ABSTRACT
In the academic discourse of history-that is, ‘history’ as a discourse produced at the institutional site of the university-‘Europe’ remains the sovereign, theoretical sub ject of all histories, including the ones we call ‘Indian’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Kenyan’, etc. There is a peculiar way in which all these other histories tend to become variations on a master narrative that could be called ‘the history of Europe’. In this sense, ‘Indian’ history itself is in a position of subalternity; one can only articulate subaltern subject-positions in the name of history.
