Subaltern Consciousness and Populism: Two Approaches in the Study of Social

Movements in India
Author(s): D. N. Dhanagare
Source: Social Scientist , Nov., 1988, Vol. 16, No. 11 (Nov., 1988), pp. 18-35
Published by: Social Scientist

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517459

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
D.N. DHANAGARE*

Subaltern Consciousness and Populism:

Two Approaches in the Study of Social
Movements in India

The sociology of social movements is a growing edge of the discipline in

more recent decades. However, studying tribal and peasant revolts o
movements was a dominant tradition both in the history and in th
ethnography of India for quite some time. The pioneering accounts on
the Bhumij revolts and the Kol insurrection in Chotanagpur by J.C
Jha,1 Kalikankar Datta's work on the Santal insurrection,2 B.B
Kling's study of the 'Blue Mutiny'3-the indigo disturbances (1859-
62)-in Bengal, and Ravinder Kumar's on the Deccan Riots (1875),
come to mind almost immediately. The tradition continued eve
thereafter. Studies on the Tanabhagat or the Birsa Munda and his
movement,5 the Rampa rebellion of 1924 and of course Sunil Sen's study6
of the sharecroppers' struggle in Bengal must also be mentione
additionally. Similarly, studies by Majid Siddiqi7 and Kapil Kumar8
on the agrarian/peasant revolt led by Baba Ramchandra in
Pratapgarh and Faizabad districts of Oudh have notably continued
the same trend in more recent years. The list is only illustrative and not
exhaustive.
If one looks at the approaches or frameworks of analysis in t
studies mentioned above, then, barring Ravinder Kumar, who has use
the framework of class analysis meaningfully in studying the an
moneylender Deccan Riots, most of the other pioneering studies
either pure histories or ethnographies of tribal/peasant prot
movements. Rarely have the researchers gone into conceptua
discussions and they have not found it necessary to use or examine an
of the prevailing theoretical-analytical paradigms. Notable
exceptions to this are the studies by Siddiqi,9 Kapil Kumar,10
Gyanendra Pandeyll and this author12 who have started an important
debate on the precise linkage between the peasantry and the Indian
National Congress, and Gandhi in particular. However, the middle
peasant thesis (like that of Eric Wolf and Hamza Alavi)13 and
Barrington Moore's14 hypothesis on the role of commercial agriculture
as a factor conducive for peasant mobilization have been thoroughly
examined by only a few of the studies referred to above.15 This is not to

* Department of Sociology, University of Poona.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 19

underrate the value of other studies. Most of them have bro

light enormous source material which otherwise would have r
unknown to the present generation of social scientists. Their
are the most authentic reconstructions of the peasant revolts in
the 1920s and 1930s, but most of them belong basically to na
history or ethnography. Some of them, like Siddiqi, Pandey a
Kumar, do identify and probe the historical conditions that faci
the progressive development of consciousness of the insurgent p
or tribals who were the main actors of those movements. However,
barring exceptions, such studies seldom transcend specificity and are
rarely inclined to get into questions of theory and generality as if they
are irrelevant to the history and sociology of social movements.
Only one example of this tendency should suffice to stress the point.
Suresh Singh's work16 on the Birsa Munda movement, which has
produced abundant evidence of the strong millenarian elements in the
Birsaite movement, makes no reference to the concept of 'millenium' at
all.17 To a certain extent, Stephen Fuch's study on the Indian
aboriginals has gone into the millenarian movements among Indian
tribals under the influence of Christianity, but only superficially.
Similarly, the notions of 'primitive rebels' and 'social banditry'
introduced by Eric Hobsbawm,18 have not been used fruitfully by any
researcher of tribal and peasant revolts or insurgencies until Ranajit
Guha and his colleagues launched the 'subaltern studies' approach in a
big way. Getting immersed in the depths of the micro-level reality and
not rising above it in order to enter the realm of theorisation and
conceptualisation was the tendency characteristic of the mainstream
sociology and social anthropology as well as of history and
ethnography that we in India received as a part of the imperialist
legacy for the social sciences. The need to identify and evaluate the
relevance of such paradigms, at least the neglected ones, is therefore an
urgent task that cannot be overemphasised.
The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to only two of the
potentially useful analytical paradigms for studying tribal/ethnic
movements or peasant revolts in India. These approaches have
unfortunately remained neglected at least by the mainstream sociology
and social anthropology in India. It is high time we took cognizance of
them and entered into paradigmatic dialogue.

SUBALTERN STUDIES

An important approach to the study of tribal/peasant movements

been enunciated by Ranajit Guha and his historian colleagues in In
and abroad. Broadly designated as 'subaltern historiography', th
approach seeks to restore a balance by highlighting the role of
politics of the people as against elite politics played in Indian histo
Thus, 'elite' and 'people' are viewed as binary domains to constitu
structural dichotomy. Adherents to this approach argue that
elitist historiography, whether of the neo-colonialist or of the n

