Post-Modernist writing in India, best embodied in the Subaltern Studies project, did at one time throw up useful critiques of both Marxist reductionism that tried to crudely correlate changes in idea and practices to changes in the mode of production and Nationalist historiography which drowned smaller voices and glossed over the exceptional and the fragmentary. Over time, however, a series of subtle paradigmatic shifts have led Subaltern writings to the point where they have apparently turned essentialising in character. Thus, Marxian economic determinism is now sought to be countered by what appears to be its polar opposite, a Culturalism that abstracts cultural thought and behaviour from its material base. Methodologically, Post-Modernism now operates with sets of binary and unproblematised categories such as Nation and the Community, material and spiritual.
Sarkar's objections to these are many. In the first place, all homogenised constructs of Nation and Community, Colonial State and pre-colonial formations overlook the complex enmeshing of these categories as also the submerged tensions internal to each. The Indian 'community', rather than tied unilaterally in a power relationship to the colonial state, is in itself a locale of power-relations. A fuller understanding of this emerges from locating changes within their broad historical framework. The extreme subjectivity located in Post-Modernist writings seems to overlook the essentially dialogic nature of historical processes, turning curiously analogous to Hinduism's Moksha, an individualist quest for transcendental freedom, abstracted from society. Abstracting culture from its material base can hardly explain why certain ideas assume significance in specific historical circumstances. The idea of degenerative time is rooted in the older Brahminical Yuga theory, but this can't explain its sudden preeminence in colonial Calcutta's upper-caste society.
Methodologies now commonly used in post-colonialist writings do not help bring out the special structures of backwardness produced by colonialism. However, what worries Sarkar no less are its wider political ramifications. The Subaltern, as Sarkar points out, is gradually fading out of the Subaltern Studies project. Few of the essays have to do with women or low-caste figures. This, Sarkar alleges, strengthens the continuing efforts to perpetuate patriarchal, upper-caste hegemonies. The tendency to locate innocence and authenticity in pre-colonial communities, likewise, feeds into the Right-Reactionary moods in Indian politics today.
Part Two is an intensive study of late 19th and early 20th century Calcutta. It makes fascinating reading, particularly the piece on Vidyasagar, though my favourite is still the older essay on Ramakrishna. However, in the context of Bengal, the apocalyptic end to the 'degenerate' Kali Yuga is less popular as an idea than the other postulate of Bhakti smoothing out social tensions typical of this Yuga. Also, of the two evils said to be characteristic of this time, Kamini and Kanchan (the allurement of the female and material greed), the former appears to have been given a new emphasis. This is a change from the early medieval legend of Min Chaitanya, where the Nath-Siddha Guru, Minananth, is reluctant to part with his wealth even after being coaxed to give up female company. Sarkar also brings out the dichotomy in Vidyasagar's reform project. Perhaps the greatest advocate of widow marriages in 19th century India, he did little to improve the condition of widows who couldn't be married. As compared to Vivekananda, who opposed widow marriages but donated to the Barahnagar Widows Home.
It's unpardonable to end on a cynical note for so intellectually uplifting a work but frankly, one can't help wondering if the substance of Sarkar's arguments will go far enough. There is a whole world of professional historians and teachers who exhibit a depressing apathy towards the 'state of the art' in current history writing, at times even a positive hostility. This comes through in academic workshops, teachers' training courses and periodic syllabi revisions. Older dichotomies and reference-points such as Imperialism vs Colonialism are apparently still popular. While Sarkar's contribution is timely and valuable, its ramifications may not in the short run be widely felt.
