By William Tithecott
IN THE YEARS following the 1980s, Marxist thought and its relevance to India has been discussed and disseminated by numerous Indian intellectuals. These scholars would reject many of Marxism’s conventional tenants, notably the socialist master-narrative, and, as Dipesh Chakrabarty has suggested, the possibility of forming arguments that traverse East-West boundaries. “To be a Marxist is to work within European traditions of thought,” wrote Chakrabarty in Marxism after Marx, implementing Marxism as an innately Western discourse. This school of thought, termed Subaltern Studies, was not necessarily a rejection of Marxism, but began as a study to rectify the problems of applying a European system of thought to Southern Asia, and so to “produce ‘better’ Marxist histories.” Primarily, as David Hardiman, a protégé of Guha and key founder of the Subaltern Studies group, has argued, the key aim was to recover “a people without history… whose history has been marginalized in conventional historical scholarship,” and Marxism was approached and adapted to varying degrees in which to achieve this.
The Subaltern Studies group then rejected the “incredulity of grand narratives,” and argued there existed other development paradigms that did not conform to conventional Marxist universalism. Indeed, in a review of the work of Bula Bhadra’s work, Diptendra Banerjee discusses an offhand comment by Foucault that “Marxism exists in 19th century thought like a fish in water: that is, unable to breathe anywhere else.” Despite his own Marxist leanings, Banerjee argues that a rigid adherence to conventional Marxism leads only to an Orientalist and even racist perspective of India, which, using Edward Said’s argument, portrays the countries beyond Europe as backwards and uncivilised.
This studies group claims several members, and this essay will focus primarily on two; Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Both these individuals were instrumental in expanding the field of Subaltern Studies, and how their approaches adapted, or diverged, from conventional Marxist thought. Both these scholars have sought to reclaim the historic agency of the ‘ignored’ elements of society, focusing less on the proletariat, but more along the lines of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of the ‘Subaltern,’; individuals who for reasons of caste, class, religion, gender, or ethnicity have been perceived as social inferior. With a similar aim, these intellectuals have attempted to rewrite historiography away from previous elitist narratives, as well as from Westernised standpoints from which Imperialists and Marxists alike had constructed.
Particular focus will be given to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, a self-described “practical deconstructionist feminist Marxist”. Her most famous and controversial essay, Can the Subaltern Speak? discusses the approaches to giving silenced parties a voice, whilst also warning that attempts to do so often reinforce this silence. She points to the Sati ritual of widows jumping on funeral pyres, and suggests that whilst the British outlawing of the practice may have saved some lives, the law’s purpose was to stress differences of European civility and indigenous barbarism, thus denying Hindu culture existential legitimacy and striking it from history.
Ranajit Guha also deserves consideration as one of the founding members of the studies group. In the first volume of Subaltern Studies he outlines the definition of the ‘subaltern’ in a native context, “the demographic difference between the total Indian population and all those whom we have described as the ‘elite’.” The elites and their power structures are of particular interest to Guha, who has been instrumental in challenging a subsequent elitist historiography as well as for drawing attention to subaltern activity, in particular the politicisation of the peasantry, outlined in his Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
As Sumit Sarkar writes, Guha began the group initially as part of a “dissident left milieu, where sharp criticism of orthodox Marxist practice and theory was still combined with the retention of a broad socialist and Marxist horizon.” Guha grew disillusioned with organized left parties and the bureaucratic state structures of “actual existing socialism,” arguing for a modified adoption. This paper then will consider how the field of Subaltern Studies has distinguished itself from previous applications of Marxism and has constructed new narratives that deal more appropriately with the ‘historical reality’ of India, and the unrepresented. Initiating with an examination of what Marx himself said of India and its class structure, which provided several points of disagreement for Guha and his colleagues on issues such as dominance, politicisation, and production, this paper will subsequently examine later Marxist theories, such as the work of Gramsci and the World Systems Theorists like Wallerstein, and their utilisation by the Subaltern Studies group. Also considered will be how ‘conventional’ India Marxists have responded to this adaptation.
