A radical Subaltern voice from Contemporary times in India

A radical Subaltern voice from Contemporary times in India To substantiate make concrete idea of Spivak analysis of “Can the Subaltern Speak”, I would like to draw an attention in contemporary India. In the face of new radical Dalit discourse: such as Rohith Vemula, Kahnaiya Kumar, Sheetal Sathe, Soni Sori and Trupti Desai and many others who are unnoticed but they are also doing tremendously good work for the uplift of margin section of society. They have contributed to society substantially by theirs words, speech, activities, protest and other forms. They have been voicing against this evil social system of caste, class, race, gender discrimination. The margin section people are asking for equal opportunities in terms of job and pay. The facts remain now that it is the higher authorities, policy makers, politician, bureaucrats and others who supposed to listen to them and do the needful for the society. It is not that subaltern/marginalized or oppressed section of people can’t speak. They speak, they do protest, they do voice against injustice. They ask for their rights and freedom. They also ask for human dignity “as they wanted to be treated let them treat to us too”. But the powerful groups are afraid of margin section of society to provide equal opportunities in an unequal society. Sheetal Sathe: She is a folk singer, poet and Dalit rights activist from Pune, Maharashtra, India. She uses music as a form of protest to highlight oppression of women and Dalits. She and her husband are belong to a member of the Kabir Kala Manch. She is from Dalit community. She raises voice or speaks for their own group, community and also for others. She represents herself for economic equality, political representation, right religious practice, cultural hegemony, social injustice. These all comes through her direct or indirect way protesting against those social, religious, political, economic and culture evils. She also fights against caste and for free speech to make society more equal and inclusive. It is not that subaltern can’t speak (Spivak); it the opportunities and space that this section needs; even though they speak or raise their voice who is going to listen to them. Many times the higher authority and the above hierarchy of system such as social, political, economic, cultural, religious not ready to accept and consume the voices of this section. It is because of the truth values, rights and other kinds of opportunities in the communication network that are asked by margin of society. And before they would approve those opportunity, they these people term to be criminal category, anti-national, uncivilized, uneducated and others. And these sections of people are always looks down upon. They are threatened and sometime put into troubles without the fault or accusation against them. It is because these sections of people do so well in some field and raise their voice. So in order to put the full stop of it they put them into jail or sometimes murder, rape, harassment etc. And the concrete example would be Ms. Sheetal Sathe jailed for three months and her husband has been jailed for two or more years since they were in connection with Maoist and Naxalites. (Raman, Friday, February 19,2016) “His mother’s adoption into an upper caste family which treated her as a servant contributed to what Rohith called ‘the fatal accident’ of his death.” For Rohith Suicide Notes “…the value of a man was reduced to his immediate identity and nearest possibility. To a vote. To a number. To a thing. Never was a man treated as a mind. As a glorious thing made up of star dust. In every field, in studies, in streets, in politics, and in dying and living”

Rohith Chakravarti Vemula: He was an Indian PhD scholar at University of Hyderabad. He committed suicide on 17 January 2016. He was associated with Ambedkar Student Association raising issues under this association. He was from town of Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh, India. He is a migrant labourer couple’s child belongs to Dalit community. His death was a death of philosophy. He was active and energetic in uniting and conducting many programmes for the cause of caste based equality, justice of women and children, freedom for speech and equal rights for equal treatment in different places of life. He always voice and could speak but how his voice did is being heard to administration and higher authorities of the educational institution. It is not that they (Dalits- Rohith) can’t speak for themselves. It is the political ideological conflict between margins of society, administration and politics (power holders who diverts the issues in many ways for their political reason, profit and vote bank) that denied them. They pretend to be hearing them without properly heard about their voice. To access full coverage of Rohith Vemula sucide case “Rohith Vemula An unfinished Portrait by Sudipto Mondal” (http://www.hindustantimes.com/static/rohith-vemula-an-unfinished-portrait/) Trupti Desai: she is a women activist and leader of the women’s outfit, and founder of Ranragini Bhumata Brigade (RBB). This organization is dedicated to fighting injustice against women and corruption. They also sought out for assistance by victims of eve teasing, dowry issues, and physical and sexual assault. Other protests include price hike on onion and vegetables, exploitations of farmers and farmer suicides, the rapes of child, Lokpal bill agitations. She also campaign for temple entry issues such as women denied to from offering worship at the inner sanctum, criticizes old traditions of temple norms (The Hindu, Tuesday, February 23, 2016). The temple entry case in Sabarimala in where also women are denied by representations of devaswom boards and tantric have opposed changes in temple rituals. They are also untouchables and dalits who always denied access to temple. In this circumstance, the subaltern works at ground level which many times temple authorities, administrators, courts, and higher caste groups don’t understand the sentiments and feelings of alienation of women, untouchable and Dalits. And they just make rules and regulation according to their own behalf and their wishes and fancy. They never consider what is going on of this margin section of society; though they always express their views on writings, speech and various other forms of demonstration and activities. But those higher authorities have become deaf and always pretend to be hearing their words. Soni Sori: She is a tribal activist and leader of Aam Admi Party. She was an adivasi school teacher turned political leader in Sameli village of Dantewada in South Bastar, Chhattisgarh, India. She was also arrested for working for Maoists, and she was also imprisoned. During her imprisonment she was tortured and sexually assaulted by Chhattisgarh state policy. She is also an activist who works for margin section of society mostly for tribals, women and others. She also fights for payoff case and human rights violence. (The Hindu, Monday, February 22, 2016) Many times adivasi are considered as criminal caste or always look down upon their capabilities, ability and

