The Approver's Testimony by Shahid Amin further problematizes the concept of the subaltern. The subaltern in this case is every person in the mob including the approver, the person who is giving their testimony in court and on whose testimony the judgement for the case of Chauri Chaura is being passed.What is important to the prosecution is not the person of the approver but rather their testimony. The court treats the approver's testimony as something that has no context, no personal motivation but as a stand alone divorced from the circumstances and the producer.
This piece is a great article that delves into the working of the colonial courts. One of the interesting things is the way these people are stripped of all politics and treated as common criminals. This links with what Gramsci wrote about actions being considered personal, and words like madness being used to describe the actions of peasant resistance. The idea is that these people have no capacity for political action; something Guha also mentions while he tries to remove the idea of the prepolitical peasant and give them some agency. In order to do this, the judges are willing to make up economic reasons to justify the actions of the peasants in looting the meat market even if it is not supported by the approver's testimony.
The writer has contentions with the word 'voluntary' and how much of the testimony that the approver produced was actually his. The author is just trying to show one of the powers that dictate the testimony (fact) that is produced (something Trouillot delves into when talking about how all history is an act of power). This power here is not evident to the courts which are looking at this testimony as voluntary, unbiased and un-coerced. The author mentions how the leading questions by the prosecution actually dictate the whole testimony. That might also be why there is no mention of political ideas in any of the testimonies, the questions do not give them that direction. The writer spends some time pointing out the silences in the testimony. This brings up the question of whether there is any 'truthful' testimony? And can any of it be used for further understanding without questioning the power dynamics that produce the history.
This piece is a great article that delves into the working of the colonial courts. One of the interesting things is the way these people are stripped of all politics and treated as common criminals. This links with what Gramsci wrote about actions being considered personal, and words like madness being used to describe the actions of peasant resistance. The idea is that these people have no capacity for political action; something Guha also mentions while he tries to remove the idea of the prepolitical peasant and give them some agency. In order to do this, the judges are willing to make up economic reasons to justify the actions of the peasants in looting the meat market even if it is not supported by the approver's testimony.
The writer has contentions with the word 'voluntary' and how much of the testimony that the approver produced was actually his. The author is just trying to show one of the powers that dictate the testimony (fact) that is produced (something Trouillot delves into when talking about how all history is an act of power). This power here is not evident to the courts which are looking at this testimony as voluntary, unbiased and un-coerced. The author mentions how the leading questions by the prosecution actually dictate the whole testimony. That might also be why there is no mention of political ideas in any of the testimonies, the questions do not give them that direction. The writer spends some time pointing out the silences in the testimony. This brings up the question of whether there is any 'truthful' testimony? And can any of it be used for further understanding without questioning the power dynamics that produce the history.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.