SUBALTERN PERSPECTIVE : DAVID HARDIMAN

             SUBALTERN PERSPECTIVE: DAVID HARDIMAN

 

Subaltern perspective looks into those who are neglected and marginalized and contrasts it with the elite perspective. Italian Neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci initiated the concept of subaltern in his Prison Notebooks to signify marginalised people.

The Subaltern perspective stands for understanding the society through conditions of  subordination of people belonging to the different caste, class, age, gender, race etc. It seeks to present an alternate image of society through the viewpoint of the masses usually unrepresented.

 

The subaltern studies which emerged in India as a post-colonial theory is about re-writing history of the people. This project is mostly credited to Ranajit Guha and his colleagues such as Partha Chatterjee, David Hardiman, Shahid Amin, Gyanendra Pandey, David Arnold, Sumit Sarkar and Dipesh Chakrabarty. The subaltern historiography i.e. the methods of studying history is concerned with the “history of the subaltern people”. The basic premise of the subaltern history was to look at the history from below or the history of the subaltern people as opposed to the elitist perspective in history which ignores their contributions in making of history. Dhanagare has pointed out that the subaltern historiography approach seeks to restore a balance by highlighting the role of politics of the people as against elite politics played in Indian history.

David Hardiman was born in Rawalpindi (Pakistan) in October 1947. He has taught at the University of Leicester, the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, and the University of Oxford. Presently he is attached to the University of Warwick, UK. In 1980, he was a fellow of the Centre for Social Studies in Surat.

In 1981, he was also visiting fellow of the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta. Hardiman is one of the many prolific writers who participated in the creation of the subaltern perspective. He is a founding member of the Subaltern Studies group.

Writings of Hardiman:

 

1. The Quit India Movement in Gujarat (1980)

2. Peasant Nationalists of Gujarat: Kheda District, 1917-1934 (1981)

3. The Coming of Devi: Adivasi Assertion in Western India (1987)

4. Peasant Resistance in India: 1858-1914 (1992)

5. Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in Honour of Ranajit Guha (1994).

Hardiman used subaltern perspective to analyse the Devi movement of the adivasis of Ranimahal or forest tract of South Gujarat. The Ranimahals are relatively flat; the precipitous mountains of the Sahyadri range appear only on their eastern borders. The chief tribes known as the Kaliparaj were the Chodris, Gamits, Dhondiyas and Konkanis.

The Adivasis of Ranimahals were for the most part settled peasant farmers who lived in small hamlets. Several hamlets (faligas) normally made up of one revenue village. The villages lacked artisan and other specialist class. In this adivasi village provided a marked contrast to many of the so-called traditional Indian village with their hierarchies of Brahman priests, dominant caste, subordinate laboring castes, Baniyas, artisan castes and untouchables. The village was composed of only one tribe. There was little exploitation of one adivasi by another. However the role of exploiter was played by the high caste moneylenders and Parsi liquor dealers.

Parsis used to combine money lending with dealing of liquor. They had an exclusive right to sell liquor.  Moreover their position was strengthened considerably by the colonial liquor laws. The background for this movement was laid on the exploitation of the adivasis by the Parsis. However this movement did not originate in the Ranimahals but in the coastal village of Palghar just to the north of Bombay city. In the year 1922, Mangela Koli fisher folk were hit by an epidemic of small pox. they believed that it had been caused by a goddess. Originating as a small pox propitiation ceremony the Devi assumed the name of Salabai (Devi who gives advice) giving message to abstain from meat, liquor and toddy. The Mangela Kolis followed this advice. This movement spread fast up the coast northwards. the commands of the Devi as voiced by the spirit mediums differed considerably form gathering to gathering. Some of them were clearly specific to local circumstances.  

The commands demanded a profound change in the style of life of the adivasis. The drinking of Daru and Toddy was very much a part of their culture. Not only did these beverages provide a valuable  food-important particularly during the hot season when food stock were low but they were also used in religious and social functions, being consumed freely during many religious festivals and at funerals. Likewise the sacrifice of live animals played an important part in adivasi rituals, the flesh of animal be eaten afterwards. Daily bathing was not at that time a common practices as water supplies in the tribal villages were often   in adequate even for the purpose of drinking. Not all the commands of the Devi were thus meant to make life easy for her followers and needed to be examined more closely for their underlying rationale.