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

nationalist variety, has always overstated the part the eli

played in building Indian nationalism, but it has fail
acknowledge, far less properly interpret, the contributions made
people (masses) on their own, independently of the elite.19 Par
the domain of elite politics there always existed througho
colonial period another domain of Indian politics in whic
principal actors were not the dominant groups of the indigenous
but the 'subaltern' classes and groups constituting the masses
labouring population and the intermediate strata in the town
country-the people.20
Subaltern historiography treats 'people' (subalternity)
autonomous domain that originates neither from elite politic
depends on them. Therefore, whereas the mobilisation in the dom
elite politics is achieved vertically, in that of subaltern politic
achieved horizontally. Guha, however, does admit that giv
diversity of its social composition, the ideological element in
subaltern domain is not uniform in quality and density and at time
diversities lead to pursuit of sectional interests, economistic diver
as well as sectarian splits that tend to undermine the hori
alliances in this domain. Therefore, Guha also clarifies that th
domains have not been sealed off from each other but often over
mainly because the elite domain always tried to mobilise and integ
them but primarily to fight for elite objectives; however, the sub
masses managed to break away from the elite control and put
characteristic stamp on campaigns initiated by the elite groups.21
The whole thrust of subaltern historiography is on reconstr
'the other history', i.e., history of people's politics and movement
their attempts to make their own history. As a brilliant demonst
of how the 'other history' could be constructed Guha has offered
study of the peasant insurgency in colonial India.22 Somehow,
din over the polemical aspects of the concept of 'subalternit
deeper insights and distinct analytical approach Guha's own stu
offered have been lost sight of. The study provides us with a
framework for studying social movements in general and tribal/p
insurgencies in particular. It is, of course, anchored in subal
historiography for understanding the complex phenomena of pea
ethnic protest movements-or at least a significant part of
contemporary India. It is one of those serious pieces of social s
scholarship which has raised many theoretical and methodol
issues that must not only be acknowledged but also debated seriou
While analysing the tribal and peasant insurgencies in colo
India, Guha makes no secret of the fact that his approach to the
of social movements basically forms a part of the general traditio
scientific Marxism-but a variant of it quite obviously deduced fro
Gramsci's formulations23 that are refreshingly original and
intellectually very stimulating. With all the candidness that is
associated with a Marxist, Guha believes that the task of

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 21

historiography is to interpret the past in order to change the

world and that such a change involves a radical transformat
consciousness. He therefore warns social scientists and activists not to
view peasant or tribal insurgents merely as 'objects' of history but to
treat them as 'makers' of their own history-endowed with a
transformative consciousness of their own.
In spelling out his 'subaltern' approach Guha naturally hits out at
the conventional discourses on peasant/tribal insurgencies which
hitherto have served in the colonialist historiography as merely an
apology for 'law and order'. Those attempts to understand insurgent
movements were simply aimed at 'counter-insurgency' to prevent their
occurrence in future. The sense of history was thus converted by the
conventional discourses into an element of 'administrative concern'.24
At the same time Guha is equally critical of orthodox Marxist
historiography for its failure to recognise the role of pure spontaneity
in history. His target is clearly set on all those recent peasant studies
(i.e., studies on peasant movements including revolts or insurgencies)
which have emphasised 'organisation', 'leadership', and 'ideology' as
the key elements in the formation of rebels' consciousness and have
tended to treat the insurgencies as 'pre-political' phenomena.25 Guha
observes that those who do not recognize the first glimmer of
consciousness in apparently spontaneous and unstructured movements of
the peasant or tribal masses and often brand them as 'pre-political',
commit a serious error of judgement.
Are the peasant and tribal insurgencies in colonial India 'pre-
political' or 'political' phenomena? To Guha the term 'pre-political' is
as misleading as it is value-laden; it helps us the least in
understanding the experience of such movements in colonial India.
Tribal or peasant insurgencies have to be understood in the backdrop of
the attempts of the colonial State to revitalise landlordism and to
promote parasitic landlordism. The peasant and tribal tenantry
rebelled against sarkari, sahukari, and zamindari oppression to which
they were subjected. The uprisings of Bhumij, the Kol insurrection, the
Santal revolt of 1855, the indigo disturbances of 1859-62 and the Deccan
riots of 1875 in the nineteenth century come to mind almost
immediately. The subaltern insurgents were then trying to break and
destroy the then existing structure of power relationships.26 Hence the
insurgents' action was no less political than the politics of the liberal
reformist struggles of the 'no-rent' or 'no-tax' variety under the banner
of the Congress or the Left-wing insurrectionary struggles of peasants
(such as the Tebhaga or Telangana struggles) of the twentieth century
in India. Guha, however, admits that 'none of the basic elements (i.e.,
leadership, aims, programmes and ideology) of the insurgencies of the
1793-1900 period (roughly from the Rangpur uprising to the Birsa
Munda movement) could compare in maturity and sophistication with
those of the historically more advanced movements of the twentieth
century27 (emphasis added). Thus, he too accepts the fact that the

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
22 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

twentieth century movements of the peasantry and tribals

qualitatively different and decisively more advanced-
hopefully refers to the level of consciousness, organisa
ideological articulation. If the argument is that the difference
the two sets of movements that we designate 'pre-poli
'political' is to be seen essentially in relative degrees an
absolute terms, then one can have little disagreement with
if he is suggesting that such a qualitative difference does not
it is difficult to agree with him. Those who treat the nin
century peasant or tribal insurgencies as 'pre-political ph
would also agree that just because the sporadic and spasmod
failed to rise above localism, sectarianism and ethnicity doe
away from them either their essentially political character
significance in history.
Guha's main objective in studying insurgencies of the coloni
is to show how patterns of subordination and insubordination
on parallel tracks throughout the colonial history of India
affirmation of domination or resistance, or insurgency and
insurgency have reinforced each other. It is not difficult
influence of Hobsbawm's works28 and also of George Rude29 o
study. Guha has abstracted certain common forms and genera
the rebels' consciousness. These forms-in all six-are: 'n
(implying formation of negative identity), 'ambiguity', 'm
'solidarity', 'transmission' and 'territoriality'. He draws his
to construct these paradigmatic forms from various peasant a
movements of the 1793-1900 period studied extensively by
anthropologists, ethnographers and historians. Since Guha's
framework has a heuristic value in studying a variety of tribal/ethnic
or peasant movements it is necessary to deal with these six forms at
some length.
The first elementary form of peasant or insurgent tribal consciousness
is 'negation' which connotes that the rebel's identity is first found by
him not in his own properties, but by the diminution and negation of
those of his superiors. Such a negativity may not be a fully developed
class consciousness; but taking a cue from Gramsci again, Guha regards
negativity as the first glimmer of that consciousness.30 Accompanied by
the ability to discriminate friends from foes, negation often results in
selective violence only against the perceived enemies. The jaqueries in
France, the peasant wars in Germany31 and also the famous Luddite
machine-breaking riots or Captain Swing type movements in England
during the early phase of the Industrial Revolution32 portrayed the
same negativity in which violence spread by analogy and
transference.33 In the Indian context, peasant and tribal insurgents often
reversed or rejected the homological relations in feudal society; all
traditional forms of respect, dress, writing, language-styles, etc., were
turned upside down. These were insignia symbolic of the exclusive
preserve of feudal monarchies, nobility from which the subaltern was

