{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0328381548084441, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001563721657544957, 'mean_word_length': 5.956521739130435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Shifting Grounds: Identity, Partition, and the Anglo-Indian Subject of History

This essay argues for the relevance of western philosophical paradigms to postcolonial scholarship on the Partition. Dipesh Chakrabarty, for example, takes western discourses, in particular historical and political thought, for granted: a "universal and secular vision of the human" is "indispensable" because it is an "inheritance" for postcolonial scholars. He recognizes that "universals" cannot be easily discarded in "the condition of political modernity" because "without them there would be no social science that addresses issues of modem political practice." Chakrabarty, however, also posits "historical difference": universals are lived and embodied differently in the colonies. This occurs because universals have a different resonance when they travel to the colonies, a version of Edward Said's notion of traveling theory, or because colonies do not enter history proper until they attain postcoloniality, often synonymous with political modernity, and become nation-states (4-6). For Chakrabarty, "provincializing Europe has been a question of how we create disjunctive genealogies for European categories of political modernity as we contemplate the necessarily fragmentary histories