Subaltern, Communalist, Cambridge School, Liberal and Feminist Approaches
Modern History › Sources and Approaches to Modern Indian History · Topic 1.4
Besides the colonial, nationalist and Marxist views, modern Indian history is also read through the subaltern, communalist, Cambridge, liberal and neo-liberal, and feminist approaches. Each asks a different question about who made history and why.
7 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Historiography
At a Glance
- What it is The newer interpretations of modern Indian history that came after the colonial, nationalist and Marxist views
- Subaltern Began in the early 1980s under Ranajit Guha; calls earlier history elitist
- Cambridge School Sees nationalism as a conflict among Indians for benefits given by the British
- Feminist Grew from the women’s movement of the 1970s; studies how colonial structures affected women
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Historiography
Where Does It Fit?
This is the fourth and last topic of the category on sources and approaches. The previous topic covered the colonial, nationalist and Marxist approaches. This topic covers the other schools that have influenced writing on modern India, and it completes the base for the narrative topics that follow. Previous topic: Colonial, Nationalist and Marxist Approaches to Modern Indian History.
What Is the Subaltern Approach?
The subaltern school began in the early 1980s under the editorship of Ranajit Guha as a critique of existing historiography, which it faulted for ignoring the voice of the people. Subaltern historians took the position that the whole tradition of Indian historiography had an elitist bias.
For them, the basic contradiction in colonial Indian society was between the elite, both Indian and foreign, and the subaltern groups, and not between colonialism and the Indian people. They do not accept the Marxist view on the nature of exploitation, since they argue that Indian society could not be seen in terms of class alone, because capitalism in the country was then nascent.
The school sees nationalism as exploitative in terms of caste, gender, religious and creed divisions. It says nationalism ignored the internal contradictions of society and what the marginalised had to say. Its strongest claim is that Indian people were never united in a common anti-imperialist struggle. In its view there were two streams: the real anti-imperialist stream of the subalterns and the bogus national movement of the elite. The elite stream, led by the official leadership of the Indian National Congress, was little more than a cloak for a power struggle among the elite.
Bipan Chandra has criticised this trend, saying that it dismisses all earlier historical writing, including the Marxist, as elite historiography and claims to replace it with a new people’s approach.
What Is the Communalist Approach?
Historians of this school relied completely on the colonial historiography of medieval India and on colonial-era textbooks. They viewed Hindus and Muslims as permanently hostile groups with mutually different and antagonistic interests. This view appeared in books and took a more virulent form in the hands of communal political leaders.
In this view, medieval Indian history was one long story of Hindu-Muslim conflict. It was then argued that nineteenth- and twentieth-century Muslims had a happy and proud memory of having been the ruling class, while Hindus had a sad and humiliating memory of having been a subject race. This ultimately developed mutual hatred among the groups, often resulting in communal riots and in the end led, as the argument goes, to the partition of India.
What Is the Cambridge School?
According to the Cambridge School, the fundamental contradiction under colonial rule was not between imperialism and the Indian people, but among the Indians themselves. Indian nationalism, in this view, was not the product of a struggle against colonial exploitation. It arose from conflict among Indians over the benefits the British rulers offered. The leaders of the national movement were inspired by the quest for power and material benefit.
Many scholars have criticised this approach for taking the mind or ideals out of human behaviour and reducing nationalism to “animal politics”.
What Are the Liberal and Neo-Liberal Interpretations?
This view says that economic exploitation of the colonies was not beneficial to the British people as a whole. The markets for British industrial goods in the colonial world, and capital invested overseas, such as in laying railways in India, might actually have discouraged domestic investment and delayed the development of new industries in Britain. Its proponents include Patrick O’Brian, Hopkins and Cain.
What Is Feminist Historiography?
The shift toward women’s history began with the women’s movement of the 1970s, which gave the context and push for women’s studies in India. Women’s history soon broadened into gender history. In the early years, the aim was to write a history of women to supplement mainstream history and to compile an archive of women’s writing.
An important area of research is how colonial structures, such as the legal structure, affected women’s lives. Scholars also look at women’s vulnerability from denial of ownership of productive resources, and at how progressive laws shaped gender relations. Two works on the women’s question in the colonial period attracted international attention: The High Caste Hindu Woman (1887) by Pandita Ramabai and Mother India (1927) by Katherine Mayo.
How Do These Approaches Compare?
| Approach | Central claim | Name to remember |
|---|---|---|
| Subaltern | The basic contradiction is between the elite and the subaltern groups; earlier history is elitist | Ranajit Guha |
| Communalist | Hindus and Muslims are permanently hostile groups | Colonial-era textbooks and communal leaders |
| Cambridge School | Nationalism came from Indians competing for benefits from the British | Criticised for reducing nationalism to animal politics |
| Liberal and neo-liberal | Colonial exploitation did not benefit the British people as a whole | Patrick O’Brian, Hopkins and Cain |
| Feminist | Studies how colonial legal structures affected women | Pandita Ramabai; Katherine Mayo |
As an analytical point, the subaltern, Cambridge and communalist views all challenge the idea of a single united nationalism, but for different reasons: class and caste, personal gain, and religion.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Match-the-following favourite Questions often ask which school or scholar is linked to which idea
- Mains framing These approaches help a student write balanced answers on the nature of the national movement
- Critical thinking Each school also has well-known criticisms that earn marks in analytical answers
What Came Next?
