The Ideas of Selfhood in Ranajit Guha’s reading of Bangla Poetics

Arjab Roy

[Ranajit Guha, a pivotal figure in the Subaltern Studies Collective, is famous for his pioneering work challenging conventional elite historiographies of Indian nationalism, written from colonialist and nationalist perspectives. While his English-language scholarship has received considerable critical attention, his later turn towards writing in Bangla, though currently underexplored, offers valuable insights into his intellectual projects. This vernacular turn culminated in the publication of his Bangla writings–many previously published in various forms–in the two-volume Rachanasangraha (Trans. Collected Essays) (2022). Volume one compiles essays and articles on historical, sociological, and political topics. In contrast, volume two reveals Guha’s profound engagement with Bangla literature and philosophy, particularly concerning selfhood, subjectivity, and the dynamic interplay between individual and collective consciousness.]

Guha’s “deeply theoretical and rigorous” (Chaudhuri 2022, n.p.) engagement with Bangla literature, particularly poetry, represents both a continuation and a significant departure from his earlier intellectual focus. While his historical works primarily analysed the political and economic structures of colonial oppression and their perpetuation in postcolonial India, his Bangla writings explored the realm of individual and collective consciousness. He examined how poetry, as a source of knowledge, reflected and refracted the experiences of individual poets, as well as the broader experiences embedded within their poetic worlds. Guha’s close readings of poets such as Samar Sen, Jibanananda Das, and Sankha Ghosh demonstrate a profound sensitivity to linguistic, grammatical, emotional, and psychological nuance. Through these literary explorations, Guha offered an alternative form of historical narrative that fore-grounded subjective socio-cultural experiences within the concept of selfhood and its formation through interactions with the external “other”. As Sukanta Chaudhuri explains, Guha perceived the construction of selfhood and identity as a relational process unfolding through an individual’s interaction with the external world–individuals, communities, nature, and the cosmos:

“An individual establishes [a] relationship with the world… first through senses to cognise and understand the outside world; second, expanding the individual’s ‘self’ by assembling components from outside within the self; and third, symbiotically enriching both the self and the other by adding new dimensions to them during their interaction” (Chaudhuri 2022, n.p.).

Guha’s decision to write in Bangla can be interpreted as a deliberate intervention, challenging the dominance of English-language scholarship and reclaiming the importance of vernacular traditions in shaping intellectual and political discourse. This “vernacular lens” offered Guha a unique perspective on the complexities of selfhood and subjectivity, enabling him to transcend the limitations of conventional historical methodologies and engage with subaltern experiences on their terms.

The Dialectics of Selfhood and Subjectivity
The concept of self is inherently linked to subjectivity, encompassing both the state of “being a subject” and “being subjected to”, and thus acted upon by various forces in everyday life. Nick Mansfield’s Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway (2000) initiates his discussion of self and subjectivity by exploring the implications of the subjective meanings conveyed by “I” (Mansfield 2000, 1). Mansfield posits four types of subjects: the grammatical subject–the subject and its predicate within sentence structures (Mansfield 2000, 3); the politico-legal subject–acted upon and governed by ideological, political, and legal-bureaucratic forces through manufactured consent, achieved through strategic persuasion and/or coercion (Mansfield 2000, 4); the philosophical subject, who deliberates upon consciousness and thought to discern the meaning, relevance, and significance of self in the world (Mansfield 2000, 4); and the subject as a human person, who acts and behaves in various capacities within private and public spheres (Mansfield 2000, 4). Guha’s perspectives on selfhood in historical contexts can be situated within Mansfield’s theoretical framework. Guha’s historical writings engage with all four subject types Mansfield discusses–grammatical, politico-legal, philosophical, and personal. His emphasis on the dialectical relationship between the self and the other resonates with Mansfield’s view of subjectivity as a dynamic process shaped by experience governed and determined by historicity rather than a fixed entity.

Rachanasangraha Vol. II (2022) reveals Ranajit Guha’s profound engagement with Bangla poetry, marked by a uniquely illuminating approach transcending conventional literary criticism. As Sukanta Chaudhuri observes in the volume’s introduction, Guha’s critical lens refracts through a prism of diverse philosophical and linguistic traditions, weaving together insights from Indian thinkers such as Bhartrihari, Anandavardhan, and Abhinavagupta with those of European philosophers such as Vico, Humboldt, Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan, and Derrida. This cosmopolitan intellectual inheritance allows Guha to situate his readings of Bangla literature within a broader intellectual history, exploring how individual and collective experiences are shaped by language, culture, and the ongoing dialectic between tradition and modernity. His approach is not one of detached aesthetic contemplation but rather a deeply engaged exploration of how literature reflects and shapes the consciousness of its time, particularly during radical social and political transformation.

