To evaluate my presentation click here,
NAME
: DHARMA J. GOHEL
MA
: SEM – 1
ROLL
NO : 09
ENROLLMENT
NO : 2069108420180014
BATCH
: 2017-2019
EMAIL
ID :
SUBMITTED
: SET. S.B.GARDI DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, MKBU.
PAPER-4
: Indian writing in English (pre-indipendence)
TOPIC
: Theory of subaltern in ‘The Purpose’
Mentor
: Milan parmar sir
Q. Theory of Subaltern in Context of ‘The Purpose’:
The term "subaltern" in this context is an allusion to the work
of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937). It refers to
any person or group of inferior rank and station, whether because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethanicity,
or religion.
The SSG arose in the 1980s,
influenced by the scholarship of Eric Stokes and Ranjit Guha, to attempt to formulate a new
narrative of the history of India and South Asia. This narrative strategy most
clearly inspired by the writings of Gramsci was explicated in the writings of
their "mentor" Ranjit Guha, most clearly in his
"manifesto" in Subaltern Studies I and also in his classic
monograph The Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency. Although
they are, in a sense, on the left, they
are very critical of the traditional Marxist narrative of Indian history, in
which semi-feudal India was colonized by
the British, became
politicized, and earned its independence. In particular, they are
critical of the focus of this narrative on the political consciousness of
elites, who in turn inspire the masses to resistance and rebellion against the
British.
Instead, they focus on non-elites
— subalterns — as agents of political and social change. They have had a
particular interest in the discourses and rhetoric of emerging political and
social movements, as against only highly visible actions like demonstrations
and uprisings.
One of the group's early
contributors, Sumit Sarkar, later began to critique it. He
entitled one of his essays "Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern
Studies", criticizing the turn to Foucauldian studies of power-knowledge
that left behind many of the empiricist and Marxist efforts of the first two
volumes of Subaltern Studies. He writes that the socialist
inspiration behind the early volumes led to a greater impact in India itself,
while the later volumes' focus on western discourse reified the
subaltern-colonizer divide and then rose in prominence mainly in western
academia. Even Gayatri Spivak, one of the most prominent names associated with
the movement, has called herself a critic of "metropolitan
post-colonialism".
➥Definition :
“A subaltern is
someone with a low ranking in a social, political, or other hierarchy. It can
also mean someone who has been marginalized or oppressed.”
“An
officer in the British army below the rank of captain, especially a second
lieutenant.”
· ➥ Various Usages :
1. MILITARY USAGE:
In martial
contexts, the term was applied to commissioned military officers below the rank
of captain. Essentially it denoted a junior officer, particularly at the
various grades of lieutenant. Temporary command would be handed over to a
subaltern officer during “trooping the colors” in honor of
a monarch’s birthday.
The term was
employed regularly by the British army until the Cardwell reforms in 1871. The
senior subaltern rank was captain lieutenant. The junior subaltern rank in the
cavalry was cornet, while its counterpart in the infantry was ensign. During
the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the colonial army had ranks
such as cornet, subaltern, and ensign—marked by green cockades in their
hats. The rank of second lieutenant eventually replaced that of subaltern.
2. SOCIOPOLITICAL USAGE :
Antonio Gramsci
(1891–1937), an Italian
political theorist, prominent socialist, founding member of the Communist Party
in Italy (the Partito Comunista d’Italia), parliamentarian, and
prisoner under the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (1883–1945), provided
the intellectual impetus for transforming the notion of subaltern into a
political and social concept through his writings. He wrote of workers in Europe as belonging
to classes that had been subordinated through sociopolitical hegemony, were
exploited through economic methods, and were excluded from meaningful
participation in the offices and benefits of the nation-state. A binary, almost
dualist, relationship was said to arise between dominant and suppressed groups.