Whilst the adaptation of Marxian theory is not always clear-cut between different Subaltern Studies scholars, this is not necessarily a problem in examining the group’s influences. As David Ludden writes “Intellectual cohesiveness has never been a project priority, as the leaders often say, and it has appeared primarily in solidarity against critics.” Therefore, whilst different scholars in the school have provided alternating arguments on how to approach Subaltern histories, at its core “the work of the Subaltern Studies group offers a theory of change.” The group is instrumentally about doing something different rather than keeping to narratives of the past, and so this ‘incohesiveness’ is perhaps inevitable, comparable to disagreements in wider post-colonial discourse or academic’s approaches to areas such as feminism or representation of the indigenous.
Marx himself wrote little on India, giving only limited consideration on how society outside Europe would progress along the lines he had prescribed to the West, (the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and then to communism). These considerations consisted of an article in the New York Daily Tribune (1853) and a few letters to Engels. What Marx did write regarding India can be seen as presenting two standpoints; that of how British imperialism has affected Indian society, and how this society existed in pre-colonial times. Indeed, Marx’s meta-narrative, which prophesised a teleological end of history which moved beyond capitalism and transcended notions of class, was later critiqued by writers from the ‘developing world’ as being Western in its essence, its applicability to societies elsewhere challenging to determine.
Marx saw the impact of Imperialism on colonial India as an all-consuming ideological drive. This ideology resulting in the fragmentation of “the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing.” As well as radically altering the former Asiatic economic systems, British Imperialism caused substantial cultural shifts and a degradation of cultural practices which for India “imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.”  Here, a considerably aspect to the purpose of the Subaltern Studies group can be seen; that domination caused a revision of history which excluded a particular group, and cultural alienation. This was perhaps self-evident to Guha and Spivak however, and Marx’s further analysis of this is negligible.
According to White, Orientalism had crept into a myriad of broad Marxist narratives, which had not considered “the extent to which racial theory [had been] developed in historical, scientific and cultural terms”
A greater interaction between Subaltern scholars and Marx’s writings on India is Marx’s analysis of pre-colonial Asiatic society and what he terms the ‘Asiatic Mode of Productions’, which according to Hirst and Hindness is Marx’s most disputed work on production.  According to Marx, pre-colonial Indian society, whilst still on the early stages of his master-narrative, was devoid of private property, and so was soundly in a the ‘feudalised’ stage, and as such the people of India were un-politicised.  Spivak dismisses these analyses from Marx as a “gaffe,” and according to Guha this approach loses any “connection with the ‘real’ Asia.” Subsequently much of Guha’s work focuses on arguing that the peasant class maintained a politically charged consciousness, pointing towards the number and nature of peasant insurgency movements. Other Subaltern Studies group scholars have provided a greater analysis of the Orientalism inherent in Marx model. Bula Bhadra argues Marx was “wrong all the way” with this approach, and accuses Marx of being “a dishonest researcher who was wont to wilfully supressing many of the available materials.”Bhadra perceived Marx’s limited and selective source selection when examining India as intentionally neglectful, and this can be seen as pointing towards the arguments pressed by Spivak; analyses of India constructed by the West are prone to contamination by Imperialist ideology, even from Western Marxists and post-colonialists who renounce this ideology openly. 
Thinkers within India that followed Marxist lines were therefore critical of what Marx wrote on the country, and charged his ideas as being interwoven with Orientalism. Subaltern Studies then built upon the arguments of Edward Said, who was notable in developing ‘Orientalism’ as a category of discourse.  As Gyan Prakash has argued, “the assertion of the universality of Western ideals always qualified drastically,” and that these colonial values did not only influence how the West saw India but how Indians saw themselves, removing politicisation from subordinate classes.
The longevity of Orientalist discourse has proven challenging for the Subaltern Studies group to combat. As Michael Mann has argued, this discourse had seeped into the very fabric of British colonialism, with “Little difference between the orientalists [politicians] and early Anglicism preachers.” Here Mann refers to the totality in which the civilising colonial mission held orientalist stances, which shaped the narrative in which they created for India. Similarly, Robert J. C. Young in White Mythologies has argued that previous Marxist philosophies of history had proclaimed themselves as world histories, “but had only ever been histories of the West, seen from a Eurocentric- even if anti-capitalist- perspective.”  According to White, Orientalism had crept into a myriad of broad Marxist narratives, which had not considered “the extent to which racial theory [had been] developed in historical, scientific and cultural terms,” and which as Spivak and Bhudra have argued, was present in the writings of even anti-capitalists such as Marx. Here then, a rigid adherence to classical Marxist is seen by the scholars as incompatible with Subaltern histories as it contradicts their academic aims. 
