
was both of these things, it never could
serve up a finished ideologicalproduct,
and never had the chance to become an
Orientalist output. A part of colonial
knowledge,especiallythatcreatedoutside
of political administration,consisted of
unclassified fragments that had been
created to meet the silences before any
meaningcouldbe investedin them.Third,
thesefragmentsof informationwithoutan
Orientalistcontentwas 'public good' in
the sense economistsuse the term.These
were non-rival in the extent of usage,
and non-excludablein terms of access.
Such informationcould be used equally
for producingan image of westernrule,
for reformsthatempoweredthe poor, or
for writinga critiqueof colonialism.All
threeuses meritequalweight.Anexample
is the faminereportsthatdocumented,for
the first time in India's famine-ridden
history with adequate detail, how the
2227
other half dies during a severe scarcity. In
turn, these produced a relief policy that
is still in force, and continues to rep-
resent India's modern egalitarian creden-
tials. This knowledge was empowerment
for the famine-prone who included some
of the most oppressed peoples of India.
Conclusion
Let me sum up the main arguments.
'Reading Subaltern Studies' is, as I said
at the start of this essay, a selection of
critical essays written by 'insiders'. Insid-
ers in that the authors by and large includ-
ing the editor harbour no serious misgiv-
ings about the terms 'subaltern' and
'subalternity'. The critical argument de-
veloped is rather that there is an intellec-
tual history of subalternity outside the
SubalternStudies and that the relationship
between these two traditions tends to be
undeveloped and overlooked within the
latter.
In this review, I develop an outsider's
point of view. Conceding that in the spe-
cific context of revolt and resistance, the
term has made a contribution, I dispute its
usefulness in a general history of the
'below'. I propose that the very term
'subaltern', by begging in a research
programme bound up with polarity, coer-
cion, and resistance, has been limiting in
the study of the underprivileged peoples
in south Asia. This critique has two basic
points.
(1) First, the term 'subaltern' refers to a
fuzzy set of people. If they are the poor,
then SubalternStudies fails in meeting the
most basic criterion for an adequate his-
toriography of the poor, possessing a
nuanced economic history. If they are the
victims of domination, then they are in-
determinate, for every victim was in prin-
ciple also an oppressor. Search for ways
out of that problem has almost always led
Subaltern Studies to select and privilege
some axes of domination over others, and
to overlook the ambiguities characterising
most relationships, between 'principals'
and 'agents', or between the state and the
subjects.
(2) Second, 'subalternity' begs in a
world-view centred on the idea that the
non-elite must be studied via a repression-
resistance narrative.This grand narrative,
the indoctrinating power of which is
evident in the casual and trusting way
the term is employed by the contributors
and the editor to refer to whoever it refers
to, is limiting in two ways. First, it over-
simplifies the experience of the poor in
south Asian societies. And second, it
deepens the rift with economic history,
which admits of a much greater openness
in interactions.
Subaltern Studies has changed the way
in which history of the below is written.
In one important respect, the change is
decidedly for the better, the accent on the
ability of the underprivileged to alter
their conditions themselves. But while
arguing against structures, Subaltern
Studies itself imposed a structure on the
way this ability is conceived anddiscussed,
distancing itself in the process from the
discipline whose help any history of the
below needs the most, economic history.
The way forward for history writing is to
retain the original intent, the search for
agency, while interpreting agency in a
much broader way. That is, by question-
ing the repression-fetish built into the
very term 'subaltern'. M13

INDIANSOCIALSCIENCEREVIEW Biannual:May,
November
'
A MultidisciplinaryJournal ISSN: 0972-0731 ofpublhingIn South Asia

Editor:T N MADAN, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi AnnualRates:

The Indian Social Science Review providesa forumfor the multidisciplinary Institutional Rs 565
study of contemporaryissues of concern to Indiawhile Individual Rs 280
and interdisciplinary INDIAN
encouraging a closer interactionbetween the social sciences and policy- SAAR RatesSOCIAL
making.This refereedjournalarticulatesrigorousscientificdiscussion on the Institutional $ 23 SCI
diverse concerns of social science research. The journal disseminates Individual $ 13
analyticaldiscussions and researchfindingson themes such as social change;
problemsof development;equityin education;strategicand geopoliticalissues,
gender,class and caste; federalism;the historicalrootsof present-dayconflicts;
the demographic and the interfacebetweenscience, societyand culture.
transition;
RECENTISSUEHIGHLIGHTS
* Editorial:The Social Sciences and Multidisciplinarity
T N MADAN
* MultipleModernitiesand the Rise of New Social Movements:The Case of
IndiaT K OOMMEN
* Gandhi,Marxand CharanSingh:Class and Gemeinschaftin Peasant
MobilisationHAROLDA GOULD
* Cracksin the LeftBastion?The 1999 Parliamentary Electionsin West
BengalBIDYUT CHAKRABARTY
* WhitherIndianPartySystem? The Electoraland LegislativeDimensions
MAHENDRA PRASADSINGH

| f SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd B-42, PanchsheelEnclave,Post Box4109, New Delhi110 017, Tel:6491290, 6491293, 6491294;
Fax: 91-11-6491295; e-mail:journalsubs@indiasage.com* GroundFloor,59/5, Prince BaktiarShah Road, Tollygunge,Kolkata700 033,
l Tel: 4172642, 4220611; e-mail: sagepcal@vsnl.net * 27, Malony Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017, Tel: 4345822, 4326265;
e-mail: sageind@md4.vsnl.net.in * 31, LB Stadium, Post Box 131, Hyderabad 500 001, Tel: 3231447, 3230674;
e-mail:sageindvsnl.net * 1187/37Ameya,Shivajinagar,
OffGhole Road, Pune 411 005, Tel:5513407, 5513408; e-mail:sageindia@vsnl.net

2228 Economic and Political Weekly June 8, 2002