knowledge and the so called upper class and caste groups underestimate them. Even though they do well, they never recognize and they always put blame on this section of people. They never things good about them and put false accusation and put them in troubles. Therefore in my views it is those innocent people who are always denied of education, jobs, political representation and others fields and activities. Through this they exploit and ruin the life of margin section of society; though these sections have raised their voice and protest for their human dignity, rights and freedom.

Illustrate and the ambiguity usage of ‘subaltern’ by Spivak A theory does not totalize; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself... It is in the nature of power to totalize and ... theory is by nature opposed to power (Deleuze 1977a: p.208) We live today in the age of partial objects, bricks that have been shattered to bits, and leftovers... We no longer believe in a primordial totality that once existed, or in a final totality that awaits us at some future date (Deleuze and Guattari 1983: p.42) There is lots misunderstanding and confusion in reading of subaltern studies. It is because each scholar they write their own history in their own time and space. The writing also has heterogeneous in nature. The scholar wants to speak on behalf of the margin section of society where are not belong to and they have not experience the life of margin. So when write up comes for some particular groups or section of society; it is just the observation and second sources that they collect the information. When Spivak’s writings on essay “Can the subaltern Speak” it is a so dense writing. It brings the knowledge of comparative and deconstruction of each and every time and space with regards to women issues, culture issues, political representation issue, economic exploitation by elites Indian and British colonizers. She also capture in her writing on essay “Can the Subaltern speak?” about the conversation of Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. For her subaltern come under within the category of subaltern in multiple at time and space in my views. As my Study focus on Spivak’s essay on “Can the Subaltern Speak?” I would like to bring to the notice that while reading Gayatri’s writings one must have following knowledge in his/her mind in order to understand subalternity in subaltern studies whether can subaltern speak or cann’t speak. This idea is taken from “Theories Lecture_ Understanding Gayatri Spivak's can the Subaltern Speak” by Jasonjcamp Bell. According him while reading “can the subaltern speak?” one must remember the below ideas. i.

ii.

Equivocation- philosopher make mistake by equivocating the term ‘subaltern’ which is not actually correct; when one equivocate it does not give the exactness of the speaker who voice rather it gives different meaning. As one read the article of Spivak ‘can the subaltern speak’ in the first phase she denotes two scholars Foucault and Deleuze who also do equivocation problem. In order to avoid those equivocation one must be aware of his analysis in theoretical rigor and they should be aware the term used as subjectivity, representation and others. So in this first equivocation could be oppression and subaltern, second is on view of subjectivity between the post-structuralist subjectivity and Marxist subjectivity, third use of equivocation is representation which important for Spivak. Hegemony- it is the political, institutional and ideological root of power. As on the account of Spivak it is a kind of discourse of split of power in political identity. If it is talked on political orthodoxy heir of history. It is out of the political identity which constructed as part of orthodoxy political identity and historical heir. In this orthodoxy political and historical narrow down hegemony is talked in terms of bureaucrats, who hold power; they are the decision maker, they as individual who directly influence the outcome of constituencies of power.

iii.

iv.