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 2 3

always debarred. The rebel's defiance of these structural rules (ac

inversion) was thus a negative assertion of his identity an
consciousness.34
The second form-'ambiguity'-in Guha's scheme draws on the b
difference between 'crime' and 'insurgency', although the two
often been used synonymously in colonial historiography. To Gu
crime tends to be an individualistic or small group-oriented
secretive or conspiratorial, action. In contrast, insurgency has a
character which manifests publicly. The two acts derive from
different codes of violence, but since in the overt form the acted
violence may be similar, there is an ambiguity in violence as an
internal or integral part of insurgency.
'Modality'-the next (third) elementary aspect--is a logical
extension of the public character of tribal or peasant insurgencies.
Drawing on the episodes of the Pabna riots (1873), the Santal hool
(1855) and the Deccan riots (1875), Guha shows how by electing 'rebel-
nawabs' and the like, the insurgents truly searched for an alternative
source of authority. It is often formalised by the general body of
insurgents through ritual presentation of nazranas which marks
validation and sacrilisation of the rebel violence as a public service.35
In the actual autonomous process of mobilisation, the pull of
primordial loyalties or sentiments of kinship, ethnic community ties
and co-residence often play a significant part. However, Guha has
stressed the fact that 'it was only rarely that the mobilisation of an
insurgent peasantry or a tribal group adopted so explicitly a religious
form in colonial India as one might expect'.36 The observation-both
sweeping and hasty-is actually falsified by Guha's own evidence on
the 1857 Mutiny and of course on the Birsa Munda movement which
clearly showed the religious overtones of their agrarian distress
coupled with ethnic identity.37 Moreover, if Guha had carefully
looked at the Moplah insurgencies from the 1830s to 192138 then he
would have certainly qualified his claim regarding the strikingly
'secular' modality of such peasant or tribal uprisings.
It is true that no narrowly conceived economic interpretations can
possibly explain some of the forms in which the rebel activity
manifests. Guha has asserted that when subaltern sections resorted to
burning, wrecking and destroying, the considerations of economic gain
did not figure very prominently. But can this modality (relating to non-
economic orientation) be stated as a general law? Is economic
rationality absent totally in the insurgent's action and is it always
overwhelmed by motives of power as exclusively as Guha suggests?
How else do we account for the umpteen instances of plunder of goods
and looting of cash by the Kols in Chotanagpur and by the Santals, the
details of which have been furnished by Guha himself?39 The plunder
and loot are far from incidental acts of negativity or inversion but can
certainly be tinged by it. Tribal or peasant insurgents do not simply aim
at destroying the cultural insignia and symbols of power but they also

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
24 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

care for economic gains if and when opportunities come their wa

glorifying and sentimentalising the insurgents' actions, as Guha
is not always necessary to deny them their normal attributes of
practical wisdom and economic rationality as the colonialist
historiography often did. Quite paradoxically, Guha is caught in the
same fallacy that his subaltern approach aims at demolishing.
In contrast to plunder and destruction as a modality, killings and
bloodshed tend to be a rarer phenomenon and hence must not be treated
as the principal feature of insurgent behavior. Guha argues: 'It is in
fact counter-insurgency which makes killings as its principal
modality.' The rarity of bloodshed in peasant or tribal insurgencies has
been attributed by Guha not to their compassion but to their failure to
overcome the inhibitions of the old semi-feudal culture and the
spiritual conditions of their subalternity.40
'Solidarity'-the next form in which the peasant or tribal
insurgent's self-consciousness manifests itself-signifies separation of
his own identity from that of his enemies. Although this form overlaps
with negativity considerably, Guha has made two important points
here. First, the quality of 'collective consciousness' (a la Durkheim)
varies from one phase of insurgency to another. Secondly, class
'solidarity' and other solidarities (i.e., those emerging from ethnic,
religious, caste or filial ties) are not mutually exclusive; rather 'these
overlap as they did in most of the peasant uprisings or ethnic
movements before 1900 because the dye of the traditional culture had
not yet washed off the peasant/ethnic consciousness'. This is what
Guha characterises as the duplex character of insurgency41 in which
sometimes class and religion are intertwined (e.g., as in the Moplah
uprisings) and sometimes ethnicity and class identities get fused as is
best illustrated by the case of the Birsa Munda movement.42 In fact,
Guha goes a step forward and argues that the Kol and Birsa rebellions
stand apart from the rest of the tribal uprisings in the nineteenth
century in that class solidarity had triumphed over ethnicity in those
cases more decisively than in any other tribal uprising. Of course,
Suresh Singh, whose evidence has been used by Guha, has himself not
attempted a clearcut analysis of the Birsaite movement. Thus, Guha
claims that the rebel consciousness in those instances projected well
beyond the sense of tribe or caste.43
The solidarity of the rebel peasant or tribal manifests in
chastisement of traitors. 'Active collaboration is sired by insurgency no
less than is rebel solidarity itself. Thus solidarity and collaboration
(betrayal) close on each other in a figure of perfect symmetry. The
rebel's hostility to traitor is thus an articulation of the rebel's own
class consciousness',44 which is similar to the identity being defined
negatively.
In 'transmission' as a form/aspect of peasant or tribal insurgency,
Guha deals essentially with the patterns of spread of insurgency.
Through iconic and symbolic signs or even rumours, other subaltern

