Introduction: “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha
“Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha first appeared in 2011 in the Journal of Modern Italian Studies (ISSN 1354-571X print/ISSN 1469-9583 online), published by Taylor & Francis (http://www.informaworld.com, DOI: 10.1080/1354571X.2011.542989). This essay holds importance in literature and literary theory and criticism due to its exploration of the influential Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci’s impact on Indian intellectual and political discourse. Guha, a renowned historian and founding editor of Subaltern Studies, pays homage to Gramsci’s intellectual legacy and its profound influence on his own work and the development of a new historical perspective focused on the voices of the marginalized and oppressed.
Summary of “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha
- Influence of Gramsci in India: Ranajit Guha pays homage to Antonio Gramsci, describing him as a “teacher” for scholars in India, particularly those involved in the Subaltern Studies project. Gramsci’s concept of hegemony played a crucial role in the formation of the Subaltern Studies framework. Guha notes that Gramsci’s influence was not absorbed through the mainstream communist parties of India (CPI and CPI[M]) but rather through academic circles that sought to critique colonialism and nationalism.
- Organic Development and Adaptation of Gramsci’s Ideas: Guha compares the process of learning from Gramsci to biological adaptation, suggesting that Gramsci’s ideas thrived in India because they were adapted to the country’s unique social and historical context. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, especially, needed to be modified for the Indian experience, where colonialism had left a deeply hierarchical society still riven by class and caste distinctions.
- Subaltern Studies and the Naxalite Movement: The Subaltern Studies collective was born out of the disillusionment with both colonialism and the Indian state that followed independence. Inspired by the failed Naxalite peasant rebellion of the late 1960s, Guha and his colleagues critiqued the ruling elite’s failure to mobilize the masses in the nationalist movement and post-colonial period. Subaltern Studies aimed to give voice to the marginalized sections of society, who were often ignored in mainstream historical narratives.
- Failure of Nationalist Leadership: Guha critiques the Indian National Congress and its leadership for failing to convert the mass mobilization during the independence movement into a genuine hegemony. The split between the elite-led nationalist mobilization, which was disciplined and structured, and the spontaneous, subaltern movements meant that the post-colonial state was unable to create true consent among the populace. The legacy of colonial domination remained, as the new rulers largely continued the coercive practices of the British.
- Theoretical Contributions and the Concept of Hegemony: Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, which distinguishes between coercion and persuasion, was crucial in analyzing the relationship between the colonial and post-colonial state in India. Guha emphasizes the need to remove ambiguities from Gramsci’s use of hegemony to fully apply it to the Indian context. The British colonial state had maintained dominance primarily through coercion, while post-colonial rulers failed to establish a true hegemony because they could not reconcile the elite and subaltern streams of mobilization.
- Gandhi’s Shift from Collaboration to Resistance: Guha discusses how Gandhi, initially a loyalist to the British Empire, was transformed into an anti-imperialist after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919. This event revealed the true nature of British colonial rule, leading Gandhi to abandon collaboration and adopt resistance. This transition reflects the broader failure of Indian elites to grasp the coercive nature of colonial power until it became brutally apparent.
- The Split Between Elite and Subaltern Mobilization: One of the core insights of Subaltern Studies was the identification of the divide between elite and subaltern mobilization during the nationalist struggle. Elite mobilization, led by figures like Gandhi, was organized and controlled, while the subaltern masses often engaged in spontaneous, unstructured acts of resistance. This dichotomy persisted into the post-colonial period, preventing the nationalist leaders from securing the full consent needed for effective governance.
- The Legacy of Gramsci in Indian Historiography: Guha credits Gramsci with providing the theoretical tools to analyze the failures of both colonialism and nationalism in India. Gramsci’s openness and adaptability made his ideas particularly suited to the Indian experience, allowing scholars to critique the structural inequalities that persisted after independence. Guha emphasizes that Subaltern Studies, drawing from Gramsci’s work, is still an ongoing project with much left to explore.
