SUBALTERN STUDIES 63 general indebtedness of the peasantry. The production of cash crops for exchange below market rates was inextricably linked to it" (p 86). Thus, semi-feudal social relations supported by state sanctions resulted in perpetuating a form of subsistence agriculture which was not optimal for cane cultivation, but "a much more intensive use of land, which affected both the immediate yields and the fertility of the soil, was resorted to by the ordinary peasants of east U. P. As their meagre grain stocks did not last the long fallows a succession of quick harvests was necessary" (p 54). However, again in keeping with the definition of 'elite,' this paper too underestimates the irksome nature of revenue and rent demands even for the rich peasants, who, like Raj Kumar Sukul of Champaran, led and organised the peasantry against the planters and landlords. Much of this distortion occurs, however, from a failure to realise that the Indian bourgeoisie too was a subaltern class, albeit with links with the dominant groups, by means of which it developed a certain hegemony through the mediation of its party, the Indian National Congress. And only a study of the development of this party during the national movement, as well as of others, both of the group attempting to achieve hegemony among the subaltern groups as well as those of other subaltern groups, can elucidate correctly the level of integration achieved by the Indian state and the degree of disintegration resulting from the hegemonic tendencies of the subaltern group turned ruling group in the new state. This is the perspective that Gramsci has mapped out; but this is the perspective the 'subaltern historians' have excluded from the purview of their inquiry by definition. SUNEET CHOPRA* 1 See especially S K Mittal and Knshan Dutt, "Raj Kumar Sukul and the Peasant Upsurge in Champaran", Social Scientist, Vol.4, No.9 (April 1975); S K Mittal and Kapil Kumar, "Baba Ram Chandra and Peasant Upsurge in Oudh: 1920-21", Social Scientist, Vol.6, No.11 (June 1978) and for a theoretical discussion, Suneet Chopra, "Bourgeois Historiography and the Peasant Question", Social Scientist, Vol.7, No.11 (June 1979). 2 Antonio Gramsci. "Notes on Italian History", in Prison Notebooks, 1971, pp 54-55. 3 E M S Namboodiripad, The Programme Explained, 1966, p 10 4 Gramsci, op cit, p 52^. 5 Gramsci, "The Intellectuals", op cit, pp 5-6 6 Gramsci, "State and Civil Society", op cit, p 269. 7 Gramsci. "The Study of Philosophy", op cit, p 335. 8 Ibid.W 334. 9 Ibid.pp 340-341. 10 Gramsci, "Americanism and Fordism", op cit, p 301. 11 P Sundarayya, Telengana People's Struggle and its Lessons, 1972, p 90. 12 Z&^pp 90-91. 13 Ibid, p 244. 14 Gramsci, "State and Civil Society", op cit, pp 243-244. ^Treasurer, Demrocratic Youth Federation of India.