Outside of India itself, Marxist theories were applied to the subcontinent in the twentieth century via the growing field of World History and its subset of World Systems Theories. This was made popular by historical social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein, who, like Marx, employed meta-narratives that predicted the replacement of capitalism by socialism.  Unlike Marx, however, Wallerstein gave a greater focus to the developing world, and was influenced by the Singer-Prebisch thesis which termed this ‘Periphery’ as a counter-term to the Western/European ‘Core’. Under this thesis an unequal exchange occurred between the periphery and core regions, interpreting the former stripped of resources and internal industry and the latter subsequently growing richer through exploited capital. 
Wallerstein refined the Marxist elements of this earlier thesis, (although with strong influence from Annales historian Fernand Braudel, and his developments to theories of economic exchange).  For Wallerstein there was no ‘Third World’ in the form of a separate entity, but a single world interconnected by relationships of economic exchange.  Wallerstein saw India as an artificial creation, created between 1750-1850 via the destruction of previous nations and traditions, “The British, specifically, and the Europeans generally, made statements about what they believed it to be, or wanted it to be. Indians, living their ‘culture’ heard these statements, accepted a few of them, rejected many of them, and verbalized an alternate version, or several versions.” 
Singer and Prebisch’s work also was later enhanced by Johan Galtung‘s ‘Structural Theory of Imperialism,’ which in turn as similarities to Spivak. This approach, itself adapting elements of Marxism, provided the initial academic framework with notions of core and periphery to contradict the Marxian grand-narrative. Notably, it advocated differing models of development depending on a nation’s place within the capitalist world system.  Importantly, as Galtung writes, “each nation in turn has its centres and peripheries,” creating forms of alienation in a globally alienated society, and providing in part an explanation for subaltern classes who form the bottom rung in a long ladder of exploitation. For Galtung, imperialism is defined as a “dominance relation between collectivities,” and is then a relationship of dominance and power.
Part of Galtung’s struturalist study was a focus on violence, leading to the term ‘structural violence’, which refers to forms of social structure preventing a group of people meeting basic needs. As James Giligan here defines the term, “the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society,” and this demonstrates the disposed voice of the Subaltern class.  As anthropologist Paul Farmer has argued, “Their sickness is a result of structural violence… historical processes and forces conspire to constrain individual agency.” Structural violence then is visited upon all those whose social status denies social progress. 
Samrat Schmiem Kumar has argued that Galtung’s approach to imperialism and its related forms of violence had considerable impact on Subaltern Studies, in particular towards Spivak’s Can the Subaltern Speak? According to Kumar, Spivak’s concept of ‘epistemological violence,’ is Galtung’s structural violence taken to the extreme.  Spivak argued that groups with limited or complete separation from the society’s cultural imperialism were “not solely politically and economically disposed but… existed in a shadow; she was unable to speak and had no history.”  Here the link between dependency theory and subaltern classes becomes more apparent, as the latter’s oppression derives from a structure established from the core society to which India became tied. This use of structural violence can then be seen as a Subaltern Studies adaption of Marxian alienation, although a considerably more developed version that maintains relevance to post-colonial Indian society rather than nineteenth century Europe. Spivak’s “a space of difference” between the subordinate and the dominate is a reflection of Marx’s idea of alienation; selling one’s labour which forms “a loss of self,” and where the worker denies rather than affirms himself.  Spivak’s definition of alienation here, “a failure of self-cognition,” bears resemblance to this Marxist terminology, although she is careful to avoid making a striking similarity between the alienation of an industrial proletariat and the rural peasantry. 