- Continuity and Discontinuity in Hegemony: The paper concludes by reflecting on the failure of Indian leaders to build a hegemony in the post-colonial state. The nationalist leadership had gained popular consent during the anti-colonial struggle but could not sustain it after independence. This failure underscores the discontinuity of hegemony in South Asia, where the leadership must continuously work to earn the consent of the people.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha
| Term | Definition (in the context of the essay) | Example Sentence |
| Hegemony | The dominance of a ruling class achieved through cultural and ideological means rather than solely by force. | “Hegemony stands for a particular condition of Dominance, such that the organic composition of Dominance enables Persuasion to outweigh Coercion.” (p. 291) |
| Subaltern | People of lower social status or those with less power. | “The common subalternity of the entire people subjugated by it.” (p. 293) |
| Domination | The control or influence exerted by one group over another. | “However, there is a basic asymmetry underlying this two-level structure. For the mutuality of Dominance and Subordination is logical and universal…” (p. 290) |
| Subordination | The state of being subject to the authority of another. | “These unequal relationships with all their diversities and permutations derive from a general relation of Dominance and Subordination.” (p. 291) |
| Adaptation | The process of modifying something to fit a new situation. | “Indeed, it is contingency that alone can explain why Gramsci’s thought has flourished somewhat better in far-off lands than in its native continent. Even in India, for all its success, it did not take root where one might have expected it to do, but in an altogether different sector of South Asian life.” (p. 288) |
| Organic Composition | The relative weight of different elements within a system. | “Just as the character of any fund of capital – its capacity to reproduce and expand itself – and its difference from any other fund depend in these respects on its organic composition, that is, on the weight of its constant part relative to that of its variable part, so does the character of Dominance and Subordination, interacting in any particular instance, depend on the relative weightage of the elements Coercion and Persuasion in dominance and of Resistance and Collaboration in Subordination…” (p. 291) |
Contribution of “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Post-Colonial Theory
- Colonialism’s Enduring Legacy: Guha’s critical engagement with Gramsci in the Indian context adds a nuanced understanding of post-colonial power structures. He illustrates how the colonial state’s coercive apparatuses continued to influence post-colonial governance. This observation enriches post-colonial theory by emphasizing the continuity between colonial and post-colonial states, rather than viewing the end of colonialism as a clean rupture.
- “For, the end of colonial rule had done nothing to replace or substantially alter the main apparatus of colonial domination – that is, the state. It was transferred intact to the successor regime.”
- Alienation of the Post-Colonial Elite: Guha expands on the post-colonial critique of the elite’s role in maintaining structures of dominance. His analysis shows that the post-colonial leaders, much like the colonizers, distanced themselves from the masses, thereby replicating the colonial modes of governance. This contributes to post-colonial theory by focusing on the betrayal of the subaltern in the new national state.
- “Why did the new rulers maintain such a distance from the people who had been so close to them during the long period of the anti-colonial mass movement?”
2. Subaltern Studies and Subalternity
- Conceptualization of Subalternity: Guha’s engagement with Gramsci’s ideas is foundational for the development of Subaltern Studies, a field that critically analyzes history from the perspective of those marginalized by colonial and nationalist historiography. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony helped shape the core objective of Subaltern Studies: to give voice to the subaltern classes and critique the elite-centric nature of both colonial and nationalist narratives.
- “The dichotomy of nationalist mobilization was only a symptom of Indian politics and generally of Indian life itself. The identification of this basic structural split… gave Subaltern Studies its place in South Asian scholarship.”
- Critique of Nationalist Historiography: Guha builds on Gramsci’s ideas to critique Indian nationalism’s failure to mobilize the subaltern effectively, which mirrors the post-colonial critique of nationalist movements. He highlights how the nationalist leadership excluded or suppressed subaltern mobilization and left the subaltern classes disenfranchised, which directly contributes to the theoretical understanding of subalternity in post-colonial contexts.
- “This structural split between the elite and subaltern streams of mobilization was what made it impossible for the nationalist leaders to pick up the full measure of popular consent for the construction of hegemony.”
3. Marxist Theory and Hegemony
- Hegemony and Coercion in the Colonial and Post-Colonial State: Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, which distinguishes between dominance by coercion and dominance by persuasion, is central to Guha’s critique of both colonial and post-colonial governance. He applies Gramsci’s concept of hegemony to argue that the Indian leadership, both colonial and post-colonial, relied too heavily on coercion rather than building a consensual hegemony. This adaptation of Gramsci’s ideas provides a framework for analyzing political power in a post-colonial context.
- “Hegemony stands for a particular condition of Dominance, such that the organic composition of Dominance enables Persuasion to outweigh Coercion.”
- Dominance Without Hegemony: Guha’s critical engagement with Gramsci’s idea of hegemony is instrumental in developing the notion of “dominance without hegemony,” a concept central to understanding the failure of both colonial and post-colonial regimes to secure the full consent of the subaltern masses. This concept has since become a key part of Marxist and post-colonial theoretical frameworks.
- “The British colonial state in South Asia was the very reverse of democracy… a dominance without hegemony, as we have defined it.”
