|
|||||||
Dalit Discourse Through Subaltern Perspective in India : An Inquiry | |||||||
Paper Id :
17306 Submission Date :
2023-02-03 Acceptance Date :
2023-02-19 Publication Date :
2023-02-23
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8
|
|||||||
| |||||||
Abstract |
Subaltern perspective signifies a paradigm-shift in social science to understand the voice of masses on their own that is independent from the elite. This new method of anti-elitist approach started with the central theme to critically analyze both Cambridge School and Nationalist School of thought on their elitist depiction of history writing, which originated as an ideological product during British rule in India. For a long time, the voice, roles and contributions of the subaltern classes, outcasts, tribals, workers, women, and peasants have not been acknowledged in making the history in India. The subaltern mode of historiography started in the 1980s with the writing of Ranajit Guha along with other historians in the South Asian context. These scholars critically examined historiography till that time and expanded the branch of knowledge in history writing of the voiceless people South Asia in general and Indian society in particular. This new perspective of history writing arose with the influence with Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and Postcolonialism studies. Since then, postcolonial theorists from diverse disciplinary backgrounds have begun to take interest, and expanded the range of this intellectual project which challenges the power and privilege of the elite in the domain of knowledge. Against this backdrop, this paper is intended to analyze the discourse of Dalits in the intellectual and social spheres in Indian history writings. Additionally, the paper also highlights the way in which this method of history writing begins in India as a reactionary force.
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Keywords | Dalit, Discourse, Inquiry, Perspective, Subaltern. | ||||||
Introduction |
A Brief Introduction of Subaltern Historiography
The historical root of subaltern studies started with the notable generalization in the work of British historians Eric Hobsbawm (1965) and Edward P. Thompson ( 1966 ) . They examined the “ history from below " by focusing on the political agency of subordinated social groups . Thompson in his noticeable work the making of the English working class highlighted the lives of people who had been previously silenced in the traditional historiography .Although the term ‘subaltern’ has several diverse meanings in social science disciplines. the term subaltern has come in the work and writing of Italian Neo Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci in his three volumes of Selections from Prison Notebooks (1971) in context to Italian marginalized groups in the sense of ‘any group of inferior' rank specifically southern Italian workers marginalized by hegemonic politics of fascist party, which was based on ethnic class gender or identity extraction. Through this concept, he analyzed the history of society and culture with regard to subaltern groups in his popular note titled “On the Margins of History: The History of Subaltern Social Groups”. He observed that the history of subaltern groups was largely unwritten or “on the margins of history”. Apart from this he used this concept for studying colonial societies and to understand the groups under cultural hegemony that were manipulated by colonial powers to ensure their dominance. The emergence of contemporary post- colonial studies is usually associated with Edward W. Said’s Orientalism (1978) as a founding text, as well as with works by Gayatri C. Spivak and Homi Bhabha. By the 1990s, Edward Said, Spivak and Bhabha were considered as a ‘Holy Trinity’ (Young 1991) in the Subaltern Studies. From 1980s, Guha started his critical analysis with basic epistemological inquiry into how Indian society had overlooked the marginalized groups of women, peasants, labor, workers and tribals on the periphery of Indian society, while they were makers to their own history in an autonomous realm. The term “Subaltern” was defined by Guha (1982) as ‘the demographic difference between the total Indian population and all those whom we have described as the 'elite' in his research in academic writing on South Asian history. The word 'subaltern' used in preface of the first volume of Subaltern Studies in the title stands for the meaning as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary , that is , ' of inferior rank ' . This is the name for the general attribute of subordination in South Asian society whether this is expressed in terms of class, caste , age , gender and office or in any other way. Terms like 'people' and 'subaltern classes' have been used as synonymous throughout this note . Guha raised the real question, that is how far various subaltern groups , whether women , peasants , outcastes , the working - class , tribals , the downtrodden , or other marginalized people who had been relegated to the periphery of Indian society, had been able to make history and constitute their politics as an "autonomous" realm.
The project of subaltern historiography in the context of South Asia had started in systematic way through an academic writing of Ranajit Guha along with young scholars as a subaltern social group in the forms of twelve edited volumes from An Oxford University press as Subaltern Studies between 1982 to 2005. The first six volumes came with the editorship by Guha himself and the remaining six by other scholars associated with the project. Through method of epistemological inquiry, these scholars have made history more experimental, implicative, scholarly, meaningful, relevant by questioning the method of analysis. Since then, the series had got global presence specifically in South Asia and India as an area of academic specialization. From 1985, Indian Historians critically started looking at both capitalist and socialist State 'from the bottom up' approach to focus on local, subaltern, agrarian, pastoral and tribal experiences (Ludden, 2008). After a few years later, Subaltern Studies became a hot topic in academic circles on several continents; a weapon, magnet, target, lightning rod, hitching post, icon, gold mine, and fortress for scholars ranging across disciplines from history to political science, anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, and cultural studies (Ludden, 2008). In this project, young historians also played an important role to initiate a new approach on the study of Postcolonialism and Indian nationalism. They argued that Indian history writing was dominated since long by an elitism that focused on either the colonial state or the indigenous elites, the bourgeois nationalists or the middle classes. To know the subaltern classes they started investigation on diverse sources, moving away from archives and official papers to a variety of local sources, private and popular.
|
||||||
Objective of study | 1. To understand subaltern discourse in brief.