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 25

sections/groups are also contacted and drawn into uprising. Whe

the rebels organise prayer meetings, beat their drums, flutes or hor
distribute branches of sal trees, or a fiery torch, or whether t
distribute chapatis, tel (oil) or sindur (vermilion powder), all th
were the most effective instruments of this transmission in the Kol,
Santal and the Birsaite movements, in the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857,
also in the Moplah rebellion of 1921.45 What is significant is tha
this transmission by verbal codes or through visual signs, the ideolo
of class struggle is invariably mediated by religion because G
believes that the politics of rebellion or tribal insurgencies are al
always expressed in sacred idioms as they are very effectiv
arousing mass support.46
Lastly, 'territoriality' is that aspect or form of peasant/tr
consciousness in which insurgents get bound by blood ties (consanguin
on the one hand and by local bond (contiguity) on the other. A sense
belongingness to a common lineage and to a shared habitat over
with one another. Thus, ethnic space and physical space notions
constituents of territoriality. Guha has stressed the fact that even t
consciousness has often transcended the limits of ties of either blood or
habitat or both. Therefore, the 1857 Mutiny could spread far beyond
the heartland of the Doab region as well as Oudh.47 In this context
Guha has criticised S.C. Roy and many other anthropologists who
failed to see through the anti-colonial content of the tribal revolts or
peasant movements in India and who thereby have helped to
perpetuate the myth that tribal/peasant insurgency was nothing more
than a demonstration of ethnic antagonism against the diku-(i.e.,
outsider)48 and that peasant movements were nothing but 'disturbances'
that created law and order problems for the colonial administration.
But, in one sense, the ethnic antagonism-expressed in idioms like
'diku'-is also a way of redefining 'imperialism' as 'internal
colonialism': a point missed completely by Guha.
The common forms or patterns of peasant/tribal insurgents'
consciousness are made up not only of elements and tendencies which are
mutually consistent but also those which clash and conflict with one
another. Guha does not visualise the common form in which the rebels'
consciousness manifests as a generality that is external to the subject or
that is a sui generis phenomenon, nor is it any abstract quality of
insurgency discovered by pure abstraction and reflection. Rather, it is
what permeates and includes in it everything particular. Hence Guha's
framework consists of 'abstracted elementary forms' that are firmly
rooted in the concrete foundation of facts drawn from the nineteenth
century peasant/tribal insurgencies. Therefore the impact of Durkheim
on Guha's analytical framework is more apparent than real. Like
formal sociologists (Georg Simmel and others) Guha does not fall into
the trap of reification-a standard error in any formal analysis.
Instead his sight is fixed on the insurgent Kols, Santals and Birsaite
movements; it is these rebels' consciousness which Guha has analysed

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

and it is the deep historical meaning of their insurgencies in colo

India to which his study draws our attention.
The subaltern approach, at least the form in which Guha h
demonstrated its use in his own study49 of peasant insurgencies
stated earlier, draws heavily on Emile Durkheim's notion of
'elementary forms', or George Simmel's concept of 'forms' of interaction.
In substance, however, the subaltern studies approach as it developed
in India clearly represents a synthesis of four major streams within
contemporary Marxism: (i) First and the most obvious of these is
Gramscian Marxism which emphasises the role of pure spontaneity of
the action of subaltern masses in history in general and under a
hegemonic State in particular. For theoretical justification,
conceptual/analytical tools, and also for abstractions of general
explanation, the subaltern approach draws obviously on Gramsci. (ii)
No less obvious is the influence of Trotskyite-Marxism-particularly in
terms of consciousness (i.e., necessary as opposed to contingent
consciousness). Guha's subaltern studies approach treats consciousness
the way Trotsky did. For Trotsky, objective theoretical positions
reigned supreme and these must be judged objectively, rather than
shifting them pragmatically, as the Stalinist politicians often did, by
twisting their theoretical pronouncements guided by personal power
ambitions or political motivations.50 Following Trotsky then, the
subaltern approach to history considers the role of party, strategies
and tactics as important, no doubt, but not as prior to 'necessary
consciousness'. (iii) The third Marxist stream which Guha's own
approach draws inspiration from is represented by Eric Hobsbaw
George Rude and E.P. Thompson, who through their studies51 h
shown the indispensability of the material force and actors of histor
And finally, (iv) in terms of the directions in which subaltern strug
develop, or the forms in which they manifest, Guha and his associate
have clearly tended to model their arguments on the lines indicated b
the 1968 Paris Uprising (i.e., the massive student and youth prot
that finally brought the downfall of Charles de Gaulle), the Lat
American movements-particularly the experience of Che Guevera
Bolivia and the like. It is a blend of these four traditions in
contemporary Marxism that Guha's subaltern studies appr
history represents.
The 'subaltern studies' approach earned critics as fast as it
following, particularly among young historians from both I
abroad, though not so much among other social scientis
historians have focussed their attention on peasants, workers an
subaltern elements, in an attempt to show how their protests h
spontaneous and traditional and yet far more radical in their m
of resistance, sometimes even in their goals, than the elite and
class dominated nationalist movement in India was. Above all, in
conformity with Ranajit Guha's contention, these studies-the results
of which are now available in a series of five volumes52-also argue