4. The Concept of Adaptation in Theoretical Application
- Adaptation of Western Theory to Non-Western Contexts: One of Guha’s significant contributions to literary theory is his adaptation of Gramsci’s Western concepts, particularly the theory of hegemony, to the Indian socio-political context. He demonstrates the necessity of adapting European Marxist theory to address the unique historical and social structures of colonized societies. This approach is vital in post-colonial and cultural studies, which often involve the modification of Western theories to analyze non-Western contexts.
- “In order to benefit from these we had to adapt them to the Indian experience which was, of course, significantly different in many ways from the Italian and, generally, the Western experience on which Gramsci’s own thinking was based.”
5. Historical Materialism and Power Relations
- Relational Power and Social Hierarchies: By employing Gramsci’s concept of power as a dynamic interaction between Dominance and Subordination, Guha brings historical materialism into sharper focus in the study of Indian history. His exploration of how dominance operates through both coercion and persuasion deepens Marxist analyses of social hierarchies, extending these analyses beyond class to include caste, gender, and generational relations. This broadens the application of Marxist theory in post-colonial and subaltern studies.
- “Power stands for a series of inequalities not only between the British conquerors and their Indian subjects, but also between the dominant and the dominated in terms of class, caste, gender, age.”
Examples of Critiques Through “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha
| Literary Work | Critique Through Gramsci’s Theories |
| A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth | Examines how the novel’s portrayal of the upper-class Indian elite reinforces cultural hegemony, marginalizing the experiences of the lower classes. |
| The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy | Analyzes the characters’ experiences of caste discrimination, marginalization, and the impact of colonial history as examples of subaltern resistance and agency, drawing on Gramsci’s concept of subalternity. |
| The Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai | Explores the themes of class, caste, and colonialism in India through the lens of Gramsci’s theories. The novel could be critiqued for its focus on the decline of the landed gentry while neglecting the struggles of the lower classes. |
| The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri | Analyzes the characters’ experiences of cultural assimilation and the tension between their Indian heritage and American identity as examples of cultural hegemony, drawing on Gramsci’s theories. |
Criticism Against “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha
- Over-reliance on Gramsci’s Theories in the Indian Context
- Critics argue that Guha’s application of Gramsci’s ideas, particularly the concept of hegemony, may be too rigid for understanding the complexities of the Indian socio-political landscape. India’s unique history, social stratification, and political movements may not fully align with Gramsci’s European-based frameworks.
- Gramsci’s emphasis on class struggles may not sufficiently account for the role of caste, religion, and other non-class forms of oppression in India.
- Critics argue that Guha’s application of Gramsci’s ideas, particularly the concept of hegemony, may be too rigid for understanding the complexities of the Indian socio-political landscape. India’s unique history, social stratification, and political movements may not fully align with Gramsci’s European-based frameworks.
- Elitist View of Subalternity
- Some scholars argue that despite Guha’s intention to highlight subaltern voices, the Subaltern Studies project itself is criticized for being primarily an intellectual and academic movement, led by elite scholars. It has been noted that the very individuals claiming to represent the subaltern are often distant from the actual lived experiences of the marginalized groups they study.
- Neglect of Non-Marxist Frameworks
- Guha’s work is grounded in Marxist theory, particularly through Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. Critics point out that this limits the interpretative possibilities by not engaging sufficiently with other theoretical frameworks, such as post-structuralism, feminist theory, or indigenous perspectives, which could provide alternative insights into the dynamics of power and resistance in Indian history.
- Simplification of Gandhi’s Role in Nationalism
- Guha’s portrayal of Gandhi’s shift from collaboration to resistance has been criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of Gandhi’s political philosophy. Gandhi’s political evolution, according to critics, was influenced by a multitude of factors, and his relationship with both colonialism and nationalism cannot be reduced to a singular event like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
- Overemphasis on Hegemony vs. Coercion Dichotomy
- The focus on the distinction between persuasion (hegemony) and coercion in the Indian context may be seen as overemphasized. Critics argue that the Indian nationalist movement, as well as the colonial state, used a blend of both, and that the clean separation of these two modes of dominance may oversimplify the political and social realities of India during this period.
- Limited Engagement with Contemporary Political Movements
- While Guha draws on the Naxalite movement as an example of subaltern resistance, his analysis has been criticized for not engaging with more contemporary political movements in India. By focusing primarily on the past, the work may miss out on evolving forms of resistance and power dynamics in post-colonial India.
- Ambiguities in Defining Subaltern
- The definition of “subaltern” in Guha’s work and Subaltern Studies in general has been critiqued for being too broad and vague. Critics argue that this makes it difficult to determine who exactly counts as subaltern and whether the group’s interests are truly being represented in the work of elite academics.