2. To analyze Dalit discourse in social and intellectual spheres.
3. To offer an overview of major contributors of post-colonial studies by linking them with Dalit discourse. |
||||||
Review of Literature |
Dalit Discourse in Social Sphere |
||||||
Main Text |
Dalit Discourse in Intellectual Spheres In the Social Sphere, various types of anti-caste
movements were started by lower castes to eradicate the evils prevailing in the
Hindu Social Order under the banner of Socio-religious reform movements.
The Intellectual Sphere has an important role in Dalit discourses. It has
a central role in Dalit research, writing, thinking and field work. The aim of
Guha's project is to rectify the elitist bias characteristic of much
research and academic work (Guha,1982,viii preface). Subaltern
historiography was like a revolution in the science of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn
portrayed this idea in his book The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions where he proposed how a new paradigm
comes from revolution after anomalies and crisis in normal science. Indian
historians of the subaltern social group began to rethink the theories of
nationalism and postcolonial social construction ( Hall et al ,1978). The preface to Subaltern Studies volume-IX
(1996-97) which was edited by Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty
displayed new and original research on colonial and contemporary South Asia.
Contemporary problems and theoretical formations have been added to it for its
intellectual horizon. Scholars from various fields started writings on the
oppressed caste system.In her essay, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Spivak
(1985 ) argued that it is impossible to recover the voice of
subaltern . The combined working of colonialism and patriarchy had silenced the
voice of the Indian widow. The reason for this she says is that 'there is no
space from where the subaltern subject can speak'.
Partha Chatterjee (1982) provides a critique of
political Marxism. He talks of community as the organizing principal for
Subaltern studies. Thomas (2018) argued that a contextual and historical study
of Gramsci's notebooks helps to reconstruct the subordinate classes. Its
relevance in this context has been proved in historical writings,
socio-cultural and scientific paradigms. Nevertheless, this figure has
been challenged by neoliberal economic policies and the rise of new political
rationalities. In this regard ,Ranajit Guha along with young scholars
formed the Subaltern Social Group to highlight the contribution of marginalized
groups in the historiography of South Asian Societies. Subaltern social groups
have been greatly influenced by the knowledge power and discourse
hypothesis of Michel Foucault. These ideas helped the subaltern studies’
historians to focus on the marginalized and oppressed sections of the society.
In the context of Indian society power and knowledge belonged to the upper
strata of society. Through this they exercised power on the lowest
sections of the society . For a long time, they established their hegemony and
exploited the people of the lower rung of society. Kancha Illaiah (2009) has
rejected the Brahminical elitist interpretation of history. He said that
Hindutva has suppressed the scientific creativity and productivity of Dalit
Bahujan communities. For this reason, there is a need to encourage indigenous
scientific ideas for national progress. Moreover, Socio-economic impact of
Chamar/Madiga of North India was not accepted in the written discussion. Indian
society must understand the subaltern scientific role of this caste community
in a new perspective. Indologist claimed that Indian society can be understood
on the basis of book view instead of empirical social structure. G S Ghurye was
the founding father and main architect of sociology in India . He used an
Indological method to study Indian society. Most of the famous sociologists who
studied Indian society before independence were Indologists in their method of
study (Singh, 2004). The postcolonial turn in writing of India historiography
was started with investigation of India society by criticism of the Indological
perspective due to its root based on upper caste textual ideology. Desai (1998)
started the work of documenting the movement of the working class in the Indian
under the ambitious project. This task not only visualized the agitations and
struggle of the working class but also defined it very well. This project
provided significant content in history writing to the respected group. Ludden
(2001) observed that commentators have acknowledged his work for their subject
matter in the study of this group. Guha
(1982) argued that peasants and workers are able to create their own forms of
oppositional culture and identity as autonomous agents . He proposed a new
interpretation of peasants consciousness in South Asia .With the influence of
subaltern historiography many scholars turned their attention to the study of
tribal communities. Anthropologists have highlighted that the lower and
marginalized strata of society which includes tribes and rural peoples are
their basic unit of study. Subaltern Studies -X (1999) was edited by
