Chakarbarty

Broader Argument

In this article, Chakarbarty looks at one particular working class history – the workers of the Calcutta Jute Mill (1890-1940) However, he delves into that history within the context of knowledge production and modes of subordination. Chakarbarty’s broad argument is that they way in which subordination and supervision is carried out leads to the creation of a particular type of knowledge production, or lack of it. Throughout the reading Chakarbarty sheds light on a number of important sub-themes such as:

1)       The relationship between domination/authority and knowledge production

Capitalist authority operated by forming a ‘body of knowledge’ about its subjects. Discipline required supervision, and supervision required documentation.

2)      The relationship between representation and knowledge production

The government of India had a very different perception of the role of the worker, and that perception led them to focus on certain aspects of knowledge production compared with the British government – one side saw the worker and his role in creating efficiency, and the other focused more labor supply and law/order. The difference in perception can be seen in the different types of knowledge created.

3)      The relationship between historical context and how that leads to emphasis on particular aspect about the worker

Knowledge cannot be divorced from the time period in which it was created, and the importance of conditions/interests of those involved in that creation -the desire for knowledge production by the British government was not matched by the same desire by the Bengal government.

4)      Relationship between power and culture

Authority is only properly legitimized when those upon whom authority recognized see themselves as subjects, and recognize within the person who dominates them – authority is therefore based on certain cultural formations.  Furthermore, outwardly the workers in England and Calcutta may seem to be doing the same work but cultural meaning attached to those works was very different – religious symbolism.

5)      Working Class seen as collective with a particular nature

Pandey

Whereas in Chakarbarty’s article, the Colonial government recognizes that the labor force has capacity for its own organization, we find that for the peasant movement, the government believes that they can only be organized from the outside. We thus see how the colonial government had different representations of different groups, and how Gandhi and those in the Congress also held to those perceptions. Once again, because of the peasantry is seen as a collective which has an inert/passive quality, and in line with that quality has a particular role to play – maintaining peace. It is also interesting to note that despite dealing with the same dates (early 20^th century), the government was treating the working class in one particular way, and the peasants in another way. The role of the peasant was seen as essentially about maintain peace, and the peasantry was essentially inert. However, some recognition that the workforce has agency – and its role in the industrial development. Despite these different perceptions, the Colonial government saw both as 1) collectivities 2) they had a particular role to play based on their nature.

In this reading Pandey attempts to demonstrate that the peasantry had agency, and that it wasn’t the Congress who made their movement. Indeed, according to him, it was they who initiated, and set off the debate. Furthermore, he calls attention to the fact that these were not spontaneous uprisings but properly organized. Furthermore, he argues that it isn’t enough to acknowledge their actions as independent but actually see them as properly political.