- Western-Centric Theoretical Adaptation
- The adaptation of Gramsci’s European-centric theories to the Indian context has drawn criticism for being a form of intellectual colonialism. Some critics claim that importing Western theories into Indian historiography undermines indigenous knowledge systems and perpetuates the dominance of Western thought in the academic study of non-Western societies.
- Lack of Practical Political Solutions
- Although Guha critiques the failures of the Indian elite and the colonial state, critics argue that his work does not offer clear, practical solutions for political and social change. The work is seen as more theoretical and reflective, lacking concrete proposals for how the subaltern can gain agency in the contemporary Indian political landscape.
Suggested Readings: “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha
- Guha, Ranajit, Partha Chatterjee, and Dipesh Chakrabarty, eds. Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Oxford University Press, 2013. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/subaltern-studies-9780195651256?sortField=4&resultsPerPage=100&view=Standard&lang=en&cc=gb
- Chatterjee, Partha, and Nivedita Menon. “A Brief History of Subaltern Studies (1998).” Empire and Nation: Selected Essays, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 289–301. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chat15220.21. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.
- FEATHERSTONE, DAVID. “Reading Subaltern Studies Politically: Histories from Below, Spatial Relations, and Subalternity.” Subaltern Geographies, edited by TARIQ JAZEEL and STEPHEN LEGG, University of Georgia Press, 2019, pp. 94–118. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv5nphtr.8. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.
- Chatterjee, Partha. “GRAMSCI IN INDIA: CAPITALIST HEGEMONY AND SUBALTERN POLITICS.” Studi Storici, vol. 58, no. 4, 2017, pp. 963–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45096710. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.
- The Gramsci Foundation. https://www.museumwnf.org/partner.php?id=IT_01_R;it&theme=AWE&tye=SH
Representative Quotations from “Gramsci In India: Homage To A Teacher” by Ranajit Guha with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Gramsci himself uses the term as a metaphor when he argues that continuity can create a healthy tradition if the people can be actively involved in what he describes as an ‘organic development.’” | Guha emphasizes Gramsci’s idea of “organic development,” where tradition thrives only when the people actively participate. This reflects Gramsci’s stress on the masses’ role in political and social movements. |
| “It defied all predictability by choosing an academic project like Subaltern Studies rather than the two official communist parties as its seedbed and propagator.” | This quotation highlights the surprising adoption of Gramsci’s ideas in Subaltern Studies, rather than by the mainstream Indian communist parties. It underscores the independent intellectual development of the movement. |
| “Our project, Subaltern Studies, kept itself at a distance from both CPI and CPI(M). To us, both represented a left-liberal extension of the Indian power elite itself.” | Guha criticizes the mainstream communist parties for aligning with the Indian elite, distancing Subaltern Studies from their politics, and focusing on a more radical critique of colonialism and class structures. |
| “We considered ourselves as Marxists in our attempt to develop a radical critique of colonialism and colonialist knowledge in the study of South Asian history and society.” | The quotation reflects Guha’s self-identification as a Marxist and emphasizes Subaltern Studies’ goal of deconstructing colonial historiography to re-center marginalized voices in South Asian history. |
| “Hegemony stands for a particular condition of Dominance, such that the organic composition of Dominance enables Persuasion to outweigh Coercion.” | Guha adapts Gramsci’s concept of hegemony to highlight the balance between persuasion and coercion in political dominance. He suggests that true hegemony occurs when persuasion outweighs coercion. |
| “For the mutuality of Dominance and Subordination is logical and universal, for it obtains in all kinds of unequal power relations everywhere at all times.” | This reflects Guha’s view that dominance and subordination are interdependent and exist in all hierarchical power structures, making this a key concept in both Marxist and subaltern analysis. |
| “The leadership that had been empowered by the consent of the people in the movement for independence failed to invest that consent into a hegemony as leaders of the new sovereign state.” | Guha critiques the post-colonial Indian leadership for failing to convert the popular consent gained during the independence movement into a sustainable hegemony once in power. |
| “The dichotomy of nationalist mobilization was only a symptom of Indian politics and generally of Indian life itself.” | This statement underscores Guha’s argument that the divide between elite and subaltern mobilization during the independence movement reflects broader, long-standing structural splits in Indian society. |
| “The colonial state in South Asia was acquired by the British not by the consent of the indigenous people, but by force.” | Guha criticizes British colonialism, emphasizing that the colonial state was based on coercion rather than consent, a key point in his adaptation of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to the Indian context. |
| “We have described such relativities, after Marx, as the organic composition of Dominance and Subordination.” | This quotation shows Guha’s use of Marxist analysis to explain the dynamic relationship between dominance and subordination, focusing on the ways these power structures interact and evolve historically. |