Central to Guha’s literary analysis is the dialectic of the self and the other, a concept rooted in his Marxist orientation but enriched by his engagement with post-structuralism. Guha examines how individuals construct selfhood through continuous interaction with the external world, encompassing not only other individuals but also social collectives, the natural environment, and even the cosmos. This relational understanding of the self, challenges essentialist notions of identity, emphasising subjectivity’s dynamic and fluid nature as historical, social, and cultural forces shape it. For Guha, the self is not a pre-given entity but an ongoing process of becoming a site of continuous negotiation and contestation.

Samar Sen, Jibanananda Das and Sankha Ghosh
Guha’s exploration of this dynamic is vividly illustrated through his readings of Samar Sen, Jibanananda Das, and Sankha Ghosh. In Sen’s poetry, lines like “I belong to the darkness of my being / Like an uninhabited island, Desolate” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 26) reveal a profound sense of alienation, a struggle to find language adequate to the experience of a fragmented world. Guha interprets Sen’s poetic self as an isolated island, adrift in darkness, searching for connection and meaning (Guha 2022, 26). Sen’s poignant inquiry, “Why do you step out on still nights / Leaving me alone? / Why do you stare blankly language-less, / With stony silence?” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 27), further emphasises this struggle. Guha argues that Sen’s acute awareness of language’s limitations, his sense of being trapped within words inadequate to capture the complexities of lived experience, reflects the broader challenge of articulating a self, situated within the matrix of subjective cultural experience. Guha analyses this “perceptive lack” as a deficiency of meaningful companionship, insufficient vocabulary, and an unfamiliarity with a self-shrouded in darkness, hindering articulation of this alienated, othered self (Guha 2022, 27). In Sen’s early poetry, Guha identifies a triangular relational formation of space, desert, and death, generating visual representations of symbolic death and absence that echo the poet’s inner turmoil, albeit with a detachment bordering on nonchalance (Guha 2022, 27). Sen’s poetic evolution during the 1930s reveals an oscillation between social realism and individual idealism, ideological escapism, and poetic fervour. This oscillation exposes internal tensions and anxieties, requiring reconciliation between his creative impulses and external realities. Guha interprets this as a paradoxical attempt at escape–the failure to fully achieve ideological or poetic transcendence roots the poet in the ethical and moral fabric of lived reality. This tension, Guha argues, fuels the reconciliation between Sen’s poetic and individual selves. The perceived “failure” of the poetic narrative becomes a form of resolution; the oscillation transforms from weakness into a defining characteristic of Sen’s mature poetic voice, yearning for a “storm” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 36) to disrupt the prevailing inertia of his socio-cultural landscape. Sen prophetically suggests that socio-economic realities preclude lasting peace and social order: “classical peace is not for us” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 37).

In Guha’s reading, Jibana-nanda Das’s poetry embodies the anxieties of postcolonial modernity, oscillating between the promise of progress and the allure of oblivion. Das’s poetic landscape is characterised by stark contrasts, juxtaposing images of bright sunlight—ironically perceived as threatening—with a nihilistic desire to escape into “deep dark slumber” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 41). Guha highlights Das’s articulated “fear” (Guha 2022, 41) of the sun, which compels the poet to confront the earthly world. This contrasting imagery, Guha argues, signifies the constant vacillation within Das’s subjective being. Guha identifies a profound ambivalence toward the modern world in Das’s work, a sense of being caught between the allure of progress and the fear of losing something essential. This ambivalence, he suggests, reflects broader societal anxieties in post-independence India, grappling with the challenges of nation-building and the legacy of colonial rule. Guha associates the sun with capital-induced light, growth, and development–‘‘it is certainly the sun of the rich [sic] and mercantile civilisation” (Guha 2022, 46)–and notes Das’s metaphorical use of the solar system to represent the capitalist system. Guha interprets Das’s poetry as expressing scepticism and resistance towards the globally emerging centrality of capitalism and its potential impact on newly independent India (Guha 2022, 47). Das’s remark that “Time like an insect gnaws our nation” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 48) underscores this anxiety. Guha’s reading reveals the afflictions of a selfhood rendered doubtful and sceptical by the temporal, economic, and ideological forces of a future threatening to transform the world Das preferred.

