{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022082018927444796, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007570977917981073, 'mean_word_length': 5.4471544715447155, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 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}}
From Maoism to postcolonialism? The Indian ‘Sixties’, and beyond

Abstract Critics of postcolonial theory have provided this theory with a genealogy in which it appears as the poisoned fruit of a period when revolutionary energies were ebbing and in retreat. This essay seeks to provide an alternative genealogy, suggesting that the Subaltern Studies project, and postcolonial theory more generally, were enabled and in important ways shaped by the Maoist upsurge in some parts of India in the latter 1960s and early 1970s. The critiques of modernity, of nationalism and the nation‐state, and of homogenizing narratives of progress which mark, and in the eyes of its critics, mar these intellectual currents, far from being reflections of their disassociation from radical politics, are here presented as the indirect outcome of a profound cultural and intellectual shift, which has been the consequence of the Naxalite movement of this period. This alternative genealogy proceeds through an alternative reading of the Naxalite movement. This essay asks why this movement was so important, given that its ideology was naïve, and its political successes short‐lived. The Naxalite strategy of ‘annihilating’ feudal landlords, and the urban ‘statue‐smashing’ campaign of Naxalite youth in 1970 – commonly regarded and condemned as juvenile and ultra‐leftist – are here instead interpreted as an incipient critique of aspects of Marxist theory, a critique subsequently given more explicit and elaborate exposition in the writings of the Subaltern Studies group, and in postcolonial theory.