Jim Masselos

The dis/appearance of subalterns: A reading of a decade of subaltern studies

Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies. Writings on South Asian History and Society, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1982, Vol. I, x, pp. 241 Rs.90; 1983, Vol. II, xii, pp. 358 Rs. 125; 1984, Vol. III, xii, pp. 327 Rs. 135; 1985, Vol. IV, xii, pp. 383 Rs. 160; 1987, Vol. V, x, pp. 296 Rs.150; 1989, Vol. VI, x, pp. 335 Rs.200.

Jobs and jobbery: the sweeper in Bombay under the raj

It was not uncommon for British observers of the nineteenth century to ascribe the condition of untouchables to the oppressions of Hindu society.’ However when the British themselves came to deal with untouchables, some of them showed that in action although not necessarily in emotion they could be equally, if not more, repressive. The approach did not derive from any theory of the religious orderi ng of the social universe but from the pragmatisms of convenience, economy, and efhciency, from, in other words, the needs to service the raj. What the raj could enforce was in many ways more exacting than what was expected of the untouchable in his own rural context, excluded, ignored or maltreated as he may have been in it. This was the case with untouchable workers in the cities, and especially so in regard to sweepers. In the rare instances when they reacted against the heavy weight of the demands placed upon them, official machinery came down quickly and heavily. What follows is concerned with such an interaction as was played out in the magnificent second city of the Empire, the urbs prima in Indis that was Bombay. On the one hand were the sweepers employed by the city and on the other was the hierarchy of bureaucracy created and controlled by the British overlord; here the mightiest and some of the least powerful in the land were juxtaposed.

Bombay Time/Standard Time

Indian time, standard time, Bombay time—these phrases are common in India. They are trotted out in conversations casually, somewhat mechanically, and are easy explanations for being late for appointments, or even for missing meetings, rendezvous and the like. It seems to be enough merely to say ‘Sorry, Bombay time’ or, less frequently, ‘Sorry, standard time’ for the apology to be accepted. The words are a sufficient and polite explanation and have been so commonly used—in western India particularly—that they suggest a national trait, a national propensity for lateness. Yet, there is a hint of swagger in how the words are proffered in Bombay (now Mumbai)—a touch of bravado, even pride in the city, suggesting it is okay to be late and even that it is part of what makes city living what it is. Certainly many people in India are late for appointments—and for good reasons. These days traffic constantly clogs roadways, so apologies cover the consequences of what is part of daily experience. How the apology is presented also matters. A great deal is conveyed through tone of voice and body language: apologies may be proffered in a selfdeprecatory or regretful way, or be distinctly half-hearted so that they are a purely token item in social intercourse, a nod towards good manners. At best, at the other end of the spectrum, the words may be a sincere apology for any inconvenience. However they are presented, the phrases have currency throughout the subcontinent, although a muttered ‘Sorry, Bombay time’ locates something special about the city. The terminology immediately separates Bombay from other cities, distinguishing it and making it somehow special even in the non-punctuality stakes. A polarity of some sort is thus set up between Bombay and Indian standard times, and clearly they are not interchangeable terms. What distinguishes the two is that there are understandings on how Bombay time is applied. It seems to be used mainly to explain lateness of up to about half an hour—to use it for lateness much beyond the half hour is somehow inappropriate and unacceptable. Why this is so is not because of any cultural specificity, but derives from Bombay’s recent history and its place in independent India. Until 1955, Bombay had its own time and was located in its own time zone, distinct from the standard time that applied to the rest of India. In effect, this meant Bombay was behind Indian Standard Time by 38 minutes and 50 seconds, a number precisely calculated from solar time as determined by Bombay’s location on the globe. In abandoning its

Routines and routinisation: Moving towards municipal elections in Mumbai, 2001–2002

Anniversaries of two significant events occur on 6 December. How they were handled in Mumbai in 2001 reflects some of the priorities of the time and the placement of different kinds of imperatives in the body politic. Likewise, the lead-up to municipal elections in the city and elsewhere in Maharashtra around the same time and shortly afterwards points in the same direction—to variant handlings of the reality of political and social multiplicities. The political drive to win predominance of attitude and organisation in such an environment was based upon using routines of campaigning which had developed over the years. It was also based upon acceptance of a fact of political life—of the social polarising that had occurred over the previous decade. This applied as much to those who were antagonistic to such differentiation, as to those who were its advocates. Difference had become routinised into a kind of normalcy after the extended communal violence of the early 1990s. But it was a normalcy which incorporated tensions and undercurrents rather than resolved them, a normalcy which retained the fact of polarisation rather than dissipating it. Antagonism for many of those in politics was thus routinised as a norm. How this became so is the subject of what follows.