The conflicts arising within the individuated selves of these poets and their articulation through poetic personae are ultimately contained within the boundaries of selfhood. The efforts to reconcile opposing mental signals, behavioural tendencies, imagery, and thoughts achieve a degree of unification within the self, reflected in the poetic voice. As India entered its second decade of independence, a deep-seated crisis emerged, stemming from the attempt to forge a modern developmental trajectory while grappling with a feudal, traditional social fabric. Cross-border tensions, wars, economic meltdown, rising prices, and acute food shortages left many Indians feeling helpless and destitute. Guha situates Sankha Ghosh’s poetry against this backdrop, exploring its potential influence. He notes an “inherent painful sufferance” (Guha 2022, 349) in Ghosh’s poetry, a predominantly inward focus reflecting an introspective nature. Guha detects a persistent romantic strain, similar to Sunil Ganguly and other poets of the Krittibas group (Guha 2022, 349). However, Ghosh’s poetry is unique in its fusion of inward-focused romantic pain with an outwardly directed rebellious potential, suggesting a sense of belonging in multiple realms and a desperate search for a place in the world. Ghosh’s prominent presence in West Bengal’s academic, literary, artistic, cultural, and civil society spheres underscores this multifaceted engagement. Guha investigates Ghosh’s stylistic and expressive techniques, focusing on the poet’s characteristic politeness, courtesy, and introversion (Guha 2022, 350–353). He observes that Ghosh’s prose and poetry resonate with a “strong historical consciousness that comes from the passage of time and [the] collection of life experiences” (Guha 2022, 353), which nevertheless does not diminish the introspective pull of his work. Guha identifies several stages in Ghosh’s poetry: first, a desire to transcend interiority and connect with the external world, which initially fails, leading to a return to the inner self–”Vaster than my life / Expand the world through resolute clouds grasses sun… / Free the world from my embrace” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 355); second, a recognition of the external world, but one that appears asymmetrical and unattainable, like a “wild forest populated by the wrong people”–”On the darkness cast over white walls three black faces / Drop down slowly-gradually” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 358); and third, a resolution of this conflict through the acceptance of these opposing forces as a defining characteristic of his poetry (Guha 2022, 354–362). This results in a poetic voice simultaneously modern and traditional, lyrical and prosaic, romantic and cynical, public and personal, confident and hesitant. Ghosh declares, “Those snails you all had left / None bore a deep conch-shell” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 362), acknowledging the confusion arising from selfhood constituted by both inward and outward vectors (Guha 2022, 362). This unified, yet paradoxical, selfhood perceives the doubts of others: “Why is he both at the same time?” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 362).

Guha’s comprehensive reading of Ghosh’s work traces the poet’s inner struggles and their connection to the historical consciousness reflected in his response to the radical politics of the 1960s and 70s, notably the Naxalbari Movement. Ghosh’s poetry captures the internal conflicts of a generation caught between tradition and the call for revolution, grappling with guilt, complicity, and personal responsibility amidst rapid social change. Similar to the society around him, Ghosh’s poetic self becomes increasingly fractured, torn between the allure of radical change and the constraints of his social position. Recurring memories of students who sacrificed their lives haunt the poet, reminders of collective dreams constituting a historical narrative (Guha 2022, 381). Ghosh recalls a female student urging him to “Come along, step out, on the road”. However, his doubts, scepticism, and hesitation make her feel insulted, recognising the futility of expected solidarity, and ultimately “bid[ding] farewell to sing a song” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 382). Ghosh reflects that he could only “witness the loss of those dreamy bewildered eyes” (qtd. in Guha 2022, 382). Guha’s sensitive reading demonstrates possibly a deep empathy for Ghosh’s struggles, suggesting a shared understanding of the challenges of selfhood during radical transformation. He highlights Ghosh’s increasing alienation, growing awareness of his limitations, and renewed yearning for anonymity (Guha 2022, 383). Following the Naxalbari Movement, Guha observes that Ghosh’s poetry incorporates satire, sarcasm, and ridicule not previously present (Guha 2022, 382).