Several observers saw this as a movement for the ‘purification’ of the adivasis. The Gandhian leaders Sumant Mehta described it as ‘atmasuddhi’ or ‘self purification’, by the adivasis. This perception may be seen to underlie the concept of ‘Sanskritization’ given by Srinivas.

Sanskritization is the process by which a ‘low’ Hindu caste or tribal or other group, change its customs, ritual ideology and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently, twice born caste. Generally such changes are followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than that traditionally conceded to the dominant caste by the local community. The claim is usually made over a period of time, in fact a generation or two before the arrival is conceded.

Srinivas continued: Sanskritization is not confined to Hindu castes but also occurs among tribal and semi tribal groups such as the Bhils of Western India, the Gonds and Oraons of Central India and the Pahadis of the Himalayas. This usually results in the tribe undergoing Sanskritization claiming to be a caste and therefore Hindu.

Hardiman argued that in the case of Devi movement it can be argued that in observing new rules of purity such as teetotalism, vegetarianism and cleanliness of adivasis of south Gujarat were advocating a claim to be accepted as clean caste within the Hindu hierarchy, it can therefore be seen as a dramatic example of the process of tribal Sanskritization.

There are however some difficulties in the use of this concept. In the statement quoted above Srinivas refers to the Oraon : A reading of SC. Roy’s classic work on reform movements amongst the Oraons reveals that Roy himself did not accept such as interpretation. Evidence suggests that on the whole adivasis did not claim rank in the caste hierarchy. It is true that in some cases they have demanded to regard as Kshatriyas. This in itself significant for Kshatriyas enjoy status while consuming to practical ‘impure’ customs such as meat-eating and liquor drinking. In other words adivasis who claim Kshatriya status are asking that they accorded greater respect despite their ‘impure’ habits.   

In such movements adivasis have adopted certain Hindu values without making an accompanying claim to caste status. There is no reason therefore why we should consider there as examples of acceptance of the caste system on the part of adivasis.

A further drawback in the theory of Sanskritization is that it underestimates the amount of conflict involved in making good such claims and demands. Dumont has pointed out that low caste or tribes which reform their way of life can hardly hope to enhance their status through means alone. Higher castes have to be forced through political action to concede such a status. As a result there tends to be a correlation between the political power held by a community and its position of equality without at the same time mounting a political challenge to the dominance of the higher communities.  

Hardiman argues that the best approach appear to be to relate values to power. the values which the adivasis endorsed were those of the classes which possessed political power. In acting as they did the adivasis revealed their understanding of the relationship between values and power, for values possess that element of power which permits dominant classes to subjugate subordinate with a minimum use of physical force. To take an obvious example, the Brahmanical notion of purity has provided a most potent means for the control of the supposedly ‘impure’ subordinate classes of India. By appropriating and  thus democratizing such values the adivasis sought to derive them of their power of domination.

In many cases adivasis have adopted the values of the locally dominant classes among the indigenous population. In South Gujarat they rejected the values of their direct exploiter the Parsis, but endorsed the dominant regional culture of the Brahmans and Baniyas. Adivasi movement of this type therefore took advantage of divisions amongst the elites.  

On one hand they sought to appropriate the vales associated with the regionally dominant high caste Hindus. In this respect it was significant that the commands never included any boycott of Vaniyas and Brahman merchants and usurers, even though they exploited the Adivasis. The boycott was imposed only on Parsis and in a few cases Muslims. The logic of this was that the Vaniyas and Brahmans lived the pure way of life which the Adivasis sought to assimilate whereas Parsis and Muslims were impure.

One the other hand, the commands of the Devi represented in a form of assertion against the most rapacious of the local exploiters’. By refusing to drink liquor and by refusing to work for anyone connected with the liquor trade the adivasis were cutting the economic cords which bound them to the Parsis. Thus the commands of Devi represented a powerful program for Adivasi assertion. The movement had unsettling implications for all those who wished to maintain the status quo in Ranimahals and in particular it sounded a challenge to the Parsi liquor dealers cum landlords.