Gramsci noted that such subaltern or proletarian classes could be exploited
because they lacked unity and common cause and would remain oppressed unless
they developed a unifying ideology that would lead them to alter the balance of
power and form a new state or governing institutions that embodied and
represented their wills and wishes. Gramsci, elaborating on Karl Marx (1818–1883), postulated
that the working classes could and would under conditions of political
coercion, economic exploitation, and social marginalization eventually develop
a collective consciousness or common philosophy. That collective ideology would
serve to transform them by generating self-awareness of their subordinate
situations and galvanize them into resistance— thereby
relocating the agency of change from the elite classes to the proletariat.
➥INTELLECTUAL IMPACTS OF SUBALTERN STUDIES AND
SUBALTERN AS A CONCEPT :
The term subaltern has come to be used to denote the
underclasses of societies and often replaces other designations for those lower
classes. Those groups are thereby distinguished from members of the ancien régime and from members of the new elites. The term has been employed in
the contexts of investigations into political, religious, and social
interactions between dominant and subordinate groups. Such studies have
examined not only agencies of change but also how and why particular
ethnoreligious communities, societal classes, and economic clusters are
displaced by the might, convictions, organization, and vitality of other,
emergent new elites. Moving beyond a rejection of established methodologies for
analyzing societies, the study of subalterns has expanded to include
investigations of social transformation and inquiries into how and why some
groups developed into elite classes who control resources and perpetuate
stereotypes, while other groups become subaltern communities experiencing
crisis and displacement. Studies of the subaltern have suggested that the
actions of elites and subalterns are affected by regional religiopolitical and
socioeconomic factors and that therefore neither group can develop homogeneously.
Indeed conflation and separation of modes of domination and subordination seem
to have differentially determined the relationships that arose between elites
and subalterns living in diverse areas.
It has been recognized that the presence of elitist and subaltern
classes affects not only the patterns of interaction between groups but also
influences the historiography of each community. The official historical
record, often crafted by elites and instilled with a sense of social dominion
and political hegemony, must be read not simply as a recor of
the past but also as an elite ideological product of rule that may have slowly
but surely appropriated aspects of the subordinated people’s past. This increasing marginalization of subordinate
communities and individuals could even eventually reduce references to members
of the indigenous confessional group to fleeting stereotypical images.
Overall it could be suggested that
historiography and other analyses of past and present societies benefited from
being reshaped through inclusion of the subaltern or subordinate within the
basic repertory of historical themes, events, and agents.
➥Theory of subaltern in
‘The Purpose’ :
Thanjavur Paramasiva Kailasam (1884–1946), was a playwright and prominent writer of Kannada literature. His contribution to Kannada theatrical comedy earned him the title Prahasana Prapitamaha, "the father of humorous plays" and later he was also called "Kannadakke Obbane Kailasam" meaning "One and Only Kailasam for Kannada".
↝Playwright
:
Kailasam's life was dedicated to local
theater and his contributions revolutionised it. His humor left an impression
on Kannadigas.
He opposed the company theatre's obsession with mythology and stories of
royalty and shied away from loading his plays with music. Instead, he
introduced simple, realistic sets. Kailasam chaired the Kannada Sahitya Sammelanaheld at Madras in 1945. He
spent almost 10 years in a place he called 'NOOK'. It was a very dirty place,
yet he loved it and wrote many dramas in there. He dictated his stories to his
students at the 'NOOK', usually starting after 10 pm. He was a chain smoker.
Kailasam was initially criticised for modern
use of the Kannada language in his
plays, but his work became popular and is considered among the best in Kannada
theatre, known for wit and satirical commentary on society.
↝Plays :
T.P.Kailasam had contributed in both languages, English and Kannada. His
Popular Plays in Kannada are:
I.
Makala School Mana Alawa
II.
Sikarni Savithri
III.
Sathavana Santhapa
IV.