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 27

that such spontaneous movements were independent of the nationali

leadership which often tried to control them if possible, or even
suppress and subvert them whenever necessary.53
Critics of the 'subaltern studies' approach have attacked precis
the whole notion of 'autonomy' of the subaltern consciousness. I
Habib and many others have questioned the validity of such
attempt to study subaltern groups and their protest movemen
isolation from other parallel political processes. A struggle or a prot
movement that appears to be autonomous, is in reality precede
several changes in the consciousness of its principal participants.
changes often emanate from wider political processes, including
elite politics which the subaltern approach followers have decrie
the Indian context the interface between the national movement led
the Indian National Congress and the grassroot level protests an
resistance movements is too significant to be ignored, because the la
was a prime source of ideas for the former.54
Another major difficulty with the subaltern studies appro
pertains to the lack of precise meaning and scope of the concept
'subalternity' as an analytical category. In a separate note on the t
by Guha55 he admits that the composition of this category is n
homogeneous. The term is more residual in its connotation as it incl
practically all non-elite sections of the people. Guha treats the lo
strata of the rural gentry, impoverished landlords, rich and upp
middle peasants as all belonging to the category of 'people
'subaltern classes'. But then he has left it to individual researchers to
investigate, identify and determine the specific nature of subalternity
by situating it historically. With this rider it should be possible to
consider adivasis (tribals), untouchables or dalits, sharecroppers, and
agricultural labourers, as well as other marginalised sections with
specific ethnic, non-class characteristics (caste, religion, clan, language
or regional identity of a minority group) as 'subaltern classes'. But then
by no stretch of imagination can the class outlook and interests of these
immiserised and marginalised groups be compatible, let alone
identical, with those of the lowest strata of rural gentry, the rich and
upper-middle peasantry whom Guha treats as the ideal components of
'subalternity'.
More importantly, the subaltern studies approach to historiography
in a way confines itself preferentially to the colonial period, though
not all the adherents strictly do so. In addition to this, at least by
implication, the approach is applicable only to those mass
mobilisations which took on the insurgent character, and hence it is
inapplicable to those tribal/peasant or any other protest movements
which were not truly insurgent in character. This again, by
implication, severely restricts the scope of Gramscian formulations. If,
however, members of the 'subaltern studies' group (or maybe school)
insist that the concept should be used for studying only the insurgent
responses of the people during the colonial period, then the approach

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

excludes all those ethnic/tribal, peasant, or any other p

movements which are not necessarily insurgent in character but
can be called as 'revolutions of rising expectations'.
If the contents of the 'subaltern studies' series are subjected to a
scrutiny, then not all contributors have conformed to the def
specified in Guha's initial note. For example, Arvind Das56 in
account of the East Champaran Kisan Sabha in Jhakia and th
grab movement in Bihar in general, has essentially dealt wit
agrarian movements of the poor and landless peasants in the 1960
1970s. In the context of Masaurhi (1970-75) again it is the stru
the agricultural labourers of Harijan castes that he has discu
There are many other studies on agricultural labourers' or jute-wo
struggles which, strictly speaking, do not fit into the rigid defin
ambit of 'subaltern classes' as drawn by Guha. Another exam
David Hardiman's study58 on the Devi movement among the triba
Gujarat, which too does not fit into the 'subaltern studies' strait-
Even if we accept 'subalternity' as a generic conceptual categ
which is to be defined and situated historically (which w
theoretically make it an open category to include practically any
or stratum of a society), still other ambiguities remain. The
important one relates to the proximity of this concept to 'insurg
Some of the studies in the subaltern series have of course dealt with
movements-protests/mobilisations-which are not insurgent in
character. Since neither in its scope of applicability nor in terms of the
basic properties of 'subaltern' behaviour the concept of 'subalternity'
suggests any specific boundaries, its status as a scientific concept
remains rather doubtful.
In our opinion, more useful than the concept of 'subalternity' is
Ranajit Guha's framework consisting of six forms or aspects of
insurgents' consciousness for all those interested in studying social
movements in general, and ethnic/tribal and peasant movements in
particular. The value of Guha's paradigmatic forms remains
undiminished regardless of whether we accept or eliminate the
'subaltern' concept from his framework. The only limitation of Guha's
paradigm lies in its restricted applicability or suitability for studying
only those movements which took on an insurgent character because his
'elementary aspects' spell out precisely the basic properties of the
insurgent's action. A large number of ethnic/tribal movements, or more
recent farmers' movements in India, that have gathered momentum
since the phase of planned rural development through modernisation of
agriculture was inaugurated in India from the 1950s, are left out because
they did not develop necessarily along the insurgent syndrome.
The identity formations of ethnic/tribal groups, peasantry, or even
among minorities and their political expressions in contemporary India
present a wide spectrum. They range from the nativist movements like
the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra (which is militant but not radical),59 or
movements for assertion of regional/sub-regional identities such as for

