Give an account of Ranajit Guha's approach in studying 'subaltern class'.

The Context and Emergence of Subaltern Studies

Prior to the emergence of Subaltern Studies, Indian historiography was largely dominated by colonial, nationalist, and Marxist perspectives. Colonial historiography often portrayed India as backward and in need of British rule. Nationalist historiography focused on the role of elites in the freedom struggle, often overlooking the contributions of the masses. Marxist historiography, while acknowledging class struggle, tended to view subaltern groups as passive recipients of historical forces. Guha argued that these approaches failed to capture the agency and independent consciousness of the subaltern classes.

Guha’s Methodological Approach: ‘History from Below’

Guha advocated for a ‘history from below’, which meant reconstructing the past from the perspective of the subaltern. This involved moving away from official records and elite sources and towards alternative sources such as folklore, oral narratives, songs, and local traditions. He emphasized the importance of understanding the subaltern’s worldview, their motivations, and their forms of resistance. This approach was heavily influenced by Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and the idea that subaltern groups possess their own independent consciousness.

Key Concepts in Guha’s Work

Elemental Forms of Resistance

Guha identified ‘elemental forms of resistance’ as the spontaneous, pre-political actions of the subaltern classes in response to oppressive conditions. These included acts of defiance, sabotage, and everyday forms of resistance that did not necessarily aim to overthrow the existing order but rather to challenge its authority and assert their dignity. Examples include poaching, refusing to pay taxes, and petty theft. He argued that these forms of resistance were crucial in shaping the political landscape and creating the conditions for more organized movements.

Selective Appropriation

Guha introduced the concept of ‘selective appropriation’ to explain how dominant groups often co-opted and reinterpreted the symbols and ideologies of the subaltern classes for their own purposes. This meant that the meaning of resistance could be altered and neutralized by the dominant groups, preventing it from becoming a genuine threat to their power. For instance, nationalist leaders might incorporate elements of peasant folklore into their rhetoric without necessarily addressing the underlying grievances of the peasantry.

Domain of the Peasantry and the ‘Little Tradition’

Guha distinguished between the ‘little tradition’ and the ‘great tradition’ in Indian society. The ‘little tradition’ represented the localized beliefs, practices, and customs of the peasantry, while the ‘great tradition’ encompassed the pan-Indian, Sanskritic culture of the elites. He argued that the peasantry possessed a distinct cultural domain that was largely independent of the dominant culture and that their resistance was often rooted in their own cultural values and beliefs.

Critiques of Guha’s Approach

Guha’s work has been subject to several criticisms. Some scholars argue that his focus on the ‘subaltern’ as a homogenous category overlooks the internal differences and conflicts within subaltern groups. Others contend that his emphasis on ‘elemental forms of resistance’ downplays the role of organized political movements and leadership. Furthermore, critics have questioned the possibility of truly accessing the ‘subaltern’ perspective, given the limitations of historical sources and the inherent biases of the historian. Dipesh Chakrabarty, a prominent subaltern studies scholar, critiqued Guha’s reliance on a pre-modern, autonomous peasant community, arguing that colonialism fundamentally altered the nature of peasant society.

Impact and Legacy

Despite these criticisms, Ranajit Guha’s work has had a profound impact on the field of Indian history. Subaltern Studies has inspired a generation of historians to re-examine the past from a new perspective and to give voice to those who have been historically marginalized. His work has also influenced other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, and political science, and has contributed to a broader understanding of power, resistance, and social change.