On Some Aspects of the Historiography

of Colonial India'

RANAJIT GUHA

1. The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time

been dominated by elitism-colonialist elitism and bourgeois-
nationalist elitism.2 Both originated as the ideological product of
British rule in India, but have survived the transfer of power and
been assimilated to neo-colonialist and neo-nationalist forms of
discourse in Britain and India respectively. Elitist historiography
of the colonialist o r neo-colonialist type counts British writers and
institutions among its principal protagonists, but has its imitators
in India and other countries too. Elitist historiography of the
nationalist or neo-nationalist type is primarily an Indian practice
but not without imitators in the ranks of liberal historians in
Britain and elsewhere.
2. Both these varieties of elitism share the prejudice that the
making of the Indian nation and the development of the
consciousness-nationalism-which informed this process, were
exclusive& or predominantly elite achievements. In the colonialist
and neo-colonialist historiographies these achievements are cre-
dited to British colonial rulers, administrators, policies, institu-
tions and culture; in the nationalist and neo-nationalist
writings-to Indian elite personalities, institutions, activities and
ideas.
3. The first of these two historiographies defines Indian nation-
alism primarily as a function of stimulus and response. Based on a
'The author is grateful to all the other contributors CO this volume as well as to Gautam
Bhadia. Dipesh Chakrabarty and Raghabendra Chattopadhyay for their comments on an
earlier varsion of this statement
ZFor a definitron of the terms 'elite'. 'people', 'subaltern', etc as used in these paragraphs
the reader may kindly turn to the note printed a t the end of this statement
 2 Subaltern Studies I
narrowly behaviouristic approach this represents nationalism as Historiography of Colonial India 3
the sum of the activities and ideas by which the Indian elite period; about the contradictions between the two elites and the
responded to the institutions, opportunities, resources, etc. gener- complexities of their mutual oppositions and coalitions; about the
ated by colonialism. There are several versions of this historio- role of some of the more important British and Indian personalities
graphy, but the central modality common to them is to describe and elite organizations. Above all it helps us to understand the
Indian nationalism as a sort of ‘learning process’ through which the ideological character of historiography itself.
native elite became involved in politics by trying to negotiate the 6 . What, however, historical writing of this kind cannot do is
maze of institutions and the corresponding cultural complex intro- to explain Indian nationalism for us. For it fails to acknowledge,
duced by the colonial authorities in order to govern the country. far less interpret, the contribution made by the people on tkeirowtl,
What made the elite go through this process was, according to this that is, independently of the elite to the making and development of
historiography, no lofty idealism addressed to the general good of this nationalism. In this particular respect the poverty of this
the nation but simply the expectation of rewards in the form of a historiography is demonstrated beyond doubt by its fai!nre to
share in the wealth, power and prestige created by and associated understand and assess the mass articulation of this nationalism
with colonial rule; and it was the drive for such rewards with all its except, negatively, as a law and order problem, and positively, if
concomitant play of collaboration and competition between the at all, either as a response to the charisma of certain elite leaders or
ruling power and the native elite as well as between various in the currently more fashionable terms of vertical mobilization by
elements among the latter themselves, which, we are told, was the manipulation of factions. The involvement of the Indian peo-
what constituted Indian nationalism. ple in vast numbers, sometimes in hundreds of thousands or even
4. The general orientation of the other kind of elitist historio- millions, in nationalist activities and ideas is thus represented as a
graphy is to represent Indian nationalism as primarily an idealist diversion from a supposedly ‘real’ political process, that is, the
venture in which the indigenous elite led the people from subjuga- grinding away of the wheels of the state apparatus and of elite
tior to freedom. There are several versionsof this historiography institutions geared to it, or it is simply credited, as an act of
which differ from each other in the degree of their emphasis on the ideological appropriation, to the influence and initiative of the
role of individual leaders o r elite organizations and institutions as elite themselves. The bankruptcy of this historiography is clearly
the main or motivating force in this venture. However, the modal- exposed when it is called upon to explain such phenomena as the
ity common to them all is to uphold Indian nationalism as a anti-Rowlatt upsurge of 1919 and the Quit India movement of
phenomenal expression of the goodness of the native elite with the 1942-to name only two of numerous instances of popular initia-
antagonistic aspect of their relation to thecolonial regime made, tive asserting itself in the course of nationalist campaigns in
against all evidence, to look larger than its collaborationist aspect, defiance or absence of elite control. How can such one-sided and
their role as promoters of the cause of the people than that as blinkered historiography help us to understand the profound dis-
exploiters and oppressors, their altruism and self-abnegation than placements, well below the surface of elite politics, which made
their scramble for the modicum of power and privilege granted by Chauri-Chaura o r the militant demonstrations of solidarity with
the rulers in order to make sure of their support for the Raj. The the RIN mutineers possible ?