Beyond a historicist perspective, Guha emphasises the relevance of these poems for disciplinary scholarship. He argues that despite its temporal markers, Ghosh’s poetry of the 1970s effectively conveys universal human emotions, particularly compassion and mercy. Furthermore, Guha suggests that the poetics of these works hold crucial implications for the discipline of history, opening it to diverse intellectual sources, facilitating informational and emotional exchange, and liberating it from the constraints of data and fact. He envisions history moving beyond a fact-centric, universalist narrative paradigm towards an experiential, philosophical understanding of human truth in a microcosmic world (Guha 2022, 381).

Guha’s engagement with these poets reveals his nuanced understanding of memory’s role in shaping individual and collective identities. He views memory not as a static repository but as a dynamic process of construction and reconstruction, constantly reshaped by the present. In Sen’s poetry, memory is a source of solace and pain, a reminder of lost connections, and an ongoing struggle to integrate the past into the present (Guha 2022, 31–32). Das’s fragmented memories reflect historical discontinuities, the sense of being caught between a fading past and an uncertain future. Guha notes, “Das’ perception of time is multi-dimensional with rough fragments, and most importantly non-linear and hence complex” (Guha 2022, 43). Ghosh’s poetry, conversely, explores the burden of collective memory, the weight of the past on the present. Guha’s analysis highlights how memory introduces narrative turns and registers through individual and collective associations, becoming a site of contestation, a battleground for competing narratives of the past.

Beyond these prominent figures, Guha’s reflections in both volumes of Rachanasangraha (2022) engage with the broader landscape of Bangla literature, exploring themes of everyday life, social relations, and the relationship between humans and the natural world. He examines how literary texts reflect and shape cultural values and social norms, highlighting the complex interplay of literature, culture, and politics. His readings are informed by a deep understanding of Bangla literary traditions and his broader intellectual engagement with history, philosophy, and social theory. This multidisciplinary approach allows him to offer a rich and nuanced perspective on Bengal’s cultural and intellectual landscape, exploring how literature reflects and shapes the consciousness of its time.

Conclusion
The theme of selfhood and subjectivity, central to Guha’s engagement with Bangla poetics, also permeates his historical writings, albeit with a shift in focus from the socio-cultural to the political. While his literary criticism explores the nuances of individual consciousness shaped by social, cultural, and historical forces, his English-language historical scholarship, particularly Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983), examines the formation of collective consciousness among subaltern groups, especially the peasantry. Guha further develops the theme of selfhood and subjectivity in “The Prose of Counter-Insurgency” (1983), continuing his exploration of peasant insurgency. Guha’s focus on constructing subaltern consciousness is central to the Subaltern Studies project he co-founded in the early 1980s.

From 2002–2003, Ranajit Guha focused primarily on language sciences, grammar, literature, religion, spirituality, and philosophy. From his youth, he was well-versed in Sanskrit Paninian grammar, Bankim-chandra Chattopadhyay’s writings, and Rabindranath Tagore’s poetry (Chatterjee 2023, The Wire). In Guha’s final interview, published in Sahityer Satya (2023), Partha Chatterjee attempted to delineate distinctions between Guha’s English and Bangla writings, periodising his work and identifying thematic shifts. However, Guha resisted such categorisation, stating that literature remained a primary source shaping his thought (Chaudhuri 2023, Scroll.in). He deeply admired Tagore, whose Sanchayita became a constant companion (qtd. in Acharya 2023, 28). Guha declared he felt most at home, discovering himself “in literature alone” (Chaudhuri 2023, Scroll.in). Alongside Tagore, Karl Marx remained a key influence (Acharya 2023, 30). Tagore’s transcendentalist ideas significantly impacted Guha, enabling him to perceive and transcend the various limitations encountered in life–ideological, epistemological, experiential, intellectual, philosophical, and practical. Guha’s long life, rich experiences, and vast knowledge have left a substantial legacy for scholars to explore.

Reference
1. This is a shorter version of a paper titled “Ranajit Guha’s Vernacular Turn: Selfhood, History, and the Naxalbari Movement” which has appeared in the special issue ‘Ranajit Guha and the Global South’ of Kairos: A Journal of Critical Symposium Vol 10, No 1 (2025). The author acknowledges indebtedness to the editors of Kairos, especially Prof Anindya Sekhar Purakayastha and Dr Mursed Alam for rendering the necessary intellectual support and their remarkable patience throughout the entire phase of the publication of the Special Issue.

Back to Home Page

Frontier Autumn Number
Vol 58, No. 14 - 17, Sep 28 - Oct 25, 2025