Gautam Bhadra,Gyan Prakash and Susie Tharu .The Subaltern writer of this
proposed volume expanded the range of their inquiry, exploration, directions
and issues beyond the discipline of history. By this effort they tackled the
issue of contemporary politics and politics of knowledge. Thapar (2000)
suggested that in the modern writing of Indian history, there is a continuous
dialogue and debate with colonial interpretations, with nationalist
interpretations and with the development of theoretical formulations in the
post-colonial period. It modified the Indian view of history even after the use
of theoretical interpretations. This process broadened the debate and
evaluation of understanding the past of Indian history which can help to
understand the present. On the basis of hundred years of discussion of Indian
Sociology, Kumar (2016) said that Indian society is still dominated by the
upper castes. For this reason Indian sociology is inegalitarian and exclusionary in nature. |
||||||
Conclusion |
Subaltern historiography started a new trend in the historiography of the oppressed and marginalized people in South Asian society. It shifted its focus from the historiography of the elite to contributing to the history of the common people. In his historiography, while raising the issues of marginalized, suppressed, dependent, it included classes like farmers, Dalits, Adivasis, downtrodden and women. The analysis of social and intellectual spheres reveals that the subaltern historiography focused on the condition of peasants, women, dalits, tribals and laborers in South Asian societies in general and Indian society in particular. In this manner, the stream of elite-centric historiography till now was diverted towards mass centric. This was a paradigm shift in historiography initiated by Ranajit Guha. Despite this, mutual disagreement is found among its supporters on various issues regarding the unit of study. Spivak in his article “Can the Subaltern Speak?” raised these issues strongly. Furthermore, the paucity of research and studies in the field of subaltern studies after 2005 weakens its relevance. Given these facts, there is a need to reconsider its studies and research. |
||||||
References | 1. Bougle., C. (1971). Essays on the Caste System ,London : Cambridge University Press.
2. Chatterjee., Partha. (1982). "Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal", in Subaltern Studies - I, edited by Ranajit Guha. Delhi : Oxford University Press .
3. Douglas., Mary. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts purity and taboo. New York: Praeger.
4. Dutta., Mohan, Mahuya Pal.( 2010). "Dialog Theory in Marginalized Settings:
A Subaltern Studies Approach", Communication theory ,Pp.363-386.
5. Guha., Ranajit .(1982). Subaltern Studies -I : Writings on South Asian History and Society , Delhi : Oxford University Press.
6. Guha., Ranajit (ed.). (1998). A Subaltern Reader: 1986–1995. Delhi: Oxford University Press .
7. Hall., S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, Law and Order, London: Macmillan.
8. Hoare.,Quintin and Smith.,G.N. (eds) (1971) .Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci ,New York: Lawrence and Wishart.
9. Hobsbawm.,Eric .(1959). Primitive Rebels .
10. Ilaiah.,Kancha.(2009). Post Hindu-India : A Discourse in Dalit-Bahujan,Socio-Spiritual and Scientific Revolution, New Delhi : Sage Publication ,Pp,25-48.
11. Kumar., Vivek, (2014), "Dalits Studies: Continuities and Change", in Yogendra Singh (ed.), Indian Sociology (Volume 3): Identity Communication and Culture, New Delhi : Oxford University Press.
12. Kumar., Vivek . (2016). "How Egalitarian Is Indian Sociology ?", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol-LI, No -25 ,Pp, 33-39.
13. Ludden., D., ed. (2001). Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical history, contesting meaning and the globalization of South Asia. Delhi: Permanent Black.
14. Ludden.,David,.(2008). The new Cambridge history of India. London: Cambridge University press, Vol 04, P-16.
15. Ram.,Nandu .(2020). Mobile Scheduled Castes : Rise of a New Middle Class, Hindustan Publishing Corporation.
16. Said ., E. W. (1978) . Orientalism, London : Routledge .
17. Shah., A.M.(2019) .The Structure of Indian Society: Then and Now, New York : Routledge, Pp,65-69.
18. Singh., Yogendra .(2004). Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology. Jaipur : Rawat Publication.
19. Spivak., G. C. (2000). The new subaltern : A silent interview. In V. Chaturvedi (Ed.), Mapping
subaltern studies and the postcolonial, London.
20. Srinivas ., M. N. (2004). Collected Essays.Forwarded by A.M.Shah, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
21. Srinivas., M.N .(1952) . Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India, Delhi : OUP.
22. Thomas., Peter D.(2018). "Refiguring the Subaltern", Sage Publication, Pp,1-24.
23. Thapar,Romila.(2000). "Interpretations of Indian History: Colonial, Nationalist, Post-colonial". DeSouza, Peter. Ronald, eds. 2000. Contemporary India-transitions. New Delhi: Sage Publication. p. 36.
24. Thompson., Edward P. (1966). The making of the English working class , New York :Vintage pub .
25. Young., R. J. C. (1991). White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. New York: Routledge. |