Haninabal Kanirranu
➥About ‘The Purpose’ :
‘The Purpose’ is a Myth; Which is taken from “Mahabharata”. It contains a story of ‘Archery’ which took place in forest. Arjuna was a small boy who goes to Guru Drona’s Ashram for learning archery with Pandvas and cousin brothers Kauravas. Guru Dronacharya was best teacher of archery. Bhishma knows that so he sent his grand children to learn archery from him. Arjuna was the favorite student of Guru Drona. In ‘Mahabharata’ Arjuna shown fast learner, whereas in ‘Purpose’ by T.P.Kailasam Arjuna represented slow learner than the Eklavya. In ‘Purpose’ Eklavya is the protagonist.
‘Purpose’ –
the title suggests its meaning that the aim of to teach archery to only royal
children for Guru Drona, Purpose of learning Archery for Arjuna and for
Eklavya.
For Arjuna
to learn Archery was to become great Archer in his era; whereas to Eklavya; his
purpose after learning the Archery was symbol of selflessness. He wanted to
learn Archery because he wanted to become saviour for innocent Animals. Here,
in ‘Purpose’, Kailasam represents that the Arjuna‘s aim was wholly personal and
to Eklavya it was totally impersonal.
➥Eklavya as a subaltern :
Eklavya is the protagonist of the play “The Purpose”. He is Nishada boy. He also
wants to become the best Archer of the world. He always speaks whatever he
thinks to be true. He has great esteem. Once he had talk to his mother that he wants to
become best archer in the world, that time his mother told him that Guru
Dronacharya was the best teacher for Archery if he accept you as a student then
you can become best archer. That time he decided that he learn archery from
Guru Dronacharya and try to convince him to taught him archery, but guru
Dronacharya deny him because he is a teacher of royal family. He tells him that
“I am a teacher of Princes so I can’t teach you.”
When Eklavya
enters into the Ashram, he expresses his feelings with these words:
“(Looking
all around him) this does look like the place Mother spoke of: “A wide vast
grassy play ground with bejeweled and beautifully dressed handsome young
princes at bow sword and mace exercises… being taught their lessons by a tall
and noble looking Brahamana” is how SHE described it! And it all fits in every
bit!”
He was so
interested in the archery that he thought that he must not miss a word of
Drona. This shows his love for him. He loves archery and Guru Dronacharya and
he respect him and this thing we can see
in this dialogue that is spoken by Eklavya in this play.
During this
entire situation Eklavya was not noticed by any one; he just shares his
feelings with his own self. He tries to prepare himself because now he was
going to present himself to Guru Drona.
He already
knows that because of his cast, may be Drona will not teach him but he thinks
that because of his noble aim he would have to dare for this.
He has very
good capturing ability seems here when he listened Guru Drona preaches to
Arjuna before giving him training that to become a great Archer is in one’s
hand only. One should be strong and stabile at his aim and can get the
thing. Here, Eklavya knows very well that his aim is very noble. At
sometimes he also becomes negative like his aim cannot be noble than Arjuna; he
is very hard-working. Although he goes to Guru Drona,
“I have tried hard ever do hard,
Sir, to learn by myself….. But it
Does seem not possible, Sir, to
Learn all by one’s own self!”
With the
help of above lines we can say that he really tried hard to convince Drona to
teach him. He is just child like manner of explaining something to elders.
When Guru
Drona denies him, he also argues that in the five principles of learning
archery, to be kshatrya is noy mensioned anywhere. So what he is a Niashada
boy? He is also equally perhaps more than Arjun dedicated to learn. But Drona
very skilfully avoids to be convinced to be his Guru as he has alredy made a
promise to Bhishma, which is mentioned in opening scene.
➥Conclusion
:
Thus, Eklavya had to pay for his belongingness of a marginalised community of that time though his aim was noble.
Works Cited
(n.d.). Retrieved
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._P._Kailasam
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaltern_(postcolonialism)
(n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subaltern
(n.d.). Retrieved from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/subaltern
No comments:
Post a Comment