Indeed, Spivak’s essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ can be interpreted as adapting Marxist theory more from later Marxist thinkers than Marx himself, thus witnessing a turn away from nineteenth century thought. Peter Ives has stressed the role that Antonio Gramsci’s thought played in the development of post-colonial theory, “especially the subaltern studies group, [which] drew on certain themes within Gramsci’s notion of ‘hegemony’ and ‘subalternity.’” It is worth here stressing that Gramsci’s writings, conceived in the context of failure of Italian socialism to combat fascism, explored cultural rather than solely economical paradigms in how class boundaries were maintained, similar to what Ives writes on Guha, who “drawing on some standard interpretations of Gramsci, view[ed] hegemony as the construction of consent and persuasion”. For Spivak this approach is a rejection of the accounts that rely on the “great modes of production narrative” which Marx outlined, and she argues that the Subaltern Studies definition of politicization “should be seen in relation to histories of domination and exploitation,” thus giving more direct emphasis to Gramsci than Marx.  Like Marx however, Gramsci’s work was recognised by the studies group has being written from a certain geographical perspective at a certain historical time, and as with Marx, the subaltern studies approach to Gramsci was an adaption rather than a rigid application.  Ives points out the limitations in both Guha and Spivak’s approach to Gramsci, arguing that whilst the latter “grapples with the subaltern studies utilisation of Gramsci’s conception of the ‘subaltern’”, there is no focus given towards “Gramsci’s own concentration on this very question of subaltern speech.”  Indeed, this would have had different results in post-colonial India and 1920s Europe. Moreover, in colonial India, Guha argues that society followed a different pattern of hegemony, which in Gramscian terms was insufficient to account for the dominance of the elites. 
The concept of the ‘subaltern’ has proven difficult to define. As Joseph Francese observes, “unscrupulous, instrumental, or merely selective readings of Gramsci have been animated by the impulse to make him appear relevant to the present time,” and particularly so when his thought has been “used to lend authority to or legitimise a certain political stance, ideological tendency or theoretical positions.”  El Habib Louai, in tracing the development of the term from Gramsci to Spivak has suggested that this was an understanding that the Subaltern Studies group was conscious of, and thus they were weary of heavy reliance on Gramscian theory.  Louai has noted the differences in theoretical applications of Gramscian theory, and has argued for example that Spivak’s subaltern is placed in a structural space built upon violence, which as a concept was ignored by Gramsci. 
Both approaches however detach themselves “from the mechanistic and economistic form that narrowly characterises most of the Marxian traditional studies,” and demonstrate an evolution of Marxist though that could be adapted to different subjects or areas.  Spivak’s adaptation of Gramsci’s theorizing of a class of peasants as a politicised, cultural force with a distinct consciousness has clear roots with Marxian class consciousness, and so this chain of ideas, as Louai argues indicated a recognisable, if indirect, adaptation of earlier Marxist ideas. 
The rejection of Marxist meta-narratives by Subaltern Studies holds that part of its basis on the famous assertion by Guha that the Indian Bourgeoisie enjoyed “dominance without hegemony.”  Explained by Spivak as the bourgeoisie possessing coercive power over society without requiring consent, this argument distinguishes the Indian merchant classes from their more unified Western counterparts who in Marxist theory drove and expanded capitalism through acquisition and exploitation of capital across society. In the sociological terms of Wallerstein, Bourgeois society in India can therefore be seen as operating along horizontal rather than the vertical lines which saw Bourgeois control as crossing social and class strata.
Wallerstein saw India as an artificial creation, created between 1750-1850 via the destruction of previous nations and traditions, “The British, specifically, and the Europeans generally, made statements about what they believed it to be, or wanted it to be.
