20 SOCIAL SCIENTIST nationalist variety, has always overstated the part the elite has played in building Indian nationalism, but it has failed to acknowledge, far less properly interpret, the contributions made by the people (masses) on their own, independently of the elite.19 Parallel to the domain of elite politics there always existed throughout the colonial period another domain of Indian politics in which the principal actors were not the dominant groups of the indigenous society but the 'subaltern' classes and groups constituting the masses of the labouring population and the intermediate strata in the town and country—the people.20 Subaltern historiography treats 'people' (subalternity) as an autonomous domain that originates neither from elite politics nor depends on them. Therefore, whereas the mobilisation in the domain of elite politics is achieved vertically, in that of subaltern politics it is achieved horizontally. Guha, however, does admit that given the diversity of its social composition, the ideological element in the subaltern domain is not uniform in quality and density and at times such diversities lead to pursuit of sectional interests, economistic diversions as well as sectarian splits that tend to undermine the horizontal alliances in this domain. Therefore, Guha also clarifies that the two domains have not been sealed off from each other but often overlapped mainly because the elite domain always tried to mobilise and integrate them but primarily to fight for elite objectives; however, the subaltern masses managed to break away from the elite control and put their characteristic stamp on campaigns initiated by the elite groups.21 The whole thrust of subaltern historiography is on reconstructing 'the other history', i.e., history of people's politics and movements and their attempts to make their own history. As a brilliant demonstration of how the 'other history' could be constructed Guha has offered us a study of the peasant insurgency in colonial India.22 Somehow, in the din over the polemical aspects of the concept of 'subalternity', the deeper insights and distinct analytical approach Guha's own study has offered have been lost sight of. The study provides us with a useful framework for studying social movements in general and tribal/peasant insurgencies in particular. It is, of course, anchored in subaltern historiography for understanding the complex phenomena of peasant or ethnic protest movements—or at least a significant part of it—in contemporary India. It is one of those serious pieces of social science scholarship which has raised many theoretical and methodological issues that must not only be acknowledged but also debated seriously. While analysing the tribal and peasant insurgencies in colonial India, Guha makes no secret of the fact that his approach to the study of social movements basically forms a part of the general tradition of scientific Marxism—but a variant of it quite obviously deduced from A. Gramsci's formulations23 that are refreshingly original and hence intellectually very stimulating. With all the candidness that is often associated with a Marxist, Guha believes that the task of