Az: Could you please explain the context in which Subaltern Studies evolved as an intellectual group inquiring into South Asian History?
Partha: The first volume of Subaltern Studies came out in 1982. But the group started discussing the subject may be three or four years before that. The immediate context was set by the debates that were then going on over the history of modern India. There were mainly two schools: one followed the older colonial kind of interpretation, which at this point of time was done by Cambridge historians and some American historians. Their analysis of nationalism was based on an old theory of patron-client relationships. Thus, elite sections of Indian society were supposedly using traditional powers of patronage - either on the basis of religion or caste or local control over property. The concept of Indian nationalism was nothing more than this elite group using its power to mobilise its clients. Against this interpretation, the nationalist historians were trying to argue that Indian nationalism was the result of the mobilising actions of the political leadership of the Congress. The Congress leaders brought political consciousness to the masses. The assumption was that before the Congress leadership started to organise these masses, the people of India did not have any political consciousness. This was the point from which Subaltern Studies began. It was trying to argue that it was incorrect to say that the Indian masses or peasants were pre-political or apolitical until the nationalist leaders brought political consciousness to them. The main argument that Subaltern Studies was trying to make was that when peasant or subaltern groups joined nationalist politics, they did so because they had their own reasons. That is to say, even when they participated in the nationalist movement, the nationalism of the subaltern groups was not the same as the nationalism of the elite Congress leaders. In fact, you have so many examples for this. These were the kind of researches that we were trying to do. For example, there were various subaltern groups who refused to join nationalist campaigns. Even though the Congress leaders came and tried to mobilise them, they did not join. And there were occasions when they joined and then left in the middle of the movement. Often they left the Congress and moved towards other movements that were not approved by the Congress leadership. So I would say that initially the situation out of which Subaltern Studies grew was formed by these earlier debates about Indian history. Subaltern Studies tried to maintain that both sides in that debate were in fact taking an elitist point of view. Both made the assumption that the subaltern classes were not political. Our argument was that the subaltern classes had in fact their own political consciousness. Even when they joined political movements led by the elite, they did so for their own reasons.
…….
Az: In the six volumes of Subaltern Studies, but for that single article “Chandra’s Death” by Ranajit Guha, there was no reference made to the category ‘caste’. There seems to be a total silence of caste as a tool of analysis. The very use of the word, ‘peasant’ has been depoliticised and is devoid of caste. Later in the seventh volume there seems to be a change in the orientation. Caste does appear as a category. Is there any specific event or moment which is responsible for this change?
Partha: I have to say that there were at least two moments that were hugely significant in the evolution of Subaltern Studies. First, one of the earliest criticisms made of Subaltern Studies came from feminist scholars. In fact, I remember after the publication of the third volume, there was a conference in Calcutta. There were very serious criticisms made there by several feminist scholars. They said that there was no gender perspective at all in Subaltern Studies. Would not the whole argument about the peasant change if one were to bring in the gender perspective? It is true that the ‘peasant’ we were talking about in the first few volumes was really the male peasant. We did not think about the possibility of bringing in the gender angle that would make the idea of peasant consciousness a much more complex matter. It was this criticism that made us aware of the gender question. So, you will find a change in the fourth or fifth volumes which reflected a greater awareness of gender in Subaltern Studies. Similarly, on caste. The fact that we did not talk about caste was largely because of the prior state of the debates. Again, don’t forget that most of us came from a Marxist background. In terms of our debates within the domain of Marxist scholarship, at least at this point of time, the caste question was simply not considered at all. It has become much more visible now, but in the early 1980s the caste question was not considered an important question in Marxist scholarship in India. So I think those were the limitations of Subaltern Studies because of the specific conditions out of which the scholarly attempts emerged. But by the late 1980s, Subaltern Studies had become a forum where caste was a crucial subject of discussion. In the Hyderabad conference of 1992, I remember very well, the caste question was raised in several contexts. I remember that Ilaiah spoke and several others spoke. So it is true that Subaltern Studies initially did not consider the caste question in any serious way. But later on, you will find much more explicit discussion on caste.
….
Az: It is not that Bengal is unaware of Ambedkar and his politics. For example, "Jogendranath Mandal (1306? - 18.6.1375 BS) born in Barishal, Bangladesh, a lawyer by profession and a well known leader of the Scheuled Caste community in East Bengal, helped Ambedkar to make it to the Constituent Assembly from the Bengal Provinicial Assembly. In fact his most important contribution was in granting political and social recognition to the Nama Sudra community, the largest group among the Hindus in East Bengal. Jogendranath was a minister in the Cabinet of the undivided Bengal Government and subsequently in the Pakistan Government. But later he resigned his post in protest of the Hindu Policy adopted by Pakistan, came back to India and settled permanently. The Bengal polity mocked at him calling him 'Jogen Mian'. He stood in Lok Sabha Elections but failed to make it to the House of Representatives of Independent India." (For ref see: Sansad Bangali Charitabhidan, Volume I, Revised Third Edition, July, 1994, Pp.444, Sahitya Sansad, Calcutta). Could you please elaborate on the relationship between Ambedkar and Jogendranath Mandal or any other Bengali like Jogendranath Mandal and its impact on Bengal?