history of Indian nationalism is thus written up as a sort of spiritual 7. This inadequacy of elitist historiography follows directly
biography of the Indian elite. from the narrow and partial view ofpolitics to which it is commit-
5. Elitist historiography is of course not without its uses. It ted by virtue of its class outlook. In all writings of this kind the
helps us to know more about the structure of the colonial state, the parameters of Indian politics are assumed to be or enunciated as
operation of its various organs in certain historical circumstances, exclusively or primarily those of the institutions introduced by the
the nature of the alignment of classes which sustained it; some British for the government of the country and the corresponding
aspects of the ideology of the elite as the dominant ideology of the sets of laws, policies, attitudes and other elements of the super-
structure. Inevitably, therefore, a historiography hamstrung by
 4 Subaltern Studies I Historiography of Colonial India 5
such a definition can do no more than to equate politics with the controlled, the latter more spontaneous. Popular mobilization in
aggregation of activities and ideas of those who were directly the colonial period was realized in its most comprehensive form in
involved in operating these institutions, that is, the colonial rulers peasant uprisings. However, in many historic instances involving
and their eleues-the dominant groups in native society-to the large masses of the working people and petty bourgeoisie in the
extent that their mutual transactions were thought to be all there urban areas too the figure of mobilization derived directly from
was to Indian nationalism, the domain of the latter is regarded as the paradigm of peasant insurgency.
coincident with that of politics. 10. The ideology operative in this domain, taken as a whole,
8. What clearly is left out ofthis un-historical historiography is reflected the diversity ofits social composition with the outlook of
the politics of the people. For parallel to the domain of elite politics its leading elements dominating that of thepthers at any particular
there existed throughout the colonial period another domain of time and within any particular event. However, in spite of such
Indian politics in which the principal actors were not the dominant diversity one of its invariant features was a notion of resistance to
groups of the indigenous society or the colonial authorities but the elite domination. This followed from the subalternity common to
subaltern classes and groups constituting the mass of the labouring all the social constituents of this domain and as such distinguished
population and the intermediate strata in town and country-that it sharply from that of elite politics. This ideological element was
is, the people. This was an autonomous domain, for it neither of course not uniform in quality or density in all instances. In the
originated from elite politics nor did its existence depend on the best of cafes it enhanced the concreteness, focus and tension of
latter. It was traditional only in so far as its roots could be traced subaltern political action. However, there were occasions when
back to pre-colonial times, but it was by no means archaic in the its emphasis on sectional interests disequilibrated popular move-
sense of being outmoded. Far from being destroyed or rendered ments in such a way as to create economistic diversions and
virtually ineffective, as was elite politics of the traditional type by sectarian splits, and generally to undermine horizontal alliances.
the intrusion of colonialism, it continued to operate vigorously in 11. Yet another set of the distinctive features of this politics
spite of the latter, adjusting itself to the conditions prevailing derived from the conditions of exploitation to which the subaltern
under the Raj and in many respects developing entirely new strains classes were subjected in varying degrees as well as from its
in both form and content. As modern as indigenous elite politics, it relation to the productive labour of the majority of its protago-
was distinguished by its relatively greater depth in time as well as nists, that is, workers and peasants, and to the manual and intellec-
in structure. tual labour respectively of the non-industrial urban poor and the
9. One of the more important features of this politics related lower sections of the petty bourgeoisie. The experience of exploi-
precisely to those aspects of mobilization which are so little tation and labour endowed this politics with many idioms, norms
explained by elitist historiography. Mobilization in the domain of and values which put it in a category apart from elite politics.