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 2 9

a separate Vidarbha60 or Telengana61 state on the one hand, to th

Jharkhand movement in the Chotanagpur districts of Bihar,62 an
many other 'sons of the soil' movements6 which have sometimes taken
on insurgent, militant or even terrorist forms, but have most of the tim
sought to pursue their demands within the constitutional framework of
India and by accepting its legitimacy as well as the liberal democrati
means. Some of these movements, or at least a fraction of them, have
raised secessionist demands questioning the very legitimacy of India as
a nation-state. However, most of these contemporary movements come
fairly close to what T. Di Tella has called 'the revolutions of rising
expectations' which are often unleashed by developmental imbalance
resulting from the modernisation process in the third world. The most
striking example of this is the farmers' movements that have gathered
momentum in different parts of India since the mid-seventies to demand
remunerative prices for farm produce. Ideologues of these movements
argue that while agricultural productivity has risen phenomenally a
a result of the Green Revolution-and its subsidised inputs-
agricultural profitability has declined sharply due to non-
remunerative prices. The Bharatiya Kisan Union movement in Punjab
and Uttar Pradesh, the Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, or the
Rajya Rayatha Sangh in Karnataka and the like belong essentially to
this category of protest movements. Ernesto Laclau64 has tried to
develop a proper framework for studying such movements, which he
characterises as 'populist movements'. In our view we in India ought to
examine Laclau's attempt to theorise on 'populism' more seriously,
since it is directly relevant for understanding the complex phenomena
of contemporary movements-whether farmers', ethnic, tribal or
regional.
INTERPRETATIONS OF POPULISM

Laclau has mentioned four basic approaches to an interpretatio

populism. For the first approach, populism is a typical expression of
determinate social class and hence it is both a movement and an
ideology at the same time. For example, the Russian Narodn
populism in the nineteenth century was no more than a peasa
ideology; the North American populism in 1895 was an ideology an
mobilisation typical of a society of small farmers opposed to urban lif
and big business; and the more recent Latin American mobilisation
urban masses is an ideological-political expression of a petty
bourgeoisie or of marginal sectors.65 In this approach a type
populism is established by its class base or class combination.
The second conception of populism treats it with a theoreti
nihilism, as if the concept is devoid of any content. For example, Pete
Worsley66 argues that it is difficult to specify common cruc
attributes that are present in all movements that are usuall
characterised as 'populist'. Hence, populism is not an analytic
category but a datum of experience.67 But despite its concept

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

imprecision or indefinition, populism has gained more and

respectability in the social sciences.
According to the third approach, the difficulties in the term co
be overcome by restricting it to characterisation of ideology only
not of a movement. As an ideology the main properties of 'pop
are: (i) its ingrained hostility to the status quo; (ii) mistru
traditional politicians; (iii) appeal to the people or masses and n
specific classes as such; and finally, (iv) its anti-intellectualis
Such a peculiar ideological nexus gets formed and adopted by
movements that differ widely in their social origins as well as in
aspirations. Though useful, this approach helps only in studyi
describing the 'form' but not the content of social movements, bec
simple characterisation of populist elements or behavioural f
would say nothing of the role such a movement plays in a determ
social formation in a spatio-temporal context.69
The fourth conception of populism is derived from function
theory. Its argument, to put it in its simplest form, would run as f
when aspirations, guided by culturally defined goals, are
constantly rising, but are not matched by adequate institutional m
to fulfil them, such a situation creates different forms of adaptati
the part of individuals to the social structure. All forms of adapta
other than 'conformist' behaviour are considered in the functionalist
paradigm as 'deviations' or aberrations.70 Populism in this
functionalist perspective would be seen as an aberrant phenomenon
produced by 'the asynchronism of the processes of transition from a
traditional to an industrial society'.71
Drawing from the comparative assessments of the European and
Latin American experience G. Germani has formulated a theory of
populism.72 Germani also treats populism as a product of a transitional
stage between traditional and industrial societies in which features of
advanced stages correspond to a backward stage. This constitutes
'asynchronism'. Coexistence of these two would mean that
modernisation in one will provoke change in the others, but not
necessarily in a modern direction. Populism combines these two
opposite tendencies in two forms-the demonstration effect and the
fusion effect. The former refers to widespread diffusion of habits,
mentalities and styles that correspond to a more advanced stage in
backward areas. In the latter form (i.e., the fusion effect), ideologies
and attitudes corresponding to the advanced stage are reinterpreted in
a backward context, which in turn reinforce the traditional features.
Populism therefore seeks to achieve mobilisation and integration,
change and status quo at the same time.73 In other words, populist
movements are anti-status quoist and status quoist at the same time.
And this blend of change as well as stability orientations, when
pursued simultaneously through ideology, constitutes 'populism'.
Another Latin American scholar, Torcuato Di Tella has defined
'populism' as a political movement which enjoys the support of the

