Can the Subaltern speak ?

Everyone, including myself, was raised on a steady diet of stories glorifying the Indian nationalist movement, led by the brave Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, and others, in their struggle against the colonial imperialist British Empire. This "propaganda" was inculcated in us from early childhood through movies, patriotic songs, hymns, literature, and books. This very cookie-cutter view of our history seemed far too convenient. All history written by Indian historians can essentially be summarized as follows: British bad, Indians good.

While there might be some truth to this overly simplistic explanation, it raises many questions, such as: Who are the Indians? What happened after the British left? Which groups predominantly constituted the opposition to British rule? It becomes quite evident that those negotiating the terms of self-rule with the British would ultimately inherit the vast majority of the social, political, economic, and intellectual capital after the British departed.

The question, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” posed by postcolonial theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, interrogates whether marginalized groups can express themselves and have their voices recognized in societies structured by power and privilege. In the Indian context, B.R. Ambedkar's critique of the nationalist movement offers a powerful lens to explore this question. Ambedkar, one of India’s foremost thinkers, argued that independence from British colonial rule would not necessarily translate into liberation for Dalits and other oppressed communities. Instead, he foresaw that the departure of the British would likely lead to the consolidation of Brahminical dominance, further marginalizing Dalits.

Ambedkar was deeply skeptical of the Indian nationalist movement, led predominantly by upper-caste elites like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. In his seminal work Annihilation of Caste (1936), he argued that the movement’s primary goal was political independence, not social justice. He viewed the Congress leadership as indifferent, if not hostile, to the plight of Dalits and other marginalized groups. Ambedkar believed that replacing British rule with a government dominated by upper-caste Hindus would perpetuate, rather than dismantle, the oppressive structures of caste hierarchy.

Ambedkar’s criticism was rooted in his observation that the Congress’s rhetoric of unity and nationalism often obscured the reality of caste-based oppression. The nationalist movement’s emphasis on anti-colonial solidarity sidelined discussions about the systemic inequalities faced by Dalits. In What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables (1945), Ambedkar accused Gandhi of romanticizing rural India and varnashrama dharma (the traditional caste order) while neglecting the need for radical reform to uplift Dalits. 

The Postcolonial Power Dynamics: Hindu Brahmin Control and the Marginalization of Subaltern Voices

The narrative of the Indian nationalist movement often centers on a binary of virtuous Indian leaders confronting the oppressive British colonial empire. While this framing underscores the undeniable exploitation and injustice of colonial rule, it glosses over the complexities of power, privilege, and marginalization within Indian society itself. The transfer of power in 1947 not only marked the end of British rule but also revealed how pre-existing social hierarchies—particularly the dominance of upper-caste Hindu Brahmins—shaped the postcolonial state. This essay explores how the Hindu Brahmin elite consolidated wealth and influence, often marginalizing subaltern voices, and examines the British left’s role in supporting the Indian nationalist movement, which had its own ramifications for power dynamics within India. Even Churchill lead the Tory Backbench resistance to what he considered a surrender to Hindu Brahmin rule by Congress. While the British Government would have liked a united India to evolve into self-governing dominion status, like Canada and Australia, the key hurdle was how to guarantee the rights of indian minorities againt majoritarian Hindu domination.

Brahminical Hegemony in the Postcolonial Era

At the heart of India’s independence struggle were elite leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Mahatma Gandhi, many of whom hailed from privileged caste and class backgrounds. Their access to education, resources, and social networks enabled them to lead the nationalist movement, positioning themselves as intermediaries between the British colonial administration and the broader Indian populace. Scholars such as Arvind Sharma in Brahman and Brahminism: Ancient Ideology and Modern Politics argue that the caste system, despite British disruptions, retained significant sway over Indian society. Brahmins, who traditionally occupied the uppermost rung of the hierarchy, emerged as key players in shaping modern Indian institutions.

The colonial education system, designed to train Indians for administrative roles, disproportionately benefited upper-caste Hindus. According to Christophe Jaffrelot in India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India, Brahmins and other upper castes leveraged their privileged access to Western-style education and colonial bureaucracy to monopolize key positions in the nationalist leadership and postcolonial state apparatus. This domination extended to wealth accumulation, as Brahmins often inherited land and economic power through networks cultivated under colonial rule.

Demonizing the British and Marginalizing the Downtrodden

A significant aspect of the nationalist movement’s success was its ability to frame the British as the singular antagonist, thereby masking internal inequities. The demonization of colonial rulers was not merely a reflection of anti-imperial sentiment but a calculated strategy to unite disparate groups under the nationalist banner while sidelining the grievances of marginalized communities.

B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit leader and the architect of the Indian Constitution, was acutely aware of this dynamic. In his seminal work Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar criticized the Congress leadership for prioritizing independence over social reform, arguing that the political freedom championed by upper-caste elites would not automatically translate into liberation for India’s lower castes. Ambedkar’s fear was prescient: after independence, the structures of caste-based oppression persisted, with Brahmins and other upper castes disproportionately controlling political and economic power.

The Role of the British Left and the Nationalist Movement

The nationalist movement’s evolution was influenced not only by domestic actors but also by political dynamics within Britain. The British Labour Party and other left-leaning groups supported Indian self-rule as part of their broader anti-imperialist ideology. Scholars such as Perry Anderson in The Indian Ideology note that Labour Party members, including figures like Clement Attlee, viewed the Indian National Congress as a progressive force that could counterbalance the British Conservative Party’s imperialist agenda.

This alignment inadvertently shaped the power structure of the postcolonial Indian state. The Congress’s reliance on British left-wing support often meant that its leadership espoused socialist rhetoric and policies, which resonated with the Labour Party’s vision. However, the implementation of these policies in independent India frequently reinforced existing hierarchies rather than dismantling them. For instance, land reform initiatives, while significant, often left large landowners and Brahmin elites relatively unscathed.

Networks of Control and Patronage

Post-independence, the Brahmin elite consolidated their influence through networks of patronage that spanned political, economic, and cultural domains. Institutions such as universities, civil services, and media outlets became bastions of upper-caste dominance. Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd, in Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy, argues that the Indian state’s policies often prioritized upper-caste interests under the guise of national unity, perpetuating the marginalization of Dalits, Adivasis, and other oppressed groups.

A Legacy of Inequality

The narrative of India’s nationalist movement as a straightforward struggle between good (Indian leaders) and evil (British colonizers) is inadequate for understanding the complexities of power and privilege in postcolonial India. While the British left’s support for Indian self-rule contributed to the eventual transfer of power, it also facilitated the rise of an elite-dominated state. The consolidation of Brahminical power, coupled with the marginalization of subaltern voices, underscores the need to critically examine the historiography of Indian nationalism. As Ambedkar warned, true liberation for India’s marginalized communities requires addressing not only external oppression but also the entrenched inequalities within Indian society.