Subaltern Studies scholars have thus seen a dichotomy of interests along vague Marxist lines between the elites who were engaged with power structures established by previous colonial administrations, and the subordinate classes. However, who has been perceived as politicised, and thus who has been written as the greater historical actor has received greater attention. As Hardiman writes of the studies group, “we took issue with Marxian historians whose understanding of popular consciousness was, we held, both highly economistic and routed in a teleology of evolutionary stages.” Here, Hardiman again refers to the economic modes of production that Marx proposed and had been rejected by post-colonialists, but also acknowledge issues surrounding Indian historiography and who writes it. Elsewhere, the critique of an emphasis on the ‘Bourgeois nationalists’ as the liberators of society change by Guha has led to reformed historiography of India, in particular the narratives of independence and the actors behind this. Guha has worked to refocus independence narratives on Nationalism, and its sub-forms of regionalism and communalism were not the interest or focus of Subaltern Studies which “instead focused on the separation of political strata.”  As Guha writes, “The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism- colonialist-elitism and bourgeoisie nationalist elitism,” both of which were products of British rule.  Main forms of historiography, according to Guha, saw that the making of the Indian nation was an achievement of the elites. In colonial historiography this was a result of British rulers and administrators, whilst in nationalist writings it was the indigenous elite.  Nationalism was a ‘learning process’ of politicisation of the elite, inferring that there was previously no politicisation of any class.  For the nationalist accounts, the elites conducted an “idealist venture” towards freedom, liberating themselves and the subordinate classes whose role was minimal. “Fails to acknowledge… the contribution made by people on their own.”  This, similarly to Gramsci, demonstrates other influences of the Subaltern Studies group beyond India. E. P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (1963) was a history from ‘the bottom up’ that focused on those that history had previously ignored, as well as various feminist histories gained traction in the late 1970s, such as Joan Scott and Joan Kelly, and World History received its first narrative along Thompson’s lines with Eric Wolf’s (1982) with continued to operate along Marxist principles (notably Marxist anthropology and class consciousness).  Elsewhere Sumit Sarkar has obseved a Subaltern Studies connection to Thompson.  Noting Chakrabarty’s defence of the group against attacks from orthodox Marxists, where he asked for a greater openness to “alternative varieties of Marxism”, Sarkar compares this defence to Thompsons “Invitation to a Dialogue,” which sought none-conventional, creative adaptations of Marxist theory, which for Guha was an interest in nationalism that other Marxists had written away entirely.  Previously historians such as D. Dhanagare, G. Pandey, and M. Siddiqi had examined peasant revolts and movements, and placed their operations as outside this Nationalism. It was Guha, however, who “depicted tribal revolts as completely separate from nationalism, inside a subaltern space” by asserting “the complete autonomy of lower class insurgency.”  This class was unable to move beyond the totality of liberally narratives that had been created by colonialism, even when these narratives were employed against the colonial administration by the indigenous elites. Guha has argued that these narratives, which form a cultural discourse, were not forcibly implemented as such, but woven into a social and cultural framework; essentially a Gramscian analysis where culture becomes a controlling mechanism.  For Guha this exclusion constitutes a paradox; for “Whatever is indigenous in that culture is mostly borrowed from the past, whatever is foreign is mostly contemporary.”  There is therefore a notable divergence from Marx on the role that nationalism plays in the inter and post-independence narratives. As Hardiman writes of Guha, nationalism was not obsolete, but had been taken away from the ordinary people, and had thus formed “the venture of a self-interested elite who had manipulated the masses for sell-seeking ends.”  Guha, returning to Marxist terminology, examines the role in the colonial administration, where “at the very inception of the British-Indian colonial state, the latter [Subaltern] was thus doubly alienated—in becoming as well as in being.”  Harvard professor Teo Ballvé has interpreted this analysis as that for Guha “the state itself was always seen as a foreign body, though one that could perhaps be nationalized.”  For Ballvé, Guha argues within a Marxian vein that the state was generally against the interests of subaltern classes, perpetuating their alienation. However, and unlike Marx’s earlier work, a state in a ‘nationalized form’ could benefit this class.  The role of the state, and nationalism as concept, diverges significantly from European Marxist thought, and Marx’s condemnation of government, that “The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”  Some Marxists theorizing along more conventional lines have remained critical of these approaches however, and defend a belief in Marxist universalism. Adaner Usmani, a Pakastani sociologist, has argued that and the Post-colonial discussion from Chakrabarty and Guha are divisive and ignore the transnational commitments for Marxists.  