Partha: Jogendranath Mandal was a very prominent figure in Bengal politics in the 1940s. He was from the Namasudra caste in East Bengal. The historian Sekhar Bandyopadhyay has written two volumes on the history of the Namasudra. It is a very interesting dalit group because there were some prominent Namasudra zamindars in Bengal and a small but influential professional class, including ICS officers. Jogen Mandal was a prominent leader in Ambedkar’s Scheduled Castes Federation and formed an alliance with the Muslim League against the Congress in Bengal. On the eve of partition, he opposed the partition of Bengal, arguing that the scheduled castes of Bengal would be much better off in Pakistan than in India. But there was a complete desertion in his party. When there was a vote in the Bengal legislature, only five scheduled caste members supported Mandal, and twenty-five voted with the Congress for the partition of Bengal. Mandal stayed in Pakistan and became a minister in the Pakistan government. Later, when he moved to India in the 1950s, he was never able to regain his position of leadership in the Namasudra community.
Az: Could you please tell me something about the implication of the caste question on the framework of Subaltern Studies. Because, Subaltern Studies assumes an anti-colonial rhetoric. But the problem is that when you bring in the data on anti-caste movements there is a trace of or sometimes you could see even an overtly pro-colonial stand. For example, in M.C.Rajah’s The Oppressed Hindus, he made a reference to a farewell function given to a British official in which the person giving the farewell address says, “the British character of administration through the agency of the British people must be maintained at any cost.” And you have similar arguments in the writings of Ambedkar and other dalit intellectuals. So how do you negotiate with the anti-colonial framework and the pro-colonial data of anti-caste movements?
Partha: I think one of the things that the nationalist historians would have done is not to recognise such data and simply ignore and put that data aside. This needs to be recognised. Because people who felt oppressed within Hindu society did often think that independence would only mean that the upper caste oppressors would become the rulers and there would be no one to protect them from their rule. So the oppressed would become even more of a victim. I think Ambedkar is extremely perceptive on this. He actually goes into this question. If you read his writings from the 1930s, he is trying to persuade other dalit leaders not to be misled by this emotionally powerful argument. Because, he said, the British would never give citizenship to dalits. What dalits really needed was equal citizenship. As subjects of the British empire, they would only get crumbs from the British who would then claim “We are protecting you from the uppercaste hindus”. But they would never give citizenship. The only place where dalits would get equal citizenship was in an independent republic. Dalits would have to accept the fact that once there was a republic, caste oppression might still continue; the oppression might even become worse. But that would give dalits a better field to fight. Because then they would at least have constitutional rights, which was not there in the colonial order. Yes, you are right, there were many dalit leaders who felt that British rule gave them protection from the upper castes. And there were Muslim leaders too who felt the same way. But Ambedkar’s response, I think, was extremely sophisticated and persuasive.
Az:Will it not affect the framework within which Subaltern Studies operated?
Partha: Not necessarily. Because, as I said, one of the initial findings of Subaltern Studies was that even when subaltern groups participated in nationalist movements, they did so for their own reasons. There were many many instances where they refused to join, there were instances where they joined and left, and there were instances when they joined and then took a completely different direction. No, I would suggest that it is only for a nationalist historian that this kind of evidence would be disturbing. But not for a historian of Subaltern Studies. Certainly, nationalist historians will find this very awkward, which is why they do not talk much of Ambedkar. And that is why Ambedkar’s book on Pakistan is not talked about. It is one of his major works. But it is not even mentioned. Because it was so much of an awkward thing for them.
Az: Scholars like you, and there is Gauri Viswanthan, Upendra Baxi and a few others, who talk of Ambedkar, talk about him in isolated places and in some chapters of some books. But no one is referring Ambedkar in your other works on nationalism or other issues. The question of appropriating Ambedkar arises here because he did talk about so many issues of national significance other than the caste question, for example, he talked of water policy, linguistic states, India’s foreign policy and so on.
Partha: I think the reason for this is that, generally speaking, Ambedkar has been ghettoized. Even when he is studied, he is studied entirely in the context of the dalit movement and caste. The fact is that Ambedkar was one of the most remarkable intellectuals of the 20th century. He was easily one of the most learned intellectuals, perhaps the most learned, who entered Indian politics. If you think in terms of his academic scholarship, he was probably more qualified than anyone else in Indian politics. Yet, even when he is noticed, he is noticed in that one single role of a dalit leader and made to fill that role. Yes, you are right. What we need today is far greater recognition of Ambedkar’s importance as an intellectual figure of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Son of a college teacher, graduated in Political Science from Presidency College, Calcutta and with a Ph.D from US, Partha Chatterjee is the founding member of the Subaltern Studies editorial collective, which has made greater impact on Historigraphical Studies. He is now the director of the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, and visiting professor of anthropology at Columbia University. His recent book,The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World (Columbia UP, 2004), takes into account the neglected social movements and intellectuals like Dr.Ambedkar. His books, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (Princeton UP, 1993), and and Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? (Zed Books, 1986). have made significant contribution to the present day debates on Nationalism.
Professor Chatterjee's other books include A Princely Impostor? The Strange and Universal History of the Kumar of Bhawal (Princeton UP, 2002); Partha Chatterjee Omnibus (Oxford UP, 1999); A Possible India: Essays in Political Criticism (Oxford UP, 1997); and Texts of Power (University of Minnesota Press, 1995).
R.Azhagarasan, is lecturer in English, University of Madras, interviewed Partha Chatterjee for the Tamil journal ‘Dalit’ during his visit to a conference on “Caste and Democracy” held at Hyderabad in 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment