In "Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism" the 'politicising' of the peasantry in Awadh is highlighted. The role of the Indian National Congress and the urban elites was particularly interesting. The different layers of authority and the competing interests of various sections of the Indian society are usually clustered as a unified entity resisting British 'imperialism'. Swaraj, self rule, is popularly understood as a movement directed against the British. However, amongst the Awadh peasantry this "movement" was first and foremost directed against the taluqdars and not against Government officials (Kisan Sabha phase). Gyan Pandey highlights how this self-rule should rather be understood as the attempts by the peasantry to free themselves from exploitation- not from the British, but from the oppressive feudal and social system instituted by the landlords and taluqdars.
"Gandhi" was understood in very different terms by the Awadh peasantry. More often than not, he symbolised a concept, not just an individual. Another very interesting aspect of this reading was how the Indian political elite itself "created" the subaltern by assigning them a 'pre-political' status.
In "Conditions of Knowledge for working class conditions", the conditions of the jute mill workers of Calcutta are analysed in light of Marx's writings on the condition of the European working classes. How these two sets of conditions varied shows the limitations of generalising similiar trejectories of the working classes in Europe and South Asia.
The question of the documentation of conditions of work within a factory was linked to the problem of 'disciplinary authority' and that in turn was linked to the question of working-class culture. This culture, termed as "pre-capitalist culture" depended on traditional structures of authority that was much more complex and nuanced than a simple employee-employer relationship. The referance to this culture as "pre-capital" makes me wonder if a capitalist culture necessarily excludes such traditional links and linkages as existing in 20th century Calcutta? Is it really (for example, in the European context) solely based on a culture of maximising profits and unrestrained exploitation?
In the conclusion Chatterjee mentions how knowledge has a history as well as gaps and these gaps in themselves have a history. The history of such gaps seems very exciting; it is perhaps in these gaps that one can find the subaltern.
The 'uncertainty', the 'sense of disequilibrium and disorientation' found in the population of Mubarakupur and other such towns by the end of the colonial rule highlights the perceptions and responses of the locals to the interaction of existing social and economic structures with the establishment and consolidation of a centralised colonial power, the representation of a powerful manufacturing nation. The sources, however, of probing this are limited and needless to say, often one-sided. In contrast to the official colonial records, the paper on "The History of a North Indian Qasba" provides us with an alternative elite perception- one that is closer to the ground. It is important to note that this too is an elite's account who felt his position in political, economical as well as cultural domains, threatened. Even though glimpses are provided of how the ordinary laboring people spoke and acted but this too is from the vantage point of a particular privileged class. This underscores the essential feature of subaltern historiography- ''reading against the grain".
The impact of the economic linkages of Mubarakpur on power relations within the qasba and the consciousness of its people is highlighted through a comparison of the records according to the Waqaet-i-Hadesat and the official records. Both highlight religious symbols as a proof of the essential irrationality and fanaticism of the local people who could only be managed by the British. However, a detailed analysis of these records shows how a process of "making history" was underway- it was different in its own way but at the same time, it was in favor of the British. Such instances bear huge implications of historiography of South Asia, and perhaps on the histories of all former colonies.
"Gandhi" was understood in very different terms by the Awadh peasantry. More often than not, he symbolised a concept, not just an individual. Another very interesting aspect of this reading was how the Indian political elite itself "created" the subaltern by assigning them a 'pre-political' status.
In "Conditions of Knowledge for working class conditions", the conditions of the jute mill workers of Calcutta are analysed in light of Marx's writings on the condition of the European working classes. How these two sets of conditions varied shows the limitations of generalising similiar trejectories of the working classes in Europe and South Asia.
The question of the documentation of conditions of work within a factory was linked to the problem of 'disciplinary authority' and that in turn was linked to the question of working-class culture. This culture, termed as "pre-capitalist culture" depended on traditional structures of authority that was much more complex and nuanced than a simple employee-employer relationship. The referance to this culture as "pre-capital" makes me wonder if a capitalist culture necessarily excludes such traditional links and linkages as existing in 20th century Calcutta? Is it really (for example, in the European context) solely based on a culture of maximising profits and unrestrained exploitation?
In the conclusion Chatterjee mentions how knowledge has a history as well as gaps and these gaps in themselves have a history. The history of such gaps seems very exciting; it is perhaps in these gaps that one can find the subaltern.
The 'uncertainty', the 'sense of disequilibrium and disorientation' found in the population of Mubarakupur and other such towns by the end of the colonial rule highlights the perceptions and responses of the locals to the interaction of existing social and economic structures with the establishment and consolidation of a centralised colonial power, the representation of a powerful manufacturing nation. The sources, however, of probing this are limited and needless to say, often one-sided. In contrast to the official colonial records, the paper on "The History of a North Indian Qasba" provides us with an alternative elite perception- one that is closer to the ground. It is important to note that this too is an elite's account who felt his position in political, economical as well as cultural domains, threatened. Even though glimpses are provided of how the ordinary laboring people spoke and acted but this too is from the vantage point of a particular privileged class. This underscores the essential feature of subaltern historiography- ''reading against the grain".
The impact of the economic linkages of Mubarakpur on power relations within the qasba and the consciousness of its people is highlighted through a comparison of the records according to the Waqaet-i-Hadesat and the official records. Both highlight religious symbols as a proof of the essential irrationality and fanaticism of the local people who could only be managed by the British. However, a detailed analysis of these records shows how a process of "making history" was underway- it was different in its own way but at the same time, it was in favor of the British. Such instances bear huge implications of historiography of South Asia, and perhaps on the histories of all former colonies.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.