Subaltern Approach/Historiography: Simple Notes
What is it? This is a new way of looking at history that started in the early 1980s. It's called "subaltern" history.
Why did it start? It began as a critique (criticism) of how history was usually written. The subaltern historians felt that traditional history writing was faulty because it ignored the "voice of the people."
"Elitist Bias" Problem:
Subaltern historians said that all previous Indian history writing had an "elitist bias.""Elitist" means it focused too much on the "elites" - the powerful and upper classes.
It didn't pay enough attention to the ordinary people - the "subalterns."
Who are the "Elites" and "Subalterns"?
Elites: Powerful groups in society. In colonial India, this meant:
Foreign Elites: British colonial rulers.
Indian Elites: Wealthy Indians, upper castes, educated leaders, etc.
Subalterns: "The people" who are not the elites. This is a broad group:
Peasants (farmers)
Workers
Lower castes
Tribal people
Women
Basically, anyone who was not in a position of power and whose voices were often not heard in traditional history.
Main Conflict (according to Subaltern historians):
Traditional view (Marxist/Nationalist): Main conflict was between Colonialism (British) vs. Indian People (as a whole).Subaltern view: Main conflict was actually between Elites (Indian AND Foreign) vs. Subaltern Groups. They argue that elites, both British and Indian, were in power and often had more in common with each other than with the ordinary Indian people.
Difference from Marxist View:
Marxists focused on class (rich vs. poor) as the main way to understand exploitation.Subaltern historians: Say that class is not enough to explain Indian society, especially in colonial times.
Capitalism was "nascent": They argue that capitalism (the economic system focused on class) was just starting in India then, so class was not the only or main form of oppression.
Other forms of exploitation: Subaltern historians say that caste, gender, religion, and creed were also very important ways people were exploited and discriminated against in Indian society.
Critique of Nationalism:
Subaltern historians say Nationalism (the idea of a united Indian nation fighting for independence) ignored "inner contradictions" within Indian society.Nationalism didn't really listen to what marginalized people (subalterns) had to say or what their experiences were.
"No United Indian People?" Some subaltern historians argue that there was no real "Indian people" united in an anti-colonial struggle. They say India was too divided by class, caste, etc. to be truly "united."
Two Movements: They suggest there were two separate movements:
"Real" anti-imperialist movement: Of the subalterns - genuine grassroots resistance.
"Bogus" national movement: Of the elites - just a power struggle among elites disguised as nationalism.
They see the Indian National Congress (the main nationalist party) as being led by elites, and just wanting to take power for themselves, not really representing the subalterns.
Bipan Chandra's summary: Bipan Chandra (a historian who critiqued the subaltern approach) says that subaltern historians dismiss all previous history as "elite history" and claim to replace it with a "people's" or "subaltern" approach.
In Simple Words: Subaltern history is about telling history "from below," from the perspective of ordinary, powerless people, not just the rich and famous leaders. They think history writing has been too focused on elites and needs to include the voices of the subalterns. They question if India was ever truly united in nationalism, and argue that conflicts within Indian society (like caste and gender) are as important as the fight against British rule