Subaltern- there is lots of debate between post-colonial theorie, philosopher, and sociology about the idea what subalter mean. The subaltern is very complex in terms of its concepts. For Spivak the idea of subaltern relates to limited or inaccessibility to hegemonic power. In this account some post-colonial thinkers don’t agree with Spivak’s notion of Subaltern. If it is a hegemonic power to be clear; for me it the orthodoxy who hold the power in the historical heir of political identity on the top and at the bottom individual (the oppressed margin section of society). In this circumstance the individual don’t have access to hegemonic power from the orthodoxy and the individual is suppressed or oppressed of historical writing of their own story. The subalterns don’t have over vision to history. In this individual who are oppressed can consolidate their effort in status quo, infuse in the historical heir of over vision of history to keep their purpose or to keep their significance in contribution to their world, political, cultural and national levels. In first argument the oppressed section does have access to the revisionist history. For example the (black) oppressed have consolidated their power by doing all sort of boycott of economic power, protest and others to force the orthodoxy to recognize their role. In second argument the subaltern doesn’t have access to revisionist of history. In this if it is talked about ‘oppression’ as umbrella terms, it varies degree of oppression. Then subaltern oppression is severe of oppression than just the ordinary one. In this subaltern oppression is so oppressive that their existence doesn’t allow any contribution to revisionist of history. And these kinds of oppression can changes in history and they can alleviate them to oppress who can access to. So in this subaltern oppression is external force from hegemonic power to recognition of ‘subalternity. The real subalternity doesn’t even have the means of recognition of subjectivity. In this case subaltern and oppressed are not interchangeable terms. In this one should make distinction like- all subaltern are oppressed, but not all oppressed are subaltern. Subject and Subjectivity: there should be distinction between subjectivity and subject. One should make sure the understanding of ‘what subject is’ or what does it mean to be subject’. In this ‘I’ is subjectivity which becomes problematic because it is changing. And this is also problem with subject because of split with subject as idealistic and materialistic understanding of philosophy. So how do I relate the ‘mine’ or ‘me’ which is tiny understanding of philosophy tradition and psycho-analytical tradition? There is enormous body of knowledge. a. Traditional model of Subjectivity - in this Spivak doesn’t say it but it is just the interpretation to spivak. Deleuze and Foucault they are the traditional model who interpret subject in a traditional way. In this model ‘subject’ is unified. There is also desire and interest which is united to each other. In Spivak’s word, “desire may be a facet of in consciousness and does the subject is raise from power subject culture”. And in the words of Deleuze and Foucault, “they must alien themselves with the bourgeoisie socialists who fill the place of ideology with the continuous on conscious or power subjective culture, the mechanical relation between desire and interest. We never desire against our interest, because interest always follows and find itself desire pleased it”. So in this one can find the counter argument that come from Spivak and it is obvious for us that we have interest and desire. b. Marxist notion of Subjectivity- she doesn’t use the model directly in her writing of essay on “can the subaltern speak? But it is the reader who should know before reading her essay.

In this account Spivak don’t agree with traditional model subjectivity since they talked about philosophical desire and interest. But in Marxist notion of subjectivity, subject is perfectly divided and this division within the subject is the condition for the possibility. It is thus brings distinction of traditional model of subjectivity based on ‘unity’ and Marxist model of subjectivity is based on ‘division’. So in Spivak notion on Marxist view neither Deleuze nor Foucault aware

of the socialize capital that entertain the international divisions of labour. For Philosopher, they do not entertain the thought of constitutive and contradiction rather they in the name of desire introduce ‘we’ as subject into the power. So according to Spivak notion of Marxist viewsubjectivity arises as a consequence of dislocation, it is not unity that of traditional model. And for Marx when we have class consciousness, there is subjectivity and subjectivity is consequence of class consciousness. And in class consciousness she recognizes such as political identity, v.

vi.

Two forms of Representation- it is not that of one form of representation is better or worse in understanding of subaltern and oppression , the post-structuralist account of subjectivity is better or worse than Marxist model of subjectivity. These all are the different account of understanding, it should be interchange them as though they are in as same concept. The first representation is ‘Vertreten’ which means ‘to fill in for’ or ‘to stand in the place of’. This is used in a political representation for example democratic set up where the representative really represents us on behalf of us in parliamentary government. The second representation is ‘Darstellan’ which means‘re-presentation’. It is technically a functional transformation in the form of identiy. Semiotics- Spivaks brings the notion of concept and sampler, simplification and signs, signifier and signified, value and exchange. There is lots things which make diffulties in reading the correct way in the representation of subaltern and oppression and subjectivity.

Exploring the idea of subaltern by analyzing “Can the Subaltern Speak” To brief out the theory of Spivak “Can the Subaltern Speak?” The full essay can be shortly noted it down in few points such asi. ii. iii. iv.

Implementation of the law as a mechanism of ‘epistemic violence’ (control) Employ a strategic system of educational indoctrination. In this she explains the two class which oppress the oppressed section such as oppressor and sub-oppressor. Foucault and Deleuze: the sub proletariat can speak for themselves. Spivak rejects the possibility of subaltern can speak in the context of Indian scenario giving various examples of sati, patriarchy domination and other.