The next category begins the story of modern India with the advent of the Europeans: the Portuguese sea route to India and the early European settlements. Next topic: Discovery of the Sea Route and the Portuguese Entry into India.
Key People and Terms
- Subaltern A person or group outside the elite, whose voice the school wants to recover
- Ranajit Guha The editor who began the subaltern school in the early 1980s
- Cambridge School The school that sees nationalism as a competition among Indians
- Gender history History that studies the roles and conditions of women and men
- The High Caste Hindu Woman Pandita Ramabai’s 1887 work on the women’s question
- Mother India Katherine Mayo’s 1927 work that drew international attention
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Subaltern school: early 1980s, Ranajit Guha.
- Cambridge School: the contradiction is among Indians, not between Indians and the British.
- Liberal and neo-liberal: Patrick O’Brian, Hopkins and Cain.
- Feminist works: The High Caste Hindu Woman (1887) and Mother India (1927).
- Feminist historiography began with the 1970s women’s movement.
Do Not Confuse With
- Subaltern and Marxist approaches Marxists use class; subalterns say society could not be seen in terms of class alone
- Cambridge School and nationalist approach Nationalists see a struggle against colonial exploitation; the Cambridge School sees competition among Indians
- Communalist approach and communal politics The approach is a way of writing history; communal politics is a political practice, though they feed each other
Memory Hook
Subaltern asks who is missing, Cambridge asks who benefited, feminist asks where are the women.
Mains Angle
These schools appear in Mains questions on the nature of the national movement. These points add depth.
- Challenge to unity The subaltern and Cambridge schools question the idea of a single united national movement
- Criticism The Cambridge School has been criticised for ignoring ideals, and the subaltern school for dismissing earlier work as elitist
- Widening of history Feminist and subaltern writing bring in women and marginalised groups, which broadens what counts as history
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“The subaltern school challenges the nationalist view of the freedom struggle. Examine.”
How to Answer
- Define Introduce the subaltern school and Ranajit Guha.
- Core claim Explain the elite versus subaltern contradiction and the two streams.
- Criticism Add Bipan Chandra’s criticism of the school.
- Conclude Say that the school widened the sources and voices, but its claim of two separate movements is contested.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the subaltern approach to history?
The subaltern approach began in the early 1980s under Ranajit Guha. It argues that Indian historiography had an elitist bias and that the basic contradiction in colonial society was between the elite, Indian and foreign, and the subaltern groups, not between colonialism and the Indian people.
What is the Cambridge School of Indian history?
The Cambridge School holds that the fundamental contradiction under colonial rule was among Indians themselves. It sees nationalism as arising from competition for benefits offered by the British, with leaders driven by power and material gain, a view critics say reduces nationalism to animal politics.
What is the communalist view of Indian history?
The communalist approach relies on colonial historiography of medieval India and colonial-era textbooks. It treats Hindus and Muslims as permanently hostile groups whose interests are antagonistic, and presents medieval history as one long Hindu-Muslim conflict, a view that fed communal hatred and politics.
What do liberal and neo-liberal historians argue?
Liberal and neo-liberal interpretations argue that colonial exploitation did not benefit the British people as a whole. Markets for British goods and capital invested overseas, such as railways in India, may have discouraged domestic investment and delayed new industries in Britain. Patrick O'Brian, Hopkins and Cain are associated with this view.
How did feminist historiography begin in India?
Feminist historiography began with the women's movement of the 1970s, which created women's studies in India and later gender history. Researchers study how colonial legal structures affected women's lives and how denial of ownership of productive resources made women vulnerable.
Which two books on the women's question became internationally known?
The High Caste Hindu Woman, written by Pandita Ramabai in 1887, and Mother India, written by Katherine Mayo in 1927, attracted international attention. Both are cited as colonial-period works on the women's question in India.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The subaltern school began in the early 1980s under the editorship of Ranajit Guha.
It criticised the elitist bias of Indian historiography.
2 The Cambridge School sees nationalism mainly as a struggle between imperialism and the Indian people.
It sees the fundamental contradiction among Indians themselves.
3 Patrick O'Brian, Hopkins and Cain are associated with the liberal and neo-liberal interpretations.
They argued that colonial exploitation did not benefit Britain as a whole.
4 Mother India was written by Pandita Ramabai.
It was written by Katherine Mayo; Pandita Ramabai wrote The High Caste Hindu Woman.
5 Feminist historiography in India emerged from the women's movement of the 1970s.
It later broadened into gender history.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index