Usmani has argued are patterns are visible across societies, that there is a shared “need to eat,” or, put more nuanced classical Marxist terms, “societies everywhere were rent by class divisions, that these schisms structured the production and appropriation of the social product, that they bred similar antagonisms and patterns of struggle,” thus arguing that the Subaltern Studies detracts too far from a shared, universal Marxist platform.  More developed challenges to the historiography posed by Subaltern Studies can be seen with Vivek Chibbers’ Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital. This work has argued that Guha’s “dominance without hegemony,” was found applicable to the history of the Western Bourgeoisie.  Chibbers argues that historically this group did not act how Guha described them; that they were not anti-feudal as feudalism was self-disintegrating, and they were leaders of cross-class coalitions, as they supported both sides in the English Civil War, thus having no direct political cohesion.  What this point makes, and what is agreed by Usmani, is that the Western Bourgeoisie was not a cohesive entity, but had in the Early Modern Period been fragmented along the lines that the Indian Bourgeoisie had.As such, according to Chibbers, a form of Marxist Universalism can still be seen, with societies developing along similar lines, and the Asiatic Mode of Production should not have been dismissed as heavily as Spivak and Guha allowed. There certainly exist further problems for Subaltern Studies as a field. Perhaps surprisingly, these are discussed most heavily by Chakrabarty, who argued that despite “scripting of our histories along some already told European drama posed no intellectual problems for self-understanding,” the Subaltern Studies writer must be aware of the limitations of the field.  He points out the irony of the studies group; “Without English Imperialism in Indian and a certain training of Anglo-Euro thought, there would not have been any Subaltern Studies.”  What Chakrabarty here is pointing to is that only through Western institutes, the modern university, as well as through West mediums, such as books, academic articles and conferences, can the Subaltern Studies scholar receive recognition and the wider audience. It cannot be an entirely complete representation of the Subaltern then, if the represented takes form through Western means of representation. Chakrabarty then is sceptical about the possibility of solutions existing to these issues, writing that “I cannot pretend to escape these problems any more than other Marxists can.” By definition, “the empirical historian who writes these histories is not a peasant or a tribal,” so the representational scope will remain as being fixed on the subject from an external viewpoint, the so called “Olympian Perspective,” as the philosopher of history Ankersmit terms it, and writes that there are no easy answers to how heavily Marxism should be relied upon. 
To conclude and to echo Usmani’s arguments, the Subaltern Studies groups significantly detracts from nineteenth century Marxist thought, particularly in regards to Marx’s concept of an Asiatic Mode of Production, but also on how class consciousness could be created and how alienations forms exclusionary violence to a class beyond the proletariat. However, where Subaltern Studies scholars such as Spivak and Guha diverge, the typically maintain an adaption of Marxian theory, even if this itself is based on earlier adaptations of Marxism such as the work of Gramsci. Importantly, other theoretical approaches are utilised, and a broader post-colonial critique is utilised, recognising, as the Wallerstein and Galtung did, that countries can follow different development paradigms which affects society in different ways. As Spivak points towards in her work, there is no easy, straightforward theoretical approach to write the history of those history has forgotten, and adaptation, inevitably, derives from circumstance.
About the Author:
William Tithecott has published a book but is pretty hush hush about it. It’s currently got a 5-star rating on Amazon. He also knows a lot of history stuff. Will yearns for simple life walking the hills, but for now he’ll have to contend with extortionate rent in Brighton.
 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, (New York: 2000) p. 13.
 Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian’s Perspective,’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 22, (1993), p. 1094.
 David Hardiman, Histories for the Subordinated, (Oxford: 2006), p. 3.
 Russel Wheatley, Karl Marx’s Social and Political Thought, Vol. 6. (New York: 1999), p. 32.
 Michel Foucault, The Order of Things, (London: 1966), p. 25.
 Diptendra Banerjee, ‘Review: On the Meretricious Charm of Marxist Orientalism,’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 27, No. 1, (1992), p. 32.
 Ranajit Guha, The Small Voice of History, (London: 2009), pp. 8-10.
 Ranajit Guha, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Selected Subaltern Studies, (New York: 1988).
 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in The Spivak Reader, Donna Landry (ed), (London: 1996), p. 3.
 Ranajit Guha, Subaltern Studies, Vol 1, (1988), p. 12.
