Subaltern ( Post-colonialism ) Perspective of Indian Sociology

Subaltern Approach 

Subaltern Approach takes the position that the entire tradition of Indian historiography has an elitist bias and the role of the common masses has been neglected. Ranajit Guha belonged to this school. This school of thought began in the early 1980s under the editorship of Ranajit Guha, as a critique of the existing historiography, which was faulted for ignoring the voice of the people. Right from the beginning, subaltern historiography took the position that the entire tradition of Indian historiography had had an elitist bias. For the subaltern historians, the basic contradiction in Indian society in the colonial epoch was between the elite, both Indian and foreign, on the one hand, and the subaltern groups, on the other, and not between colonialism and the Indian people.

However, they do not subscribe to the Marxist theory of the nature of the exploitation by the nationalist movement: they point out that the Indian society of the time could not be seen in terms of class alone, as capitalism in the country was just nascent at the time. This school sees nationalism as exploitative in terms of caste, gender, religious, and creed divisions. Nationalism, say the subaltern, ignored the internal contradictions within the society as well as what the marginalized represented or had to say. They believe that the Indian people were never united in a common anti-imperialist struggle, that there was no such entity as the Indian national movement. Instead, they assert, there were two distinct movements or streams: the real anti-imperialist stream of the subalterns and the bogus national movement of the elite. The elite streams, led by the 'official' leadership of the Indian National Congress, were little more than a cloak for the struggle for power among the elite.