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 31

masses of the urban working class and/or peasantry, but which does
result from the autonomous organisational power of either of these
sectors. It is also supported by-non-working class or non-peasant secti
upholding an anti-status quo ideology. Hence, to Di Tella, so
classes are present in populism but not necessarily as classes. A pecul
ideology achieves the separation of the class nature of participa
and their forms of political expression, which in our view is tr
happening in the phenomenal growth of farmers' movements all
India in more recent years. Populism in this sense is the 'revolution
rising expectations' responsible for the asynchronism.74 Hence, t
essential features of populism are stressed by Di Tella: (i) an
committed to mobilisation of masses appears on the scene-an el
that is imbued with an anti-status quo ideology; (ii) mass mobiliza
generated by rising expectations; and (iii) an ideology with
widespread appeal. What is, however, important is that the root
these three features are sought in the transition or 'asynchronism'.7
In the ultimate analysis, although classes appear in popul
movements but not as classes, the meaning of the ideological elemen
identified with populism has to be sought in the social structure.
these structures refer back again to the class nature of popu
movements. Di Tella's formulations thus suggest that to a high
degree of development would correspond more of a 'class' and less of
'populist' organisation. This amounts to saying that popu
experiences or movements are likely to be less frequent in capit
societies than in peripheral countries due to different level
development. Laclau has, however, contested this point sin
'developed-underdeveloped', 'traditional-modern' or 'agraria
industrial' dichotomies are used by Di Tella as prior paradigms
defining 'populism'.76
The confusion over the concept of 'populism' is largely due to t
opposing tendencies among analysts of such movements or pop
phenomena: (i) either to specify the class nature of specific popu
movements, and then to treat class contradictions as the fundam
structural moment for discerning political and ideological features; o
(ii) to differentiate between class determination of superstructures a
the form of existence of classes at the level of these superstructu
Orthodox Marxism theorises superstructures as reflections
production, and makes class consciousness the basic constitu
movement of class. Gramsci, and following him Laclau, abandon
reductionist way of defining classes as antagonistic poles of product
relations. They argue that: (i) classes exist at the ideological
political level in a process of articulation and not of reduction; (ii) th
articulation requires non-class contents-interpellations
contradictions which constitute the raw material on which class
ideological practices operate. Thus, the ideology of the dominant class,
precisely because it is dominant, interpellates not just the members of
that class but also members of the dominated classes, and thereby their

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
32 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

potential antagonism is neutralised; (iii) the levels of politica

ideological superstructures must be conceived in the form of articu
and not of reduction; (iv) therefore, populist discourse refers prim
to 'people' or masses, though class as historical agent of the pe
interests is very much present there; (v) and finally, people/powe
contradictions are distinct from a class contradiction. Pop
movements express primarily the former,77 and they arise in a s
ideological domain. The dialectical tension between the 'peopl
'classes' determines the form of ideology.78 The Gramscian imp
Laclau's theoretical formulations on 'populism' is too evident t
any further elaboration of his analytical framework.

THE POTENTIAL

Having looked at the 'subaltern studies' approach and 'populism

conceptual tool it is necessary to assess their potential as u
frameworks for studying social movements-including ethnic/t
and peasant movements in India. To us, heuristically more signi
than the concept of 'subalternity' in the alternative approa
historiography advocated by Ranajit Guha, are the six paradigm
forms (suggested by him) in which insurgent consciousness manife
For studying protest movements of peasantry and ethnic/tribal gr
in general, and their insurgencies in particular, Guha's forms
invaluable; they suggest what questions a researcher ought to
while studying any insurgent phenomenon, and how to intelpre
interconnect seemingly disparate sets of data in order to reconstruc
nature of consciousness of the insurgent people whom one has chos
study. This framework consisting of Guha's six paradigmatic fo
could be usefully employed in studying ethnic/tribal and pea
movements, but mainly of the insurgent variety, without making
ado of the concept of 'subalternity' per se. It is not being suggeste
that the concept ought to be discarded outright. However, its exte
usage in specific historical contexts inquired into by the contribut
the Subaltern Studies series has not in any way minimised eith
extent of ambiguities it is ridden with or the polemics associated w
it. On the contrary, it has become increasingly difficult to use the
'subalternity' with conceptual precision or a common meaning stru
as the body of research literature on subaltern issues keeps growing
Guha's paradigmatic forms too, though useful, have some ob
limitations. They are useful for studying insurgent movements
Naturally, non-insurgent protest movements would remain outside
pale of his paradigm. Moreover, these forms in themselves ar
fixed or determinate, and would require continuous renewal in the
of fresh research material; finally these forms in themselves d
constitute an explanation as to why a given movement or insur
assumes certain of these forms and not others.
It is here that the concept of 'populism', and the framework that
Laclau and other Latin American scholars have suggested for studying

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 33

'populist movements', could possibly provide us with directions

inquiries into contemporary peasant/farmers' movements, ethnic/tr
movements, or movements for assertion of regional, ethnic or mino
identities, which are becoming less and less insurgent in character an
are acquiring the form of 'populism'-i.e., 'revolution of ris
expectations'. In these movements 'people' or masses and not 'clas
seem to be getting united against the status quo establishment, and
a unity or solidarity is apparently achieved through ideology de
the presence of one or more dominant classes operating within s
populist formations.
The precise linkages between masses and classes, the natur
populist ideologies and the type of inter-class unity these ideolo
interpellations achieve, and the role such populist movements pla
a determinate social formation or in a given mode of production
some of the issues that could be taken up for inquiry in the context
contemporary social movements-more particularly peasant/farm
movements or ethnic movements in India. Guha's framework of the six
forms of rebel's consciousness, and Laclau's formulations on 'populism',
which have regrettably remained neglected in the mainstream
sociology and social anthropology of movements in India, could provide
us with some directions for future enquiry.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. J.C. Jha, The Kol Insurrection of Chota-Nagpur, Thacker, Spink Co., Calcutta
The Bhumij Revolt 1832-1833 (Ganga Narain's Hungama or Turmoil), Munshi
Manoharlal, Delhi, 1967.
2. K.K. Datta, The Santal Insurrection-1855, University of Calcutta Press, Ca
1944.
3. B.B. Kling, The Blue Mutiny-The Indigo Disturbances in Bengal 1859-1862,
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1966.
4. Ravinder Kumar, Western India in the Nineteenth Century, Routledge and
Paul, London, 1968.
5. K. Suresh Singh, Dust Storm and Hanging Mist-Birsa Munda and His Movem
Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, 1966; Birsa Munda and His Movemen
Chotanagpur, Oxford University Press, Calcutta, 1983.
6. Sunil K. Sen, Agrarian Struggles in Bengal 1946-1947, Peoples' Publishing H
Delhi, 1972.
7. Majid H. Siddiqi, Agrarian Unrest in Northern India-The United Provinces,
22, Vikas Publishers, New Delhi, 1978.
8. Kapil Kumar, Peasants in Revolt: Tenants, Landlords, Congress and the Raj in
1886-1922, Manohar, Delhi, 1984.
9. Majid H. Siddiqi, op. cit.
10. Kapil Kumar, op. cit.
11. Gyanendra Pandey, The Ascendency of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, 1926-
Study in Imperfect Mobilisation, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1978.
12. D.N. Dhanagare, Peasant Movements in India 1920-1950, Oxford University P
Delhi, 1983.
13. Hamza Alavi, 'Peasants and Revolution', in Ralph Miliband (ed.), Socialist
Register, Merlin, London, 1965.
14. B. Moore (Jr.), Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy-Lord and Peasant in
the Making of the Modern World, Paladin, London, 1969.
15. D.N. Dhanagare, op. cit.
16. K. Suresh Singh, Dust Storm and Hanging Mist, op. cit.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