 Ibid, p. 14.
 Sumit Sarkar, ‘The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies’, in Writing Social History, (Oxford 1997), p. 83.
 Ranajit Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India, (Oxford: 1983).
 David Ludden, Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalization of South Asia, (London: 2002), p. 3.
 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘Subaltern Studies, Deconstructing Historiography,’ In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, (London: 1998), p. 271.
 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, (London: 1979), p. 127.
 Ibid, p. 131.
 Ibid, p. 129.
 Barry Hindess, Paul Hirst, Pre-capitalist Modes of Production, (London: 1975), p. 178
 Marx, (1979), p. 127.
 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Towards a History of the Vanishing Present, (Massachusetts: 1999), p. 27.
Ranajit Guha, A Rule of Property for Bengal, (1963), p. viii.
 Guha, (1963), p. viii.
 Bula Bhadra, Materialist Orientalism: Marx, Asiatic Mode of Production, and India, (Calcutta: 1989), p. xvi.
 Bhadra, (1989), p. xvi.
 Edward Said, Orientalism, (Oxford: 1974), p. vi.
 Gyan Prakash, Colonialism as a Civilising Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, Harald Fischer, (ed), (London: 2004), pp. 23-24.
 Miachel Mann, Incoherent Empire, (London: 2003), p. 24.
 Robert J. C. Young, White Mythologies: Writing History and the West, (London: 1990), p. 125.
 Robert J. C. Young, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Culture, Theory, Race, (New York: 1995), p. 31.
 Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction, (New York: 2004), p. xiv.
 Prabirjit Sarkar, ‘The Singer-Prebisch Hypothesis: A Statistical Evaluation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, No. 4, (1986), p. 358.
 Ibid, p. 357.
 Fernand Braudel, On History (Oxford: 1980).
 Wallerstein, (2004), p. 23.
 Ibid, p. 133.
 Johan Galtung, ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism,’ Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, (1971), p. 83.
 James Giligan, Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, (1997), p. 196.
 Galtung, (1971), p. 83.
 Samrat Schmiem Kumar, Bhakti: Transrational Approaches to Peace Studies, (Berlin: 2010), p. 60.
 Spivak, (1996), p. 85.
 Spivak, (1996), p. 85.
 Ibid, p. 87.
 Peter Ives, Gramsci, Language and Translation, (New York: 2010), p. 7.
 Spivak, (1998), p. 12.
 Ives, (2010), p. 116.
 Guha, (2009), p. 8.
 Joseph Francese, Perspectives on Gramsci: Politics, Culture and Social Theory, (London: 2009).
 El Habib Louai, ‘Retracing the Concept of the Subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical Developments and New Applications,’ African Journal of History and Culture, vol. 4, (2012), p. 4.
 Ibid, p. 6.
 Ranajit Guha, Dominance Without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India. (Cambridge: 1997), p. 17.
 Hardiman, (2006), p. 3.
 Ludden, (2002), p. 63.
 Ranajit Guha, ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’, in Subaltern Studies Vol. 1, (1988), p. 6.
 Ibid, p. 7.
 E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, (Toronto: 1963).
Eric Wolf, Europe and the people without history, (Los Angeles: 1982), p. vii.
 Sumit Sarkar, (1997), p. 12.
 Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for Indian Pasts?’, Subaltern Studies, Vol. 4, (Delhi: 1985), p. 369.
 Ludden, (2002), p. 74.
Guha, (1983), p. 7.
 Guha, (1988), p. 62.
 Hardiman, (2006), p. 3.
 Guha (1988), p. 62.
 Teo Ballvé, Guha: Dominance without Hegemony? retrieved from territorialmasquerades.net on December 2015.
 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (London: 1848), p. 7.
 Ibid, p. 13.
 Adaner Usmani, Marxism and Subaltern Studies, retrieved from solidarity.org on December 2015.
 Vivek Chibbers, Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital, (New York: 2013), p. 16.
 Adaner Usmani, Marxism and Subaltern Studies, retrieved from solidarity.org on December 2015.
 Chakrabarty, (1993), p. 1094.
 Ibid, p. 1093.