elite politics was achieved vertically whereas in that ,of subaltern 12. These and other distinctive features (the list is by no means
politics this was achieved horizontally. The instrumentation of the exhaustive) of the politics of the people did not of course appear
former was characterized by a relatively greater reliance on the always in the pure state described in the last three paragraphs. The
colonial adaptations of British parliamentary institutions and the impact of living contradictions modified them in the course of
residua of semi-feudal political institutions of the pre-colonial their actualization in history. However, with all such modifica-
period; that of the latter relied rather more on the traditional tions they still helped to demarcate the domain of subaltern pol~t-
organization of kinship and territoriality or on class associations ics from that of elite politics. The co-existence of these two
depending on the level of the consciousness of the people involved. domains or streams, which can be sensed by intuition and proved
Elite mobilization tended to be relatively more legalistic and by demonstration as well, was the index ofan important historical
constitutionalist in orientation, subaltern mobilization relatively truth, that is, thefailure of the Indian bourgeoisie to speakfor the nation.
more violent. The former was, on the whole, more cautious and There were vast areas in the life and consciousness of the people
 Historiography of Colonial India 7
6 Subaltern Studies I
effectively into anything like a national liberation movement.
which were never integrated into their hegemony. The structural 15. It is the study of this historic failure ofthe nation to come to its
dichotomy that arose from this is a datum of Indian history of the own, a failure due to the inadequacy of the bourgeoisie as well as of
colonial period, which no one who sets out to interpret it can the working class to lead it into a decisive victory over colonialism
ignore without falling into error. and a bourgeois-democratic revolution of either the classic
13. Such dichotomy did not, however, mean that these two nineteenth-century type under the hegemony of the bourgeoisie or
domains were hermetically sealed off from each other and there a more modern type under the hegemony of workers and peasants,
was no contact between them. On the contrary, there was a great that is, a ‘new democracy’- it is the study of this failure which
deal of overlap arising precisely from the effort made from time to constitutes the centraf problematic of the historiogruphy of colonial India.
time by the more advanced elements among the indigenous elite, There is no one given way of investigatingths problematic. Let a
especially the bourgeoisie, to integrate them. Such effort when hundred flowers blossom and we don’t mind even the weeds.
linked to struggles which had more or less clearly defined anti- Indeed we believe that in the practice of historiography even the
imperialist objectives and were consistently waged, produced elitists have a part to play if only by way of teaching by negative
some splendid results. Linked, on other occasions, to movements examples. But we are also convinced that elitist historiography
which either had no firm anti-imperialist objectives at all or had should be resolutely fought by developing an alternative discourse
lost them in the course of their development and deviated into based on the rejection of the spurious and un-historical monism
legalist, constitutionalist or some other kind of compromise with characteristic of its view of Indian nationalism and on the recogni-
the colonial government, they produced some spectacular retreats tion of the co-existence and interaction of the elite and subaltern
and nasty reversions in the form of sectarian strife. In either case domains of politics.
the braiding together of the two strands of elite and subaltern 16. We are sure that we are not alone in our concern about the
politics led invariably to explosive situations indicating that the present state of the politicalhistoriography of colonial India and in
masses mobilized by the elite to fight for their own objectives seeking a way out. The elitism of modern Indian historiographyis
managed to break away from their control and put the characteris- an oppressive fact resented by many others, students, teachers and
tic imprint of popular politics on campaigns initiated by the upper writers like ourselves. They may not all subscribe to what has been
classes. said above on this subject in exactly the way in which we have said
14. However, the initiatives which originated from the domain it. However, we have no doubt that many other historiographical
of subaltern politics were not, on their part, powerful enough to points of view and practices are likely to converge close to where
develop the nationalist movement into a full-fledged struggle for we stand. Our purpose in making our own views known is to
national liberation. The working class was still not sufficiently promote such a convergence. We claim no more than to try and
mature in the objective conditions of its social being and in its indicate an orientation and hope to demonstrate in practice that
consciousness as a class-for-itself, nor was it firmly allied yet with this is feasible. In any discussion which may ensue we expect to
the peasantry. As a result it could do nothing to take over and learn a great deal not only from the agreement of those who think
complete the mission which the bourgeoisie had failed to realize. like us but also from the criticism of those who don’t.
The outcome of it all was that the numerous peasant uprisings of
the period, some of them massive in scope and rich in anti-
colonialist consciousness, waited in vain for a leadership to raise
them above localism and generalize them into a nationwide anti-
imperialist campaign. In the event, much of the sectional struggle
of workers, peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie either got
entangled in economism or, wherever politicized, remained, for
want of a revolutionary leadership, far too fragmented to form