17. This major ommission was subsequently rectified by K. Suresh Singh in th

edition of his book (1983) published under a different title in which the mil
ethos of the Birsa Munda's movement has been highlighted.
18. Eric Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, Manchester University Press, 1959;
Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972.
19. Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies-Writings on South Asian Histo
Society, Vol. I, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1982, pp. 2-3.
20. Ibid., p. 4.
21. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
22. Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1983.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
25. See D.N. Dhanagare, op. cit., and Sunil K. Sen, op. cit.
26. Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies, Vol. II, op. cit., p. 8.
27. Ibid., p. 10.
28. Eric Hobsbawm, op. cit.
29. George Rude, Crowd in History-A Study of Popular Disturbances in Fran
England 1730-1848, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.
30. Ranajit Guha, 1983, op. cit., pp. 19-20.
31. Frederick Engels, Present Wars in Germany, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 196
32. George Rude, op. cit.
33. Ranajit Guha, op. cit., pp. 21-26.
34. Ibid., pp. 54-56, 61-64.
35. Ibid., pp. 112-115.
36. Ibid., p. 125.
37. Suresh Singh, op. cit., pp. 39-53, pp. 198-199.
38. D.N. Dhanagare, op. cit.
39. Ranajit Guha, op. cit., 149-151.
40. Ibid., pp. 161-166.
41. Ranajit Guha, op. cit., pp. 169-171.
42. K. Suresh Singh, op. cit., p. 202.
43. Ranajit Guha, op. cit., p. 188.
44. Ibid., pp. 204-209.
45. D.N. Dhanagare, op. cit.
46. Ranajit Guha, op. cit., pp. 227-248, p. 251.
47. Ibid., pp. 280-286.
48. Ibid., p. 200.
49. Ibid.
50. J. Areh Getty, Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International',
Studies, Vol. XXXVIII No. 1, January 1986, pp. 24-36.
51. For example, see Hobsbawm's Primitive Rebels, (1959) and Bandits (1972),
Crowd in History (1964) and E P. Thompson's Making of the English Working
However, it is necessary to distinguish these studies from Camus' Rebel.
52. Ranajit Guha (ed.) 1982-1987, op. ct.
53. See Kapil Kumar, op. dt.
54. Irfan Habib, Interpreting Indian History, North-eastern Hill Unive
Publications, Shillong, approximately 1986.
55. Ranajit Guha (ed.) op. ct., Vol. I, p. 8.
56. Arvind N. Das, Agrarian Change from Above and from Below: Bihar 1947-78
Guha (ed.), Vol II pp. 204-214.
57. Ibid., pp. 215-219.
58. David Hardiman, The Coming of Devi, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1987.
59. Dipankar Gupta, Nativism in a Metropolis-Shiv Sena Movement in Bom
Manohar, Delhi, 1982.
60. D.N. Dhanagare, 'Vidarbhas Separate Identity-Its Emergence in Hist
Outline', State and Society, Vol. 6, No. 4,1986.
61. G. Rama Reddy, Regionalism in India-A Study of Telengana, Concept Publ
Company, Delhi, 1979.
62. K.L. Sharma, Caste, Class and Social Movements, Rawat Brothers, Jaipur, 198
63. Myron Weiner, Song of the Soil, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Je
1978.
64. Ernesto Laclau, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory, Verso Publications, Lo
1979.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUBALTERN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POPULISM 3 5

65. Ibid.
66. Peter Worsely, 'The Concept of Populism', in G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (
Populism, London, 1970.
67. Ernesto Laclau, op. cit., p. 146.
68. Ibid., p. 147.
69. Ibid., p. 147.
70. The best exemplification of this functionalist thesis can be found in R.K. Me
Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 enlarged edition reproduced as In
edition), Amerind, New Delhi, 1975.
71. Ernesto Laclau, op. cit., p. 147.
72. For a summary of Germani's theory in English, see E. Laclau, 1979.
73. Ernesto Lacau, op. cit., pp. 148-149.
74. T. Di Tella, 'Populism and Reform in Latin America', in C. Veliz (ed.) Obstac
Change in Latin America, London, 1970 and Laclau, op. cit., pp. 150-151.
75. Eresto Lacau, op. cit., 152-153.
76. Ibid., p. 154.
77. Ibid., p. 160-167.
78. Ibid., p. 194-198.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.205 on Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:01:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms